|
One dispute here.Antillie posted:2. Not all devices have a 5ghz antenna. Most phones and tablets don't have one due to space constraints, some laptops do, some don't. Just depends on what your client devices are. Generally, devices that have a 5ghz antenna cost more than ones that don't. Most phones & tablets worth buying have a 5 GHz antenna inside them. In fact, this has been the case for the past couple years. It's game consoles that are the rear end in a top hat here (the New 3DS doesn't even do 2.4n!). This isn't as much of an issue as you'd think because any 5 GHz routers worth buying has a 2.4 GHz fallback inside it, and a 5 GHz-only access point is usually literally just an access point. Also 5 GHz petering out at half the distance 2.4 does doesn't matter when anywhere that isn't in The Woods will see your neighbors choking out your 2.4 about as far out. And there's the argument that if you buy a laptop or device or whatever you're probably stuck with its wireless hardware, so it makes sense to spend a few bucks more now that you don't have to replace it a year early (which will cost you, TCO/year, more than the sticker price of an AC68).
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 17:38 |
|
|
Where does the Apple Airport Extreme stand in terms of the other wifi routers listed on the last couple pages? I'm in the position to get one fairly cheap, but I'll pass if it's not all that great compared to other options.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 06:32
|
|
God I fucking love Diablo 3 gold, it even paid for this shitty title
|
ThaGrandCow posted:Where does the Apple Airport Extreme stand in terms of the other wifi routers listed on the last couple pages? I'm in the position to get one fairly cheap, but I'll pass if it's not all that great compared to other options. What do you want to do? If you just want to connect to the internet and have AC networking in your house with gigabit ethernet ports and USB interface, it's fantastic. You can also set up a Guest wireless on it's own VLAN/BSS to give guests only access to the internet and not your internal stuff. It also works very well with the AP Express to extend wireless networks. If you want to customize the hell out of your edge device and introduce QoS, VPN services, etc... you may be better off using another device or getting an edge router like a small pfSense or ZyWall device to work with the AP Extreme (as an AP only).
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 07:46
|
|
|
flosofl posted:What do you want to do? I don't need VPN or QoS, everyone else in the house is just a facebook/youtube type user. Mostly wondering if it can handle a 100/20 connection without losing too much speed over wifi when compared to other options, and if there's any issues with range.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 08:18
|
|
|
ThaGrandCow posted:I don't need VPN or QoS, everyone else in the house is just a facebook/youtube type user. Mostly wondering if it can handle a 100/20 connection without losing too much speed over wifi when compared to other options, and if there's any issues with range. Is this the latest version? I have a 1700(ish) sq. ft. house (single story ranch), and I have not problems with coverage even out on my deck with the latest version. The 100/20 will be no problem as long as your modem is up to it. With 5HGz N and AC, you shouldn't lose any speed unless you have 10 or 20 people trying to do stuff at once.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 09:12
|
|
|
In my rental apartment, there's no good way to get cables from where the internet comes in (2nd bedroom) to the entertainment center (living room) which has my consoles, and the antennas (at least for my HTPC and PS3) are kinda lovely. If I were to pick up another wireless router (maybe the Archer C7 for future AC), would putting the old one in the living room, hard-wiring the consoles to it and setting it up in bridge mode give me a more reliable connection?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
GobiasIndustries posted:In my rental apartment, there's no good way to get cables from where the internet comes in (2nd bedroom) to the entertainment center (living room) which has my consoles, and the antennas (at least for my HTPC and PS3) are kinda lovely. If I were to pick up another wireless router (maybe the Archer C7 for future AC), would putting the old one in the living room, hard-wiring the consoles to it and setting it up in bridge mode give me a more reliable connection? That's the same setup I've had in apartments in the past. I just set up a 5ghz bridge to avoid crowding on the 2.4ghz band and kept the bridging unit as close as possible to the main unit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
flosofl posted:Is this the latest version? I have a 1700(ish) sq. ft. house (single story ranch), and I have not problems with coverage even out on my deck with the latest version. Yep, it'll be brand new, so latest version. That makes the decision pretty easy for me, thanks for the info.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
