New House has home network, wired for Cat 6 - need advice how to connect broadband an

Cyrus

its odd that your wifi isnt good enough in a room directly above

running cat 6 is possible obviously its just that it will require walls opening up.

FishOnABike

Is it possible the ceiling has foil lined plasterboard - the foil lining makes an effective barrier for radio signals.

chewed

FishOnABike wrote:

Is it possible tge ceiling has foil lined plasterboard - the foil lining makes an effective barrier for radio signals.

Maybe. But I also use my work laptop in the same room with no issues.

Johnboy1951

chewed wrote: »

No, and I can't figure out why. I bought a brand new Dell XPS 8930 earlier this year and assumed the wifi would be ok, but it's very intermittent and keeps dropping. I'm using it as a media server as well, so it's a pain to stream, watching it downstairs.
The router is directly downstairs and is a Fritzbox 7560, and is very good when connecting to other devices around the house. I've also tried getting the latest drivers for my wireless card, but it hasn't worked. This is the reason why I was looking to run a cable through the floorboards and connect directly.

Wifi is not a reliable way to stream media.
In addition other electrical equipment nearby (mostly) can cause interference with the signal.

Depending on house wiring, 'home plugs' are more reliable than wifi for this purpose.
('Home plugs' use the mains wiring in the house to carry the data ..... and of course they were never designed to do this so you never know how good it will be until you try).

The high horse brigade

File transfer or media streaming on WiFi will get very slow when both devices are on WiFi. WiFi is one way traffic, all your devices share a frequency and the TCP protocol used for data transfer is two way traffic. Data is sent in batches (TCP windowing) and an acknowledgement must be returned before the next batch is sent. So in effect data transfer must stop completely to return the acknowledgment meaning the speeds never get to much. Compare this to a cable with separate pairs of cores for two way traffic, a cable will reach multiple times the speed with no slowdowns

This is why you should always cable everything static and leave wireless for mobility, where mobility is needed

Cuddlesworth

The high horse brigade wrote: »

File transfer or media streaming on WiFi will get very slow when both devices are on WiFi. WiFi is one way traffic, all your devices share a frequency and the TCP protocol used for data transfer is two way traffic. Data is sent in batches (TCP windowing) and an acknowledgement must be returned before the next batch is sent. So in effect data transfer must stop completely to return the acknowledgment meaning the speeds never get to much. Compare this to a cable with separate pairs of cores for two way traffic, a cable will reach multiple times the speed with no slowdowns

This is why you should always cable everything static and leave wireless for mobility, where mobility is needed

I thought this is the nett/comm forum, so I don't understand why two people gave thanks for that big old pile of crap. A single 4k video stream needs 15Mbps at worst and it's not a constant, it buffers in TCP chunks with almost every app out there, which scale to the bandwidth available through window sizing.

Wireless AC can handle a crap load of multimedia streaming throughout most houses with a single decent access point. Even the Virgin Media Hub 3.0 is a 3x3 MIMO device and you can slam out 200+ Mbps from it with a similar 3x3 MIMO wireless card. Half Duplex or not, your not going to be limited by wireless AC for a very long time. And further wireless standards are going to limited by Gigabit networks.

If he has good connectivity and its "dropping" then it's not the wifi networks fault. To be honest, its probably dropping to save power, since the PC isn't get any inputs when he is downstairs stream.

Wireless is the future and the only cables people should be running for standard households is for better distribution of wireless signal.

The high horse brigade

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

A single 4k video stream needs 15Mbps at worst and it's not a constant, it buffers in TCP chunks with almost every app out there, which scale to the bandwidth available through window sizing.

15Mb if you stream from Netflix or Amazon prime. Direct playing Blu-ray copies using Kodi, Emby and Plex is another story. I have 1080p movies that need 40Mbit+ and 4k that need 100+

Cuddlesworth

The high horse brigade wrote: »

15Mb if you stream from Netflix or Amazon prime. Direct playing Blu-ray copies using Kodi, Emby and Plex is another story. I have 1080p movies that need 40Mbit+ and 4k that need 100+

Do you think your examples are common usage scenarios or edge case?
Do you think those needs could not be met by a decent wireless AC deployment?

The high horse brigade

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Do you think your examples are common usage scenarios or edge case?
Do you think those needs could not be met by a decent wireless AC deployment?

