Extending WiFi to detached gargage
- Thread starter esburger
- Start date
wyliesdiesels
Well-known member
I beg to differ as well. I install wireless networks for a living.
U apparently have never setup high speed microwave wireless links- both high powered and low powered.
About a year and half ago I installed a high-powered 11Ghz microwave link for google that spanned 10miles. It ran at a solid 500Mbps and google was throttled at 250Mbps for their internet.
About a year ago I setup a 45mile wireless link with ubiquiti AirFibers. This was with the 5Ghz version and had a solid 100Mbps full duplex!
And more recently, i finished an AirFiber P2P ring with 12 AirFibers operating on 24Ghz at over 1Gbps. This network has auto redundancy built-in so that if one AirFiber goes down, the traffic goes in the opposite direction from both sides.
HD CCTV video, VOIP phones, and internet is all ran through this without a hickup!
Ive setup countless P2P with low power radios that were VERY decent and worked flawlessly with excellent bandwidth.
The point is that wireless links can and are used reliably and with excellent bandwidth all over the place.
I use to work for a WISP that provides internet wirelessly to customers. We primarily used Ubiquiti radios to do this.
Ummm YOU said that! See above. Apparently u cant remember your own quotes! Lets not name call. If it continues the admins will lock and close the thread and this is a good one.
Last edited:
ishiboo
Well-known member
I only have DSL where I live, and it was awful. My wireless comes from a 4000' NanoBeam link which has had 100% (not even five nines) uptime and way more throughput than I need. To cable it would have cost 30 times as much, and I'm guessing require way more gear and introduce more reliability issues.
My barn is 100' from my house. I have 4 Cat6's in 2" conduit between it. If I had to link it again, it'd probably be wireless.
My barn is 100' from my house. I have 4 Cat6's in 2" conduit between it. If I had to link it again, it'd probably be wireless.
streetdaddy
Well-known member
I ran cat 5 from my router out to my garage. What product do i need out there to throw a strong wifi signal?
Right now im in no man's land. Too far for good wifi, but close enough for it to keep trying!
I was going to hardwire a sonos for music, but want a strong wireless signal for face timing the folks.
Right now im in no man's land. Too far for good wifi, but close enough for it to keep trying!
I was going to hardwire a sonos for music, but want a strong wireless signal for face timing the folks.
wyliesdiesels
Well-known member
U need a wireless access point or a wireless router.
Add one of these attached to the wired network inside the garage. Program it with same ssid and WPA2 key as the house and stuff will switch back and forth automatically as you walk back and forth.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00O4UJHCO/?tag=atomicindus08-20
wyliesdiesels
Well-known member
If he uses that, then he wont have any ethernet ports and would need to buy a switch as well.
Better to just buy a wireless router.
Screwdriver
Well-known member
wyliesdiesels
Well-known member
One of what?
An airFiber?
U can buy them on amazon as well as other places.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00LV...s=airfiber&dpPl=1&dpID=41nnkb0S6AL&ref=plSrch
But theyre for long distance links.
If u used it for a couple hundred foot link at your shed, u would have to turn the power all the way down and they may still be overloaded.
A nano station or rocket m with an omni would suit u better.
An airFiber?
U can buy them on amazon as well as other places.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00LV...s=airfiber&dpPl=1&dpID=41nnkb0S6AL&ref=plSrch
But theyre for long distance links.
If u used it for a couple hundred foot link at your shed, u would have to turn the power all the way down and they may still be overloaded.
A nano station or rocket m with an omni would suit u better.
Screwdriver
Well-known member
No mate. You can’t be selective with quotes with me, or change history. You said:
So let me ask again; which bullshitter is saying you can’t get a decent connection with wireless, apart from you?
When I say:
That is NOT the same as your insulting comment above. Would you like me to draw a venn diagram?
S.
Screwdriver
Well-known member
Awesome, I can save myself a tenner on cable and blow a grand on wireless.
Brilliant. So tell me. If I replace my current wired ethernet with a wireless link, is my connectivity going to be better?
wyliesdiesels
Well-known member
Man i feel like im in the twilight zone. U said it yourself in comment #72!!!
Go back and read what u wrote!!! Or see below!!
Screwdriver
Well-known member
These two sentences do not relate to each other. In fact, the part of the quote you’re quite happy to edit out specifically states that “there are a thousand ways to rig up a satisfactory wireless solution”.
Some posters then go on to suggest that they can burn a hole in the ozone layer with a Full Duplex Point-to-Point Gigabit Radio system costing thousands. Yeah that’s amazing but this is a couple of hundred feet out to the shed.
