Coax to Ethernet?
-
If you want to maximize bandwidth for your PC at a fixed location - the MoCA will likely be your best bet.
If you'd rather spend the money getting even, strong wifi coverage in your house, you could buy multiple mesh points (e.g., Google wifi, Nest wifi, Orbi, etc.)
if you have enough of these daisy chained in your house, you can maintain pretty high speeds. My house is under 3000sq ft, and 2 floors. I can get 200Mbps in most places with 3 access points. (it's ~400 in the strongest corner of the house)
@xenon said in Coax to Ethernet?:
If you want to maximize bandwidth for your PC at a fixed location - the MoCA will likely be your best bet.
If you'd rather spend the money getting even, strong wifi coverage in your house, you could buy multiple mesh points (e.g., Google wifi, Nest wifi, Orbi, etc.)
if you have enough of these daisy chained in your house, you can maintain pretty high speeds. My house is under 3000sq ft, and 2 floors. I can get 200Mbps in most places with 3 access points. (it's ~400 in the strongest corner of the house)
Stupid question (asking for a friend), but with the mesh approach, does each device have its own WiFi ID? For example, me.... I mean, my friend... the main WiFi signal is called ABC and then if the extender is automatically picked up it's called ABC_EXT, so I know when I'm on the extender device instead of the mothership WiFi router.
-
@89th said in Coax to Ethernet?:
So, no one uses a coax to Ethernet adapter in their room? Bah humbug.
So I do use a WiFi extender already but am nit picky as it seems to get around 100MB compared to the 500MB if using WiFi from the main router, so I don’t like when my devices pick up the extender when they’re also in range of the main router. Anyway… my desktop if sitting next to the router can get to about 300MB but if I just direct connect my computer to the router’s Ethernet port I can hit about 900MB.
I know anything above 200MB is mostly icing on the 4K cake but I figured a quick coax to Ethernet adapter might solve all issues… will look into the MoCA approach. Saw that a bit in Google results, too.
I for one would definitely try the coax-to-Ethernet thing.
Wired connections are almost always a magnitude more reliable and quicker. Adding WiFi extenders adds another potential point of failure, and more degradation of latency, especially if the extenders are chained (e.g. in a "mesh").
If you use some kind of file server in the network, you'll definitely want as much wired connection as possible. There is a HUGE difference between theoretical and practical wireless speed (factor 10 is quite common), but not much difference for wired connections. A 100mbit Ethernet connection will usually be way faster than a 300mbit wireless connection, for instance. Another thing to keep in mind is that the wireless is half-duplex and its speed is shared among all devices connected to the access point, whereas Ethernet connections are usually full-duplex and each client has the full speed (depending on the wiring and the speed of the backbone).
@klaus said in Coax to Ethernet?:
@89th said in Coax to Ethernet?:
So, no one uses a coax to Ethernet adapter in their room? Bah humbug.
So I do use a WiFi extender already but am nit picky as it seems to get around 100MB compared to the 500MB if using WiFi from the main router, so I don’t like when my devices pick up the extender when they’re also in range of the main router. Anyway… my desktop if sitting next to the router can get to about 300MB but if I just direct connect my computer to the router’s Ethernet port I can hit about 900MB.
I know anything above 200MB is mostly icing on the 4K cake but I figured a quick coax to Ethernet adapter might solve all issues… will look into the MoCA approach. Saw that a bit in Google results, too.
I for one would definitely try the coax-to-Ethernet thing.
Wired connections are almost always a magnitude more reliable and quicker. Adding WiFi extenders adds another potential point of failure, and more degradation of latency, especially if the extenders are chained (e.g. in a "mesh").
If you use some kind of file server in the network, you'll definitely want as much wired connection as possible. There is a HUGE difference between theoretical and practical wireless speed (factor 10 is quite common), but not much difference for wired connections. A 100mbit Ethernet connection will usually be way faster than a 300mbit wireless connection, for instance. Another thing to keep in mind is that the wireless is half-duplex and its speed is shared among all devices connected to the access point, whereas Ethernet connections are usually full-duplex and each client has the full speed (depending on the wiring and the speed of the backbone).
Good points! I do a lot of remote work via VDI or other remote desktop connections, and of course the various video conference calls, so I just want to make sure my desktop connection leverages the maximum speed I get to the house. Right now I get about 1100 MBPS "from the street" to the house, and via Ethernet I get about 950, whereas if I just use my Desktop via WiFi (next to the router) it seems to top off around 100. Weird.
-
@xenon said in Coax to Ethernet?:
If you want to maximize bandwidth for your PC at a fixed location - the MoCA will likely be your best bet.
