Network Question

Discussion in 'Computer Information' started by Jeff Strickland, Jun 17, 2008.

  1. Two computers, maybe more if this works.

    A business out in the wine country where there is no high speed service in
    the area. There is a need (a requirement) for high speed internet, so the
    owner bought a Verizon card for a connection. The card has a montly fee of
    60-ish dollars.

    He has a wireless router.

    Can I connect the machine with the card in it to the wireless router via an
    ethernet cable and install a wireless adaptor in another machine, then get
    on the 'net from the second machine through the router and back to the first
    machine with the Verizon card in it?

    It seems to me that the plan ought to work, but I don't know how much
    traffic the card can support, or if it can be networked at all. Frankly, I
    know nothing about these cards except that they tend to be expensive so one
    needs a very strong reason to get one. I think this business owner would
    enjoy getting more work done, but right now a person has to leave a work
    station to go to another one to perform tasks that the boss would like to be
    done from wherever the person is sitting.

    The machines have 10/100 cards in them, which begs the question, why not
    connect everything with wires? That's a good question, and is a cheaper
    solutioin than buying a wireless adaptor. The same hurdle vis a vis the
    traffic that the Verizon card can handle remains.

    Basically, I have Machine A that has an internet connection, Machine B which
    does not, and a wireless router. I intend to connect Machine A to the
    goes-into port on the router, and either connect Machine B to one of four
    goes-outta ports on the router, or add a wireless adaptor to Machine B and
    connect to the router that way. This will physically establish the network
    via hardware, where my plan falls apart is on the software side.


    This configuration is different than what is in my house, but I have a far
    different environment. I get Verizon FiOS (fiber optic service) that has a
    down-converter where the optic cable comes up. There is a CAT5 cable in the
    converter that feeds the goes-into port on my router, then I have another
    CAT5 cable in a goes-outta port that feeds my computer in the garage. I have
    several other computers that wirelessly connect to the router, and in turn
    to the fiber system.

    Where I go sideways on networks is that I envision a server somewhere in the
    system, but I have no server per se in my own system -- which means I don't
    understand all that I know.
     
    Jeff Strickland, Jun 17, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Jeff Strickland

    Baron Guest

    Jeff Strickland Inscribed thus:

    > Two computers, maybe more if this works.
    >
    > A business out in the wine country where there is no high speed
    > service in the area. There is a need (a requirement) for high speed
    > internet, so the owner bought a Verizon card for a connection. The
    > card has a montly fee of 60-ish dollars.
    >
    > He has a wireless router.
    >
    > Can I connect the machine with the card in it to the wireless router
    > via an ethernet cable and install a wireless adaptor in another
    > machine, then get on the 'net from the second machine through the
    > router and back to the first machine with the Verizon card in it?
    >
    > It seems to me that the plan ought to work, but I don't know how much
    > traffic the card can support, or if it can be networked at all.
    > Frankly, I know nothing about these cards except that they tend to be
    > expensive so one needs a very strong reason to get one. I think this
    > business owner would enjoy getting more work done, but right now a
    > person has to leave a work station to go to another one to perform
    > tasks that the boss would like to be done from wherever the person is
    > sitting.
    >
    > The machines have 10/100 cards in them, which begs the question, why
    > not connect everything with wires? That's a good question, and is a
    > cheaper solutioin than buying a wireless adaptor. The same hurdle vis
    > a vis the traffic that the Verizon card can handle remains.


    Jeff, This is the thing I would look at first ! A wired connection
    will always work with the minimum of fuss.

    If you go down the wireless route you will probably have to use an
    access point to distribute the signal and you will have to have a
    wireless card in each machine that you want to connect.

    As far as the traffic handling of the Verizon card is concerned I
    wouldn't worry about it at all.... Unless you have a 100Mb Internet
    feed !!!

    > Basically, I have Machine A that has an internet connection, Machine B
    > which does not, and a wireless router. I intend to connect Machine A
    > to the goes-into port on the router, and either connect Machine B to
    > one of four goes-outta ports on the router, or add a wireless adaptor
    > to Machine B and connect to the router that way. This will physically
    > establish the network via hardware, where my plan falls apart is on
    > the software side.


    Physical connections are virtually automatic ! The router hands out an
    address and the machine talks to the router.

    > This configuration is different than what is in my house, but I have a
    > far different environment. I get Verizon FiOS (fiber optic service)
    > that has a down-converter where the optic cable comes up. There is a
    > CAT5 cable in the converter that feeds the goes-into port on my
    > router, then I have another CAT5 cable in a goes-outta port that feeds
    > my computer in the garage. I have several other computers that
    > wirelessly connect to the router, and in turn to the fiber system.


    From either point of view the router does the work of establishing
    communications with the ISP. The other side of the router hands out
    addresses to the machines as they request them via DHCP. This allows
    the machine to communicate with the Internet. Any machine that is on
    the same network can also communicate with any other machine on that
    network.

    > Where I go sideways on networks is that I envision a server somewhere
    > in the system, but I have no server per se in my own system -- which
    > means I don't understand all that I know.


    Yes the server is in the router ! Its providing DHCP to the internal
    network. In reality Wins provides so many server services that most
    people don't know about.

    --
    Best Reagrds:
    Baron.
     
    Baron, Jun 18, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Jun 17, 10:56 pm, "Jeff Strickland" <> wrote:
    > Two computers, maybe more if this works.
    >
    > A business out in the wine country where there is no high speed service in
    > the area. There is a need (a requirement) for high speed internet, so the
    > owner bought a Verizon card for a connection. The card has a montly fee of
    > 60-ish dollars.
    >
    > He has a wireless router.
    >
    > Can I connect the machine with the card in it to the wireless router via an
    > ethernet cable and install a wireless adaptor in another machine, then get
    > on the 'net from the second machine through the router and back to the first
    > machine with the Verizon card in it?
    >
    > It seems to me that the plan ought to work, but I don't know how much
    > traffic the card can support, or if it can be networked at all. Frankly, I
    > know nothing about these cards except that they tend to be expensive so one
    > needs a very strong reason to get one. I think this business owner would
    > enjoy getting more work done, but right now a person has to leave a work
    > station to go to another one to perform tasks that the boss would like to be
    > done from wherever the person is sitting.
    >
    > The machines have 10/100 cards in them, which begs the question, why not
    > connect everything with wires? That's a good question, and is a cheaper
    > solutioin than buying a wireless adaptor. The same hurdle vis a vis the
    > traffic that the Verizon card can handle remains.
    >
    > Basically, I have Machine A that has an internet connection, Machine B which
    > does not, and a wireless router. I intend to connect Machine A to the
    > goes-into port on the router, and either connect Machine B to one of four
    > goes-outta ports on the router, or add a wireless adaptor to Machine B and
    > connect to the router that way. This will physically establish the network
    > via hardware, where my plan falls apart is on the software side.
    >
    > This configuration is different than what is in my house, but I have a far
    > different environment. I get Verizon FiOS (fiber optic service) that has a
    > down-converter where the optic cable comes up. There is a CAT5 cable in the
    > converter that feeds the goes-into port on my router, then I have another
    > CAT5 cable in a goes-outta port that feeds my computer in the garage. I have
    > several other computers that wirelessly connect to the router, and in turn
    > to the fiber system.
    >
    > Where I go sideways on networks is that I envision a server somewhere in the
    > system, but I have no server per se in my own system -- which means I don't
    > understand all that I know.


