Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.mobile.android > #57898 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-11-26 15:31 +0000 |
| Last post | 2018-11-29 15:52 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 181 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android
Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-11-26 15:31 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-26 17:01 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-11-28 11:57 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-28 14:03 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-28 10:52 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-11-28 16:03 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-28 11:08 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-11-28 16:21 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-28 11:49 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-11-28 18:30 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-28 13:49 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-28 10:30 -0700
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-29 15:54 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-29 10:30 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-29 22:50 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-29 17:44 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-11-30 08:48 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-01 03:47 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-30 22:04 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-12-01 08:42 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> - 2018-12-01 11:21 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-04 13:03 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> - 2018-12-08 12:47 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Alfred <alfred@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-28 12:48 -0600
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-28 13:50 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Alfred <alfred@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-28 13:34 -0600
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-28 15:29 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Alfred <alfred@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-28 16:10 -0600
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-28 17:32 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Alfred <alfred@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-28 17:26 -0600
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-28 18:41 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-29 15:44 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-29 20:46 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-29 23:06 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-11-29 23:05 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-01 04:08 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-30 22:28 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-01 15:35 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-12-01 15:24 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-01 10:26 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-12-01 15:49 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-12-01 15:59 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-01 11:30 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-01 11:30 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-12-01 19:49 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-01 15:04 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-12-01 21:29 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-01 18:29 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-02 13:27 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-02 10:08 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-02 13:20 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-02 10:08 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-02 23:15 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-02 17:48 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-03 05:18 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-12-03 13:27 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-03 14:59 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-03 10:09 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-04 11:43 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> - 2018-12-04 12:23 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-12-04 14:00 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-12-04 14:16 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-12-04 11:45 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-12-04 14:40 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-04 18:41 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-12-05 10:27 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-05 15:44 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries 123456789 <123456@123456.com> - 2018-12-05 10:04 -0700
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 12:17 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-12-05 19:10 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-05 20:30 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 14:40 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries 123456789 <123456@123456.com> - 2018-12-05 16:05 -0700
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-05 20:06 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 09:51 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-12-05 15:46 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 11:29 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries 123456789 <123456@123456.com> - 2018-12-05 10:04 -0700
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-05 20:09 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries +++ATH0 <news@ringpiece.local> - 2018-12-12 21:39 -0800
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-13 09:13 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-13 21:09 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-13 19:04 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-12-05 17:22 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-12-05 19:13 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-12-06 13:55 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-06 09:10 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-12-06 16:39 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-06 11:56 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-12-06 17:30 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-06 12:43 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Graham J <graham@invalid.com> - 2018-12-05 17:26 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 12:37 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 09:51 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-12-05 16:01 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 11:29 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-12-05 20:07 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-12-05 20:08 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 16:35 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-12-06 14:09 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-06 09:15 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-06 15:40 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-12-06 15:32 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-07 04:18 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-12-06 16:22 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-06 11:35 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-12-06 17:18 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-06 12:29 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-07 04:20 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-06 22:45 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-12-07 12:23 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries BugHunter <bughunter@com.invalid> - 2018-12-07 13:08 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-12-07 12:59 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-12-07 09:32 -0700
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-07 19:26 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-12-06 20:17 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-07 04:33 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-12-07 13:11 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-07 08:31 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-07 19:36 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-07 21:25 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-07 23:17 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-12-06 18:51 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-07 04:15 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-05 20:16 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 14:41 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-07 19:41 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-07 14:30 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-07 23:22 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-07 17:46 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-08 02:16 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-07 21:13 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 09:51 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 09:51 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-05 20:19 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 14:41 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-07 19:42 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-07 14:30 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-07 23:24 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-07 17:46 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-08 02:00 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-07 21:13 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-12-07 20:56 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-07 23:35 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-07 17:46 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-08 02:11 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-12-04 14:13 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 09:51 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-05 20:25 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 14:41 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-07 19:45 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-12-07 21:03 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 09:51 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-05 20:27 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 14:40 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-12-03 09:33 -0700
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-12-03 18:40 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-03 14:00 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-02 13:18 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-02 12:58 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-02 12:54 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> - 2018-12-01 17:22 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-02 13:30 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-12-01 09:07 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-01 15:24 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-12-01 15:23 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-02 13:31 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-12-02 12:38 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-02 13:49 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> - 2018-12-02 15:43 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-02 10:08 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-30 13:16 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-01 15:46 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> - 2018-12-01 12:00 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-12-01 11:16 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-12-01 11:41 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-12-01 12:27 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-12-01 13:14 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-01 15:47 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-28 10:18 -0700
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-29 15:52 +0100
Page 2 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 10 Next page →
| From | Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 11:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <pttnat$3mb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58018 |
Carlos E.R. wrote: > Joerg Lorenz wrote: >> MIMO is not n. > > Wikipedia contradicts you. No, it doesn't. MIMO is just a feature of n, but also of ac. -p
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-04 13:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <827idf-v0j.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #57959 |
On 28/11/2018 17.08, nospam wrote:
> In article <ptme97$1qo5$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Martin Brown
> <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> Well, my WiFi does at most 45 Mbit (with a 600 Mbit land line). So 4G,
>>> with a theoretical speed of 301Mbit, is faster than my WiFi - unless
>>> there are many phones in the area actively using internet, because the
>>> speed is shared.
