In this context, bandwidth and speed are the same thing. They can
be (and are) used interchangably.

It is measured in bits per second, which is to say, individual ones
and zeros, that are sent back and forth. Easily confused with
bytes, which are 8 bits. The usual nomenclatures is that a lower
case "b" - mpbs - refers to bits, while and upper case "B" refers
to bytes. Usage is not entirely consistent, though. Fortunately,
most speed test web sites seem to report in mbps (and not mBps),
which is the same units as advertised speeds.

MHz is not used in discussing network speeds. There *is* a MHz
measure involved in ethernet (wired) networking, which is an
important factor in bandwidth/speed, but it's not used in a context
meaningful to this conversation. (For the record, your patch cables
likely run at 100MHz, as that is what's specified for cat5e. But
while a minimum frequency is needed to support a given network
speed, going above that minimum adds nothing.)

As for 2.4G vs 5GHz WiFi, (in theory) 5GHz is faster (provides
higher transfer speeds), but shorter range and often more subject
to environmental intererence, which might be why you're seeing
higher speeds with 5GHz disables. Or it might be that the gear your
ISP provided is a piece of shit. That's common enough. (Certainly,
if it only supports up to 802.11n, it's antiquated. Inexcusably
so.)

As for advertised speeds, that "up to" part is pretty important.
Just asks the lawyers, who insist on it being there. It means
"you'll never get this kind of speed, but we want you to believe
you will when you sign up." Though if they're advertisting "up to
200 mbps" providing equipment with 100Base-T ports is a bit
deceptive. Though, since you're not getting anywhere near 100mbps
to begin with, that in and of itself isn't your issue.

The patch cables should all have some kind of markings on them that
indicate what kind of ethernet cable they are. If it's "cat5e,"
that's specced to a minimum of 100mbps. If it's "cat5" (without the
e), that's not really guarnateed to more than 10, and won't exceed
100. (Ran into that here at work when we upgraded to a 600mbps
circuit, and had to change every switch in the building, and the
patch cable to my own computer.) If it's a higher number than 5
(cat6 is pretty common these days), it's rated to way over anything
you'll ever see.
>
> A meaningless statement given the confusion between "speed" and
> "bandwidth".

The only confusion is you not understanding they are the same
thing.

> And no amount of tech jabber can alter the fact
> that the higher-end features /do not work right/, which is why
> removing them improves the performance of the WiFi,

I suspect they're working pretty much as designed. Just not as
marketed. Odd things can affect WiFi speeds, and 2.4GHz does
provide a more stable connection.

> although
> (sadly) not the Ethernet. The second Ethernet failure reported
> otherthread was actually part of the hobbling, as the prior
> network used the Ethernet ports. Not without any problems (Win10
> networking has its own gotchas), but not with the problems seen
> with this "high quality equipment".

Anything provided by a cable company is "high quality" only in the
sense of generating additional income from the customer
efficiently. Mostly, they provide the cheapest piece of crap they
can get their hands on.
>
> I would like to point out that 40MHz is
>
> 40 x 1000 x 1000 cps (Hz)
>
> while 40 Mbps would be
>
> 40 x 1024 x 1024 bps
>
> which are only similar, not the same
>
> unless something has changed in how the nomenclature works, of
> course.

Nomenclature hasn't changed, you just don't understand which terms
are used in this sort of conversation and which aren't.
>
> Also, the fact that I now get 60Mbps where before I got 50Mbps
> may not indicate a speed improvement from hobbling, but it
> certainly shows that hobbling did not /hurt/ the measured
> download speed.
>
> Note: the possibility that one or more of my devices might be
> responsible for this cannot be ruled out; but then, actual high
> quality equipment would be expected to compensate for these
> difficulties.

No degree of quality can compensate for you being at the far end of
the wire, which is probably the majority of the issue. Range
affects bandwith for both wired and wireless connections. And they
never promised you 200 mbps, only "up to" that.

> New specs that require older equipment to be
> replaced is a marketing tool, not something to be proud of.

Ethernet is remarkably backwards compatible. You're well within the
specs for the older specifications. If you expect cat5 equipment to
operating at cat5e speeds, you're the problem, not the equipment.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

On Sun, 24 Apr 2022 19:27:00 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>news:b5ra6hllncbs382hbha2krjo27219eg1ji@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sun, 24 Apr 2022 00:32:30 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
>> <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>>news:1t986hh49ikimph9mcen8e3jtap77d7to2@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> n Fri, 22 Apr 2022 17:24:43 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
>>>> <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>>>>news:pvj56hh6g9t2j9hel2cbsla1bae45riijd@4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 09:29:45 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>>>>>> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>>>>>>news:ba036h9m4aj25cvp85j655pcm240di52ea@4ax.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snippo -- the rural areas are not wired>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which leaves two basic solutions:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1) Satellite-based.
>>>>>>>> 2) 5G Cellphone [1] network based.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The former depends on where the satellites are (that is,
>>>>>>>> their coverable area) and, of course, latency may be a
>>>>>>>> concern.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>A very serious concern, depending on what you're doing. Our
>>>>>>>cash registers don't like lag.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given Edge's propensity for declaring the Name Server or
>>>>>> even the Network down or missing after a timeout (as I found
>>>>>> out early in my experience with the New Fibre-associated
>>>>>> WiFi), it would irritate a lot of people.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The latter depends on how far the Towers have penetrated
>>>>>>>> into the heartland. And how well those 5G Routers actually
>>>>>>>> work.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>We tested a 5G router at one of our stores. It worked pretty
>>>>>>>well, but upload speeds were too slow for our purposes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's worth knowing, even though I don't currently have any
>>>>>> particular need for upload speeds (well, except when posting
>>>>>> messages/sending emails). DSL speeds worked fine. Fibre
>>>>>> speeds work rather better (EternalSeptember takes a /lot/
>>>>>> less time to log on to now).
>>>>>
>>>>>IIRC, download speeds were in the 7-8 mbps range, and upload
>>>>>was a tad under 2. I will note also that I was told the area
>>>>>that store is in does not have very good coverage yet, and
>>>>>speed are very dependent on range to the tower, so we were
>>>>>probably at the low end of what it should be able to deliver.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Note: there was a film I saw about a guy who moved back to
>>>>>>>> his home town and then found that /his new house/ was
>>>>>>>> Ground Zero for a Giant Space Rock. The local Internet
>>>>>>>> store /was/ willing to extend the cable -- for (IIRC) $3K.
>>>>>>>> So it is possible that, if you throw enough money at them,
>>>>>>>> they can be coaxed into putting in the wire.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>$3k is cheap for that. It's usually an order of magnitude
>>>>>>>higher, and that assumes they'll running cable less than a
>>>>>>>mile.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is possible that my memory dropped a 0 or two from the
>>>>>> end of the amount. A news service ultimately paid for the
>>>>>> installation so they could broadcast live from the site.
>>>>>
>>>>>Can't lose 'em all, I guess.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [1] I specify Cellphone because the routers presumably
>>>>>>>> provide a 5G WiFi network as well. Presumably, these would
>>>>>>>> be two different things.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>5G phone service is fifth *g*eneration.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>5G WiFi is in the 5 *g*igahertz band. The only thing they
>>>>>>>have in common is the use of the same letter and number.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, /that's/ good news. It's always nice to confirm a
>>>>>> suspicion.
>>>>>
>>>>>There's a lot of confusion over that, and the "news" media has
>>>>>done nothing to dispel it.
>>>>
>>>> Well, when you have "5G Routers" providing, I presume, "5G
>>>> WiFi", I don't see how confusion can be avoided. Minimized,
>>>> perhaps, but not avoided.
>>>
>>>5G routers can provide a 5G connection to the internet *and* 5G
>>>WiFi at the same time. In point of fact, I'm pretty sure the one
>>>we tested did just that.
>>
>> I'm sure they (or, at least, some of them) do -- since the "G"
>> stands for two different things, as explained by others above.
>> This ambiguity is what makes confusion unavoidable, IMHO.
>>
>> My router, plugged into an optic fiber modem (I'm sure the
>> official name is much more impressive,
>
>Other than optic and fiber being reversed, that's pretty much what
>it's called.

