how-to block ads
|
JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
San Jose, CA
 ·Comcast
| reply to Eug
Re: I'm shocked at how well Powerline Networking works (Netgear)
I was shocked how BAD it was in my house.
Same room, same circuit, new part of house was OK
Same room, same circuit, old (50 year old) part of house no link
Different room, same circuit, old part of house no link
Etc...
So, if I put two units 10' apart on brand new wiring on the same circuit, it indeed could replace a $2 Cat5e cable with $120 worth of power using gear. Needless to say it went back to the store. For me, 802.11n was able to deliver what the 2nd gen poweline ethernet could not.
But like the other poster said, congrats to you! I expect it does work well in clean, new wiring.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us | |
ChiTang
Premium,MVM
join:2002-08-23
Alhambra, CA
| Regardless whether it works or not, I am happy if it semi works. In big house, I use those to extend another wirless AP. If powerline adpaptor works, use it, if not, use wireless. Nothing works in all situations, just getting to know your gears and us them the best they can offer.
--
I used to be indecisive, now I am not sure. | |
Jahntassa
What, I can have feathers
Premium
join:2006-04-14
Conway, SC
| I've had it work successfully in a couple of houses. But, there are a lot of factors that can make it not work.
Still, if you're looking for a way to get ethernet where there is none, it's a good thing to try out. I especially like the version where you can put one adapter near your wired router and the other adapter is an 802.11g access point. | |
Eug
join:2007-04-14
Toronto, ON
4 edits | reply to JohnInSJ
said by ChiTang  :May be the newer one overcome this shortcoming, I always have a hard time using those adaptors over 2 different electric panels (same house). Good for you. Which model did you use?
said by JohnInSJ :I was shocked how BAD it was in my house. Same room, same circuit, new part of house was OK Same room, same circuit, old (50 year old) part of house no link Different room, same circuit, old part of house no link Were you using older hardware? Or the same hardware as me?
But yeah. The part of the house where my home office is located was built in the 90s, and the part of the house where my garage is located was built less than 5 years ago. So all is pretty new copper wiring. No aluminum.
I will also note that my speeds would decrease dramatically if I used a power bar. I had to plug the units directly into the wall, or else use a non-filtered extension cord.
said by Jahntassa :Still, if you're looking for a way to get ethernet where there is none, it's a good thing to try out. I especially like the version where you can put one adapter near your wired router and the other adapter is an 802.11g access point. The HDX101 line does not have any such adapter unfortunately. However, what I'm just doing is plugging in an access point to several of the HDX101s. Same result, except with two pieces instead of one. My topology is as follows.
Office: This is where my DSL router and my source HDX101 unit live. Fully covered by 802.11g, since it's built into my DSL router.
Living room (one floor below office): HDX101 for stereo system. No need for wireless router because wireless from the office is strong here. However, I tried using an Airport Express to stream music here and to provide a net connection to my HDDVD player, but I find it kinda flaky. I'm going to try using the HDX101 wired to the Airport Express instead for music streaming. I've briefly had it connected up to my HD DVD player, and the powerline bridge to it is rock solid (which it wasn't when I used the Airport Express to bridge the connection.)
Garage (in new part of house): HDX101 and 802.11g access point. (The wireless from the office is too weak to be reliable. It usually seems to work with my MacBook, but won't work with my iBook or iPhone.)
Bedroom (in new part of house): HDX101 and 802.11g access point. Wireless from the office is too weak for anything. Even my MacBook can't see the office WiFi here.
Here is a topology map.
You'll note that the wireless networks overlap considerably, but that's fine because that way I don't have any dead spots or unreliable connections. Also, it works out that I "just" need 3 access points, which is perfect. 802.11g has three independent and non-overlapping channels: 1, 6, 11 and consequently those are the three channels I'm using.
--
Everything Apple | |
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
| reply to Jahntassa
said by Jahntassa :I've had it work successfully in a couple of houses. But, there are a lot of factors that can make it not work. I think this is the real reason why powerline networking isn't very successful. Some people have good luck getting things to work, even in less then idea situations. That appears to be the case with Eug .
I think many more people have had so-so or worse luck, like how JohnInSJ reports.
People just want their technology to work. So no matter how great something could be, if it's not consistent or work overwhelmingly consistently, the technology is doomed to collect dust on a shelf somewhere. | |
Eug
join:2007-04-14
Toronto, ON
4 edits | These guys need to improve interoperability, and advertising
There are two other issues:
1) Incompatible "standards". Mine works well, but is incompatible with anything else out there, even from the same company.
