Home Network Patch Panel : How can they be mounted?

[bernardgreen]

Trouble is, how many of them are going to turn to being wireless only in the future?

The comments about networks fighting each other have been said.

" Eventually it will come to pass that there will be no data passed and wired systems will be the new must have" ( anon ).

The other serious and often seriously overlooked problem with wireless is security of data. Your next door neighbour's network receivers will almost always receive your data but will ignore it. The criminal in the van outside with a high gain aerial can also eavesdrop on your network but will not ignore your bank details as they are passed across your "secure" network.

 

[Monkeh]

Well, they've got RSN and two layers of TLS to get through to see mine. I wish them the best of luck!

They're welcome to the AP over the street, though. And the one three streets off I use time to time.

 

[SimonH2]

Trouble is, how many of them are going to turn to being wireless only in the future?

Not suitable.

I never suggested it was suitable, the question, more completely, is how many consumer devices will be becoming primarily or solely wireless in the near future?

As consumers expect things to be able to function without these old fashioned, 20th century creations of copper and plastic, manufacturers will attempt to meet that expectation..

ANd then when the kit doesn't perform, the consumers will blame the kit, and any manufacturer that's gone wireless only will get well and truly burnt by the support costs, returns costs, and general "loss of reputation".
As bernardgreen says, some day cabled networks will be the latest must have technology !

Also, I fit into the 'stomp over' category, unfortunately. When the neighbours with their army of preconfigured APs with excessively omni antennas start intruding on my airspace, the unlocked radio gets turned up. Sucks to be them.

How very civilised of you - not

 

[electronicsuk]

Also, I fit into the 'stomp over' category, unfortunately. When the neighbours with their army of preconfigured APs with excessively omni antennas start intruding on my airspace, the unlocked radio gets turned up. Sucks to be them.

Only any use if you can turn up the radios on both ends, though. If you can't up the power beyond the legal limits on your mobile phone or laptop, for example, then you're still limited by the receive sensitivity of the AP.

I'd suggest that rather than take the above approach, anyone seriously affected by wireless congestion switch to 802.11a. While the band it operates in is *technically* licensed, it's only a light licensing scheme and, as far as I'm aware, isn't really policed. Not that the licenses are particularly expensive, but it seems like you'd just be lining Ofcom's pockets for very little gain.

 

[SimonH2]

I'd suggest that rather than take the above approach, anyone seriously affected by wireless congestion switch to 802.11a. While the band it operates in is *technically* licensed, it's only a light licensing scheme and, as far as I'm aware, isn't really policed. Not that the licenses are particularly expensive, but it seems like you'd just be lining Ofcom's pockets for very little gain.

Yes, the 5.8G band is generally fairly quiet, but more and more stuff is now dual-band 802.11n which will soon have that band getting busy. And it's unlicensed for indoor use (Band B IIRC), you only need a licence for outdoor (Band C) use.

 

[Monkeh]

Also, I fit into the 'stomp over' category, unfortunately. When the neighbours with their army of preconfigured APs with excessively omni antennas start intruding on my airspace, the unlocked radio gets turned up. Sucks to be them.

Only any use if you can turn up the radios on both ends, though. If you can't up the power beyond the legal limits on your mobile phone or laptop, for example, then you're still limited by the receive sensitivity of the AP.

High gain antennas work quite nicely to increase my sensitivity.

I'd suggest that rather than take the above approach, anyone seriously affected by wireless congestion switch to 802.11a. While the band it operates in is *technically* licensed, it's only a light licensing scheme and, as far as I'm aware, isn't really policed. Not that the licenses are particularly expensive, but it seems like you'd just be lining Ofcom's pockets for very little gain.

I would, but only some of my hardware supports it, and APs are rare, costly, and have limited firmware options.

How very civilised of you - not

I have little choice. They're polluting the airwaves and, unlike them, I do more than use Google and Facebook. It's not my fault not a single one of them has changed from the default channel, has excessive transmit power, and poor quality antennas. I can pick up most of the local BT HomeHubs, which are on channel 1, while locked to channel 13.

 

[SimonH2]

I have little choice. They're polluting the airwaves and, unlike them, I do more than use Google and Facebook. It's not my fault not a single one of them has changed from the default channel, has excessive transmit power, and poor quality antennas. I can pick up most of the local BT HomeHubs, which are on channel 1, while locked to channel 13.

If you have evidence that the equipment is 'faulty' then complain to OfCom. But given the previous way OfCom appear to not want to so much as "tut tut" in BT's direction (cf PLTs and them splattering all over the spectrum), don't expect much to happen.

It may not do any good, but if no-one complains then no problem will ever appear in the stats.

Cue amusing story from many years ago. A friend was a radio amateur and kept getting visits from an "annoyed" neighbour about TV interference. Since this was back in the days when the Post Office would send out people to investigate he kept telling said neighbour how to get a form and send it in. After frequent visits from "Mr Angry", my friend got fed up and did it for him.
Mr Angry was shortly Mr Exceedingly Angry - the reason he wouldn't complain was because he didn't have a licence

Postscript. My friend was in the Post Office a week or two later, and in conversation found out that they'd sold four TV licences in the same street in the previous week

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I have little choice. They're polluting the airwaves

No - they are using approved equipment, legally obtained, in accordance with the maker's instructions.

and, unlike them, I do more than use Google and Facebook.

