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 1 of 10 [1] 2 3 … 10 Next page →
| From | Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-26 15:31 +0000 |
| Subject | Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries |
| Message-ID | <pth3kh$n3o$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
Note the slovenly misdescription in the title and throughout the article, for 'WiFi' read 'landline'. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-46346172 "Speed tests in 80 countries revealed wi-fi was left lagging in 33 nations, according to wireless coverage mapping company OpenSignal. Mobile data should also get a further speed boost when 5G networks arrived, it said. Wi-fi remained the fastest way to go online in most countries surveyed, including the UK and Ireland."
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-26 17:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <JLySFXYDcC$bFwOv@255soft.uk> |
| In reply to | #57898 |
In message <pth3kh$n3o$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> writes: >Note the slovenly misdescription in the title and throughout the >article, for 'WiFi' read 'landline'. > >https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-46346172 > >"Speed tests in 80 countries revealed wi-fi was left lagging in 33 >nations, according to wireless coverage mapping company OpenSignal. > >Mobile data should also get a further speed boost when 5G networks >arrived, it said. > >Wi-fi remained the fastest way to go online in most countries surveyed, >including the UK and Ireland." I agree it's _slightly_ sloppy usage, but the first line of text in the article is the caption to the header picture, which specifically says "wi-fi via a fixed line". The whole thing seems to be a relay of a report (press release?) from "wireless coverage mapping company OpenSignal.". I sense it's not entirely objective - for example, <<OpenSignal said phone-makers needed to "ensure they do not accidentally push consumers' smartphones on to a wi-fi network with a worse experience than the mobile network".>> That doesn't take account of the fact that most wi-fi networks are unlimited usage, whereas most mobile data is paid (either by amount of data, or at least has a daily/monthly/whatever cap), so using wifi where available may be wise. (Besides, I think even my Android 4.2.2 has "use wi-fi where available" as an _optional_ setting, i. e. can be turned off.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Have you ever heard about a petition, disagreed with it, but been frustrated that there's no way you can *show* that you disagree? If so, have a look at https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/232770 - and please pass it on if you agree, especially to twitter, facebook, gransnet/mumsnet, or any such forum. There's not an app for that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-28 11:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ptlvqk$t2s$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #57909 |
On 26/11/2018 17:01, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > In message <pth3kh$n3o$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Java Jive > <java@evij.com.invalid> writes: >> Note the slovenly misdescription in the title and throughout the >> article, for 'WiFi' read 'landline'. >> >> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-46346172 >> >> "Speed tests in 80 countries revealed wi-fi was left lagging in 33 >> nations, according to wireless coverage mapping company OpenSignal. >> >> Mobile data should also get a further speed boost when 5G networks >> arrived, it said. >> >> Wi-fi remained the fastest way to go online in most countries >> surveyed, including the UK and Ireland." > > I agree it's _slightly_ sloppy usage, but the first line of text in the > article is the caption to the header picture, which specifically says > "wi-fi via a fixed line". > > The whole thing seems to be a relay of a report (press release?) from > "wireless coverage mapping company OpenSignal.". I sense it's not > entirely objective - for example, <<OpenSignal said phone-makers needed > to "ensure they do not accidentally push consumers' smartphones on to a > wi-fi network with a worse experience than the mobile network".>> That > doesn't take account of the fact that most wi-fi networks are unlimited > usage, whereas most mobile data is paid (either by amount of data, or at > least has a daily/monthly/whatever cap), so using wifi where available > may be wise. (Besides, I think even my Android 4.2.2 has "use wi-fi > where available" as an _optional_ setting, i. e. can be turned off.) The one that is critical is do not allow insane sized operating system upgrades to download whilst on a paid for by volume of data connection. 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). Peer to peer microwave link is establishing itself in North Yorkshire as it is faster than either and has lower data charges. Many have already abandoned their fixed line in favour of this alternative. The only catch is that you require strict unobstructed line of sight to another node. -- Regards, Martin Brown
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-28 14:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <a9g2df-392.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #57946 |
