2Wire vs. others --extended range??

I've heard several people lately talk about the extended range of
2WIRE wireless modem/router products.
One person told me that they had no coldspots in a 3 story building
and could get the signal 600ft outside when the 2wire was near a
window. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I'm trying to get a good
wireless signal in a 5 story building less than 70 ft. tall and wide -
with lots of walls. Some of our offices are also going to be moving
and I'm trying to decide on wireless vs. hardwired.

Does anyone have experience using 2Wire vs. another standard AP, such
as D-Link/Linksys?

Has anyone used a 2Wire to cover 3+ floors or where there are lots of
walls and other barriers?

-john smith

When will we see 1 watt (at the legeal power limit) wifi cards?

Mine does 125 mWatt currently, there are 200 mWatt cards out there today and
theyre only gona get more power.



"John Smith" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) m...
> I've heard several people lately talk about the extended range of
> 2WIRE wireless modem/router products.
> One person told me that they had no coldspots in a 3 story building
> and could get the signal 600ft outside when the 2wire was near a
> window. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I'm trying to get a good
> wireless signal in a 5 story building less than 70 ft. tall and wide -
> with lots of walls. Some of our offices are also going to be moving
> and I'm trying to decide on wireless vs. hardwired.
>
> Does anyone have experience using 2Wire vs. another standard AP, such
> as D-Link/Linksys?
>
> Has anyone used a 2Wire to cover 3+ floors or where there are lots of
> walls and other barriers?
>
> -john smith

Water pipes would stop alot of the signal.

"." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:hcBPb.45681$(E-Mail Removed)...
> When will we see 1 watt (at the legeal power limit) wifi cards?
>
> Mine does 125 mWatt currently, there are 200 mWatt cards out there today
and
> theyre only gona get more power.
>
>
>
> "John Smith" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) m...
> > I've heard several people lately talk about the extended range of
> > 2WIRE wireless modem/router products.
> > One person told me that they had no coldspots in a 3 story building
> > and could get the signal 600ft outside when the 2wire was near a
> > window. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I'm trying to get a good
> > wireless signal in a 5 story building less than 70 ft. tall and wide -
> > with lots of walls. Some of our offices are also going to be moving
> > and I'm trying to decide on wireless vs. hardwired.
> >
> > Does anyone have experience using 2Wire vs. another standard AP, such
> > as D-Link/Linksys?
> >
> > Has anyone used a 2Wire to cover 3+ floors or where there are lots of
> > walls and other barriers?
> >
> > -john smith
>
>

1Watt? thats quite a bit of power, not quite what the FCC quite had in
mind!

imagine thousands of CB'ers with each a 25watt burner on!! = too much
interference, it would be manic, it could not work and would cause many
problems for other users within YOUR signal area

Stick to FCC regs for your country UK100mw StateSide200mw (from what I have
read/remember)
I cant imagine for a million years that the FCC will increase the power.. i
wouldnt wait for it.

Even with Legal power PCMCIA card / access points/ whatever (100-200mw) can
still be taken over the edge of legality with the use of an antenna with too
much gain, an antenuator system must be used to bring power levels to a
legal limmits. It is possible (i guess) it could have simalar effects to the
item below (in extremity! of course)

i am aware of burners (power boosters) for the 802.11, but i think that the
users of these devices are quite aware of the problems that they can cause
if in the wrong hands, at a guess, the boosters are for "backbone long
distance" type???

Or go Licenced?
I will be looking into that area soon (just to see the red tape)

Regards
Alan

"." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:hcBPb.45681$(E-Mail Removed)...
> When will we see 1 watt (at the legeal power limit) wifi cards?
>
> Mine does 125 mWatt currently, there are 200 mWatt cards out there today
and
> theyre only gona get more power.
>
>
>
> "John Smith" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) m...
> > I've heard several people lately talk about the extended range of
> > 2WIRE wireless modem/router products.
> > One person told me that they had no coldspots in a 3 story building
> > and could get the signal 600ft outside when the 2wire was near a
> > window. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I'm trying to get a good
> > wireless signal in a 5 story building less than 70 ft. tall and wide -
> > with lots of walls. Some of our offices are also going to be moving
> > and I'm trying to decide on wireless vs. hardwired.
> >
> > Does anyone have experience using 2Wire vs. another standard AP, such
> > as D-Link/Linksys?
> >
> > Has anyone used a 2Wire to cover 3+ floors or where there are lots of
> > walls and other barriers?
> >
> > -john smith
>
>

In article <bumql9$tq6$(E-Mail Removed)>,
Alan <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
:1Watt? thats quite a bit of power, not quite what the FCC quite had in
:mind!