>>
>> That seems insanely slow WiFi speed for such a fast landline.
>>
>>> Many people have such slow WiFi. And even slower if living on a flat
>>> (apartment): 1 MB is typical.
>>
>> If there are zillions of users all fighting for the same channel 11 as
>> BT used to by default set them up to do then you can get a huge slowdown
>> due to collisions. I persuaded my nearest neighbours to use channels so
>> that people on the same channel are separated as widely as possible.
>>
>>> Yes, it is possible to purchase access points using 5 Gh and improve speed.
>>
>> Most ISP provided modems are capable of 5GHz operation and 802.11n these
>> days - maybe you should ask your ISP to replace your antidiluvian unit.
>
> while 5ghz is certainly preferred, 802.11n @ 2.4gz would be faster than
> his 45mbit.
I just checked the box of the router, and its web control page, and it
is set to 802.11n, and this is set to the maximum of 40 Mhz in the
config page.
It is an Asus RT-N12D1. The specs say:
Standars: IEEE 802.11b, IEEE 802.11g, IEEE 802.11n, IEEE 802.3, IEEE
802.3u, IPv4, IPv6.
Speeds:
802.11b : 1, 2, 5.5, 11Mbps.
802.11g : 6,9,12,18,24,36,48,54Mbps.
802.11n: up to 300Mbps. <==
300 Mbps? My downloads happen at 12 Mbytes, at 1 metre from the access
point, using a modern laptop that has 802.11 ac. That is, I get about
120 mbps.
which is not bad, considering.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-08 12:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <pugb07$keq$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58096 |
Carlos E.R. wrote: > My downloads happen at 12 Mbytes, at 1 metre from the access point, > using a modern laptop that has 802.11 ac. That is, I get about > 120 mbps. That's about the rate at which you're flooding this newsgroup... -p
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alfred <alfred@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-28 12:48 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <IfKdnWax5sqcfmPGnZ2dnUU78TnNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #57958 |
> Most ISP provided modems are capable of 5GHz operation and 802.11n these > days - maybe you should ask your ISP to replace your antidiluvian unit. The 5 GHz band is too problematic. Only channels 36, 40, 44, 48 are reliable (in Europe). The rest of the channels between 52-144 are subject to DFS. In America you also have a few channels above 149. In the case of some devices the manufacturer only implements 36-48 channels because it's the simplest way of complying with EU/US/Japan regulations. When your router/AP believes a plane is passing by, I don't understand very well what it happens; either the router swichs to other cahnnel or it interrupts emissions in the 5Ghz band. Possibly that depends on the router/AP. And that can last for half hour after the plane has passed by.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-28 13:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <281120181350162225%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #57965 |
In article <IfKdnWax5sqcfmPGnZ2dnUU78TnNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, Alfred <alfred@invalid.invalid> wrote: > When your router/AP believes a plane is passing by, I don't understand > very well what it happens; either the router swichs to other cahnnel > or it interrupts emissions in the 5Ghz band. Possibly that depends on > the router/AP. And that can last for half hour after the plane has > passed by. unless the plane is very low and intentionally trying to jam wifi, no.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alfred <alfred@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-28 13:34 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <cv-dnSA5tNwjcGPGnZ2dnUU78dHNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #57967 |
In uk.telecom.broadband nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <IfKdnWax5sqcfmPGnZ2dnUU78TnNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, Alfred > <alfred@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> When your router/AP believes a plane is passing by, I don't understand >> very well what it happens; either the router swichs to other cahnnel >> or it interrupts emissions in the 5Ghz band. Possibly that depends on >> the router/AP. And that can last for half hour after the plane has >> passed by. > > unless the plane is very low and intentionally trying to jam wifi, no. You don't need planes to have problems. For example, when you power up the router/AP, it will take 20 minutes to start transmitting in that channel. And there can also be false positives. The ISPs don't want to receive complains to their customer service telling them that the 5 GHz band doesnt' work and they just disable the 52-144 channels altogether. If you run an scan in your neighbourhood, you'll see that the 52-144 channels are empty. Which turns out to be a good thing for tech-savvy people who know what is happening, even if the regulators didn't intend that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-28 15:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <281120181529496142%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #57969 |
