getting wifi to the dead zones of a big house (2nd DSL Modem androuter combo?)

Hello.

I know this is the most common query out here, but I've not quite
found the solution in my reading various posts. So, at the risk of
repetitive, I'll put my problem out there.

We live in an old four-story house with brick and plaster walls. the
DSL modem and wirelessRouter #1 are in the Rear end of the 2nd floor.
Wifi reception all along the front side of the house (floors 1-4 is
low at best, usually Zero.)

I am trying to figure out how to best extend the range to reach these
corners.

1. I can't really move the modem and Router#1.
2. Nor can I run ethernet to a point where I could set up a second
access point (if I am reading correctly, a second wireless AP MUST to
wired to the first router. if that is NOT correct, could someone
explain how to set up a standalone, unwired AP?)
3. I have several wifi routers and DSL modems.
4. there are telephone jacks all over the house.

So, Question (beyond the "how, given the wiring constraints, best to
set up another AP?"):
- can I plug a second DSL modem into one of the other telephone jacks
and attach another router to that modem and have a working second AP
that way??

many thanks

Peter

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 08:24:13 -0800 (PST), peter <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Hello.
>
>I know this is the most common query out here, but I've not quite
>found the solution in my reading various posts. So, at the risk of
>repetitive, I'll put my problem out there.
>
>We live in an old four-story house with brick and plaster walls. the
>DSL modem and wirelessRouter #1 are in the Rear end of the 2nd floor.
>Wifi reception all along the front side of the house (floors 1-4 is
>low at best, usually Zero.)
>
>I am trying to figure out how to best extend the range to reach these
>corners.
>
>1. I can't really move the modem and Router#1.
>2. Nor can I run ethernet to a point where I could set up a second
>access point (if I am reading correctly, a second wireless AP MUST to
>wired to the first router. if that is NOT correct, could someone
>explain how to set up a standalone, unwired AP?)
>3. I have several wifi routers and DSL modems.
>4. there are telephone jacks all over the house.
>
>So, Question (beyond the "how, given the wiring constraints, best to
>set up another AP?"):

try adding powerline APs?

this is the netgear UK flavour - pick one that works with your local
mains system.
http://www.netgear.co.uk/extra/wallp...er_wgxb102.php

note this one is a kit with 1 unit to connect to your router and 1
remote AP - it sounds like you may want multiple APs.

>- can I plug a second DSL modem into one of the other telephone jacks
>and attach another router to that modem and have a working second AP
>that way??
>
>many thanks
>
>Peter
--
Regards

(E-Mail Removed) - replace xyz with ntl

peter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> We live in an old four-story house with brick and plaster walls. the
> DSL modem and wirelessRouter #1 are in the Rear end of the 2nd floor.
> Wifi reception all along the front side of the house (floors 1-4 is
> low at best, usually Zero.)

If you have some signal, a simple reflector might give you enough boost.

http://www.freeantennas.com EZ-12, printed on photo paper for thick stock,
with aluminum foil glued to the sail, provides a substantial boost in
signal. http://www.rahul.net/dold/clarence/EZ12-windsurfer.jpg

Make the tabs longer than the template drawing for easier assembly.

--
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5

>
>>Rather than pay for a second account, we simply used a 2nd ap (different
>>ssid,DHCP server left on, powerline networking, 1st wap/router has one pn
>>device plugged into the router part and second into the router part (not
>>the
>>wan) of the second wap/router... have full network and internet access on
>>the second - no idea why thats working snce the gurus here said it won't,
>>...

I just drew this out on paper...

When you are connected to the 1st WAP,
what's your IP address & Gateway address ?

When connected to the 2nd WAP,
what's your IP and GW ?

On 15 Jan, 03:06, "Peter Pan" <PeterPanNOS...@MarcAlanNOSPAM.info>
wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:03:22 -0500, "Peter Pan"
> > <PeterPanNOS...@MarcAlanNOSPAM.info> wrote in
> > <IOKdnTvlH7j8FvPUnZ2dnUVZ_vudn...@earthlink.com> :
>
> >> Rather than pay for a second account, we simply used a 2nd ap
> >> (different ssid,DHCP server left on, powerline networking, 1st
> >> wap/router has one pn device plugged into the router part and second
> >> into the router part (not the wan) of the second wap/router... have
> >> full network and internet access on the second - no idea why thats
> >> working snce the gurus here said it won't, ...
>
> > Nonsense.
>
> see what I mean, i'm using it now, and posting from/via it... I suppose if
> you can't read this he's right, but if you can, he's wrong.....

I am sure that what was meant is that it is nonsense
that a "guru" said it would not work.

