WiFi and cable internet

I'm brand new to wireless internet, and I don't even know what's possible and
what isn't. Nor do I even know what questions to ask (much less what to
Google).

Here's my situation:

I currently have Time Warner cable modem hooked up to a Linksys BEFSR41 4
port wired router. This is hooked up to my computer, and only my computer. (I
bought it primarily for the hardware firewall)

I read yesterday that our city will be getting free wireless internet access
(part of Obama's incentive money I gather). What I would like to do is hook
my computer up to both the Time Warner cable modem and the wireless internet
when it becomes available. Is this possible? If so, what hardware do I need?

I realize the second question may be hard to answer with an exact make/model
since I don't even know for sure which wifi standard they'll use (I don't
even know if THEY know yet). But just knowing what TYPE of hardware is
required will help.

"Peter Pan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed) m:

>
> "Linwood Boomer" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On Fri, 8 May 2009 10:32:47 -0400, "Peter Pan"
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"JimH" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>news:Xns9C052EE824795hahadotdotdot@74.209.136.8 8...
>>>> I currently have Time Warner cable modem hooked up to a Linksys
>>>> BEFSR41 4
>>>> port wired router. This is hooked up to my computer, and only my
>>>> computer.
>>>> (I
>>>> bought it primarily for the hardware firewall)
>>>>
>>>> I read yesterday that our city will be getting free wireless internet
>>>> access
>>>> (part of Obama's incentive money I gather). What I would like to do
>>>> is hook
>>>> my computer up to both the Time Warner cable modem and the wireless
>>>> internet
>>>> when it becomes available. Is this possible? If so, what hardware do
>>>> I need?
>>>>
>>>> I realize the second question may be hard to answer with an exact
>>>> make/model
>>>> since I don't even know for sure which wifi standard they'll use (I
>>>> don't
>>>> even know if THEY know yet). But just knowing what TYPE of hardware
>>>> is required will help.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I have to wonder, you have something that works now and costs, but you
>>>want
>>>to do something free instead? you can't do both at once, it's one or
>>>the other, so why do you want to change?
>>
>> FYI, you can very easily use multiple WAN connections simultaneously.
>> I've been doing it since about 2004-2005.
>>
>>> you would gain absolutely nothing, as a
>>>matter of fact you will probably lose a lot (wireless is way slower
>>>than wired, and presents a whole slew of security problems) <SNIP>
>>
>> Among the advantages of multiple WAN connections are increased
>> throughput on some downloads and of course WAN redundancy so that if
>> one WAN link goes down the other(s) will take over.
>>
>> Apologies for the hijack.
>>
>
>
> sure you can use it as a backup easy enuf, *IF* the unknown computer he
> has even has wireless, but trying to bond it/combine the two internet
> feeds, and do both at once so it's twice as fast, is way different than
> using them individually/singly/one at a time. i'm curious how you use
> multiple connections at the same time, far as i know you can have
> multiple connections enabled, but only use them one at a time, but your
> statement of increased thruput ("Among the advantages of multiple WAN
> connections are increased throughput on some downloads") specifically
> means bonding/combining the internet connections and using multiple
> connections at the same time to speed up downloads... and you said you
> have been using multiple connections bonded/at the same
> timesimultaneously, since 2004-2005, i want to speed up my downloads
> (only have about 22 mbps now, and looking at fios so it will be about 40
> mbps)... so i'm curious how i can combine the two so i get 62 mbps
> downloads....
>
>

I have absolutely no WiFi capability with my current hardware.

I have known, in the long ago past, that it is possible to have multiple
internet connections to improve throughput. Back then, about all that was
required was to install more than one modem.

I figured that anything that was possible 10 years ago is still possible,
although the hardware required probably had changed.

But while composing this reply it got me wondering: Can I install a second
network card and attach a wireless receiver to it?