    If it's a small network, can it not be set up with the Windows Home
    Networking? I think that has an option for a computer having internet
    access and other computers connecting to that computer to receive
    their access?
     
    Weyoun the Dancing Borg, Jun 18, 2008
    #3
  4. Jeff Strickland

    Baron Guest

    Weyoun the Dancing Borg Inscribed thus:

    > On Jun 17, 10:56 pm, "Jeff Strickland" <> wrote:
    >> Two computers, maybe more if this works.
    >>
    >> A business out in the wine country where there is no high speed
    >> service in the area. There is a need (a requirement) for high speed
    >> internet, so the owner bought a Verizon card for a connection. The
    >> card has a montly fee of 60-ish dollars.
    >>
    >> He has a wireless router.
    >>
    >> Can I connect the machine with the card in it to the wireless router
    >> via an ethernet cable and install a wireless adaptor in another
    >> machine, then get on the 'net from the second machine through the
    >> router and back to the first machine with the Verizon card in it?
    >>
    >> It seems to me that the plan ought to work, but I don't know how much
    >> traffic the card can support, or if it can be networked at all.
    >> Frankly, I know nothing about these cards except that they tend to be
    >> expensive so one needs a very strong reason to get one. I think this
    >> business owner would enjoy getting more work done, but right now a
    >> person has to leave a work station to go to another one to perform
    >> tasks that the boss would like to be done from wherever the person is
    >> sitting.
    >>
    >> The machines have 10/100 cards in them, which begs the question, why
    >> not connect everything with wires? That's a good question, and is a
    >> cheaper solutioin than buying a wireless adaptor. The same hurdle vis
    >> a vis the traffic that the Verizon card can handle remains.
    >>
    >> Basically, I have Machine A that has an internet connection, Machine
    >> B which does not, and a wireless router. I intend to connect Machine
    >> A to the goes-into port on the router, and either connect Machine B
    >> to one of four goes-outta ports on the router, or add a wireless
    >> adaptor to Machine B and connect to the router that way. This will
    >> physically establish the network via hardware, where my plan falls
    >> apart is on the software side.
    >>
    >> This configuration is different than what is in my house, but I have
    >> a far different environment. I get Verizon FiOS (fiber optic service)
    >> that has a down-converter where the optic cable comes up. There is a
    >> CAT5 cable in the converter that feeds the goes-into port on my
    >> router, then I have another CAT5 cable in a goes-outta port that
    >> feeds my computer in the garage. I have several other computers that
    >> wirelessly connect to the router, and in turn to the fiber system.
    >>
    >> Where I go sideways on networks is that I envision a server somewhere
    >> in the system, but I have no server per se in my own system -- which
    >> means I don't understand all that I know.

    >
    > If it's a small network, can it not be set up with the Windows Home
    > Networking? I think that has an option for a computer having internet
    > access and other computers connecting to that computer to receive
    > their access?


    It does ! The only downside is that the machine suppling the feed has
    to be switched on.

    --
    Best Reagrds:
    Baron.
     
    Baron, Jun 18, 2008
    #4
  5. "Baron" <> wrote in message
    news:g3ajo4$aic$...
    > Jeff Strickland Inscribed thus:
    >
    >> Two computers, maybe more if this works.
    >>
    >> A business out in the wine country where there is no high speed
    >> service in the area. There is a need (a requirement) for high speed
    >> internet, so the owner bought a Verizon card for a connection. The
    >> card has a montly fee of 60-ish dollars.
    >>
    >> He has a wireless router.
    >>
    >> Can I connect the machine with the card in it to the wireless router
    >> via an ethernet cable and install a wireless adaptor in another
    >> machine, then get on the 'net from the second machine through the
    >> router and back to the first machine with the Verizon card in it?
    >>
    >> It seems to me that the plan ought to work, but I don't know how much
    >> traffic the card can support, or if it can be networked at all.
    >> Frankly, I know nothing about these cards except that they tend to be
    >> expensive so one needs a very strong reason to get one. I think this
    >> business owner would enjoy getting more work done, but right now a
    >> person has to leave a work station to go to another one to perform
    >> tasks that the boss would like to be done from wherever the person is
    >> sitting.
    >>
    >> The machines have 10/100 cards in them, which begs the question, why
    >> not connect everything with wires? That's a good question, and is a
    >> cheaper solutioin than buying a wireless adaptor. The same hurdle vis
    >> a vis the traffic that the Verizon card can handle remains.

    >
    > Jeff, This is the thing I would look at first ! A wired connection
    > will always work with the minimum of fuss.
    >
    > If you go down the wireless route you will probably have to use an
    > access point to distribute the signal and you will have to have a
    > wireless card in each machine that you want to connect.
    >
    > As far as the traffic handling of the Verizon card is concerned I
    > wouldn't worry about it at all.... Unless you have a 100Mb Internet
    > feed !!!
    >
    >> Basically, I have Machine A that has an internet connection, Machine B
    >> which does not, and a wireless router. I intend to connect Machine A
    >> to the goes-into port on the router, and either connect Machine B to
    >> one of four goes-outta ports on the router, or add a wireless adaptor
    >> to Machine B and connect to the router that way. This will physically
    >> establish the network via hardware, where my plan falls apart is on
    >> the software side.

    >
    > Physical connections are virtually automatic ! The router hands out an
    > address and the machine talks to the router.
    >
    >> This configuration is different than what is in my house, but I have a
    >> far different environment. I get Verizon FiOS (fiber optic service)
    >> that has a down-converter where the optic cable comes up. There is a
    >> CAT5 cable in the converter that feeds the goes-into port on my
    >> router, then I have another CAT5 cable in a goes-outta port that feeds
    >> my computer in the garage. I have several other computers that
    >> wirelessly connect to the router, and in turn to the fiber system.

    >
    > From either point of view the router does the work of establishing
    > communications with the ISP. The other side of the router hands out
    > addresses to the machines as they request them via DHCP. This allows
    > the machine to communicate with the Internet. Any machine that is on
    > the same network can also communicate with any other machine on that
    > network.
    >
    >> Where I go sideways on networks is that I envision a server somewhere
    >> in the system, but I have no server per se in my own system -- which
    >> means I don't understand all that I know.