Yes, I do tend to get the order confused. And I'm glad to hear that
"fiber optic modem" will work for this device.

>> just as the router
>> appears to officially be a "gateway", but that is essentially
>> what it is),
>
>Router is both what it is and a function it performs. Gateway is a
>function it performs, which is to say, a network setting on devices
>behind it that means "if you're looking for something that's not
>local, look here."

A setting every router I have owned has provided, without a special
name.

But it is nice to find that "router" will work perfectly well.

>> also provides (well, did before I turned it off) a
>> 5G WiFi network. So it could be advertised as a "5G router" even
>> though it has no connection with the 5G Cellphone network
>
>That would be an improper claim (though probably common, since
>marketing drones have no idea what *any* of these words mean, just
>that they're popular buzz words). "Router with 5G" with an implied
>"WiFi" at the end) would prefectly propery, if still confusing.

True, and I'm not saying I've actually seen such a thing. So far as I
can remember, every mention of "5G Router" I have encountered was a
router that connected to the cellphone network.

>> (well,
>> unless we count the cell phone which is inside one or the other
>> of these devices and used for configuration by cellphone app --
>> this stuff just gets more and more tangled).
>
>The app very likely works by WiFi or Bluetooth, rather than a cell
>connection.

My memory may have played me false here. I seem now to recall that
configuration could be done by texting. I don't do smartphones, so
"text" as a verb is only a concept to me.

OTOH, you may be right, at least when the tech is standing right next
to the devices.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> writes:
>In this context, bandwidth and speed are the same thing. They can
>be (and are) used interchangably.
>

>
>MHz is not used in discussing network speeds. There *is* a MHz
>measure involved in ethernet (wired) networking, which is an
>important factor in bandwidth/speed, but it's not used in a context
>meaningful to this conversation. (For the record, your patch cables
>likely run at 100MHz, as that is what's specified for cat5e. But
>while a minimum frequency is needed to support a given network
>speed, going above that minimum adds nothing.)

Don't confuse 100BaseT with frequency; 100BaseT means 100 Mbits/sec.

100BaseT uses only four wires (two pairs) in the patch cable, while
1000BaseT uses all eight wires (four pairs) in the patch cable, with
data transmitted in parallel across each of the wires. The square
wave frequency on each wire of the balanced pair in 100BaseT is 66Mhz,
while 1000BaseT is twice that (125Mhz).

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Apr 2022 16:52:49 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
> wrote:
>>High-end hardware is available with 400Gbit/sec bandwidth per port, used
>>in the backbone and for 5G backhaul.
>
> A meaningless statement given the confusion between "speed" and
> "bandwidth". And no amount of tech jabber can alter the fact that the
> higher-end features /do not work right/, which is why removing them
> improves the performance of the WiFi, although (sadly) not the
> Ethernet. The second Ethernet failure reported otherthread was
> actually part of the hobbling, as the prior network used the Ethernet
> ports. Not without any problems (Win10 networking has its own
> gotchas), but not with the problems seen with this "high quality
> equipment".
>
> I would like to point out that 40MHz is
>
> 40 x 1000 x 1000 cps (Hz)
>
> while 40 Mbps would be
>
> 40 x 1024 x 1024 bps
>
> which are only similar, not the same
>
> unless something has changed in how the nomenclature works, of course.

A lot of the confusion comes from computing adopting existing terminology with
different meanings. Bandwidth in computing (especially informally) is roughly
equivalent to data transfer speed (with a bunch of provisos) and doesn't
correspond to bandwidth in signal processing. This has become more and more
confusing as improved technology and algorithms have allowed higher bandwidth
(computing) in the same bandwidth (signal processing). You can pretty much
tell by the units...Mbps is computing, MHz is signal processing. The ratio
between the two is highly variable.
Similarly, computing used metric (SI) prefixes (powers of 10) but applied them
to powers of 2. This started generating confusion when (a) computers became
more mainstream and (b) the binary prefixes increasingly diverged from metric
prefixes as capacities increased. The IEC adopted new binary prefixes in 1998
to eliminate (or at least reduce) confusion. The industry, or the sales people
anyway, were happy to continue using the "old" prefixes, recalculated as base
10, because it made speeds/capacities look higher.

> Also, the fact that I now get 60Mbps where before I got 50Mbps may not
> indicate a speed improvement from hobbling, but it certainly shows
> that hobbling did not /hurt/ the measured download speed.

There are way too many variables even before you starting talking about
wireless, but broadband providers typically sell more bandwidth than they
actually have (oversubscription). That's why they can sell "up to" 1 Gbps
for something like $100..."up to" is the key. When I order a 1 Gbps Internet
circuit at work I get 1 Gbps, guaranteed, but will pay closer to $1000 (I'm
looking at 10 Gbps for $5100/month right now). Rate limiting doesn't do much
to you if they can't even achieve the limited rate. I have 50/5 service at
home, but most evenings I get closer to 5/2.

> Note: the possibility that one or more of my devices might be
> responsible for this cannot be ruled out; but then, actual high
> quality equipment would be expected to compensate for these
> difficulties. New specs that require older equipment to be replaced is
> a marketing tool, not something to be proud of.

