WiFi and cable internet

[JimH]

I'm brand new to wireless internet, and I don't even know what's possible and
what isn't. Nor do I even know what questions to ask (much less what to
Google).

Here's my situation:

I currently have Time Warner cable modem hooked up to a Linksys BEFSR41 4
port wired router. This is hooked up to my computer, and only my computer. (I
bought it primarily for the hardware firewall)

I read yesterday that our city will be getting free wireless internet access
(part of Obama's incentive money I gather). What I would like to do is hook
my computer up to both the Time Warner cable modem and the wireless internet
when it becomes available. Is this possible? If so, what hardware do I need?

I realize the second question may be hard to answer with an exact make/model
since I don't even know for sure which wifi standard they'll use (I don't
even know if THEY know yet). But just knowing what TYPE of hardware is
required will help.

[Kurt Ullman]

In article <Xns9C052EE824795hahadotdotdot@74.209.136.88>,

> I read yesterday that our city will be getting free wireless internet access
> (part of Obama's incentive money I gather). What I would like to do is hook
> my computer up to both the Time Warner cable modem and the wireless internet
> when it becomes available. Is this possible? If so, what hardware do I need?
>
> I realize the second question may be hard to answer with an exact make/model
> since I don't even know for sure which wifi standard they'll use (I don't
> even know if THEY know yet). But just knowing what TYPE of hardware is
> required will help.

Assuming you already have a Wifi card in your computer, you should need
nothing at all. I read your post as saying you are currently hard wired
into the modem which means you are using ethernet. If that is the case,
probably the only thing you would need to do is switch from the ethernet
to the wifi card. In the Apple this would be done System Prefs->
network. (I don't have a Windows machine, but there is probably
something similar there).

--
"Distracting a politician from governing
is like distracting a bear from eating your baby."

--PJ O'Rourke

[Peter Pan]

"JimH" <nvm@nunya.biz> wrote in message
news:Xns9C052EE824795hahadotdotdot@74.209.136.88...
> I'm brand new to wireless internet, and I don't even know what's possible
> and
> what isn't. Nor do I even know what questions to ask (much less what to
> Google).
>
> Here's my situation:
>
> I currently have Time Warner cable modem hooked up to a Linksys BEFSR41 4
> port wired router. This is hooked up to my computer, and only my computer.
> (I
> bought it primarily for the hardware firewall)
>
> I read yesterday that our city will be getting free wireless internet
> access
> (part of Obama's incentive money I gather). What I would like to do is
> hook
> my computer up to both the Time Warner cable modem and the wireless
> internet
> when it becomes available. Is this possible? If so, what hardware do I
> need?
>
> I realize the second question may be hard to answer with an exact
> make/model
> since I don't even know for sure which wifi standard they'll use (I don't
> even know if THEY know yet). But just knowing what TYPE of hardware is
> required will help.
>

I have to wonder, you have something that works now and costs, but you want
to do something free instead? you can't do both at once, it's one or the
other, so why do you want to change? you would gain absolutely nothing, as a
matter of fact you will probably lose a lot (wireless is way slower than
wired, and presents a whole slew of security problems)

you may already have what you need to try it (note i said try it, then set
it back when you see what a pain it is, but forget the exact model..... you
didn't even say what type of computer you have, laptop or desktop, pc or mac
(or something else), and/or if it has wireless already built in or just
wired.... what is it?<---- pretend you are google, and answer the question!
:)

[Linwood Boomer]

On Fri, 8 May 2009 10:32:47 -0400, "Peter Pan"
<pponvistaNOSPAM@MarcAlanNOSPAM.Info> wrote:

>
>"JimH" <nvm@nunya.biz> wrote in message
>news:Xns9C052EE824795hahadotdotdot@74.209.136.88...
>> I currently have Time Warner cable modem hooked up to a Linksys BEFSR41 4
>> port wired router. This is hooked up to my computer, and only my computer.
>> (I
>> bought it primarily for the hardware firewall)
>>
>> I read yesterday that our city will be getting free wireless internet
>> access
>> (part of Obama's incentive money I gather). What I would like to do is
>> hook
>> my computer up to both the Time Warner cable modem and the wireless
>> internet
>> when it becomes available. Is this possible? If so, what hardware do I
>> need?
>>
>> I realize the second question may be hard to answer with an exact
>> make/model
>> since I don't even know for sure which wifi standard they'll use (I don't
>> even know if THEY know yet). But just knowing what TYPE of hardware is
>> required will help.
>>
>
>I have to wonder, you have something that works now and costs, but you want
>to do something free instead? you can't do both at once, it's one or the
>other, so why do you want to change?

FYI, you can very easily use multiple WAN connections simultaneously.
I've been doing it since about 2004-2005.

> you would gain absolutely nothing, as a
>matter of fact you will probably lose a lot (wireless is way slower than
>wired, and presents a whole slew of security problems) <SNIP>

Among the advantages of multiple WAN connections are increased
throughput on some downloads and of course WAN redundancy so that if
one WAN link goes down the other(s) will take over.

Apologies for the hijack.

[Peter Pan]

"Linwood Boomer" <discount@none.invalid> wrote in message
news:2tq80595cbg6dkeh5b6ld0qmvo5m6al1r6@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 8 May 2009 10:32:47 -0400, "Peter Pan"
> <pponvistaNOSPAM@MarcAlanNOSPAM.Info> wrote:
>
>>
>>"JimH" <nvm@nunya.biz> wrote in message
>>news:Xns9C052EE824795hahadotdotdot@74.209.136.88...
>>> I currently have Time Warner cable modem hooked up to a Linksys BEFSR41
>>> 4
>>> port wired router. This is hooked up to my computer, and only my
>>> computer.
>>> (I
>>> bought it primarily for the hardware firewall)
>>>
>>> I read yesterday that our city will be getting free wireless internet
>>> access
>>> (part of Obama's incentive money I gather). What I would like to do is
>>> hook
>>> my computer up to both the Time Warner cable modem and the wireless
>>> internet
>>> when it becomes available. Is this possible? If so, what hardware do I
>>> need?
>>>
>>> I realize the second question may be hard to answer with an exact
>>> make/model
>>> since I don't even know for sure which wifi standard they'll use (I
>>> don't
>>> even know if THEY know yet). But just knowing what TYPE of hardware is
>>> required will help.
>>>
>>
>>I have to wonder, you have something that works now and costs, but you
>>want
>>to do something free instead? you can't do both at once, it's one or the
>>other, so why do you want to change?
>
> FYI, you can very easily use multiple WAN connections simultaneously.
> I've been doing it since about 2004-2005.
>
>> you would gain absolutely nothing, as a
>>matter of fact you will probably lose a lot (wireless is way slower than
>>wired, and presents a whole slew of security problems) <SNIP>
>
> Among the advantages of multiple WAN connections are increased
> throughput on some downloads and of course WAN redundancy so that if
> one WAN link goes down the other(s) will take over.
>
> Apologies for the hijack.
>


sure you can use it as a backup easy enuf, *IF* the unknown computer he has
even has wireless, but trying to bond it/combine the two internet feeds, and
do both at once so it's twice as fast, is way different than using them
individually/singly/one at a time. i'm curious how you use multiple
connections at the same time, far as i know you can have multiple
connections enabled, but only use them one at a time, but your statement of
increased thruput ("Among the advantages of multiple WAN connections are
increased throughput on some downloads") specifically means
bonding/combining the internet connections and using multiple connections at
the same time to speed up downloads... and you said you have been using
multiple connections bonded/at the same timesimultaneously, since 2004-2005,
i want to speed up my downloads (only have about 22 mbps now, and looking at
fios so it will be about 40 mbps)... so i'm curious how i can combine the
two so i get 62 mbps downloads....

