Discussion:
Router
(too old to reply)
David E. Ross
2018-04-17 00:48:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
How long should a router last? Mine is over two years old. Twice
today, I had to reboot it in order to access any Web pages.
--
David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>

First you say you do, and then you don't.
And then you say you will, but then won't.
You're undecided now, so what're you goin' to do?
From a 1950s song
That should be Donald Trump's theme song. He obviously
does not understand "commitment", whether it is about
policy or marriage.
Good Guy
2018-04-17 00:52:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David E. Ross
How long should a router last? Mine is over two years old. Twice
today, I had to reboot it in order to access any Web pages.
Russians must have attacked your machine. They know your intelligence
is below average so they decided to take their chance and they succeeded!!
Post by David E. Ross
/--- This email has been checked for viruses by
Windows Defender software.
//https://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/windows/comprehensive-security/
--
With over 600 million devices now running Windows 10, customer
satisfaction is higher than any previous version of windows.
ken1943
2018-04-17 00:59:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 17:48:12 -0700, "David E. Ross"
Post by David E. Ross
How long should a router last? Mine is over two years old. Twice
today, I had to reboot it in order to access any Web pages.
There is no time limit. It can last anywhere from 1 day to ~. Consumer
routers are not the best buy in comparison to commercial ones.
I had ones last a year and a Zyxel last over 4 years.
Sounds like yours could be on the edge but, one never knows.
Paul in Houston TX
2018-04-17 01:20:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David E. Ross
How long should a router last? Mine is over two years old. Twice
today, I had to reboot it in order to access any Web pages.
Most of my cheap mass produced switches lasted about 2-3 years.
I threw out a box of defective ones last year.
I've never had one just quit, they just get more flakey as time goes on.

My current TP-Link 8970 is still going at 4 years but I took the top cover
off when I got it, glued a large heat sink onto the main chip, and hung the
rest of it on the wall. I've never had one just quit, they seem to get more
flakey as time goes on.

The industrial ones that we install are still going strong after 10-15 years
in the hot, damp, freezing, bugs, lightning, etc, but they are mostly 100 mbit
and far beyond my price range.
Bob_S
2018-04-17 01:56:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David E. Ross
How long should a router last? Mine is over two years old. Twice
today, I had to reboot it in order to access any Web pages.
Other have answered how long. The question is - why did you have to reboot
it?

A voltage spike could have corrupted your firmware. Go to the manufacturers
site and download and install the latest firmware for that model.

You *should* do a factory reset before installing new firmware so be sure
you know what the manufactures default username, password and the IP address
so you can login.

Notice I said should but first try doing a firmware update without resetting
or doing a factory reset. Be sure to make a backup of your present settings
so they can be imported again if the firmware update blows away your
existing settings.

Then if that doesn't work, fallback to doing the factory reset, upload the
new firmware and then make any changes you need (username, password, SSID,
security settings) or try importing the old settings from the backup.

Strange as it may sound, some routers will not import settings that you made
a backup of after doing a firmware update. Asus routers are known for this
and a few models of LinkSys. They state it's due to security updates within
the firmware update that prevents importing saved settings so be prepared to
reenter them manually.
--
Bob S.
Paul
2018-04-17 02:48:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David E. Ross
How long should a router last? Mine is over two years old. Twice
today, I had to reboot it in order to access any Web pages.
Sometimes, it's the wall adapter.

Paul
Sjouke Burry
2018-04-17 04:07:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David E. Ross
How long should a router last? Mine is over two years old. Twice
today, I had to reboot it in order to access any Web pages.
My first router lasted 12 years. A Speed Touch it was called.
Paul
2018-04-17 05:31:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sjouke Burry
Post by David E. Ross
How long should a router last? Mine is over two years old. Twice
today, I had to reboot it in order to access any Web pages.
My first router lasted 12 years. A Speed Touch it was called.
Some examples here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpeedTouch

In the picture of the opened up one, you can see some electrolytic
caps. You can see five big ones and two small ones. Those are the
kinds of things you inspect for leaking or orange stains on top.

That particular one is weird, in that the wall adapter creates
a voltage that is higher than the thing needs, then it goes to
all the trouble of having those internal power circuits on the
left. In effect, it's doubly regulated.

Paul
Stephen
2018-04-17 18:45:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul
Post by Sjouke Burry
Post by David E. Ross
How long should a router last? Mine is over two years old. Twice
today, I had to reboot it in order to access any Web pages.
My first router lasted 12 years. A Speed Touch it was called.
Some examples here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpeedTouch
In the picture of the opened up one, you can see some electrolytic
caps. You can see five big ones and two small ones. Those are the
kinds of things you inspect for leaking or orange stains on top.
That particular one is weird, in that the wall adapter creates
a voltage that is higher than the thing needs, then it goes to
all the trouble of having those internal power circuits on the
left. In effect, it's doubly regulated.
And if it lasted 12 years - that is a pretty good justification for
the "over" engineering......
Post by Paul
Paul
--
Stephen
Mark Lloyd
2018-04-17 22:18:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 04/17/2018 01:45 PM, Stephen wrote:

[snip]
Post by Stephen
And if it lasted 12 years - that is a pretty good justification for
the "over" engineering......
Paul
The router I used to have (Linksys WRT54G) might have lasted 12 years. I
had to get a new one because of a higher internet speed (50M, when that
old router was limited to about 15M).
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Experience is not what happens to you; its what you do with what
happens to you." - NW
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-04-17 08:42:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David E. Ross
How long should a router last? Mine is over two years old. Twice
today, I had to reboot it in order to access any Web pages.
It's pot luck. My dynamode R-ADSL-C4-W-G1 was the cheapest with wifi
that I could find, and I bought it when the default router supplied by
my ISP was a _non_-wireless one, however long ago that was. It has been
on power since less than a year after I bought it, and has given little
trouble: I do have to reboot it occasionally, but rarely enough that I
don't consider it a problem. I have obtained another router (of a
different model0 in case it ever fails, but it shows no signs of doing
so ATM.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of
them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for
science intact. - Carl Sagan (interview w. Psychology Today published '96-1-1)
Art Todesco
2018-04-17 12:11:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David E. Ross
How long should a router last? Mine is over two years old. Twice
today, I had to reboot it in order to access any Web pages.
When you say router, do you mean DSL or Cable / router? My DSL / router
had to be rebooted several time yesterday and the day before ... not
because of the router itself, but because something upstream went down.
If I would have waited, it would have recovered itself, but a reboot
gets service back much faster. Also, and most importantly, my
DSL/router will not route when DSL goes down. So, you can't even get
from one computer to another during a DSL hiccup or outage. What a
great design! And my guess is that others suffer similar problems.
David E. Ross
2018-04-17 14:49:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Art Todesco
Post by David E. Ross
How long should a router last? Mine is over two years old. Twice
today, I had to reboot it in order to access any Web pages.
When you say router, do you mean DSL or Cable / router? My DSL / router
had to be rebooted several time yesterday and the day before ... not
because of the router itself, but because something upstream went down.
If I would have waited, it would have recovered itself, but a reboot
gets service back much faster. Also, and most importantly, my
DSL/router will not route when DSL goes down. So, you can't even get
from one computer to another during a DSL hiccup or outage. What a
great design! And my guess is that others suffer similar problems.
All that seems to describe a modem, not a router. Once you get a
connection to the Internet via a modem, a LAN's router should not care
how that connection was obtained.

See my <http://www.rossde.com/computer/LAN.html>.
--
David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>

First you say you do, and then you don't.
And then you say you will, but then won't.
You're undecided now, so what're you goin' to do?
From a 1950s song
That should be Donald Trump's theme song. He obviously
does not understand "commitment", whether it is about
policy or marriage.
Ken Blake
2018-04-17 15:13:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 07:49:49 -0700, "David E. Ross"
Post by David E. Ross
Post by Art Todesco
Post by David E. Ross
How long should a router last? Mine is over two years old. Twice
today, I had to reboot it in order to access any Web pages.
When you say router, do you mean DSL or Cable / router? My DSL / router
had to be rebooted several time yesterday and the day before ... not
because of the router itself, but because something upstream went down.
If I would have waited, it would have recovered itself, but a reboot
gets service back much faster. Also, and most importantly, my
DSL/router will not route when DSL goes down. So, you can't even get
from one computer to another during a DSL hiccup or outage. What a
great design! And my guess is that others suffer similar problems.
All that seems to describe a modem, not a router.
As I said in another message moments ago, he was talking about a
device that's a combination of a router and modem.
Post by David E. Ross
Once you get a
connection to the Internet via a modem, a LAN's router should not care
how that connection was obtained.
Right.
Post by David E. Ross
See my <http://www.rossde.com/computer/LAN.html>.
Almost identical to my setup here, except for my having three devices
you apparently don't--a scanner connected to my computer, a second
printer connected to my wife's computer, and a VoIP device connected
to the router.

One other difference: Besides my router being connected to both
computers via ethernet cables, it also has Wi-Fi capability. So I also
connect to the internet on my smart phone via the router.
Char Jackson
2018-04-17 15:47:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 07:49:49 -0700, "David E. Ross"
Post by David E. Ross
Post by Art Todesco
Post by David E. Ross
How long should a router last? Mine is over two years old. Twice
today, I had to reboot it in order to access any Web pages.
When you say router, do you mean DSL or Cable / router? My DSL / router
had to be rebooted several time yesterday and the day before ... not
because of the router itself, but because something upstream went down.
If I would have waited, it would have recovered itself, but a reboot
gets service back much faster. Also, and most importantly, my
DSL/router will not route when DSL goes down. So, you can't even get
from one computer to another during a DSL hiccup or outage. What a
great design! And my guess is that others suffer similar problems.
All that seems to describe a modem, not a router. Once you get a
connection to the Internet via a modem, a LAN's router should not care
how that connection was obtained.
See my <http://www.rossde.com/computer/LAN.html>.
"Our PCs form a LAN by communicating through a router."

I know what you mean by that, but it's not technically correct. Within
your LAN, the PCs communicate through a switch. The switch is probably
included in the device commonly referred to as a router, but intraLAN
communications don't touch the router section of the router. ;-)
--
Char Jackson
Ken Blake
2018-04-17 16:10:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 07:49:49 -0700, "David E. Ross"
"Our PCs form a LAN by communicating through a router."
I know what you mean by that, but it's not technically correct. Within
your LAN, the PCs communicate through a switch. The switch is probably
included in the device commonly referred to as a router, but intraLAN
communications don't touch the router section of the router. ;-)
Thanks for that clarification, which I also didn't know.

I've long known that there are three different kinds of devices:
switches, hubs, and routers, but if it's ever been clear to me what
the differences are, I had forgotten.

And I don't think I ever knew that a switch was part of a router.

Can you point me to a web site that clearly explains the differences
between these devices?
Char Jackson
2018-04-17 16:32:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Ken Blake
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 07:49:49 -0700, "David E. Ross"
"Our PCs form a LAN by communicating through a router."
I know what you mean by that, but it's not technically correct. Within
your LAN, the PCs communicate through a switch. The switch is probably
included in the device commonly referred to as a router, but intraLAN
communications don't touch the router section of the router. ;-)
Thanks for that clarification, which I also didn't know.
switches, hubs, and routers, but if it's ever been clear to me what
the differences are, I had forgotten.
Don't forget bridges.
Post by Ken Blake
And I don't think I ever knew that a switch was part of a router.
The thing we call a router is actually a 2-port router connected to a
5-port switch via a bridge. The WAN interface of the router is brought
out and presented as an Ethernet jack, while the LAN side of the router
is internally connected to one side of the bridge. The other side of the
bridge is internally connected to one of the switch ports, and the rest
of the switch ports are brought out as LAN Ethernet jacks. If there's a
WiFi radio, it's also connected on the LAN side of the bridge.

In the old days, you could buy a Linksys BEFSR11, which was *only* the
2-port router section, so externally all you had were a WAN port, a LAN
port, and a power port. You were probably expected to supply your own
switch, which is what I did.