    >
    > Yes the server is in the router ! Its providing DHCP to the internal
    > network. In reality Wins provides so many server services that most
    > people don't know about.
    >


    So, what I have to do is make Machine A and Machine B talk to each other,
    and then get Machine B to get to the Internet through the card installed in
    Machine A.

    The router is a wireless router, but it has 5 ports on it as well. Obviously
    one of the ports is the feed, and four of them are nodes. I think this makes
    a router handle traffic sorta like a hub, or allows hub-like configuration.

    The router at my house has a hard-wire coming from the downconverter (the
    device that turns my fiber optic connecton into a wire connection). In my
    Project, I _think_ I have to connect the computer that has the Verizon card
    in it to the same port that the downconverter is connected to at my house,
    then connect other computers either by CAT5 or through wireless.

    In my Project, there is a computer that is connected to the 'net, and I want
    to use that connection at other work stations. I plan on leveraging the
    router, but I'm confused that I can make the connections as I want ...
     
    Jeff Strickland, Jun 19, 2008
    #5
  6. "Weyoun the Dancing Borg" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    On Jun 17, 10:56 pm, "Jeff Strickland" <> wrote:
    > Two computers, maybe more if this works.
    >
    > A business out in the wine country where there is no high speed service in
    > the area. There is a need (a requirement) for high speed internet, so the
    > owner bought a Verizon card for a connection. The card has a montly fee of
    > 60-ish dollars.
    >
    > He has a wireless router.
    >
    > Can I connect the machine with the card in it to the wireless router via
    > an
    > ethernet cable and install a wireless adaptor in another machine, then get
    > on the 'net from the second machine through the router and back to the
    > first
    > machine with the Verizon card in it?
    >
    > It seems to me that the plan ought to work, but I don't know how much
    > traffic the card can support, or if it can be networked at all. Frankly, I
    > know nothing about these cards except that they tend to be expensive so
    > one
    > needs a very strong reason to get one. I think this business owner would
    > enjoy getting more work done, but right now a person has to leave a work
    > station to go to another one to perform tasks that the boss would like to
    > be
    > done from wherever the person is sitting.
    >
    > The machines have 10/100 cards in them, which begs the question, why not
    > connect everything with wires? That's a good question, and is a cheaper
    > solutioin than buying a wireless adaptor. The same hurdle vis a vis the
    > traffic that the Verizon card can handle remains.
    >
    > Basically, I have Machine A that has an internet connection, Machine B
    > which
    > does not, and a wireless router. I intend to connect Machine A to the
    > goes-into port on the router, and either connect Machine B to one of four
    > goes-outta ports on the router, or add a wireless adaptor to Machine B and
    > connect to the router that way. This will physically establish the network
    > via hardware, where my plan falls apart is on the software side.
    >
    > This configuration is different than what is in my house, but I have a far
    > different environment. I get Verizon FiOS (fiber optic service) that has a
    > down-converter where the optic cable comes up. There is a CAT5 cable in
    > the
    > converter that feeds the goes-into port on my router, then I have another
    > CAT5 cable in a goes-outta port that feeds my computer in the garage. I
    > have
    > several other computers that wirelessly connect to the router, and in turn
    > to the fiber system.
    >
    > Where I go sideways on networks is that I envision a server somewhere in
    > the
    > system, but I have no server per se in my own system -- which means I
    > don't
    > understand all that I know.


    If it's a small network, can it not be set up with the Windows Home
    Networking? I think that has an option for a computer having internet
    access and other computers connecting to that computer to receive
    their access?


    <JS>
    It is my intent to do that. I'm struggling with architecture.


    </JS>
     
    Jeff Strickland, Jun 19, 2008
    #6
  7. Jeff Strickland

    Baron Guest

    Hi Jeff,

    Jeff Strickland Inscribed thus:
    >
    > "Baron" <> wrote in message
    > news:g3ajo4$aic$...
    >> Jeff Strickland Inscribed thus:
    >>
    >>> Two computers, maybe more if this works.
    >>>
    >>> A business out in the wine country where there is no high speed
    >>> service in the area. There is a need (a requirement) for high speed
    >>> internet, so the owner bought a Verizon card for a connection. The
    >>> card has a montly fee of 60-ish dollars.
    >>>
    >>> He has a wireless router.
    >>>
    >>> Can I connect the machine with the card in it to the wireless router
    >>> via an ethernet cable and install a wireless adaptor in another
    >>> machine, then get on the 'net from the second machine through the
    >>> router and back to the first machine with the Verizon card in it?
    >>>
    >>> It seems to me that the plan ought to work, but I don't know how
    >>> much traffic the card can support, or if it can be networked at all.
    >>> Frankly, I know nothing about these cards except that they tend to
    >>> be expensive so one needs a very strong reason to get one. I think
    >>> this business owner would enjoy getting more work done, but right
    >>> now a person has to leave a work station to go to another one to
    >>> perform tasks that the boss would like to be done from wherever the
    >>> person is sitting.
    >>>
    >>> The machines have 10/100 cards in them, which begs the question, why
    >>> not connect everything with wires? That's a good question, and is a
    >>> cheaper solutioin than buying a wireless adaptor. The same hurdle
    >>> vis a vis the traffic that the Verizon card can handle remains.

    >>
    >> Jeff, This is the thing I would look at first ! A wired connection
    >> will always work with the minimum of fuss.
    >>
    >> If you go down the wireless route you will probably have to use an
    >> access point to distribute the signal and you will have to have a
    >> wireless card in each machine that you want to connect.
    >>
    >> As far as the traffic handling of the Verizon card is concerned I
    >> wouldn't worry about it at all.... Unless you have a 100Mb Internet
    >> feed !!!
    >>
    >>> Basically, I have Machine A that has an internet connection, Machine
    >>> B which does not, and a wireless router. I intend to connect Machine
    >>> A to the goes-into port on the router, and either connect Machine B
    >>> to one of four goes-outta ports on the router,


    Yes just plug machine "B" into one of the router "out" ports !

    >>> or add a wireless
    >>> adaptor to Machine B and connect to the router that way. This will
    >>> physically establish the network via hardware, where my plan falls
    >>> apart is on the software side.

    >>
    >> Physical connections are virtually automatic ! The router hands out
    >> an address and the machine talks to the router.
    >>
    >>> This configuration is different than what is in my house, but I have
    >>> a far different environment. I get Verizon FiOS (fiber optic
    >>> service) that has a down-converter where the optic cable comes up.
    >>> There is a CAT5 cable in the converter that feeds the goes-into port
    >>> on my router, then I have another CAT5 cable in a goes-outta port
    >>> that feeds my computer in the garage. I have several other computers
    >>> that wirelessly connect to the router, and in turn to the fiber
    >>> system.


