Hi all

Just a general enquiry really.
Noticed on posts for data/sky/tv cabling that people were still advocating
installation of network and phone cabling.
This is obviously at odds to the current hype wireless
networking/broadband etc.
I have already installed cat 5 and phone lines to most rooms, but am
beginning to think that technology has overtaken this.

Apart from the security issues with wireless broadband, can anyone support
the case for putting in a wired home network and phone system?

TIA

Phil

TheScullster wrote:

Just a general enquiry really.
Noticed on posts for data/sky/tv cabling that people were still advocating
installation of network and phone cabling.
This is obviously at odds to the current hype wireless
networking/broadband etc.
I have already installed cat 5 and phone lines to most rooms, but am
beginning to think that technology has overtaken this.

Apart from the security issues with wireless broadband, can anyone support
the case for putting in a wired home network and phone system?

Wired phone system, no. But there are no end of niggles with wireless
networking, it seems to me. Handy to have, but nowhere near as
reliable as TP, ime.

What you *should* have done is run fibre around the house, although the
various media convertors might have proved a touch expensive ;-)

--
"Either this man is dead or my watch has stopped."

"John Laird" wrote in message
oups.com...
TheScullster wrote:

Just a general enquiry really.
Noticed on posts for data/sky/tv cabling that people were still
advocating
installation of network and phone cabling.
This is obviously at odds to the current hype wireless
networking/broadband etc.
I have already installed cat 5 and phone lines to most rooms, but am
beginning to think that technology has overtaken this.

Apart from the security issues with wireless broadband, can anyone
support
the case for putting in a wired home network and phone system?

Wired phone system, no. But there are no end of niggles with wireless
networking, it seems to me. Handy to have, but nowhere near as
reliable as TP, ime.

What you *should* have done is run fibre around the house, although the
various media convertors might have proved a touch expensive ;-)

--
"Either this man is dead or my watch has stopped."


Wired phone system, yes. When you are in bed and fire breaks out downstairs
and trips your power supply your bedside DECT phone is simply an ornament!
There is a place for DECT phones and I have several - but I also have a
number of wired extensions.

Also network cabling is faster and more reliable, but again I also have a
wireless access point.

Peter

"TheScullster" wrote in message
. uk...
Hi all

Just a general enquiry really.
Noticed on posts for data/sky/tv cabling that people were still advocating
installation of network and phone cabling.
This is obviously at odds to the current hype wireless
networking/broadband etc.
I have already installed cat 5 and phone lines to most rooms, but am
beginning to think that technology has overtaken this.

Apart from the security issues with wireless broadband, can anyone support
the case for putting in a wired home network and phone system?

TIA

Phil

Coincidently I just read a review of a wireless media streamer, capable of
streaming HD video from a PC to a TV
(http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/01...gital_eva700/). It
noted that

'if you're looking to push HD through the device, you're probably better off
sticking to the wired link. With an un-congested 802.11g network and the
wind behind it, it'll just about cope with HD over wireless, but if anyone
else is using the connection, then dropped frames and blocky pictures could
ensue.'

That seems a reasonable endorsment of the need for cables. I personally
think of wireless vs wires like a helicopter vs a road - take the helicopter
to get a light load to the bottom of the garden, take the road when you want
to move a few tonnes cheaply.

Andy

TheScullster wrote:

Apart from the security issues with wireless broadband, can anyone support
the case for putting in a wired home network and phone system?

For network acccess, wired still offers better speed, reliability, and
security. It is also easier to configure. As the amount of data we
stream about our homes increases (and our neighbours) this will become
more apparent.

Telecoms almost becomes a non issue since it can share the same wiring
as the network if it is done right. DECT is ok, but wired phones still
offer a reliability and simplicity that they don't.

Finally if you want to add your own PBX then wires are still the way to
go as well.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"TheScullster" wrote in message
. uk...
Hi all

Just a general enquiry really.
Noticed on posts for data/sky/tv cabling that people were still advocating
installation of network and phone cabling.
This is obviously at odds to the current hype wireless
networking/broadband etc.
I have already installed cat 5 and phone lines to most rooms, but am
beginning to think that technology has overtaken this.

Apart from the security issues with wireless broadband, can anyone support
the case for putting in a wired home network and phone system?

TIA

Phil


Wired networking is certainly worth it IMHO.

Gigabit switched networking against 56 ( or a bit more ) Mbit shared just
doesn't compare, especially if you are shifting large DVD ISOs around the
network for example.

There are also plenty pieces of networking kit that are designed for wired
operation, which would require you to buy wireless bridges for. I've yet to
see a wireless bridge that supports high-end security options like
WPA2-Enterprise which I use on my network. An un-necessary,
poorer-performing ( if it can be made to work at all ), cumbersome
alternative to wired, if wired is an option.

Also, if you have any plans to use VoIP, then wired networking can provide
Power-over-Ethernet, which is a tidy way to hook up your phones.

I use wireless only where wired is difficult or inconvenient.
It's nice on the laptops in the middle of the living room, or sitting on a
kitchen worktop for example.

--
Ron

In article ,
TheScullster writes
Hi all

Just a general enquiry really.
Noticed on posts for data/sky/tv cabling that people were still advocating
installation of network and phone cabling.
This is obviously at odds to the current hype wireless
networking/broadband etc.
I have already installed cat 5 and phone lines to most rooms, but am
beginning to think that technology has overtaken this.

