Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Question for ppl with network tech knowledge ._.

Last response: in Networking
Share
May 16, 2011 1:05:47 AM

Hello all. So I live in a townhome complex, we are provided with free internet by a company called Frontier Communications. It's limited to a speed of about 125 kbps and thats if Im lucky, and the ping is 999 in games when I try to connect.

I logged into the router using the IP address, it has about 90-120 connections at any given time.

Can someone tell me what exactly this company would have to do in order to allow for proper gaming with a decent ping/latency?

Does this require more hardware, better hardware, different technology, what exactly would they have to do?
May 16, 2011 1:33:29 AM

Either provide the complex with a faster connection (both download an upload speeds) so it can handle the number of clients connected in the complex, or they could put multiple lines in the complex at the same speed they have the current one at, therefore connecting fewer homes to a single line.

It sounds like they have one net connection that branches off to every single home in the complex, and there simply isn't enough bandwidth to accommodate everyone.
m
0
l
May 16, 2011 6:04:25 PM

The_Prophecy said:
Either provide the complex with a faster connection (both download an upload speeds) so it can handle the number of clients connected in the complex, or they could put multiple lines in the complex at the same speed they have the current one at, therefore connecting fewer homes to a single line.

It sounds like they have one net connection that branches off to every single home in the complex, and there simply isn't enough bandwidth to accommodate everyone.


More bandwidth ay? I dont know if I mentioned it but the internet is wireless, not wired, so we all connect to a wireless thats provided by Frontier to our townhome circle place thing xD

My theory is that they can just basically up the speed to whatever they want (well, to an amount that the hardware limits them to), I believe that people are limited to ~ 125 kbps per device

What I dont get is, how can they make a connection where one device doesnt affect another?

For example, youre streaming Netflix, causing the other persons download that lives in your house to slow down.

How come when other people watch YouTube or download things, it doesnt affect the connection on our device?

Its a G wireless signal, if that says much. Is there any way we could have faster WIRELESS internet other than them installing an N router?

The more info I can get the better, Im really interested in networking as I plan to have it as my career in the future
m
0
l
Related resources
May 16, 2011 7:00:52 PM

You need more access ports. A wireless router will bog down with about 10 connections, it divides bandwidth among all of the connections, like a hub not like a switch. Plus the chip that controls it needs to process all the connections, and will just get overwhelmed with all the encrpytion/decryption of data and signal management.

In addition to the amount of clients, where the access point is will hugely affect speeds, unless you have it on your floor within a few walls away, you will have slow speeds.
m
0
l
May 16, 2011 8:38:35 PM

hang-the-9 said:
You need more access ports. A wireless router will bog down with about 10 connections, it divides bandwidth among all of the connections, like a hub not like a switch. Plus the chip that controls it needs to process all the connections, and will just get overwhelmed with all the encrpytion/decryption of data and signal management.

In addition to the amount of clients, where the access point is will hugely affect speeds, unless you have it on your floor within a few walls away, you will have slow speeds.


Well there are 90-120 devices connected at any given time, yet we each get about 120 kbps or so, not that much but enough to comfortably watch YouTube usually and make crappy Skype calls. What exactly would they have to do to improve the latency, not the speed?

Because I think 120 kbps is fine for gaming, its the latency thats the problem
m
0
l
May 17, 2011 1:35:56 PM

reaper2794 said:
Well there are 90-120 devices connected at any given time, yet we each get about 120 kbps or so, not that much but enough to comfortably watch YouTube usually and make crappy Skype calls. What exactly would they have to do to improve the latency, not the speed?

Because I think 120 kbps is fine for gaming, its the latency thats the problem

You have latency because wireless is a fairly overhead heavy protocol, and the access point is handeling several times more load that it was designed for.

For faster access they need to put in an access point for at least every 10 devices.
m
0
l
May 17, 2011 3:27:55 PM

hang-the-9 said:
You have latency because wireless is a fairly overhead heavy protocol, and the access point is handeling several times more load that it was designed for.

For faster access they need to put in an access point for at least every 10 devices.


I see, so an access point is what exactly? A router, switch, hub?

Would they have to put in lets say like 9 routers for 90 people? How would you have all 9 routers go to the same network?

Or is it not routers?
m
0
l
May 17, 2011 7:35:17 PM

Acces Point is a wireless connection point that the laptop actually connect to. It may be a router, but in a large setup they are usually just used for wireless connection and don't have any or the other functions that a router does. I guess you can call it a wireless hub of sorts.

As you add a AP to the network you configure it to connect to an existing network, usually through an ethernet cable for speed.
m
0
l
May 17, 2011 7:43:07 PM

hang-the-9 said:
Acces Point is a wireless connection point that the laptop actually connect to. It may be a router, but in a large setup they are usually just used for wireless connection and don't have any or the other functions that a router does. I guess you can call it a wireless hub of sorts.

As you add a AP to the network you configure it to connect to an existing network, usually through an ethernet cable for speed.


So what is the name of the device that they need to put in, the access points, what kind of device would they have to put in? What do they exactly do?

