Speed difference between wired and wireless

Hi,

I am considering buying the Netgear DG834G which will be connected in a
wireless maner to my PC so that I do not need to use a telephone extension
cable for my ADSL connection - which is currently a trip hazard!!

I was told that this may cause a performace hit, especially for the lower
bandwidth connections (I am currently using 512KB). Since I will be only
about 7 metres from the wireless access point in another room on the same
floor, does anyone think that I may suffer a performance hit using the
DG834G over using a telephone extension cable with ADSL modem?

Thanks for any replies.

Will.

No

I have the same and if you notice a difference your a better man than me
gunga din!


"William Gould" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:vtfAe.17963$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi,
>
> I am considering buying the Netgear DG834G which will be connected in a
> wireless maner to my PC so that I do not need to use a telephone extension
> cable for my ADSL connection - which is currently a trip hazard!!
>
> I was told that this may cause a performace hit, especially for the lower
> bandwidth connections (I am currently using 512KB). Since I will be only
> about 7 metres from the wireless access point in another room on the same
> floor, does anyone think that I may suffer a performance hit using the
> DG834G over using a telephone extension cable with ADSL modem?
>
> Thanks for any replies.
>
> Will.
>

"William Gould" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I am considering buying the Netgear DG834G which will be connected in a

The typical maximum througput for an 802.11g 54Mbps wireless
connection is about 22 Mbps. (The radio works at 54Mbps, but in
only one direction at a time.)

>wireless maner to my PC so that I do not need to use a telephone extension
>cable for my ADSL connection - which is currently a trip hazard!!
>
>I was told that this may cause a performace hit, especially for the lower
>bandwidth connections (I am currently using 512KB). Since I will be only
>about 7 metres from the wireless access point in another room on the same

At 7m the wall might, depending on what it is made out of,
actually block the signal. If it is typical home construction
though, it won't, and you will probably get a 54Mbps connection.

Note that as long as you get a wireless connection rate that is
higher than roughly 1 Mbps, you will have more "bandwidth"
available on your wireless connection than you can possibly use
with a 512Kbps Internet link.

>floor, does anyone think that I may suffer a performance hit using the
>DG834G over using a telephone extension cable with ADSL modem?

It is possible... if your walls are made of metal, cement, or
other material that will not pass 2.4Ghz radio signals. (Which
is not likely!)

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) (E-Mail Removed)

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 20:23:55 GMT, "William Gould" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I am considering buying the Netgear DG834G which will be connected in a
>wireless maner to my PC so that I do not need to use a telephone extension
>cable for my ADSL connection - which is currently a trip hazard!!
>
>I was told that this may cause a performace hit, especially for the lower
>bandwidth connections (I am currently using 512KB). Since I will be only
>about 7 metres from the wireless access point in another room on the same
>floor, does anyone think that I may suffer a performance hit using the
>DG834G over using a telephone extension cable with ADSL modem?

Not at all.
>
>Thanks for any replies.
>
>Will.
>

Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, William Gould wrote:
> I am considering buying the Netgear DG834G which will be connected in a
> wireless maner to my PC so that I do not need to use a telephone extension
> cable for my ADSL connection - which is currently a trip hazard!!
>
> I was told that this may cause a performace hit, especially for the lower
> bandwidth connections (I am currently using 512KB). Since I will be only
> about 7 metres from the wireless access point in another room on the same
> floor, does anyone think that I may suffer a performance hit using the
> DG834G over using a telephone extension cable with ADSL modem?

Yes, there is technically a speed difference between wired and wireless.
However, when accessing the Internet, you won't see the difference at all as
your DSL modem operates at a much slower rate and is thus the limiting factor
in your overall speed regardless of which type of "ethernet" (wired or
wireless) you use.

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 20:23:55 GMT, "William Gould"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I am considering buying the Netgear DG834G which will be connected in a
>wireless maner to my PC so that I do not need to use a telephone extension
>cable for my ADSL connection - which is currently a trip hazard!!

It's not a telephone extension. It's a CAT5 ethernet cable running
either 10baseT (10 Mbits/sec) or 100baseTX (100 Mbits/sec). The same
cable is used for voice telephony (POTS) but the designation is by the
function.

>I was told that this may cause a performace hit, especially for the lower
>bandwidth connections (I am currently using 512KB).