Apart from the security issues with wireless broadband, can anyone support
the case for putting in a wired home network and phone system?

Yes, reliability and performance and rejection of interference from all
those licence exempt devices that surround you...

And Yes we do have a wireless access point for visitors!....

--
Tony Sayer

Peter Andrews wrote:

Wired phone system, yes. When you are in bed and fire breaks out downstairs
and trips your power supply your bedside DECT phone is simply an ornament!

I have a perfectly good mobile phone for just such an emergency.
Besides, I would have to extend your argument to placing a wired
extension phone next to the beds of everyone in the house who might
have to call 999 and so that's at least 3 upstairs. I'm quite happy to
have one wired phone downstairs.

--
"Have cursor, will curse."

TheScullster wrote:
Hi all

Just a general enquiry really.
Noticed on posts for data/sky/tv cabling that people were still advocating
installation of network and phone cabling.
This is obviously at odds to the current hype wireless
networking/broadband etc.
I have already installed cat 5 and phone lines to most rooms, but am
beginning to think that technology has overtaken this.

Apart from the security issues with wireless broadband, can anyone support
the case for putting in a wired home network and phone system?

TIA

Phil

I've found it very flexible to have very simple CAT5 cabling between 3
rooms (double socket in each room, wired to each of the other two to
make a sort of triangle) as well as a wireless access point and then
expand as necessary with switches (which are cheaper than additional
cable & sockets) because:
- Initially used a couple of older PCs with cheap network cards
- Some visiting computers haven't been wireless
- We have a network printer and network filestore
Worked well for us and fairly discrete except in the office with most
of the kit.
Al

TheScullster wrote:
Hi all

Just a general enquiry really.
Noticed on posts for data/sky/tv cabling that people were still advocating
installation of network and phone cabling.
This is obviously at odds to the current hype wireless
networking/broadband etc.
I have already installed cat 5 and phone lines to most rooms, but am
beginning to think that technology has overtaken this.

Apart from the security issues with wireless broadband, can anyone support
the case for putting in a wired home network and phone system?

TIA

Phil

you've had some really traditional answers re cables but if you actually
think about what you are going to access the web/whatever with, you'll
come to the conclusion* that you have 1 main PC, one laptop and maybe
a pocket PC. the laptop will have wi-fi built in, so will the pocket PC so
to get the benefit from their portability you'd need at least an access point.

might as well use a wireless router and take time to RTFM which will
remove 99% of connection and security issues. I have three or four
PCs lying about the place and whereas they had to be in a room with
a cat5 outlet or one with a temporary cable running into it, now I just
add an £8 wireless NIC and I'm on. sometimes I have to right click and
repair the wireless connection, big deal, 1 min later I'm back online.

all this tosh about network speed is willy waving, really. who /really/
wants to push HDTV over wi-fi when there's a far simpler method of
watching movies ? whoo, yeah, I can send a 3gb file over my network
in x minutes ... most people would use a DVD and take much less time.

excuse me, I'm just about to take my wi-fi laptop into the cat5 free kitchen
to read a recipe for slow cooked shin beef in ale with thyme dumplings.


*no kids, most other computers in boxes.

On Jan 5, 8:57 am, "John Laird" wrote:
TheScullster wrote:
Just a general enquiry really.
Noticed on posts for data/sky/tv cabling that people were still advocating
installation of network and phone cabling.
This is obviously at odds to the current hype wireless
networking/broadband etc.
I have already installed cat 5 and phone lines to most rooms, but am
beginning to think that technology has overtaken this.

Apart from the security issues with wireless broadband, can anyone support
the case for putting in a wired home network and phone system?

Wired phone system, no. But there are no end of niggles with wireless
networking, it seems to me. Handy to have, but nowhere near as
reliable as TP, ime.


I second that, especially concerning Belkin wireless kit.

MBQ

On Jan 5, 9:07 am, "Peter Andrews"
wrote:
Wired phone system, yes. When you are in bed and fire breaks out downstairs
and trips your power supply your bedside DECT phone is simply an ornament!

The smoke alarm should have woken you long before the power trips.

There is a place for DECT phones and I have several - but I also have a
number of wired extensions.

Getting everyone out comes higher on my list than trying to 'phone
anyone, even if it means jumping out of a window. If it's got to the
stage where summoning rescue by 'phone is your only hope, then you are
probably doomed anyway ;-)

MBQ

TheScullster wrote:
Hi all

Just a general enquiry really.
Noticed on posts for data/sky/tv cabling that people were still advocating
installation of network and phone cabling.
This is obviously at odds to the current hype wireless
networking/broadband etc.
I have already installed cat 5 and phone lines to most rooms, but am
beginning to think that technology has overtaken this.

Apart from the security issues with wireless broadband, can anyone support
the case for putting in a wired home network and phone system?


Its faster than wireless.
Its more secure than wireless
It works in electrically unfriendly environments.
Its dirt cheap because everybody has gone wireless and cant sell their
100BaseT kit for love or money on ebay.
You can run hones over it,
You can run alarms over it.

The ONLY downside is it is a pain to run wires,..but if you are rewiring
anyway, its a no brainer IMHO.



TIA

Phil

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Its dirt cheap because everybody has gone wireless and cant sell their
100BaseT kit for love or money on ebay.

strokes chin

I wonder why everyone's selling.

.. wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Its dirt cheap because everybody has gone wireless and cant sell their
100BaseT kit for love or money on ebay.

strokes chin

I wonder why everyone's selling.



To upgrade to gigabit ethernet, perhaps?

Styx wrote:
. wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Its dirt cheap because everybody has gone wireless and cant sell their
100BaseT kit for love or money on ebay.

strokes chin

I wonder why everyone's selling.



To upgrade to gigabit ethernet, perhaps?

for the diehard cable users/gamers no doubt, but I'll bet a lot of the
kit is going because people are /upgrading/ to wi-fi specifically
because of the benefits it offers over cable in houses with multiple
PCs, laptops and pocket PCs. even digital cameras have wi-fi
these days but it still remains horses for courses.

On 2007-01-05 08:45:06 +0000, "TheScullster" said:

Hi all

Just a general enquiry really.
Noticed on posts for data/sky/tv cabling that people were still
advocating installation of network and phone cabling.
This is obviously at odds to the current hype wireless
networking/broadband etc.
I have already installed cat 5 and phone lines to most rooms, but am
beginning to think that technology has overtaken this.

Apart from the security issues with wireless broadband, can anyone
support the case for putting in a wired home network and phone system?

TIA

Phil

I think that the short answer to this one is yes.

Just to put a perspective on this, I've worked in the networking industry
with various technologies for over 25 years - right back to when ethernet
involved a thick yellow co-ax cable that you had to drill and tap into in order
to make connections. The slightly later 10base2 (thin coax) ethernet
that was popular
for a while was the first that was perhaps realistic to install for a
small workgroup
or home network. That worked OK but tended to suffer from reliability
problems
because of the large number of connectors physically involved.

Undoubtedly CAT5 technology made the big difference to the practicality
of quite a lot of
network installation, and the components and cable have become extremely cheap.

WiFi has obviously made a huge contribution as well in terms of convenience and
for a lot of applications gives good results.

In enterprise (large company) environments, I typically see relatively
limited deployments
(depends on the business and sector) and a lot of trouble taken over
design and security,
to make sure that coverage is right but that the overall security of
the company network
is not compromised by the wireless network. Usually this is
accomplished by using higher
end access point devices - e.g. Cisco which have a variety of security
mechanisms built in
and there is effort made to fix bugs in the firmware that risk
compromising the performance
and security; and to have additional mechanisms like firewalls and
secured VPNs to
further raise the security barrier.

Smaller businesses and home users tend to buy the cheaper,
off-the-shelf wireless products
that you will probably have seen on the shelves of PC World and on the
web. Manufacturers
include the usual suspects such as Linksys, D-Link, Netgear,
Belkin,..... and so on.

These are supposed to work with minimal set-up and to an extent be an
out of the box product.
To a first degree, that is true. People with little technical skill
can get them working by following
a quick install guide. Where a physical card has to be installed in
a PC or equivalent, there are
the usual possible issues with drivers, interrupt conflicts and all
the rest of it which can cause
problems and sometimes be difficult to address. This has been made
easier by devices
such as notebooks, printers and PDAs having WiFi built in.

Having said that, most people seem to be quite clueless about
installation and security and there
are several issues there. Security has been publicised a lot and the
reasonably sensible are
able to do a reasonable first level job by using WPA security. It has
its shortcomings, but generally
all that is required for a home network is to enter a text password on
each device - a lot easier
and somewhat more secure than the earlier WEP mechanism which was not
that secure and
which often required users to enter passwords in hexadecimal on some
devices and text on another.

A surprisingly large number of people still don't bother. Recently,
I made a train trip of about
an hour from Waterloo, going through the suburbs of inner and outer
London and beyond. I was
using my Mac for some other work, but turned on a utility called
iStumbler. This activates the WiFi
interface and scans listening for access points. It displays a list
of what it finds with SSIDs (name
of the wireless LAN), plus channels, security status and type and
signal strengths. It doesn't attempt
to join the network, but will identify and log the presence of an
access point based on a couple of samples.
So even with the train moving along it was able to detect over a
hundred wireless LANs installed
within a couple of hundred metres or less of the railway line - this
was a mix of domestic and office
networks. Of this lot, only around a half had WPA or WEP turned on.

So it's like a burglar alarm. It won't protect against the determined
attacker (if he believes the prize
is worth it) but will make most try the next house. Most people if
asked, wouldn't be keen on their neighbours
sniffing into their financial information or getting free ride on
their internet connection.

The next point is about installation and channel selection. The
radio band used (around 2.4GHz) is
an unlicensed one in most countries. It is the place where a lot of
devices can potentially be run
including microwave ovens, video senders and other devices. These may
not generally be a
specific problem, but if you are in a location where you have a lot of
neighbours with wireless LANs within
range, there can be various problems with some equipment. One example
is if access devices close
by are running on the same or nearby channels (there are 13 in the UK,
although some equipment supports
only 11 because that is the limit in some countries). Radio
interference can certainly affect reliability
and performance of the connection; so if you are going to use WiFi it
makes good sense to do a survey
around your house and property to see what is close by. This can be
done with free software like NetStumbler
to a reasonable degree. It's best to avoid channels used by
neighbouring WLANs and indeed adjacent
ones. Of course a lot of people are unaware of this and don't change
the defaults, so if a bunch of neighbours
talk to one another and go out and buy the same vendor's product, they
will probably all be on
the same channel unless someone changes theirs. Ideally, it's an
idea to choose a channel that is two
or three away from others, especially if the signal is strong from a
neighbouring access point.
Even so, location of access point(s) in the house is quite important to
get good coverage.