In article <cv-dnSA5tNwjcGPGnZ2dnUU78dHNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, Alfred <alfred@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> When your router/AP believes a plane is passing by, I don't understand > >> very well what it happens; either the router swichs to other cahnnel > >> or it interrupts emissions in the 5Ghz band. Possibly that depends on > >> the router/AP. And that can last for half hour after the plane has > >> passed by. > > > > unless the plane is very low and intentionally trying to jam wifi, no. > > You don't need planes to have problems. you mentioned planes. > For example, when you power > up the router/AP, it will take 20 minutes to start transmitting in > that channel. something is very, very wrong with your router. most wifi routers boot in a minute or so, often less, and the only reason to reboot it is for a firmware update or moving it to a new location, so the boot time does not matter. > And there can also be false positives. The ISPs don't > want to receive complains to their customer service telling them that > the 5 GHz band doesnt' work and they just disable the 52-144 channels > altogether. the isp can't disable anything on a wifi router that the isp did not provide. > If you run an scan in your neighbourhood, you'll see that the 52-144 > channels are empty. Which turns out to be a good thing for tech-savvy > people who know what is happening, even if the regulators didn't > intend that. that depends on a lot of things. since most routers dynamically switch channels, most channels, if not all of them, will be in use.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alfred <alfred@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-28 16:10 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <laWdnbr7RMTRj2LGnZ2dnUU78QvNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #57972 |
In uk.telecom.broadband nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> For example, when you power
>> up the router/AP, it will take 20 minutes to start transmitting in
>> that channel.
>
> something is very, very wrong with your router.
>
> most wifi routers boot in a minute or so, often less, and the only
> reason to reboot it is for a firmware update or moving it to a new
> location, so the boot time does not matter.
That depends on which channel you use and the regulations in your
country. In some cases it can take up to 10 minutes (channels 120-128).
I was only off by a factor of 2 in the waiting time in my previous post.
The waiting at boot time does matter for people who is not aware of
the DFS regulation and they are testing a new configuration of the
router. It's one of those things that loses people time and drives
them mad. Even professional network administrators have had that
problem setting up APs the first time they were using equipment
transmiting in the 5 GHz band. Of course, nowadays in year 2018 I'm
sure everybody doing wifi deployments for a living is aware of the
problems with DFS channels.
http://wifinigel.blogspot.com/2018/05/the-5ghz-problem-for-wi-fi-networks-dfs.html
Channel Availability
Before an AP will use a channel that may be impacted by
radar, it will perform a “Channel Availability Check” to
check for radar signals on that channel. The AP will listen
for 60 seconds for the presence of radar signals. If no
radar is detected, then the channel is designated as being
an “Available Channel”.
When powering up an AP that uses a DFS channel, you will see
that the 2.4GHz radio becomes available as soon as the AP
has completed its boot sequence, but the 5Ghz radio may not
available for another minute. This is due to the AP
performing its channel availability check, if the AP is
trying to use a DFS-impacted 5GHz channel.
In some regions, where channels 120 – 128 are allowed for
use by Wi-Fi networks, there may be an increased channel
availability check of 10 minutes. This means that the 5GHz
radio is not available until 10 minutes after the access
point has booted up. This extended checking period is due to
weather radar restrictions on those channels.
>> And there can also be false positives. The ISPs don't
>> want to receive complains to their customer service telling them that
>> the 5 GHz band doesnt' work and they just disable the 52-144 channels
>> altogether.
>
> the isp can't disable anything on a wifi router that the isp did not
> provide.
I was talking about the preconfigured routers that the ISPs send to
their customers. Of course, with your own router/AP you can do what
you want, provided that it complies with the regulations in your
country.
Also, some manufactures (router/APs, phones) disable some channels in
the 5 GHz band, just to save costs and time in the development phase
of their products, and have them approved fast and without problems by
the regulators.
https://superuser.com/questions/692835/which-5ghz-channel-to-use
https://forum.xda-developers.com/galaxy-nexus/help/5ghz-wifi-t1352109
>> If you run an scan in your neighbourhood, you'll see that the 52-144
>> channels are empty. Which turns out to be a good thing for tech-savvy
>> people who know what is happening, even if the regulators didn't
>> intend that.