Pretty early on, someone decided it would be good to add a switch to the
router, connected to the LAN side of the router by a bridge, and they
didn't stop there. Now we have router packages with WiFi radio(s), print
servers, one or more USB ports, file servers, DHCP server, and of course
why not throw in a cable modem, too. It's vegetable stew.
Post by Ken Blake
Can you point me to a web site that clearly explains the differences
between these devices?
Besides Wikipedia, www.practicallynetworked.com has been solid over the
years. This link might be just what you want to get started:
http://www.practicallynetworked.com/networking/bridge_types.htm
--
Char Jackson
Char Jackson
2018-04-17 17:31:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Char Jackson
Besides Wikipedia, www.practicallynetworked.com has been solid over the
http://www.practicallynetworked.com/networking/bridge_types.htm
Now that I'm actually reading that last link, it sounds like it was
written ~20+ years ago. It could stand to be updated.
--
Char Jackson
Ken Blake
2018-04-17 21:11:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Char Jackson
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Ken Blake
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 07:49:49 -0700, "David E. Ross"
"Our PCs form a LAN by communicating through a router."
I know what you mean by that, but it's not technically correct. Within
your LAN, the PCs communicate through a switch. The switch is probably
included in the device commonly referred to as a router, but intraLAN
communications don't touch the router section of the router. ;-)
Thanks for that clarification, which I also didn't know.
switches, hubs, and routers, but if it's ever been clear to me what
the differences are, I had forgotten.
Don't forget bridges.
Yep. Although I knew that name too, I had forgotten to mention it.
Post by Char Jackson
Post by Ken Blake
And I don't think I ever knew that a switch was part of a router.
The thing we call a router is actually a 2-port router connected to a
5-port switch via a bridge. The WAN interface of the router is brought
out and presented as an Ethernet jack, while the LAN side of the router
is internally connected to one side of the bridge. The other side of the
bridge is internally connected to one of the switch ports, and the rest
of the switch ports are brought out as LAN Ethernet jacks. If there's a
WiFi radio, it's also connected on the LAN side of the bridge.
In the old days, you could buy a Linksys BEFSR11, which was *only* the
2-port router section, so externally all you had were a WAN port, a LAN
port, and a power port. You were probably expected to supply your own
switch, which is what I did.
Pretty early on, someone decided it would be good to add a switch to the
router, connected to the LAN side of the router by a bridge, and they
didn't stop there. Now we have router packages with WiFi radio(s), print
servers, one or more USB ports, file servers, DHCP server, and of course
why not throw in a cable modem, too. It's vegetable stew.
Post by Ken Blake
Can you point me to a web site that clearly explains the differences
between these devices?
Besides Wikipedia, www.practicallynetworked.com has been solid over the
http://www.practicallynetworked.com/networking/bridge_types.htm
Thanks very much. No time now, but I'll read it when I get a chance.
Brian Gregory
2018-04-18 19:00:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
<snip>
Thanks for that clarification, which I also didn't know.
switches, hubs, and routers, but if it's ever been clear to me what
the differences are, I had forgotten.
Here router is a common shorthand for something that, at least if we're
talking about the normal IPv4 internet will contain a something to do
NAT (network address translation) possibly with extra firewall features,
and optionally a switch, one or more Wi-Fi access point(s) and in some
cases a modem.

A better name for it in my opinion is "gateway" or "residential gateway".

The trouble with calling this a router is that "a router" is also the
name of the "nodes" that form part of the Internet infrastructure and
accept packets and direct them each onward down the correct connection
to get the their destinations efficiently.
And I don't think I ever knew that a switch was part of a router.
If it accepts multiple wired connections on the LAN side there will be a
switch (or effectively be) a switch inside it, unless it's really
ancient and has a hub instead.
Can you point me to a web site that clearly explains the differences
between these devices?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_switch

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethernet_hub
(hubs are obsolete technology, everyone uses switches now)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residential_gateway

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_address_translation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Router_(computing)
--
Brian Gregory (in England).
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-04-18 19:24:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Gregory
<snip>
Thanks for that clarification, which I also didn't know.
switches, hubs, and routers, but if it's ever been clear to me what
the differences are, I had forgotten.
Here router is a common shorthand for something that, at least if we're
talking about the normal IPv4 internet will contain a something to do
NAT (network address translation) possibly with extra firewall
features, and optionally a switch, one or more Wi-Fi access point(s)
and in some cases a modem.
I'd forgotten about the NAT translation and firewall aspects.
Post by Brian Gregory
A better name for it in my opinion is "gateway" or "residential gateway".
The trouble with calling this a router is that "a router" is also the
name of the "nodes" that form part of the Internet infrastructure and
accept packets and direct them each onward down the correct connection
to get the their destinations efficiently.
I'm with you, but I fear that ship has flown (!): in both UK and US,
"router" is now common parlance for "the box I connect to my 'phone
line, to which my laptops and smartphones connect wirelessly to get to
the internet". Plenty of dinosaur pedants like you and I don't like it,
but it's too late.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Everybody's throwing dinner parties, cooking this, baking that... Food has
eaten television here. - Sam Neill (RT 2014/10/11-17)
Rene Lamontagne
2018-04-18 19:40:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Gregory
<snip>
Thanks for that clarification, which I also didn't know.
switches, hubs, and routers, but if it's ever been clear to me what
the differences are, I had forgotten.
Here router is a common shorthand for something that, at least if we're
talking about the normal IPv4 internet will contain a something to do
NAT (network address translation) possibly with extra firewall features,
and optionally a switch, one or more Wi-Fi access point(s) and in some
cases a modem.
A better name for it in my opinion is "gateway" or "residential gateway".
The trouble with calling this a router is that "a router" is also the
name of the "nodes" that form part of the Internet infrastructure and
accept packets and direct them each onward down the correct connection
to get the their destinations efficiently.
And I don't think I ever knew that a switch was part of a router.
If it accepts multiple wired connections on the LAN side there will be a
switch (or effectively be) a switch inside it, unless it's really
ancient and has a hub instead.
Can you point me to a web site that clearly explains the differences
between these devices?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_switch
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethernet_hub
(hubs are obsolete technology, everyone uses switches now)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residential_gateway
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_address_translation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Router_(computing)
OK, Mine is a *Cisco dpc3848v Residential Wireless Gateway*.
right from the Cisco manual.

