# wireless routers



## fordson major (Jul 12, 2003)

we are about to embark on a new server offering wireless dsl, we would like to hook up a wireless router to service all our computers in the other buildings here but have some concerns over signal through walls. our house is stucco coated over a cement lath, will this limit signal? whats the best wireless router?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

The stucco shouldn't make a problem within your house, as long as you're within 100 feet of the router.

Brand shouldn't matter. They all do the same thing. You might look at different technologies though. Most people are using wireless G technology today, which normally operates at 54 megabits/second with a range of 100 feet. There is a new technology that operates at 300 megabits/second with a range of 160 feet called wireless N, but it is still a little pricey right now. Ask at your local computer store.


----------



## OntarioMan (Feb 11, 2007)

In my experience : any wall regardless of what it is made of will weaken the wireless signall strength. The more walls the signal travels through, the weaker the signal. The more dense the walls, the weaker the signal.

You do not need 100% signal strength to connect wireless - you only need an "acceptable" signal strength - speed may be reduced, but speed is not usually the primary concern.

It really depends on wireless obstacles, the distance from the wireless source and the wireless "standard" (i.e. 802.11b,g,n).

Since most folks use wireless to allow multiple computers to connect to the internet, speed is not the primary concern (since even slow wireless speed is faster than most internet connections). What you are concerned with is "coverage" or signal strength. As mentioned, 802.11n will have more coverage and a greater signal strength when compared to 802.11g. 

Prices of 802.11n equipment have fallen - I was at Costco the other day and a Belkin 802.11n router and matching USB wireless card was about $80 for the pair (as a kit).

I suppose the best approach is to just "try it" - connect the wireless router and use a laptop in the different buildings. If the signal strength is too weak, there are other options which can be added to your system to increase coverage - such as outdoor antennas, directional antennas, etc.


----------



## Gary in ohio (May 11, 2002)

You can always put in more than 1 wireless router in your building and link that back via a wired connection. This is often a better way to serve a large building that relying on weak signals.


----------



## lharvey (Jul 1, 2003)

Agree with Gary.

If the building is large enough to have to worry about it then a couple of WAP (Wireless Access Points) may be called for.

Cisco offers several solutions with power over ethernet. Many of your larger outfits do this to provide coverage over large footprints and multiple floors.

L


----------



## OntarioMan (Feb 11, 2007)

From the original post, it appears as if he is attempting to get wireless in several seperate buildings - in which case, things can get more complicated if the original signal will not reach from its source. 

Yes, you can run wired ethernet to those buildings and install access points, but most often it is cheaper and easier to "bridge" the buildings with wireless.

"Powerline" type products may work as well to connect the seperate buildings - I've used a few different brands of these and they work well.


----------



## Gary in ohio (May 11, 2002)

As a general notion, your consumer grade wireless router isnt going to work much beyond what would be a typical home. Since it sounds like you have several building and more than a plug an play environment, I would advise that you get lan designer to build it right. Nothing is worse that a half-ass wireless system.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Gary in ohio said:


> I would advise that you get lan designer to build it right.


While a LAN designer would, of course, be best it's most likely beyond his budget. Perhaps if he were to be more specific about the layout of the area where he needs connectivity we could provide more specific help.

If a 100 feet radius won't be satisfactory he could consider increasing it to 160 feet by going with wireless N. With longer distances, up to 300 feet, he might consider connecting two locations with Cat 5e network cable and provide wireless access points at each end.

For even longer distances, some people still use thinnet coax to connect up to 500 feet at 10 megabits, which is a little slow for many LAN applications but perfectly satisfactory for sharing Internet. You can still find economical thinnet gear at eBay.

A LAN designer is likely to recommend fiber, but I'm not going to go there in this forum.


----------



## fordson major (Jul 12, 2003)

thanks for the input!! we have 3 other buildings currently hooked into the internet and would like to keep them hooked in but increase the speed of their hook up (plus don't want two servers, one being the dial up we now have!) gives me some idea of the questions i have to ask (way more knowledgeable bout tractors than putors!) have a buddy that can help design a lan, he speaks (and writes) puter gobbly ****, just right now is in arizona visiting kin till christmas.


----------



## Gary in ohio (May 11, 2002)

Nevada said:


> If a 100 feet radius won't be satisfactory he could consider increasing it to 160 feet by going with wireless N. With longer distances, up to 300 feet, he might consider connecting two locations with Cat 5e network cable and provide wireless access points at each end.
> 
> 
> > Problem is both ranges are based on single wirless devices. Once you have more than one wireless device accessing a router you start to get into hidden transmitter issues and speed goes down.
> ...


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Gary in ohio said:


> If you need 500ft then cat5 or cat 6 is fine, YOu need quality cable but it will work fine.


I stand corrected, cat 5e is rated for more than I remembered. While cat 5 is only rated at 100 meters (about 325 feet), cat 5e is rated at 350 meters (about 1150 feet). Most network cable available on the market today is cat 5e, so as long as none of the buildings are more than 1/4 mile away distance shouldn't be a problem.


----------



## OntarioMan (Feb 11, 2007)

How many building and how far are each of them from the house? Are the detached buildings physically close together?



ford major said:


> thanks for the input!! we have 3 other buildings currently hooked into the internet and would like to keep them hooked in but increase the speed of their hook up (plus don't want two servers, one being the dial up we now have!) gives me some idea of the questions i have to ask (way more knowledgeable bout tractors than putors!) have a buddy that can help design a lan, he speaks (and writes) puter gobbly ****, just right now is in arizona visiting kin till christmas.


----------



## fordson major (Jul 12, 2003)

OntarioMan said:


> How many building and how far are each of them from the house? Are the detached buildings physically close together?


the most distant is less than 300 feet away. all in a half circle with our house one end of the arch and the other buildings spread along the way between 60 to 70 feet between buildings.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

ford major said:


> the most distant is less than 300 feet away. all in a half circle with our house one end of the arch and the other buildings spread along the way between 60 to 70 feet between buildings.


To have a single wireless access point you'll have to get wireless N and place the wireless hub/router in the middle of the approximately 300 foot span.

What is the purpose of the wireless network? Are you trying to provide roaming access to the entire area, or are you trying to connect several stationary computers without the need for cable?

If you tell us exactly what you're trying to accomplish someone might have a better solution for you.


----------



## Gary in ohio (May 11, 2002)

Maybe the question should be, do you need wireless at all? I know your DSL will come in via a wirless ISP, but once onsite do you need to be wireless? How many computers, portable or fixed? How many computers active at any one time?


----------



## OntarioMan (Feb 11, 2007)

IMO, I doubt that one wireless router or one access point, regardless of what or where it is, will do the job. Too far, too many buildings and walls.

Point to multi-point wireless bridging with outdoor antennas would work, and would probably be the easiest to install - but, this gentleman has already stated that he is not a geek - and would probably be best served with something simpler and less geeky. Since I doubt there is concrete between the buildings, its probably just less complicated to install direct burial ethernet cable to each building - and install seperate wireless access points.

A quick search shows direct burial cat5e at about $160 for 1000' + shipping - so aside from the labour and rental of a trencher - the whole system would be fairly inexpensive - and its difficult to beat wired for reliability.


----------