>
> that depends on a lot of things. since most routers dynamically switch
> channels, most channels, if not all of them, will be in use.
In my home I don't see any neighbour transmitting above channel 48,
although it's low density. I don't live in an appartment building.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-28 17:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <281120181732204704%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #57975 |
In article <laWdnbr7RMTRj2LGnZ2dnUU78QvNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, Alfred <alfred@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> For example, when you power > >> up the router/AP, it will take 20 minutes to start transmitting in > >> that channel. > > > > something is very, very wrong with your router. > > > > most wifi routers boot in a minute or so, often less, and the only > > reason to reboot it is for a firmware update or moving it to a new > > location, so the boot time does not matter. > > That depends on which channel you use and the regulations in your > country. In some cases it can take up to 10 minutes (channels 120-128). > I was only off by a factor of 2 in the waiting time in my previous post. nope. booting should be in the range of a minute or so. it might switch channels later, but that's separate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alfred <alfred@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-28 17:26 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <c9mdnQFhGYi5uWLGnZ2dnUU78e3NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #57976 |
>> That depends on which channel you use and the regulations in your
>> country. In some cases it can take up to 10 minutes (channels 120-128).
>
> nope.
>
> booting should be in the range of a minute or so.
>
> it might switch channels later, but that's separate.
You reply too fast, without reading what people writes.
Booting time for a modern router is very fast, just a couple of
seconds. The problem is the time it takes to begin transmitting
when you pick a certain fixed channel in the 5 GHz band.
If you choose channel 'auto', the router will most likely start
broadcasting immediately at the 36, 40, 44 or 48 channels, which are
not subjected to DFS.
Choosing a fixed channel is a sane thing to do in the 2.4 GHz band.
A lot of people run a frequency scan, and pick a frequency that is not
used by the neighbours, but in the 5 GHz band you need to be aware of
what happens in the DFS channels.
As I said before, this trap has caught professional network
administrators in the past, when 5 GHz wifi was a new thing. I am
sure many non-professionals are falling in it nowadays doing setup of
their home routers.
Below I copy again the text and the link of my previous post.
http://wifinigel.blogspot.com/2018/05/the-5ghz-problem-for-wi-fi-networks-dfs.html
In some regions, where channels 120 – 128 are allowed for
use by Wi-Fi networks, there may be an increased channel
availability check of 10 minutes. This means that the 5GHz
radio is not available until 10 minutes after the access
point has booted up. This extended checking period is due to
weather radar restrictions on those channels.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-28 18:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <281120181841182962%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #57977 |
In article <c9mdnQFhGYi5uWLGnZ2dnUU78e3NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, Alfred <alfred@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> That depends on which channel you use and the regulations in your > >> country. In some cases it can take up to 10 minutes (channels 120-128). > > > > nope. > > > > booting should be in the range of a minute or so. > > > > it might switch channels later, but that's separate. > > You reply too fast, without reading what people writes. i read it. > Booting time for a modern router is very fast, just a couple of > seconds. again, no. booting is about a minute, depending on the router. > The problem is the time it takes to begin transmitting > when you pick a certain fixed channel in the 5 GHz band. don't pick a fixed channel. > If you choose channel 'auto', the router will most likely start > broadcasting immediately at the 36, 40, 44 or 48 channels, which are > not subjected to DFS. in other words, not an issue. dfs channels may be delayed, but some routers have zero-wait dfs. > Choosing a fixed channel is a sane thing to do in the 2.4 GHz band. > A lot of people run a frequency scan, and pick a frequency that is not > used by the neighbours, but in the 5 GHz band you need to be aware of > what happens in the DFS channels. choosing a fixed channel is rarely the best thing to do, regardless of band. with the access point on automatic, it can dynamically switch channels as needed, depending on changing conditions. > As I said before, this trap has caught professional network > administrators in the past, when 5 GHz wifi was a new thing. I am > sure many non-professionals are falling in it nowadays doing setup of > their home routers. set the router to automatic and don't worry about it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-29 15:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <7ja5df-qhh.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #57958 |
