Author Topic: Wireless broadband (Read 651 times)

Rondar · « **on:** April 07, 2007, 11:35:30 AM »

I currrently have DSL but it is like 264/192 download/upload speed and no one says I ever warp in here. I have an opportunity to switch to another company that offers broadband service but it is wireless and they put like a foot square antenna on the roof to receive signals. I would be right at 5 miles from the antenna and have 1meg+ download speed for the same money as DSL.

What is the current thought of a wireless connection of this nature? As copied from Deal or No Deal...... Warp or No Warp?

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #1 on:** April 07, 2007, 11:51:26 AM »

Not trying to backseat mod here.
But I think this question would be bettwe answered in the Hardware-Software Forums
which is probably where this thread will be moved to as soon as those with "the power" get around to doing so LOL

Anyway. There you will probably find the answers you seek. As well as technical help and support as good if not better then I've seen anywhere.

Trukk · « **Reply #2 on:** April 07, 2007, 11:55:22 AM »

All depends on the latency of the wireless setup. I'd be a bit leary of it myself.

tedrbr · « **Reply #3 on:** April 07, 2007, 12:17:16 PM »

Sounds like a WiMAX provider. One of the big solutions to the "last mile" problem of getting broadband to users.

I personally prefer DSL hardline than any kind of connection that could be theoretically intercepted, or be negatively effected by environmental interference. Having lot's of throughput doesn't matter if lot's of packets are being dropped and retransmitted due to interference. Having a clean signal will determine how much of the 1+ Meg you can actually use.

If you have lots of sensitive information on, or transmitted to and fro your system to the Internet (online banking and shopping for example, or sensitive work), then be aware that as easily as an unsecured Wi-Fi hotspots can be used by Wardrivers now (I can access 4 neighbor's WAPs now, and 15 between here and the college), the potential for Wardrivers to hack WiMAX is a possibility, if not already a fact. You could add the system, yet feel you need to encrypt more data over the wireless network for security reasons, and lose the the additional throughput to the encryption protocols.

Should not be any delay involved, as there is with satellite connections. Compare the uplink and downlink speeds of each system to give you an idea of what total throughput would be. More is better.

Also, is that 1+ Meg dedicated speeds, or is that the maximum based on usage? For example; DSL numbers are usually fixed to what you have access to. Cable modems (which often advert higher numbers) are usually just large neighborhood networks, everyone shares the throughput, so when everyone is online and downloading, your slice of the pie get's smaller (cable also leaves your system more susceptible to some hack and malicious code attempts since you are on the same network as the idiot down the street with no security on his system and being used as a launching point).

Look at the cost/benefit/risk analysis. Do you need more throughput? What are the actual numbers each way for the two networks? How much security do you require? What potential interference will the connection face?

WiMAX is the big thing for rural America broadband access. Those that don't have access to cable or DSL and don't want cost or delay of satellite, WiMAX is their best bet for the future. But, for me, since DSL is available.......

TinmanX · « **Reply #4 on:** April 07, 2007, 12:27:19 PM »

I've used LOSW (Line of Sight Wireless) on and off for 3 years (the off being when I first moved to this house and used Dial Up until the LOSW could be installed). My receiving tower is only a mile away though but I have to say I have never has an issue with warping since I had it unless one of the other computers in my home network is online.

However, If I had the choice between LOSW and DSL (which I don't - being firmly rooted in the middle of nowhere) I would go with DSL.

airspro · « **Reply #5 on:** April 07, 2007, 01:00:30 PM »

Quote

What is the current thought of a wireless connection of this nature? As copied from Deal or No Deal...... Warp or No Warp?

I am like TinmanX . I have wireless cause of no DSL to be had .

No warps to speak of , this works .

But I would try DSL if I could get it also .

Hornet33 · « **Reply #6 on:** April 07, 2007, 01:05:58 PM »

Wireless can give you all sorts of problems.

Security being the single largest problem with the whole deal. In order for your system to be secure your going to have to run EVERYTHING behind a firewall and you'd better have a real good one.