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...2000&TYPE=TEXT

FCC 15.247

(b) The maximum peak output power of the intentional radiator shall
not exceed the following:
(1) For frequency hopping systems in the 2400-2483.5 MHz band
employing at least 75 hopping channels, all frequency hopping systems in
the 5725-5850 MHz band, and all direct sequence systems: 1 watt. For all
other frequency hopping systems in the 2400-2483.5 MHz band: 0.125
watts.


(3) Except as shown in paragraphs (b)(3) (i), (ii) and (iii) of this
section, if transmitting antennas of directional gain greater than 6 dBi
are used the peak output power from the intentional radiator shall be
reduced below the stated values in paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this
section, as appropriate, by the amount in dB that the directional gain
of the antenna exceeds 6 dBi.
(i) Systems operating in the 2400-2483.5 MHz band that are used
exclusively for fixed, point-to-point operations may employ transmitting
antennas with directional gain greater than 6 dBi provided the maximum
peak output power of the intentional radiator is reduced by 1 dB for
every 3 dB that the directional gain of the antenna exceeds 6 dBi.


[This table was useful!
http://www.demarctech.com/techsupport/ism-info.html ]

Note that 6 dBi on 1 Watt output gives 4 Watts EIRP.

Also note that if the link is point to point, then there is no limit
to the EIRP -- e.g., if you were to drop 10 dBi in transmitting power, you
could increase the directional gain by 30 dBi to a total of 36 dBi.
Or so I read it.
--
This is not the same .sig the second time you read it.

USA != world

I read somewhere that 1000 (30 dBm) was the legal limit on the unregulated
2.4 ghz


"Walter Roberson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:bun0hi$rlk$(E-Mail Removed)...
> In article <bumql9$tq6$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Alan <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> :1Watt? thats quite a bit of power, not quite what the FCC quite had in
> :mind!
>
>
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...ART=15&SECTION
=247&YEAR=2000&TYPE=TEXT
>
> FCC 15.247
>
> (b) The maximum peak output power of the intentional radiator shall
> not exceed the following:
> (1) For frequency hopping systems in the 2400-2483.5 MHz band
> employing at least 75 hopping channels, all frequency hopping systems in
> the 5725-5850 MHz band, and all direct sequence systems: 1 watt. For all
> other frequency hopping systems in the 2400-2483.5 MHz band: 0.125
> watts.
>
>
> (3) Except as shown in paragraphs (b)(3) (i), (ii) and (iii) of this
> section, if transmitting antennas of directional gain greater than 6 dBi
> are used the peak output power from the intentional radiator shall be
> reduced below the stated values in paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this
> section, as appropriate, by the amount in dB that the directional gain
> of the antenna exceeds 6 dBi.
> (i) Systems operating in the 2400-2483.5 MHz band that are used
> exclusively for fixed, point-to-point operations may employ transmitting
> antennas with directional gain greater than 6 dBi provided the maximum
> peak output power of the intentional radiator is reduced by 1 dB for
> every 3 dB that the directional gain of the antenna exceeds 6 dBi.
>
>
> [This table was useful!
> http://www.demarctech.com/techsupport/ism-info.html ]
>
> Note that 6 dBi on 1 Watt output gives 4 Watts EIRP.
>
> Also note that if the link is point to point, then there is no limit
> to the EIRP -- e.g., if you were to drop 10 dBi in transmitting power, you
> could increase the directional gain by 30 dBi to a total of 36 dBi.
> Or so I read it.
> --
> This is not the same .sig the second time you read it.

802.11 channels != FCC; 802.11 == IEEE

The channels on 802.11 2.4ghz have nothing to do with the FCC (or any ohter
body except the IEEE)

I can pump out ANYTHING as long as its within power on ANY band and any
shape within the 2.4 ghz range.

200 mWatt cards are out there, mine is 125 mWatt, I read somewhere referring
to 1000 mWatt as the limit on the 2.4 ghz band.