I switched to UVerse from Comcast two months ago, and it's been a massive headache. When I had Comcast, I was using an Arris Surfboard SB6141 and an ASUS RT-N66U. I had no problems whatsoever -- good speeds, easy to connect to all my devices, and streaming from my laptop to portable devices. Most importantly, Plex worked flawelessly, as did both Slashtop and Mobile Mouse. Since switching to AT&T, I've been forced to use their lovely Motorola NVG589. I still have to RT-N66U connected through that. I'm reasonably happy with my speeds, and I haven't had any major issues with streaming. However, I can't connect any of my other apps due to either refused connections or some other issue. I've tried setting up port forwarding, as suggested by Plex, and a few other tweaks to the router. What I think is happening is that the NVG589 has some privacy settings preventing the connections, but I can't find any guides that'd show how to make that happen. Does anyone have experiencing with the NVG589, or more specifically, experiencing using another router that's connect through an NVG589?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
You're not going to believe this - before it got brought up in here probably no one would - but you chose poorly. I just got AWAY from U-Verse after four years and change. Read my posts in here (the ? on my post) for why.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
Oh I'm well aware that I made an awful decision. I've been harassing the customer retention department for free upgrades and gift cards to make up for it. I'm just trying to make due until we can switch back to Comcast.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
Aggro posted:Oh I'm well aware that I made an awful decision. I've been harassing the customer retention department for free upgrades and gift cards to make up for it. I'm just trying to make due until we can switch back to Comcast. Oh. Well, I'll sum up my posts on U-Verse for you: you may not be able to. You can use any router as an access point pretty easily (if the router can be set as an access point) but using it to do any actual routing is going to suck out loud. Unfortunately, if you play PlayStation or something you'll have to, because AT&T gateways have no UPnP and you don't want to manually allocate several hundred ports. Using reserved IP addresses will cause the DHCP server to break if you reach them in the DHCP allocation order; it'll stop assigning IPs rather than go around the reservations, and you'll usually have to system reset the gateway to make them work again. Keep in mind that network printers can be edit: even more of a headache than usual if they don't have a consistent IP address. You can sort of get around this by just having your device demand a static allocation in some part of the NAT subnet that DHCP doesn't touch. I don't care if it's bad practice because just about everything AT&T does with its gateways is bad practice. Cascading a router or using DMZplus will break IPv6, for two reasons: EDIT: 1) AT&T's allocations are 6rd /60, presumably to separate its stuff from yours. While technically permissible under IETF RFCs (5969 is the big one for 6rd), you'll probably need pfsense (read: an actual general-purpose GNU/Linux PC) to get it working, because not even an RT-AC68P can do the job. Given how else they want to control your network, they probably should have just gone "screw you and screw your subnets you're getting a /64", but then they couldn't isolate their stuff. If this is not by design, AT&T is at the very least flagrantly disregarding the damage involved. ... Actually this might not be the problem it looks like, but that depends on whether other ISPs have functional user-router-friendly 6rd, and this may just be a side effect of: 2) AT&T's gateways filter out ICMPv6 (I guess it brute-forces packet sizes for internal hosts?). This breaks IPv6 handshaking entirely because without it IPv6 hosts don't know how to talk to each other. There is a fig leaf security excuse (and I'd hit the post character limit if I put in all the airquotes there) in that there's atomic fragmentation attacks that exploit ICMPv6 to work, but choosing to kill the protocol rather than just blackholing and shamevertising any host that tries to push the MTU (Maximum Transmission Unit, read: upper bound on packet size in bytes) below 1280 (its RFC4443 minimum) is network-hostile. Yeah, given #2 it's safe to assume #1 is by design, and even if it wasn't AT&T would probably respond with "you got IPv6 what else do you want". This is going to be awesome when most of the Internet is IPv6 and AT&T's decisions are calcified into their network infrastructure, and odds are Oh yeah, and the DMZplus lease time is 10 minutes. No poo poo. Make your router demand (static) the IP address it's assigned by the gateway or you won't be able to stream or possibly even download a thing. EDIT: One more thing: it's just an anecdote made of personal experience and other people in my area's anecdotes, but signal performance and stability on AT&T in my area took a colossal poo poo when they introduced IPv6, regardless of whether or not it was even on at the gateway. To give you an idea of how it ended up: I switched to Time Warner before I could find out how it ended up. Four months after it started. I need to learn how to be less patient about things. I have done a lot of edits to this thing. I've been away from AT&T for months and they're still giving me a headache.  