Nope. Your perceived speed is limited by the slowest bottleneck on
the system. At 0.5Mbit/sec sec, your ADSL connection approximately
matched by the very slowest speed of an 802.11b/g wireless connection
(1Mbit/sec) which hopefully, you will never reach.

>Since I will be only
>about 7 metres from the wireless access point in another room on the same
>floor, does anyone think that I may suffer a performance hit using the
>DG834G over using a telephone extension cable with ADSL modem?

The enemies of wireless connections are (in order of decreasing
importance):
1. Interference
2. Attenuation
3. Multipath and reflections

Interference is a problem is you're located in a tall glass building,
with a view of the city and it's hundreds of other 802.11b/g users.
You could be right next to your access point and still have problems
communicating in the presence of interference. Also add microwave
ovens, cordless phones, X10 video cameras, and other sources of 2.4GHz
noise.

Attenuation is deteremined by the building construction. If the
inside walls are made of some material impervious to 2.4Ghz RF, you
will not have enough signal to maintain a useable connection. The
usual cuprit is aluminium foil backed fiberglass insulation in the
walls.

Multipath and reflections are where you have more than one path
between the access point and your wireless client. At some positions,
they add, at others, they cancel. In both cases, they are not stable
and will vary. It is difficult to detect or calculate multipath
problems. Wildly varying indicated signal strengths are a good clue.
The symptoms are that you can obtain a connection, but might have
trouble maintaining the connection.


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

Thanks to all for the very useful information. Looks like I'll be spending
on a brand new wireless network point!

Will.


"William Gould" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:vtfAe.17963$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi,
>
> I am considering buying the Netgear DG834G which will be connected in a
> wireless maner to my PC so that I do not need to use a telephone extension
> cable for my ADSL connection - which is currently a trip hazard!!
>
> I was told that this may cause a performace hit, especially for the lower
> bandwidth connections (I am currently using 512KB). Since I will be only
> about 7 metres from the wireless access point in another room on the same
> floor, does anyone think that I may suffer a performance hit using the
> DG834G over using a telephone extension cable with ADSL modem?
>
> Thanks for any replies.
>
> Will.
>

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 18:03:17 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 20:23:55 GMT, "William Gould"
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>I am considering buying the Netgear DG834G which will be connected in a
>>wireless maner to my PC so that I do not need to use a telephone extension
>>cable for my ADSL connection - which is currently a trip hazard!!
>
>It's not a telephone extension.

How do you know?

>It's a CAT5 ethernet cable running
>either 10baseT (10 Mbits/sec) or 100baseTX (100 Mbits/sec). The same
>cable is used for voice telephony (POTS) but the designation is by the
>function.

Wrong! The cable and connectors are a different size.

>>I was told that this may cause a performace hit, especially for the lower
>>bandwidth connections (I am currently using 512KB).
>
>Nope. Your perceived speed is limited by the slowest bottleneck on
>the system. At 0.5Mbit/sec sec, your ADSL connection approximately
>matched by the very slowest speed of an 802.11b/g wireless connection
>(1Mbit/sec) which hopefully, you will never reach.
>
>>Since I will be only
>>about 7 metres from the wireless access point in another room on the same
>>floor, does anyone think that I may suffer a performance hit using the
>>DG834G over using a telephone extension cable with ADSL modem?
>
>The enemies of wireless connections are (in order of decreasing
>importance):
>1. Interference
>2. Attenuation
>3. Multipath and reflections
>
>Interference is a problem is you're located in a tall glass building,
>with a view of the city and it's hundreds of other 802.11b/g users.
>You could be right next to your access point and still have problems
>communicating in the presence of interference. Also add microwave
>ovens, cordless phones, X10 video cameras, and other sources of 2.4GHz
>noise.
>
>Attenuation is deteremined by the building construction. If the
>inside walls are made of some material impervious to 2.4Ghz RF, you
>will not have enough signal to maintain a useable connection. The
>usual cuprit is aluminium foil backed fiberglass insulation in the
>walls.
>
>Multipath and reflections are where you have more than one path
>between the access point and your wireless client. At some positions,
>they add, at others, they cancel. In both cases, they are not stable
>and will vary. It is difficult to detect or calculate multipath
>problems. Wildly varying indicated signal strengths are a good clue.
>The symptoms are that you can obtain a connection, but might have
>trouble maintaining the connection.
>
>
>--
>Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
>150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
>Santa Cruz CA 95060 AE6KS 831-336-2558

Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 00:58:34 +1000, Barry OGrady
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 18:03:17 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 20:23:55 GMT, "William Gould"
>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>I am considering buying the Netgear DG834G which will be connected in a
>>>wireless maner to my PC so that I do not need to use a telephone extension
>>>cable for my ADSL connection - which is currently a trip hazard!!
>>
>>It's not a telephone extension.
>
>How do you know?