On 28/11/2018 12.57, Martin Brown wrote: > On 26/11/2018 17:01, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: >> In message <pth3kh$n3o$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Java Jive >> <java@evij.com.invalid> writes: >>> Note the slovenly misdescription in the title and throughout the >>> article, for 'WiFi' read 'landline'. >>> >>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-46346172 >>> >>> "Speed tests in 80 countries revealed wi-fi was left lagging in 33 >>> nations, according to wireless coverage mapping company OpenSignal. >>> >>> Mobile data should also get a further speed boost when 5G networks >>> arrived, it said. >>> >>> Wi-fi remained the fastest way to go online in most countries >>> surveyed, including the UK and Ireland." >> >> I agree it's _slightly_ sloppy usage, but the first line of text in >> the article is the caption to the header picture, which specifically >> says "wi-fi via a fixed line". >> >> The whole thing seems to be a relay of a report (press release?) from >> "wireless coverage mapping company OpenSignal.". I sense it's not >> entirely objective - for example, <<OpenSignal said phone-makers >> needed to "ensure they do not accidentally push consumers' smartphones >> on to a wi-fi network with a worse experience than the mobile >> network".>> That doesn't take account of the fact that most wi-fi >> networks are unlimited usage, whereas most mobile data is paid (either >> by amount of data, or at least has a daily/monthly/whatever cap), so >> using wifi where available may be wise. (Besides, I think even my >> Android 4.2.2 has "use wi-fi where available" as an _optional_ >> setting, i. e. can be turned off.) > > The one that is critical is do not allow insane sized operating system > upgrades to download whilst on a paid for by volume of data connection. > > 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. Many people have such slow WiFi. And even slower if living on a flat (apartment): 1 MB is typical. Yes, it is possible to purchase access points using 5 Gh and improve speed. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-28 10:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <281120181052473308%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #57948 |
In article <a9g2df-392.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > Well, my WiFi does at most 45 Mbit (with a 600 Mbit land line). that would be a *very* old wifi router, long overdue to upgrade, especially when the uplink is more than 10x faster. > 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. 4g is a marketing name. lte advanced and advanced pro, often called gigabit lte, are well in excess of 300mbit. <https://5g.co.uk/guides/lte-advanced-pro/> Data speeds in excess of 3Gbps (LTE-A: 1Gbps) <http://www.3gpp.org/technologies/keywords-acronyms/97-lte-advanced> Increased peak data rate, DL 3 Gbps, UL 1.5 Gbps regardless, saturating a single cell tower would take a *lot* of simultaneous network activity, even at slower speeds. > Many people have such slow WiFi. And even slower if living on a flat > (apartment): 1 MB is typical. nonsense. 802.11g from 15 years ago is faster than that and flat is preferred over multiple floors. > Yes, it is possible to purchase access points using 5 Gh and improve speed. yep, and for very little money too, however, not required to be faster than 45mbit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-28 16:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ptme97$1qo5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #57948 |
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. > 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. -- Regards, Martin Brown
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-28 11:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <281120181108169032%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #57958 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "NY" <me@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-28 16:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <xOidnZc1dKsXXWPGnZ2dnUU78L3NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #57959 |
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:281120181108169032%nospam@nospam.invalid... >> 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. Depends whether there are other routers that use the same channel within interference range. That would slow things down down a lot if there are collisions. Also, the range of 5 GHz is a *lot* less. Some devices, such as my wife's iPad, try 5 GHz in preference, even if you give the two networks different SSIDs, but then are reluctant to switch over to 2.4 even when 5 gets weak as you move out of range. I eventually had to disable 5 GHz because her iPad would struggle on at ludicrously low levels of signal (ie with a couple of internal walls in between) rather than using 2.4 which was still very usable. I've yet to find a wireless laptop that communicates at more than about 80 Mbps (when doing a large file copy), even when there's nothing else on the same channel, the router is capable of 400 and the laptop and router are next to each other. My laptop tends to connect at about 40 Mbps (according to Task Manager | Networking) but then gradually slows down to about 5. If I disable the laptop's wifi and plug into the router by Ethernet, a big file copy will run at about 100 Mbps - assuming I'm copying to another computer on the LAN which is connected by wifi - so it's not computer or HDD speed that is throttling it. Wifi is great for portability, but I remain to be convinced that it is able to match it for speed. For web browsing, the ADSL WAN speed is the limiting factor, so you don't notice, but file access between two local computers doesn't have that restriction so you should be able to get (in theory) 400 Mbps (assuming no other wifi traffic, and assuming Gigabit Ethernet to the other computer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-28 11:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <281120181149387966%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #57960 |
