Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #89899 > unrolled thread

The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc

Contents

  The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-14 23:33 +0000
    Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-14 21:35 -0400
      Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-08-15 07:13 -0700
        Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-16 02:14 -0400
          Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-17 19:26 +0000
            Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-17 20:58 +0100
              Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-17 20:47 +0000
                Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-08-18 00:47 +0000
                  Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-17 22:31 -0400
                    Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-18 13:36 +0000
                      Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-18 17:18 +0100
                        Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-18 22:00 +0000
                          Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-19 14:33 +0100
                          [OT] Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-20 19:30 +0100
                            Re: [OT] Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-20 19:35 +0000
                              Re: [OT] Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-08-20 20:19 +0000
                                [OT] On feeding our overlords (was: Re: [OT] Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-22 11:35 +0100
                                  Re: [OT] On feeding our overlords (was: Re: [OT] Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-22 19:07 +0000
                                    Re: [OT] On feeding our overlords The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-22 23:31 +0100
                                      Re: [OT] On feeding our overlords rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-23 00:52 +0000
                            Re: [OT] Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-20 21:57 -0400
                              Re: [OT] Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-21 13:25 +0100
                                Re: [OT] Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-22 04:10 +0000
                                  [OT] 10\+BASE-T on mobile phones (was: Re: [OT] Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-22 11:40 +0100
                                    Re: [OT] 10\+BASE-T on mobile phones The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-22 13:32 +0100
                                    Re: [OT] 10\+BASE-T on mobile phones Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-22 16:06 +0000
                                    Re: [OT] 10\+BASE-T on mobile phones Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-08-25 18:44 +0100
                                  Re: [OT] Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-22 13:30 +0100
                                    Re: [OT] Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-22 19:03 +0000
                                      Re: [OT] Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-22 23:30 +0100
                                        Re: [OT] Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-23 00:50 +0000
                        Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-18 22:45 -0400
                          Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-19 03:17 +0000
                            Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-19 01:57 -0400
                              Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-19 06:20 +0000
                                Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-19 02:51 -0400
                          Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-19 03:58 +0000
                            Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-19 02:20 -0400
                              Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-19 14:19 +0000
                          Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-19 14:36 +0100
                        Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-19 03:47 +0000
                  Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-18 02:48 +0000

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#90251 — Re: [OT] Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture

On 8/20/26 14:30, Nuno Silva wrote:
> On 2026-08-18, Rich wrote:
> 
>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 18/08/2026 14:36, Rich wrote:
>>>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>>>>>     Best, shitty, fix is to have multiple repeaters in house and then
>>>>>     pick the BEST one to connect to in any given part of the structure.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, that is the best way, but also the more complicated way, so most
>>>> non-techie folks won't end up going that route.
>>>>
>>> The best way is to wire the house with CAT 5
>>
>> Indeed, yes.  That avoids all issues with WiFi, at least for those
>> devices that can be connected to a CAT5 wire.
> 
> I appreciate all the petting and the cuteness and so on, but I'm not
> sure how do they provide the data transfer.
> 
> Do I need to configure a TUN-a interface?

   Start here :

   https://www.baeldung.com/linux/tun-interface-purpose

   There are 'C' code examples too.

   However if there ARE "simpler" solutions to your
   particular issues, by all means use THEM.

   Not every house/building/site is particularly good
   for hardwire networking. Mine sure as hell isn't -
   early 50s concrete and actual wood and shit plus
   I have outbuildings.

   My easiest/cheapest solution was wifi extenders/repeaters.
   Many make them, they DO work and aren't very hard to set up.
   Increase your range, 'get around corners'. Not as fast
   as Cat-6, but still very useful. If you have multiple
   servers, bunch them together and, if needed, hardwire
   THOSE together.

   Right NOW I'm only running one extender, but I have a
   fairly good proper desktop in a back room that I have
   not used in over a year. Fast with lots of storage.
   Love ASUS boards. Now I can bring that out of the
   back room (though really NO room out front) and use
   hardwire to some other boxes OR deploy another
   extender and 'get around the corners'. At The Office
   days I had a large closet with half a dozen boxes
   full of drives and the whole place was hardwired.
   Now retired, nope. However I don't NEED twenty+
   high-terabyte drives for my personal stuff and
   don't have to please a big office full of people
   who expect EVERYTHING to be "instant".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90272 — Re: [OT] Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture

On 21/08/2026 02:57, c186282 wrote:
> My easiest/cheapest solution was wifi extenders/repeaters.
>    Many make them, they DO work and aren't very hard to set up.
>    Increase your range, 'get around corners'. Not as fast
>    as Cat-6, but still very useful. If you have multiple
>    servers, bunch them together and, if needed, hardwire
>    THOSE together.