Going on from this are the issues of speed and reliability. The
newer technologies of 802,11g (Wireless G) and various ones leading to
802,11n (Wireless -N, pre-N and others) promise higher speeds than the
original nominal 11Mbit technology. However, the raw, marketed rates
of 11, 54 and 108Mbits are not really achieved reliably
in typical installatations. There are various reasons for this.
Firstly, the wireless and various IP protocols used by the equipment
and applications reduce the real rate of data transfer quite
substantially - can be as little as 10% of the published speed that is
actually achieved. Secondly there is the interference and wireless
coverage issue. Thirdly, there is the behaviour of other devices of
yours joining the WLAN. All can have an impact.

Another factor is the quality and reliability of the firmware in the
wireless components. The lower end manufacturers do not invest a lot
in this, and for most products you will see 2-3 firmware updates during
a product's lifetime on sale. After that, there are generally no bug
fixes even if there are product problems.
Bad things certainly do happen. I have seen wireless access points
and routers that regularly run into trouble
and need to be rebooted every few days or even sooner. Generally
this is due to bugs in the firmware.

Of course, if you are using a Microsoft "operating system" you will
rebooting the PC anyway quite frequently.

Again if a determined hacker figures out the device (some manufacturers
have their name as the default SSID, others even the model), then they
may be able to launch a security or denial of service attack. This is
probably not that common in a residential setting, but if you are
concerned about these things there is certainly
a risk factor. Some wireless products turn out to be lemons.
Therefore it is unwise to buy the latest and greatest,
and much more sensible to wait for at least one firmware update and to
read user reviews.

In terms of speed, if the only application is internet access and
especially email and web access, then WiFi can be a good solution.
In most cases, the available WiFi speed will exceed that of the ISP
connection.

If you are concerned about wanting to do device to device communication
in your house, then I think you need to look more carefully. Speed
and connection reliability are still at a point where, for some
applications in some environments, the results are inferior to what can
be achieved with wired networking.
If you want to transfer large amounts of data where starting from the
beginning because the connection dropped
out is unacceptable, then you may want to check that carefully for
example. Some applications such as certain
types of media streaming sometimes do not work well on wireless connections.

So.... for my usage, I use both wired and wireless networks. There
is no doubt that the portability of WiFi is useful and convenient for
some devices and applications. However, for many usage cases, that
can be achieved by having a good distribution of wired outlets. For
example, if I want to use a notebook in any room of the house, I can
plug it into an outlet with a relatively short cable. I don't really
want to do that in the garden and not at all with a PDA. I've taken
quite a bit of trouble to secure the wireless LAN (all of the measures
mentioned above used by enterprises, and some more) and have used good
quality equipment with proper support of firmware.

Nonetheless, I do have applications that are sensitive to connection
dropouts and have to do file transfers of tens of gigabytes. I don't
use the WLAN for those.

My usage cases and the trouble I have gone to to secure and install the
WLAN correctly are probably not needed by a lot of people, but again
you can recognise the application areas where there may be issues.
The technology is certainly useful, but I wouldn't use it as the only
form of networking in the house.

.. wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Its dirt cheap because everybody has gone wireless and cant sell their
100BaseT kit for love or money on ebay.

strokes chin

I wonder why everyone's selling.


Simply fashion.

You are talking to a man with a 10 year old pc driving a 7 and a 20
year old printer via cabling that was young last century, with a second
hand ADSL router, in a 19" rack I got free as scrap..My stuff works, and
goes on working.

My sister in law spent a fortune on a laptop, and a wirless router, got
someone in to make it all work, and it seldom does.

HE says its to do with the mobile phone tower at the bottom of the
garden I think hes a ******. However its hard to tell because every time
we phone them up they can't find the radio phone and so never answer. My
phones can't be carried off in my wife's hand, because they are plugged
into the wall. This is fortunate because she has wandered off with 17
cigarette lighters, and I can't find a single one. The ones that the new
puppy hasn't chewed up that is. Of course it would take him longer -
maybe 2 minutes, to destroy a DECT phone..

And of course the little cheap analog PABX here will take a 10 quid
phone, and acts as a door answering machine as well. And will distribute
two incoming lines all round the house.

Wireless routers and phones suit youngsters who have never put a plug on
a cable in their lives, in ditzy new flats where they don't want to even
THINK about laying a cable. They are to busy laying each other. I see no
reason to not profit from their profligacy, do you?

Styx wrote:
. wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Its dirt cheap because everybody has gone wireless and cant sell their
100BaseT kit for love or money on ebay.

strokes chin

I wonder why everyone's selling.


To upgrade to gigabit ethernet, perhaps?

In order to run a print job to their USB connected printer a picosecond
quicker?

.. wrote:
Styx wrote:
. wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Its dirt cheap because everybody has gone wireless and cant sell their
100BaseT kit for love or money on ebay.
strokes chin

I wonder why everyone's selling.


To upgrade to gigabit ethernet, perhaps?

for the diehard cable users/gamers no doubt, but I'll bet a lot of the
kit is going because people are /upgrading/ to wi-fi specifically
because of the benefits it offers over cable in houses with multiple
PCs, laptops and pocket PCs. even digital cameras have wi-fi
these days but it still remains horses for courses.