"Peter Pan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed) m:

>
> "JimH" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:Xns9C05D6177F819hahadotdotdot@74.209.136.99.. .
>>
>> I have absolutely no WiFi capability with my current hardware.
>>
> Can I install a second
>> network card and attach a wireless receiver to it?
>>
>
> desktop, laptop? mac/pc/other? does it have a usb port?
> cheapest easiest may be a usb/wifi dongle, tons of em for windows
> pc's/desktops, work great with usb extension cables too... can't do much
> on providing links since you haven't said if you have a windows pc or
> not... do you?
>

A Windows tower desktop (with the tower basically on the floor). While it
does have USB ports, I really don't care for dongles - from a mechanical
point of view. They break or fall out.

No, not often - but often enough that I've learned not to place them to use
where sustained reliability is an issue. I'm looking for something that
once connected will stay connected, untouched, potentially for years.

That's why the idea of installing a network card sounded attractive. Cards
are internal, screwed into place and will not be broken off by my cat. The
cables have clips that hold them into the socket and will not be pulled out
(it's hard enough to take them out when TRYING to. )

What I had hoped might be available might be thought of as a "reverse
router." Instead of hooking many computers to one modem, hooking many
modems to one computer. (This device could, if someone so desired, be
hooked into a router to allow the sharing of multiple modems among multiple
computers). The reverse router would have built in load balancing software.

The more I think about it... this device, if it exists, would probably be
out of my price range anyway.

The idea behind having them both was so that I could test out the WiFi
without having to commit to it "sight unseen." Or without the hassle of
switching the hardware between them during the testing phase.

Then, having put it to the test, I could decide whether or not I was
satisfied enough with it to cancel my paid internet connection.

Linwood Boomer <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> On 9 May 2009 01:02:47 GMT, JimH <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>I have absolutely no WiFi capability with my current hardware.
>>
>>But while composing this reply it got me wondering: Can I install a second
>>network card and attach a wireless receiver to it?
>
> Yes. That's certainly one option of several. Hard to say if it's your
> best option, but it will work.
>

If I were to do it this way I would have to select which network to use for
each program, right? There wouldn't be any network switching "on the fly,"
would there?

What I'm thinking about is a situation something like:

On network A, I'm downloading a 700 MB file. Network B is standing idle.

What I would like is for something to notice that Network B is unused and
direct it to pick up some of the load.

"Peter Pan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed) m:

>
> "JimH" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:Xns9C062E32594B7hahadotdotdot@74.209.136.100. ..
>> "Peter Pan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>> news:(E-Mail Removed) m:
>>
>>>
>>> "JimH" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9C05D6177F819hahadotdotdot@74.209.136.99.. .
>>>>
>>>> I have absolutely no WiFi capability with my current hardware.
>>>>
>>> Can I install a second
>>>> network card and attach a wireless receiver to it?
>>>>
>>>
>>> desktop, laptop? mac/pc/other? does it have a usb port?
>>> cheapest easiest may be a usb/wifi dongle, tons of em for windows
>>> pc's/desktops, work great with usb extension cables too... can't do
>>> much on providing links since you haven't said if you have a windows
>>> pc or not... do you?
>>>
>>
>> A Windows tower desktop (with the tower basically on the floor). While
>> it does have USB ports, I really don't care for dongles - from a
>> mechanical point of view. They break or fall out.
>>
>> No, not often - but often enough that I've learned not to place them to
>> use
>> where sustained reliability is an issue. I'm looking for something that
>> once connected will stay connected, untouched, potentially for years.
>>
>> That's why the idea of installing a network card sounded attractive.
>> Cards are internal, screwed into place and will not be broken off by my
>> cat. The cables have clips that hold them into the socket and will not
>> be pulled out
>> (it's hard enough to take them out when TRYING to. )
>>
>> What I had hoped might be available might be thought of as a "reverse
>> router." Instead of hooking many computers to one modem, hooking many
>> modems to one computer. (This device could, if someone so desired, be
>> hooked into a router to allow the sharing of multiple modems among
>> multiple
>> computers). The reverse router would have built in load balancing
>> software.
>>
>> The more I think about it... this device, if it exists, would probably
>> be out of my price range anyway.
>>
>> The idea behind having them both was so that I could test out the WiFi
>> without having to commit to it "sight unseen." Or without the hassle of
>> switching the hardware between them during the testing phase.
>>
>> Then, having put it to the test, I could decide whether or not I was
>> router
>> satisfied enough with it to cancel my paid internet connection.
>>
>>
>
> okay windows tower desktop, with usb ports (but you don't want to use
> em.....)
> with a desktop, you are usually stuck with whatever wireless signal you
> can get where the box is located, if you have an internal card, you can
> however put in a card with an external antenna jack, cable it (not cat
> friendly), and use whatever antenna you may want/need.... however, what
> i usually do is put in something like a pci card with a usb port, usb
> extension cables, and a usb dongle plugged into the extension cable/port
> (under $50), they do make wireless bridges that just plug into your
> existing router, as you asked about above, but they are rather expensive
> ($300 +, have one for $189, but of course that company is out of biz),
> hard to find, and need configuring.... if you are into
> puttering/experimenting, you may be able to use something like an el
> cheapo wap running alternate firmware (dd-wrt as a bridge, not a router
> or wap, between an external wireless net and your wired router)
>
> gets tricky when you want ethernet instead of usb.....
>
>