On 28/11/2018 17.03, Martin Brown wrote: > On 28/11/2018 13:03, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 28/11/2018 12.57, Martin Brown wrote: > >>> My own 3G connection will run 20Mbps at home whereas my best fixed line >>> is 5M and for most rural domestic users round here 1-2M is more typical. >>> So apart from the data charges which sting a little 3G is way faster >>> (and 4G is a distant pipe dream - most masts here are still EDGE 2.5G). >> >> Well, my WiFi does at most 45 Mbit (with a 600 Mbit land line). So 4G, >> with a theoretical speed of 301Mbit, is faster than my WiFi - unless >> there are many phones in the area actively using internet, because the >> speed is shared. > > That seems insanely slow WiFi speed for such a fast landline. Indeed, but it is what most providers provide. >> Many people have such slow WiFi. And even slower if living on a flat >> (apartment): 1 MB is typical. > > If there are zillions of users all fighting for the same channel 11 as > BT used to by default set them up to do then you can get a huge slowdown > due to collisions. I persuaded my nearest neighbours to use channels so > that people on the same channel are separated as widely as possible. Oh, at that place there are so many neighbours all using WiFi that all channels are used by more than one apartment. >> Yes, it is possible to purchase access points using 5 Gh and improve >> speed. > > Most ISP provided modems are capable of 5GHz operation and 802.11n these > days - maybe you should ask your ISP to replace your antidiluvian unit. Oh, they will. They are replacing them, forcibly, and charging extra, which I do not want. I do not know if the new model does 5G - I'll google. [...] Yes, it has 5G. But apparently only for new clients, not guaranteed they install it if we complain. <https://comunidad.movistar.es/t5/Blog-Movisfera/Telef%C3%B3nica-sustituye-router-ONT-y-videobridge-por-un-nuevo/ba-p/2505790> -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-29 20:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ptpmmv.bqs.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #57988 |
Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > On 28/11/2018 17.03, Martin Brown wrote: > > On 28/11/2018 13:03, Carlos E.R. wrote: > >> On 28/11/2018 12.57, Martin Brown wrote: > > > >>> My own 3G connection will run 20Mbps at home whereas my best fixed line > >>> is 5M and for most rural domestic users round here 1-2M is more typical. > >>> So apart from the data charges which sting a little 3G is way faster > >>> (and 4G is a distant pipe dream - most masts here are still EDGE 2.5G). > >> > >> Well, my WiFi does at most 45 Mbit (with a 600 Mbit land line). So 4G, > >> with a theoretical speed of 301Mbit, is faster than my WiFi - unless > >> there are many phones in the area actively using internet, because the > >> speed is shared. > > > > That seems insanely slow WiFi speed for such a fast landline. > > Indeed, but it is what most providers provide. Doesn't your broadband modem/router have a LAN port? If it has, a 300 Mbps Wireless N router would dramatically increase the speed (assuming your devices have N-capability as well). Prices of such routers start at some 30 Euro in our country (NL). > >> Many people have such slow WiFi. And even slower if living on a flat > >> (apartment): 1 MB is typical. > > > > If there are zillions of users all fighting for the same channel 11 as > > BT used to by default set them up to do then you can get a huge slowdown > > due to collisions. I persuaded my nearest neighbours to use channels so > > that people on the same channel are separated as widely as possible. > > Oh, at that place there are so many neighbours all using WiFi that all > channels are used by more than one apartment. > > >> Yes, it is possible to purchase access points using 5 Gh and improve > >> speed. > > > > Most ISP provided modems are capable of 5GHz operation and 802.11n these > > days - maybe you should ask your ISP to replace your antidiluvian unit. > > Oh, they will. They are replacing them, forcibly, and charging extra, > which I do not want. I do not know if the new model does 5G - I'll > google. [...] Yes, it has 5G. But apparently only for new clients, not > guaranteed they install it if we complain. > > <https://comunidad.movistar.es/t5/Blog-Movisfera/Telef%C3%B3nica-sustituye-router-ONT-y-videobridge-por-un-nuevo/ba-p/2505790> "charging extra"!? If you buy the router, then why should your ISP charge extra? Anyhow, if you have a "600 Mbit land line", then why does your ISP get away with providing only a 45 Mbps router? If an ISP in our country tried that, a few complaints to a consumer organization would make the ISP get their act together very quickly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-29 23:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mg46df-js9.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #57999 |
