Wireless Internet

allies

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2002
2,572
0
71
Hey all:
I'm sure this has been asked before, but I'm on a 26.4k connection (university dialup, amazing speed ;) ) and searching and sifting through the results would take approx. 10 days. Well anyway my question is how good is Fixed Wireless? I'm a gamer and I was wondering if it had the same latency issues as satellite does (or if it has any latency issues at all). I've heard that it doesn't, but now I need some 'professional' opinions :p Well thanks ahead for the responses :p
 

Schnieds

Senior member
Jul 18, 2002
518
0
0
Latency issues aren't a problem between your PC wireless card and your access point. At the current speed of 11mbps (802.11b) this is well over your internet connection speed, even if you get DSL, Cable, OR a college T1 connection. However, if you have more than 2 or 3 wireless clients on your wireless network your performance will be abysmal. If you plan to have more than 3 wireless clients on your network playing games or transferring files at the same time I would spend the extra bucks for an 802.11a access point and wireless cards (~55mbps.)
 

allies

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2002
2,572
0
71
Thx for the quick response, but it's not completely on my topic (I think). I'm talking about an actual Wireless Internet connection, and you might be talking about a wireless router? I'm not too sure because I've always been wired =) ...
 

rw120555

Golden Member
Jun 13, 2001
1,263
0
0
Allies, could you clarify what your setup is? Like, is your university providing wireless in your dorms or classrooms or something? If so, I heard a presentation from a Dean at Wake forest a few weeks ago, talking about how they had made wireless widely available. But, he basically thought it wasn't ready for prime time -- students still preferred to plug in an ethernet cable whenever they could, because the wireless was too slow, especially with so many people using it. Don't know if that pertains to your situation or not.
 

JackMDS

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 25, 1999
29,516
408
126
LOL you are using 26K, and are worried about the latency of faster connection.

Some Wireless Internet Connections have terrible latency. Keep the 26K as a spare, you can install a second connection, and choose dialup before you start.

 

ktwebb

Platinum Member
Nov 20, 1999
2,488
1
0
Yes, give us some details on what sort of link your talking about. Satellite, like you mentioned, is awful, but if you are talking about a 2.4 link, 802.11b or otherwise, then latency is a non-issue. If there are people that have 2.4 Ghz links that have latency issues, then it was engineered or installed poorly or both. Even at 20 miles, a good wireless link will add only 1-5 ms into the mix from wireless device to wireless device. What the provider does after that may add in lag but the wireless part, again clarifying that is must be a good link, is a non-factor as far as latency is concerned.
 

allies

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2002
2,572
0
71
Ok, here's some info...I guess it's referred to as a WISP (Wireless Internet Service Provider)
www.comwavz.com
They offer business and residential wireless connections, and I think they use microwaves that operate on 2.4 ghz. That's about all I know, but looking over their coverage map it looks like I am inside two of the areas that supported (I live in Lucas Co. if you do take a look at the map) so this means i'm most likely within 20 miles of the towers.
thx for all the help.
 

ktwebb

Platinum Member
Nov 20, 1999
2,488
1
0
From their site:

"An antenna, cabling, a Cisco workgroup bridge (radio transceiver), router and connection to your network hub or switch."

802.11b. They are using (hopefully) Cisco 350 series AP's with the workgroup bridges associating to them it looks like. Installed hundreds of them (literally). Very good 802.11b hardware, both AP's and WGB's. As long as the link is good, you won't see more than 3-5 ms extra latency from the wireless side of the link. That's assuming it can be done. You talked about your distance being less than 20 miles. If your even around that number, that's still a VERY big number unless their tower is enormous and tree coverage is minimal around your immediate area. I am sure they will send someone out first to do a site survey. Hopefully this would be free and you should be able to ask the tech/engineer some specific questions then.
 

Buddha Bart

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 1999
3,064
0
0
they very deliberatly do not mention what method/protocol they're using to provide this service, but I strongly doubt its 802.11b.

heck i even just looked up a local guy that does the same thing, and he never gets technical.... kinda odd...

oh well, your best bet is to call, and get ahold of a current customer or a seemingly intelligent network admin and just ask.

bart
 

ktwebb

Platinum Member
Nov 20, 1999
2,488
1
0
If their using cisco workgroup bridges then it's 802.11b. Assuming Cisco does not have brand new hardware and technology that only this company is privvy to. The only Cisco wireless Workgroup bridges are .11b. Hopefully their using the 350 Line at least. Perhaps their using 1200 series hardware which can be configured with 802.11a radios when available, which they aren't from Cisco currently.


Not a good solution long-term or in volume unfortunately. Even with shielded antennas in several directions on a tower the bandwidth is severly limiting. Western Multiplex or Wi-Lan full duplex, high bandwidth bridging would be a much more effective solution but costly. It does appear that these guys (assuming the quote I ripped from their site if accurate) are in fact using 802.11b.
 

allies

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2002
2,572
0
71
Originally posted by: ktwebb
If their using cisco workgroup bridges then it's 802.11b. Assuming Cisco does not have brand new hardware and technology that only this company is privvy to. The only Cisco wireless Workgroup bridges are .11b. Hopefully their using the 350 Line at least. Perhaps their using 1200 series hardware which can be configured with 802.11a radios when available, which they aren't from Cisco currently.


Not a good solution long-term or in volume unfortunately. Even with shielded antennas in several directions on a tower the bandwidth is severly limiting. Western Multiplex or Wi-Lan full duplex, high bandwidth bridging would be a much more effective solution but costly. It does appear that these guys (assuming the quote I ripped from their site if accurate) are in fact using 802.11b.


Wait, what exactly does the "Not a good solution long-term or in volume unfortunately." mean? This wouldn't be a good choice for me? I don't think the company is too big around here because most of our broadband people use a service that's a monopoly in our area, that I probably won't support anymore. Thanks for the help, and when the Techie comes tomorrow I'll ask him/her for details about the service and keep you guys updated.
 

ktwebb

Platinum Member
Nov 20, 1999
2,488
1
0
Interference is everywhere. We dealt with interference issues all the time with our 2.4 links. And with 802.11b, even with multiple segments using different non-overlapping channels, the bandwidth is just not there for volume use. There are plenty of companies using 2.4 to provide internet service so it can work, but after putting up wireless WAN links from 97-late last year I wouldn't suscribe to an 802.11b internet service. If that is your only choice then it might be worth it, assuming the airwaves are clean and the companies are good at what they do. If you have ANY opportunity to get cable or dSL then you should definitely go that route. Wireless internet service is truely a last mile technology at any frequency.