    All your are doing is making a connection to the router. The router
    does the hard work !

    >> From either point of view the router does the work of establishing
    >> communications with the ISP. The other side of the router hands out
    >> addresses to the machines as they request them via DHCP. This allows
    >> the machine to communicate with the Internet. Any machine that is on
    >> the same network can also communicate with any other machine on that
    >> network.
    >>
    >>> Where I go sideways on networks is that I envision a server
    >>> somewhere in the system, but I have no server per se in my own
    >>> system -- which means I don't understand all that I know.

    >>
    >> Yes the server is in the router ! Its providing DHCP to the internal
    >> network. In reality Wins provides so many server services that most
    >> people don't know about.
    >>

    >
    > So, what I have to do is make Machine A and Machine B talk to each
    > other, and then get Machine B to get to the Internet through the card
    > installed in Machine A.


    If you want to go down the machine to machine route Yes ! Just plug in
    a network cable its far easier and more reliable. It will work from
    just plugging in the cable.

    > The router is a wireless router, but it has 5 ports on it as well.
    > Obviously one of the ports is the feed, and four of them are nodes. I
    > think this makes a router handle traffic sorta like a hub, or allows
    > hub-like configuration.


    No its a router ! Each port can handle anything from one machine upto
    the maximum for that router. My router "Draytec" has four ports. Each
    port can handle upto the maximum number of computers that the router
    has address space. In my case 1024 machines. Or 256 machines per port.

    > The router at my house has a hard-wire coming from the downconverter
    > (the device that turns my fiber optic connecton into a wire
    > connection). In my Project, I _think_ I have to connect the computer
    > that has the Verizon card in it to the same port that the
    > downconverter is connected to at my house, then connect other
    > computers either by CAT5 or through wireless.


    I have not had the pleasure of a "Verizon Card" ! I assume that its
    similar to an internal network card ?

    > In my Project, there is a computer that is connected to the 'net, and
    > I want to use that connection at other work stations. I plan on
    > leveraging the router, but I'm confused that I can make the
    > connections as I want ...


    As I said, just plug in a network cable. If you need more connections
    from the router then use a multi port switch.

    --
    Best Reagrds:
    Baron.
     
    Baron, Jun 19, 2008
    #7
  8. Jeff Strickland

    Guest

    On 19 Jun, 11:22, Baron <> wrote:
    <snip>
    > > The router is a wireless router, but it has 5 ports on it as well.
    > > Obviously one of the ports is the feed, and four of them are nodes. I
    > > think this makes a router handle traffic sorta like a hub, or allows
    > > hub-like configuration.

    >
    > No its a router !  Each port can handle anything from one machine upto
    > the maximum for that router.  My router "Draytec" has four ports.  Each
    > port can handle upto the maximum number of computers that the router
    > has address space.  In my case 1024 machines. Or 256 machines per port.


    <snip>


    he's right..
    according to what I have heard, these routers being sold with many
    ports , are not like cisco routers whose ports are router ports.

    The ports are ports of a switch (a switch is of course similar to a
    hub, so he's right in his general idea). I don't know where he gets
    his terminology of "feed" and "node" from though, or how he figured it
    out. It uses some kind of layer 3 switch, so it's not obvious. I only
    know 'cos that's what I keep hearing when chatting to people.
     
    , Jun 19, 2008
    #8
  9. Jeff Strickland

    Baron Guest

    wrote:

    > On 19 Jun, 11:22, Baron <> wrote:
    > <snip>
    >> > The router is a wireless router, but it has 5 ports on it as well.
    >> > Obviously one of the ports is the feed, and four of them are nodes.
    >> > I think this makes a router handle traffic sorta like a hub, or
    >> > allows hub-like configuration.

    >>
    >> No its a router !  Each port can handle anything from one machine
    >> upto the maximum for that router.  My router "Draytec" has four
    >> ports.  Each port can handle upto the maximum number of computers
    >> that the router has address space.  In my case 1024 machines. Or 256
    >> machines per port.

    >
    > <snip>
    >
    >
    > he's right..
    > according to what I have heard, these routers being sold with many
    > ports, are not like cisco routers whose ports are router ports.
    >
    > The ports are ports of a switch (a switch is of course similar to a
    > hub, so he's right in his general idea). I don't know where he gets
    > his terminology of "feed" and "node" from though, or how he figured it
    > out. It uses some kind of layer 3 switch, so it's not obvious. I only
    > know 'cos that's what I keep hearing when chatting to people.


    Hi James,

    I think there is some confusion in interpretation here !
    I suppose technically the ADSL/cable modem are both router and switch.
    If it were a hub then you wouldn't get the full 100 Mbs on each port
    where as with a switch you do. Having multiple ports is very
    convenient.

    --
    Best Regards:
    Baron.
     
    Baron, Jun 19, 2008
    #9
  10. Jeff Strickland

    Guest

    On Jun 19, 9:36 pm, Baron <> wrote:
    > wrote:
    > > On 19 Jun, 11:22, Baron <> wrote:
    > > <snip>
    > >> > The router is a wireless router, but it has 5 ports on it as well.
    > >> > Obviously one of the ports is the feed, and four of them are nodes.
    > >> > I think this makes a router handle traffic sorta like a hub, or
    > >> > allows hub-like configuration.

    >
    > >> No its a router !  Each port can handle anything from one machine
    > >> upto the maximum for that router.  My router "Draytec" has four
    > >> ports.  Each port can handle upto the maximum number of computers
    > >> that the router has address space.  In my case 1024 machines. Or 256
    > >> machines per port.

    >
    > > <snip>

    >
    > > he's right..
    > > according to what I have heard, these routers being sold with many
    > > ports, are not like cisco routers whose ports are router ports.

    >
    > > The ports are ports of a switch (a switch is of course similar to a
    > > hub, so he's right in his general idea).  I don't know where he gets
    > > his terminology of "feed" and "node" from though, or how he figured it
    > > out. It uses some kind of layer 3 switch, so it's not obvious. I only
    > > know 'cos that's what I keep hearing when chatting to people.

    >
    > Hi James,
    >
    > I think there is some confusion in interpretation here !
    > I suppose technically the ADSL/cable modem are both router and switch.  
    > If it were a hub then you wouldn't get the full 100 Mbs on each port
    > where as with a switch you do.  Having multiple ports is very
    > convenient.
    >
    > --



    how did you discern that it was switch ports and not router ports?

    some pro routers do have many (router) ports.
     
    , Jun 20, 2008
    #10
  11. Jeff Strickland

    Guest

    On Jun 20, 10:09 am, ""
    <> wrote:
    > On Jun 19, 9:36 pm, Baron <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > wrote:
    > > > On 19 Jun, 11:22, Baron <> wrote:
    > > > <snip>
    > > >> > The router is a wireless router, but it has 5 ports on it as well.
    > > >> > Obviously one of the ports is the feed, and four of them are nodes..
    > > >> > I think this makes a router handle traffic sorta like a hub, or
    > > >> > allows hub-like configuration.

