Wireless Routers: Are there any good ones?

I guess inexpensive wireless routers are a technology in its infancy
because any set of reviews I read are full of negative experiences
whether with Netgear, Belkin, Linksys, or DLink.

I'm currently using a cheap 2-week old Belkin "wireless G" router that
has been great until it recently began to randomly kick me off line,
requiring a new log-in. It's not locking up however, like most reviews
indicate is the most popular problem; it just requires me to reconnect
often.

Like just now. Wt??

It's still covered by my 30-day refund thing at Best Buy; don't know
what brand to turn to. I don't know of any reason more expensive models
would have any more robust tech going for it, as far as inexplicable
drops. Any suggestions?

Thanks,
Rog

Roger <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:roger-C9654B.18363902112006@26-96-
177-194.serverdedicati.seflow.net:

> I guess inexpensive wireless routers are a technology in its infancy
> because any set of reviews I read are full of negative experiences
> whether with Netgear, Belkin, Linksys, or DLink.
>
> I'm currently using a cheap 2-week old Belkin "wireless G" router that
> has been great until it recently began to randomly kick me off line,
> requiring a new log-in. It's not locking up however, like most reviews
> indicate is the most popular problem; it just requires me to reconnect
> often.
>
> Like just now. Wt??
>
> It's still covered by my 30-day refund thing at Best Buy; don't know
> what brand to turn to. I don't know of any reason more expensive models
> would have any more robust tech going for it, as far as inexplicable
> drops. Any suggestions?
>
> Thanks,
> Rog
>

Could be interference. Could be the Windows Wireless Zero Config service.

Roger <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Any suggestions?

Use a cable.

Roger wrote:
> I guess inexpensive wireless routers are a technology in its infancy
> because any set of reviews I read are full of negative experiences
> whether with Netgear, Belkin, Linksys, or DLink.
>
> I'm currently using a cheap 2-week old Belkin "wireless G" router that
> has been great until it recently began to randomly kick me off line,
> requiring a new log-in. It's not locking up however, like most reviews
> indicate is the most popular problem; it just requires me to reconnect
> often. Like just now. Wt??
>
> It's still covered by my 30-day refund thing at Best Buy; don't know
> what brand to turn to. I don't know of any reason more expensive models
> would have any more robust tech going for it, as far as inexplicable
> drops. Any suggestions?

Do you have cable or DSL service? With some cable providers you have to
clone your MAC address from your nic, to keep from getting dropped, when
your IP is renewed.

I have a Linksys WRT54G that was about $50, which works fine for me.
However, it was a pain during the initial setup, simply because I knew
nothing about routers and how to set them up.
bj

Yes, Draytek Vigor series, it's office class kit, so not quite so cheap.
Regards,
Martin

Hi Roger,

You may also wish to investigate the Belkin Forum:

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/belkin

Additionally, the Toms Networking 2006 Home Hardware Router Comparison
Chart may be of interest:

http://www.bradreese.com/cisco-vs-competitor.htm#TOMS

Sincerely,

Brad Reese
Cisco Technical Forums
http://www.bradreese.com/cisco-technical-newsgroups.htm

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 18:36:47 -0500, Roger <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
<roger-(E-Mail Removed)>:

>I guess inexpensive wireless routers are a technology in its infancy
>because any set of reviews I read are full of negative experiences
>whether with Netgear, Belkin, Linksys, or DLink.

More a matter of cheap -- you tend to get what you pay for, and better
routers cost more.

>I'm currently using a cheap 2-week old Belkin "wireless G" router that
>has been great until it recently began to randomly kick me off line,
>requiring a new log-in. It's not locking up however, like most reviews
>indicate is the most popular problem; it just requires me to reconnect
>often.
>
>Like just now. Wt??
>
>It's still covered by my 30-day refund thing at Best Buy; don't know
>what brand to turn to. I don't know of any reason more expensive models
>would have any more robust tech going for it, as far as inexplicable
>drops. Any suggestions?

Buffalo. Also sold at Best Buy. Arguably the best of the affordable
products.

--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

Roger <(E-Mail Removed)> hath wroth:

>I guess inexpensive wireless routers are a technology in its infancy
>because any set of reviews I read are full of negative experiences
>whether with Netgear, Belkin, Linksys, or DLink.

All reviews are full of negative experiences. I once reviewed some
hardware for a magazine. I couldn't find anything really wrong with
the router in the time allowed (about 24 hours). My editor demanded
that I find something wrong as few of the readers would believe that
any such complex product could be anywhere near perfect. Although the
magazines will deny it, there's also a apparent correlation between
vendor advertisements and reviews.

The users comments on various sites also need some filtering. I
ignore any "one line" comments, such as "this product sucks" and
similar remarks. The ones worth reading are those by users that have
obviously done their homework, actually used the product for more than
a few seconds, and appear to be knowledgeable. Those that appear to
be generally helpful instead of judgmental are also worth reading.
That eliminates perhaps 90% of the user comments.

One particular generalization also causes problems. The comments fail
to distinguish between a vendor and a manufacturer. None of the
commodity vendors manufacture their own hardware. They buy it from
manufacturers in China, Taiwan, Japan, etc. In some cases, they do
their own firmware, but mostly just "brand" it with the vendors name.
The result is that a given vendor might be selling products from
multiple manufacturers, all of which differ radically in quality,
features, reliability, and design. In some cases, a given product
name may have identical plastic cases, but the electronics inside is
radically different between various hardware versions. In other
words, you can't just say "Buffalo is the best" or some such
generalization. The comments have to be specific to the product,
model, and hardware version.