[JimH]

"Peter Pan" <pponvistaNOSPAM@MarcAlanNOSPAM.Info> wrote in
news:6uCdnXMr8PvsE5nXnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d@earthlink.com:

>
> "Linwood Boomer" <discount@none.invalid> wrote in message
> news:2tq80595cbg6dkeh5b6ld0qmvo5m6al1r6@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 8 May 2009 10:32:47 -0400, "Peter Pan"
>> <pponvistaNOSPAM@MarcAlanNOSPAM.Info> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"JimH" <nvm@nunya.biz> wrote in message
>>>news:Xns9C052EE824795hahadotdotdot@74.209.136.88...
>>>> I currently have Time Warner cable modem hooked up to a Linksys
>>>> BEFSR41 4
>>>> port wired router. This is hooked up to my computer, and only my
>>>> computer.
>>>> (I
>>>> bought it primarily for the hardware firewall)
>>>>
>>>> I read yesterday that our city will be getting free wireless internet
>>>> access
>>>> (part of Obama's incentive money I gather). What I would like to do
>>>> is hook
>>>> my computer up to both the Time Warner cable modem and the wireless
>>>> internet
>>>> when it becomes available. Is this possible? If so, what hardware do
>>>> I need?
>>>>
>>>> I realize the second question may be hard to answer with an exact
>>>> make/model
>>>> since I don't even know for sure which wifi standard they'll use (I
>>>> don't
>>>> even know if THEY know yet). But just knowing what TYPE of hardware
>>>> is required will help.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I have to wonder, you have something that works now and costs, but you
>>>want
>>>to do something free instead? you can't do both at once, it's one or
>>>the other, so why do you want to change?
>>
>> FYI, you can very easily use multiple WAN connections simultaneously.
>> I've been doing it since about 2004-2005.
>>
>>> you would gain absolutely nothing, as a
>>>matter of fact you will probably lose a lot (wireless is way slower
>>>than wired, and presents a whole slew of security problems) <SNIP>
>>
>> Among the advantages of multiple WAN connections are increased
>> throughput on some downloads and of course WAN redundancy so that if
>> one WAN link goes down the other(s) will take over.
>>
>> Apologies for the hijack.
>>
>
>
> sure you can use it as a backup easy enuf, *IF* the unknown computer he
> has even has wireless, but trying to bond it/combine the two internet
> feeds, and do both at once so it's twice as fast, is way different than
> using them individually/singly/one at a time. i'm curious how you use
> multiple connections at the same time, far as i know you can have
> multiple connections enabled, but only use them one at a time, but your
> statement of increased thruput ("Among the advantages of multiple WAN
> connections are increased throughput on some downloads") specifically
> means bonding/combining the internet connections and using multiple
> connections at the same time to speed up downloads... and you said you
> have been using multiple connections bonded/at the same
> timesimultaneously, since 2004-2005, i want to speed up my downloads
> (only have about 22 mbps now, and looking at fios so it will be about 40
> mbps)... so i'm curious how i can combine the two so i get 62 mbps
> downloads....
>
>

I have absolutely no WiFi capability with my current hardware.

I have known, in the long ago past, that it is possible to have multiple
internet connections to improve throughput. Back then, about all that was
required was to install more than one modem.

I figured that anything that was possible 10 years ago is still possible,
although the hardware required probably had changed.

But while composing this reply it got me wondering: Can I install a second
network card and attach a wireless receiver to it?

[Peter Pan]

"JimH" <nvm@nunya.biz> wrote in message
news:Xns9C05D6177F819hahadotdotdot@74.209.136.99...
>
> I have absolutely no WiFi capability with my current hardware.
>
Can I install a second
> network card and attach a wireless receiver to it?
>

desktop, laptop? mac/pc/other? does it have a usb port?
cheapest easiest may be a usb/wifi dongle, tons of em for windows
pc's/desktops, work great with usb extension cables too... can't do much on
providing links since you haven't said if you have a windows pc or not... do
you?

[Linwood Boomer]

On 9 May 2009 01:02:47 GMT, JimH <nvm@nunya.biz> wrote:

>I have absolutely no WiFi capability with my current hardware.
>
>But while composing this reply it got me wondering: Can I install a second
>network card and attach a wireless receiver to it?

Yes. That's certainly one option of several. Hard to say if it's your
best option, but it will work.

[Linwood Boomer]

On Fri, 8 May 2009 15:56:15 -0400, "Peter Pan"
<pponvistaNOSPAM@MarcAlanNOSPAM.Info> wrote:

>i'm curious how you use multiple
>connections at the same time, far as i know you can have multiple
>connections enabled, but only use them one at a time, but your statement of
>increased thruput ("Among the advantages of multiple WAN connections are
>increased throughput on some downloads") specifically means
>bonding/combining the internet connections and using multiple connections at
>the same time to speed up downloads... and you said you have been using
>multiple connections bonded/at the same timesimultaneously, since 2004-2005,
>i want to speed up my downloads (only have about 22 mbps now, and looking at
>fios so it will be about 40 mbps)... so i'm curious how i can combine the
>two so i get 62 mbps downloads....

For the first couple of years, I ran multiple NICs and simply
manipulated the PC's routing table so that I could utilize the
multiple connections simultaneously. The default NIC was connected to
my cable modem, and the other NICs were connected wirelessly to other
Internet-connected networks. My Usenet provider offered multiple
server addresses and allowed multiple concurrent connections, so I was
able to saturate all of the WAN links easily.

More recently, as a proof of concept, I set up a pfSense load
balancing server with 7 NICs: 6 WAN links connect to cable modems and
the 7th NIC connects back to my LAN. No messing around with the
routing table, the pfSense server manages the WAN links, including
load balancing and automatic failover if/when a link goes down. Modern
download managers (freedownloadmanager.org is a good one) are smart
enough to not only open multiple connections, but to also seek out
mirrors, when applicable. The result is little or no improvement for
single-threaded things like simple web browsing and email retrieval,
but big downloads fly. During the POC testing, I was seeing 60-80 Mbps
from my Usenet provider. If I had added some wireless links into the
mix, I could have easily seen 100 Mbps+. Needless to say, my LAN is
Gigabit where necessary.

[JimH]

"Peter Pan" <pponvistaNOSPAM@MarcAlanNOSPAM.Info> wrote in
news:us6dnaVbaMm8fZnXnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@earthlink.com:

>
> "JimH" <nvm@nunya.biz> wrote in message
> news:Xns9C05D6177F819hahadotdotdot@74.209.136.99...
>>
>> I have absolutely no WiFi capability with my current hardware.
>>
> Can I install a second
>> network card and attach a wireless receiver to it?
>>
>
> desktop, laptop? mac/pc/other? does it have a usb port?
> cheapest easiest may be a usb/wifi dongle, tons of em for windows
> pc's/desktops, work great with usb extension cables too... can't do much
> on providing links since you haven't said if you have a windows pc or
> not... do you?
>

A Windows tower desktop (with the tower basically on the floor). While it
does have USB ports, I really don't care for dongles - from a mechanical
point of view. They break or fall out.

No, not often - but often enough that I've learned not to place them to use
where sustained reliability is an issue. I'm looking for something that
once connected will stay connected, untouched, potentially for years.