When you're talking about wireless equipment it generally implements the
frequencies and protocols that were standardized (or mostly standardized)
at the time it was released. Trying to build for future standards means
including a lot of costly flexibility that will cause you to fail in the
marketplace. Home users won't buy a $1000 wireless router that has the same
features as a $300 model but might...maybe, if you're lucky..be upgradable to
work with the standard that's out in 3 years. Business users won't do it
either. Pre-pandemic we bought radios in batches of a hundred. In three years
they'd be off the books and we'd replace them with the current $300 model.
We put a lot of effort into mapping our buildings and positioning radios, and
changing frequencies changes everything. Home providers don't have that luxury
and the sales literature (covers 3000 square feet!) is completely useless
given that they have no idea what your house looks like and how it's
constructed. We're in 2900 square feet and have two 802.11ac access points,
but could really use three. The odd shape of the house means it's possible
for "line of sight" to go through two exterior walls and an interior. I can
barely "see" one of the 5 GHz signals...the loss through the two exterior
walls is 40 dB compared to 20 dB for the 2.4 GHz. Yay physics!
Beyond that we're now waiting on the seventh version of the Wi-Fi standard
running (or at least runnable) in the same piece of spectrum. That's about
the only thing it has in common with the one from 1997 (other than a whole
lot of lousy compatibility options designed to keep the old equipment limping
along at the cost of the new capabilities).
To use a car analogy, the presence of old equipment on a Wi-Fi network is like
being on a road with lengthy no-passing zones and farm equipment moving at
5 mph. Everybody lines up until they get a chance to pass because the
tractor is moving as fast as it can. You're stuck with that until the last
of the farm equipment is gone, then everyone can speed up.

Robert
--
Robert K. Shull Email: rkshull at rosettacon dot com

scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
news:QHz9K.659181$LN2.226857@fx13.iad:

> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> writes:
>>In this context, bandwidth and speed are the same thing. They
>>can be (and are) used interchangably.
>>
>
>>
>>MHz is not used in discussing network speeds. There *is* a MHz
>>measure involved in ethernet (wired) networking, which is an
>>important factor in bandwidth/speed, but it's not used in a
>>context meaningful to this conversation. (For the record, your
>>patch cables likely run at 100MHz, as that is what's specified
>>for cat5e. But while a minimum frequency is needed to support a
>>given network speed, going above that minimum adds nothing.)
>
> Don't confuse 100BaseT with frequency; 100BaseT means 100
> Mbits/sec.

I'm not the one that's confused. I'm the one who does this for a
living.

The actual electrical signal for cat5 and cat5e is 100 Mhz. The
only thing this has to do with what speed you get is that it's part
of the technical specification for the hardware, and is one of the
things that determines the fastest the network connection can be.
As with any properly defined spec, that max is not always achieved.
>
> 100BaseT uses only four wires (two pairs) in the patch cable,
> while 1000BaseT uses all eight wires (four pairs) in the patch
> cable, with data transmitted in parallel across each of the
> wires. The square wave frequency on each wire of the balanced
> pair in 100BaseT is 66Mhz, while 1000BaseT is twice that
> (125Mhz).
>
I have no idea where you get that from, but I *have* 1 gbps patch
cables that only use two twisted pairs. I know this, with 100%
certainty, because the other two pairs are used for power over
ethernet. This is, in fact, pretty standard for many types of
equipment, especially access points and VOIP phones.

I have no idea what you're talking about, and I expect you don't,
either, especially since a) you don't know that bandwidth and speed
are the same thing, adn b) you use MHz and mpbs interchangeably
even though they are unrelated.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:c6gd6ht90om7q3g8a48qdj5aov690n2sq7@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 24 Apr 2022 19:27:00 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
> <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Router is both what it is and a function it performs. Gateway is
>>a function it performs, which is to say, a network setting on
>>devices behind it that means "if you're looking for something
>>that's not local, look here."
>
> A setting every router I have owned has provided, without a
> special name.

It is a core function of a router. It literally isn't a router if
it does not perform that function.
>
> But it is nice to find that "router" will work perfectly well.

It's one of the things that gets referred to by different names,
some of which are functions it performs. If the address you're
looking for isn't in the local network, the router serves as a
gateway to route the connection to where it goes.

for practical purposes, a modem provides a bare connection to the
internet, while a router performs other functions as well, like
blocking incoming connections to computers behind it until told to
do otherwise. These days, most modems are routers, though often
poor ones.
>
>>> also provides (well, did before I turned it off) a
>>> 5G WiFi network. So it could be advertised as a "5G router"
>>> even though it has no connection with the 5G Cellphone network
>>
>>That would be an improper claim (though probably common, since
>>marketing drones have no idea what *any* of these words mean,
>>just that they're popular buzz words). "Router with 5G" with an
>>implied "WiFi" at the end) would prefectly propery, if still
>>confusing.
>
> True, and I'm not saying I've actually seen such a thing. So far
> as I can remember, every mention of "5G Router" I have
> encountered was a router that connected to the cellphone
> network.

Truth in advertising laws still have a few snaggle teeth left.
>
>>> (well,
>>> unless we count the cell phone which is inside one or the
>>> other of these devices and used for configuration by cellphone
>>> app -- this stuff just gets more and more tangled).
>>
>>The app very likely works by WiFi or Bluetooth, rather than a
>>cell connection.
>
> My memory may have played me false here. I seem now to recall
> that configuration could be done by texting. I don't do
> smartphones, so "text" as a verb is only a concept to me.

Texting would imply a cell connection, perhaps, though I supposed
it could be that you text some special server somewhere and it
sends the update through the internet.

Seems unlikely, though, and insanely insecure.
>
> OTOH, you may be right, at least when the tech is standing right
> next to the devices.

It's also entirely possible you accurately remember what the tech
told you word for word, and that he was full of crap. I'ave had to
literally point to boxes on the configuration form and tell the
tech what numbers to type into each one, despite him having
detailed instructions printed out next to the tablet, and all the
network info on the side of the modem.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> writes:
>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
>news:QHz9K.659181$LN2.226857@fx13.iad:
>
>> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> writes:
>>>In this context, bandwidth and speed are the same thing. They
>>>can be (and are) used interchangably.
>>>
>>
>>>
>>>MHz is not used in discussing network speeds. There *is* a MHz
>>>measure involved in ethernet (wired) networking, which is an
>>>important factor in bandwidth/speed, but it's not used in a
>>>context meaningful to this conversation. (For the record, your
>>>patch cables likely run at 100MHz, as that is what's specified
>>>for cat5e. But while a minimum frequency is needed to support a
>>>given network speed, going above that minimum adds nothing.)
>>
>> Don't confuse 100BaseT with frequency; 100BaseT means 100
>> Mbits/sec.
>
>I'm not the one that's confused. I'm the one who does this for a
>living.