Rene
Ken Blake
2018-04-17 14:59:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Art Todesco
Post by David E. Ross
How long should a router last? Mine is over two years old. Twice
today, I had to reboot it in order to access any Web pages.
When you say router, do you mean DSL or Cable / router? My DSL / router
had to be rebooted several time yesterday and the day before ... not
You are not talking about a router, but about a device that's a
combination of a router and a "modem." Although it's possible that he
meant something similar to what you have, he asked about a router.

Personally I use separate devices: a router and a modem. Whether
router/modem, printer/scanner, or anything else, I always prefer to
avoid combination devices, since if one part fails, you need to
replace both.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-04-17 21:14:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <***@4ax.com>, Ken Blake
<***@invalid.news.com> writes:
[]
Post by Ken Blake
Personally I use separate devices: a router and a modem. Whether
router/modem, printer/scanner, or anything else, I always prefer to
avoid combination devices, since if one part fails, you need to
replace both.
On the whole I agree with you, but we accept some combinations these
days: video monitors with inbuilt tuner/decoder/audio-amp (we call that
a TV set), microwave oven with integrated timer ... in computing,
motherboard with IDE/SATA controller, sound, in many cases graphics. The
cost saving - not to mention reduction in number of boxes - sometimes
outweighs the inconvenience of only part failing. Here in UK at least,
what most people refer to as a "router" is a combination ADSL MoDem,
ethernet hub/switch/router/whatever, and wifi interface (these days the
wifi part is tending to be two band).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"The right to be heard does not include the right to be taken seriously."
- Hubert H. Humphrey
Ken Blake
2018-04-17 23:23:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 22:14:46 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Ken Blake
Personally I use separate devices: a router and a modem. Whether
router/modem, printer/scanner, or anything else, I always prefer to
avoid combination devices, since if one part fails, you need to
replace both.
On the whole I agree with you, but we accept some combinations these
days: video monitors with inbuilt tuner/decoder/audio-amp (we call that
a TV set), microwave oven with integrated timer ... in computing,
motherboard with IDE/SATA controller, sound, in many cases graphics. The
cost saving - not to mention reduction in number of boxes - sometimes
outweighs the inconvenience of only part failing.
Yes, for example I still remember having a stereo system consisting of
two separate power amplifiers, two separate preamplifiers and an FM
tuner. But these days, if such separate devices are still available,
they are too pricey for me, and almost all of us (including me) have a
single device (usually called a receiver), that does all of them.

And it's not always only a matter of cost savings or number of boxes.
Sometimes the separate devices aren't available
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Here in UK at least,
what most people refer to as a "router" is a combination ADSL MoDem,
ethernet hub/switch/router/whatever, and wifi interface (these days the
wifi part is tending to be two band).
And in the US, there are also many people who do the same thing. One
day they may turn out to be right, and only combination devices will
be available. But that day hasn't come yet, and as far as I'm
concerned, calling such a combination a router is still wrong, and is
likely to confuse many people.

I keep seeing messages from people who say they are unable to scan an
image with their printer and are looking for help. My guess is that
they are talking a combination printer/scanner, but I'm never sure. I
sometimes think they may be talking about a printer, and don't realize
that a scanner isn't part of it.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-04-18 09:49:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 22:14:46 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Ken Blake
Personally I use separate devices: a router and a modem. Whether
router/modem, printer/scanner, or anything else, I always prefer to
avoid combination devices, since if one part fails, you need to
replace both.
On the whole I agree with you, but we accept some combinations these
days: video monitors with inbuilt tuner/decoder/audio-amp (we call that
a TV set), microwave oven with integrated timer ... in computing,
motherboard with IDE/SATA controller, sound, in many cases graphics. The
cost saving - not to mention reduction in number of boxes - sometimes
outweighs the inconvenience of only part failing.
[]
Post by Ken Blake
And it's not always only a matter of cost savings or number of boxes.
Sometimes the separate devices aren't available
Indeed.
Post by Ken Blake
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Here in UK at least,
what most people refer to as a "router" is a combination ADSL MoDem,
ethernet hub/switch/router/whatever, and wifi interface (these days the
wifi part is tending to be two band).
And in the US, there are also many people who do the same thing. One
day they may turn out to be right, and only combination devices will
Or (and arguably this may already be the case), they may be right
because the language has changed. (I hate it, as it usually results in a
loss of distinction, but we can't fight language changes. I know; my
brother is associate editor on the Dictionary, so we're well familiar
with how the language changes.)
Post by Ken Blake
be available. But that day hasn't come yet, and as far as I'm
concerned, calling such a combination a router is still wrong, and is
likely to confuse many people.
And help some unscrupulous sellers, who may sell a real router-only to
people who think they're getting a MoDem/router, and/or something with
wifi in it, but don't know enough to check.
Post by Ken Blake
I keep seeing messages from people who say they are unable to scan an
image with their printer and are looking for help. My guess is that
they are talking a combination printer/scanner, but I'm never sure. I
sometimes think they may be talking about a printer, and don't realize
that a scanner isn't part of it.
Indeed. And you also remind me of the time when one or two printer
manufacturers sold a head, that could be fitted to their printer instead
of the print head, and turned it into a scanner!

(I've recently obtained a _mouse_-like device - actually it works as
just a mouse without the special software - that can scan; you basically
scribble with it on whatever you're trying to scan. LG smart scan. I was
expecting the results it produced to be very poor, full of lines and
mismatches [I bought it just because of its extreme portability], but
I'm actually very impressed with the results.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Who can refute a sneer? - Archdeacon Paley, in his book Moral Philosophy
Ken Blake
2018-04-18 15:32:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 10:49:42 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Ken Blake
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 22:14:46 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Ken Blake
Personally I use separate devices: a router and a modem. Whether
router/modem, printer/scanner, or anything else, I always prefer to
avoid combination devices, since if one part fails, you need to
replace both.
On the whole I agree with you, but we accept some combinations these
days: video monitors with inbuilt tuner/decoder/audio-amp (we call that
a TV set), microwave oven with integrated timer ... in computing,
motherboard with IDE/SATA controller, sound, in many cases graphics. The
cost saving - not to mention reduction in number of boxes - sometimes
outweighs the inconvenience of only part failing.
[]
Post by Ken Blake
And it's not always only a matter of cost savings or number of boxes.
Sometimes the separate devices aren't available
Indeed.
Post by Ken Blake
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Here in UK at least,
what most people refer to as a "router" is a combination ADSL MoDem,
ethernet hub/switch/router/whatever, and wifi interface (these days the
wifi part is tending to be two band).
And in the US, there are also many people who do the same thing. One
day they may turn out to be right, and only combination devices will
Or (and arguably this may already be the case), they may be right
because the language has changed. (I hate it, as it usually results in a
loss of distinction, but we can't fight language changes. I know; my
brother is associate editor on the Dictionary, so we're well familiar
with how the language changes.)
There's no question about language changing. It always has. To take a
single example related to the points under discussion, what almost all
of us call a modem these days wouldn't have been called a modem just a
few years ago. A modem was a device that converted analog signals to
digital and vice versa. So a DSL or cable "modem," both of which are
all digital, isn't really a modem.