Easiest cheapest is those sending data through your household mains.
They are not reliable though

Wifi is OK-ish Fairly reliable if short range,and a bit insecure. CAT5 
goes further, CAT6 is marginal if you want top speeds - its only specced 
for a few metres.

By all means wire with CAT6 but don't expect it to be any better than CAT5


Problems with wifi are :
Performance degrades with many connections.
Performance degrades with distance
Its not as fast as gigabit
Someone outside the house with a laptop can listen in to some extent, 
and if they get your password...

I use wifi for devices that are simply too hard to hard wire or are 
portable. But te main network is CAT5


-- 
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as 
foolish, and by the rulers as useful.

(Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90321 — Re: [OT] Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 21/08/2026 02:57, c186282 wrote:
>> My easiest/cheapest solution was wifi extenders/repeaters.
>>    Many make them, they DO work and aren't very hard to set up.
>>    Increase your range, 'get around corners'. Not as fast
>>    as Cat-6, but still very useful. If you have multiple
>>    servers, bunch them together and, if needed, hardwire
>>    THOSE together.
> 
> Easiest cheapest is those sending data through your household mains.
> They are not reliable though
> 
> Wifi is OK-ish Fairly reliable if short range,and a bit insecure. CAT5 
> goes further, CAT6 is marginal if you want top speeds - its only specced 
> for a few metres.
> 
> By all means wire with CAT6 but don't expect it to be any better than CAT5
> 
> 
> Problems with wifi are :
> Performance degrades with many connections.
> Performance degrades with distance

And, in a dense urban area, performance degrades with the number of 
neighbors also running their own WiFi near yours.

> Its not as fast as gigabit
> Someone outside the house with a laptop can listen in to some extent, 
> and if they get your password...
> 
> I use wifi for devices that are simply too hard to hard wire or are 
> portable. But te main network is CAT5

This is my method as well.  All the fixed equipment is ethernet 
connected.  And, as well, /some/ of the portable equipment is also 
ethernet connected when not being "ported around" (laptop, when it is 
not being carried around is also connected to a CAT5 cable).  The only 
items that stay WiFi only are those that have no ethernet jacks (cell 
phones).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90332 — [OT] 10\+BASE-T on mobile phones (was: Re: [OT] Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture)

On 2026-08-22, Rich wrote:

> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 21/08/2026 02:57, c186282 wrote:
[...]
>> I use wifi for devices that are simply too hard to hard wire or are 
>> portable. But te main network is CAT5
>
> This is my method as well.  All the fixed equipment is ethernet 
> connected.  And, as well, /some/ of the portable equipment is also 
> ethernet connected when not being "ported around" (laptop, when it is 
> not being carried around is also connected to a CAT5 cable).  The only 
> items that stay WiFi only are those that have no ethernet jacks (cell 
> phones).

Are there phone models that somehow feature an 8P8C socket?

(I suppose these days it might also be possible to do wired networking
with a USB NIC?)

-- 
Nuno Silva

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90336 — Re: [OT] 10\+BASE-T on mobile phones

On 22/08/2026 11:40, Nuno Silva wrote:
> On 2026-08-22, Rich wrote:
> 
>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 21/08/2026 02:57, c186282 wrote:
> [...]
>>> I use wifi for devices that are simply too hard to hard wire or are
>>> portable. But te main network is CAT5
>>
>> This is my method as well.  All the fixed equipment is ethernet
>> connected.  And, as well, /some/ of the portable equipment is also
>> ethernet connected when not being "ported around" (laptop, when it is
>> not being carried around is also connected to a CAT5 cable).  The only
>> items that stay WiFi only are those that have no ethernet jacks (cell
>> phones).
> 
> Are there phone models that somehow feature an 8P8C socket?
> 
> (I suppose these days it might also be possible to do wired networking
> with a USB NIC?)
> 
If it were supported perhaps, though I'd expect it to break the Micro 
USB socket in weeks from hanging a BFD (BigFatDongle) off it.