You sound confused to me.

The data rate across all conductors in the cable is 100mbit/s (for 100BaseT)
The signal rate _per conductor_ is 66Mhz (which allows
for approx 50mbit/sec per conductor after framing and 8/10 encoding).

As for the number of pairs:

"10BASE-T and 100BASE-TX require only two pairs (pins 1\u20132, 3\u20136)
to operate. Since common Category 5 cable has four pairs, it is possible
to use the spare pairs (pins 4\u20135, 7\u20138) in 10- and 100-Mbit/s
configurations for other purposes. The spare pairs may be used for power
over Ethernet (PoE), for two plain old telephone service (POTS) lines,
or for a second 10BASE-T or 100BASE-TX connection. In practice, great
care must be taken to separate these pairs as 10/100-Mbit/s Ethernet
equipment electrically terminates the unused pins. Shared cable is not
an option for Gigabit Ethernet as 1000BASE-T requires all four pairs to operate."

>
>I have no idea what you're talking about, and I expect you don't,
>either, especially since a) you don't know that bandwidth and speed
>are the same thing, adn b) you use MHz and mpbs interchangeably
>even though they are unrelated.

You will find that I explicitly stated that bandwidth and speed are
the same thing, in this very thread, and was very careful to not conflate
frequency with bandwidth.

scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
news:BGD9K.126957$Kdf.63736@fx96.iad:

> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> writes:
>>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
>>news:QHz9K.659181$LN2.226857@fx13.iad:
>>
>>> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com>
>>> writes:
>>>>In this context, bandwidth and speed are the same thing. They
>>>>can be (and are) used interchangably.
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>MHz is not used in discussing network speeds. There *is* a MHz
>>>>measure involved in ethernet (wired) networking, which is an
>>>>important factor in bandwidth/speed, but it's not used in a
>>>>context meaningful to this conversation. (For the record, your
>>>>patch cables likely run at 100MHz, as that is what's specified
>>>>for cat5e. But while a minimum frequency is needed to support
>>>>a given network speed, going above that minimum adds nothing.)
>>>
>>> Don't confuse 100BaseT with frequency; 100BaseT means 100
>>> Mbits/sec.
>>
>>I'm not the one that's confused. I'm the one who does this for a
>>living.
>
> You sound confused to me.

I would, if you're confused.
>
> The data rate across all conductors in the cable is 100mbit/s
> (for 100BaseT) The signal rate _per conductor_ is 66Mhz (which
> allows for approx 50mbit/sec per conductor after framing and
> 8/10 encoding).

Since the signal rate is not particularly relevant to anything I
do, I'll take your word for it. The specs say 100MHz for both cat5
and cat5e, though.
>
> As for the number of pairs:
>
> "10BASE-T and 100BASE-TX require only two pairs (pins
> 1\u20132, 3\u20136)
> to operate. Since common Category 5 cable has four pairs, it
> is possible to use the spare pairs (pins 4\u20135, 7\u20138)
> in 10- and 100-Mbit/s configurations for other purposes. The
> spare pairs may be used for power over Ethernet (PoE), for
> two plain old telephone service (POTS) lines, or for a second
> 10BASE-T or 100BASE-TX connection. In practice, great care
> must be taken to separate these pairs as 10/100-Mbit/s
> Ethernet equipment electrically terminates the unused pins.
> Shared cable is not an option for Gigabit Ethernet as
> 1000BASE-T requires all four pairs to operate."

And yet, I have 1 gbps cables, running at 1 gbps, using POE. Go
figure.
>
>
>
>>
>>I have no idea what you're talking about, and I expect you
>>don't, either, especially since a) you don't know that bandwidth
>>and speed are the same thing, adn b) you use MHz and mpbs
>>interchangeably even though they are unrelated.
>
> You will find that I explicitly stated that bandwidth and speed
> are the same thing, in this very thread, and was very careful to
> not conflate frequency with bandwidth.
>
You sounded as clueless as Paul, so I missed that you weren't him.

But he, at least, knows he's clueless on this subject.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
> news:BGD9K.126957$Kdf.63736@fx96.iad:
>> As for the number of pairs:
>>
>> "10BASE-T and 100BASE-TX require only two pairs (pins
>> 1\u20132, 3\u20136)
>> to operate. Since common Category 5 cable has four pairs, it
>> is possible to use the spare pairs (pins 4\u20135, 7\u20138)
>> in 10- and 100-Mbit/s configurations for other purposes. The
>> spare pairs may be used for power over Ethernet (PoE), for
>> two plain old telephone service (POTS) lines, or for a second
>> 10BASE-T or 100BASE-TX connection. In practice, great care
>> must be taken to separate these pairs as 10/100-Mbit/s
>> Ethernet equipment electrically terminates the unused pins.
>> Shared cable is not an option for Gigabit Ethernet as
>> 1000BASE-T requires all four pairs to operate."
>
> And yet, I have 1 gbps cables, running at 1 gbps, using POE. Go
> figure.

PoE on 10BASE-T and 100BASE-TX can use either the data pairs (Mode A) or the
extra pairs (Mode B). 1000BASE-T uses all four pairs for data so power has to
be carried on (at least) two of the data pairs. There's also PoE++ that can
(or must at the highest power) use all four pairs for power ("4PPoE").
The nice thing about the standards is that unless somebody did something
stupid (like "cleverly" put two ports in each cube by using the "unused"
pairs*) things "just work".

Robert

*<https://help.c5k.info/55057-network-cabling/ethernet-tips>
--
Robert K. Shull Email: rkshull at rosettacon dot com

On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 08:41:08 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

<this is getting overly contentious, snippo mucho>

>As for 2.4G vs 5GHz WiFi, (in theory) 5GHz is faster (provides
>higher transfer speeds), but shorter range and often more subject
>to environmental intererence, which might be why you're seeing
>higher speeds with 5GHz disables. Or it might be that the gear your
>ISP provided is a piece of shit. That's common enough. (Certainly,
>if it only supports up to 802.11n, it's antiquated. Inexcusably
>so.)

1. It isn't just that 5G is disabled; the 2.4G network is limited to
11b/g/n. I do not know which produced the improvement. I have no plans
to find out, as my stunting has produced a well-behaved all-WiFi
setup.

2. The router supports up to 11ax. Indeed, 5G cannot be configured to
run without 11ac. This, no doubt, is why it is described by the ISP as
"high quality". This is why I say that I have /stunted/ it the 2.4G: I
have reduced to the level of "antiquated equipment" (which does not
work reliably with Ethernet, unlike the actual "antiquated equipment"
the router is replacing) and now it actually works right for WiFi for
everyday and weekly use.