For a while, I resisted, and refused to call such things modems, but
I've given up. The change has happened, and almost everyone, including
me, now call them modems.

I'm perhaps in the minority, but even though I know it's going to
happen, I always try to resist language change happening too fast; it
results in people getting confused.
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Ken Blake
be available. But that day hasn't come yet, and as far as I'm
concerned, calling such a combination a router is still wrong, and is
likely to confuse many people.
And help some unscrupulous sellers, who may sell a real router-only to
people who think they're getting a MoDem/router, and/or something with
wifi in it, but don't know enough to check.
Yes.
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Ken Blake
I keep seeing messages from people who say they are unable to scan an
image with their printer and are looking for help. My guess is that
they are talking a combination printer/scanner, but I'm never sure. I
sometimes think they may be talking about a printer, and don't realize
that a scanner isn't part of it.
Indeed. And you also remind me of the time when one or two printer
manufacturers sold a head, that could be fitted to their printer instead
of the print head, and turned it into a scanner!
Interesting. I don't think I have ever seen or heard of such a device.
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
(I've recently obtained a _mouse_-like device - actually it works as
just a mouse without the special software - that can scan; you basically
scribble with it on whatever you're trying to scan. LG smart scan. I was
expecting the results it produced to be very poor, full of lines and
mismatches [I bought it just because of its extreme portability], but
I'm actually very impressed with the results.)
A couple of weeks ago, while I was at his home taking a guitar lesson,
my guitar teacher "scanned" a page of music for me--with his smart
phone. Actually he took a photo of it, but the result was almost
indistinguishable from a scanned page.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-04-18 19:42:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <***@4ax.com>, Ken Blake
<***@invalid.news.com> writes:
[]
Post by Ken Blake
There's no question about language changing. It always has. To take a
single example related to the points under discussion, what almost all
of us call a modem these days wouldn't have been called a modem just a
few years ago. A modem was a device that converted analog signals to
digital and vice versa. So a DSL or cable "modem," both of which are
all digital, isn't really a modem.
I think the device that connects to my 'phone line is still (or still
contains) a modulator/demodulator; I think the signals that are on the
'phone line are not digital signals. They don't extend down to DC or
even below a few kHz, since the ordinary 'phone still uses that part of
the band. What form of modulation is used, I'm not sure: I think it is
some sort of multi-carrier multiphase, but it isn't pure digital.
Post by Ken Blake
For a while, I resisted, and refused to call such things modems, but
I've given up. The change has happened, and almost everyone, including
me, now call them modems.
I'm perhaps in the minority, but even though I know it's going to
happen, I always try to resist language change happening too fast; it
results in people getting confused.
Me too. I still call an AA or AAA a cell, for example. I don't _really_
know why I bother though.
[]
Post by Ken Blake
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Indeed. And you also remind me of the time when one or two printer
manufacturers sold a head, that could be fitted to their printer instead
of the print head, and turned it into a scanner!
Interesting. I don't think I have ever seen or heard of such a device.
Here's one https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/323207097387
https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2047675.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0.H0.XIS12+scanner+cartridge.TRS0&_nkw=IS12+scanner+cartridge&_sa
cat=0
Post by Ken Blake
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
(I've recently obtained a _mouse_-like device - actually it works as
just a mouse without the special software - that can scan; you basically
scribble with it on whatever you're trying to scan. LG smart scan. I was
expecting the results it produced to be very poor, full of lines and
mismatches [I bought it just because of its extreme portability], but
I'm actually very impressed with the results.)
A couple of weeks ago, while I was at his home taking a guitar lesson,
my guitar teacher "scanned" a page of music for me--with his smart
phone. Actually he took a photo of it, but the result was almost
indistinguishable from a scanned page.
The cameras in even the better smartphones these days are capable of
excellent such results: my cousin who was over here for a couple of
months doing genealogical research imaged several documents with her
'phone, and I was most impressed with the results.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Everybody's throwing dinner parties, cooking this, baking that... Food has
eaten television here. - Sam Neill (RT 2014/10/11-17)
Wolf K
2018-04-18 22:12:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-04-18 15:42, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[...]
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
The cameras in even the better smartphones these days are capable of
excellent such results: my cousin who was over here for a couple of
months doing genealogical research imaged several documents with her
'phone, and I was most impressed with the results.
My Samsung Galaxy S5 phone (4 years old) is my favourite camera. It
handles even low-light situations remarkably well. Better than the Canon
Elph-100 (7 years old), the A700 (12) years old, or the SX20 (6 years
old). And it takes awesome 720p or 1080p video. But you do have to be
careful not to cover or shield the mic with your hand.