2) Older hardware. I betcha the vast majority of the people who have written off power line networking have not used the latest equipment. Judging by the "few" reports out there, the newer 200 Mbps equipment (of various flavours) is not only significantly faster, but may also be more reliable.
I've found very few people happy with the 14 Mbps power line networking gear, but more are happy with 85 Mbps. However, because of the cost and the less than stellar reviews of 85 Mbps gear, I waited. When some of the reviews of 200 Mbps gear came out positive and when the cost came down, I decided to give it a whirl. And, I'm very happy I did.
Related to all of this is the fact that the technology alliances can't seem to get things out in a timely fashion. IIRC, one of the reasons that Netgear went with an incompatible 200 Mbps standard initially was because the so-called "approved standard" took forever to actually come out. Technology politics and bureaucracy are to blame I'm sure, not just the technology itself.
It's this kind of dawdling which may have killed HomePNA once and for all. When I got HPNA 2.0 hardware, I was overjoyed, as it Just Worked. I anxiously waited for HPNA 3 hardware to come out... and waited... and waited... and waited. It was perpetually around the corner. It's available now, but it's almost impossible to find the stuff, and it's expensive. Even powerline networking hardware is much more common to find than HPNA 3 hardware. A few of my local computer shops have at least some flavours of powerline networking. None have any sort of HPNA hardware at all.
P.S. As for getting the technology to just work, I will have to say that powerline networking... for me... works WAY better than WiFi ever has. I've been on WiFi since the early 802.11b days. In fact, I saw a demo of 802.11b on Apple iBooks at a tech mag sponsored party before the iBooks or any other 802.11b hardware were even released. Still I've always found WiFi to be a struggle, because of wireless range, hardware compatibility, and connection reliability.
--
Everything Apple | |
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC | I'm also interested in HPNA v3 or the new MoCA gear but can't find the stuff anywhere. Looks like AT&T (HPNA) and Verizon (MoCA) are snapping up all the gear for their rollouts. | |
huyvu
join:2001-03-25 | reply to Eug
Eug - can I ask where you picked up your refurbs? I've seen the 85Mbps models for about $35 but not your models. I'm getting by with the older 14Mbps but there's not enough bandwidth to streaming MP3s and pics. | |
Eug
join:2007-04-14
Toronto, ON
4 edits | reply to Matt
Major HNPA rollouts
said by Matt :I'm also interested in HPNA v3 or the new MoCA gear but can't find the stuff anywhere. Looks like AT&T (HPNA) and Verizon (MoCA) are snapping up all the gear for their rollouts. Hmmm... Interesting. I was not aware of this. (We don't have anything comparable happening in Canada.)
Hopefully this will ensure the widespread use of this type of hardware. Both HNPA 3.0 and MoCA seem to have a lot of potential. I had just given up on them since it has taken so long for anything to show up in the retail channel... and because I wanted something now.
BTW, I found this article from last year on AT&T's plans.
AT&T seems to think that powerline is faster but less reliable. I could see that. What I do think is ironic though is that AT&T thinks that wireless is the worst of the three. Ironic because nowadays, wireless is almost ubiquitous and it's quite cheap, yet it's still considered the worst.  I've now used HPNA 2, powerline 200 Mbps, and 802.11g, and I'd have to agree, wireless is by far the most irritating to get working properly.
said by huyvu :Eug - can I ask where you picked up your refurbs? I've seen the 85Mbps models for about $35 but not your models. I'm getting by with the older 14Mbps but there's not enough bandwidth to streaming MP3s and pics. I got mine of eBay. I have already received four, and I am waiting for 2 more. I sent you the link via PM/email.
P.S. I will have 5 powerline adapters in active use. (One of those 6 will be a backup.) Of the four I currently have plugged in, one of them is actually for my Airport Express for music streaming. My wireless signal is quite strong where the AE is located, but the AE itself simply is not that reliable over wireless (which is stupid, because that's its #1 job and marketing description). So, I'm using the powerline networking there instead, and turning off the AE's wireless completely. With the AE plugged into the powerline networking adapter via Ethernet, the connection for iTunes streaming is 100% solid. (I've only tested it a few days now though so YMMV, but it's definitely more reliable than the AE over wireless.)
--
Everything Apple | |
-
|