-- 
There is nothing a fleet of dispatchable nuclear power plants cannot do 
that cannot be done worse and more expensively and with higher carbon 
emissions and more adverse environmental impact by adding intermittent 
renewable energy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90343 — Re: [OT] 10\+BASE-T on mobile phones

Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 2026-08-22, Rich wrote:
> 
>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 21/08/2026 02:57, c186282 wrote:
> [...]
>>> I use wifi for devices that are simply too hard to hard wire or are 
>>> portable. But te main network is CAT5
>>
>> This is my method as well.  All the fixed equipment is ethernet 
>> connected.  And, as well, /some/ of the portable equipment is also 
>> ethernet connected when not being "ported around" (laptop, when it is 
>> not being carried around is also connected to a CAT5 cable).  The only 
>> items that stay WiFi only are those that have no ethernet jacks (cell 
>> phones).
> 
> Are there phone models that somehow feature an 8P8C socket?

Yes.  Most VOIP native desktop phones (esp.  if intended for "office" 
settings) have ethernet (and are usually also powered by PoE).

I was, however, primarilly referring to "computer equipment" with my 
comment (desktops and laptops), not standalone desktop phones.  The 
last one of those I have is a POTS phone that is connected via standard 
POTS copper to a VOIP adapter, the VOIP adapter itself connects to 
ethernet.  So, in the end, even the old POTS phone is not on WiFi.

> (I suppose these days it might also be possible to do wired networking
> with a USB NIC?)

For items that lack ethernet ports natively, and that will make use of 
a USB NIC, that would be possible.  I doubt however that any random 
"wifi connectable" IoT thing from Amazon or AliExpress that happens to 
have a USB port will support a USB NIC if one was plugged in.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90547 — Re: [OT] 10\+BASE-T on mobile phones

Nuno Silva wrote:

> Are there phone models that somehow feature an 8P8C socket?

I've never seen/heard-of any.
> (I suppose these days it might also be possible to do wired networking
> with a USB NIC?)

Ought to work (with Android, Apple likely not such a good bet).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90335 — Re: [OT] Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture

On 22/08/2026 05:10, Rich wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 21/08/2026 02:57, c186282 wrote:
>>> My easiest/cheapest solution was wifi extenders/repeaters.
>>>     Many make them, they DO work and aren't very hard to set up.
>>>     Increase your range, 'get around corners'. Not as fast
>>>     as Cat-6, but still very useful. If you have multiple
>>>     servers, bunch them together and, if needed, hardwire
>>>     THOSE together.
>>
>> Easiest cheapest is those sending data through your household mains.
>> They are not reliable though
>>
>> Wifi is OK-ish Fairly reliable if short range,and a bit insecure. CAT5
>> goes further, CAT6 is marginal if you want top speeds - its only specced
>> for a few metres.
>>
>> By all means wire with CAT6 but don't expect it to be any better than CAT5
>>
>>
>> Problems with wifi are :
>> Performance degrades with many connections.
>> Performance degrades with distance
> 
> And, in a dense urban area, performance degrades with the number of
> neighbors also running their own WiFi near yours.
> 
Sorry. I forgot that. My nearest neighbours are outside air rifle range

>> Its not as fast as gigabit
>> Someone outside the house with a laptop can listen in to some extent,
>> and if they get your password...
>>
>> I use wifi for devices that are simply too hard to hard wire or are
>> portable. But te main network is CAT5
> 
> This is my method as well.  All the fixed equipment is ethernet
> connected.  And, as well, /some/ of the portable equipment is also
> ethernet connected when not being "ported around" (laptop, when it is
> not being carried around is also connected to a CAT5 cable).  The only
> items that stay WiFi only are those that have no ethernet jacks (cell
> phones).

Well I have PI zero-Ws scattered in places that are never places I would 
have thought I needed a network back in the 2000s when I cabled this place.
So I have three ZERO-Ws running WiFi, plus the IdiotPhone™ and the laptop.