>I'm currently using a cheap 2-week old Belkin "wireless G" router that
>has been great until it recently began to randomly kick me off line,
>requiring a new log-in. It's not locking up however, like most reviews
>indicate is the most popular problem; it just requires me to reconnect
>often.

It could be interference from an external source. It could also be a
problem with your unspecified model Belkin router. It could also be a
problem with whatever you're using for a client radio or computer. The
best troubleshooting method is to isolate the problem by replacement.
Try a different channel. Can you move the router into a basement or
some RF free environment and try again? If that works, it's
interference. Try it with a known working laptop. That will
eliminate the client radio and computer as a problem. Lastly, borrow
a different model wireless router and see if it works any better.

>Like just now. Wt??
>
>It's still covered by my 30-day refund thing at Best Buy; don't know
>what brand to turn to. I don't know of any reason more expensive models
>would have any more robust tech going for it, as far as inexplicable
>drops. Any suggestions?

I have my favorites but they probably don't apply to whatever you're
doing. You apparently just want it to work and are not into
monitoring, traffic shaping, long range, etc. I also don't like to
recommend anything that I haven't tried. If cheap and simple is your
thing, I suggest Netgear WGR614 v5 or v6. If you have some special
requirements, please advise and I'll see if there's something else
more suitable.

--
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

On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 10:10:33 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
<(E-Mail Removed)>:

>One particular generalization also causes problems. The comments fail
>to distinguish between a vendor and a manufacturer. None of the
>commodity vendors manufacture their own hardware. They buy it from
>manufacturers in China, Taiwan, Japan, etc. In some cases, they do
>their own firmware, but mostly just "brand" it with the vendors name.
>The result is that a given vendor might be selling products from
>multiple manufacturers, all of which differ radically in quality,
>features, reliability, and design. In some cases, a given product
>name may have identical plastic cases, but the electronics inside is
>radically different between various hardware versions. In other
>words, you can't just say "Buffalo is the best" or some such
>generalization. The comments have to be specific to the product,
>model, and hardware version.

I disagree. While "all generalizations are false," some vendors do have
a much higher standard of quality and differentiation than others, and
Buffalo is one of them.

--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

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

>Buffalo. Also sold at Best Buy. Arguably the best of the affordable
>products.

Ok, I like to argue.

I resold a WHR-HP-G54 to a customer to get some experience with the
products.
<http://www.buffalotech.com/products/product-detail.php?productid=115&categoryid=29>
What immediately caught my attention was the bogus hype claiming
"Wireless-G MIMO Performance* Router & Access Point".
There's nothing MIMO about this router. The accompanying footnote
explaining the abuse of the term MIMO explains:
*This product uses a two antenna/single high power transmitter
technology. It is not designed to anticipated 802.11n standards.
Based on Buffalo Technology outdoor tests (see accompanying chart),
this product outperforms two radio/three antenna MIMO technology
beyond certain distances. Buffalo Technology testing also shows that
this product equals or exceeds the performance of two radio/two
antenna MIMO technology at all distances.

In other words, they claim that they use of a higher power transmitter
allows their marketting department to abuse the term MIMO in an
apparent attempt to cash in on the lastest buzzword and acronym. Never
mind that even the IEEE can't figure out what constitutes MIMO.

Of course, a different page modifies the claims somewhat:
<http://www.buffalotech.com/products/highpower.php>
*This product uses a two antenna/single high power transmitter
technology. It is not designed to anticipated 802.11n standards.
Based on Buffalo Technology outdoor tests (see accompanying chart),
this product outperforms two radio/three antenna MIMO technology
beyond certain distances. Buffalo Technology testing also shows that
this product equals or exceeds the performance of two radio/two
antenna MIMO technology at all distances. When operating in
High-Speed Mode, this Wi-Fi device achieves an actual throughput of
up to 34.1 Mbps, which is the equivalent throughput of a system
following 802.11g protocol and operating at a signaling rate of 125
Mbps. Actual data rate, features and performance may vary depending
on your computer system, the environment and other factors.

I would be really interested in knowing how they performed this test
as it's not possible to lock the signaling rate in firmware to
125Mbits/sec, only to 54Mbit/sec. Also, if you look at the lower
right of the graph, you'll note that one of the client PC used was
running Windoze XP with only 112MBytes of RAM. I don't think so. They
were also using XP SP1 which has serious wireless driver problems not
present in SP2. The test was apparently conducted in 2005, but SP2
has been available since Aug 2004. Hmmm....

It's too soon for me to tell if this router is a winner or loser. So
far, the range is quite a bit better than the BEFW11S4v2 that it
replaced. I disabled auto channel selection because it was causing
wireless disconnects. I also disabled Turbo-G because there were no
Turbo-G client radios in the system. 802.11b compatibility is on so I
can use my 802.11b only PDA (XV6700). AOSS turned itself on without
invitation twice, so I disabled it. I had a problem running both the
internal antenna and an external panel antennas. My PDA would
sometimes connect using the wrong antenna on the router (judging by
the indicated signal strength), so I disabled diversity reception.

So far, other than the advertising hype, it looks good.

--
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