If you'd rather spend the money getting even, strong wifi coverage in your house, you could buy multiple mesh points (e.g., Google wifi, Nest wifi, Orbi, etc.)
if you have enough of these daisy chained in your house, you can maintain pretty high speeds. My house is under 3000sq ft, and 2 floors. I can get 200Mbps in most places with 3 access points. (it's ~400 in the strongest corner of the house)
Stupid question (asking for a friend), but with the mesh approach, does each device have its own WiFi ID? For example, me.... I mean, my friend... the main WiFi signal is called ABC and then if the extender is automatically picked up it's called ABC_EXT, so I know when I'm on the extender device instead of the mothership WiFi router.
@89th said in Coax to Ethernet?:
@xenon said in Coax to Ethernet?:
If you want to maximize bandwidth for your PC at a fixed location - the MoCA will likely be your best bet.
If you'd rather spend the money getting even, strong wifi coverage in your house, you could buy multiple mesh points (e.g., Google wifi, Nest wifi, Orbi, etc.)
if you have enough of these daisy chained in your house, you can maintain pretty high speeds. My house is under 3000sq ft, and 2 floors. I can get 200Mbps in most places with 3 access points. (it's ~400 in the strongest corner of the house)
Stupid question (asking for a friend), but with the mesh approach, does each device have its own WiFi ID? For example, me.... I mean, my friend... the main WiFi signal is called ABC and then if the extender is automatically picked up it's called ABC_EXT, so I know when I'm on the extender device instead of the mothership WiFi router.
On my Unifi network with 3 access points it is one network. The switching is seamless. Only one WiFi configuration to setup per device.
-
@xenon said in Coax to Ethernet?:
If you want to maximize bandwidth for your PC at a fixed location - the MoCA will likely be your best bet.
If you'd rather spend the money getting even, strong wifi coverage in your house, you could buy multiple mesh points (e.g., Google wifi, Nest wifi, Orbi, etc.)
if you have enough of these daisy chained in your house, you can maintain pretty high speeds. My house is under 3000sq ft, and 2 floors. I can get 200Mbps in most places with 3 access points. (it's ~400 in the strongest corner of the house)
Stupid question (asking for a friend), but with the mesh approach, does each device have its own WiFi ID? For example, me.... I mean, my friend... the main WiFi signal is called ABC and then if the extender is automatically picked up it's called ABC_EXT, so I know when I'm on the extender device instead of the mothership WiFi router.
@89th said in Coax to Ethernet?:
@xenon said in Coax to Ethernet?:
If you want to maximize bandwidth for your PC at a fixed location - the MoCA will likely be your best bet.
If you'd rather spend the money getting even, strong wifi coverage in your house, you could buy multiple mesh points (e.g., Google wifi, Nest wifi, Orbi, etc.)
if you have enough of these daisy chained in your house, you can maintain pretty high speeds. My house is under 3000sq ft, and 2 floors. I can get 200Mbps in most places with 3 access points. (it's ~400 in the strongest corner of the house)
Stupid question (asking for a friend), but with the mesh approach, does each device have its own WiFi ID? For example, me.... I mean, my friend... the main WiFi signal is called ABC and then if the extender is automatically picked up it's called ABC_EXT, so I know when I'm on the extender device instead of the mothership WiFi router.
There are different products - but the orbi and google systems are designed to be seamless to the user.
That means it's just one network and the mesh "hands you off" automatically between access points.
If you're willing to spend money - the best way to do the networking is wired backhaul (using MoCA if needed). Meaning connect the wireless access points to a wired connection using the coax. That way each wireless access point will be broadcasting the maximum signal strength "from the street".
My parents recently built a house - and that's how I set it up for them. They have 5 access points and each one is connected to each other through the wired backhaul.
Happy to clarify this.
-
I really like the Unbiquiti software. The topology map of my home network. This auto updates as devices come and go and switch access points. A full history is available in the logs of each access point. Yes, it's a bit pricey, but if you want to set up video doorbells, or other security cameras, smart access locks, etc. Ubiquiti makes some seriously nice gear. All of their access points are PoE. Very clean installation.
-
Update, so I guess the wireless card on my previous desktop was just older. The new desktop has a Killer WiFi 6 AX1650i card which gives me around ~900 MBPS download speed.
-
Update, so I guess the wireless card on my previous desktop was just older. The new desktop has a Killer WiFi 6 AX1650i card which gives me around ~900 MBPS download speed.
@89th said in Coax to Ethernet?:
~900 MBPS download speed.
Very fast. Now, how much of that speed do you really need?
I was up at D2's place this weekend, and she's getting 500 or so. Frankly, I can't tell the difference between that and the 200 that CrapCast is giving me. The only disadvantage (and I'm not a gamer) for me is that downloading a 2 gig German Pr()n video takes twice as long. In real life, I see no difference.