-- 
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on 
its shoes.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90347 — Re: [OT] Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture

On Sat, 22 Aug 2026 13:30:17 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> Sorry. I forgot that. My nearest neighbours are outside air rifle range

You have to upgrade from your Daisy Red Ryder. Some of the PCP rifles have 
impressive specs. Nothing new.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girardoni_air_rifle

The savages were impressed by Lewis' toy. Despite the expedition's many 
encounters with different tribes they only killed two Blackfeet who were 
trying to steal their horses and guns. The Blackfeet have a different 
story. It might be more plausible if the Blackfeet didn't have a long 
history of robbing and killing their neighbors. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90357 — Re: [OT] Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture

On 22/08/2026 20:03, rbowman wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Aug 2026 13:30:17 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> 
>> Sorry. I forgot that. My nearest neighbours are outside air rifle range
> 
> You have to upgrade from your Daisy Red Ryder. Some of the PCP rifles have
> impressive specs. Nothing new.
> 
UK here Bob. cant own anything with much muzzle velocity without a licence.

I've just got an old Weihrauch .22 It will kill a rabbit at 50 yards 
once in a blue moon when you get the drop juts right and the wind isn;t 
blowing

https://www.justairguns.co.uk/air-rifles/weihrauch-air-rifles/

The nearest Neighbors are about 300 yards down the hill, 500 yards up 
the hill or a couple of miles cross country either side

But the doctor is only a mile away,


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girardoni_air_rifle
> 
> The savages were impressed by Lewis' toy. Despite the expedition's many
> encounters with different tribes they only killed two Blackfeet who were
> trying to steal their horses and guns. The Blackfeet have a different
> story. It might be more plausible if the Blackfeet didn't have a long
> history of robbing and killing their neighbors.
> 

Noble savages were all the rage in the Romantic Period.

In Rwanda there are two tribes that slaughtered each other - Hutu and Tutsi

But one thing united them, their hatred of the Twa - the hunter gatherer 
pygmies from the rain forest who would wander into every town and 
village and 'gather' anything that wasn't nailed down.

-- 
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90365 — Re: [OT] Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture

On Sat, 22 Aug 2026 23:30:28 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


> UK here Bob. cant own anything with much muzzle velocity without a
> licence.

I sometimes for get. I've been binge reading Inger Wolf, a Danish mystery 
writer. Most of her stuff is set in Aarhus but in the one I'm reading now 
the Danish detective is sent to Alaska for a case involving Danish 
nationals. The female US detective makes a remark about toy guns when she 
is kitting him out and he says he uses a 9mm. She fits him up with a Glock 
10mm. 

While it's true the 10mm was developed after a FBI shootout with 9mm 
didn't go well. 

The full load proved to be a little much so the FBI went to the .40 S&W, 
sort of a reduced load in a shorter case. .40 had it's day but most police 
forces are back to 9mm. Danes apparently feel Americans all prefer hand 
cannons.

Another interesting cultural thing is she refers to a congregation as a 
'free church'.  Few in the US would have a clue what a free church is. 

In her profile she says she has a dog named Harry Hole. I've often 
wondered how much English Jo Nesbo spoke when he picked that name for his 
detective. 


> The nearest Neighbors are about 300 yards down the hill, 500 yards up
> the hill or a couple of miles cross country either side

There is a convenient 1000 yard range if you need to practice.

https://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/tag/deep-creek/

500 yards, no problem. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90087

On 8/18/26 12:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 18/08/2026 14:36, Rich wrote:
>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>>> On 8/17/26 20:47, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>> On 2026-08-17, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 2.4Ghz will happily do a miles as many RC modelers have found. 
>>>>>> Just not
>>>>>> with trees in the way.
>>>>>
>>>>> Living trees are quite full of lots of water, which is a very good
>>>>> 2.4G signal absorbing medium.
>>>>
>>>> Good point.  There's a reason microwave ovens operate at 2.45 GHz.
>>>
>>>    Alas 5ghz interacts poorly with STRUCTURES.
>>
>> 5Ghz is much more easily absorbed by structures.  Brick and concrete
>> are very good absorbers of 5Ghz signals.  Brick and concrete also
>> absorb 2.4Ghz signals as well, just not to the attenuation level that
>> 5Ghz is absorbed.
>>
>>>    I doubt there's a 'perfect frequency' that will
>>>    get thru structures, veggies AND offer a good
>>>    data rate.
>>
>> There is no "perfect frequency".  Ignoring FCC rules that mean you
>> can't use every frequency anyway, if you want more penetration (less
>> attenuation) from structures you want lower frequency.  But lower
>> frequency comes along with lower bandwidth for data, so lower data
>> speeds.
>>
> Its ironic that I could probably build a reliable data transfer for 50 
> baud running on 27MHz

   Quite true - 'reliable', just not FAST.