Guesswork. It's my specialty. I also like detective stories,
mysteries, scientific who-done-its, answering usenet questions with
insufficient information, and other forms of logical deduction. I
think of it as intellectual exercise. A rather large percentage of
questions lack sufficient information for a proper answer. A smaller
number supply ambiguous information such as the original reference to
"telephone extension" and your reference below to "cable and
connectors". I don't really blame people for doing this as I would
not expect proper buzzwords from someone with limited experience in
wireless or computing. Same with English as a 2nd language. However,
that doesn't stop me for pointing out that there is room for
improvement.

Most users plant the DSL modem on the floor somewhere and run ethernet
to their computah. That's so they don't have a big box DSL modem
sitting on their desk. However, I guess there are exceptions.

>>It's a CAT5 ethernet cable running
>>either 10baseT (10 Mbits/sec) or 100baseTX (100 Mbits/sec). The same
>>cable is used for voice telephony (POTS) but the designation is by the
>>function.
>
>Wrong! The cable and connectors are a different size.

Amazing. My 10baseT RJ45 connectors are the same size as my RJ45
100baseTX connectors. I guess you mean the RJ11/14 telco connector is
a different size as the RJ45 ethernet connector. Incidentally, SBC
ships their DSL modem kit with a rather heavy gauge telephone cable in
the box. I've seen an amazing number of customers shove it into the
ethernet port of their DSL modem and then call me wondering why
nothing is working. If the connector fits, someone will try it.


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

"Jeff Liebermann" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 00:58:34 +1000, Barry OGrady
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 18:03:17 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 20:23:55 GMT, "William Gould"
>>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I am considering buying the Netgear DG834G which will be connected in a
>>>>wireless maner to my PC so that I do not need to use a telephone
>>>>extension
>>>>cable for my ADSL connection - which is currently a trip hazard!!
>>>
>>>It's not a telephone extension.
>>
>>How do you know?
>
> Guesswork. It's my specialty. I also like detective stories,
> mysteries, scientific who-done-its, answering usenet questions with
> insufficient information, and other forms of logical deduction. I
> think of it as intellectual exercise. A rather large percentage of
> questions lack sufficient information for a proper answer. A smaller
> number supply ambiguous information such as the original reference to
> "telephone extension" and your reference below to "cable and
> connectors". I don't really blame people for doing this as I would
> not expect proper buzzwords from someone with limited experience in
> wireless or computing. Same with English as a 2nd language. However,
> that doesn't stop me for pointing out that there is room for
> improvement.

Just to clarify, it is a telephone extension cable (as I said). Cheers.

>
> Most users plant the DSL modem on the floor somewhere and run ethernet
> to their computah. That's so they don't have a big box DSL modem
> sitting on their desk. However, I guess there are exceptions.
>
>>>It's a CAT5 ethernet cable running
>>>either 10baseT (10 Mbits/sec) or 100baseTX (100 Mbits/sec). The same
>>>cable is used for voice telephony (POTS) but the designation is by the
>>>function.
>>
>>Wrong! The cable and connectors are a different size.
>
> Amazing. My 10baseT RJ45 connectors are the same size as my RJ45
> 100baseTX connectors. I guess you mean the RJ11/14 telco connector is
> a different size as the RJ45 ethernet connector. Incidentally, SBC
> ships their DSL modem kit with a rather heavy gauge telephone cable in
> the box. I've seen an amazing number of customers shove it into the
> ethernet port of their DSL modem and then call me wondering why
> nothing is working. If the connector fits, someone will try it.
>
>
> --
> Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
> 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Santa Cruz CA 95060 AE6KS 831-336-2558