>As for advertised speeds, that "up to" part is pretty important.
>Just asks the lawyers, who insist on it being there. It means
>"you'll never get this kind of speed, but we want you to believe
>you will when you sign up." Though if they're advertisting "up to
>200 mbps" providing equipment with 100Base-T ports is a bit
>deceptive. Though, since you're not getting anywhere near 100mbps
>to begin with, that in and of itself isn't your issue.

I said they should be regarded a advertising at the start of this (or
a related) discussion. We agree on this point.

>I suspect they're working pretty much as designed. Just not as
>marketed. Odd things can affect WiFi speeds, and 2.4GHz does
>provide a more stable connection.

Sadly, that means they are /designed/ to work wrong. Does that
/really/ make any sense?

It seems to me more likely that the router was set up either as its
default or by the ISP to act as a gateway only, that is, as providing
a sort of private hotspot. Home networking and Ethernet were, perhaps,
not contemplated. So this /might/ be reversible.

>No degree of quality can compensate for you being at the far end of
>the wire, which is probably the majority of the issue. Range
>affects bandwith for both wired and wireless connections. And they
>never promised you 200 mbps, only "up to" that.
>
>> New specs that require older equipment to be
>> replaced is a marketing tool, not something to be proud of.
>
>Ethernet is remarkably backwards compatible. You're well within the
>specs for the older specifications. If you expect cat5 equipment to
>operating at cat5e speeds, you're the problem, not the equipment.

Ethernet doesn't work, at least, not for more than a few days. To me,
that is not "working" at all. And my only expectation was that it
/work/.

I expect my equipment to act as well as it did before. I was forced
into this change by my prior ISP turning off its DSL support. It was
not my choice.

BTW, after several suggestions from Win10's Network Troubleshooter
that I had a bad or missing Ethernet cable, I checked the /only/
Ethernet cable that matters -- the uplink from router to modem -- and
found that it was loose on both ends. Plugging it in all the way
helped a bit. Not enough, but a bit.

This was installed by professionals, who, to be fair, did run a fibre
optic cable to the house from the cabling strung on the telephone
poles across the street and hook up the modem, which undeniably
provides access to the Internet.

They also placed the router on the lower shelf of a metal TV stand
(with all four sides open). Moving it to the top shelf /definitely/
helped when I first tried to use it. But I expected that; I had done
some experiments with my DSL/modem combo after the DSL was turned off
showing that being placed on the bottom shelf was not very good but
that being placed on the top shelf worked fine.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 16:08:16 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> writes:
>>In this context, bandwidth and speed are the same thing. They can
>>be (and are) used interchangably.
>>
>
>>
>>MHz is not used in discussing network speeds. There *is* a MHz
>>measure involved in ethernet (wired) networking, which is an
>>important factor in bandwidth/speed, but it's not used in a context
>>meaningful to this conversation. (For the record, your patch cables
>>likely run at 100MHz, as that is what's specified for cat5e. But
>>while a minimum frequency is needed to support a given network
>>speed, going above that minimum adds nothing.)
>
>Don't confuse 100BaseT with frequency; 100BaseT means 100 Mbits/sec.
>
>100BaseT uses only four wires (two pairs) in the patch cable, while
>1000BaseT uses all eight wires (four pairs) in the patch cable, with
>data transmitted in parallel across each of the wires. The square
>wave frequency on each wire of the balanced pair in 100BaseT is 66Mhz,
>while 1000BaseT is twice that (125Mhz).

Thanks for the information. This helps clear things up a bit.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 19:07:15 -0000 (UTC), rkshullat@rosettacondot.com
wrote:

>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Apr 2022 16:52:49 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>> wrote:
>>>High-end hardware is available with 400Gbit/sec bandwidth per port, used
>>>in the backbone and for 5G backhaul.
>>
>> A meaningless statement given the confusion between "speed" and
>> "bandwidth". And no amount of tech jabber can alter the fact that the
>> higher-end features /do not work right/, which is why removing them
>> improves the performance of the WiFi, although (sadly) not the
>> Ethernet. The second Ethernet failure reported otherthread was
>> actually part of the hobbling, as the prior network used the Ethernet
>> ports. Not without any problems (Win10 networking has its own
>> gotchas), but not with the problems seen with this "high quality
>> equipment".
>>
>> I would like to point out that 40MHz is
>>
>> 40 x 1000 x 1000 cps (Hz)
>>
>> while 40 Mbps would be
>>
>> 40 x 1024 x 1024 bps
>>
>> which are only similar, not the same
>>
>> unless something has changed in how the nomenclature works, of course.
>
>A lot of the confusion comes from computing adopting existing terminology with
>different meanings. Bandwidth in computing (especially informally) is roughly
>equivalent to data transfer speed (with a bunch of provisos) and doesn't
>correspond to bandwidth in signal processing. This has become more and more
>confusing as improved technology and algorithms have allowed higher bandwidth
>(computing) in the same bandwidth (signal processing). You can pretty much
>tell by the units...Mbps is computing, MHz is signal processing. The ratio
>between the two is highly variable.

Thanks for clarifying where my confusion comes from.

>Similarly, computing used metric (SI) prefixes (powers of 10) but applied them
>to powers of 2. This started generating confusion when (a) computers became
>more mainstream and (b) the binary prefixes increasingly diverged from metric
>prefixes as capacities increased. The IEC adopted new binary prefixes in 1998
>to eliminate (or at least reduce) confusion. The industry, or the sales people
>anyway, were happy to continue using the "old" prefixes, recalculated as base
>10, because it made speeds/capacities look higher.

Also, the traditional (as it were) prefixes are more commonly known
and so less confusing to the customer.

>> Also, the fact that I now get 60Mbps where before I got 50Mbps may not
>> indicate a speed improvement from hobbling, but it certainly shows
>> that hobbling did not /hurt/ the measured download speed.
>
>There are way too many variables even before you starting talking about
>wireless, but broadband providers typically sell more bandwidth than they
>actually have (oversubscription). That's why they can sell "up to" 1 Gbps
>for something like $100..."up to" is the key. When I order a 1 Gbps Internet
>circuit at work I get 1 Gbps, guaranteed, but will pay closer to $1000 (I'm
>looking at 10 Gbps for $5100/month right now). Rate limiting doesn't do much
>to you if they can't even achieve the limited rate. I have 50/5 service at
>home, but most evenings I get closer to 5/2.
>
>> Note: the possibility that one or more of my devices might be
>> responsible for this cannot be ruled out; but then, actual high
>> quality equipment would be expected to compensate for these
>> difficulties. New specs that require older equipment to be replaced is
>> a marketing tool, not something to be proud of.
>
>When you're talking about wireless equipment it generally implements the
>frequencies and protocols that were standardized (or mostly standardized)
>at the time it was released. Trying to build for future standards means
>including a lot of costly flexibility that will cause you to fail in the
>marketplace.