    >
    > > >> No its a router !  Each port can handle anything from one machine
    > > >> upto the maximum for that router.  My router "Draytec" has four
    > > >> ports.  Each port can handle upto the maximum number of computers
    > > >> that the router has address space.  In my case 1024 machines. Or 256
    > > >> machines per port.

    >
    > > > <snip>

    >
    > > > he's right..
    > > > according to what I have heard, these routers being sold with many
    > > > ports, are not like cisco routers whose ports are router ports.

    >
    > > > The ports are ports of a switch (a switch is of course similar to a
    > > > hub, so he's right in his general idea).  I don't know where he gets
    > > > his terminology of "feed" and "node" from though, or how he figured it
    > > > out. It uses some kind of layer 3 switch, so it's not obvious. I only
    > > > know 'cos that's what I keep hearing when chatting to people.

    >
    > > Hi James,

    >
    > > I think there is some confusion in interpretation here !
    > > I suppose technically the ADSL/cable modem are both router and switch.  
    > > If it were a hub then you wouldn't get the full 100 Mbs on each port
    > > where as with a switch you do.  Having multiple ports is very
    > > convenient.

    >
    > > --

    >
    > how did you discern that it was switch ports and not router ports?
    >
    > some pro routers do have many (router) ports.- Hide quoted text -
    >


    I guess I am a bit rusty..

    I will try to correct myself

    The things known through marketing as ADSL modems, have a router
    inside, and a routing table, but connect to a switch on the outside of
    the box, using it to get the many ports
    ,
    the things known through marketing as Routers, are truly routers ,
    they have many router ports..


    L3 switch , apparently, is an improvement on a router, and differs
    only in the hardware, so, same logic, and indistinguishable from the
    outside.
    routing is a function, so hence I have heard that a L3 switch is a
    router. (based on http://compnetworking.about.com/od/hardwarenetworkgear/f/layer3switches.htm
    )


    The only IPs and subnet on a so-called ADSL/Cable modem, would be
    the 1 subnet it lets you define, and the ones sent out to computers
    vis DHCP.


    A Router (for home routers - those home routers with an ethernet WAN
    port instead of a modem telephone socket), are perhaps multiple
    port Routers / L3 switches. So those ports are from a functional
    perspective, Router ports. I guess, that like the pro routers, they
    let you configure the subnet at each port.

    The pro routers have always had many router ports I think.. (and I
    suppose they may even have an a telephone socket for a modem )

    The statement I have so often heard, that NAT Routers are not Routers,
    is I suppose completely false.
    The ADSL modem ones, have a router inside but many switch ports.
    The rest, those advertised as Routers, they really are Routers like
    any other..

    I don't know about NAT getting in the way.. I think it can be turned
    off and perhaps then the only difference between it and a professional
    cisco like router would be fine adjustments like enabling/disabling a
    port, more choices of routing protocols, choice of WAN ports (not just
    ethernet), ..


    .
     
    , Jun 20, 2008
    #11
  12. Jeff Strickland

    Baron Guest

    Inscribed thus:

    > On Jun 20, 10:09 am, ""
    > <> wrote:
    >> On Jun 19, 9:36 pm, Baron <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> > wrote:
    >> > > On 19 Jun, 11:22, Baron <>
    >> > > wrote: <snip>
    >> > >> > The router is a wireless router, but it has 5 ports on it as
    >> > >> > well. Obviously one of the ports is the feed, and four of them
    >> > >> > are nodes. I think this makes a router handle traffic sorta
    >> > >> > like a hub, or allows hub-like configuration.

    >>
    >> > >> No its a router !  Each port can handle anything from one
    >> > >> machine upto the maximum for that router.  My router "Draytec"
    >> > >> has four ports.  Each port can handle upto the maximum number of
    >> > >> computers that the router has address space.  In my case 1024
    >> > >> machines. Or 256 machines per port.

    >>
    >> > > <snip>

    >>
    >> > > he's right..
    >> > > according to what I have heard, these routers being sold with
    >> > > many ports, are not like cisco routers whose ports are router
    >> > > ports.

    >>
    >> > > The ports are ports of a switch (a switch is of course similar to
    >> > > a hub, so he's right in his general idea).  I don't know where he
    >> > > gets his terminology of "feed" and "node" from though, or how he
    >> > > figured it out. It uses some kind of layer 3 switch, so it's not
    >> > > obvious. I only know 'cos that's what I keep hearing when
    >> > > chatting to people.

    >>
    >> > Hi James,

    >>
    >> > I think there is some confusion in interpretation here !
    >> > I suppose technically the ADSL/cable modem are both router and
    >> > switch. If it were a hub then you wouldn't get the full 100 Mbs on
    >> > each port where as with a switch you do.  Having multiple ports is
    >> > very convenient.

    >>
    >> > --

    >>
    >> how did you discern that it was switch ports and not router ports?
    >>
    >> some pro routers do have many (router) ports.- Hide quoted text -
    >>

    >
    > I guess I am a bit rusty..
    >
    > I will try to correct myself


    Don't worry about it. Marketing tends to thrive on confusion !

    > The things known through marketing as ADSL modems, have a router
    > inside, and a routing table, but connect to a switch on the outside of
    > the box, using it to get the many ports
    > ,
    > the things known through marketing as Routers, are truly routers ,
    > they have many router ports..
    >
    >
    > L3 switch , apparently, is an improvement on a router, and differs
    > only in the hardware, so, same logic, and indistinguishable from the
    > outside. routing is a function, so hence I have heard that a L3 switch
    > is a router. (based on
    >

    http://compnetworking.about.com/od/hardwarenetworkgear/f/layer3switches.htm
    > )
    >
    >
    > The only IPs and subnet on a so-called ADSL/Cable modem, would be
    > the 1 subnet it lets you define, and the ones sent out to computers
    > vis DHCP.
    >
    >
    > A Router (for home routers - those home routers with an ethernet WAN
    > port instead of a modem telephone socket), are perhaps multiple
    > port Routers / L3 switches. So those ports are from a functional
    > perspective, Router ports. I guess, that like the pro routers, they
    > let you configure the subnet at each port.


    In my experience ADSL vis POTS and ADSL via WAN is very often just the
    same device but with a different input circuit !

    > The pro routers have always had many router ports I think.. (and I
    > suppose they may even have an a telephone socket for a modem )
    >
    > The statement I have so often heard, that NAT Routers are not Routers,
    > is I suppose completely false.


    NAT, Network address translation is a simple router function.