For that matter, I don't see much difference between the 200 I have now, and the 50 I had 5 years ago.
-
@89th said in Coax to Ethernet?:
~900 MBPS download speed.
Very fast. Now, how much of that speed do you really need?
I was up at D2's place this weekend, and she's getting 500 or so. Frankly, I can't tell the difference between that and the 200 that CrapCast is giving me. The only disadvantage (and I'm not a gamer) for me is that downloading a 2 gig German Pr()n video takes twice as long. In real life, I see no difference.
For that matter, I don't see much difference between the 200 I have now, and the 50 I had 5 years ago.
@george-k How much do I really need? Honestly not sure. I don't game on my computer, so I probably need a lot less. My main concern is my remote work and the virtual desktop connections and video/team calls that I want to ensure are top notch. Honestly though... the price between 200 and 1,000 MBPS wasn't that much. Maybe 30 bucks a month? Plus once I get all our TVs up and running, streaming 4K content will likely be t3h pipez hog.
-
Don't worry, guys. 4K pr0n streams use much less than 25 mbps. They can be compressed very well.
-
@george-k How much do I really need? Honestly not sure. I don't game on my computer, so I probably need a lot less. My main concern is my remote work and the virtual desktop connections and video/team calls that I want to ensure are top notch. Honestly though... the price between 200 and 1,000 MBPS wasn't that much. Maybe 30 bucks a month? Plus once I get all our TVs up and running, streaming 4K content will likely be t3h pipez hog.
@89th said in Coax to Ethernet?:
My main concern is my remote work and the virtual desktop connections and video/team calls that I want to ensure are top notch. Honestly though... the price between 200 and 1,000 MBPS wasn't that much. Maybe 30 bucks a month? Plus once I get all our TVs up and running, streaming 4K content will likely be t3h pipez hog.
Zoom itself says you need only 1.2 Mbps to do video call. Instead of getting one very high speed connection to your house, consider splitting the cost and get two medium speed connections (from two different service providers) to your house instead. That way you (1) get redundancy/backup when one goes down for any reason and (2) get to isolate your "work" stuff from your "entertainment" stuff if you really want to. Added bonus is that if/when one provider jacks up your your price after a promotional period ends, you can cut it loose without actually losing Internet access for the house. All that plus your 5G/4G/LTE cellular service means you rarely have to go without Internet service short of a regional catastrophe.
-
@89th said in Coax to Ethernet?:
My main concern is my remote work and the virtual desktop connections and video/team calls that I want to ensure are top notch. Honestly though... the price between 200 and 1,000 MBPS wasn't that much. Maybe 30 bucks a month? Plus once I get all our TVs up and running, streaming 4K content will likely be t3h pipez hog.
Zoom itself says you need only 1.2 Mbps to do video call. Instead of getting one very high speed connection to your house, consider splitting the cost and get two medium speed connections (from two different service providers) to your house instead. That way you (1) get redundancy/backup when one goes down for any reason and (2) get to isolate your "work" stuff from your "entertainment" stuff if you really want to. Added bonus is that if/when one provider jacks up your your price after a promotional period ends, you can cut it loose without actually losing Internet access for the house. All that plus your 5G/4G/LTE cellular service means you rarely have to go without Internet service short of a regional catastrophe.
@axtremus said in Coax to Ethernet?:
@89th said in Coax to Ethernet?:
My main concern is my remote work and the virtual desktop connections and video/team calls that I want to ensure are top notch. Honestly though... the price between 200 and 1,000 MBPS wasn't that much. Maybe 30 bucks a month? Plus once I get all our TVs up and running, streaming 4K content will likely be t3h pipez hog.
Zoom itself says you need only 1.2 Mbps to do video call. Instead of getting one very high speed connection to your house, consider splitting the cost and get two medium speed connections (from two different service providers) to your house instead. That way you (1) get redundancy/backup when one goes down for any reason and (2) get to isolate your "work" stuff from your "entertainment" stuff if you really want to. Added bonus is that if/when one provider jacks up your your price after a promotional period ends, you can cut it loose without actually losing Internet access for the house. All that plus your 5G/4G/LTE cellular service means you rarely have to go without Internet service short of a regional catastrophe.
Is there hardware that can do some form of intelligent routing in that situation?
Max download speed will still be limited by the max single-line speed. But loading a website, for instance, could be sped up by loading its components via different lines.
When having a dedicated server in the cloud that would receive and then split data streams, one could, provided a suitable software exists, even combine the max speeds.
-
@axtremus said in Coax to Ethernet?:
@89th said in Coax to Ethernet?:
My main concern is my remote work and the virtual desktop connections and video/team calls that I want to ensure are top notch. Honestly though... the price between 200 and 1,000 MBPS wasn't that much. Maybe 30 bucks a month? Plus once I get all our TVs up and running, streaming 4K content will likely be t3h pipez hog.