<snippo, this was going off-track, as I wasn't clear>

What I actually had in mind was the possibility that any problem
between handling a 5G and a 2.4G network /with the same SSID and
password [1]/ might actually be a problem in my older equipment with
signing on to a WiFi network and finding it both on 2.4G and 5G.

Of course, the problem with Ethernet might suggest that the router
just cannot handle more than one network, at least with the same RFID
(and password for the WiFi).

This particular device allows the user to assign a different
SSID/password to, say the 5G network, thus allowing control over which
devices attach to which network. Which of the two WiFi networks the
Ethernet would be considered part of is unclear. Whether this would
avoid the problems seen is unknown. Indeed, I can't even be sure any
of my devices can /detect/, let alone /use/, the 5G network.

[1] I seem to recall this once having a different name, but the
equipment provided clearly calls it a "password".
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:qe5g6hl83o7cp6bqebof5cj7419v384239@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 08:41:08 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <this is getting overly contentious, snippo mucho>
>
>>As for 2.4G vs 5GHz WiFi, (in theory) 5GHz is faster (provides
>>higher transfer speeds), but shorter range and often more
>>subject to environmental intererence, which might be why you're
>>seeing higher speeds with 5GHz disables. Or it might be that the
>>gear your ISP provided is a piece of shit. That's common enough.
>>(Certainly, if it only supports up to 802.11n, it's antiquated.
>>Inexcusably so.)
>
> 1. It isn't just that 5G is disabled; the 2.4G network is
> limited to 11b/g/n. I do not know which produced the
> improvement. I have no plans to find out, as my stunting has
> produced a well-behaved all-WiFi setup.

802.11ac (and later) only work on 5GHz.
>
> 2. The router supports up to 11ax. Indeed, 5G cannot be
> configured to run without 11ac. This, no doubt, is why it is
> described by the ISP as "high quality". This is why I say that I
> have /stunted/ it the 2.4G: I have reduced to the level of
> "antiquated equipment" (which does not work reliably with
> Ethernet, unlike the actual "antiquated equipment" the router is
> replacing) and now it actually works right for WiFi for everyday
> and weekly use.

I suspect there may be some environmental interference. Possibly
some piece of electrical gear in the house that interferes with the
5GHz band. Or the equipment is a pice of shit. Could go either way.
>
>>As for advertised speeds, that "up to" part is pretty important.
>>Just asks the lawyers, who insist on it being there. It means
>>"you'll never get this kind of speed, but we want you to believe
>>you will when you sign up." Though if they're advertisting "up
>>to 200 mbps" providing equipment with 100Base-T ports is a bit
>>deceptive. Though, since you're not getting anywhere near
>>100mbps to begin with, that in and of itself isn't your issue.
>
> I said they should be regarded a advertising at the start of
> this (or a related) discussion. We agree on this point.
>
>>I suspect they're working pretty much as designed. Just not as
>>marketed. Odd things can affect WiFi speeds, and 2.4GHz does
>>provide a more stable connection.
>
> Sadly, that means they are /designed/ to work wrong. Does that
> /really/ make any sense?

5GHz was designed to provide faster trasnfer speeds, which it does.
But the higher band is more subject to interference. That's not a
design criteria, that's physics. There's a reason (more than one,
actually) new equipment still supports the older protocols, which
are more stable.

The bands available for unlicensed equipment like Wifi aren't
chosen for their technical suitability for the task, they're chosen
for what's not already dedicated to other uses (many of which are
literally life and death matters), and often have more to do with
politics and money than anything else.
>
> It seems to me more likely that the router was set up either as
> its default or by the ISP to act as a gateway only, that is, as
> providing a sort of private hotspot. Home networking and
> Ethernet were, perhaps, not contemplated. So this /might/ be
> reversible.

The correct solution is to buy your own router (assuming your ISP
will work with you on that - they're probably required to, but that
doesn't mean they will), and choose a proper piece of equipment
well suited to your needs. They don't give a shit what works for
you, only what makes money for them.
>
>>No degree of quality can compensate for you being at the far end
>>of the wire, which is probably the majority of the issue. Range
>>affects bandwith for both wired and wireless connections. And
>>they never promised you 200 mbps, only "up to" that.
>>
>>> New specs that require older equipment to be
>>> replaced is a marketing tool, not something to be proud of.
>>
>>Ethernet is remarkably backwards compatible. You're well within
>>the specs for the older specifications. If you expect cat5
>>equipment to operating at cat5e speeds, you're the problem, not
>>the equipment.
>
> Ethernet doesn't work, at least, not for more than a few days.
> To me, that is not "working" at all. And my only expectation was
> that it /work/.

That's a crap piece of equipment. Probably the router (which is,
therefore, probably crap in other ways, too), possibly some quirk
in your equipment (unlikely if you have the same issue on multiple
computers).
>
> I expect my equipment to act as well as it did before.

You sweet, innocent child.

> I was
> forced into this change by my prior ISP turning off its DSL
> support. It was not my choice.

Talke to tehc support about whether or not you can provide your own
router. And if they say no, talk to your Public Utility Commission
about whether or not they're allowed to say no.
>
> BTW, after several suggestions from Win10's Network
> Troubleshooter that I had a bad or missing Ethernet cable, I
> checked the /only/ Ethernet cable that matters -- the uplink
> from router to modem -- and found that it was loose on both
> ends. Plugging it in all the way helped a bit. Not enough, but a
> bit.

Have you tried another cable? They do go bad, and some start out
that way.
>
> This was installed by professionals, who, to be fair, did run a
> fibre optic cable to the house from the cabling strung on the
> telephone poles across the street and hook up the modem, which
> undeniably provides access to the Internet.
>
> They also placed the router on the lower shelf of a metal TV
> stand (with all four sides open). Moving it to the top shelf
> /definitely/ helped when I first tried to use it. But I expected
> that; I had done some experiments with my DSL/modem combo after
> the DSL was turned off showing that being placed on the bottom
> shelf was not very good but that being placed on the top shelf
> worked fine.

Metal in close proximity to the equipment could well be an
environmental issue, at least on the WiFi. That's the sort of thing
that 5GHz, especially, doesn't like. Shouldn't interfere with the
ethernet side, but one never knows.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 19:07:15 -0000 (UTC), rkshullat@rosettacondot.com
>wrote:
>
>>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 23 Apr 2022 16:52:49 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>> wrote:
>>>>High-end hardware is available with 400Gbit/sec bandwidth per port, used
>>>>in the backbone and for 5G backhaul.