What's the future? Probably WORSE. AT&T's acquisition of DirecTV is likely to lead to AT&T pushing U-Verse TV users in that direction. In the way they pushed standard DSL users in the U-Verse direction. GigaPower (AT&T's actually probably fiber this time successor to U-Verse "VDSL")... uhm,  You do not want GigaPower. TL;DR: They snoop every packet going between your gateway and the Internet, mostly to inject ads but not even God knows what else, and charge you more if you don't want that. This is still a concern if you pay them off because they've already shown their hand and there's no guarantee you'll continue to be able to pay them off without going business-class or something.And they may just throw up their hands and point you at AT&T Wireless if they ever get tired of expanding or too greedy to expand into marginal areas but this probably isn't a concern for users in your area (unless/until AT&T decides they're done with not-fiber). dont be mean to me fucked around with this message at 23:44 on Aug 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
Sir Unimaginative posted:One dispute here. You are correct, higher end devices do have high speed 5ghz wifi. However they are expensive, so it really comes down to what you need the device to do and what your budget is. Honestly unless you are moving movies to your tablet 5ghz wifi is rather pointless as long as the 2.4ghz band isn't too crowded. Even then, a good class 10 Micro-SD card will probably be faster. All 5ghz routers also have a 2.4ghz antenna because its part of the AC and dual band N specs and required to be wifi certified. Its also needed to be compatible with the loads of 2.4ghz only client devices out there. Pure APs are generally the same for the same reasons. But once again, they usually cost more than their 2.4ghz only counterparts. Its hard to broadly categorize the range difference between 2.4ghz and 5ghz as being irrelevant or not. It really depends on the site where the network is being installed. I could see this going either way. I haven't owned a game console since the PS2 days so I can't really comment on that front. I think you are right about laptops though. It is certainly worth spending a few extra bucks for the AC wifi adapter since you are going to be stuck with it for a while and you never know when someone is going to put their AP in AC only mode. I suppose this same argument could also apply to tablets and phones as well if you have the money to go high end on everything.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 01:46
|
|
|
37th Chamber posted:Unless there is something you KNOW you need Tomato/DD-WRT to do, I would suggest sticking with stock or using a fork of stock called Asuswrt-Merlin (http://asuswrt.lostrealm.ca/features), it's quite powerful out of the box, if it's not exposed in the webui you can telnet/ssh in and set nvram values by hand, AND you lose hardware acceleration on Tomato/DD-WRT (they refuse to include the closed source binary drivers to do so) I ended up taking a combination of this advice and the advice to get the RT-N66U since it was cheaper than the R7000 by about $50, and installed the Merlin firmware. It pretty much resolved the wireless problems I expected it to. Hopefully this one will last as long as my WRT54GL did.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 06:06
|
|
|
So I think I'm going to pick up the Netgear AC1900 (http://amzn.com/B00F0DD0I6). The plan is to disable wireless on my upstairs router and use the new one in the middle of the house. My question is will I be able to disable the router functionality of it and use it as an AP AND a switch? I have a few things that will need to be connected by wire, so if I could buy this and it could function as both a switch and wireless AP, it would save me some money by having to by a separate switch and AP. Edit: Took a look at the manual and it appears that if I set the router up in AP mode it will do the above. How does this router compare to the ASUS RT-AC66U (http://amzn.com/B008ABOJKS)? The Netgear seems to have better reviews, and I've been happy with my current WNDR3700. Any other options I should look at? I drive a BBW fucked around with this message at 14:51 on Aug 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 13:21
|
|
|
Google OnHub review out http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/08/google-onhub-review-googles-smart-home-trojan-horse-is-a-200-leap-of-faith/ seems pretty meh.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
