Related
As I travel I find more hotels are offering wired broadband in the room, often free.
Fine for a laptop, but how does poor little XDA make use of this? I thought of carrying a wireless router modem in my suitcase (some are fairly light), but there must be a simpler solution??? Any suggestions?
True, you can sometimes find a wi-fi point "free" but only in the more civilized parts of the world.
I was also thinking of carrying my old Psion infa red battery modem to connect to hotel phone line at 56k, but that's a bit passe.
Thanks.
hotel broadband observations
I find that if I stay at the more up-market brands like Hilton or Sheraton or Mariott they nickel and dime you for everything, typically broadband will set you back ten bucks a day.
However if you stay at their slightly less expensive partner brands like Fairfield, Courtyard or Hampton inn, you get the points for the up-market places (or airline miles) and the internet tends to be free.
At least in the US hotels are pretty densely concentrated around freeway interchanges or business districts and sometimes the wifi signal from one hotel bleeds over into another. Its been interesting to see how this has evolved over time. The conversation would often go like this...
Customer - "Do you offer broadband wifi here at Brand X?"
Clerk - "Well, WE don't offer it but Brand Y next door does. Typically if I put you in a room on that side you'll probably be able to pick up their signal just fine." Translated, the connection is going to be very weak and you're going to say the heck with it and dial up - or try to use GPRS/EDGE and thats not typically going to work very well because in-building coverage with GSM1900 is lousy unless you happen to be near a window on the side of the building closest to the cell site. (It's even lousier because of the Wizard's antenna design!!)
The upshot of this has been the hotel chains with broadband have caught on that their neighbors will leech off of them, thus they have passwords that change every week. They don't do encryption because that would make the poor front desk clerks bleed out their ears, its more of just getting your MAC address on an access list in some manner. Broadband is included but they keep the customers next door at Brand X from coming along for the ride by giving their customers a little card with a sticker and that week's password. At authentication, which naturally only works best with IE because apparently the developers haven't heard of bloody firefox in most cases... it appears that your MAC address is stored for 24 hours and then you don't have to authenticate again until about the same time the next day. Some of them appear to be far more sophisticated, don't require a password, and appear to triangulate your room location in some manner - I'm totally guessing but I bet the access server polls all of the access points to see which ones can see traffic from your MAC address but that's just speculation.
In my experience my T-Mobile MDA (HTC wizard) will sometimes authenticate to hotel networks and sometimes not. It's usually not a signal strength problem, its that the IE browser thats installed in Windows Mobile 5 isn't quite up to running whatever script is authenticating you. If the PDA is all you carry, you're totally dependent on the web page the hotel uses for authentication happening to work correctly on your handheld device. If you're at one of the up-market places that nickel and dime you for everything you're still going to have to authenticate to their internet server over a wired connection and that may or may not work on your handheld. It also may or may not work over the NAT'd connection you get with a wireless router and if you need tech support you better be pretty darned able to B.S. them into thinking you're using a PC with Windows XP. It also completely varies from property to property, don't expect consistency in this area across one particular brand of hotel.
If you only carry a handheld 802.11x device and a wireless router, you better set a strong password and encryption key on it lest some other hotel guest changes your network name to "owned" and/or they download something they ought not to and the data trail leads back to your room's port.
When I arrive at a hotel and plug in or connect my 802.11x through my laptop, I hold my nose and launch IE until I get put on the access list, then I can typically launch firefox and kill the IE pig out of memory.
Hello,
After finding the amazing WMWifiRouter I keep on searching for a program to help me extand the wifi range in my house, since some rooms i have no wifi in range.
I thought to put the mobile i got (Touch Diamond) in the middle where it can reach my home network, and connect to my home network through it.
In one sentence: make it a wifi repeater..
Any good suggestions?
Is it possible at all?
UMMM no probably not. What you are talking about is mimo and there is no need for it in general. you could use wmwifirouter as you gateway to the internet and use your home router to connect other computers. YOu would have a heating problem and power problem on your phone tho trying to boost the signal to connect. Tho you could move the router closer to the senter useing your phone to provide the internet connection and then you could put it where ever you can get the best coverage in the house. There are instructions on there website on how to do this even using DHCP from the phone thru the router. So maybe this way.
Pocket PC Wifi Repeater
I would also be very interested in this capability, I was in a hotel ounce where I had good wifi in bathroom but not at the desk. So when great wifi is just barely out of range this would be a great utility.
i would be glad to have something like that too.