To produce technically better photos, I'd have to go to one of the
full-frame SLRs, I think. Of course that's no guarantee the photos will
be superior aesthetically. :-)

The other advantage of phone cameras is the ease with which images can
be shared via email, etc. The newest SLRs now boast that feature,
too.There are a number of apps that utilise the camera, such as online
cheque deposit. I don't bank online, but if I did, I'd use that app.
--
Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.com
"The next conference for the time travel design team will be held two
weeks ago."
Wolf K
2018-04-18 13:44:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 22:14:46 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Ken Blake
Personally I use separate devices: a router and a modem. Whether
router/modem, printer/scanner, or anything else, I always prefer to
avoid combination devices, since if one part fails, you need to
replace both.
On the whole I agree with you, but we accept some combinations these
days: video monitors with inbuilt tuner/decoder/audio-amp (we call that
a TV set), microwave oven with integrated timer ... in computing,
motherboard with IDE/SATA controller, sound, in many cases graphics. The
cost saving - not to mention reduction in number of boxes - sometimes
outweighs the inconvenience of only part failing.
Yes, for example I still remember having a stereo system consisting of
two separate power amplifiers, two separate preamplifiers and an FM
tuner. But these days, if such separate devices are still available,
they are too pricey for me, and almost all of us (including me) have a
single device (usually called a receiver), that does all of them.
And it's not always only a matter of cost savings or number of boxes.
Sometimes the separate devices aren't available
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Here in UK at least,
what most people refer to as a "router" is a combination ADSL MoDem,
ethernet hub/switch/router/whatever, and wifi interface (these days the
wifi part is tending to be two band).
And in the US, there are also many people who do the same thing. One
day they may turn out to be right, and only combination devices will
be available. But that day hasn't come yet, and as far as I'm
concerned, calling such a combination a router is still wrong, and is
likely to confuse many people.
Like pother technical terms seeping into common usage, "router" has its
limited meaning only in tech talk. Besides, as devices interconnect more
and more completely, the "router" on the main screen will handle
everything in the house.
Post by Ken Blake
I keep seeing messages from people who say they are unable to scan an
image with their printer and are looking for help. My guess is that
they are talking a combination printer/scanner, but I'm never sure. I
sometimes think they may be talking about a printer, and don't realize
that a scanner isn't part of it.
Combinations usually have the advantage of a single, integrated design,
which is often better than separate boxes. Not to mention space-saving. :-)

I have a stand-alone scanner only because I need to scan films and
slides, and the all-in-ones don't include that feature. But their
document and photo scans are more than good enough for most people's needs.

Footnote: A receiver-amplifier that I owned for many years had an input
for a TV antenna and an output for the TV. I have no idea what the
designers were thinking: better fringe reception, probably. Or better
performance than with a signal splitter. Never used it.

Best,
--
Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.com
"The next conference for the time travel design team will be held two
weeks ago."
Mark Lloyd
2018-04-18 14:06:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 04/18/2018 08:44 AM, Wolf K wrote:

[snip]
Post by Wolf K
Footnote: A receiver-amplifier that I owned for many years had an input
for a TV antenna and an output for the TV. I have no idea what the
designers were thinking: better fringe reception, probably. Or better
performance than with a signal splitter. Never used it.
Best,
The FM band is located between TV channels 6 and 7, so the same antenna
can be used for FM and VHF-TV. I have seen some old antenna splitters
that have outputs for VHF, UHF, and FM (all 300-ohm balanced). However,
this is the first time I've heard of a receiver with a splitter built in.

BTW, I can remember when my father watched an opera on channel 13 (the
PBS station there), and the audio was broadcast on an FM station at the
same time.
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"The initial word does not lie within the province of the theologian,
but of the historian and the psychologist. [Hugh J. Schonfield,
_The_Passover_Plot_]
Tim Slattery
2018-04-18 18:03:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Lloyd
The FM band is located between TV channels 6 and 7
Is that still true in the digital era? In the pre-digital era, there
were FM radio receivers that would tune right through the TV bands as
well as FM broadcast, and be able to get TV channel sound, since the
sound was broadcast in FM. That certainly wouldn't work anymore. I was
under the impression that the digital TV frequencies were not the same
as the analogue ones - bit I'm not at all sure.
Post by Mark Lloyd
BTW, I can remember when my father watched an opera on channel 13 (the
PBS station there), and the audio was broadcast on an FM station at the
same time.
Oh absolutely, PBS stations used to simulcast things like that, before
TVs got high-quality stereo sound.
--
Tim Slattery
tim <at> risingdove <dot> com
Mark Lloyd
2018-04-19 16:20:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim Slattery
Post by Mark Lloyd
The FM band is located between TV channels 6 and 7
Is that still true in the digital era? In the pre-digital era, there
were FM radio receivers that would tune right through the TV bands as
well as FM broadcast, and be able to get TV channel sound, since the
sound was broadcast in FM. That certainly wouldn't work anymore. I was
under the impression that the digital TV frequencies were not the same
as the analogue ones - bit I'm not at all sure.
AFAIK, they are the same frequencies (other than that them seem to be
dropping those above channel 36.

Channel 7 here used 10 for digital broadcast as long as they could do
analog too, then went back to 7.

BTW, we seem to have lost a local COZI station.

In 1978 I lived in an area that had a TV channel 6. I knew some people
who would listen to it on their FM radios (low end of the dial).

Another thing about frequencies, cable midband (14-22) fills up the hole
between the FM band and channel 7. I used to get cable channel 22 on an
old non-cable-ready TV by setting it to 7 and misadjusting the fine tuning.