That's why the idea of installing a network card sounded attractive. Cards
are internal, screwed into place and will not be broken off by my cat. The
cables have clips that hold them into the socket and will not be pulled out
(it's hard enough to take them out when TRYING to. :D)

What I had hoped might be available might be thought of as a "reverse
router." Instead of hooking many computers to one modem, hooking many
modems to one computer. (This device could, if someone so desired, be
hooked into a router to allow the sharing of multiple modems among multiple
computers). The reverse router would have built in load balancing software.

The more I think about it... this device, if it exists, would probably be
out of my price range anyway.

The idea behind having them both was so that I could test out the WiFi
without having to commit to it "sight unseen." Or without the hassle of
switching the hardware between them during the testing phase.

Then, having put it to the test, I could decide whether or not I was
satisfied enough with it to cancel my paid internet connection.

[JimH]

Linwood Boomer <discount@none.invalid> wrote in
news:sps9059cj7rmoqj37vv116dmn5fpqotmoc@4ax.com:

> On 9 May 2009 01:02:47 GMT, JimH <nvm@nunya.biz> wrote:
>
>>I have absolutely no WiFi capability with my current hardware.
>>
>>But while composing this reply it got me wondering: Can I install a second
>>network card and attach a wireless receiver to it?
>
> Yes. That's certainly one option of several. Hard to say if it's your
> best option, but it will work.
>

If I were to do it this way I would have to select which network to use for
each program, right? There wouldn't be any network switching "on the fly,"
would there?

What I'm thinking about is a situation something like:

On network A, I'm downloading a 700 MB file. Network B is standing idle.

What I would like is for something to notice that Network B is unused and
direct it to pick up some of the load.

[Peter Pan]

"JimH" <nvm@nunya.biz> wrote in message
news:Xns9C062E32594B7hahadotdotdot@74.209.136.100...
> "Peter Pan" <pponvistaNOSPAM@MarcAlanNOSPAM.Info> wrote in
> news:us6dnaVbaMm8fZnXnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@earthlink.com:
>
>>
>> "JimH" <nvm@nunya.biz> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9C05D6177F819hahadotdotdot@74.209.136.99...
>>>
>>> I have absolutely no WiFi capability with my current hardware.
>>>
>> Can I install a second
>>> network card and attach a wireless receiver to it?
>>>
>>
>> desktop, laptop? mac/pc/other? does it have a usb port?
>> cheapest easiest may be a usb/wifi dongle, tons of em for windows
>> pc's/desktops, work great with usb extension cables too... can't do much
>> on providing links since you haven't said if you have a windows pc or
>> not... do you?
>>
>
> A Windows tower desktop (with the tower basically on the floor). While it
> does have USB ports, I really don't care for dongles - from a mechanical
> point of view. They break or fall out.
>
> No, not often - but often enough that I've learned not to place them to
> use
> where sustained reliability is an issue. I'm looking for something that
> once connected will stay connected, untouched, potentially for years.
>
> That's why the idea of installing a network card sounded attractive. Cards
> are internal, screwed into place and will not be broken off by my cat. The
> cables have clips that hold them into the socket and will not be pulled
> out
> (it's hard enough to take them out when TRYING to. :D)
>
> What I had hoped might be available might be thought of as a "reverse
> router." Instead of hooking many computers to one modem, hooking many
> modems to one computer. (This device could, if someone so desired, be
> hooked into a router to allow the sharing of multiple modems among
> multiple
> computers). The reverse router would have built in load balancing
> software.
>
> The more I think about it... this device, if it exists, would probably be
> out of my price range anyway.
>
> The idea behind having them both was so that I could test out the WiFi
> without having to commit to it "sight unseen." Or without the hassle of
> switching the hardware between them during the testing phase.
>
> Then, having put it to the test, I could decide whether or not I was
> router
> satisfied enough with it to cancel my paid internet connection.
>
>

okay windows tower desktop, with usb ports (but you don't want to use
em.....)
with a desktop, you are usually stuck with whatever wireless signal you can
get where the box is located, if you have an internal card, you can however
put in a card with an external antenna jack, cable it (not cat friendly),
and use whatever antenna you may want/need.... however, what i usually do is
put in something like a pci card with a usb port, usb extension cables, and
a usb dongle plugged into the extension cable/port (under $50), they do make
wireless bridges that just plug into your existing router, as you asked
about above, but they are rather expensive ($300 +, have one for $189, but
of course that company is out of biz), hard to find, and need
configuring.... if you are into puttering/experimenting, you may be able to
use something like an el cheapo wap running alternate firmware (dd-wrt as a
bridge, not a router or wap, between an external wireless net and your wired
router)

gets tricky when you want ethernet instead of usb.....

[JimH]

"Peter Pan" <pponvistaNOSPAM@MarcAlanNOSPAM.Info> wrote in
news:RoadnV559scgeJjXnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d@earthlink.com:

>
> "JimH" <nvm@nunya.biz> wrote in message
> news:Xns9C062E32594B7hahadotdotdot@74.209.136.100...
>> "Peter Pan" <pponvistaNOSPAM@MarcAlanNOSPAM.Info> wrote in
>> news:us6dnaVbaMm8fZnXnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@earthlink.com:
>>
>>>
>>> "JimH" <nvm@nunya.biz> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9C05D6177F819hahadotdotdot@74.209.136.99...
>>>>
>>>> I have absolutely no WiFi capability with my current hardware.
>>>>
>>> Can I install a second
>>>> network card and attach a wireless receiver to it?
>>>>
>>>
>>> desktop, laptop? mac/pc/other? does it have a usb port?
>>> cheapest easiest may be a usb/wifi dongle, tons of em for windows
>>> pc's/desktops, work great with usb extension cables too... can't do
>>> much on providing links since you haven't said if you have a windows
>>> pc or not... do you?
>>>
>>
>> A Windows tower desktop (with the tower basically on the floor). While
>> it does have USB ports, I really don't care for dongles - from a
>> mechanical point of view. They break or fall out.
>>
>> No, not often - but often enough that I've learned not to place them to
>> use
>> where sustained reliability is an issue. I'm looking for something that
>> once connected will stay connected, untouched, potentially for years.
>>
>> That's why the idea of installing a network card sounded attractive.
>> Cards are internal, screwed into place and will not be broken off by my
>> cat. The cables have clips that hold them into the socket and will not
>> be pulled out
>> (it's hard enough to take them out when TRYING to. :D)
>>
>> What I had hoped might be available might be thought of as a "reverse
>> router." Instead of hooking many computers to one modem, hooking many
>> modems to one computer. (This device could, if someone so desired, be
>> hooked into a router to allow the sharing of multiple modems among
>> multiple
>> computers). The reverse router would have built in load balancing
>> software.
>>
>> The more I think about it... this device, if it exists, would probably
>> be out of my price range anyway.
>>
>> The idea behind having them both was so that I could test out the WiFi
>> without having to commit to it "sight unseen." Or without the hassle of
>> switching the hardware between them during the testing phase.
>>
>> Then, having put it to the test, I could decide whether or not I was
>> router
>> satisfied enough with it to cancel my paid internet connection.
>>
>>
>
> okay windows tower desktop, with usb ports (but you don't want to use
> em.....)
> with a desktop, you are usually stuck with whatever wireless signal you
> can get where the box is located, if you have an internal card, you can
> however put in a card with an external antenna jack, cable it (not cat
> friendly), and use whatever antenna you may want/need.... however, what
> i usually do is put in something like a pci card with a usb port, usb
> extension cables, and a usb dongle plugged into the extension cable/port
> (under $50), they do make wireless bridges that just plug into your
> existing router, as you asked about above, but they are rather expensive
> ($300 +, have one for $189, but of course that company is out of biz),
> hard to find, and need configuring.... if you are into
> puttering/experimenting, you may be able to use something like an el
> cheapo wap running alternate firmware (dd-wrt as a bridge, not a router
> or wap, between an external wireless net and your wired router)
>
> gets tricky when you want ethernet instead of usb.....
>
>

I don't mind using the USB ports - I just don't like connecting anything
other than cables to them. (My router and keyboard use USB ports, for
example) I suppose that I could employ an extension cable for a dongle.