But if you actually cabled the house when you built it..

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
. wrote:
Styx wrote:
. wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Its dirt cheap because everybody has gone wireless and cant sell their
100BaseT kit for love or money on ebay.
strokes chin

I wonder why everyone's selling.


To upgrade to gigabit ethernet, perhaps?

for the diehard cable users/gamers no doubt, but I'll bet a lot of the
kit is going because people are /upgrading/ to wi-fi specifically
because of the benefits it offers over cable in houses with multiple
PCs, laptops and pocket PCs. even digital cameras have wi-fi
these days but it still remains horses for courses.


But if you actually cabled the house when you built it..

new build? I'd put fiber in, for dedicated use, and wi-fi for everything else.
however, in terms of reference relevant to 90% of the population, wi-fi is
preferable to cabling an existing dwelling. most ofthe problems with wi-fi
are due to the loose nut in front of the monitor ;-)

horses for courses.

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-01-05 08:45:06 +0000, "TheScullster" said:

Hi all

Just a general enquiry really.
Noticed on posts for data/sky/tv cabling that people were still
advocating installation of network and phone cabling.
This is obviously at odds to the current hype wireless
networking/broadband etc.
I have already installed cat 5 and phone lines to most rooms, but am
beginning to think that technology has overtaken this.

Apart from the security issues with wireless broadband, can anyone
support the case for putting in a wired home network and phone system?

TIA

Phil

I think that the short answer to this one is yes.

Just to put a perspective on this, I've worked in the networking industry
with various technologies for over 25 years - right back to when ethernet
involved a thick yellow co-ax cable that you had to drill and tap into in order
to make connections. The slightly later 10base2 (thin coax) ethernet
that was popular
for a while was the first that was perhaps realistic to install for a
small workgroup
or home network. That worked OK but tended to suffer from reliability
problems
because of the large number of connectors physically involved.

Undoubtedly CAT5 technology made the big difference to the practicality
of quite a lot of
network installation, and the components and cable have become extremely cheap.

WiFi has obviously made a huge contribution as well in terms of convenience and
for a lot of applications gives good results.

In enterprise (large company) environments, I typically see relatively
limited deployments
(depends on the business and sector) and a lot of trouble taken over
design and security,
to make sure that coverage is right but that the overall security of
the company network
is not compromised by the wireless network. Usually this is
accomplished by using higher
end access point devices - e.g. Cisco which have a variety of security
mechanisms built in
and there is effort made to fix bugs in the firmware that risk
compromising the performance
and security; and to have additional mechanisms like firewalls and
secured VPNs to
further raise the security barrier.

Smaller businesses and home users tend to buy the cheaper,
off-the-shelf wireless products
that you will probably have seen on the shelves of PC World and on the
web. Manufacturers
include the usual suspects such as Linksys, D-Link, Netgear,
Belkin,..... and so on.

These are supposed to work with minimal set-up and to an extent be an
out of the box product.
To a first degree, that is true. People with little technical skill
can get them working by following
a quick install guide. Where a physical card has to be installed in
a PC or equivalent, there are
the usual possible issues with drivers, interrupt conflicts and all
the rest of it which can cause
problems and sometimes be difficult to address. This has been made
easier by devices
such as notebooks, printers and PDAs having WiFi built in.

Having said that, most people seem to be quite clueless about
installation and security and there
are several issues there. Security has been publicised a lot and the
reasonably sensible are
able to do a reasonable first level job by using WPA security. It has
its shortcomings, but generally
all that is required for a home network is to enter a text password on
each device - a lot easier
and somewhat more secure than the earlier WEP mechanism which was not
that secure and
which often required users to enter passwords in hexadecimal on some
devices and text on another.

A surprisingly large number of people still don't bother. Recently,
I made a train trip of about
an hour from Waterloo, going through the suburbs of inner and outer
London and beyond. I was
using my Mac for some other work, but turned on a utility called
iStumbler. This activates the WiFi
interface and scans listening for access points. It displays a list
of what it finds with SSIDs (name
of the wireless LAN), plus channels, security status and type and
signal strengths. It doesn't attempt
to join the network, but will identify and log the presence of an
access point based on a couple of samples.
So even with the train moving along it was able to detect over a
hundred wireless LANs installed
within a couple of hundred metres or less of the railway line - this
was a mix of domestic and office
networks. Of this lot, only around a half had WPA or WEP turned on.

So it's like a burglar alarm. It won't protect against the determined
attacker (if he believes the prize
is worth it) but will make most try the next house. Most people if
asked, wouldn't be keen on their neighbours
sniffing into their financial information or getting free ride on
their internet connection.

The next point is about installation and channel selection. The
radio band used (around 2.4GHz) is
an unlicensed one in most countries. It is the place where a lot of
devices can potentially be run
including microwave ovens, video senders and other devices. These may
not generally be a
specific problem, but if you are in a location where you have a lot of
neighbours with wireless LANs within
range, there can be various problems with some equipment. One example
is if access devices close
by are running on the same or nearby channels (there are 13 in the UK,
although some equipment supports
only 11 because that is the limit in some countries). Radio
interference can certainly affect reliability
and performance of the connection; so if you are going to use WiFi it
makes good sense to do a survey
around your house and property to see what is close by. This can be
done with free software like NetStumbler
to a reasonable degree. It's best to avoid channels used by
neighbouring WLANs and indeed adjacent
ones. Of course a lot of people are unaware of this and don't change
the defaults, so if a bunch of neighbours
talk to one another and go out and buy the same vendor's product, they
will probably all be on
the same channel unless someone changes theirs. Ideally, it's an
idea to choose a channel that is two
or three away from others, especially if the signal is strong from a
neighbouring access point.
Even so, location of access point(s) in the house is quite important to
get good coverage.