Electrical interferance can and probably will also raise it's ugly head from time to time, be it from someones HAM radio, garage door opener, TV remote, or cell phone. Even though most types of common devices operate on a different frequency than LOSW all those devices also generate sideband emmisions that can cause problems. Having been an Electronic Technician for over 12 years working on Comms and Navigation equipment, I have seen all sorts of weird problems that were caused by interferance that most people wouldn't have even thought would be a problem. Are the power lines in your neighborhood on high lines or buried? High lines will cause EM (electro magnetic) spikes during high usage times that can interfere with wireless comms.

As tedrbr stated your upload and download speeds will vary based on local usage. LOSW only has so much bandwidth so the more people craming info on the local net it will slow down.

While wireless is convienent for certain applications, I don't think full time internet connections is one of them just from a security and reliablity standpoint. Hardwired is the way to go in my professional opinion, through a modem, and a router with an internal firewall, then to the PC. A home wireless network is OK as long as it's behind a decent router with a proper firewall.

I'd recomend Cable if it's available, then DSL for any type of "broadband" application, unless you want to spend the money on a dedicated T1 line.

Anyway if DSL is what you have now and it's working good for you, I'd stick with it.

Lye-El · « **Reply #7 on:** April 07, 2007, 01:50:54 PM »

I have a wireless ISP. Only choice for broadband being rural. I am usually between 800 Kbs and 1M for download. 256 or better up. Ping times usually between 35 and 60. I am at the very edge of the range.

It runs when my Directv drops out. So, all in all, I don't have many complaints other than not being able to get 6 Mbs.

I have no problems playing online games on it.

RCglider · « **Reply #8 on:** April 07, 2007, 03:53:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Lye-El
I have a wireless ISP. Only choice for broadband being rural. I am usually between 800 Kbs and 1M for download. 256 or better up. Ping times usually between 35 and 60. I am at the very edge of the range.

It runs when my Directv drops out. So, all in all, I don't have many complaints other than not being able to get 6 Mbs.

I have no problems playing online games on it.

I had SpeedNet in Michigan for a few years, actually was their 1st customer so saw all the bugs etc.

There is nothing wrong with the technology. My house was 20+ miles from the tower, and rarely had problems caused by weather conditions; pings were consistently on par with cable. The issues were largely from growing pains and the newness it. It took a good year for them to iron things out, but once they did the service was fine for the most part. For a few months they uncapped my service because the packet shapers were causing problems with gaming and other applications requiring good latency; was nice having a 6M+ up/down!!

The only suggestion I'd make is to tell them you want it for gaming.

Connery · « **Reply #9 on:** April 07, 2007, 03:56:55 PM »

avoid wireless at all costs.

ROC · « **Reply #10 on:** April 07, 2007, 04:08:16 PM »

I didn't see where you mentioned Upload speed.

Gaming is 2 way, I believe that if you really read the fineprint you will see them specifically state that this service is NOT recommended for multiplayer online gaming or "twitch" gaming where you need reaction time.

38ruk · « **Reply #11 on:** April 07, 2007, 05:07:29 PM »

A family member of mine has wireless ran to his business and he loved it . I pinged the game servers from it and it was in the 60ms range . He was 1 mile from the antenna

TinmanX · « **Reply #12 on:** April 07, 2007, 08:36:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by ROC
I didn't see where you mentioned Upload speed.

Gaming is 2 way, I believe that if you really read the fineprint you will see them specifically state that this service is NOT recommended for multiplayer online gaming or "twitch" gaming where you need reaction time.

My upload speed is actually faster than my download speed on my LOSW (I just ran a check and it was 104kbps faster at 990kbps upload compared to 886 download - this on a busy saturday afternoon) in most cases. There are not many connections that can claim that stat.

TinmanX · « **Reply #13 on:** April 07, 2007, 08:38:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Connery
avoid wireless at all costs.

Care to qualify this statement? I've been in the Internet business for a while now and apart from the odd moron who doesn't secure their home network there really aren't any issues with wireless.

715 · « **Reply #14 on:** April 07, 2007, 08:53:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hornet33
I'd recomend Cable if it's available...

I'd like to point out that Cable also has the potential to stink big time. As others have mentioned, cable is a big shared network. During primetime (i.e. when I want to play AH and everyone else is also using the net) I can get up to 15% packet loss. This makes my cable connection almost unusable for AH (which uses UDP, meaning lost packets are just that, they never get resent and those bullets you just fired just disappear into the ether). My AH network graph looks like the ECG of a patient with Ventricular fibrillation.