"Walter Roberson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:bun0hi$rlk$(E-Mail Removed)...
> In article <bumql9$tq6$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Alan <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> :1Watt? thats quite a bit of power, not quite what the FCC quite had in
> :mind!
>
>
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...ART=15&SECTION
=247&YEAR=2000&TYPE=TEXT
>
> FCC 15.247
>
> (b) The maximum peak output power of the intentional radiator shall
> not exceed the following:
> (1) For frequency hopping systems in the 2400-2483.5 MHz band
> employing at least 75 hopping channels, all frequency hopping systems in
> the 5725-5850 MHz band, and all direct sequence systems: 1 watt. For all
> other frequency hopping systems in the 2400-2483.5 MHz band: 0.125
> watts.
>
>
> (3) Except as shown in paragraphs (b)(3) (i), (ii) and (iii) of this
> section, if transmitting antennas of directional gain greater than 6 dBi
> are used the peak output power from the intentional radiator shall be
> reduced below the stated values in paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this
> section, as appropriate, by the amount in dB that the directional gain
> of the antenna exceeds 6 dBi.
> (i) Systems operating in the 2400-2483.5 MHz band that are used
> exclusively for fixed, point-to-point operations may employ transmitting
> antennas with directional gain greater than 6 dBi provided the maximum
> peak output power of the intentional radiator is reduced by 1 dB for
> every 3 dB that the directional gain of the antenna exceeds 6 dBi.
>
>
> [This table was useful!
> http://www.demarctech.com/techsupport/ism-info.html ]
>
> Note that 6 dBi on 1 Watt output gives 4 Watts EIRP.
>
> Also note that if the link is point to point, then there is no limit
> to the EIRP -- e.g., if you were to drop 10 dBi in transmitting power, you
> could increase the directional gain by 30 dBi to a total of 36 dBi.
> Or so I read it.
> --
> This is not the same .sig the second time you read it.

"blah" wrote:

> 802.11 channels != FCC; 802.11 == IEEE
>
> The channels on 802.11 2.4ghz have nothing to do with the FCC (or any
> ohter body except the IEEE)
>
> I can pump out ANYTHING as long as its within power on ANY band and any
> shape within the 2.4 ghz range.
>
> 200 mWatt cards are out there, mine is 125 mWatt, I read somewhere
> referring to 1000 mWatt as the limit on the 2.4 ghz band.

You may want to check out FCC Part 15.247 before you get too far out on that
limb.

--
John Miller, N4VU
My email address: domain, n4vu.com; username, jsm

Telling the truth to people who misunderstand you is generally promoting a
falsehood, isn't it?
-A. Hope

In article <pBDPb.79453$(E-Mail Removed)>, . <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
:USA != world

Let's look at what was said previously:

|> In article <bumql9$tq6$(E-Mail Removed)>,
|> Alan <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
|> :1Watt? thats quite a bit of power, not quite what the FCC quite had in
|> :mind!

Though Alan is in the UK, he made specific reference to the FCC, so I
posted reference to the exact FCC regulations. I made no claim that those
limits held anywhere other than the places the FCC has jurisdiction.
--
'ignorandus (Latin): "deserving not to be known"'
-- Journal of Self-Referentialism

In article <2DDPb.79454$(E-Mail Removed)>, . <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
:802.11 channels != FCC; 802.11 == IEEE

:The channels on 802.11 2.4ghz have nothing to do with the FCC (or any ohter
:body except the IEEE)

So if I invent WUSS (Walter's Universal Standards Society) and
vote myself a protocol that says I can do whatever I want in the USA,
then the FCC has nothing to say in the matter?

Q: Why did IEEE choose those -particular- frequencies?
A: Because international treaties have reserved those frequencies for
unlicensed use with reasonable power.

The treaties came first. IEEE then made the best technical standard
they could within the legal limits imposed by the treaties.


:I can pump out ANYTHING as long as its within power on ANY band and any
:shape within the 2.4 ghz range.

Not if you are somewhere in Europe: ETS 300-328 limits are 100 mW.

http://didier.quartier-rural.org/imp...300328e02p.pdf


In the USA, FCC 47 18.305 does say that in certain frequencies
specified in FCC 47 18.301 that unlimited radiation is permitted for ISM
uses, and 18.301 does include 2450 +/- 50 MHz -- but FCC 47 18.107 (c)
specifically excludes telecommunications from the allowed uses.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...2000&TYPE=TEXT
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...2000&TYPE=TEXT
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...2000&TYPE=TEXT


You have already indicated that you are not in Canada, the USA, or
Sweden. You are at most 1 timezone away from GMT, which makes Europe
the most likely, but doesn't rule out parts of Africa (e.g.
Casablanca). I suspect that your legal situation is much more
restricted than you have claimed, but it's not worth my time to track
down the laws of every country in that part of the world just so you
can be coy about your location.
--
'ignorandus (Latin): "deserving not to be known"'
-- Journal of Self-Referentialism