Don Lapre posted:Google OnHub review out That's sad. I figured it would be able to keep up with Google Fiber. Nope.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 15:04
|
|
|
Don Lapre posted:Google OnHub review out Wow. Yeah. That is pretty meh. In fact, for $200 I would says its pretty crappy considering what you can get for that price when talking about home routers. I guess it might turn into some kind of amazing voice controlled smart home hub at some point in the future. But by why buy one before that happens? By the time all the secret features are turned on they may have a better one out anyway. At the moment its just a very user friendly router that looks nice and isn't really all that fast or featureful for how much it costs. I will be sticking to my A1SRi-2758F based pfSense router for now. Especially since Google Fiber is coming to my area in the next year or so and I know that my current router will easily handle gigabit speeds without breaking a sweat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
The Ars review didn't say that they tested the wired-to-wired performance, so I'm a little skeptical of their methodology. The OnHub's wifi might have been configured for maximum effective range instead of maximum single-threaded throughput. When configuring a single wifi radio you have to choose one or the other. You can't have both at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
CrazyLittle posted:The Ars review didn't say that they tested the wired-to-wired performance, so I'm a little skeptical of their methodology. The OnHub's wifi might have been configured for maximum effective range instead of maximum single-threaded throughput. When configuring a single wifi radio you have to choose one or the other. You can't have both at the same time. Google says it has 3x3 each in 2.4 and 5 GHz plus a site survey antenna. dont be mean to me fucked around with this message at 21:54 on Aug 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
CrazyLittle posted:The Ars review didn't say that they tested the wired-to-wired performance, so I'm a little skeptical of their methodology. The OnHub's wifi might have been configured for maximum effective range instead of maximum single-threaded throughput. When configuring a single wifi radio you have to choose one or the other. You can't have both at the same time. I dont think it gives you any options like that. It appears to be like, if you took the apple software and removed 90% of the little functionality it has Don Lapre fucked around with this message at 21:53 on Aug 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
The number of possible MIMO streams doesn't actually matter, and all the materials that say "AC1350" etc are bullshit. That number is just the number of MIMO streams * the fastest channel profile you can configure for the given standard, ie 3x3 MIMO x 450mbps 802.11ac on 160mhz-wide channels. Thing is, if you're actually dumb enough to put 160mhz channels on an AP, you'll have an effective range of maybe 10 feet with interference from every adjacent 5ghz AP. So my speculation is that Google programmed the OnHub to favor 20mhz narrow channels in order to squeeze more range rather than faster throughput. Many other 802.11ac devices will default to 40mhz or 80mhz wide channels. In short, users are stupid, and WiFi airtime is a shared resource, and broadcasting power is an arms-race to the bottom. Everyone would be happier if they stuck to 2ghz wifi channels 1/6/11 and turning their tx power down, setting the AP in the center of the room, and standing the rubber duck antennas straight up and down. Then use 5ghz radios (also set to lower-power) to supplement their higher-bandwidth needs. But to test the actual performance of the router itself, you need to test wired-to-wired, because testing wifi-to-internet just tests the configuration of the wifi or the client's wifi card.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
CrazyLittle posted:Don't get the UAP-LR. Just because you can see the access point from your device, doesn't mean that your device is powerful enough for the return trip. The UAP-LR is generally a bad idea. That's a rather novice understanding of radio transmission and reception. You pump more power into the antennas for longer broadcast, you use a larger antenna and amplifier to improve reception. You can work with just increased transmission power for point-to-point devices like Ubiquiti's airFiber range. If you look at the product details the modern AP is the same as the older AP-LR, the older AP was basically a lower powered version. The AP-LR was the same as the outdoor models (183m / 400ft range). MrMoo fucked around with this message at 00:07 on Sep 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