I was wondering about bridges. I had heard the term but wasn't sure what
they were.

The router I have only has one jack marked "Internet", the other four jacks
are marked 1-4. I wasn't sure whether or not the three unused jacks could
only be connected to other computers (to connect them to the one modem). I
was of the opinion that they could only be connected to computers - but
knew I could easily be mistaken.

[Peter Pan]

"JimH" <nvm@nunya.biz> wrote in message
news:Xns9C06BC6AF4E6Bhahadotdotdot@74.209.136.97...
>
> I don't mind using the USB ports - I just don't like connecting anything
> other than cables to them. (My router and keyboard use USB ports, for
> example) I suppose that I could employ an extension cable for a dongle.
>
> I was wondering about bridges. I had heard the term but wasn't sure what
> they were.
>
> The router I have only has one jack marked "Internet", the other four
> jacks
> are marked 1-4. I wasn't sure whether or not the three unused jacks could
> only be connected to other computers (to connect them to the one modem). I
> was of the opinion that they could only be connected to computers - but
> knew I could easily be mistaken.
>

yes, the first one(by itself marked wan in etc) is usually for/from your
modem, the other 4 (3, you are using one) are usually used for other
computers/wired devices/other routers/switches, but there are new cool
things out now/soon that can be plugged in.....

generically the term "bridge" is usually the term for something that
connects(bridges) two network segments...
for instance in your case you will probably have one device that talks to
the wireless network, and the bridge would Bridge(connect/make work) the
device/segment that deals with the wireless network and your wired
network....

no real specific definition, a bridge is more of a concept than an actual
black box, in the case of wap/routers the bridge is internal between the wap
and the router, if you just used a wap with a router, it can be a network
cable. in the case of a dongle, an extension usb cable can be considered a
bridge, or if your computer has two network cards you can have a software
bridge that connects them...

in your case you need something to talk to/work with/use the external
wireless network, and then the bridge will connect that device to your
computer (not to the wired network directly, a software bridge does that)...
hence suggesting the usb dongle (it will talk/interface/etc to the wireless
network, and a software bridge in your computer will bridge the usb/wireless
segment to the ethernet/wired segment.....

while you could tinker with/putter lots of different things, the usb thing
may be the cheapest/easiest solution for you....

[Peter Pan]

> "JimH" <nvm@nunya.biz> wrote in message
> news:Xns9C06BC6AF4E6Bhahadotdotdot@74.209.136.97...
>>
>> I don't mind using the USB ports - I just don't like connecting anything
>> other than cables to them. (My router and keyboard use USB ports, for
>> example) I suppose that I could employ an extension cable for a dongle.
>>

ps, i live and travel in my rv (recreational vehicle) and have a wired
network in the rv, but am usually in an rv park that has wireless... tried a
few dif ways, but the dongle/extension cable works very well, and only have
to plug in the cable to a usb port....

I need directional capability and use one of these
http://www.hawkingtech.com/products/productlist.php?CatID=32&FamID=60&ProdID=379

don't sell or recommend these, just some links with pics.....
usb wifi dongle $14.99
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=1076836&Sku=T156-2180
16 ft usb exstension cable $12.99
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=2329301&CatId=444

[JimH]

"Peter Pan" <pponvistaNOSPAM@MarcAlanNOSPAM.Info> wrote in
news:A8mdnU4l45oCrpvXnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@earthlink.com:

>
> "JimH" <nvm@nunya.biz> wrote in message
> news:Xns9C06BC6AF4E6Bhahadotdotdot@74.209.136.97...
>>
>> I don't mind using the USB ports - I just don't like connecting
>> anything other than cables to them. (My router and keyboard use USB
>> ports, for example) I suppose that I could employ an extension cable
>> for a dongle.
>>
>> I was wondering about bridges. I had heard the term but wasn't sure
>> what they were.
>>
>> The router I have only has one jack marked "Internet", the other four
>> jacks
>> are marked 1-4. I wasn't sure whether or not the three unused jacks
>> could only be connected to other computers (to connect them to the one
>> modem). I was of the opinion that they could only be connected to
>> computers - but knew I could easily be mistaken.
>>
>
> yes, the first one(by itself marked wan in etc) is usually for/from your
> modem, the other 4 (3, you are using one) are usually used for other
> computers/wired devices/other routers/switches, but there are new cool
> things out now/soon that can be plugged in.....
>
> generically the term "bridge" is usually the term for something that
> connects(bridges) two network segments...
> for instance in your case you will probably have one device that talks
> to the wireless network, and the bridge would Bridge(connect/make work)
> the device/segment that deals with the wireless network and your wired
> network....
>
> no real specific definition, a bridge is more of a concept than an
> actual black box, in the case of wap/routers the bridge is internal
> between the wap and the router, if you just used a wap with a router, it
> can be a network cable. in the case of a dongle, an extension usb cable
> can be considered a bridge, or if your computer has two network cards
> you can have a software bridge that connects them...
>
> in your case you need something to talk to/work with/use the external
> wireless network, and then the bridge will connect that device to your
> computer (not to the wired network directly, a software bridge does
> that)... hence suggesting the usb dongle (it will talk/interface/etc to
> the wireless network, and a software bridge in your computer will bridge
> the usb/wireless segment to the ethernet/wired segment.....
>
> while you could tinker with/putter lots of different things, the usb
> thing may be the cheapest/easiest solution for you....
>

That explains a lot. Where would I get the software bridge?

When I mentioned it, the thought of a second network card came about
because I play World of Warcraft. I know of a few cases (*) where the
playability of the game improved significantly where (what might be called)
a "gaming network card" was used. My thought was to maybe get one of these,
hook my wired network into that, and use my existing network card for the
wireless. I'm not tied to that idea, it was just something that occurred to
me.

(*) The reason it's only "a few cases" is because I only know of a few
people who have done it. In every one of these cases the playability
improved.

[JimH]

JimH <nvm@nunya.biz> wrote in
news:Xns9C071A1EBA894hahadotdotdot@74.209.136.99:

>
> That explains a lot. Where would I get the software bridge?
>

I just Googled "software network bridge", and it would seem as if this is a
standard feature in XP (which is what I'm using). Is this true?

[Bill Kearney]

> For the first couple of years, I ran multiple NICs and simply
> manipulated the PC's routing table so that I could utilize the
> multiple connections simultaneously. The default NIC was connected to
> my cable modem, and the other NICs were connected wirelessly to other
> Internet-connected networks. My Usenet provider offered multiple
> server addresses and allowed multiple concurrent connections, so I was
> able to saturate all of the WAN links easily.

You weren't really using the multiple links as one. You were telling your
client software to use different connections. This is very different than
just making use of all the bandwidth "automagically". You know this, but
others reading the thread might not fully grasp this. I do this, mostly by
using a multihomed proxy running on a linux box. There's a very handy
plug-in for firefox (foxyproxy) that allows you to switch proxies on the
fly.

It's not usually possible to do this without a lot of work on a sole client
box with only one interface. Likewise most consumer routers have no support
for it. It's nigh-on-impossible with a windows box. Linux, less-so, but
it's still a trainwreck trying to juggle the iptables configs. It is not a
simple routing table config.