I would request this by email to WMWifiRouter or if they have a forum not sure if they read posts here
hi all i have read that the htc hd2 with a reg edit can run wireless N but is this true, can i use with with a 802.11N router, or will it only work with a 802.11G router,
i need to know as i plan to buy a long range router for work so i can stream DI.FM radio to my htc from my pc and the distance is around 50meter so i want to buy the bets possible router so i can listen to the radio glitch free
info on work network:-
1) 6mb speed via a cable
2) approx 50meters from where i walk / work
It might work at 802.11N standard, but unless your broadband speed is greater than 54Mbs then you'll have nothing to gain. Your router should be backwards compatible to allow 802.11G connection which the HD2 definitely supports, this should be good for speeds up to 54Mbs dependant upon your connection quality.
You'd still get the benefit of greater range, which would in turn mean you'd get a stronger connection. Even a really strong wifi connection on my PS3 only gives me about 700KB/s, despite being on a 20Mb connection (which I can use fully on my wired PC).
I do think, however, that 50m is somewhat optimistic, despite the claims of how good the signal should be (I believe it claims to do 250m outdoors!)
I'd love to try this myself, but don't have a wireless-N router, so can't. I'd be very interested to hear how you get on with this.
Works with ~700kb/s*
I was sending data between laptop and phone with wifi only.
well im going to take my THOMSON TG585v7 i have for my home internet to work i got it with my bethere internet, for free of the provider so im going to try it and see what i get with this,
i have no idea how good this router is though
http://www.thomsonbroadbandpartner.com/dsl-modems-gateways/products/product-detail.php?id=161
it says Typical Indoor coverage: 60m
î use a BELKIN N1 http://www.belkin.com/pressroom/releases/uploads/07_11_07N1Vision.html
and my HD2 has no problems connecting
webjunky said:
î use a BELKIN N1 http://www.belkin.com/pressroom/releases/uploads/07_11_07N1Vision.html
and my HD2 has no problems connecting
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
how far indoors do you get a signal
router is downstairs and even when i'm upstairs i still get signal
Same. Got a Linksys WRT610N. With N-band enabled, not only is the signal strength better, but surfing the net and leeching YouTube vids just flies even though the Internet connection itself is only 12Mbps.
ok all ive decided to buy this for my work to send a N signal to my phone
http://www.scan.co.uk/Products/Edim...multi-function-wireless-access-point-repeater
my broadband speed is only 6mb at work but i just need the range so i hope this will get me at least 50meters walking distance lol.
Seems to only have 2 (small) antenna's though.
My Asus WL500W has 3 antenna's and has a great signal; whole house and garden covered.
http://www.asus.com/product.aspx?P_ID=nrsjewu78wdDXMOA
Running DD-WRT this beauty does it's job very well.
You could, if the signal is not strong enough or has to get through walls, consider getting a directional antenna to hook up to your router.
This will greatly increase the range.
Is there anyway of using the super hub 1 from virgin media to act as a wifi extender/repeater?
I currently have a super hub 2 connected but in some spots of the house i cant access wifi or its a poor signal so o was tjinking if it is possible to create a wifi extender from the super hub 1? Any help would be appreciated, and thanks.
skyla20 said:
Is there anyway of using the super hub 1 from virgin media to act as a wifi extender/repeater?
I currently have a super hub 2 connected but in some spots of the house i cant access wifi or its a poor signal so o was tjinking if it is possible to create a wifi extender from the super hub 1? Any help would be appreciated, and thanks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is possible, the easest way is to first change some settings on your old hub, you will need to disable built in features such as the DHCP, secondly you may need to change the old hubs ip, if it is the same as the new one, to prevent a ip address conflict (for example, if they are both using 192.168.1.254 though if yours is an old netgear tg834? Then its probably using 192.168.1.1) , now assuming your old super hub supports the same wireless encryption as the new one, match the wireless ESSID (name) and encryption password (And type! Such as wpa2) so that they appear as the same Wireless network (distributed wireless) and the easesst and most supported method is to then link the two devices via ethernet and place one of them somewhere else in the building where it can provide a signal in the blindspots of your primary superhub.
