Orange freeby broadband

Anyone using this? What happens when you go over the cap? Is the wireless
hardware any good? Turns out one of my housemates has signed up for this as
a freeby with a mobile phone contract. I suspect it's shite .

"Doki" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:4508007e$0$27314$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Anyone using this? What happens when you go over the cap? Is the wireless
> hardware any good? Turns out one of my housemates has signed up for this
> as a freeby with a mobile phone contract. I suspect it's shite .


I am using it and it seems fine. Not used the wireless set up though as I
don't have a laptop to try it out. If you go a 'bit' over the limit they
won't bother you. If you go over alot they ask you to go onto the unlimited
(sic) package at £10 a month.

Tim
>

> Anyone using this? What happens when you go over the cap? Is the wireless
> hardware any good? Turns out one of my housemates has signed up for this
> as a freeby with a mobile phone contract. I suspect it's shite .

Got a discount 18 month Orange contract (£60 term cost)...broadband is
reliable but not patticularly speedy; wireless works just but finding a good
channel is tricky...;the free evening VOIP call quality is crap...
--
Grumps

On 13 Sep 2006 23:45, "Musicrab" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> wireless works just but finding a good channel is tricky

I was dismayed when I saw a diagram showing the majority of channels are
overlapped, so apart from the first and last, most can get interference if
channels 1 or 2 away on either side are in use. I know there is likely to
be some degree of "capture effect" (to only work with the strongest
signal - though it is 30+ years since I was doing a radio course) but
even so, in any built-up area there will likely be nearby signals
to cause problems...

No doubt it will get worse and worse with a whole load of new users getting
these wireless routers provided as standard from different ISPs... Even if
they have no plan to use the wireless option, these are probably "on" so
the default channel setting(s) will have many signals from homes within
an estate, and adjacent channels will then be used more, leading to non
use of the default for actual traffic, just lots of SSID broadcasts :-)

I know that many are disappointed by range within properties, but can
expect that some will have "better than average" chances to cause some
interference, as well. My sister's property happens to look out onto the
small valley (park at the bottom) and I suspect there must be some 2-300
homes in "line of sight" (ie can see their aerials/rooftops) A wifi router
on the window-sill in her front room would put out small signals that a
small portion (or large, perhaps) might receive as a level of background/
interference. She's actually on ADSL with no wireless router, on another
phone line (originally installed to give them a computer-only connection,
on dial-up) but when Sky *is* available at the local exchange, and she
has retired, they might look to cut costs a little (cancel second line, use
the 'free' or cheaper Sky ADSL service) and would then have to use the
'first' line so might well end up with a wifi router in another location in
the home... pumping out some signals, showing apparent "activity",
even if they're never using the wireless, of course...

NoNeedToKnow wrote:
> On 13 Sep 2006 23:45, "Musicrab" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> wireless works just but finding a good channel is tricky
>
> I was dismayed when I saw a diagram showing the majority of channels
> are overlapped, so apart from the first and last, most can get
> interference if channels 1 or 2 away on either side are in use. I
> know there is likely to be some degree of "capture effect" (to only
> work with the strongest
> signal - though it is 30+ years since I was doing a radio course)
> but
> even so, in any built-up area there will likely be nearby signals
> to cause problems...
>
> No doubt it will get worse and worse with a whole load of new users
> getting these wireless routers provided as standard from different
> ISPs... Even if they have no plan to use the wireless option, these
> are probably "on" so the default channel setting(s) will have many
> signals from homes within
> an estate, and adjacent channels will then be used more, leading to
> non use of the default for actual traffic, just lots of SSID
> broadcasts :-)
>
> I know that many are disappointed by range within properties, but
> can
> expect that some will have "better than average" chances to cause
> some
> interference, as well. My sister's property happens to look out
> onto
> the small valley (park at the bottom) and I suspect there must be
> some 2-300 homes in "line of sight" (ie can see their
> aerials/rooftops) A wifi router on the window-sill in her front
> room
> would put out small signals that a small portion (or large, perhaps)
> might receive as a level of background/ interference. She's
> actually
> on ADSL with no wireless router, on another phone line (originally
> installed to give them a computer-only connection, on dial-up) but
> when Sky *is* available at the local exchange, and she
> has retired, they might look to cut costs a little (cancel second
> line, use the 'free' or cheaper Sky ADSL service) and would then
> have
> to use the 'first' line so might well end up with a wifi router in
> another location in the home... pumping out some signals, showing
> apparent "activity",
> even if they're never using the wireless, of course...

If they or anybody else avails themselves to the SKY offer it is
possible to turn of the wifi if not needed (indeed it's advisable to
do so if not needed)

On 14 Sep 2006 19:04, "kráftéé" wrote:

>If they or anybody else avails themselves to the SKY offer it is
>possible to turn of the wifi if not needed (indeed it's advisable to
>do so if not needed)

Aware of that, but given there's no user account info to enter, and just
plugging it in is what 95% will do with minimal reading of anything unless
they have problems, means the odds are there will be a few million extra
wifi routers on in the next couple of years.