[snip]
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"What shall we do with...the Jews?...I advise that safe-conduct on the
highways be abolished completely for the Jews." [Martin Luther]
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-04-19 21:32:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Lloyd
Post by Tim Slattery
Post by Mark Lloyd
The FM band is located between TV channels 6 and 7
Except in UK, unlike the rest of EU (and I think USA), we haven't had
VHF TV (bands I and III; FM, 88-108 MHz, is Band II) since they stopped
the 405-line transmissions. Our TV is UHF only, starting at channel 21;
originally about 470-850 MHz, but they keep giving away large chunks at
the top end to the mobile industry, so we've lost a couple of 100-MHz
chunks from the top end.
Post by Mark Lloyd
Post by Tim Slattery
Is that still true in the digital era? In the pre-digital era, there
were FM radio receivers that would tune right through the TV bands as
well as FM broadcast, and be able to get TV channel sound, since the
sound was broadcast in FM. That certainly wouldn't work anymore. I was
under the impression that the digital TV frequencies were not the same
as the analogue ones - bit I'm not at all sure.
In UK, it's still divided into the same 8-MHz-wide channels; a DTV
multiplex occupies one of those, where a single analogue channel
(including its sound) did before. (Used to be a 6 MHz video channel,
transmitted as VSB - vestigial sideband - so somewhat over 6 MHz from
the bottom of the vestigial sideband to the top of the main one, then an
FM sound channel 6 MHz away, then latterly a NICAM channel a bit further
up. A DTV multiplex is many individual carriers, but occupy about the
same spectrum; for convenience they're still referred to by the original
channel numbers.) I'm not sure about the rest of EU or the USA; I know
the EU sound carrier was 5.5 rather than 6 from the video one, but I
_think_ the overall UHF bandplan was still divided into the same 8 MHz
channels and still is.
Post by Mark Lloyd
AFAIK, they are the same frequencies (other than that them seem to be
dropping those above channel 36.
Channel 7 here used 10 for digital broadcast as long as they could do
analog too, then went back to 7.
The LCNs (logical channel numbers) now used on DTV now bear no relation
to the actual frequencies - the UHF channels - the multiplexes - being
used for broadcast. (For a start, one DTV multiplex carries about half a
dozen channels, in one old UHF channel. And in UK at least, the five or
so national multiplexes are actually on different UHF
channels/frequencies in different parts of the country.)
Post by Mark Lloyd
BTW, we seem to have lost a local COZI station.
In 1978 I lived in an area that had a TV channel 6. I knew some people
who would listen to it on their FM radios (low end of the dial).
Another thing about frequencies, cable midband (14-22) fills up the
hole between the FM band and channel 7. I used to get cable channel 22
on an old non-cable-ready TV by setting it to 7 and misadjusting the
fine tuning.
[snip]
I think those will be VHF.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Who came first? Adam or Eve?" "Adam of course; men always do."
Victoria Wood (via Peter Hesketh)
Paul
2018-04-20 05:19:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Mark Lloyd
Post by Tim Slattery
Post by Mark Lloyd
The FM band is located between TV channels 6 and 7
Except in UK, unlike the rest of EU (and I think USA), we haven't had
VHF TV (bands I and III; FM, 88-108 MHz, is Band II) since they stopped
the 405-line transmissions. Our TV is UHF only, starting at channel 21;
originally about 470-850 MHz, but they keep giving away large chunks at
the top end to the mobile industry, so we've lost a couple of 100-MHz
chunks from the top end.
Post by Mark Lloyd
Post by Tim Slattery
Is that still true in the digital era? In the pre-digital era, there
were FM radio receivers that would tune right through the TV bands as
well as FM broadcast, and be able to get TV channel sound, since the
sound was broadcast in FM. That certainly wouldn't work anymore. I was
under the impression that the digital TV frequencies were not the same
as the analogue ones - bit I'm not at all sure.
In UK, it's still divided into the same 8-MHz-wide channels; a DTV
multiplex occupies one of those, where a single analogue channel
(including its sound) did before. (Used to be a 6 MHz video channel,
transmitted as VSB - vestigial sideband - so somewhat over 6 MHz from
the bottom of the vestigial sideband to the top of the main one, then an
FM sound channel 6 MHz away, then latterly a NICAM channel a bit further
up. A DTV multiplex is many individual carriers, but occupy about the
same spectrum; for convenience they're still referred to by the original
channel numbers.) I'm not sure about the rest of EU or the USA; I know
the EU sound carrier was 5.5 rather than 6 from the video one, but I
_think_ the overall UHF bandplan was still divided into the same 8 MHz
channels and still is.
Post by Mark Lloyd
AFAIK, they are the same frequencies (other than that them seem to be
dropping those above channel 36.
Channel 7 here used 10 for digital broadcast as long as they could do
analog too, then went back to 7.
The LCNs (logical channel numbers) now used on DTV now bear no relation
to the actual frequencies - the UHF channels - the multiplexes - being
used for broadcast. (For a start, one DTV multiplex carries about half a
dozen channels, in one old UHF channel. And in UK at least, the five or
so national multiplexes are actually on different UHF
channels/frequencies in different parts of the country.)
Post by Mark Lloyd
BTW, we seem to have lost a local COZI station.
In 1978 I lived in an area that had a TV channel 6. I knew some people
who would listen to it on their FM radios (low end of the dial).
Another thing about frequencies, cable midband (14-22) fills up the
hole between the FM band and channel 7. I used to get cable channel 22
on an old non-cable-ready TV by setting it to 7 and misadjusting the
fine tuning.
[snip]
I think those will be VHF.
We use 6MHz here, and perhaps that's a difference between PAL and NTSC ?

This is our old band plan. It now apparently stops at channel 50, the rest
being given away. And these are physical channels, which are not the same
as virtual channel numbers that the TV set might use. These frequencies are
very valuable, due to their building penetration properties. And the "cellphone
people" are willing to pay more for this than the "TV people" :-) In Canada,
I'm not aware of the government auctioning off channel 51+, but our band
plan is unified with the US one (due to populations along the border).

UHF TELEVISION FREQUENCIES (new usage starts at 700MHz or so...)

CH # FREQUENCY CH # FREQUENCY CH # FREQUENCY

14 470-476 Mhz 38 614-620 Mhz 62 758-764 Mhz
15 476-482 Mhz 39 620-626 Mhz 63 764-770 Mhz
16 482-488 Mhz 40 626-632 Mhz 64 770-776 Mhz
17 488-494 Mhz 41 632-638 Mhz 65 776-782 Mhz
18 494-500 Mhz 42 638-644 Mhz 66 782-788 Mhz
19 500-506 Mhz 43 644-650 Mhz 67 788-794 Mhz
20 506-512 Mhz 44 650-656 Mhz 68 794-800 Mhz
21 512-518 Mhz 45 656-662 Mhz 69 800-806 Mhz
22 518-524 Mhz 46 662-668 Mhz 70 806-812 Mhz
23 524-530 Mhz 47 668-674 Mhz 71 812-818 Mhz
24 530-536 Mhz 48 674-680 Mhz 72 818-824 Mhz
25 536-542 Mhz 49 680-686 Mhz 73 824-830 Mhz
26 542-548 Mhz __50 686-692 Mhz__ 74 830-836 Mhz
27 548-554 Mhz 51 692-698 Mhz 75 836-842 Mhz
28 554-560 Mhz 52 698-704 Mhz * 76 842-848 Mhz
29 560-566 Mhz 53 704-710 Mhz 77 848-854 Mhz
30 566-572 Mhz 54 710-716 Mhz 78 854-860 Mhz
31 572-578 Mhz 55 716-722 Mhz 79 860-866 Mhz
32 578-584 Mhz 56 722-728 Mhz 80 866-872 Mhz
33 584-590 Mhz 57 728-734 Mhz 81 872-878 Mhz
34 590-596 Mhz 58 734-740 Mhz 82 878-884 Mhz
35 596-602 Mhz 59 740-746 Mhz 83 884-890 Mhz
36 602-608 Mhz 60 746-752 Mhz
37 608-614 Mhz 61 752-758 Mhz

