WAP the hell?

[ffutures]

I'm finding the WiFi signal in my flat gets a bit poor by the time I'm out on the back roof, and looking at three main answers:

1. Move the router / transmitter and see if I get a better signal (needs several longer network cables, an extension cable for the router's power supply, say £10-15 all in)
2. Put another wireless access point in the back room near the window, to extend coverage to the roof and the garden below. Preferred solution, but probably the most costly since I can't find a WAP under 45 quid.
3. Run a length of CAT cable out to the back window so that I can plug the laptop in directly, thus avoiding the problem completely. Probably eight or nine quid for cable. Undoubtedly the best option in terms of speed, but it feels a little inelegant. However, I may want a network point there eventually if I ever set up a dedicated computer for TV recording etc.

Can anyone tell me why a WAP costs considerably more than a router with WAP built in (Linksys currently £36 from Amazon)? Also, is it possible to daisy-chain two routers, thus adding four more network sockets as well as the WAP, or would the second router's firewall get in the way? No urgency about this, but opinions would be appreciated.

Comments

Opinion

[the-magician.livejournal.com]

Well, as I recall from the Linksys documentation, the routers can indeed be daisy chained (and they say you can daisy chain up to 255 devices if I remember correctly).

I'm guessing a lot more people buy routers with WAP built in than buy separate routers so the unit costs drop.

On Amazon, the BEFW11S4 (Linksys cable router with wap) is 36 quid, the Linksys Wireless-G Access Point (wap with no router) is 57 pounds, BUT the WAP-alone is 802.11g which means up to 54Mbps rather than the maximum 11Mbps of the 36 quid unit. Or you can pay 41.97 for the stand alone 802.11b Linksys Instant Wireless Network Access Point WAP11.

The range quoted on the cable router with wap (BEFW11S4) is 100ft at 11Mbps, on the standalone WAP11 (five quid more), it's 164ft at 11Mbps ... so for five quid you don't get the extra four ports but you get an extra 66% on the range at 11Mbps (and the maximum range goes from 300ft at 1Mbps indoors to 500ft for the standalone).

Oh, and notice that Amazon quote that the 36 quid price is marked down from 50 quid while the 41 quid price of the standalone hasn't got a similar markdown price ...

... I'd be tempted to spend the extra and get the 802.11g WAP with router, and then sell off the previous router to someone who has cable but not a home network yet ... I bought my own very recently otherwise I'd have given you 25 quid for yours ...

Re: Opinion

[ffutures.livejournal.com]

Trouble is I mostly don't need WiFi, it's only for the laptop and very occasional use, and the laptop is fine inside the flat, so I'm reluctant to spend a fortune on it. It also belatedly occurs to me that the router is only 10 mbit on the uplink side, not 100, so while a second router would be OK for internet access it'd be a bit slow for file transfers etc. if I do set up a PC as a video recorder.

Looks like a 10/100 hub and cables may be the way to go - probably about 20 quid for the hub, I've got one long cable that'd reach from the router to a hub near the window, so not hugely expensive. If necessary I can later add a WAP point at the hub.

I still think ...

[the-magician.livejournal.com]

... you should sell the router you've got and buy the Linksys which is 100Mbit for wired connections!

I decided to buy a linksys router (the one with the switch technology inside so that each machine can basically use 100Mbit to talk to any other machine on the switch rather than sharing 100Mbit between them) it was around 40 quid. And I've been given an 802.11b WAP (thanks djbp!) to add wireless to that for my laptop for the moment until I get around to upgrading to 802.11g (or 11i or 11e next year).

Though certainly the cheapest option is as you suggest so that's a very good option also!

Re: I still think ...

[ffutures.livejournal.com]

The router I have is 100 mbit for the network, but the uplink side is 10 mbit - it's supposed to be connected to a cable modem, so that isn't too unreasonable. If I end up buying a hub or a switch that'll be 100 mbit too; I don't actually need one if it's only used for the laptop, I just need to run a cable out which shouldn't be too hard.

But first I'm going to see how far I can move the router without having to buy new cables, and if placing it elsewhere will help its performance.

[ffutures.livejournal.com]

And the answer appears to be that just moving the router a couple of feet has speeded things considerably - currently it's perched a little precariously on top of my main PC, if I sort out some longer cables and move it to on top of the bookshelf behind my desk it ought to be ok. Which lets me put off doing anything about putting a network socket in the back room until I'm sure I want a PC in there permanenrly.

Apologies for wasting your time on this - look like I just needed to clarify my thoughts on this and think about the alternatives.

[ci5rod.livejournal.com]

It's amazing what a difference of a few feet can make to reception -- unless you are deliberately trying to set up a bad environment for test purposes, in which case everywhere you try is perfect :-/ If you ever do buy a second AP, make sure it's the same make as your first otherwise roaming will not be as transparent as you might have hoped.