In article <xOidnZc1dKsXXWPGnZ2dnUU78L3NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote: > >> 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. > > Depends whether there are other routers that use the same channel within > interference range. That would slow things down down a lot if there are > collisions. interference affects any wifi. > Also, the range of 5 GHz is a *lot* less. Some devices, such as my wife's > iPad, try 5 GHz in preference, even if you give the two networks different > SSIDs, if the ssids have different names, the preference is not dependent on band. > but then are reluctant to switch over to 2.4 even when 5 gets weak as > you move out of range. I eventually had to disable 5 GHz because her iPad > would struggle on at ludicrously low levels of signal (ie with a couple of > internal walls in between) rather than using 2.4 which was still very > usable. use the same ssid for both and it will intelligently switch. some wifi routers can adjust the threshold at which it switches. ideally, set up one or more 5ghz wifi access points elsewhere in the house, wherever it's needed. mesh units make this *very* easy but non-mesh units will also work. > I've yet to find a wireless laptop that communicates at more than about 80 > Mbps (when doing a large file copy), even when there's nothing else on the > same channel, the router is capable of 400 and the laptop and router are > next to each other. My laptop tends to connect at about 40 Mbps (according > to Task Manager | Networking) but then gradually slows down to about 5. If I > disable the laptop's wifi and plug into the router by Ethernet, a big file > copy will run at about 100 Mbps - assuming I'm copying to another computer > on the LAN which is connected by wifi - so it's not computer or HDD speed > that is throttling it. 80mbps is abnormally slow for modern wifi and even not so modern wifi. > Wifi is great for portability, but I remain to be convinced that it is able > to match it for speed. For web browsing, the ADSL WAN speed is the limiting > factor, so you don't notice, but file access between two local computers > doesn't have that restriction so you should be able to get (in theory) 400 > Mbps (assuming no other wifi traffic, and assuming Gigabit Ethernet to the > other computer. in theory, better than gigabit speeds. in reality, near gigabit speeds. wired gigabit to the wifi access point becomes the bottleneck. <https://www.smallnetbuilder.com/images/stories/wireless/synology_rt1900 ac/synology_rt1900ac_up-n-dn.jpg> <https://www.smallnetbuilder.com/images/stories/wireless/asus_rtac86u/as us_rtac86u_5ghz_peak_dn.jpg> <https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/enterprise-networks/ 802-11ac-solution/q-and-a-c67-734152.html>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "NY" <me@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-28 18:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fbGdnbm5jodeQ2PGnZ2dnUU78U_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #57961 |
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:281120181149387966%nospam@nospam.invalid... > use the same ssid for both and it will intelligently switch. I did do this to see if it made any difference. Both with same and different "wibble_2.4" and "wibble_5", the iPad always seemed to prefer weak 5 GHz over strong 2.4. Our various Android phones seemed to be more sensible and looked at signal strength as well. > some wifi routers can adjust the threshold at which it switches. Surely it's the client device not the router which chooses. > ideally, set up one or more 5ghz wifi access points elsewhere in the > house, wherever it's needed. mesh units make this *very* easy but > non-mesh units will also work. And find a way to get the network signal from the router to the repeater access points. Probably not by wifi, because that will result in a reduction of data rate when a device is using a repeater. So you are left with Homeplug (annoys radio hams) or laying Ethernet cable (have to clear it with SWMBO). When wifi repeaters are used, is it better to have the repeater on a different SSID and channel to the main router wifi, or on the same values? I never know. Instinct would suggest that different channel at least (and maybe different SSID) would avoid interference between main and repeater.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-28 13:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <281120181349007642%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #57964 |
In article <fbGdnbm5jodeQ2PGnZ2dnUU78U_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote: > > use the same ssid for both and it will intelligently switch. > > I did do this to see if it made any difference. Both with same and different > "wibble_2.4" and "wibble_5", the iPad always seemed to prefer weak 5 GHz > over strong 2.4. Our various Android phones seemed to be more sensible and > looked at signal strength as well. generally, 5 ghz is preferred, even if the signal is weaker. what matters is throughput. > > some wifi routers can adjust the threshold at which it switches. > > Surely it's the client device not the router which chooses. it's a mix of both, however, some routers have custom settings: <https://i.imgur.com/sDMmciZ.jpg> > > ideally, set up one or more 5ghz wifi access points elsewhere in the > > house, wherever it's needed. mesh units make this *very* easy but > > non-mesh units will also work. > > And find a way to get the network signal from the router to the repeater > access points. Probably not by wifi, because that will result in a reduction > of data rate when a device is using a repeater. So you are left with > Homeplug (annoys radio hams) or laying Ethernet cable (have to clear it with > SWMBO). mesh is not the same as a repeater. with mesh, there is little to no reduction in throughput because there is an additional wireless backchannel. put them wherever needed. no need to run additional cables.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 123456789 <12345@12345.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-28 10:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ptmjb8$5sj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #57960 |