Also a side not.. If i recall, the most recent superhub uses 802.11n on 5GHz, which does not boad well in old victorian houses, and new ones made with lots of metal strips between plaster boards.. 2.4GHz works better at penetrating walls, so check you dont have this option set to 5GHz under the wireless settings.
tytiger said:
It is possible, the easest way is to first change some settings on your old hub, you will need to disable built in features such as the DHCP, secondly you may need to change the old hubs ip, if it is the same as the new one, to prevent a ip address conflict (for example, if they are both using 192.168.1.254 though if yours is an old netgear tg834? Then its probably using 192.168.1.1) , now assuming your old super hub supports the same wireless encryption as the new one, match the wireless ESSID (name) and encryption password (And type! Such as wpa2) so that they appear as the same Wireless network (distributed wireless) and the easesst and most supported method is to then link the two devices via ethernet and place one of them somewhere else in the building where it can provide a signal in the blindspots of your primary superhub.
Also a side not.. If i recall, the most recent superhub uses 802.11n on 5GHz, which does not boad well in old victorian houses, and new ones made with lots of metal strips between plaster boards.. 2.4GHz works better at penetrating walls, so check you dont have this option set to 5GHz under the wireless settings.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ok i will check all that out soon as i have time but thanks also. The house is made in 1970's it is strange that im not getting good signal in the garage room the wireless hub is situated in the living room downstairs then theres a brick wall then the hall way withthe stairs in the middle another small brick wall which leads to the garage room. I get signal but its poor. Would a netgear wifi extender work the one on the net for about £40 if the super hub 1 idea didnt work?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
skyla20 said:
Ok i will check all that out soon as i have time but thanks also. The house is made in 1970's it is strange that im not getting good signal in the garage room the wireless hub is situated in the living room downstairs then theres a brick wall then the hall way withthe stairs in the middle another small brick wall which leads to the garage room. I get signal but its poor. Would a netgear wifi extender work the one on the net for about £40 if the super hub 1 idea didnt work?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, any off the shelf Signal "Booster" device should work, I use one at work and it's essentially a small WiFi device that connects to a specified Access point (in your case the super hub) and re-broadcasts the same network settings from it's own wireless card, forwarding any data to and from the original access point like a wireless bridge. the only down side is there is usually a slight decrease in bandwidth with this method, where as using multiple wireless access points, hard-wired in to a network via Ethernet all have their own dedicated connection providing maximum bandwidth. Hope that helps and isn't too technical
tytiger said:
Yes, any off the shelf Signal "Booster" device should work, I use one at work and it's essentially a small WiFi device that connects to a specified Access point (in your case the super hub) and re-broadcasts the same network settings from it's own wireless card, forwarding any data to and from the original access point like a wireless bridge. the only down side is there is usually a slight decrease in bandwidth with this method, where as using multiple wireless access points, hard-wired in to a network via Ethernet all have their own dedicated connection providing maximum bandwidth. Hope that helps and isn't too technical
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I full understand, soon as i get some spare time i will try the settings on the hub etc, if no luvk with that then i will look towards on getting the wifi extender preferably the netgear with two sntennas on for £40, i did hear that that one is only 2.4ghz. Oh well fingers crossed somthing works.
skyla20 said:
I full understand, soon as i get some spare time i will try the settings on the hub etc, if no luvk with that then i will look towards on getting the wifi extender preferably the netgear with two sntennas on for £40, i did hear that that one is only 2.4ghz. Oh well fingers crossed somthing works.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If im not mistaken again (the VM Superhub in my experience is the one at the office) it broadcasts on 2.5 and 5GHz simultaneously, so you may get away with it, the repeater would use the 2.4Ghz band for it's distribution link, and any devices close enough (and supporting) could use the 5GHz band, which in theory would work in your favour, and not effect the repeated signal, giving you a little boost in performance.. this, of course depends on how well the superhub manages its wireless, and i have little faith in it as it is..
Please Share your feedback to help current and future owners of the router
The setup was super easy. Wifi range is much better than the Asus RT-AC66U it replaced. The standard Ethernet cable doesn't fit if you want to keep the outer cover on. The included cables are too short and the power cable is also too short. Otherwise it works well.
I don't like how some "unnamed devices" show up with no IP address in the list of connected devices... how is that even possible? I get if those devices are connected with a set static IP on the device, but if they are assigned via DHCP the IP address *should* show up (I have a LinksysPAP VoIP device set to DHCP that would not show the IP and just shows up as an unnamed device).