   As for the 'FCC' ... sorry, no Ministry Of Housinz
   detector vans running around. They can't afford it
   and the VAST proliferation of signals makes a mess
   even an AI couldn't sort out. Unless you're blasting
   half a megawatt over commercial/govt stations the
   FCC just doesn't *care* anymore.

>> Reality is you have tradeoffs, and have to decide which tradeoff is
>> acceptable to you.
>>
>>>    Best, shitty, fix is to have multiple repeaters in house and then
>>>    pick the BEST one to connect to in any given part of the structure.
>>
>> Yes, that is the best way, but also the more complicated way, so most
>> non-techie folks won't end up going that route.
>>
> The best way is to wire the house with CAT 5

   CAT 6+ these days !!!

   Of course not all houses are 'wiring friendly', mine
   is NOT. Also, not EVERYTHING is directly indoors, I
   have some security cams on outbuildings.

   Anyway, the fairly cheap solution is repeaters/range-boosters
   They can get signals "around corners" pretty well.

   The 400mhz and 900mhz data bands were pretty good,
   and a number of devices are still made for them.
   They'd get through walls and trees and tropical
   rainstorms - often a mile+ range. Still, alas,
   yer data SPEED isn't gonna be like modern wi-fi.
   They're more like 'radio-linked modems'.

   https://www.adafruit.com/product/4072

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90090

c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
> On 8/18/26 12:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 18/08/2026 14:36, Rich wrote:
>>> There is no "perfect frequency".  Ignoring FCC rules that mean you 
>>> can't use every frequency anyway, if you want more penetration 
>>> (less attenuation) from structures you want lower frequency.  But 
>>> lower frequency comes along with lower bandwidth for data, so lower 
>>> data speeds.
>>>
>> Its ironic that I could probably build a reliable data transfer for 
>> 50 baud running on 27MHz
> 
>   Quite true - 'reliable', just not FAST.
> 
>   As for the 'FCC' ...  sorry, no Ministry Of Housinz detector vans 
>   running around.  They can't afford it and the VAST proliferation of 
>   signals makes a mess even an AI couldn't sort out.  Unless you're 
>   blasting half a megawatt over commercial/govt stations the FCC just 
>   doesn't *care* anymore.

That very much depends on what, or who, you happen to be stepping upon.

Stomp over the frequencies your local police/fire/rescue departments 
are using and you may get the Ministry Of Housinz detector vans roaming 
your area.

Stomp over the frequencies used by a nearby airport for aircraft to 
tower comms and you *will* get the Ministry Of Housinz detector vans 
roaming around hunting you down.

Stomp over Verizon's cell phone tower signals, well, maybe the vans 
show up, maybe not.

Stomp all over your neighborhood 2.4Ghz WiFi free-for-all bands, yeah, 
nobody at the FCC will care one bit.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90103

On 8/18/26 23:17, Rich wrote:
> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>> On 8/18/26 12:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 18/08/2026 14:36, Rich wrote:
>>>> There is no "perfect frequency".  Ignoring FCC rules that mean you
>>>> can't use every frequency anyway, if you want more penetration
>>>> (less attenuation) from structures you want lower frequency.  But
>>>> lower frequency comes along with lower bandwidth for data, so lower
>>>> data speeds.
>>>>
>>> Its ironic that I could probably build a reliable data transfer for
>>> 50 baud running on 27MHz
>>
>>    Quite true - 'reliable', just not FAST.
>>
>>    As for the 'FCC' ...  sorry, no Ministry Of Housinz detector vans
>>    running around.  They can't afford it and the VAST proliferation of
>>    signals makes a mess even an AI couldn't sort out.  Unless you're
>>    blasting half a megawatt over commercial/govt stations the FCC just
>>    doesn't *care* anymore.
> 
> That very much depends on what, or who, you happen to be stepping upon.