On 29/11/2018 21.46, Frank Slootweg wrote: > Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >> On 28/11/2018 17.03, Martin Brown wrote: >>> On 28/11/2018 13:03, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>> On 28/11/2018 12.57, Martin Brown wrote: >>> >>>>> My own 3G connection will run 20Mbps at home whereas my best fixed line >>>>> is 5M and for most rural domestic users round here 1-2M is more typical. >>>>> So apart from the data charges which sting a little 3G is way faster >>>>> (and 4G is a distant pipe dream - most masts here are still EDGE 2.5G). >>>> >>>> Well, my WiFi does at most 45 Mbit (with a 600 Mbit land line). So 4G, >>>> with a theoretical speed of 301Mbit, is faster than my WiFi - unless >>>> there are many phones in the area actively using internet, because the >>>> speed is shared. >>> >>> That seems insanely slow WiFi speed for such a fast landline. >> >> Indeed, but it is what most providers provide. > > Doesn't your broadband modem/router have a LAN port? If it has, a > 300 Mbps Wireless N router would dramatically increase the speed > (assuming your devices have N-capability as well). Prices of such > routers start at some 30 Euro in our country (NL). MIMO. I don't have it currently. I would need two such, one per house level. When I had it I did not see my laptop going much faster. I will have to consider it. >>>> Many people have such slow WiFi. And even slower if living on a flat >>>> (apartment): 1 MB is typical. >>> >>> If there are zillions of users all fighting for the same channel 11 as >>> BT used to by default set them up to do then you can get a huge slowdown >>> due to collisions. I persuaded my nearest neighbours to use channels so >>> that people on the same channel are separated as widely as possible. >> >> Oh, at that place there are so many neighbours all using WiFi that all >> channels are used by more than one apartment. >> >>>> Yes, it is possible to purchase access points using 5 Gh and improve >>>> speed. >>> >>> Most ISP provided modems are capable of 5GHz operation and 802.11n these >>> days - maybe you should ask your ISP to replace your antidiluvian unit. >> >> Oh, they will. They are replacing them, forcibly, and charging extra, >> which I do not want. I do not know if the new model does 5G - I'll >> google. [...] Yes, it has 5G. But apparently only for new clients, not >> guaranteed they install it if we complain. >> >> <https://comunidad.movistar.es/t5/Blog-Movisfera/Telef%C3%B3nica-sustituye-router-ONT-y-videobridge-por-un-nuevo/ba-p/2505790> > > "charging extra"!? If you buy the router, then why should your ISP > charge extra? Forget about me replacing the ISP provided router, out of the question. Why? Well, they manage the router remotely, and they do not publish the various and complex configurations needed for the router to handle the phone and TV services. And they do change things, that make things stop working if you use your own hardware. Yes, I believe some people do it. I don't have time for that. For fighting the device and them. > Anyhow, if you have a "600 Mbit land line", then why does your ISP get > away with providing only a 45 Mbps router? If an ISP in our country > tried that, a few complaints to a consumer organization would make the > ISP get their act together very quickly. Interesting question, but all providers do that. They do the testing on Ethernet, obviously. With another provider at another place, the apartment has the minimal Internet available. The ISP wanted to "improve" speed, and I said "no", because the WiFi is the same. I had a hard time convincing the girl at the other side that "no, we do not want more internet speed, and yes, I know what I'm saying, and no, you don't". No, she did not offer to improve the WiFi. So I got a rebate for the house instead. 120 or 150 mbits, I think. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-29 23:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ptprb9$1r1j$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58001 |
On 29/11/2018 22:06, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 29/11/2018 21.46, Frank Slootweg wrote: >> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >>> On 28/11/2018 17.03, Martin Brown wrote: >>>> On 28/11/2018 13:03, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>> On 28/11/2018 12.57, Martin Brown wrote: >>>> >>>>>> My own 3G connection will run 20Mbps at home whereas my best fixed line >>>>>> is 5M and for most rural domestic users round here 1-2M is more typical. >>>>>> So apart from the data charges which sting a little 3G is way faster >>>>>> (and 4G is a distant pipe dream - most masts here are still EDGE 2.5G). >>>>> >>>>> Well, my WiFi does at most 45 Mbit (with a 600 Mbit land line). So 4G, >>>>> with a theoretical speed of 301Mbit, is faster than my WiFi - unless >>>>> there are many phones in the area actively using internet, because the >>>>> speed is shared. >>>> >>>> That seems insanely slow WiFi speed for such a fast landline. >>> >>> Indeed, but it is what most providers provide. >> >> Doesn't your broadband modem/router have a LAN port? If it has, a >> 300 Mbps Wireless N router would dramatically increase the speed >> (assuming your devices have N-capability as well). Prices of such >> routers start at some 30 Euro in our country (NL). > > MIMO. I don't have it currently. I would need two such, one per house > level. When I had it I did not see my laptop going much faster. > > I will have to consider it. > > >>>>> Many people have such slow WiFi. And even slower if living on a flat >>>>> (apartment): 1 MB is typical. >>>> >>>> If there are zillions