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

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #90007 > unrolled thread

Re: 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

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  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 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#90007 — Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture

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.

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  In this world there are
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  two kinds of people:
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  1. Those who can extrapolate
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |  from incomplete data.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#90013

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.

   Mostly we use wi-fi INDOORS, so ...

   I doubt there's a 'perfect frequency' that will
   get thru structures, veggies AND offer a good
   data rate. 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.

   Fortunately repeaters are NOT very expensive.

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

#90061

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.

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.

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

#90069

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


> 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
-- 
“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, 
diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.”
― Groucho Marx

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

#90078

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.

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

#90130

On 18/08/2026 23:00, 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.
> 
Even if they cant, my decision to put CAT 5 everywhere - originally for 
phone but now for Ethernet, means that I can drop a WAP in anywhere in 
the house that needs it


-- 
Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the 
gospel of envy.

Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

Winston Churchill

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

#90228 — [OT] Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture

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?

-- 
(Apologies,)
Nuno Silva

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

#90230 — Re: [OT] Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture

On Thu, 20 Aug 2026 19:30:21 +0100, 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?

https://www.petco.com/product/purina-friskies-lil-lickables-with-tuna-
lickable-cat-treats

I've seen these referred to a 'kitten cocaine'. The cat certainly 
recognizes the tube.

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

#90232 — Re: [OT] Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture

On 2026-08-20, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

> https://www.petco.com/product/purina-friskies-lil-lickables-with-tuna-
> lickable-cat-treats
>
> I've seen these referred to a 'kitten cocaine'. The cat certainly 
> recognizes the tube.

We have some pretty addictive kitty treats ourselves.
Shake the container and both cats - wherever they might
be in the house - are there within 5 seconds.  (Well,
maybe 10 if they're asleep.)

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  In this world there are
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  two kinds of people:
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  1. Those who can extrapolate
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |  from incomplete data.

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

#90331 — [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)

On 2026-08-20, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> On 2026-08-20, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>
>> https://www.petco.com/product/purina-friskies-lil-lickables-with-tuna-
>> lickable-cat-treats
>>
>> I've seen these referred to a 'kitten cocaine'. The cat certainly 
>> recognizes the tube.

From experience I can say this kind of food delivery method becomes
slightly impractical if you have less hands than mouths to concurrently
feed.

> We have some pretty addictive kitty treats ourselves.
> Shake the container and both cats - wherever they might
> be in the house - are there within 5 seconds.  (Well,
> maybe 10 if they're asleep.)

... opening a can works well, no matter whether it's cat food or not, as
far as it's canned! :-)

-- 
Nuno Silva

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

#90348 — 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)

On Sat, 22 Aug 2026 11:35:25 +0100, Nuno Silva wrote:

> ... opening a can works well, no matter whether it's cat food or not, as
> far as it's canned!

Without getting into a discussion of feeding semi-feral outdoor cats I can 
attest that the sound of the pop top on a Friskies can causes cats to 
materialize out of thin air. 

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

#90358 — Re: [OT] On feeding our overlords

On 22/08/2026 20:07, rbowman wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Aug 2026 11:35:25 +0100, Nuno Silva wrote:
> 
>> ... opening a can works well, no matter whether it's cat food or not, as
>> far as it's canned!
> 
> Without getting into a discussion of feeding semi-feral outdoor cats I can
> attest that the sound of the pop top on a Friskies can causes cats to
> materialize out of thin air.

Cats mainly live in a parallel universe

-- 
“Ideas are inherently conservative. They yield not to the attack of 
other ideas but to the massive onslaught of circumstance"

    -  John K Galbraith

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

#90366 — Re: [OT] On feeding our overlords

On Sat, 22 Aug 2026 23:31:22 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 22/08/2026 20:07, rbowman wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Aug 2026 11:35:25 +0100, Nuno Silva wrote:
>> 
>>> ... opening a can works well, no matter whether it's cat food or not,
>>> as far as it's canned!
>> 
>> Without getting into a discussion of feeding semi-feral outdoor cats I
>> can attest that the sound of the pop top on a Friskies can causes cats
>> to materialize out of thin air.
> 
> Cats mainly live in a parallel universe

That may be the explanation of why it isn't Schrödinger's hedgehog.

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

#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]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web