Hardware suggestions?

Hi,

I am looking for what some manufacturers call a ethernet bridge,
others call it an access point, maybe there are more names for
it :-).
What I need is a wireless device > ethernet, like the :
Linksys WET54G
Linksys WRT55AG
Senao NL-2611CB3DLX
RadioLabs NL-3054CB3 Deluxe AP

The RadioLabs NL-3054CB3 Deluxe AP seems a good choice here
because it has the most power ( 200mW ) and supports 54 Mbps.
It also has an option to connect an remote antenna.
Is this a good choice or is the Linksys WRT55AG better in terms
of receiving possibilities?

I am looking for high power ( 200mW? ) extra antenna and ethernet
connection. Suggestions, good or bad experience anyone?


Thanks

[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <e0tr0k$dht$(E-Mail Removed)> on Tue, 04 Apr 2006 15:09:16 +0000, Edmund
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I am looking for what some manufacturers call a ethernet bridge,
>others call it an access point, maybe there are more names for
>it :-).

Those are really different things:

* Wireless Ethernet Bridge is a *client* device. Sometimes called Wireless
Game Adapter.

* Wireless Access Point is a *host* device.

Perhaps you mean Wireless Access Point or Wireless Router with Client Mode
(essentially Wireless Ethernet Bridge).

See my comments below:

>What I need is a wireless device > ethernet, like the :
>Linksys WET54G <- Wireless Ethernet Bridge
>Linksys WRT55AG <- Wireless Router
>Senao NL-2611CB3DLX <- Wireless Access Point | Bridge
>RadioLabs NL-3054CB3 Deluxe AP <- Wireless Access Point | Bridge | Repeater
>
>The RadioLabs NL-3054CB3 Deluxe AP seems a good choice here
>because it has the most power ( 200mW ) and supports 54 Mbps.

Higher power isn't necessarily going to be helpful unless units at both ends
of the connection have higher power -- it doesn't do much good for unit B to
punch a hotter signal at unit A if unit A isn't able to do the same thing for
unit B. If you only control one end of the connection, it may well be better
IM(ns)HO to use a high-gain antenna, which helps both sending and receiving.

>It also has an option to connect an remote antenna.

You'll want to minimize the cable run between the antenna and the device.
Otherwise the cable losses can offset the benefit of the antenna.

>Is this a good choice or is the Linksys WRT55AG better in terms
>of receiving possibilities?
>
>I am looking for high power ( 200mW? ) extra antenna and ethernet
>connection. Suggestions, good or bad experience anyone?

Much depends on what you're trying to do ... which is ... ?

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR ALT.INTERNET.WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FAQ_for_alt.internet.wireless>

In message <6nxYf.59991$(E-Mail Removed)>, John
Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <e0tr0k$dht$(E-Mail Removed)> on Tue, 04 Apr 2006 15:09:16 +0000, Edmund
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >I am looking for what some manufacturers call a ethernet bridge,
> >others call it an access point, maybe there are more names for
> >it :-).
>
> Those are really different things:
>
> * Wireless Ethernet Bridge is a *client* device. Sometimes called Wireless
> Game Adapter.
>
> * Wireless Access Point is a *host* device.
>
> Perhaps you mean Wireless Access Point or Wireless Router with Client Mode
> (essentially Wireless Ethernet Bridge).

I guess, what I need is the client device, if my information is right
all the devices I named are capable of being is "bridge" mode.
>
> See my comments below:
>
> >What I need is a wireless device > ethernet, like the :
> >Linksys WET54G <- Wireless Ethernet Bridge
> >Linksys WRT55AG <- Wireless Router
> >Senao NL-2611CB3DLX <- Wireless Access Point | Bridge
> >RadioLabs NL-3054CB3 Deluxe AP <- Wireless Access Point | Bridge |
> Repeater
> >
> >The RadioLabs NL-3054CB3 Deluxe AP seems a good choice here
> >because it has the most power ( 200mW ) and supports 54 Mbps.
>
> Higher power isn't necessarily going to be helpful unless units at both ends
> of the connection have higher power -- it doesn't do much good for unit B to
> punch a hotter signal at unit A if unit A isn't able to do the same thing
> for
> unit B. If you only control one end of the connection, it may well be
> better
> IM(ns)HO to use a high-gain antenna, which helps both sending and receiving.

Yes you are right about that, how about doing both using an high power
device with an high gain or directional antenna?
I BTW noticed that sometimes I can receive an rather strong signal but I don't
get a connection with my laptop. My guess was I did not have enough power to
send to that source.
>
> >It also has an option to connect an remote antenna.
>
> You'll want to minimize the cable run between the antenna and the device.
> Otherwise the cable losses can offset the benefit of the antenna.
>
> >Is this a good choice or is the Linksys WRT55AG better in terms
> >of receiving possibilities?
> >
> >I am looking for high power ( 200mW? ) extra antenna and ethernet
> >connection. Suggestions, good or bad experience anyone?
>
> Much depends on what you're trying to do ... which is ... ?