Going on from this are the issues of speed and reliability. The
newer technologies of 802,11g (Wireless G) and various ones leading to
802,11n (Wireless -N, pre-N and others) promise higher speeds than the
original nominal 11Mbit technology. However, the raw, marketed rates
of 11, 54 and 108Mbits are not really achieved reliably
in typical installatations. There are various reasons for this.
Firstly, the wireless and various IP protocols used by the equipment
and applications reduce the real rate of data transfer quite
substantially - can be as little as 10% of the published speed that is
actually achieved. Secondly there is the interference and wireless
coverage issue. Thirdly, there is the behaviour of other devices of
yours joining the WLAN. All can have an impact.

Another factor is the quality and reliability of the firmware in the
wireless components. The lower end manufacturers do not invest a lot
in this, and for most products you will see 2-3 firmware updates during
a product's lifetime on sale. After that, there are generally no bug
fixes even if there are product problems.
Bad things certainly do happen. I have seen wireless access points
and routers that regularly run into trouble
and need to be rebooted every few days or even sooner. Generally
this is due to bugs in the firmware.

Of course, if you are using a Microsoft "operating system" you will
rebooting the PC anyway quite frequently.

Again if a determined hacker figures out the device (some manufacturers
have their name as the default SSID, others even the model), then they
may be able to launch a security or denial of service attack. This is
probably not that common in a residential setting, but if you are
concerned about these things there is certainly
a risk factor. Some wireless products turn out to be lemons.
Therefore it is unwise to buy the latest and greatest,
and much more sensible to wait for at least one firmware update and to
read user reviews.

In terms of speed, if the only application is internet access and
especially email and web access, then WiFi can be a good solution.
In most cases, the available WiFi speed will exceed that of the ISP
connection.

If you are concerned about wanting to do device to device communication
in your house, then I think you need to look more carefully. Speed
and connection reliability are still at a point where, for some
applications in some environments, the results are inferior to what can
be achieved with wired networking.
If you want to transfer large amounts of data where starting from the
beginning because the connection dropped
out is unacceptable, then you may want to check that carefully for
example. Some applications such as certain
types of media streaming sometimes do not work well on wireless connections.

So.... for my usage, I use both wired and wireless networks. There
is no doubt that the portability of WiFi is useful and convenient for
some devices and applications. However, for many usage cases, that
can be achieved by having a good distribution of wired outlets. For
example, if I want to use a notebook in any room of the house, I can
plug it into an outlet with a relatively short cable. I don't really
want to do that in the garden and not at all with a PDA. I've taken
quite a bit of trouble to secure the wireless LAN (all of the measures
mentioned above used by enterprises, and some more) and have used good
quality equipment with proper support of firmware.

Nonetheless, I do have applications that are sensitive to connection
dropouts and have to do file transfers of tens of gigabytes. I don't
use the WLAN for those.

My usage cases and the trouble I have gone to to secure and install the
WLAN correctly are probably not needed by a lot of people, but again
you can recognise the application areas where there may be issues.
The technology is certainly useful, but I wouldn't use it as the only
form of networking in the house.

that should be formatted, de personalised (I's and Yous') and added to
the DIY wiki as it sums everything up very nicely indeed.

"Andy Hall" wrote


I think that the short answer to this one is yes.

Just to put a perspective on this, I've worked in the networking industry
with various technologies for over 25 years - right back to when ethernet
.....snip....

Thanks Andy for such a comprehensive overview.
I already have Cat5 around the house to the majority of rooms.
Am constantly being hassled by kids and SWMBO for broadband.

To avoid the security issues and the issue of having kids monopolising every
room in the house with wireless laptops etc. I am inclined to stick with the
wired solution for broadband. Then add a wireless access point later when
the kids have gone!

Phil

In article ,
TheScullster wrote:
Just a general enquiry really. Noticed on posts for data/sky/tv cabling
that people were still advocating installation of network and phone
cabling. This is obviously at odds to the current hype wireless
networking/broadband etc. I have already installed cat 5 and phone lines
to most rooms, but am beginning to think that technology has overtaken
this.

Apart from the security issues with wireless broadband, can anyone
support the case for putting in a wired home network and phone system?

Well, I'd be delighted to hear of any radio link that works better than
cable. It might under certain circumstances work nearly as well, but under
many more not.

Wireless links are ideal when you're on the move or cabling is impossible.
Other than that best avoided.

--
*No radio - Already stolen.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

TheScullster pretended :
Hi all

Just a general enquiry really.
Noticed on posts for data/sky/tv cabling that people were still advocating
installation of network and phone cabling.
This is obviously at odds to the current hype wireless
networking/broadband etc.
I have already installed cat 5 and phone lines to most rooms, but am
beginning to think that technology has overtaken this.

Apart from the security issues with wireless broadband, can anyone support
the case for putting in a wired home network and phone system?