    > The ADSL modem ones, have a router inside but many switch ports.
    > The rest, those advertised as Routers, they really are Routers like
    > any other..
    >
    > I don't know about NAT getting in the way.. I think it can be turned
    > off and perhaps then the only difference between it and a professional
    > cisco like router would be fine adjustments like enabling/disabling a
    > port, more choices of routing protocols, choice of WAN ports (not just
    > ethernet), ..


    Turning off NAT would be the equivalent of bridging and in those
    circumstances the lan ports are a simple switch. The incoming IP would
    simply be passed on through the switch. Whatever was connected to the
    switch would have to do any routing if it was needed.

    With home networks little thought is needed to setup a network of
    multiple machines, just make sure that DHCP is turned on and plug them
    in.

    --
    Best Regards:
    Baron.
     
    Baron, Jun 20, 2008
    #12
  13. Jeff Strickland

    Guest

    On Jun 20, 2:44 pm, Baron <> wrote:
    > Inscribed thus:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Jun 20, 10:09 am, ""
    > > <> wrote:
    > >> On Jun 19, 9:36 pm, Baron <>
    > >> wrote:

    >
    > >> > wrote:
    > >> > > On 19 Jun, 11:22, Baron <>
    > >> > > wrote: <snip>
    > >> > >> > The router is a wireless router, but it has 5 ports on it as
    > >> > >> > well. Obviously one of the ports is the feed, and four of them
    > >> > >> > are nodes. I think this makes a router handle traffic sorta
    > >> > >> > like a hub, or allows hub-like configuration.

    >
    > >> > >> No its a router !  Each port can handle anything from one
    > >> > >> machine upto the maximum for that router.  My router "Draytec"
    > >> > >> has four ports.  Each port can handle upto the maximum number of
    > >> > >> computers that the router has address space.  In my case 1024
    > >> > >> machines. Or 256 machines per port.

    >
    > >> > > <snip>

    >
    > >> > > he's right..
    > >> > > according to what I have heard, these routers being sold with
    > >> > > many ports, are not like cisco routers whose ports are router
    > >> > > ports.

    >
    > >> > > The ports are ports of a switch (a switch is of course similar to
    > >> > > a hub, so he's right in his general idea).  I don't know where he
    > >> > > gets his terminology of "feed" and "node" from though, or how he
    > >> > > figured it out. It uses some kind of layer 3 switch, so it's not
    > >> > > obvious. I only know 'cos that's what I keep hearing when
    > >> > > chatting to people.

    >
    > >> > Hi James,

    >
    > >> > I think there is some confusion in interpretation here !
    > >> > I suppose technically the ADSL/cable modem are both router and
    > >> > switch. If it were a hub then you wouldn't get the full 100 Mbs on
    > >> > each port where as with a switch you do.  Having multiple ports is
    > >> > very convenient.

    >
    > >> > --

    >
    > >> how did you discern that it was switch ports and not router ports?

    >
    > >> some pro routers do have many (router) ports.- Hide quoted text -

    >
    > > I guess I am a bit rusty..

    >
    > > I will try to correct myself

    >
    > Don't worry about it.  Marketing tends to thrive on confusion !
    >
    > > The things known through marketing as ADSL modems, have a router
    > > inside, and a routing table, but connect to a switch on the outside of
    > > the box, using it to get the many ports
    > > ,
    > > the things known through marketing as Routers, are truly routers ,
    > > they have many router ports..

    >
    > > L3 switch , apparently, is an improvement on a router, and differs
    > > only in the hardware, so, same logic, and indistinguishable from the
    > > outside. routing is a function, so hence I have heard that a L3 switch
    > > is a router. (based on

    >
    > http://compnetworking.about.com/od/hardwarenetworkgear/f/layer3switch...
    >
    > >  )

    >
    > > The only IPs  and subnet on a so-called ADSL/Cable modem,  would be
    > > the 1 subnet it lets you define, and the ones sent out to computers
    > > vis DHCP.

    >
    > > A Router (for home routers - those home routers with an ethernet WAN
    > > port instead of a modem telephone socket), are perhaps  multiple
    > > port   Routers /  L3 switches. So those ports are from a functional
    > > perspective, Router ports.  I guess, that like the pro routers, they
    > > let you configure the subnet at each port.

    >
    > In my experience ADSL vis POTS and ADSL via WAN is very often just the
    > same device but with a different input circuit !
    >


    any examples of make/models of router-modems with full router
    functionality?

    From what I have seen, the router-modems switch ports.
    And from what I have heard. The routers without the modem, I suppose
    are routers, ports are router ports, you can define a subnet on each
    port. It routes between ports.


    > > The pro routers have always had many router ports I think..  (and I
    > > suppose they may even have an a telephone socket for a modem )

    >
    > > The statement I have so often heard, that NAT Routers are not Routers,
    > > is I suppose completely false.

    >
    > NAT, Network address translation is a simple router function.
    >


    certainly isn't.. no book or article would say so because it's false.
    NAT is a function and Routing is a function . just like DHCP is a
    function.

    They might put it all in the same box and throw a modem in there too,
    and call it a Router, but that doesn't make DHCP a router function ,
    it doesn't make a modem part of a router.

    The word router really applies to a function.

    Saying otherwise is getting confused by marketting.


    > > The ADSL modem ones, have a router inside but many switch ports.
    > > The rest, those advertised as Routers, they really are Routers like
    > > any other..

    >
    > > I don't know about NAT getting in the way.. I think it can be turned
    > > off and perhaps then the only difference between it and a professional
    > > cisco like router would be fine adjustments like enabling/disabling a
    > > port, more choices of routing protocols, choice of WAN ports (not just
    > > ethernet), ..

    >
    > Turning off NAT would be the equivalent of bridging and in those
    > circumstances the lan ports are a simple switch.  The incoming IP would
    > simply be passed on through the switch.  Whatever was connected to the
    > switch would have to do any routing if it was needed.
    >


    Regarding the "adsl modems", I can see how turning off NAT would make
    it just a bridge/switch.

    But regarding the "routers". I am sure people use them by connecting
    them to a " router- dsl modem box" Or, connecting them to a cable
    modem. And so in that situation, they do routing and don't do NAT.
    So you are turning NAT off, and it's not acting like a switch, it acts
    like a router. I think the things marketted as routers , their ports
    are router ports not switch ports. Unlike the things marketted as
    "adsl modems"

    <snip>
     
    , Jun 20, 2008
    #13
  14. Jeff Strickland

    Baron Guest

    wrote:

    >> NAT, Network address translation is a simple router function.

    >
    > certainly isn't.. no book or article would say so because it's false.
    > NAT is a function and Routing is a function . just like DHCP is a
    > function.


    I would disagree with you. NAT more accurately NAPT is a routing
    function and not strictly a function in its own right independent of
    routing. The two go hand in hand.