Other than that... great device so far, easy to set up. Love the app and the LED light on the top.
lexcyn said:
I don't like how some "unnamed devices" show up with no IP address in the list of connected devices... how is that even possible? I get if those devices are connected with a set static IP on the device, but if they are assigned via DHCP the IP address *should* show up (I have a LinksysPAP VoIP device set to DHCP that would not show the IP and just shows up as an unnamed device).
Other than that... great device so far, easy to set up. Love the app and the LED light on the top.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm still waiting for mine to arrive tomorrow. Do the "unnamed devices" at least show the mac address, so you can identify what they are? I've been curious about how much control I'd have over settings, ip, etc... I'm currently running a Buffalo router with DD-WRT.
adrman said:
I'm still waiting for mine to arrive tomorrow. Do the "unnamed devices" at least show the mac address, so you can identify what they are? I've been curious about how much control I'd have over settings, ip, etc... I'm currently running a Buffalo router with DD-WRT.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes they all at least show the MAC - but that's about it. You can set a static IP and forward ports... but not much else. It's a very simple interface, but I'm assuming it was built that way. I have a feeling as their app evolves they will add more control.
Can you guys post some screenshots ?
Here's a screenshot of the "unnamed device" I was talking about.
Not great here. I'm getting 1/3 of my speed on wifi and 1/10th hard wired compared to my linksys wrt-ac1900. Tech support was pretty responsive and are looking into it. I'm running gigabit fiber. The range seems decent and setup was easy.
Anyone to from a time capsule to this? Wondering if it would be worth the switch.
Unboxing and set up
http://youtu.be/MW8VeWdCo0I
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No way to add devices that use WPS (not a huge deal).
Security is not configurable (not a deal breaker, just interesting)
No web-based interface
No DDNS client (not a huge deal)
No way to view uPnP mappings
The single ethernet port in the back is kind of a drag, but it wasn't an issue for me. Also standard cables will not fit with the cover on.
The "unnamed device" thing is kind of annoying (makes setting up static DHCP entries a hassle) but it's not a huge deal. It would be cool to be able to name these explicitly from within the app.
Setup was easy and quick. Seems to work well, no drop-outs so far. :good:
With the mixed reviews out there, I wasn't expecting much in terms of coverage or perf, but I was pleasantly surprised. Since I live in a fairly large multi story house, I've always had to have range extenders to get upstairs (even with a high-end WAP downstairs). Now, for the first time ever in my house, I have only one WAP (OnHub) and I'm getting 25MB in the farthest reaches of the house. I get 80MB via wifi close to the router (in the same room), but that is similar to what I got before. I get 170MB via wired, so no problem keeping up with a high bandwidth connection, it seems to have plenty of processing power. I suppose putting the OnHub up on a shelf does help with range and perf compared to the old WAP being lower (beneath the TV), but I can't believe placement is making that big of a difference, it seems the range and perf of the OnHub is actually really good. So before where I had 4 wifi networks to deal with (wifi2G, wifi5G, wifi2GExt, wifi5GExt), it's all now just consolidated into one wifi network, which is great. I agree it is kind of a bummer that guest networking is not yet implemented, but I never used it, so not a big issue for me.
I really like being able to do the admin from the mobile app, the simplicity actually takes some getting used to. True, you can't configure security or frequencies (2G, 5G, channels, etc) that I know of, but I'm actually kind of starting to appreciate the simplicity, it is definitely a whole new take on a high-end router/WAP.
Only one LAN port on the OnHub is not really an issue for me because I had more than 4 wired devices (7 to be exact), so I already had an 8 port switch in use, which now (obviously) runs into the one LAN port on the OnHub.
So really my only (minor) issue with it is the standard cables are too short, and I wasn't sure if they were Cat 6, so I just swapped them for 10ft Cat 6 cables I already had; problem solved. I had no problem getting the cover to lock on with normal cables, which sounds different from what others are posting, not sure why, works fine for me.
So far no drops from interference, which was a problem on all my old routers/WAPs since I live in a neighborhood with lots of WAPs in range of my house.