of users all fighting for the same channel 11 as >>>> BT used to by default set them up to do then you can get a huge slowdown >>>> due to collisions. I persuaded my nearest neighbours to use channels so >>>> that people on the same channel are separated as widely as possible. >>> >>> Oh, at that place there are so many neighbours all using WiFi that all >>> channels are used by more than one apartment. >>> >>>>> Yes, it is possible to purchase access points using 5 Gh and improve >>>>> speed. >>>> >>>> Most ISP provided modems are capable of 5GHz operation and 802.11n these >>>> days - maybe you should ask your ISP to replace your antidiluvian unit. >>> >>> Oh, they will. They are replacing them, forcibly, and charging extra, >>> which I do not want. I do not know if the new model does 5G - I'll >>> google. [...] Yes, it has 5G. But apparently only for new clients, not >>> guaranteed they install it if we complain. >>> >>> <https://comunidad.movistar.es/t5/Blog-Movisfera/Telef%C3%B3nica-sustituye-router-ONT-y-videobridge-por-un-nuevo/ba-p/2505790> >> >> "charging extra"!? If you buy the router, then why should your ISP >> charge extra? > > Forget about me replacing the ISP provided router, out of the question. > > Why? Well, they manage the router remotely, and they do not publish the > various and complex configurations needed for the router to handle the > phone and TV services. And they do change things, that make things stop > working if you use your own hardware. OK so they manage their router remotely - but surely it has a decently fast fixed wire 10/100/1000 hard wired ethernet socket so you could buy a modern post-diluvian router to use in addition. > > Yes, I believe some people do it. I don't have time for that. For > fighting the device and them. It should be just a case of disabling the inbuilt Wifi and substituting your own as a pass through device. > >> Anyhow, if you have a "600 Mbit land line", then why does your ISP get >> away with providing only a 45 Mbps router? If an ISP in our country >> tried that, a few complaints to a consumer organization would make the >> ISP get their act together very quickly. > > Interesting question, but all providers do that. How do they get away with it? My landline speed is a pathetic 5Mbps (the average local speed round here is typically 1-2Mbps) but the ISP supplied router is easily capable of 300M on its Wifi - and the chipset is nothing special it is the default ISP modem. > > They do the testing on Ethernet, obviously. > > With another provider at another place, the apartment has the minimal > Internet available. The ISP wanted to "improve" speed, and I said "no", > because the WiFi is the same. I had a hard time convincing the girl at > the other side that "no, we do not want more internet speed, and yes, I > know what I'm saying, and no, you don't". No, she did not offer to > improve the WiFi. > > So I got a rebate for the house instead. 120 or 150 mbits, I think. It is odd that they sell such a fast WAN connection with such a dreadfully slow Wifi capability. Are you sure that the things Wifi cannot be re-configured to work as if it was made in the 21st century? -- Regards, Martin Brown
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 04:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qha9df-f26.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #58003 |
On 30/11/2018 00.05, Martin Brown wrote: > On 29/11/2018 22:06, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 29/11/2018 21.46, Frank Slootweg wrote: >>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >>>> On 28/11/2018 17.03, Martin Brown wrote: >>>>> On 28/11/2018 13:03, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>>> On 28/11/2018 12.57, Martin Brown wrote: ... >>>>>> Many people have such slow WiFi. And even slower if living on a flat >>>>>> (apartment): 1 MB is typical. >>>>> >>>>> If there are zillions of users all fighting for the same channel 11 as >>>>> BT used to by default set them up to do then you can get a huge >>>>> slowdown >>>>> due to collisions. I persuaded my nearest neighbours to use >>>>> channels so >>>>> that people on the same channel are separated as widely as possible. >>>> >>>> Oh, at that place there are so many neighbours all using WiFi that all >>>> channels are used by more than one apartment. >>>> >>>>>> Yes, it is possible to purchase access points using 5 Gh and improve >>>>>> speed. >>>>> >>>>> Most ISP provided modems are capable of 5GHz operation and 802.11n >>>>> these >>>>> days - maybe you should ask your ISP to replace your antidiluvian >>>>> unit. >>>> >>>> Oh, they will. They are replacing them, forcibly, and charging extra, >>>> which I do not want. I do not know if the new model does 5G - I'll >>>> google. [...] Yes, it has 5G. But apparently only for new clients, not >>>> guaranteed they install it if we complain. >>>> >>>> <https://comunidad.movistar.es/t5/Blog-Movisfera/Telef%C3%B3nica-sustituye-router-ONT-y-videobridge-por-un-nuevo/ba-p/2505790> >>>> >>> >>> "charging extra"!? If you buy the router, then why should your ISP >>> charge extra? >> >> Forget about me replacing the ISP provided router, out of the question. >> >> Why? Well, they manage the router remotely, and they do not publish the >> various and complex configurations