I like to use it in the motorhome during holidays, and
hope for some nice people or companies in the neighborhood which
leave there wireless apparatus open for people like me.
So the more standards it can work with the better the change is I pick
up a useful signal. The reason why I don't want an PCMCIA card or an
USB device is that I don't use Windows or MAC and want to prevent
software compatability problems with my OS ( the BeOperating System (BeOS))
>

[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <e12g73$a6v$(E-Mail Removed)> on Thu, 06 Apr 2006 09:16:37 +0000, Edmund
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>> Much depends on what you're trying to do ... which is ... ?
>
>I like to use it in the motorhome during holidays, and
>hope for some nice people or companies in the neighborhood which
>leave there wireless apparatus open for people like me.

You're getting permission to use those open networks -- right?

High-gain antenna is your best bet.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR ALT.INTERNET.WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FAQ_for_alt.internet.wireless>

[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <e12g73$a6v$(E-Mail Removed)> on Thu, 06 Apr 2006 09:16:37 +0000, Edmund
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In message <6nxYf.59991$(E-Mail Removed)>, John
>Navas wrote:

>> Higher power isn't necessarily going to be helpful unless units at both ends
>> of the connection have higher power -- it doesn't do much good for unit B to
>> punch a hotter signal at unit A if unit A isn't able to do the same thing
>> for
>> unit B. If you only control one end of the connection, it may well be
>> better
>> IM(ns)HO to use a high-gain antenna, which helps both sending and receiving.
>
>Yes you are right about that, how about doing both using an high power
>device with an high gain or directional antenna?
>I BTW noticed that sometimes I can receive an rather strong signal but I don't
>get a connection with my laptop. My guess was I did not have enough power to
>send to that source.

It's quite possible that you were being barred by MAC address.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR ALT.INTERNET.WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FAQ_for_alt.internet.wireless>

In message <cgcZf.695721$(E-Mail Removed)>, John
Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <e12g73$a6v$(E-Mail Removed)> on Thu, 06 Apr 2006 09:16:37 +0000, Edmund
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >> Much depends on what you're trying to do ... which is ... ?
> >
> >I like to use it in the motorhome during holidays, and
> >hope for some nice people or companies in the neighborhood which
> >leave there wireless apparatus open for people like me.
>
> You're getting permission to use those open networks -- right?

Yes there are quite a few companies and private persons who
leave there wireless stuff open as a service for costumers.
However I am not always sure about private people, if they
leave it open as a service or if they don't know how to protect
it. I guess no harm done if I once in a while download my
email.

> High-gain antenna is your best bet.

Thanks, I go for that.


>

[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <e159j4$ovo$(E-Mail Removed)> on Fri, 07 Apr 2006 11:02:51 +0000, Edmund
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In message <cgcZf.695721$(E-Mail Removed)>, John
>Navas wrote:

>> You're getting permission to use those open networks -- right?
>
>Yes there are quite a few companies and private persons who
>leave there wireless stuff open as a service for costumers.

With notice to that effect.

>However I am not always sure about private people, if they
>leave it open as a service or if they don't know how to protect
>it.

If they haven't made it clear that leeching is OK, then it's not.

>I guess no harm done if I once in a while download my
>email.

You have no way of knowing that.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR ALT.INTERNET.WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FAQ_for_alt.internet.wireless>

John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> hath wroth:

>If they haven't made it clear that leeching is OK, then it's not.

Well, that presents a problem and business oportunity. There's really
no easy way to prove to the arresting officer that you have permission
to sit outside someones house and use their wireless.

What's needed is a line of wireless accessories that include:
1. A sign posted outside the house showing the SSID and indicating
that the wireless is available for general consumption.
2. Tear off forms on a pad, or credit card size "official
authorizations" or "get out of jail free" card.
3. A file of various state and federal laws suitable for a WULA
(wireless user license agreement) that nobody will read.
4. A setup guide or checklist for the owner to advise on security
issues.

Hopefully, these should help make it clear which access points are
open or private.

--
Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <(E-Mail Removed)> on Fri, 07 Apr 2006 09:24:37
-0700, Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> hath wroth:
>
>>If they haven't made it clear that leeching is OK, then it's not.
>
>Well, that presents a problem and business oportunity. There's really
>no easy way to prove to the arresting officer that you have permission
>to sit outside someones house and use their wireless.
>
>What's needed is a line of wireless accessories that include:
>1. A sign posted outside the house showing the SSID and indicating
>that the wireless is available for general consumption.
>2. Tear off forms on a pad, or credit card size "official
>authorizations" or "get out of jail free" card.
>3. A file of various state and federal laws suitable for a WULA
>(wireless user license agreement) that nobody will read.
>4. A setup guide or checklist for the owner to advise on security
>issues.
>
>Hopefully, these should help make it clear which access points are
>open or private.

It's actually quite easy to show that in the SSID;
e.g., "JeffNet open access to all"

Absent that, a sign (as in your #1), or some other clear evidence of
intentional open access, then leeching isn't OK. Those suggesting otherwise,
given this easy option, are simply being disingenuous (or argumentative),
IM(no)HO at least.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR ALT.INTERNET.WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FAQ_for_alt.internet.wireless>