Overall, I'm very happy with it, it has solved most (if not all) my home networking challenges, especially on the wifi side.
llarch said:
With the mixed reviews out there, I wasn't expecting much in terms of coverage or perf, but I was pleasantly surprised. Since I live in a fairly large multi story house, I've always had to have range extenders to get upstairs (even with a high-end WAP downstairs). Now, for the first time ever in my house, I have only one WAP (OnHub) and I'm getting 25MB in the farthest reaches of the house. I get 80MB via wifi close to the router (in the same room), but that is similar to what I got before. I get 170MB via wired, so no problem keeping up with a high bandwidth connection, it seems to have plenty of processing power. I suppose putting the OnHub up on a shelf does help with range and perf compared to the old WAP being lower (beneath the TV), but I can't believe placement is making that big of a difference, it seems the range and perf of the OnHub is actually really good. So before where I had 4 wifi networks to deal with (wifi2G, wifi5G, wifi2GExt, wifi5GExt), it's all now just consolidated into one wifi network, which is great. I agree it is kind of a bummer that guest networking is not yet implemented, but I never used it, so not a big issue for me.
I really like being able to do the admin from the mobile app, the simplicity actually takes some getting used to. True, you can't configure security or frequencies (2G, 5G, channels, etc) that I know of, but I'm actually kind of starting to appreciate the simplicity, it is definitely a whole new take on a high-end router/WAP.
Only one LAN port on the OnHub is not really an issue for me because I had more than 4 wired devices (7 to be exact), so I already had an 8 port switch in use, which now (obviously) runs into the one LAN port on the OnHub.
So really my only (minor) issue with it is the standard cables are too short, and I wasn't sure if they were Cat 6, so I just swapped them for 10ft Cat 6 cables I already had; problem solved. I had no problem getting the cover to lock on with normal cables, which sounds different from what others are posting, not sure why, works fine for me.
So far no drops from interference, which was a problem on all my old routers/WAPs since I live in a neighborhood with lots of WAPs in range of my house.
Overall, I'm very happy with it, it has solved most (if not all) my home networking challenges, especially on the wifi side.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exact experience I'm having with the Onhub.
Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk
The range is awesome. OnHub replaced a RT-66U and Amped AP300 with external powered antenna. My whole house is covered now.
I struggled through the unknown devices issues to get all my static IPs and port fwds setup.
The big issue for me is the OnHub does not support NAT Loopback. So you cannot access your cameras and static devices while at home without using their IP addresses. So my IP Camera app will not be able to find my cameras at home with "xxxx.duckdns.org:1025" but this works when connected to another network or Mobile data. This is a big pain in the a$$ for those of us that like to access things on our networks remotely and while at home.
I contacted support and they have added NAT Loopback to the requests...
A tip if replacing a FiOS router; power down the Verizon ONT for half an hour. Before powering back up, connect the ethernet from the ONT to the OnHub. The power cycle will force a renewed IP and allow the OnHub to register on the network without the need to go through the VZW router.
av8rdude said:
The range is awesome. OnHub replaced a RT-66U and Amped AP300 with external powered antenna. My whole house is covered now.
I struggled through the unknown devices issues to get all my static IPs and port fwds setup.
The big issue for me is the OnHub does not support NAT Loopback. So you cannot access your cameras and static devices while at home without using their IP addresses. So my IP Camera app will not be able to find my cameras at home with "xxxx.duckdns.org:1025" but this works when connected to another network or Mobile data. This is a big pain in the a$$ for those of us that like to access things on our networks remotely and while at home.
I contacted support and they have added NAT Loopback to the requests...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What camera app? If you're using TinyCam you can have internal (wifi) and external (LTE) settings for each camera.
I got mine today. I was using a borrowed modem and router so I needed to purchase something, and was either going to get a Ubiquiti access point (and keep using the borrowed router) or the onhub. So far it's been a great experience. Solid connections. I set a static address for my NAS.
It seems to be working well for me also. My biggest gripe is the "unnamed" devices. With 17 devices and only 3 or 4 that provide a recognizable name to OnHub, perhaps I could give them names?
The unnamed devices thing is very annoying.
Also, when assigning static ip, they need to list the mac address... Otherwise it makes it basically impossible to assign a static ip to one of those unnamed devices... Because which unnamed device are you assigning the ip to? Can't tell...
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
JasonJoel said:
The unnamed devices thing is very annoying.
Also, when assigning static ip, they need to list the mac address... Otherwise it makes it basically impossible to assign a static ip to one of those unnamed devices... Because which unnamed device are you assigning the ip to? Can't tell...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I had a 30 minute conversation with support over just that issue. The general response was "well, that's a power user issue and this isn't a power user device" Even so, I'm surprised there hasn't been an update of some kind pushed yet because viewing the mac address to set a static ip isn't exactly "power user" functionality, it's basic.