MrMoo posted:That's a rather novice understanding of radio transmission and reception. You pump more power into the antennas for longer broadcast, you use a larger antenna and amplifier to improve reception. You can work with just increased transmission power for point-to-point devices like Ubiquiti's airFiber range. Actually no, it's the other way around. The UAP is the standard version. The UAP outdoor is the UAP with external antenna jacks so that you can install shaped antennas. The UAP-LR is just the UAP with a bigger signal amplifier for a higher tx-power capacity. It doesn't have the antenna shaping required to pickup weak return signals from tiny transmitters like mobile phones. You -COULD- buy wifi cards that have equally powerful transmit amplifiers and external antenna jacks, but nobody who's seriously looking at the UAP-LR is thinking that far ahead. Which is also why I'm not bothering to give an in-depth explanation, because your average home user doesn't care. This is also the same reason why there's no UAP-Pro-LR or UAP-AC-LR... because the LR devices are not intended for normal client-device access. There's also some issue with the UAP-outdoor+* which makes for some significant stability problem - almost to the point where the Ubiquiti rep was suggesting tossing a UAP-Pro/UAP-AC in a waterproof box if you want wifi outdoors. MrMoo posted:If you look at the product details the modern AP is the same as the older AP-LR, the older AP was basically a lower powered version. The AP-LR was the same as the outdoor models (183m / 400ft range). Um, range measurements are meaningless without talking about transmission power and directionality. You can take a 25mW transmitter and shoot 2.4ghz over 2 miles LOS as long as your antenna transmitting a 15-degree conical shape. We've known this ever since the original Pringles Cantenna. *Edit* seems the stability issues were with the 2.x.x firmware line and cleared up in 3.x.x, so if you're using the outdoor APs, skip over 2.4.6 if possible. CrazyLittle fucked around with this message at 02:45 on Sep 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
Hey buds, I'm moving into a new apartment pretty soon and its time for me to upgrade my router/modem. I was previously renting a modem from att, and had a OK netgear router. I'm going to be switching to Time Warner Cable and would prefer not to rent from them as well. What is the best router/modem to buy right now for about $100 each. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
ZombieIsland posted:Hey buds, I'm moving into a new apartment pretty soon and its time for me to upgrade my router/modem. I was previously renting a modem from att, and had a OK netgear router. I'm going to be switching to Time Warner Cable and would prefer not to rent from them as well. What is the best router/modem to buy right now for about $100 each. Thanks! TP Link C7 router http://www.amazon.com/TP-LINK-Archer-C7-Wireless-1300Mbps/dp/B00BUSDVBQ Any motorola or zoom cable modem is fine. make sure its atleast an 8x4 modem. The Zoom 5341j is excellent and around $70.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
ZombieIsland posted:Hey buds, I'm moving into a new apartment pretty soon and its time for me to upgrade my router/modem. I was previously renting a modem from att, and had a OK netgear router. I'm going to be switching to Time Warner Cable and would prefer not to rent from them as well. What is the best router/modem to buy right now for about $100 each. Thanks! First, look at the approved modem list and see which modems support the speed tier you are wanting. I can personally recommend the SB6121 and SB6141 as being excellent modems. By extension the SB6183 is probably also very good. These are just modems, so you will need a separate router. I highly recommend having your modem and router be separate devices like this. If you are interested in the all-in-one modem/router combo boxes those are listed on the sheet as well. The Archer C7 is incredibly fast for the price and most people in the thread seem happy with it. The C5, C8, and C9 are also reasonable options depending on your needs and budget. Many people are also fans of the ASUS RT-N66U and the ASUS RT-AC66U. Antillie fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Sep 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
Id stay away from the 6121 at this point. Most isp's support 8 or more bonded channels which the 6121 only supports 4 downstream.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
Don Lapre posted:Id stay away from the 6121 at this point. Most isp's support 8 or more bonded channels which the 6121 only supports 4 downstream. In the case of TWC the 6121 is all you need if you only want the 50mbps tier. The 100mbps tier does need the 6141 though. Needs and budget and all that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
Antillie posted:In the case of TWC the 6121 is all you need if you only want the 50mbps tier. The 100mbps tier does need the 6141 though. Needs and budget and all that. Can I hear a little more about this? I got 115mbps consistently over a 6121 with no issues for a year, but I've dropped back down to 50 because the promo expired.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