And this is what gets my goat. Yes there are a thousand ways you can make a wireless bridge work for you but we’re shed heads aren’t we? we just want a switch it on and never mind the welder network in our sheds. Not a state of the art system more suitable for a college campus.
So the egg heads fight it out over the “best” way to provide a simple connection between two points. The simple truth of the matter is, a cable is the best option wherever a physical wired connection is possible.
I’m hoping someone will prove me wrong and tell me I would be better off taking out my cable and converting the system to a wireless connection. No? I din’t think so…
S.
wyliesdiesels
Well-known member
The fact that u said "theres only one way you'll get a decent solid network and thats with a cable." MEANS that wireless networking is NOT a decent connection.
U used 2 words- satisfactory and decent. Both can be had with wireless networking.
But u seem to think that satisfactory and decent are different when it comes to wireless.
U used 2 words- satisfactory and decent. Both can be had with wireless networking.
But u seem to think that satisfactory and decent are different when it comes to wireless.
Screwdriver
Well-known member
I am talking directly to the OP who I assume (perhaps exclusively in this forum) is not a networking guru. You want to run a decent, solid network connection to a shed/workshop then unless you're one of the (many) networking geeks on here, you're going to be better off with a wired connection.
What is the difference between the two solutions? One is a length of copper, plug it into your router, job done. Switch off, switch on at either end and the connection is always going to be there.
With a wireless solution, you have to introduce a secondary system into that otherwise simple connection. That fact alone means more complication, which equals less reliability. Also with a WiFi connection, the IP address routing is invariably now handled by a different system to your home router, meaning complex setup to achieve a nice easy static IP for say a bunch of IPTV cameras you want to access via the www. I may be clutching at straws here but I also assume welding and/or noisy machinery motors are going to play havoc with a WiFi or radio bridge.
Anyhow, I am genuinely interested in the answer: if I rip out my lovely solid and reliable CATV cable and replace it with a WiFi/radio bridge, is my connectivity going to be better?
S.
What is the difference between the two solutions? One is a length of copper, plug it into your router, job done. Switch off, switch on at either end and the connection is always going to be there.
With a wireless solution, you have to introduce a secondary system into that otherwise simple connection. That fact alone means more complication, which equals less reliability. Also with a WiFi connection, the IP address routing is invariably now handled by a different system to your home router, meaning complex setup to achieve a nice easy static IP for say a bunch of IPTV cameras you want to access via the www. I may be clutching at straws here but I also assume welding and/or noisy machinery motors are going to play havoc with a WiFi or radio bridge.
Anyhow, I am genuinely interested in the answer: if I rip out my lovely solid and reliable CATV cable and replace it with a WiFi/radio bridge, is my connectivity going to be better?
S.
wyliesdiesels
Well-known member
This statement alone tells me that u dont know what youre talking about.
When u do a wireless P2P the radios dont act as a DHCP server and hand out IP addresses. So there is no "IP address routing is invariably now handled by a different system to your home router, meaning complex setup to achieve a nice easy static IP".
Second, static IP addresses are set on the host (computer, TV, CCTV camera(there is no such thing as an IPTV camera. IPTV is digital TV over an internet connection such as Uverse, which I have). Routers with DHCP capability hand out IP addresses when hosts request them but they dont hand out static IPs
If u want to talk complexity, to be able to setup remote access so u can view devices such as CCTV cameras, port forwarding needs to be setup. For a novice this can be complex.
Welding and motors dont cause issues with wireless signals. I have wireless networks working just fine in environments with equipment such as that.
And in answer to your question, CATV is cable TV, which is TV broadcast over coxial cable. CATV isnt a medium that can be broadcast over an ethernet or wireless network without a converter to convert to ethernet signal.
Do u have any other incorrect information u wish to amuse us with?
As for switching from copper wired to wireless, define better. yes u can get a faster connection with wireless vs. copper wired.
Screwdriver
Well-known member
Haha. Busted. Yes I am the idiot referred to in the above.
In my defence, I was many years ago a BBC broadcast engineer and whenever we ran a network or an ethernet bridge it was over CATV. In the above post I actually used the "V" as a "5". It's been years since I had to engineer any of that stuff myself.
When you refer to static IP, I remind viewers any installation at the shed end will most likely involve a secondary router which must be carefully configured to avoid the issue of DHCP allocation being confused between the two routers.
Finally I have no doubt you can "get a faster connection" with wireless. Question is; where are you going to get that from? At some point (in the home) your local network is going to present itself on a regular CAT5/RJ45 connector and you can either (a) plug your shed into that directly with a cable or (b) introduce another system to form a wireless bridge. Such a bridge cannot possibly make a "faster" or "better" connection than copper because the source is the limiting factor and the source is (typically) wired.