> More recently, as a proof of concept, I set up a pfSense

Which is it's own adventure to setup, configure and maintain. Great stuff,
just less than trivial for most people to deal with effectively.

> The result is little or no improvement for
> single-threaded things like simple web browsing and email retrieval

Bingo. Being this is what most people are after using muliple uplinks isn't
going to help much.

The problem with "free" metropolitan wireless can be best summed up by the
concept of 'the tragedy of the commons'. Anything made free to everyone
will suffer when everyone (ab)uses it. TANSTAAFL.

The free links are handy when you need a simple connection or a fallback in
the event your main connection dies. But I'd never depend on one for my
sole connection, nor would I put much effort into trying to half-ass a
multi-link or proxy setup. Being able to use an slow link 'for free' isn't
really much of a bargain in my book.

-Bill Kearney

[Linwood Boomer]

On 9 May 2009 08:40:34 GMT, JimH <nvm@nunya.biz> wrote:

>Linwood Boomer <discount@none.invalid> wrote in
>news:sps9059cj7rmoqj37vv116dmn5fpqotmoc@4ax.com:
>
>> On 9 May 2009 01:02:47 GMT, JimH <nvm@nunya.biz> wrote:
>>
>>>I have absolutely no WiFi capability with my current hardware.
>>>
>>>But while composing this reply it got me wondering: Can I install a second
>>>network card and attach a wireless receiver to it?
>>
>> Yes. That's certainly one option of several. Hard to say if it's your
>> best option, but it will work.
>>
>
>If I were to do it this way I would have to select which network to use for
>each program, right? There wouldn't be any network switching "on the fly,"
>would there?

In my (previous) way of doing things, it wouldn't be "for each
program" but rather "for each Internet destination". Your routing
table already has a catch-all (default) route, but you can add
network-specific and host-specific routes to your routing table to
gain more control over which NIC-WAN pair will be used for specific
apps, assuming you know in advance which Internet destination(s) those
apps are using. For most people, it'll be far more trouble than it's
worth, but it works.

>What I'm thinking about is a situation something like:
>
>On network A, I'm downloading a 700 MB file. Network B is standing idle.
>
>What I would like is for something to notice that Network B is unused and
>direct it to pick up some of the load.

Then forget everything I said above, since that is a completely manual
method of using multiple WAN links. If you need automation, I would
steer you to pfSense (free software, but you have to provide an old PC
as hardware), or something commercial off the shelf (COTS), but the
COTS stuff can get expensive and typically doesn't do a tenth of what
pfSense can do. Look for keywords like dual-WAN and load balancing,
etc.

[Peter Pan]

"JimH" <nvm@nunya.biz> wrote in message
news:Xns9C072033272EAhahadotdotdot@74.209.136.81...
> JimH <nvm@nunya.biz> wrote in
> news:Xns9C071A1EBA894hahadotdotdot@74.209.136.99:
>
>>
>> That explains a lot. Where would I get the software bridge?
>>
>
> I just Googled "software network bridge", and it would seem as if this is
> a
> standard feature in XP (which is what I'm using). Is this true?
>

yes, but.......

in xp, there are usually network connections for various installed
devices/segments... (local area, wireless, dial-up, etc) some usb dongles
will create a seperate connection, and you can then bridge that to other
things (right click, sometimes setting up a network, etc)

if you don't have multiple network devices, you can't bridge em unless there
is more than one, and you said you have no wireless, and only one network
card so only one will show up, so i would suspect you can't bridge with your
current setup....

[Peter Pan]

"JimH" <nvm@nunya.biz> wrote in message
news:Xns9C071A1EBA894hahadotdotdot@74.209.136.99...
> "Peter Pan" <pponvistaNOSPAM@MarcAlanNOSPAM.Info> wrote in
> news:A8mdnU4l45oCrpvXnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@earthlink.com:

> When I mentioned it, the thought of a second network card came about
> because I play World of Warcraft. I know of a few cases (*) where the
> playability of the game improved significantly where (what might be
> called)
> a "gaming network card" was used. My thought was to maybe get one of
> these,
> hook my wired network into that, and use my existing network card for the
> wireless. I'm not tied to that idea, it was just something that occurred
> to
> me.
>
> (*) The reason it's only "a few cases" is because I only know of a few
> people who have done it. In every one of these cases the playability
> improved.

depends what you mean... there are basically two kinds of wired or wireless
network game setups... single and multi/game party... the single user one is
basically the same as a wire (think game controller extension cable but
wireless/no cable, ie no dhcp server, no shared users on the same segment,
etc), while the multi/game party setup is for multiple users/controllers,
and it has to cycle between em to see if they have changed..... a
second/seperate card will do that (ie unique device, sep network segment
etc)

[Linwood Boomer]

On 9 May 2009 22:31:21 GMT, JimH <nvm@nunya.biz> wrote:

>I was wondering about bridges. I had heard the term but wasn't sure what
>they were.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethernet_bridge
Especially the section on Transparent Bridging.

>The router I have only has one jack marked "Internet", the other four jacks
>are marked 1-4. I wasn't sure whether or not the three unused jacks could
>only be connected to other computers (to connect them to the one modem). I
>was of the opinion that they could only be connected to computers - but
>knew I could easily be mistaken.

The short answer is that the ports labeled 1-4 are part of an Ethernet
switch and are intended to be connected to PC's or other Ethernet
devices to make a LAN.

The longer answer is that some routers can be flashed with new
firmware that allows you to use each port as you wish. My preferred
firmware is dd-wrt but there are others. The dd-wrt firmware allows
you to designate more than one port for WAN links, or split the LAN
links into two or more VLAN's, for example.

[Linwood Boomer]

On 9 May 2009 08:32:30 GMT, JimH <nvm@nunya.biz> wrote:

>What I had hoped might be available might be thought of as a "reverse
>router." Instead of hooking many computers to one modem, hooking many
>modems to one computer. (This device could, if someone so desired, be
>hooked into a router to allow the sharing of multiple modems among multiple
>computers). The reverse router would have built in load balancing software.
>
>The more I think about it... this device, if it exists, would probably be
>out of my price range anyway.

You just described pfSense. (www.pfsense.org) Actually, you described
a small part of pfSense, but it excels at what you said above. There's
a bit of a learning curve when setting it up, but there are many
tutorials, FAQs, a forum, and more.

>The idea behind having them both was so that I could test out the WiFi
>without having to commit to it "sight unseen." Or without the hassle of
>switching the hardware between them during the testing phase.
>
>Then, having put it to the test, I could decide whether or not I was
>satisfied enough with it to cancel my paid internet connection.

I think most of us would agree that free wireless will not be the
equal of your paid wired connection.

[Linwood Boomer]

On Sun, 10 May 2009 10:40:14 -0400, "Bill Kearney"
<wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> For the first couple of years, I ran multiple NICs and simply
>> manipulated the PC's routing table so that I could utilize the
>> multiple connections simultaneously. The default NIC was connected to
>> my cable modem, and the other NICs were connected wirelessly to other
>> Internet-connected networks. My Usenet provider offered multiple
>> server addresses and allowed multiple concurrent connections, so I was
>> able to saturate all of the WAN links easily.
>
>You weren't really using the multiple links as one. You were telling your
>client software to use different connections.

You're right that this setup doesn't use multiple connections as one,
but if I may pick nits, my client software had no clue about the
multiple connections. The config changes were only made on the routing
table. Nevertheless, it's an easy way to utilize the total bandwidth
available from multiple WAN connections, and that's all I was doing at
the time.