Antillie posted:In the case of TWC the 6121 is all you need if you only want the 50mbps tier. The 100mbps tier does need the 6141 though. Needs and budget and all that. Just because you don't have a need for blazing speeds doesn't mean you shouldn't get a better modem. The more channel bonding accessible to you the less likely you're to have problems with congestion, at this point BUYING a 4 channel modem is bordering on idiotic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:Can I hear a little more about this? I got 115mbps consistently over a 6121 with no issues for a year, but I've dropped back down to 50 because the promo expired. Just going by what it says on TWC approved modem list. Other ISPs may be different.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
Antillie posted:Just going by what it says on TWC approved modem list. Other ISPs may be different. Never thought about that, I live in a Comcast monopoly zone and am fortunate enough to be in an area where I'm not sharing my cable line with many people. I always got 115 mbps on the 105 advertised plan and 61mbps on the 50 advertised. More channels probably matters in a crowded area.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
37th Chamber posted:Just because you don't have a need for blazing speeds doesn't mean you shouldn't get a better modem. The more channel bonding accessible to you the less likely you're to have problems with congestion, at this point BUYING a 4 channel modem is bordering on idiotic. I agree more channels to bond is better. But even if your modem can bond 8 the ISP may only bond 4 if you are not paying for a higher speed tier. However the price difference between the two is small enough that I think springing for the 6141 is probably a good idea in general. So yeah, your right. Antillie fucked around with this message at 17:49 on Sep 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
Antillie posted:I agree more channels to bond is better. But even if your modem can bond 8 the ISP may only bond 4 if you are not paying for a higher speed tier. However the price difference between the two is small enough that I think springing for the 6141 is probably a good idea in general. So yeah, your right. If it's a recommended modem, its more than likely they support that many channels. It's in the ISP's best interest to support as many channels as they can with current infrastructure to save them money. With DOCSIS 3.0/256QAM modulation they can push ~42.8Mbps per channel, but if everyone is using the same channel(s), no one is ever going to get that kind of speed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
So, do powerline ethernet adapters work well? I would like to connect my home theater setup to my router through ethernet, but the locations in the home make that difficult (but not impossible). Realistically, what would I expect from using a powerline adapter to connect a hub in the home theater to my router? Any recommended units?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
A friend just moved into a new apartment with wifi. He wants to do all sorts of dumb poo poo on there and stream 1080p movies between his PC and his Fire TV. I told him to buy a newer fancier router to be the bridge to the building wifi and ethernet from that to the old Belkin router he already has to give him private wifi. I found this Asus router that doesn't seem to get super great reviews. Is there any kind of hivemind consensus on a dead simple router/bridge this guy can plug in and figure out? I really do not want to be his IT guy. I searched back a few pages for bridge talk and a lot of the models discussed seem like overkill for his needs. I am assuming this building wifi is N but I have no idea. el_caballo fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Sep 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
CrazyLittle posted:Actually no, Ah, the Unifi product page is broken, one implies there is no AP-LR model any more, and another has is highly prominent in the diagrams. Awesome.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
emocrat posted:So, do powerline ethernet adapters work well? I would like to connect my home theater setup to my router through ethernet, but the locations in the home make that difficult (but not impossible). Realistically, what would I expect from using a powerline adapter to connect a hub in the home theater to my router? Any recommended units? I would also like to know. Newegg has a coupon on this one so it's $20 this week http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833127481&Tpk=N82E16833127481
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 17:38 |
|
|
I have had Zyxel powerline adapters for a while now and they work fine. It's mostly dependent on your electrical system. If you have an older setup it may not work that great or at all. I currently have the 600Mbps powerline kit from Zyxel, they now have a gigabit one though that I saw on sale from Newegg I believe for $60 the other day.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 01:08
|
|