Zoom itself says you need only 1.2 Mbps to do video call. Instead of getting one very high speed connection to your house, consider splitting the cost and get two medium speed connections (from two different service providers) to your house instead. That way you (1) get redundancy/backup when one goes down for any reason and (2) get to isolate your "work" stuff from your "entertainment" stuff if you really want to. Added bonus is that if/when one provider jacks up your your price after a promotional period ends, you can cut it loose without actually losing Internet access for the house. All that plus your 5G/4G/LTE cellular service means you rarely have to go without Internet service short of a regional catastrophe.
Is there hardware that can do some form of intelligent routing in that situation?
Max download speed will still be limited by the max single-line speed. But loading a website, for instance, could be sped up by loading its components via different lines.
When having a dedicated server in the cloud that would receive and then split data streams, one could, provided a suitable software exists, even combine the max speeds.
@klaus said in Coax to Ethernet?:
Is there hardware that can do some form of intelligent routing in that situation?
Max download speed will still be limited by the max single-line speed. But loading a website, for instance, could be sped up by loading its components via different lines.
When having a dedicated server in the cloud that would receive and then split data streams, one could, provided a suitable software exists, even combine the max speeds.
Yes, that's done in software. Call it some combination of "load balancing" and "link aggregation." Hardware alone cannot do this because you need a lot of 'context' information to do this right. Cannot speak to cheap, 'consumer grade' routers, but most business/enterprise class routers that explicitly support dual-WAN (or even more generally 'multi-WAN') should have this capability.
The underlying protocols actually lend themselves quite nicely for various components of a webpage to load through different paths on the Internet. Unless you deliberately restrict the path by using, say, a VPN or a security tunnel, loading different components through different paths (when multiple paths exist) is often the default, expected behavior.
Depends on the router/software, there are typically various parameters you can set to influence how traffic got "divided up" into two (or more) Internet connections. E.g., you can say "10% for this link and 90% for that other link", you can say "always use this link as primary and the other as backup for when the primary fails", or allow the underlying protocols to dynamically figure out which is the "best link" to use for any given source/destination at any given time. For the power users and network security professionals, you can even hand-tweak the routing tables to very precisely control which source/destination addresses need to use which specific links.
-
@klaus said in Coax to Ethernet?:
Is there hardware that can do some form of intelligent routing in that situation?
Max download speed will still be limited by the max single-line speed. But loading a website, for instance, could be sped up by loading its components via different lines.
When having a dedicated server in the cloud that would receive and then split data streams, one could, provided a suitable software exists, even combine the max speeds.
Yes, that's done in software. Call it some combination of "load balancing" and "link aggregation." Hardware alone cannot do this because you need a lot of 'context' information to do this right. Cannot speak to cheap, 'consumer grade' routers, but most business/enterprise class routers that explicitly support dual-WAN (or even more generally 'multi-WAN') should have this capability.
The underlying protocols actually lend themselves quite nicely for various components of a webpage to load through different paths on the Internet. Unless you deliberately restrict the path by using, say, a VPN or a security tunnel, loading different components through different paths (when multiple paths exist) is often the default, expected behavior.
Depends on the router/software, there are typically various parameters you can set to influence how traffic got "divided up" into two (or more) Internet connections. E.g., you can say "10% for this link and 90% for that other link", you can say "always use this link as primary and the other as backup for when the primary fails", or allow the underlying protocols to dynamically figure out which is the "best link" to use for any given source/destination at any given time. For the power users and network security professionals, you can even hand-tweak the routing tables to very precisely control which source/destination addresses need to use which specific links.
@axtremus said in Coax to Ethernet?:
Unless you deliberately restrict the path by using, say, a VPN or a security tunnel, loading different components through different paths (when multiple paths exist) is often the default, expected behavior.
Another win for stateless protocols such as IP and HTTP!
-
Update, so I guess the wireless card on my previous desktop was just older. The new desktop has a Killer WiFi 6 AX1650i card which gives me around ~900 MBPS download speed.
-
Another question. I have quite slow internet - about 3-5 Mbps download and about 1.5 Mbps upload. DTAC is offering a "hotspot" where you get the internet from a cell phone tower. Speeds are supposed to be maybe 15-20 Mbps.
The hotspot box is about the size of playing card deck. I borrowed one from somebody and to get the best signal, the hotspot has to be placed in a certain location in my place. However, that means that other locations get a very week or random signal.
So, my question is this:
How to extend the range from the hotspot? The hotspot box has no external connections (other than the power port connection). Someone mentioned that you could set a router to work backwards - using it as a "bridge".
Any thoughts from the technical "gurus" here? Thanks!