>This is very different than
>just making use of all the bandwidth "automagically". You know this, but
>others reading the thread might not fully grasp this.

Again, I agree. Software like pfSense is wonderful for automagically
using multiple links, but even with pfSense single threaded
connections can't be helped. There's nothing to balance or share in
such cases.

>I do this, mostly by
>using a multihomed proxy running on a linux box. There's a very handy
>plug-in for firefox (foxyproxy) that allows you to switch proxies on the
>fly.
>
>It's not usually possible to do this without a lot of work on a sole client
>box with only one interface. Likewise most consumer routers have no support
>for it. It's nigh-on-impossible with a windows box. Linux, less-so, but
>it's still a trainwreck trying to juggle the iptables configs. It is not a
>simple routing table config.

dd-wrt supports multi-WAN, but it's not trivial to set up. Like you
say below, pfSense isn't trivial to set up either, but once you do
it's pretty darn nice.

>> More recently, as a proof of concept, I set up a pfSense
>
>Which is it's own adventure to setup, configure and maintain. Great stuff,
>just less than trivial for most people to deal with effectively.
>
>> The result is little or no improvement for
>> single-threaded things like simple web browsing and email retrieval
>
>Bingo. Being this is what most people are after using muliple uplinks isn't
>going to help much.

I don't know about most people, but I and a few friends were more
interested in faster downloads, so the simple routing table method and
the pfSense method both worked very well for that purpose.

>The problem with "free" metropolitan wireless can be best summed up by the
>concept of 'the tragedy of the commons'. Anything made free to everyone
>will suffer when everyone (ab)uses it. TANSTAAFL.
>
>The free links are handy when you need a simple connection or a fallback in
>the event your main connection dies. But I'd never depend on one for my
>sole connection, nor would I put much effort into trying to half-ass a
>multi-link or proxy setup. Being able to use an slow link 'for free' isn't
>really much of a bargain in my book.

Totally agree.

[Ron]

Interesting thread. At this point, I hope I'm not hijacking it to ask a
simpler, but related (I think), question. I have a simple home network of
two desktop computers both ethernet cabled to a (non-wireless) router which
is cabled to the cable modem. I'm thinking of replacing that router with a
wireless one - but one that has the cabling capacity so that I can still
cable the existing computers (but use the Wifi for a SmartPhone in the
house).

Question: can this be done so that the desktops are completely insulated
from wireless intrusion? I understand about encryption, but I'm wondering
if the router can be configured so there's complete isolation of the wired
elements from the wireless elements.

Thanks in advance, RonL

[JimH]

"Peter Pan" <pponvistaNOSPAM@MarcAlanNOSPAM.Info> wrote in
news:Rb2dndjSFJIKu5rXnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@earthlink.com:

>
> "JimH" <nvm@nunya.biz> wrote in message
> news:Xns9C072033272EAhahadotdotdot@74.209.136.81...
>> JimH <nvm@nunya.biz> wrote in
>> news:Xns9C071A1EBA894hahadotdotdot@74.209.136.99:
>>
>>>
>>> That explains a lot. Where would I get the software bridge?
>>>
>>
>> I just Googled "software network bridge", and it would seem as if this
>> is a
>> standard feature in XP (which is what I'm using). Is this true?
>>
>
> yes, but.......
>
> in xp, there are usually network connections for various installed
> devices/segments... (local area, wireless, dial-up, etc) some usb
> dongles will create a seperate connection, and you can then bridge that
> to other things (right click, sometimes setting up a network, etc)

If I do decide to actually try it out, I'll look to see what options it gives
me.

Right now I'm at the "What hard/software will I need?" stage. This is the
first of several stages before I even get to the "Is it worth trying?" stage.


> if you don't have multiple network devices, you can't bridge em unless
> there is more than one, and you said you have no wireless, and only one
> network card so only one will show up, so i would suspect you can't
> bridge with your current setup....
>
>

That I can't bridge yet is understood. That's why I didn't yet have any
experience doing it yet. :)

[JimH]

"Peter Pan" <pponvistaNOSPAM@MarcAlanNOSPAM.Info> wrote in
news:QbWdnXoqoeOdtprXnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@earthlink.com:

>
> "JimH" <nvm@nunya.biz> wrote in message
> news:Xns9C071A1EBA894hahadotdotdot@74.209.136.99...
>> "Peter Pan" <pponvistaNOSPAM@MarcAlanNOSPAM.Info> wrote in
>> news:A8mdnU4l45oCrpvXnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@earthlink.com:
>
>> When I mentioned it, the thought of a second network card came about
>> because I play World of Warcraft. I know of a few cases (*) where the
>> playability of the game improved significantly where (what might be
>> called)
>> a "gaming network card" was used. My thought was to maybe get one of
>> these,
>> hook my wired network into that, and use my existing network card for
>> the wireless. I'm not tied to that idea, it was just something that
>> occurred to
>> me.
>>
>> (*) The reason it's only "a few cases" is because I only know of a few
>> people who have done it. In every one of these cases the playability
>> improved.
>
> depends what you mean... there are basically two kinds of wired or
> wireless network game setups... single and multi/game party... the
> single user one is basically the same as a wire (think game controller
> extension cable but wireless/no cable, ie no dhcp server, no shared
> users on the same segment, etc), while the multi/game party setup is for
> multiple users/controllers, and it has to cycle between em to see if
> they have changed..... a second/seperate card will do that (ie unique
> device, sep network segment etc)
>

I can't give you the technical reasons for the improved performance (heck,
I don't even know the exact cards they used) - but they were all wired
systems running the World of Warcraft client app (connecting to standard
WoW servers).

What I now realize is that I do not know whether or not it involved a
switch from USB to Ethernet. Seeing as how USB isn't usually called a
"network card," and that every computer comes with USB making it likely
that the original setup DID use USB... I'm suspecting that it does.

[JimH]

Linwood Boomer <discount@none.invalid> wrote in
news:ttrd051nuugdohrtufpm91brgemtavg2ca@4ax.com:

> On 9 May 2009 22:31:21 GMT, JimH <nvm@nunya.biz> wrote:
>
>>I was wondering about bridges. I had heard the term but wasn't sure what
>>they were.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethernet_bridge
> Especially the section on Transparent Bridging.
>
>>The router I have only has one jack marked "Internet", the other four
>>jacks are marked 1-4. I wasn't sure whether or not the three unused
>>jacks could only be connected to other computers (to connect them to the
>>one modem). I was of the opinion that they could only be connected to
>>computers - but knew I could easily be mistaken.
>
> The short answer is that the ports labeled 1-4 are part of an Ethernet
> switch and are intended to be connected to PC's or other Ethernet
> devices to make a LAN.
>
> The longer answer is that some routers can be flashed with new
> firmware that allows you to use each port as you wish. My preferred
> firmware is dd-wrt but there are others. The dd-wrt firmware allows
> you to designate more than one port for WAN links, or split the LAN
> links into two or more VLAN's, for example.
>
>

I suspected something along this line. I've been in computing long enough
that I remember hardwired printer switches (where you had to physically turn
a knob to change the setting). With the simplest model, that one device would
allow you either to hook 2 printers to one computer, or 2 computers to one
printer. Cascading them would open up mind boggling possibilities.

The only thing that surprises me about the potential flexibility of a router
is that it doesn't come standard this way from the factory.