I don't mind using the USB ports - I just don't like connecting anything
other than cables to them. (My router and keyboard use USB ports, for
example) I suppose that I could employ an extension cable for a dongle.

I was wondering about bridges. I had heard the term but wasn't sure what
they were.

The router I have only has one jack marked "Internet", the other four jacks
are marked 1-4. I wasn't sure whether or not the three unused jacks could
only be connected to other computers (to connect them to the one modem). I
was of the opinion that they could only be connected to computers - but
knew I could easily be mistaken.

"Peter Pan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed) m:

>
> "JimH" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:Xns9C06BC6AF4E6Bhahadotdotdot@74.209.136.97.. .
>>
>> I don't mind using the USB ports - I just don't like connecting
>> anything other than cables to them. (My router and keyboard use USB
>> ports, for example) I suppose that I could employ an extension cable
>> for a dongle.
>>
>> I was wondering about bridges. I had heard the term but wasn't sure
>> what they were.
>>
>> The router I have only has one jack marked "Internet", the other four
>> jacks
>> are marked 1-4. I wasn't sure whether or not the three unused jacks
>> could only be connected to other computers (to connect them to the one
>> modem). I was of the opinion that they could only be connected to
>> computers - but knew I could easily be mistaken.
>>
>
> yes, the first one(by itself marked wan in etc) is usually for/from your
> modem, the other 4 (3, you are using one) are usually used for other
> computers/wired devices/other routers/switches, but there are new cool
> things out now/soon that can be plugged in.....
>
> generically the term "bridge" is usually the term for something that
> connects(bridges) two network segments...
> for instance in your case you will probably have one device that talks
> to the wireless network, and the bridge would Bridge(connect/make work)
> the device/segment that deals with the wireless network and your wired
> network....
>
> no real specific definition, a bridge is more of a concept than an
> actual black box, in the case of wap/routers the bridge is internal
> between the wap and the router, if you just used a wap with a router, it
> can be a network cable. in the case of a dongle, an extension usb cable
> can be considered a bridge, or if your computer has two network cards
> you can have a software bridge that connects them...
>
> in your case you need something to talk to/work with/use the external
> wireless network, and then the bridge will connect that device to your
> computer (not to the wired network directly, a software bridge does
> that)... hence suggesting the usb dongle (it will talk/interface/etc to
> the wireless network, and a software bridge in your computer will bridge
> the usb/wireless segment to the ethernet/wired segment.....
>
> while you could tinker with/putter lots of different things, the usb
> thing may be the cheapest/easiest solution for you....
>

That explains a lot. Where would I get the software bridge?