I have wired up the entire house for both too, but it is only useful
for those things which permanently reside at fixed places. CAT5 is
obviously faster than wireless, but that is only of use when large
files need to be moved between system in a hurry.

--

Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

Peter Andrews expressed precisely :
Wired phone system, yes. When you are in bed and fire breaks out downstairs
and trips your power supply your bedside DECT phone is simply an ornament!
There is a place for DECT phones and I have several - but I also have a
number of wired extensions.

Isn't that where a mobile comes in?

--

Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 17:32:53 UTC, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:

I have wired up the entire house for both too, but it is only useful
for those things which permanently reside at fixed places. CAT5 is
obviously faster than wireless, but that is only of use when large
files need to be moved between system in a hurry.

I rewired the whole house for everything, so it wasn't much bother.
Power, telephone (with PBX), burglar alarm, smoke alarms, etc. Plus
network of course. As for the 'fixed places' thing, I just have a LOT of
network sockets (about 30) so there is always one nearby. The house
isn't very suited to wifi, and so far visitors have just plugged into
the nearest socket. I guess an access point will appear some time.

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

.. wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
. wrote:
Styx wrote:
. wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Its dirt cheap because everybody has gone wireless and cant sell their
100BaseT kit for love or money on ebay.
strokes chin

I wonder why everyone's selling.


To upgrade to gigabit ethernet, perhaps?
for the diehard cable users/gamers no doubt, but I'll bet a lot of the
kit is going because people are /upgrading/ to wi-fi specifically
because of the benefits it offers over cable in houses with multiple
PCs, laptops and pocket PCs. even digital cameras have wi-fi
these days but it still remains horses for courses.


But if you actually cabled the house when you built it..

new build? I'd put fiber in, for dedicated use, and wi-fi for everything else.

fiber termination bits are alot more expensive than a secondhand 100Mbps
switch that ios being tossed in a skip..and 100Mbps cards likewise.

however, in terms of reference relevant to 90% of the population, wi-fi is
preferable to cabling an existing dwelling. most ofthe problems with wi-fi
are due to the loose nut in front of the monitor ;-)


Thats because they aren't D-I-Yers.

horses for courses.

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-01-05 08:45:06 +0000, "TheScullster" said:


The technology is certainly useful, but I wouldn't use it as the only
form of networking in the house.

Good comments from Andy.

I did a very large project for a major Telcoms provider, and the
problems we had country wide with the unlicensed spectrum that is
allocated (2.4GHz) was very significant.
When we had performance issues - a sniffer would show that packet
retransmission was far higher than people expected - due to blocking of
channels by all sorts of devices.
Bluetooth phones, PDA's, motion detectors, microwaves, Wireless Lans
etc.

This brought the expected data throughput down dramatically form the
theoretical figures expected.

Most companies will stick to cabled infrastructure, cheap, manageable,
understood, and almost immune from interference.

In my own house I have multiple CAT5e & CT100 points to every room,
when my son had a PC for XMAS ... took seconds to patch him in to my
ethernet router.
I can also unplug him just as easily :-)

Yes I have a WiFi access point for when I want to use my lap top and
move about in the house, but this is secure (reasonably) with WPA-PSK
TKIP encryption, and even then once a link established a VPN
connection is used.

I agree with Andy - I have checked locally ... and most of my
neighbours have open port WiFi modems on their Broadband lines.


Wired is safer and more sensible for the home.

On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 18:18:44 UTC, "Osprey"
wrote:

I did a very large project for a major Telcoms provider, and the
problems we had country wide with the unlicensed spectrum that is
allocated (2.4GHz) was very significant.
When we had performance issues - a sniffer would show that packet
retransmission was far higher than people expected - due to blocking of
channels by all sorts of devices.
Bluetooth phones, PDA's, motion detectors, microwaves, Wireless Lans
etc.
This brought the expected data throughput down dramatically form the
theoretical figures expected.

Good point. I shall remember that.

In my own house I have multiple CAT5e & CT100 points to every room,

Ah, yes...I did the CT100 too...!

when my son had a PC for XMAS ... took seconds to patch him in to my
ethernet router.
I can also unplug him just as easily :-)

Yes...same here. Also good for unplugging the CT100 from his
room...haven't yet worked out how to 'remote disable' a GameBoy being
played under the bedclothes...!

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Peter Andrews expressed precisely :
Wired phone system, yes. When you are in bed and fire breaks out
downstairs and trips your power supply your bedside DECT phone is
simply an ornament! There is a place for DECT phones and I have
several - but I also have a number of wired extensions.

Isn't that where a mobile comes in?

Mobile Handheld on 2m, S20 'CQ.... er, help.... my QTH is on fire???'

:-p

--
Adrian C

On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 17:34:14 GMT, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

Isn't that where a mobile comes in?

Still not to be relied upon for emergency communications as many people
round here found out when the power to the local cell went off for
12+hrs. Some networks went with the power, others lasted a couple of
hours on UPS but in the end they all died.

A POTS phone will generally work a lot more reliably than a GSM mobile or
DECT device.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 10:19:25 +0000 someone who may be tony sayer
wrote this:-

And Yes we do have a wireless access point for visitors!....

Their laptops presumably have little sockets, into which network
cables can be plugged.