On 11/28/2018 9:21 AM, NY wrote: > Depends whether there are other routers that use the same channel within > interference range. That would slow things down down a lot if there are > collisions. My neighbor's WiFi was (of course) on the same 2.4 GHz channel as mine so I moved my WiFi to the other end of the band. I didn't have any noticeable problems before the move but thought it would be a good idea. I still don't have any noticeable problems...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-29 15:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <c5b5df-97i.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. Yes, combining channels, which is impolite on neighbours. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-29 10:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <291120181030471367%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #57990 |
In article <c5b5df-97i.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > >> 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. > > Yes, combining channels, which is impolite on neighbours. no combining needed. n is faster than g. simple as that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-29 22:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1j36df-n59.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #57993 |
On 29/11/2018 16.30, nospam wrote: > In article <c5b5df-97i.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. > <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > >>>> 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. >> >> Yes, combining channels, which is impolite on neighbours. > > no combining needed. n is faster than g. simple as that. > Ah. MIMO. I don't have that currently. I did, but the AP was repurposed. And of course, the portable devices need to support it as well, which I don't think they do. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-29 17:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <291120181744570885%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #58000 |
In article <1j36df-n59.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > >>>> 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. > >> > >> Yes, combining channels, which is impolite on neighbours. > > > > no combining needed. n is faster than g. simple as that. > > Ah. MIMO. I don't have that currently. I did, but the AP was repurposed. i didn't mention mimo. > And of course, the portable devices need to support it as well, which I > don't think they do. they more than likely do, but even if not, there's still a benefit going with n versus g.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-30 08:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ptqq15$ve1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58000 |
Am 29.11.18 um 22:50 schrieb Carlos E.R.: > On 29/11/2018 16.30, nospam wrote: >> In article <c5b5df-97i.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. >> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >> >>>>> 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. >>> >>> Yes, combining channels, which is impolite on neighbours. >> >> no combining needed. n is faster than g. simple as that. >> > > Ah. MIMO. I don't have that currently. I did, but the AP was repurposed. MIMO is not n.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 03:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ba99df-ld4.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #58005 |
On 30/11/2018 08.48, Joerg Lorenz wrote: > Am 29.11.18 um 22:50 schrieb Carlos E.R.: >> On 29/11/2018 16.30, nospam wrote: >>> In article <c5b5df-97i.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. >>> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> Yes, combining channels, which is impolite on neighbours. >>> >>> no combining needed. n is faster than g. simple as that. >>> >> >> Ah. MIMO. I don't have that currently. I did, but the AP was repurposed. > > MIMO is not n. Wikipedia contradicts you. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-30 22:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <301120182204138436%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #58018 |
In article <ba99df-ld4.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > >>>>> while 5ghz is certainly preferred, 802.11n @ 2.4gz would be faster > >>>>> than > >>>>> his 45mbit. > >>>> > >>>> Yes, combining channels, which is impolite on neighbours. > >>> > >>> no combining needed. n is faster than g. simple as that. > >>> > >> > >> Ah. MIMO. I don't have that currently. I did, but the AP was repurposed. > > > > MIMO is not n. > > Wikipedia contradicts you. actually, it doesn't. more info: <https://www.cwnp.com/802-11n-and-mimo-are-not-synonymous/> The relationship between MIMO and 802.11n is often confused because so many articles begin the discussion about 802.11n by talking about MIMO. Journalists are right to do so because MIMO provides many important enhancements. However, did you know that you can still achieve 150 Mbps connectivity rates in 802.11n without MIMO? So, tell your friends and co-workers to stop equating the two. And if you¹ve told them once, the next time they use these terms synonymously, punch them in the faceŠwith both hands at the same time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 08:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ptte0m$o4l$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58018 |
Am 01.12.18 um 03:47 schrieb Carlos E.R.: > On 30/11/2018 08.48, Joerg Lorenz wrote: >> Am 29.11.18 um 22:50 schrieb Carlos E.R.: >>> Ah. MIMO. I don't have that currently. I did, but the AP was repurposed. >> >> MIMO is not n. > > Wikipedia contradicts you. > MIMO ist the antenna-technologie that runs exclusively on n.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 10 [1] 2 3 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android
csiph-web