[JimH]

Linwood Boomer <discount@none.invalid> wrote in
news:d2ie05l9en52unj50q2gna12266d7m8qdo@4ax.com:

> On 9 May 2009 08:32:30 GMT, JimH <nvm@nunya.biz> wrote:
>
>>What I had hoped might be available might be thought of as a "reverse
>>router." Instead of hooking many computers to one modem, hooking many
>>modems to one computer. (This device could, if someone so desired, be
>>hooked into a router to allow the sharing of multiple modems among
>>multiple computers). The reverse router would have built in load
>>balancing software.
>>
>>The more I think about it... this device, if it exists, would probably
>>be out of my price range anyway.
>
> You just described pfSense. (www.pfsense.org) Actually, you described
> a small part of pfSense, but it excels at what you said above. There's
> a bit of a learning curve when setting it up, but there are many
> tutorials, FAQs, a forum, and more.

I'll definitely check it out, thanks.

>
>>The idea behind having them both was so that I could test out the WiFi
>>without having to commit to it "sight unseen." Or without the hassle of
>>switching the hardware between them during the testing phase.
>>
>>Then, having put it to the test, I could decide whether or not I was
>>satisfied enough with it to cancel my paid internet connection.
>
> I think most of us would agree that free wireless will not be the
> equal of your paid wired connection.
>

The equal? Almost certainly not.

The question is far more subjective than that though. The question, if I
get that far, will be "Is paid wired internet worth that much more to me?"
Or, to rephrase, "Am I willing to pay over $600 a year for the better
service?"

There's no way anyone could possibly answer this question, other than
myself. And I can't make an informed decision until I try it.

[Peter Pan]

"Ron" <Harvested@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:gu7tro$b1p$1@news.motzarella.org...
> Interesting thread. At this point, I hope I'm not hijacking it to ask a
> simpler, but related (I think), question. I have a simple home network of
> two desktop computers both ethernet cabled to a (non-wireless) router
> which is cabled to the cable modem. I'm thinking of replacing that router
> with a wireless one - but one that has the cabling capacity so that I can
> still cable the existing computers (but use the Wifi for a SmartPhone in
> the house).
>
> Question: can this be done so that the desktops are completely insulated
> from wireless intrusion? I understand about encryption, but I'm wondering
> if the router can be configured so there's complete isolation of the wired
> elements from the wireless elements.
>
> Thanks in advance, RonL

easily and cheaply, even walmart sells wap/routers cheaply that do that.....
oddly enuf, while you can just plug a wap into a router, they usually cost
more than just getting a wap/router.....

as for security, most have a network isolation function/feature to keep the
wired/wireless seperate

[Ron]

Thanks, I realize there are routers that incorporate both wired and wireless
capability.

> as for security, most have a network isolation function/feature to keep
> the wired/wireless seperate

Guess my question was is this "function/feature" in the hardware and not
just a software setting? I know you can switch off the wifi, but I'm
wondering if there's a switch designed to *physically* - ie. theoretically -
preclude the possibility of hacking from the wireless side into the wired
side while both are in use. The router descriptions I'vd read so far are
not clear on this point.

[Linwood Boomer]

On 11 May 2009 04:38:54 GMT, JimH <nvm@nunya.biz> wrote:

>The only thing that surprises me about the potential flexibility of a router
>is that it doesn't come standard this way from the factory.

I haven't given it much thought, but it could be that opening up
additional functionality would cause support costs to spiral
exponentially.

[Peter Pan]

"Ron" <Harvested@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:gu961o$20u$1@news.motzarella.org...
> Thanks, I realize there are routers that incorporate both wired and
> wireless capability.
>
>> as for security, most have a network isolation function/feature to keep
>> the wired/wireless seperate
>
> Guess my question was is this "function/feature" in the hardware and not
> just a software setting? I know you can switch off the wifi, but I'm
> wondering if there's a switch designed to *physically* - ie.
> theoretically - preclude the possibility of hacking from the wireless side
> into the wired side while both are in use. The router descriptions I'vd
> read so far are not clear on this point.

both.... it's a hardware function turned on/off by software switch setting
(Think wiring to a light, turned on and off by a light switch, or maybe a
table lamp controlled by a programmable timer)

[Bill Kearney]

> as for security, most have a network isolation function/feature to keep
> the
> wired/wireless seperate

Actually most of the routers only isolate the wireless clients from each
other, not from the wired segment. This to help prevent one wifi client
from sniffing the traffic of others. This does nothing to help protect the
wired side from the wireless, or vice versa.

[John Navas]

On Tue, 12 May 2009 08:52:50 -0400, "Bill Kearney"
<wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in
<K5adnYWXfLC17JTXnZ2dnUVZ_qGdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>:

>> as for security, most have a network isolation function/feature to keep
>> the
>> wired/wireless seperate
>
>Actually most of the routers only isolate the wireless clients from each
>other, not from the wired segment. This to help prevent one wifi client
>from sniffing the traffic of others. This does nothing to help protect the
>wired side from the wireless, or vice versa.

I don't have hard data, but my own take is that "most" don't even have
wireless-to-wireless isolation. Regardless, even wireless-to-wireless
isolation offers only minimal protection, since wireless traffic can
still be sniffed unless WPA Enterprise is used, which is almost never
the case.

As for why wireless routers don't provide better protection, which isn't
terribly hard, blame the press for not focusing on the issue, most (not
all) manufacturers for doing as little as possible, politicians for not
making manufacturers liable for risky products, and us consumers for not
demanding better.

Belkin and ZyXEL are to be commended for offering products with some
real protection; e.g., My Essential G Router ME-1004R
(different WPA passphrases for private and guests), ZyXEL G-2000 Plus
(wireless router with built-in PEAP server).

--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
John FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

[alexd]

Linwood Boomer wrote:

> On 11 May 2009 04:38:54 GMT, JimH <nvm@nunya.biz> wrote:
>
>>The only thing that surprises me about the potential flexibility of a
>>router is that it doesn't come standard this way from the factory.
>
> I haven't given it much thought, but it could be that opening up
> additional functionality would cause support costs to spiral
> exponentially.

A more cynical explanation might be that they don't want to cannibalise
sales of their higher end models.

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx)
21:17:54 up 5 days, 23:35, 1 user, load average: 0.06, 0.14, 0.10
A few flakes working together can unleash an avalanche of destruction

[ps56k]

"Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kurtullman-E5D8D9.07442308052009@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...
> In article <Xns9C052EE824795hahadotdotdot@74.209.136.88>,
>
>> I read yesterday that our city will be getting free wireless internet
>> access
>> (part of Obama's incentive money I gather). What I would like to do is
>> hook
>> my computer up to both the Time Warner cable modem and the wireless
>> internet
>> when it becomes available. Is this possible? If so, what hardware do I
>> need?
>>
>> I realize the second question may be hard to answer with an exact
>> make/model
>> since I don't even know for sure which wifi standard they'll use (I don't
>> even know if THEY know yet). But just knowing what TYPE of hardware is
>> required will help.
>
> Assuming you already have a Wifi card in your computer, you should need
> nothing at all. I read your post as saying you are currently hard wired
> into the modem which means you are using ethernet. If that is the case,
> probably the only thing you would need to do is switch from the ethernet
> to the wifi card. In the Apple this would be done System Prefs->
> network. (I don't have a Windows machine, but there is probably
> something similar there).
>

what city - and what provider ?

most of the muni WiFi attempts have failed....
because the business model was flawed... no real revenue.