   As I said.

   Big-money commercial and/or 'security'-related
   govt freqs ... MIGHT be worth their time, maybe.

   The FCC seems more concerned with mass data feeds,
   sats, microwave towers. Oh, and of course, trying
   to keep Junior from seeking nekked titties.

   Anyway, if you start walking over StarLink then
   they WILL put in the time. Make a high-power
   ULF/ELF transmitter (difficult) and they'll get
   yer ass too.

> Stomp over the frequencies your local police/fire/rescue departments
> are using and you may get the Ministry Of Housinz detector vans roaming
> your area.

   MAYBE.

> Stomp over the frequencies used by a nearby airport for aircraft to
> tower comms and you *will* get the Ministry Of Housinz detector vans
> roaming around hunting you down.

   MUCH MORE MAYBE if it's aircraft/mil freqs.

> Stomp over Verizon's cell phone tower signals, well, maybe the vans
> show up, maybe not.

   Lots of money and campaign donations there, eventually
   they'll look into it. The freq-hopping aspect trick on
   newer devices tends to reject random signals though.
   Thank you Hedy Lamarr.

> Stomp all over your neighborhood 2.4Ghz WiFi free-for-all bands, yeah,
> nobody at the FCC will care one bit.

   Exactly. THAT kind of shit is beneath notice
   these days.

   Saw an article a few years back where they put
   a REAL antenna on a Pi-3. Range went up at least
   twenty times, they had stats ... miles and miles
   and miles.

   No vans showed up.

   Anyway, when "CB" became popular, the sheer VOLUME
   of transmitters became TOO much to cope with. It
   has exceed that by two or three orders of magnitude
   at this point.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90106

On Wed, 19 Aug 2026 01:57:16 -0400, c186282 wrote:

>    Anyway, if you start walking over StarLink then they WILL put in the
>    time. Make a high-power ULF/ELF transmitter (difficult) and they'll
>    get yer ass too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VLF_Transmitter_Cutler

Sort of hard to hide in the backyard. I can't find a link but I believe 
they use diesel generators to power it. There's a low rumble as you sail 
by 3 miles offshore. It's not a secret site and is a landmark on the 
navigational charts.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90112

On 8/19/26 02:20, rbowman wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Aug 2026 01:57:16 -0400, c186282 wrote:
> 
>>     Anyway, if you start walking over StarLink then they WILL put in the
>>     time. Make a high-power ULF/ELF transmitter (difficult) and they'll
>>     get yer ass too.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VLF_Transmitter_Cutler
> 
> Sort of hard to hide in the backyard. I can't find a link but I believe
> they use diesel generators to power it. There's a low rumble as you sail
> by 3 miles offshore. It's not a secret site and is a landmark on the
> navigational charts.

   ULF/ELF - requires a huge amount of real-estate
   and major power. Wavelengths are in MILES. Still,
   the only good way to talk to subs, even if the
   data rate is just horrible.

   There's a place not THAT far away - in the 70s you
   could see into the property from the road, then
   they put up a berm. Then they doctored the aerial
   photos you can get off the net :-)

   Not sure WHY ... Vlad and Xi have their own
   sats and can obviously see. Oh well, the USG
   denied "Area-51" existed for many decades
   even though everyone knew better.

   Hmmm ... a TV show I saw the other day. When
   Russian sats were coming over they'd drag
   the SR-71s into a hanger. However the Russians
   STILL got the general profile - the IR heat
   shadow left on the tarmac  :-)

   Guess they have to TRY and hide shit, but that's
   clearly becoming MUCH more difficult.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90095

On Tue, 18 Aug 2026 22:45:09 -0400, c186282 wrote:

>    The 400mhz and 900mhz data bands were pretty good,
>    and a number of devices are still made for them. They'd get through
>    walls and trees and tropical rainstorms - often a mile+ range. Still,
>    alas, yer data SPEED isn't gonna be like modern wi-fi. They're more
>    like 'radio-linked modems'.

I don't know where they're located but I can pick up the outdoor 
temperature and humidity from a couple of devices on 433 MHz. The Accurite 
has both while the other one only has temp. It's a short packet every 15 
seconds so it's not pushing hard. 