That is standard networking. As you can see
missunderstandings are easy in this medium

Just take care not to overlap your dhcp ranges
if you have 2 dhcp servers.

"Peter Pan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) m...
> ps56k wrote:
>>>> Rather than pay for a second account, we simply used a 2nd ap
>>>> (different ssid,DHCP server left on, powerline networking, 1st
>>>> wap/router has one pn device plugged into the router part and
>>>> second into the router part (not the
>>>> wan) of the second wap/router... have full network and internet
>>>> access on the second - no idea why thats working snce the gurus
>>>> here said it won't, ...
>>
>> I just drew this out on paper...
>>
>> When you are connected to the 1st WAP,
>> what's your IP address & Gateway address ?
>>
>> When connected to the 2nd WAP,
>> what's your IP and GW ?
>
> no gateway used, starting ip address for #1 1.1 #2 1.10 dhcp range for #1
> start at 1.100 for 40, and #2 start at 1.200 for 40 (probably could have
> left it 50, but didn't want to mess with the range starting relative to
> zero or 1, so i just made it 40)
>
when connected to each WAP,
on your laptop - display your network adapter settings...
ie - for XP -> Start -> Run -> CMD -> ipconfig

>ipconfig

Windows IP Configuration
Ethernet adapter Wireless Network Connection:

Connection-specific DNS Suffix . :
IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.1.151
Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0
Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.1.2

John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news(E-Mail Removed):


> Pulling proper Ethernet is usually a lot more expense and hassle than
> powerline networking, which works quite well.

More expense ? Not when doing it yourself.

As others have said:

1) think harder about why you assume that you can't run ethernet cable
to other rooms.
a) is there no attic that you can take the cable up into to cross
the house?
b) are you intimidated by the idea of drilling a hole through a
wall?
c) installing connectors on the ends of Cat 5e cable seems too
hard?

If one of the above, consider hiring a cable or network guy to run the
cables from your existing router to distant rooms and then put APs on
the cables.

2) Use powerline networking adapters and then put your AP on the ends
where they are needed.


Cheers,
Steve

"Bill Kearney" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed) t:

>
> "DanS" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:Xns9B947DBD35FE0thisnthatroadrunnern@85.214.1 05.209...
>>> Pulling proper Ethernet is usually a lot more expense and hassle
>>> than powerline networking, which works quite well.
>>
>> More expense ? Not when doing it yourself.
>
> Ineed, apparently Navas does nothing himself, except to offer bad
> advice to others.

Honestly though, only half is bad....1/4 of the time is spent trying to
understand the question, and the other 1/4 is spent posting and reposting
the same WPA is Not secure, or WEP, or whatever.

On Jan 17, 1:45*pm, dgates <dga...@somedomain.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 12:58:16 -0500, Not Me <Not...@Home.Base> wrote:
> >Bill Kearney wrote:
> >>> Honestly though, only half is bad....1/4 of the time is spent trying to
> >>> understand the question, and the other 1/4 is spent posting and reposting
> >>> the same WPA is Not secure, or WEP, or whatever.
>
> >> Feh, not worth the hassle of trying to discover which. * It's like the
> >> old horse shit and ice cream argument. * No matter how much ice cream
> >> you add it'll never be palatable. *But add even the tiniest bit of horse
> >> shit, same thing. *Navas is the horse shit.
>
> >...or the orifice that exudes it.
>
> I'll extricate myself from this thread after this post, but I just
> wanted to post one more time since, when I needed help, John Navas
> typed thousands of words, answering all of my questions over the
> course of about a week, until I finally had my house networked the way
> I needed.
>
> Anyone rereading this thread will see that:
>
> John Navas offered a concrete solution that will cost less than $100.
>
> A few other users also offered suggestions.
>
> Two users, "Bill Kearney" and "Not Me," chimed in, using an
> (admittedly clever) insult about horse shit and ice cream to insult
> the guy who offered the concrete advice. *They offered no advice
> themselves.
>
> The original poster seems to be long gone, probably run for the hills.
> Or maybe he just bought the $70 powerline device, got it working in an
> hour, and forgot to come back and say thanks.

Much as I try to stay on topic, I have to chime in and agree on this.
I'm sure there's some history that the rest of us don't know about,
but if I could block posters in google groups, it would be the ones
who constantly disrupt threads to make ugly comments and carry on
personal vendettas, not John Navas who simply repeatedly posts a
thread about wireless security that is presumably for newcomers,
though i suppose it's seen as horn-blowing.

I can ignore that repeating thread, but this constant sniping within
the real help threads is noisy and making me want to switch to a
newsreader and start blocking Bill and other one or two others.

Bill has been helpful at times, but this sniping is annoying and
mostly out of form for this group.