My uses are commonplace and what you should be preparing for.

I have IPTV UHD streams from my IPTV provider currently using 25Mbit+ to a single TV. Do you think a single AC wireless device would cope with 3x simultaneous streams to our 3x TVs and leave room for comfortable Youtube/facebook browsing and videos as we watch?

Cuddlesworth

The high horse brigade wrote: »

My uses are commonplace and what you should be preparing for.

I have IPTV UHD streams from my IPTV provider currently using 25Mbit+ to a single TV. Do you think a single AC wireless device would cope with 3x simultaneous streams to our 3x TVs and leave room for comfortable Youtube/facebook browsing and videos as we watch?

They are not common place scenarios, you are taking a extreme of 100+Mbps constant usage and trying to use it to justify your viewpoint. Bandwidth costs money, the incentive for providers now and in future is to reduce it.

And yes, wireless AC can meet that demand.

The high horse brigade

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

They are not common place scenarios, you are taking a extreme of 100+Mbps constant usage and trying to use it to justify your viewpoint. Bandwidth costs money, the incentive for providers now and in future is to reduce it.

And yes, wireless AC can meet that demand.

But they are common place. IPTV is highly popular. My IPTV provider recommends using their own app which supports split screen multi stream, 4x streams at once on the screen. Wireless will never cope with our ever increasing demands, it will always be just about okay especially when every device, fridge, kettle and washing machine in the house is now getting online connectivity.

I've also shown you that with Plex, Emby and Kodi you can be maxing your wireless bandwidth on local LAN. It would be extremely foolish to only use wireless and not to run Ethernet to the heaviest usage devices like media players, smart TVs, consoles, PCs and security cameras

Cyrus

Sorry to go on a tangent

But what IPTV are people using that is 4k compatible and is it legit yet ?

The high horse brigade

Cyrus wrote: »

Sorry to go on a tangent

But what IPTV are people using that is 4k compatible and is it legit yet ?

No

smuggler.ie

@Cuddlesworth
With all due respect.
I agree with you that with proper equipment and deployment you can achieve very good results on WiFi, but lets be realistic and encounter "random average consumer".

Wireless is the future and the only cables people should be running for standard households is for better distribution of wireless signal.

...providing you have all your hardware from future and/or you literally sit on top off your AP.

But as it stands, random average consumer, concerned about investment cost, still running AP(reconfigured consumer routers most of time) that are 5-10 years behind, not even trace of future capabilities.
Not all receiving end hardware will be capable of future tech either.

Wired connection does the major job, even AP distribution, as yourself have mentioned, relies on it.
WiFi is for devices that are designed to be "mobile" or there is absolutely no cost effective wire option available (aka "workaround").
Improving WiFi quality is future target, its happening and i welcome it, but yet to see it to overcome/replace wire/fiber.
And this where i thank THHB as i support this line and looking forward for the future to prove other way.

Cuddlesworth

The high horse brigade wrote: »

But they are common place. IPTV is highly popular. My IPTV provider recommends using their own app which supports split screen multi stream, 4x streams at once on the screen.

4x streams on the one TV. Very useful....

The high horse brigade wrote: »

Wireless will never cope with our ever increasing demands, it will always be just about okay especially when every device, fridge, kettle and washing machine in the house is now getting online connectivity.

Better run some ethernet cable to my kettle then, the bandwidth hungry monster its going to become.

The high horse brigade wrote: »

I've also shown you that with Plex, Emby and Kodi you can be maxing your wireless bandwidth on local LAN. It would be extremely foolish to only use wireless and not to run Ethernet to the heaviest usage devices like media players, smart TVs, consoles, PCs and security cameras

Not sure you understand what show is?

Here is a cisco fluff piece showing a low spec enterprise AP feeding 50 clients a 5Mb stream at the same time on a Wave 1 2x2 MIMO access point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fg_U_BjmaeY

Cuddlesworth

smuggler.ie wrote: »

@Cuddlesworth
With all due respect.
I agree with you that with proper equipment and deployment you can achieve very good results on WiFi, but lets be realistic and encounter "random average consumer"....providing you have all your hardware from future and/or you literally sit on top off your AP.

But as it stands, random average consumer, concerned about investment cost, still running AP(reconfigured consumer routers most of time) that are 5-10 years behind, not even trace of future capabilities.
Not all receiving end hardware will be capable of future tech either.