They're not as popular as they were but I have some nfr24l01 boards that 
operate on 2.4GHz. Supposedly you can get 2 Mbps but the 250 Kbps is fine 
for me using the printed antenna rather than the external models.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90105

On 8/18/26 23:58, rbowman wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Aug 2026 22:45:09 -0400, c186282 wrote:
> 
>>     The 400mhz and 900mhz data bands were pretty good,
>>     and a number of devices are still made for them. They'd get through
>>     walls and trees and tropical rainstorms - often a mile+ range. Still,
>>     alas, yer data SPEED isn't gonna be like modern wi-fi. They're more
>>     like 'radio-linked modems'.
> 
> I don't know where they're located but I can pick up the outdoor
> temperature and humidity from a couple of devices on 433 MHz. The Accurite
> has both while the other one only has temp. It's a short packet every 15
> seconds so it's not pushing hard.

   I think I had an Accurite. Never tried to decode
   its signals on a PC however - never had a receiver
   to fit a PC. Anyway, for low speed 'field data' even
   the 400mhz zone is quite adequate and tends to get
   around obstacles pretty well.

> They're not as popular as they were but I have some nfr24l01 boards that
> operate on 2.4GHz. Supposedly you can get 2 Mbps but the 250 Kbps is fine
> for me using the printed antenna rather than the external models.

   Use 2.4 wifi for all my IP cams. More reliable
   but can STILL suffer from 'shadows'. 5ghz is
   much worse.

   As said, NOTHING is "perfect" for all uses.
   Still waiting for 'sub-space radio'  :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90142

On Wed, 19 Aug 2026 02:20:01 -0400, c186282 wrote:

>    I think I had an Accurite. Never tried to decode its signals on a PC
>    however - never had a receiver to fit a PC. Anyway, for low speed
>    'field data' even the 400mhz zone is quite adequate and tends to get
>    around obstacles pretty well.

amazon.com/RTL-SDR-Blog-RTL2832U-Software-Defined/dp/B0BMKZCKTF

It does a lot more than pick up the Accurite signal. 

https://github.com/merbanan/rtl_433

It also can handle ADS-B, FM stations, etc, etc.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90131

On 19/08/2026 03:45, c186282 wrote:
> On 8/18/26 12:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 18/08/2026 14:36, Rich wrote:
>>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>>>> On 8/17/26 20:47, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>>> On 2026-08-17, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2.4Ghz will happily do a miles as many RC modelers have found. 
>>>>>>> Just not
>>>>>>> with trees in the way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Living trees are quite full of lots of water, which is a very good
>>>>>> 2.4G signal absorbing medium.
>>>>>
>>>>> Good point.  There's a reason microwave ovens operate at 2.45 GHz.
>>>>
>>>>    Alas 5ghz interacts poorly with STRUCTURES.
>>>
>>> 5Ghz is much more easily absorbed by structures.  Brick and concrete
>>> are very good absorbers of 5Ghz signals.  Brick and concrete also
>>> absorb 2.4Ghz signals as well, just not to the attenuation level that
>>> 5Ghz is absorbed.
>>>
>>>>    I doubt there's a 'perfect frequency' that will
>>>>    get thru structures, veggies AND offer a good
>>>>    data rate.
>>>
>>> There is no "perfect frequency".  Ignoring FCC rules that mean you
>>> can't use every frequency anyway, if you want more penetration (less
>>> attenuation) from structures you want lower frequency.  But lower
>>> frequency comes along with lower bandwidth for data, so lower data
>>> speeds.
>>>
>> Its ironic that I could probably build a reliable data transfer for 50 
>> baud running on 27MHz
> 
>    Quite true - 'reliable', just not FAST.
> 
No, 50 baud is not fast. But when the data is only 50 bytes to so  every 
other hour it is more than enough


>> The best way is to wire the house with CAT 5
> 
>    CAT 6+ these days !!!
> 
Well yes if you want 10 gigabits and a range less than a room width

No. Cat 5e is better for whole house coverage and 1Gbbps



> 

-- 
The lifetime of any political organisation is about three years before 
its been subverted by the people it tried to warn you about.

Anon.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc

csiph-web