Because there's hubs, switches, routers, there's the devices that mirror/extend the wifi signal, I dont know the difference between them so yeah :( 

and I would assume since routers have a/b/g/n the different kinds of 802.11 protocol, I would assume the access points would also have these? Because this wireless network connection is 802.11g which is lame :( 
m
0
l
May 18, 2011 8:38:43 AM

They need to redo the networking setup period. Its looking like they have one broadband connection to a SOHO router that may or may not include a wireless AP function (AP might be a separate device). This is fine for a single home but is crazy for an apartment complex. They would need to place several wireless access points (WAP) around the entire facility, at least one per home / floor / wing. Each of these WAP's need to be wired back to a central switch that is connected to their router. They should be using a small to medium business class router and not a small SOHO one.

This seems like alot but it's what is required to properly offer network services to so many nodes. Their current configuration is simply not adequate for the task, but you get what you pay for.
m
0
l
May 18, 2011 12:13:09 PM

palladin9479 said:
They need to redo the networking setup period. Its looking like they have one broadband connection to a SOHO router that may or may not include a wireless AP function (AP might be a separate device). This is fine for a single home but is crazy for an apartment complex. They would need to place several wireless access points (WAP) around the entire facility, at least one per home / floor / wing. Each of these WAP's need to be wired back to a central switch that is connected to their router. They should be using a small to medium business class router and not a small SOHO one.

This seems like alot but it's what is required to properly offer network services to so many nodes. Their current configuration is simply not adequate for the task, but you get what you pay for.


I see, yeah it's really a bummer because the deal is this. We live in the townhomes, but I mean Im sure we pay for this crap internet through our rent anyway, obviously they make money off of it, it's just required either way, so we're being scammed practically.

I want to get internet, the problem is it's so damn expensive here in Rochester NY, there's only Frontier and Time Warner, Frontier gives embarrassingly low speeds and crap service and Time Warner charges you way too much

It's $55 + tax for 10 Mbps down / 384 kbps up, and $65 + tax for 15 Mbps down / 1 Mbps up

In MN, we'd get 7 Mbps down / 5 Mbps up for just like ~ $35 bucks or so, and the tax in NY is pretty damn high too

I wish we could get a cheaper price... kinda hard to convince the 'rents...
m
0
l
May 18, 2011 1:39:26 PM

reaper2794 said:
So what is the name of the device that they need to put in, the access points, what kind of device would they have to put in? What do they exactly do?

Because there's hubs, switches, routers, there's the devices that mirror/extend the wifi signal, I dont know the difference between them so yeah :( 

and I would assume since routers have a/b/g/n the different kinds of 802.11 protocol, I would assume the access points would also have these? Because this wireless network connection is 802.11g which is lame :( 


Whoever runs the network would have to figure this out, they'd know how to get it setup. I can't say what they need because I don't kow what they have now or how the infrastructure is, or anything.
m
0
l
May 19, 2011 1:22:44 AM

reaper2794 said:
I see, yeah it's really a bummer because the deal is this. We live in the townhomes, but I mean Im sure we pay for this crap internet through our rent anyway, obviously they make money off of it, it's just required either way, so we're being scammed practically.

I want to get internet, the problem is it's so damn expensive here in Rochester NY, there's only Frontier and Time Warner, Frontier gives embarrassingly low speeds and crap service and Time Warner charges you way too much

It's $55 + tax for 10 Mbps down / 384 kbps up, and $65 + tax for 15 Mbps down / 1 Mbps up

In MN, we'd get 7 Mbps down / 5 Mbps up for just like ~ $35 bucks or so, and the tax in NY is pretty damn high too

I wish we could get a cheaper price... kinda hard to convince the 'rents...


Yeah I'm amazed at how much you guys in the states get screwed over on your internet. Here in South Korea (I'm an American working over here) in my apartment building we get 100Mbps Down / 100 Mbps Up for $30 USD a month. Basically the apartments are already wired with CAT-5 and they just plug you into their switch. Each apartment building has multiple 1Gbps fiber lines running to each of the three major ISPs. On a typical day I'll get 80~90 Mbps down and 60~70 Mbps up.
m
0
l
May 19, 2011 4:36:06 AM

There are a lot worse pricing areas in the U.S. for sure. Here in northwest Kansas my internet plan is a basic 3 Mbps download DSL and is nearly $50 per month. The fastest available internet speed is 6 Mbps DSL for $65 per month.

There are a couple things that make me wonder if they're truly just using some basic wireless router to try and run everyone in the apartment complex. First, it seems like they have some kind of load-balancing, quality-of-service, or IP based throttling going on if everyone truly only being allocated 128kb per device (which just may be the speed available per device after all of the congruent connections.) Not all simple home wireless routers have that kind of feature. The second thing is, how big is your apartment complex or building? I find it hard to imagine that a single wireless router has the range to cover the entire complex. It may be that they are actually using multiple chained WAP or wireless routers functioning as WAP to be able to cover the whole place.

But yes, as stated above about the only fix would be fore them to install multiple new WAP all connecting to a high-speed switch and then to a single primary router onto the internet. Here's the next problem though. While this whole thing could run off a single 15 Mbps connection, after you split that bandwidth between about 100 people you're pretty much running at the same speed you currently are, perhaps less. What you'd really have to do is have several WAP devices connection to several routers each with a dedicated internet connection. Let's say they had three 15 Mbps connections going to three routers, each of which run three WAP devices. This now is becoming a very expensive set up with a higher monthly cost, and in the end you're still only getting about 300 kbps faster than you already have.
m
0
l
!