No idea where you are going with this. Anybody on a 10+ year old wifi router are not going to be throwing in cables either.

smuggler.ie wrote: »

Wired connection does the major job, even AP distribution, as yourself have mentioned, relies on it.

Mesh wifi has gotten so good you don't need cabling unless you want to throw out some comments about 4x HD streams on the one app. My go to right now is to recommend it.

smuggler.ie wrote: »

WiFi is for devices that are designed to be "mobile" or there is absolutely no cost effective wire option available (aka "workaround").

Wifi is nearly always more cost effective then laying cable.

smuggler.ie wrote: »

Improving WiFi quality is future target, its happening and i welcome it, but yet to see it to overcome/replace wire/fiber.
And this where i thank THHB as i support this line and looking forward for the future to prove other way.

Super confused about that. Wifi has gotten so fast while remaining relatively cheap, that vendors are trying to push out 802.3bz backbone switches right now to try keep up with it. And those ASIC's are still hundreds of times more expensive then just using a mesh solutions backbone(in a home).

gctest50

And what if all your neighbours are doing the streaming thing too ?


No logical reason not to cable up something that will never be moving short of a major refurb job

smuggler.ie

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

No idea where you are going with this. Anybody on a 10+ year old wifi router are not going to be throwing in cables either.



Mesh wifi has gotten so good you don't need cabling unless you want to throw out some comments about 4x HD streams on the one app. My go to right now is to recommend it.



Wifi is nearly always more cost effective then laying cable.



Super confused about that. Wifi has gotten so fast while remaining relatively cheap, that vendors are trying to push out 802.3bz backbone switches right now to try keep up with it. And those ASIC's are still hundreds of times more expensive then just using a mesh solutions backbone(in a home).

Convert all this into € and try to sell to random average consumer who already has CAT5/6 in every room.
As I said, I welcome WiFi, just don't need to exaggerate it, as its not implementable in every household at level you can achieve in cost effective manner.
Balance of every available, cost effective, tech would prove to be solution. Offloading everything on WiFi alone might have inadvertent consequences.

Cuddlesworth

smuggler.ie wrote: »

Convert all this into € and try to sell to random average consumer who already has CAT5/6 in every room.
As I said, I welcome WiFi, just don't need to exaggerate it, as its not implementable in every household at level you can achieve in cost effective manner.
Balance of every available, cost effective, tech would prove to be solution. Offloading everything on WiFi alone might have inadvertent consequences.

If you have cables, use em if you need or want to. For the most part, I don't bother any more.
If it's no bother to you to run cabling yourself, go ahead.
If you have some bandwidth heavy use case, throw cables in, have a look at 10gig.

If you have a problem with your wifi network dropping while probably around 15 feet away from the router, advising that paying a electrician to come into the house, pop holes in the walls and pay labour and materials costs is the best course of action? That's what I have a problem with.

Cuddlesworth

gctest50 wrote: »

No logical reason not to cable up something that will never be moving short of a major refurb job

No logical reason.......
Like if he moves his office to another room?
Like if he has to or wants to move his modem to another location?

smuggler.ie

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

If you have cables, use em if you need or want to. For the most part, I don't bother any more.
If it's no bother to you to run cabling yourself, go ahead.
If you have some bandwidth heavy use case, throw cables in, have a look at 10gig.

If you have a problem with your wifi network dropping while probably around 15 feet away from the router, advising that paying a electrician to come into the house, pop holes in the walls and pay labour and materials costs is the best course of action? That's what I have a problem with.

See, I knew you will understand my point:
Use wire whenever you can if you already have it.

If not...
One have option to pay sparky and get guarantied 1000Mbps line or pay money in advance, without knowing final result on WiFi solution.
Cost factor? - depend on situation, that need to be evaluated before commencing purchase/work - one's choice after that.


Its not just black and white, its 50 shades...

Nonoperational

i have an Orbi system set up and really it's absolutely brilliant. I have the house wired too and intended wiring things like media players etc but to be honest it makes no appreciable difference. It's more a failsafe for me at this point.

Cuddlesworth

smuggler.ie wrote: »

Its not just black and white, its 50 shades...

There is no grey here, in the post you thanked. Just a big load of barstool ****e is what i have a issue with. And him doubling down with more ****e, is even worse.