I bought a mid-terrace house with a ground floor of 60m² (kitchen, living room, hallway, toilet, utility room) and three bedrooms on the first floor.
The house will be set up as a kind of "medieval shared flat," meaning two unrelated adults living together. Like students, but in an adult version.
The telecommunications connection enters the house on the ground floor next to the front door. The router will be placed there. Is this sufficient for internet access on both floors for two people? If not, how can I extend the signal to the first floor?
Unfortunately, I’m not familiar with the technology. Sorry if this is a very basic question.
The house will be set up as a kind of "medieval shared flat," meaning two unrelated adults living together. Like students, but in an adult version.
The telecommunications connection enters the house on the ground floor next to the front door. The router will be placed there. Is this sufficient for internet access on both floors for two people? If not, how can I extend the signal to the first floor?
Unfortunately, I’m not familiar with the technology. Sorry if this is a very basic question.
H
hampshire17 Mar 2020 08:26Try it wirelessly first – if it works, great.
Try using a powerline adapter – if it works, great.
Wired connection is better.
I wouldn’t approach this with theoretical principles, just try “playing” with it. The equipment isn’t expensive.
Try using a powerline adapter – if it works, great.
Wired connection is better.
I wouldn’t approach this with theoretical principles, just try “playing” with it. The equipment isn’t expensive.
11ant schrieb:
At the top of the stairs [see https://www.hausbau-forum.de/threads/Standort-Küche-und-Wohnzimmer.32688/] I think an access point (or possibly just a repeater here) would probably be the most practical solution. Don’t you have an installation shaft roughly in the center?
I can’t quite remember if you indicated on the floor plan where you live and where the cohabitant is. For further recent discussions on this topic, see among others: https://www.hausbau-forum.de/threads/lan-Dosen-setzen-noch-zeitgemaess-WLAN-drahtlos-ist-die-Zukunft.33656/page-23#post-382399
The repeater/access point market is not really my area, so I can’t confidently assess the relevance of pointing to the installation location (in the Netherlands, if I recall correctly).
I agree: Wireless mainly belongs to nomadic users; wiring laziness is generally not a good reason. I actually think wireless is state of the art.
Why should I go through the hassle of all those cables when I still want to be mobile? I want to work at home on my laptop or tablet, just as I don’t want to be restricted by cable outlets for where my TV is mounted. We stream 4K simultaneously on two TVs, at the same time a radio app is running, and I’m sending data to my printer via Wi-Fi. And all of this runs smoothly without interruptions. I don’t see any added value compared to a wired solution, except for the costs, time, and mess during installation.
I’d save myself the hassle of cables, buy a current router (not a five-year-old piece of junk from eBay), and set up repeaters around the house.
Oetti, it’s not about filling the whole house with network sockets, but only placing them where it makes the most sense to install an access point. Repeaters are a good retrofit solution, but for new builds, they are a no-go for me. Especially since Wi-Fi usually has significant issues across multiple floors.
Oetti schrieb:
I actually think that wireless is state of the art. But only as far as "brainless" modern goes.
"Wireless" cannot be considered "state of the art" because it is not a protocol—it simply means "without wires," nothing more and nothing less. Every technology has its pros and cons, so there is no such thing as a "one system fits all." Every cable has its own characteristics, and the same applies to "cordless cables"—which are not virtual or imaginary but exist as radio links. Each frequency has its specific radiation pattern—which affects not only the useful signal but also leads us directly to the issues of "signal leakage" and "signal-to-noise ratio." Wi-Fi and WLAN are "unshielded" in this sense—if this were a cable, it would clearly raise questions about suitability for HD quality. That is why I only use "cordless cables" for mobile users. Sure, I watch music videos on YouTube on a tablet, preferably outside on the terrace—obviously I don’t want to trip over an eighteen-meter (60 feet) cable there. But when I watch Rosamunde Pilcher with my partner, I want both hands free for cuddling; and I definitely don’t put the one-meter (39 inch) diagonal flat-screen on my lap to avoid pressure marks on my thighs—I hang it on the wall opposite us. It doesn’t hang down to the next flood, you’re right about that, but of the eight possible mounting points in the living room (or seven until @chrisw81 moves the piano out), each is reasonably close to a network socket. Besides, I expect around 2025 (at CeBIT or at "Jugend forscht," time will tell) a kind of "night vision goggles" that make electromagnetic pollution visible. Everyone who transmits wirelessly—and that means everything not stuck "up a tree"—essentially turns their cozy home into a furnished microwave. How much do we really want that?
Wireless essentially requires terabit speeds, which almost always means gigahertz frequencies—something the average consumer at a party electronics store tends to overlook.
By the way, repeaters exist not only to extend wireless ranges but also to compensate for distortions that the propagation cones or spheres experience due to construction elements or other obstacles. The difference between repeaters and access points is something that nearly as many so-called "experts" can’t explain as how many cardinals mispronounce the word "diocese."
And one more thing to consider about "Wireless = State of the Art": a wireless link can only replace a copper cable; state of the art would rather be fiber optic cables.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
untergasse4318 Mar 2020 12:26Oh dear... “State of the Art” and “Repeater” in the same sentence or post. If you don’t have proper cabling for well-managed access points in your home, at least use a mesh system with a genuine, dedicated wireless backhaul. Especially as the Wi-Fi load increases with all kinds of 4K streaming devices, a simple router with repeaters doesn’t really help. In my opinion, this still needs to be wired in today. You can check this yourself with tools like WiSpy.
If you want to rely exclusively on wireless, you have to consider many more factors than just having a nice little repeater like a Fritz repeater everywhere. Ideally, you simulate the setup before doing it at home and then adjust the system on site to match reality. Unless you have no neighbors within about 50m (160 feet) in every direction, they can also sometimes play a role.
If you want to rely exclusively on wireless, you have to consider many more factors than just having a nice little repeater like a Fritz repeater everywhere. Ideally, you simulate the setup before doing it at home and then adjust the system on site to match reality. Unless you have no neighbors within about 50m (160 feet) in every direction, they can also sometimes play a role.
Similar topics