We have 2 installed & working systems around here
that have both gone dark,
and the AP's were just left sitting on the lightpoles -

[JimH]

"ps56k" <pschuman_no_spam_me@interserv.com> wrote in news:biHOl.29750
$Ws1.8734@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com:


>
>> I read yesterday that our city will be getting free wireless internet
>> access (part of Obama's incentive money I gather).
>
> what city - and what provider ?
>
> most of the muni WiFi attempts have failed....
> because the business model was flawed... no real revenue.
>
> We have 2 installed & working systems around here
> that have both gone dark,
> and the AP's were just left sitting on the lightpoles -
>

Akron, OH. To the best of my knowledge, no decision about the provider has
been made yet.

[LR]

On 14/05/2009 00:02, JimH wrote:
> "ps56k"<pschuman_no_spam_me@interserv.com> wrote in news:biHOl.29750
> $Ws1.8734@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com:
>
>
>>> I read yesterday that our city will be getting free wireless internet
>>> access (part of Obama's incentive money I gather).
>> what city - and what provider ?
>>
>> most of the muni WiFi attempts have failed....
>> because the business model was flawed... no real revenue.
>>
>> We have 2 installed& working systems around here
>> that have both gone dark,
>> and the AP's were just left sitting on the lightpoles -
>>
>
> Akron, OH. To the best of my knowledge, no decision about the provider has
> been made yet.

Nothing to do with these?
<http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/01/akron-ohio-to-provide-free-citywide-wifi-inevitably-fail-withi/>
<http://www.onecommunity.org/news/pressdetail.aspx?id=668>

"Akron Wireless Corridor construction to start in April; network to
launch by fall

The Akron Wireless Project is on track for a late summer 2009 launch.
OneCommunity is currently completing the design phase, and construction
will begin in April. The project will bring wireless connectivity to
8-12 square miles of the city and enable Akron to pilot a broadband
public safety network."
<http://view.exacttarget.com/?j=fe5d157976630d7e7415&m=fef01777726c02&ls=fdec1278736604787d157872&l=fe9315717261007a76&s=fdfb1574736605757716727d&jb=ffcf14&ju=fe27167270610574721677>

[JimH]

LR <lrme@privacy.net> wrote in
news:I8-dnUHO_4-wX5bXnZ2dnUVZ8oudnZ2d@bt.com:

> On 14/05/2009 00:02, JimH wrote:
>> "ps56k"<pschuman_no_spam_me@interserv.com> wrote in news:biHOl.29750
>> $Ws1.8734@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com:
>>
>>
>>>> I read yesterday that our city will be getting free wireless internet
>>>> access (part of Obama's incentive money I gather).
>>> what city - and what provider ?
>>>
>>> most of the muni WiFi attempts have failed....
>>> because the business model was flawed... no real revenue.
>>>
>>> We have 2 installed& working systems around here
>>> that have both gone dark,
>>> and the AP's were just left sitting on the lightpoles -
>>>
>>
>> Akron, OH. To the best of my knowledge, no decision about the provider
>> has been made yet.
>
> Nothing to do with these?
> <http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/01/akron-ohio-to-provide-free-citywide-w
> ifi-inevitably-fail-withi/>
> <http://www.onecommunity.org/news/pressdetail.aspx?id=668>
>
> "Akron Wireless Corridor construction to start in April; network to
> launch by fall
>
> The Akron Wireless Project is on track for a late summer 2009 launch.
> OneCommunity is currently completing the design phase, and construction
> will begin in April. The project will bring wireless connectivity to
> 8-12 square miles of the city and enable Akron to pilot a broadband
> public safety network."
> <http://view.exacttarget.com/?j=fe5d157976630d7e7415&m=fef01777726c02&ls=
> fdec1278736604787d157872&l=fe9315717261007a76&s=fdfb1574736605757716727d&
> jb=ffcf14&ju=fe27167270610574721677>
>
>
>

Yeah, that's it. To project failure at this point is premature. That's not
to suggest it's any more likely to succeed here than it did everywhere
else, but there will never be success anywhere if no one tries.

I live less than 2 miles from downtown - in a section already identified as
being among the first to receive service.

If you'll notice, no ISP was mentioned.

As for the completion date... yeah, right. It's a government project. :)

[LR]

On 14/05/2009 09:47, JimH wrote:

>
> If you'll notice, no ISP was mentioned.
>
Surely that is "OneCommunity"

"AKRON, Ohio - Akron City Council unanimously passed an ordinance last
night authorizing Akron Mayor Donald L. Plusquellic to enter into an
agreement with technology nonprofit OneCommunity to establish a network
that will provide wireless Internet connectivity in an 11-square-mile
area of Akron."

"OneCommunity connects nearly 1,000 public and nonprofit institutions
via its fiber-optic broadband network - one of the largest and fastest
in the world"

[JimH]

LR <lrme@privacy.net> wrote in news:cISdnSLWE9yxqZHXnZ2dnUVZ8sudnZ2d@bt.com:

> On 14/05/2009 09:47, JimH wrote:
>
>>
>> If you'll notice, no ISP was mentioned.
>>
> Surely that is "OneCommunity"
>
> "AKRON, Ohio - Akron City Council unanimously passed an ordinance last
> night authorizing Akron Mayor Donald L. Plusquellic to enter into an
> agreement with technology nonprofit OneCommunity to establish a network
> that will provide wireless Internet connectivity in an 11-square-mile
> area of Akron."
>
> "OneCommunity connects nearly 1,000 public and nonprofit institutions
> via its fiber-optic broadband network - one of the largest and fastest
> in the world"
>
>
>

As near as I can tell, they're just a Wide Area Network provider. I
anticipate that this is the company that will connect the various
transponders together. There's no mention of what company is providing the
actual link to the internet.

[John Navas]

On 14 May 2009 08:47:12 GMT, JimH <nvm@nunya.biz> wrote in
<Xns9C0B30B19D58hahadotdotdot@74.209.136.82>:

>Yeah, that's it. To project failure at this point is premature. That's not
>to suggest it's any more likely to succeed here than it did everywhere
>else, but there will never be success anywhere if no one tries.

"Insanity consists of doing the same thing over and over,
hoping for a different result."

[JimH]

John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:dqht05pdig1tp0ck47bl7ooqmacqomc7a8@4ax.com:

> On 14 May 2009 08:47:12 GMT, JimH <nvm@nunya.biz> wrote in
> <Xns9C0B30B19D58hahadotdotdot@74.209.136.82>:
>
>>Yeah, that's it. To project failure at this point is premature. That's not
>>to suggest it's any more likely to succeed here than it did everywhere
>>else, but there will never be success anywhere if no one tries.
>
> "Insanity consists of doing the same thing over and over,
> hoping for a different result."
>

Insanity is doing the same thing **the same way** over and over, hoping for a
different result

Perseverance is trying the same thing a different way.

[John Navas]

On 16 May 2009 22:45:53 GMT, JimH <nvm@nunya.biz> wrote in
<Xns9C0DBEE27AF0Bhahadotdotdot@74.209.136.82>:

>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>news:dqht05pdig1tp0ck47bl7ooqmacqomc7a8@4ax.com:
>
>> On 14 May 2009 08:47:12 GMT, JimH <nvm@nunya.biz> wrote in
>> <Xns9C0B30B19D58hahadotdotdot@74.209.136.82>:
>>
>>>Yeah, that's it. To project failure at this point is premature. That's not
>>>to suggest it's any more likely to succeed here than it did everywhere
>>>else, but there will never be success anywhere if no one tries.
>>
>> "Insanity consists of doing the same thing over and over,
>> hoping for a different result."
>
>Insanity is doing the same thing **the same way** over and over, hoping for a
>different result
>
>Perseverance is trying the same thing a different way.

Perseverance alone is not a winning strategy,
and what they are doing the same thing **the same way**.
The concept is fundamentally flawed.

--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
John FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>