Note in this statement, by "5G backhaul", I'm referring to the fifth
generation cellular network, not home WIFI 5Ghz.

>>>
>>> I would like to point out that 40MHz is
>>>
>>> 40 x 1000 x 1000 cps (Hz)
>>>
>>> while 40 Mbps would be
>>>
>>> 40 x 1024 x 1024 bps
>>>
>>> which are only similar, not the same
>>>
>>> unless something has changed in how the nomenclature works, of course.

Note also that the serial protocols on the link will transmit control
and framing bits in addition to data bits, so for the end user to see
40Mbps, the underlying physical layer would actually have a bandwidth
slightly larger (depending on speed - 1Gbit/sec is encoded with 8/10 bit
encoding (10 bits per byte on the wire per byte of data), while 10Gbit/sec is encoded with
64/66 bit encoding (66 bits on wire for 64 data bits)).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64b/66b_encoding
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8b/10b_encoding

This networking stuff is off topic. Now why would that be.

Having said that, maybe confusion, and further discussion,
can be avoided by selecting widely available "WiFi 6" equipment.

Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
> This networking stuff is off topic. Now why would that be.

I'd say that "networking stuff" generally fits into science fiction, fantasy
as well if you allow marketing materials and shades into horror at the most
inappropriate times.

> Having said that, maybe confusion, and further discussion,
> can be avoided by selecting widely available "WiFi 6" equipment.

Fantasy. Definitely fantasy.

Robert
--
Robert K. Shull Email: rkshull at rosettacon dot com

On 27/04/2022 11:29, rkshullat@rosettacondot.com wrote:
> Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>> This networking stuff is off topic. Now why would that be.
>
> I'd say that "networking stuff" generally fits into science fiction, fantasy
> as well if you allow marketing materials and shades into horror at the most
> inappropriate times.
>
>> Having said that, maybe confusion, and further discussion,
>> can be avoided by selecting widely available "WiFi 6" equipment.
>
> Fantasy. Definitely fantasy.
>
No doubt at some point a marketroid will hit on the idea of "Wi-less
WiFi"??? ;-)

Cheers,
Gary B-)

On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 10:02:04 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>news:qe5g6hl83o7cp6bqebof5cj7419v384239@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 08:41:08 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> <this is getting overly contentious, snippo mucho>
>>
>>>As for 2.4G vs 5GHz WiFi, (in theory) 5GHz is faster (provides
>>>higher transfer speeds), but shorter range and often more
>>>subject to environmental intererence, which might be why you're
>>>seeing higher speeds with 5GHz disables. Or it might be that the
>>>gear your ISP provided is a piece of shit. That's common enough.
>>>(Certainly, if it only supports up to 802.11n, it's antiquated.
>>>Inexcusably so.)
>>
>> 1. It isn't just that 5G is disabled; the 2.4G network is
>> limited to 11b/g/n. I do not know which produced the
>> improvement. I have no plans to find out, as my stunting has
>> produced a well-behaved all-WiFi setup.
>
>802.11ac (and later) only work on 5GHz.

Since the setup I found when I investigated included /ac (IIRC;
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WLAN_channels#2.4_GHz_(802.11b/g/n/ax)>
suggests it should be /ax) for the 2.4G band, you may have found the
problem.

The final reason I turned the 5G network off was because it would not
work as /n only; it /had/ to have /ac available to it (the router
setup would display, but not accept, choices not including /ac when
the 5G band configuration was being inestigated).

>> 2. The router supports up to 11ax. Indeed, 5G cannot be
>> configured to run without 11ac. This, no doubt, is why it is
>> described by the ISP as "high quality". This is why I say that I
>> have /stunted/ it the 2.4G: I have reduced to the level of
>> "antiquated equipment" (which does not work reliably with
>> Ethernet, unlike the actual "antiquated equipment" the router is
>> replacing) and now it actually works right for WiFi for everyday
>> and weekly use.
>
>I suspect there may be some environmental interference. Possibly
>some piece of electrical gear in the house that interferes with the
>5GHz band. Or the equipment is a pice of shit. Could go either way.

5GHz band interference would, of course, explain why the turning it
off worked.

If it had any effect; as I say, I can't be sure which of the two
(turning off 5G Wifi or restricting 2.4G to /b/g/n) worked or if both
are needed.

I can't even be sure any of my devices was using it, as the router was
set up so that to join either WiFi network was to join both: they had
the SSID and password. Which can be changed.
>>>As for advertised speeds, that "up to" part is pretty important.
>>>Just asks the lawyers, who insist on it being there. It means
>>>"you'll never get this kind of speed, but we want you to believe
>>>you will when you sign up." Though if they're advertisting "up
>>>to 200 mbps" providing equipment with 100Base-T ports is a bit
>>>deceptive. Though, since you're not getting anywhere near
>>>100mbps to begin with, that in and of itself isn't your issue.
>>
>> I said they should be regarded a advertising at the start of
>> this (or a related) discussion. We agree on this point.

<and pretty much on the rest>

>> BTW, after several suggestions from Win10's Network
>> Troubleshooter that I had a bad or missing Ethernet cable, I
>> checked the /only/ Ethernet cable that matters -- the uplink
>> from router to modem -- and found that it was loose on both
>> ends. Plugging it in all the way helped a bit. Not enough, but a
>> bit.
>
>Have you tried another cable? They do go bad, and some start out
>that way.

Since the WiFi, properly stunted, is working fine, there is no point.

And one does have to wonder how many of those "bad cables" were, in
fact, simply "badly installed cables".

>> This was installed by professionals, who, to be fair, did run a
>> fibre optic cable to the house from the cabling strung on the
>> telephone poles across the street and hook up the modem, which
>> undeniably provides access to the Internet.
>>
>> They also placed the router on the lower shelf of a metal TV
>> stand (with all four sides open). Moving it to the top shelf
>> /definitely/ helped when I first tried to use it. But I expected
>> that; I had done some experiments with my DSL/modem combo after
>> the DSL was turned off showing that being placed on the bottom
>> shelf was not very good but that being placed on the top shelf
>> worked fine.
>
>Metal in close proximity to the equipment could well be an
>environmental issue, at least on the WiFi. That's the sort of thing
>that 5GHz, especially, doesn't like. Shouldn't interfere with the
>ethernet side, but one never knows.