And that makes you more important?

It's not my fault not a single one of them has changed from the default channel, has excessive transmit power, and poor quality antennas.

Nor is it theirs - what gives you the right to punish them for it?

 

[Monkeh]

I have little choice. They're polluting the airwaves

No - they are using approved equipment, legally obtained, in accordance with the maker's instructions.

And?

and, unlike them, I do more than use Google and Facebook.

And that makes you more important?

It means they can suffer losing a little bandwidth, I cannot.

It's not my fault not a single one of them has changed from the default channel, has excessive transmit power, and poor quality antennas.

Nor is it theirs - what gives you the right to punish them for it?

What makes you think they even notice?

 

[electronicsuk]

Monkeh, gotta agree with Ban-All-Sheds on this one. It's not regulated spectrum, so it's rather unfair that others should have to suffer simply because you believe that your use of the spectrum is more important than theirs. If you want guaranteed bandwidth, move onto a licensed band and buy new equipment. Sorry!

 

[Monkeh]

Monkeh, gotta agree with Ban-All-Sheds on this one. It's not regulated spectrum, so it's rather unfair that others should have to suffer simply because you believe that your use of the spectrum is more important than theirs. If you want guaranteed bandwidth, move onto a licensed band and buy new equipment. Sorry!

What equipment do you suggest I get? Which fits into, say, a Mac Mini?

Yeah, nothing, thought so. All these people do is browse the web, they won't even notice if their overall bandwidth is being restricted. I do notice when I'm unable to watch a high bitrate file when they're playing childish games on Facebook and not paying for their music by listening to it all on Youtube.

 

[electronicsuk]

Monkeh, gotta agree with Ban-All-Sheds on this one. It's not regulated spectrum, so it's rather unfair that others should have to suffer simply because you believe that your use of the spectrum is more important than theirs. If you want guaranteed bandwidth, move onto a licensed band and buy new equipment. Sorry!

What equipment do you suggest I get? Which fits into, say, a Mac Mini?

Yeah, nothing, thought so. All these people do is browse the web, they won't even notice if their overall bandwidth is being restricted. I do notice when I'm unable to watch a high bitrate file when they're playing childish games on Facebook and not paying for their music by listening to it all on Youtube.

Perhaps you should go wired? And besides, following a similar logic to yours, I can't get a yacht (because I can't afford one, and in fact I don't want one, but devils advocate and all...), so I guess it would be OK for me to steal one? After all, rich people don't really deserve yachts - they leave them moored most of the time, and wouldn't even notice if they went missing. I'm unable to compete in a serious yacht race, while they're out taking childish pleasure cruises and cleverly avoiding their taxes.

On second thoughts, that analogy needs work, but you get the point.

 

[Monkeh]

Perhaps you should go wired?

If I could, I would. It's not always an option.

And besides, following a similar logic to yours, I can't get a yacht (because I can't afford one, and in fact I don't want one, but devils advocate and all...), so I guess it would be OK for me to steal one? After all, rich people don't really deserve yachts - they leave them moored most of the time, and wouldn't even notice if they went missing. I'm unable to compete in a serious yacht race, while they're out taking childish pleasure cruises and cleverly avoiding their taxes.

On second thoughts, that analogy needs work, but you get the point.

That analogy definitely needs a lot of work, yes.

 

[SimonH2]

Monkeh, gotta agree with Ban-All-Sheds on this one. It's not regulated spectrum, so it's rather unfair that others should have to suffer simply because you believe that your use of the spectrum is more important than theirs. If you want guaranteed bandwidth, move onto a licensed band and buy new equipment. Sorry!

I agree.
Just because Monkeh thinks his use is more important than the others doesn't give him the right to BREAK THE LAW by deliberately cranking up his power to deliberately interfere with them. The fact that he wants to watch high bitrate video doesn't give him any right to ignore the regulations just because he thinks it's more important than whatever someone else is doing.

If he thinks their kit is not compliant he should make a complaint. In spite of my earlier comments regarding OfCom, they can't use the same excuse as they did with BT and PLT since this kit is designed to transmit.

As pointed out, if he cannot make do with the unlicenced bands available, he should go to a different band. It CAN be done with a Mac Mini - it has an ethernet port, so you can plug a client bridge unit into that and the Mac doesn't know it's using radio.
An obvious starting point is 802.11a, or dual band 802.11n. He will most likely find the unlicensed 5.8G band fairly quiet at the moment.
After that, there are various option in licensed bands - but no, I don't know anything about them.

But of course, there are some interesting cabled options too - including a flat cable that could be fitted under carpet as long as it's not in a heavily trafficed area. It's really, really rare to find somewhere that CAN'T be wired - usually it's only DON'T WANT. If it's don't want, then your choice - how much do you want video ?

As an aside, it comes up on the MythTV mailing list from time to time, and the standard response is DON'T. Wireless just doesn't cut it for jitter sensitive streams like video. Some users have had success with PLT (ie use the mains wiring).

 

[bernardgreen]

He will most likely find the unlicensed 5.8G band fairly quiet at the moment.

At the moment but maybe not for long. Then he may regret the decision to go wireless.

As to cranking up the ERP ( transmitted power ) to blot out the interfering transmitters ? That is never a a good idea. Exceeding the permitted radiated power can lead to confiscation of the illegal SYSTEM. That is the illegal radio equipment AND all equipment connected to it.