All of this tech nonsense because I made a simple statement that (in my opinion) in the context of a typical shed user wanting to run a network from their home (router) out to a shed (within 150 feet) they would be much better off with cable.
But yes, it's been years since I had to work with this stuff and even when I did, it was in the television industry and I am not a network engineer (though I could probably find a fair few certificates to suggest that I am qualified LOL). So my opinion on this matter is, as you suggest, somewhat reduced.
In my defence, I was many years ago a BBC broadcast engineer and whenever we ran a network or an ethernet bridge it was over CATV. In the above post I actually used the "V" as a "5". It's been years since I had to engineer any of that stuff myself.
When you refer to static IP, I remind viewers any installation at the shed end will most likely involve a secondary router which must be carefully configured to avoid the issue of DHCP allocation being confused between the two routers.
Finally I have no doubt you can "get a faster connection" with wireless. Question is; where are you going to get that from? At some point (in the home) your local network is going to present itself on a regular CAT5/RJ45 connector and you can either (a) plug your shed into that directly with a cable or (b) introduce another system to form a wireless bridge. Such a bridge cannot possibly make a "faster" or "better" connection than copper because the source is the limiting factor and the source is (typically) wired.
All of this tech nonsense because I made a simple statement that (in my opinion) in the context of a typical shed user wanting to run a network from their home (router) out to a shed (within 150 feet) they would be much better off with cable.
But yes, it's been years since I had to work with this stuff and even when I did, it was in the television industry and I am not a network engineer (though I could probably find a fair few certificates to suggest that I am qualified LOL). So my opinion on this matter is, as you suggest, somewhat reduced.
edcantu9
Well-known member
I thought I was going to need some sort of solution to extending the wifi to the garage. I ended up just moving the computer around the garage and it made a difference of 10Mbs just moving it from one side to another of the garage!
Dragfluid
ALLIANCE MEMBER
Haha. Busted. Yes I am the idiot referred to in the above.
In my defence, I was many years ago a BBC broadcast engineer and
Oh, so you worked on Monty Python?
jomobco
Well-known member
Haha. Busted.
When you refer to static IP, I remind viewers any installation at the shed end will most likely involve a secondary router which must be carefully configured to avoid the issue of DHCP allocation being confused between the two routers.
Bridge mode - easy peasy IMO. Not so complicated anymore.
wyliesdiesels
Well-known member
Haha. Busted. Yes I am the idiot referred to in the above.
In my defence, I was many years ago a BBC broadcast engineer and whenever we ran a network or an ethernet bridge it was over CATV. In the above post I actually used the "V" as a "5". It's been years since I had to engineer any of that stuff myself.
When you refer to static IP, I remind viewers any installation at the shed end will most likely involve a secondary router which must be carefully configured to avoid the issue of DHCP allocation being confused between the two routers.
Finally I have no doubt you can "get a faster connection" with wireless. Question is; where are you going to get that from? At some point (in the home) your local network is going to present itself on a regular CAT5/RJ45 connector and you can either (a) plug your shed into that directly with a cable or (b) introduce another system to form a wireless bridge. Such a bridge cannot possibly make a "faster" or "better" connection than copper because the source is the limiting factor and the source is (typically) wired.
All of this tech nonsense because I made a simple statement that (in my opinion) in the context of a typical shed user wanting to run a network from their home (router) out to a shed (within 150 feet) they would be much better off with cable.
But yes, it's been years since I had to work with this stuff and even when I did, it was in the television industry and I am not a network engineer (though I could probably find a fair few certificates to suggest that I am qualified LOL). So my opinion on this matter is, as you suggest, somewhat reduced.
thats easy. U simply turn DHCP allocation off. All DHCP allocated IP addresses wil be handled by the router in the home.
I forgot the cable in my trench too and I am equally unhappy with myself for not placing a compressed air line to my house in the trench. I learned a huge trick the other day, once i got WiFi I found an old cell phone that had no cell service on it and put it in airplane mode to trick it into thinking it was still working, turned on the WiFi and connected it to my stereo...now I can play pandora on a dedicated device that was otherwise a worthless old cell phone without having to search for my phone or tablet and fiddle with getting it going for music.
The other thing to keep in mind when deciding "wireless vs cable" to an outbuilding is that by running Cat 5 or 6 underground between buildings, you are creating a parallel metallic ground path back to the first building. I know tons of people have done it and have gotten away with it, but the fact remains that you are introducing a way for lightning strikes to fry your electronics in BOTH buildings by doing so.
You rolls the dice, you takes your chances...
Wireless or fiber optic eliminate the electrical connection.
You rolls the dice, you takes your chances...
Wireless or fiber optic eliminate the electrical connection.