If I ever return to testing this, I could try moving the router to a
different location. However, since the downloaded setup instructions
also mention "TV Sets" and "glass" I'm not sure that will help -- the
TV set it is next to isn't even plugged in (it's just too heavy for me
to get rid of by myself, so there it sits) but any alternative
location the power and Ethernet cables could reach would be in front
of a curtain behind which is a picture window. I could try the other
side of the TV, which would at least be away from the picture window.

The "normal" installation point would have downstairs, where the
telephone line comes in (they were willing to put it upstairs because
there was already a hole in the wall, for cable TV, no longer used,
and because the two available power plugs downstairs would probably
not have worked nearly as well with the power dongles as the surge
suppressor strip did -- each covered three plugs, forcing purchase of
another to plug everything else into). That would have been away from
metal, glass, TVs, etc etc -- but also one story down, in the
basement, and I really wonder how well the WiFi would have worked from
/that/ location.

This is a lot like magic: magic (the real deal, raising demons and so
on, not stage magic, which is about illusions) survived for centuries
because there were so many things that could go wrong with a spell
that nobody could say that a spell didn't work -- it was always
possible to find a reason it failed that was the fault of the person
performing it. A word mispronounced, or skipped, or a plant not
harvested at midnight because, before wrist watches, who could tell?,
or not in the light of the full moon or not at a crossroads or ...
well, the list went on and on.

Networking is a lot like that. There are /always/ excuses for why
things don't work. That is why I am focused on finding what /does/
work and starting from there (if I decide to continue on exploring the
topic at all).
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 01:29:13 -0000 (UTC), rkshullat@rosettacondot.com
wrote:

>Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>> This networking stuff is off topic. Now why would that be.
>
>I'd say that "networking stuff" generally fits into science fiction, fantasy
>as well if you allow marketing materials and shades into horror at the most
>inappropriate times.
>
>> Having said that, maybe confusion, and further discussion,
>> can be avoided by selecting widely available "WiFi 6" equipment.
>
>Fantasy. Definitely fantasy.

"Widely available" may be fantasy, but
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WLAN_channels#6_GHz_(802.11ax)>
suggests that WiFi 6G is all too real.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:9foi6hldslhh4dln3u32aptrord991upcg@4ax.com:

> Networking is a lot like that. There are /always/ excuses for
> why things don't work.

Only to the uninformed. To a professional, it's a simple matter of
following your troubleshooting steps. There's a finite, and fairly
small, number of things that can go wrong. Some are very difficult to
fix, some can only be fixed with other people's money, but it's not
actually all that hard to figure out what the problem is.

If you know what you're doing, and it's pretty arcane to most people.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 01:29:13 -0000 (UTC), rkshullat@rosettacondot.com
> wrote:
>
>>Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>>> This networking stuff is off topic. Now why would that be.
>>
>>I'd say that "networking stuff" generally fits into science fiction, fantasy
>>as well if you allow marketing materials and shades into horror at the most
>>inappropriate times.
>>
>>> Having said that, maybe confusion, and further discussion,
>>> can be avoided by selecting widely available "WiFi 6" equipment.
>>
>>Fantasy. Definitely fantasy.
>
> "Widely available" may be fantasy, but
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WLAN_channels#6_GHz_(802.11ax)>
> suggests that WiFi 6G is all too real.

That it will assist in avoiding confusion and/or the need for further
discussion is the fantasy. We already have the confusion of WiFi 6, which
doesn't support 6 GHz, and WiFi 6E, which does. This nicely adds to the
confusion of 5G celluar/mobile and 5 GHZ WiFi.
Also the advertising for WiFi 6 is pretty much all fantasy at this point.
Joking aside, it looks fairly exciting if you're willing to let the
early adopters work out the kinks, you have plenty of excess money
sitting around and you have a need for (potentially) 9 Gbps connectivity.
Early testing seems to indicate (as expected) that the 6 GHz band is even
more affected by walls, floors, etc. than the 5 GHz so even comparitively
small (by US standards) homes are going to need multiple radios to see the
promised speeds. I have to build out the network in our retirement home and
given how much is already being spent on remodelling I'll probably go all the
way.

Robert
--
Robert K. Shull Email: rkshull at rosettacon dot com

rkshullat@rosettacondot.com wrote in
news:t4cha7$c2a6$1@memoryalpha.rosettacon.com:

> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 01:29:13 -0000 (UTC),
>> rkshullat@rosettacondot.com wrote:
>>
>>>Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>>>> This networking stuff is off topic. Now why would that be.
>>>
>>>I'd say that "networking stuff" generally fits into science
>>>fiction, fantasy as well if you allow marketing materials and
>>>shades into horror at the most inappropriate times.
>>>
>>>> Having said that, maybe confusion, and further discussion,
>>>> can be avoided by selecting widely available "WiFi 6"
>>>> equipment.
>>>
>>>Fantasy. Definitely fantasy.
>>
>> "Widely available" may be fantasy, but
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WLAN_channels#6_GHz_(802.
>> 11ax)> suggests that WiFi 6G is all too real.
>
> That it will assist in avoiding confusion and/or the need for
> further discussion is the fantasy. We already have the confusion
> of WiFi 6, which doesn't support 6 GHz, and WiFi 6E, which does.

There will, inevitably, be a 6G celluar spec, too. I'm sure it's
already being developed.

Which, of course, adds up to 666, but we all know already that
computers are the work of the devil.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> writes:
>rkshullat@rosettacondot.com wrote in
>news:t4cha7$c2a6$1@memoryalpha.rosettacon.com:

>> That it will assist in avoiding confusion and/or the need for
>> further discussion is the fantasy. We already have the confusion
>> of WiFi 6, which doesn't support 6 GHz, and WiFi 6E, which does.
>
>There will, inevitably, be a 6G celluar spec, too. I'm sure it's
>already being developed.

It is, indeed. Don't expect to see end-user availability until
2032 or later.

7G technologies are also being investigated.

On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 09:55:51 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>news:9foi6hldslhh4dln3u32aptrord991upcg@4ax.com:
>
>> Networking is a lot like that. There are /always/ excuses for
>> why things don't work.
>
>Only to the uninformed. To a professional, it's a simple matter of
>following your troubleshooting steps. There's a finite, and fairly
>small, number of things that can go wrong. Some are very difficult to
>fix, some can only be fixed with other people's money, but it's not
>actually all that hard to figure out what the problem is.

Or to find a working solution. Which can then serve as a known good
configuration for futher experimentation.

>If you know what you're doing, and it's pretty arcane to most people.

Any sufficiently complex technology is indistinguishable from magic
(to most people).

BTW, the /difference/ between magic (real, as opposed to stage) and
networking is that while magic has no basis in reality at all,
networking /does/ and so sooner or later even a duffer like me will
find a way to make it work acceptably.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."