Personally, a visitor can use the little sockets I have provided in
the bedrooms or living room. There are no little sockets in the
kitchen for anything, as that is for cooking in rather than playing
with toys and the amount of mess while cooking means that this is a
service to them:-)


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 20:18:13 UTC, David Hansen
wrote:

On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 10:19:25 +0000 someone who may be tony sayer
wrote this:-

And Yes we do have a wireless access point for visitors!....

Their laptops presumably have little sockets, into which network
cables can be plugged.

Personally, a visitor can use the little sockets I have provided in
the bedrooms or living room. There are no little sockets in the
kitchen for anything, as that is for cooking in rather than playing
with toys and the amount of mess while cooking means that this is a
service to them:-)

Oh, we do have a socket under the breakfast bar. Just in case one day we
get an IPv6 Internet enabled toaster...

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 15:02:32 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Its dirt cheap because everybody has gone wireless and cant sell
their 100BaseT kit for love or money on ebay.

strokes chin

I wonder why everyone's selling.

Simply fashion.

And the fact that if you visit any of the shed type stores you'll find
shelves of wireless networky stuff, complete with rather iffy marketing
claims. And tucked away at the bottom a little bit of cabled kit, that
marketing can't puff up.

And the fact that a majority of the great unwashed couldn't clip a cable
to the skirting for love nor money let alone terminate the cable
correctly in the sockets.

And the fact that even if they could clip a cable "the management"
wouldn't let them and hiding a cable in a modern box is next to
impossible, But at least modern boxes with an internal soil stacks have a
nice duct running from the roof space through all floors. B-)

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

Dave Liquorice wrote on 05/01/2007 :
On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 17:34:14 GMT, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

Isn't that where a mobile comes in?

Still not to be relied upon for emergency communications as many people
round here found out when the power to the local cell went off for
12+hrs. Some networks went with the power, others lasted a couple of
hours on UPS but in the end they all died.

A POTS phone will generally work a lot more reliably than a GSM mobile or
DECT device.

What is the likelihood of your house catching fire, the dect phone
failing as a result of the fire and the local cell also failing all at
exactly the same time as you need to ring the fire brigade?

--

Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 20:57:08 GMT, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

What is the likelihood of your house catching fire, the dect phone
failing as a result of the fire and the local cell also failing all at
exactly the same time as you need to ring the fire brigade?

Not particularly high, just pointing out that mobiles etc are not to be
relied upon in an emergency. Many people think of a phone as a phone and
do not realise that a mobile is no where near as reliable as a POTS phone
when the infrastructure comes under stress.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
TheScullster wrote:
Just a general enquiry really. Noticed on posts for data/sky/tv cabling
that people were still advocating installation of network and phone
cabling. This is obviously at odds to the current hype wireless
networking/broadband etc. I have already installed cat 5 and phone lines
to most rooms, but am beginning to think that technology has overtaken
this.

Apart from the security issues with wireless broadband, can anyone
support the case for putting in a wired home network and phone system?

Well, I'd be delighted to hear of any radio link that works better than
cable. It might under certain circumstances work nearly as well, but under
many more not.

Wireless links are ideal when you're on the move or cabling is impossible.
Other than that best avoided.

My son, in his flat in Frankfurt has a choice of 5 totally unprotected
wireless networks to choose from


--
geoff

In message , Bob Eager
writes
On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 17:32:53 UTC, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:

I have wired up the entire house for both too, but it is only useful
for those things which permanently reside at fixed places. CAT5 is
obviously faster than wireless, but that is only of use when large
files need to be moved between system in a hurry.

I rewired the whole house for everything, so it wasn't much bother.
Power, telephone (with PBX), burglar alarm, smoke alarms, etc. Plus
network of course. As for the 'fixed places' thing, I just have a LOT of
network sockets (about 30) so there is always one nearby. The house
isn't very suited to wifi, and so far visitors have just plugged into
the nearest socket. I guess an access point will appear some time.

Just before I re-carpeted the house, I managed to lay a whole reel of
CAT5 (1000 feet) under the floorboards, so there are multiple cables
from more or less everywhere to everywhere else - £10 well spent, I
think


--
geoff

.. wrote:

might as well use a wireless router and take time to RTFM which will
remove 99% of connection and security issues. I have three or four

Most connection issues IME come down to lack of range through different
building materials and incompatibility of different vendors kit. Alas
neither of these can always be fixed by reading the fine manual on the
occations one is provided.

PCs lying about the place and whereas they had to be in a room with
a cat5 outlet or one with a temporary cable running into it, now I just
add an ï½£8 wireless NIC and I'm on. sometimes I have to right click and
repair the wireless connection, big deal, 1 min later I'm back online.

all this tosh about network speed is willy waving, really. who /really/
wants to push HDTV over wi-fi when there's a far simpler method of
watching movies ? whoo, yeah, I can send a 3gb file over my network
in x minutes ... most people would use a DVD and take much less time.

Don't agree - I sometimes do want to shift large files about the network
- for example when video editing, performing backups, moving disk images
and ISOs (which I use via virtual CD/DVD drives etc). I may at times
want to rip a bunch of DVDs to one machine using available DVD drives
dotted about the network - even fully working WiFi slows down any of
these activities noticeably.

excuse me, I'm just about to take my wi-fi laptop into the cat5 free kitchen
to read a recipe for slow cooked shin beef in ale with thyme dumplings.

Nothing wrong with WiFi - it has many uses. However for many of us it
does not come anywhere close to being a replacement for cat5 yet alas.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/