needed for the router to handle the >> phone and TV services. And they do change things, that make things stop >> working if you use your own hardware. > > OK so they manage their router remotely - but surely it has a decently > fast fixed wire 10/100/1000 hard wired ethernet socket so you could buy > a modern post-diluvian router to use in addition. I have a recent Access Point and what it does is 40 mbit. I just looked. >> Yes, I believe some people do it. I don't have time for that. For >> fighting the device and them. > > It should be just a case of disabling the inbuilt Wifi and substituting > your own as a pass through device. I did. I bought an AP a year or two ago, and it does the very modern and decent rate of 40 mbit :-p >>> Anyhow, if you have a "600 Mbit land line", then why does your ISP >>> get >>> away with providing only a 45 Mbps router? If an ISP in our country >>> tried that, a few complaints to a consumer organization would make the >>> ISP get their act together very quickly. >> >> Interesting question, but all providers do that. > > How do they get away with it? My landline speed is a pathetic 5Mbps (the > average local speed round here is typically 1-2Mbps) but the ISP > supplied router is easily capable of 300M on its Wifi - and the chipset > is nothing special it is the default ISP modem. Interesting. >> >> They do the testing on Ethernet, obviously. >> >> With another provider at another place, the apartment has the minimal >> Internet available. The ISP wanted to "improve" speed, and I said "no", >> because the WiFi is the same. I had a hard time convincing the girl at >> the other side that "no, we do not want more internet speed, and yes, I >> know what I'm saying, and no, you don't". No, she did not offer to >> improve the WiFi. >> >> So I got a rebate for the house instead. 120 or 150 mbits, I think. > > It is odd that they sell such a fast WAN connection with such a > dreadfully slow Wifi capability. Are you sure that the things Wifi > cannot be re-configured to work as if it was made in the 21st century? Certainly. I just looked at the configuration pages of both devices, and I can choose 20 or 40 mbits, no more. I just opened a page at my supplier, and I see some 11n routers, some at almost 400 euros, some at 24€ (MIMO, 2.4 band only). Not very promising on the low price range. <https://www.pccomponentes.com/routers/wifi-11-n> And of course, I do not know if my laptops will be able to connect at that speed. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-30 22:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <301120182228356174%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #58020 |
In article <qha9df-f26.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > > I just opened a page at my supplier, and I see some 11n routers, some at > almost 400 euros, some at 24¤ (MIMO, 2.4 band only). > > Not very promising on the low price range. > <https://www.pccomponentes.com/routers/wifi-11-n> > > And of course, I do not know if my laptops will be able to connect at > that speed. if the laptops were made in the last decade or so, then they're at least 802.11n, but even if they're older and have 802.11g, they'll still benefit (although not by much). however, at this point, it's best to get an 802.11ac router.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 15:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <7riadf-k5a.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #58023 |
On 01/12/2018 04.28, nospam wrote: > In article <qha9df-f26.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. > <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > >> >> I just opened a page at my supplier, and I see some 11n routers, some at >> almost 400 euros, some at 24¤ (MIMO, 2.4 band only). >> >> Not very promising on the low price range. > >> <https://www.pccomponentes.com/routers/wifi-11-n> >> >> And of course, I do not know if my laptops will be able to connect at >> that speed. > > if the laptops were made in the last decade or so, then they're at > least 802.11n, but even if they're older and have 802.11g, they'll > still benefit (although not by much). > > however, at this point, it's best to get an 802.11ac router. > Well, there is one for 49€, an Asus RT-AC53. My new and small laptop seems to support it, so that's a reasonable possibility (for upstairs). My main laptop doesn't, only 802.11b/g. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 15:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ptu92m$115t$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58035 |
On 01/12/2018 14:35, Carlos E.R. wrote: > > My main laptop doesn't, only 802.11b/g In which case, I'd definitely cable it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 10:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <011220181026449152%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #58039 |
In article <ptu92m$115t$2@gioia.aioe.org>, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote: > > > > My main laptop doesn't, only 802.11b/g > > In which case, I'd definitely cable it. better yet, replace it entirely. its ethernet port is more than likely 100bt instead of gigabit and the rest of it is likely very out of date too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android
csiph-web