    > They might put it all in the same box and throw a modem in there too,
    > and call it a Router, but that doesn't make DHCP a router function ,


    I don't recall saying DHCP was a router function ! I did say :-
    "The other side of the router hands out addresses to the machines as
    they request them via DHCP."

    > it doesn't make a modem part of a router.


    I agree it doesn't !

    > The word router really applies to a function.
    >
    > Saying otherwise is getting confused by marketting.


    Thats what marketing is good at !

    --
    Best Regards:
    Baron.
     
    Baron, Jun 20, 2008
    #14
  15. "Baron" <> wrote in message
    news:g3dc00$hgh$...
    >
    > I have not had the pleasure of a "Verizon Card" ! I assume that its
    > similar to an internal network card ?
    >


    It's a cell-based card that gives a wifi connection -- I think it is wifi.
    The area is remote, and is not served by DSL or broadband. The owner
    formerly did a dial-up, but it was too slow. Now he gets online with a card
    from Verizon that leverages the cell service.


    Thanks for the information. It sounds as if it ought to be pretty straight
    forward.
     
    Jeff Strickland, Jun 21, 2008
    #15
  16. Jeff Strickland

    Baron Guest

    Jeff Strickland wrote:

    >
    > "Baron" <> wrote in message
    > news:g3dc00$hgh$...
    >>
    >> I have not had the pleasure of a "Verizon Card" ! I assume that its
    >> similar to an internal network card ?
    >>

    >
    > It's a cell-based card that gives a wifi connection -- I think it is
    > wifi. The area is remote, and is not served by DSL or broadband. The
    > owner formerly did a dial-up, but it was too slow. Now he gets online
    > with a card from Verizon that leverages the cell service.
    >
    >
    > Thanks for the information. It sounds as if it ought to be pretty
    > straight forward.


    Thankyou for that information ! Based on that then yes you are going to
    have to set up XP on machine "A" so that machine "B" gets its Internet
    feed from "A". Unfortunately you would have to do the same even if
    you setup a wireless access point on machine "A".

    We have a similar thing here where the mobile phone companies are trying
    to persuade people to surf the Internet at mobile phone rates. The
    download charge caps are quite low and people don't understand that
    they are going to be charged a hefty premium when they go over that !

    In some remote areas small businesses are setting up "WISP" to combat
    the problem of distance. Over good terrain 5 miles is easy 10 miles a
    bit more difficult. But its very much dependant upon how line of sight
    you can achieve between stations.

    If the Verizon card has an Ethernet socket on it in addition to its cell
    connection you may be able to get away with a cable between the two
    points. Although I suspect that a second Verizon card in machine "B"
    might be the lesser evil !

    Good Luck. Keep me informed of your progress, its an interesting
    issue !

    --
    Best Regards:
    Baron.
     
    Baron, Jun 21, 2008
    #16
  17. "Baron" <> wrote in message
    news:g3j83v$bi9$...
    > Jeff Strickland wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "Baron" <> wrote in message
    >> news:g3dc00$hgh$...
    >>>
    >>> I have not had the pleasure of a "Verizon Card" ! I assume that its
    >>> similar to an internal network card ?
    >>>

    >>
    >> It's a cell-based card that gives a wifi connection -- I think it is
    >> wifi. The area is remote, and is not served by DSL or broadband. The
    >> owner formerly did a dial-up, but it was too slow. Now he gets online
    >> with a card from Verizon that leverages the cell service.
    >>
    >>
    >> Thanks for the information. It sounds as if it ought to be pretty
    >> straight forward.

    >
    > Thankyou for that information ! Based on that then yes you are going to
    > have to set up XP on machine "A" so that machine "B" gets its Internet
    > feed from "A". Unfortunately you would have to do the same even if
    > you setup a wireless access point on machine "A".
    >
    > We have a similar thing here where the mobile phone companies are trying
    > to persuade people to surf the Internet at mobile phone rates. The
    > download charge caps are quite low and people don't understand that
    > they are going to be charged a hefty premium when they go over that !
    >
    > In some remote areas small businesses are setting up "WISP" to combat
    > the problem of distance. Over good terrain 5 miles is easy 10 miles a
    > bit more difficult. But its very much dependant upon how line of sight
    > you can achieve between stations.
    >
    > If the Verizon card has an Ethernet socket on it in addition to its cell
    > connection you may be able to get away with a cable between the two
    > points. Although I suspect that a second Verizon card in machine "B"
    > might be the lesser evil !
    >
    > Good Luck. Keep me informed of your progress, its an interesting
    > issue !



    Well, the second Verizon card is problematic, the fee approaches $70 per
    month. The card is typically used in laptops, where the user is not always
    able to stop by Starbucks to use the free Internet service they have.

    My guy has two PCs in the same room, and two or three other machines in
    another room. The distance between the machines is only 40-ish feet or less,
    so a wireless connection scheme will work nicely. The two machines that
    share the same room can be connected directly via a CAT5 cable, but then the
    other machines can't be connected -- assuming the Verizon service will
    tolerate networked connectivity. I can connect via CAT5 to the router, and
    then do a mix of CAT5 connections and wireless connections among the other
    machines. The key, it seems, is the ability of the Verizon card to tolerate
    a network running off of it. I don't know the QOS limitation, but it can't
    be very high.
     
    Jeff Strickland, Jun 21, 2008
    #17
  18. Jeff Strickland

    Joe J. Guest

    I'm out in the country and had AT&T WildBlue satellite connection for a
    while but the number of weather related outages was not acceptable. Not
    only with bad weather here but also at times at the uplink point. They also
    limited downloads based on speed and quantity. I switched to a Sprint
    mobile broadband card that I plug into a Kyocera router. Off of that, I
    have 3 PCs connected to the Net. 2 hard wired and one wireless. Been
    running that for 6 months now without outages, problems etc. Access costs
    me $59 per with unlimited time. Wish I would've know about this before I
    had the darn dish installed on the roof. Great thing is when I travel, I
    can just unplug the card and take it along with the laptop. No worries
    about wifi hot spots etc. As long as Sprint is in the area, I have
    Internet.
    Joe

    "Jeff Strickland" <> wrote in message
    news:Edb7k.128$cv5.67@trnddc01...
    >
    > "Baron" <> wrote in message
    > news:g3j83v$bi9$...
    >> Jeff Strickland wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> "Baron" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:g3dc00$hgh$...
    >>>>
    >>>> I have not had the pleasure of a "Verizon Card" ! I assume that its
    >>>> similar to an internal network card ?
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> It's a cell-based card that gives a wifi connection -- I think it is
    >>> wifi. The area is remote, and is not served by DSL or broadband. The
    >>> owner formerly did a dial-up, but it was too slow. Now he gets online
    >>> with a card from Verizon that leverages the cell service.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Thanks for the information. It sounds as if it ought to be pretty
    >>> straight forward.