When I mentioned it, the thought of a second network card came about
because I play World of Warcraft. I know of a few cases (*) where the
playability of the game improved significantly where (what might be called)
a "gaming network card" was used. My thought was to maybe get one of these,
hook my wired network into that, and use my existing network card for the
wireless. I'm not tied to that idea, it was just something that occurred to
me.

(*) The reason it's only "a few cases" is because I only know of a few
people who have done it. In every one of these cases the playability
improved.

JimH <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:Xns9C071A1EBA894hahadotdotdot@74.209.136.99:

>
> That explains a lot. Where would I get the software bridge?
>

I just Googled "software network bridge", and it would seem as if this is a
standard feature in XP (which is what I'm using). Is this true?

Interesting thread. At this point, I hope I'm not hijacking it to ask a
simpler, but related (I think), question. I have a simple home network of
two desktop computers both ethernet cabled to a (non-wireless) router which
is cabled to the cable modem. I'm thinking of replacing that router with a
wireless one - but one that has the cabling capacity so that I can still
cable the existing computers (but use the Wifi for a SmartPhone in the
house).

Question: can this be done so that the desktops are completely insulated
from wireless intrusion? I understand about encryption, but I'm wondering
if the router can be configured so there's complete isolation of the wired
elements from the wireless elements.

Thanks in advance, RonL

"Peter Pan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed) m:

>
> "JimH" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:Xns9C072033272EAhahadotdotdot@74.209.136.81.. .
>> JimH <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>> news:Xns9C071A1EBA894hahadotdotdot@74.209.136.99:
>>
>>>
>>> That explains a lot. Where would I get the software bridge?
>>>
>>
>> I just Googled "software network bridge", and it would seem as if this
>> is a
>> standard feature in XP (which is what I'm using). Is this true?
>>
>
> yes, but.......
>
> in xp, there are usually network connections for various installed
> devices/segments... (local area, wireless, dial-up, etc) some usb
> dongles will create a seperate connection, and you can then bridge that
> to other things (right click, sometimes setting up a network, etc)

If I do decide to actually try it out, I'll look to see what options it gives
me.

Right now I'm at the "What hard/software will I need?" stage. This is the
first of several stages before I even get to the "Is it worth trying?" stage.


> if you don't have multiple network devices, you can't bridge em unless
> there is more than one, and you said you have no wireless, and only one
> network card so only one will show up, so i would suspect you can't
> bridge with your current setup....
>
>

That I can't bridge yet is understood. That's why I didn't yet have any
experience doing it yet.

"Peter Pan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed) m:

>
> "JimH" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:Xns9C071A1EBA894hahadotdotdot@74.209.136.99.. .
>> "Peter Pan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>> news:(E-Mail Removed) m:
>
>> When I mentioned it, the thought of a second network card came about
>> because I play World of Warcraft. I know of a few cases (*) where the
>> playability of the game improved significantly where (what might be
>> called)
>> a "gaming network card" was used. My thought was to maybe get one of
>> these,
>> hook my wired network into that, and use my existing network card for
>> the wireless. I'm not tied to that idea, it was just something that
>> occurred to
>> me.
>>
>> (*) The reason it's only "a few cases" is because I only know of a few
>> people who have done it. In every one of these cases the playability
>> improved.
>
> depends what you mean... there are basically two kinds of wired or
> wireless network game setups... single and multi/game party... the
> single user one is basically the same as a wire (think game controller
> extension cable but wireless/no cable, ie no dhcp server, no shared
> users on the same segment, etc), while the multi/game party setup is for
> multiple users/controllers, and it has to cycle between em to see if
> they have changed..... a second/seperate card will do that (ie unique
> device, sep network segment etc)
>

I can't give you the technical reasons for the improved performance (heck,
I don't even know the exact cards they used) - but they were all wired
systems running the World of Warcraft client app (connecting to standard
WoW servers).

What I now realize is that I do not know whether or not it involved a
switch from USB to Ethernet. Seeing as how USB isn't usually called a
"network card," and that every computer comes with USB making it likely
that the original setup DID use USB... I'm suspecting that it does.