    >>
    >> Thankyou for that information ! Based on that then yes you are going to
    >> have to set up XP on machine "A" so that machine "B" gets its Internet
    >> feed from "A". Unfortunately you would have to do the same even if
    >> you setup a wireless access point on machine "A".
    >>
    >> We have a similar thing here where the mobile phone companies are trying
    >> to persuade people to surf the Internet at mobile phone rates. The
    >> download charge caps are quite low and people don't understand that
    >> they are going to be charged a hefty premium when they go over that !
    >>
    >> In some remote areas small businesses are setting up "WISP" to combat
    >> the problem of distance. Over good terrain 5 miles is easy 10 miles a
    >> bit more difficult. But its very much dependant upon how line of sight
    >> you can achieve between stations.
    >>
    >> If the Verizon card has an Ethernet socket on it in addition to its cell
    >> connection you may be able to get away with a cable between the two
    >> points. Although I suspect that a second Verizon card in machine "B"
    >> might be the lesser evil !
    >>
    >> Good Luck. Keep me informed of your progress, its an interesting
    >> issue !

    >
    >
    > Well, the second Verizon card is problematic, the fee approaches $70 per
    > month. The card is typically used in laptops, where the user is not always
    > able to stop by Starbucks to use the free Internet service they have.
    >
    > My guy has two PCs in the same room, and two or three other machines in
    > another room. The distance between the machines is only 40-ish feet or
    > less, so a wireless connection scheme will work nicely. The two machines
    > that share the same room can be connected directly via a CAT5 cable, but
    > then the other machines can't be connected -- assuming the Verizon service
    > will tolerate networked connectivity. I can connect via CAT5 to the
    > router, and then do a mix of CAT5 connections and wireless connections
    > among the other machines. The key, it seems, is the ability of the Verizon
    > card to tolerate a network running off of it. I don't know the QOS
    > limitation, but it can't be very high.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
    Joe J., Jun 21, 2008
    #18
  19. Jeff Strickland

    Baron Guest

    Jeff Strickland wrote:

    >
    > "Baron" <> wrote in message
    > news:g3j83v$bi9$...
    >> Jeff Strickland wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> "Baron" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:g3dc00$hgh$...
    >>>>
    >>>> I have not had the pleasure of a "Verizon Card" ! I assume that
    >>>> its similar to an internal network card ?
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> It's a cell-based card that gives a wifi connection -- I think it is
    >>> wifi. The area is remote, and is not served by DSL or broadband. The
    >>> owner formerly did a dial-up, but it was too slow. Now he gets
    >>> online with a card from Verizon that leverages the cell service.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Thanks for the information. It sounds as if it ought to be pretty
    >>> straight forward.

    >>
    >> Thankyou for that information ! Based on that then yes you are going
    >> to have to set up XP on machine "A" so that machine "B" gets its
    >> Internet
    >> feed from "A". Unfortunately you would have to do the same even if
    >> you setup a wireless access point on machine "A".
    >>
    >> We have a similar thing here where the mobile phone companies are
    >> trying
    >> to persuade people to surf the Internet at mobile phone rates. The
    >> download charge caps are quite low and people don't understand that
    >> they are going to be charged a hefty premium when they go over that !
    >>
    >> In some remote areas small businesses are setting up "WISP" to combat
    >> the problem of distance. Over good terrain 5 miles is easy 10 miles
    >> a
    >> bit more difficult. But its very much dependant upon how line of
    >> sight you can achieve between stations.
    >>
    >> If the Verizon card has an Ethernet socket on it in addition to its
    >> cell connection you may be able to get away with a cable between the
    >> two
    >> points. Although I suspect that a second Verizon card in machine "B"
    >> might be the lesser evil !
    >>
    >> Good Luck. Keep me informed of your progress, its an interesting
    >> issue !

    >
    >
    > Well, the second Verizon card is problematic, the fee approaches $70
    > per month. The card is typically used in laptops, where the user is
    > not always able to stop by Starbucks to use the free Internet service
    > they have.
    >
    > My guy has two PCs in the same room, and two or three other machines
    > in another room. The distance between the machines is only 40-ish feet
    > or less, so a wireless connection scheme will work nicely. The two
    > machines that share the same room can be connected directly via a CAT5
    > cable, but then the other machines can't be connected -- assuming the
    > Verizon service will tolerate networked connectivity. I can connect
    > via CAT5 to the router, and then do a mix of CAT5 connections and
    > wireless connections among the other machines. The key, it seems, is
    > the ability of the Verizon card to tolerate a network running off of
    > it. I don't know the QOS limitation, but it can't be very high.


    I wonder if that is a problem in the UK, being able to connect a network
    to the cell network. Unfortunately I only know one person that has one
    of these cell Internet devices. His is a USB dongle that he can plug
    into any machine but as far as I am aware doesn't allow networking.

    I read the post from Joe J with interest, because he comments that he
    can plug his cell card into his Kyocera router. Now that would be the
    perfect solution to your connectivity issues.

    It would be interesting if Joe J could comment further about the type of
    connection, ie, is it USB and does the Kyocera treat the port like an
    ADSL or Cable one.

    --
    Best Regards:
    Baron.
     
    Baron, Jun 21, 2008
    #19
  20. Jeff Strickland

    Joe J. Guest

    Snip.
    >
    > I read the post from Joe J with interest, because he comments that he
    > can plug his cell card into his Kyocera router. Now that would be the
    > perfect solution to your connectivity issues.
    >
    > It would be interesting if Joe J could comment further about the type of
    > connection, ie, is it USB and does the Kyocera treat the port like an
    > ADSL or Cable one.
    >
    > --
    > Best Regards:
    > Baron.


    I use this router:

    http://www.kyocera-wireless.com/kr1-router/

    I use a Pantech PX 500 card to plug in.

    http://www.pantechusa.com/web/guest/px500

    Hope that helps.

    Joe J
     
    Joe J., Jun 21, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Charles Law
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,050
    Charles Law
    Sep 14, 2004
  2. Rush

    My Network Places | Entire Network ??

    Rush, Sep 21, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,841
  3. =?Utf-8?B?Ul9DX0Jyb3duX0py?=

    lost use of network printer connceted via wireless network after p

    =?Utf-8?B?Ul9DX0Jyb3duX0py?=, Nov 5, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,007
    =?Utf-8?B?Ul9DX0Jyb3duX0py?=
    Nov 5, 2004
  4. Bill Babakian

    Network did not assign network address

    Bill Babakian, Nov 21, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    12,998
    Bill Babakian
    Nov 21, 2004
  5. Lowly Engineer

    Network Timeout and Network Neighborhood question

    Lowly Engineer, Feb 21, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    739
    Lowly Engineer
    Feb 22, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page