BAND CH # FREQUENCY BAND CH # FREQUENCY

VHF LOW 02 54-60 MHz VHF HIGH 07 174-180 MHz
VHF LOW 03 60-66 MHz VHF HIGH 08 180-186 MHz
VHF LOW 04 66-72 MHz VHF HIGH 09 186-192 MHz
VHF LOW 05 76-82 MHz VHF HIGH 10 192-198 MHz
VHF LOW 06 82-88 MHz VHF HIGH 11 198-204 MHz
VHF HIGH 12 204-210 MHz
(88MHz to 108MHz FM) VHF HIGH 13 210-216 MHz

In VLC, if using the TV tuner feature, I type in the higher
of those two numbers (for "210-216", I would type in 216000000).
But that only works in Linux (the Windows side doesn't work).
In Linux, you use w_scan to find what frequencies are active,
then type the number into VLC :-) Kooky or what ? But it is
possible to watch TV that way, with a DTV tuner card or tuner dongle.

*******

There's a picture here, of VHF usage versus the FM band. Our FM
band is still in service.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_channel_frequencies

Paul
Ken Blake
2018-04-18 15:37:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wolf K
Post by Ken Blake
I keep seeing messages from people who say they are unable to scan an
image with their printer and are looking for help. My guess is that
they are talking a combination printer/scanner, but I'm never sure. I
sometimes think they may be talking about a printer, and don't realize
that a scanner isn't part of it.
Combinations usually have the advantage of a single, integrated design,
which is often better than separate boxes.
I've never seen such an integrated device that I thought was better
than separate boxes. In what respect do you find them better?
Post by Wolf K
Not to mention space-saving. :-)
Yes, and that can be significant to some people. Not to me, though; my
desk has enough room for both.
Wolf K
2018-04-18 16:49:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Wolf K
Post by Ken Blake
I keep seeing messages from people who say they are unable to scan an
image with their printer and are looking for help. My guess is that
they are talking a combination printer/scanner, but I'm never sure. I
sometimes think they may be talking about a printer, and don't realize
that a scanner isn't part of it.
Combinations usually have the advantage of a single, integrated design,
which is often better than separate boxes.
I've never seen such an integrated device that I thought was better
than separate boxes. In what respect do you find them better?
Not too many years ago, I had a copier, a scanner, and a printer. None
of them did as good a job as the two all-in-ones I have now (Epson
colour inkjet, Brother b/w laser, which actually scans in colour. I
guess it's cheaper to inventory a single copy/scan engine and use
firmware to produce the b/w copies).

Around the same time, I bought a dedicated 35mm film/slide scanner.
(IIRC, it was an Optrex, or some similar name). The carriers handled
four slides or up to six negatives. One button operation. Awful results
compared to the flatbed Canon doc+film/slide scanner I have now.

BTW, flatbed scanners are becoming rare. That's because they all-in-ones
do a better job than the older flatbeds.
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Wolf K
Not to mention space-saving. :-)
Yes, and that can be significant to some people. Not to me, though; my
desk has enough room for both.
--
Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.com
"The next conference for the time travel design team will be held two
weeks ago."
Ken Blake
2018-04-19 00:12:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wolf K
BTW, flatbed scanners are becoming rare. That's because they all-in-ones
do a better job than the older flatbeds.
Not in my experience. And it's hard to copy a page in a book with one.
I use and like my Canon flatbed.
David E. Ross
2018-04-18 18:25:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wolf K
Combinations usually have the advantage of a single, integrated design,
which is often better than separate boxes. Not to mention space-saving. :-)
When Southern California Edison had a power failure -- something that
seems to happen any time of the year without regard to the weather -- my
router died from the power spike; but my modem was unaffected. Both
were plugged into the same surge suppressor. I only had to replace the
router.

Over the years, my routers and modems have never failed at the same
time. If the modem fails, I must replace it to have Internet service.
If the router fails, however, I can plug my PC (or my wife's, but not
both) into the modem to have Internet service before the router is
replaced.

Likewise, I have replaced my printer without replacing my scanner. I
definitely would not use a combination printer-fax since I can fax
directly from my PC via a dongle phone modem.

Not only do I avoid integrated hardware but also (to a lesser extent)
integrated software. Integrated software has been a major path for
malware infections, facilitating the propagation from E-mail, through a
browser, and into the operating system. While I have Microsoft's
Windows 7 and Office, I use a Mozilla-based browser and E-mail
application. I use Nirsoft's file-management applications in place of
those in Windows and Acronis True Image in place of the Windows backup.
I never use the Windows search capability, relying instead on either
Agent Ransack or Everything depending of the type of search. I have AVG
AntiVirus running the the background, relegating Microsoft's Security
Essentials to scanning individual files, which I also scan with AVG and
Malwarebytes. Etc, etc.
--
David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>

First you say you do, and then you don't.
And then you say you will, but then won't.
You're undecided now, so what're you goin' to do?
From a 1950s song
That should be Donald Trump's theme song. He obviously
does not understand "commitment", whether it is about
policy or marriage.
Ken Blake
2018-04-19 00:16:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 11:25:11 -0700, "David E. Ross"
Post by David E. Ross
Not only do I avoid integrated hardware but also (to a lesser extent)
integrated software.
I don't *avoid* integrated software, but I never choose to use a
program just because it's integrated. I know that many people want to
use a single program both as an e-mail client and a newreader, but
I've never understood the logic behind that choice. I chose and use
what I consider to be the best in each category--two different
programs.
Mark Lloyd
2018-04-18 13:57:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 04/17/2018 06:23 PM, Ken Blake wrote:

[snip]
Post by Ken Blake
And in the US, there are also many people who do the same thing. One
day they may turn out to be right, and only combination devices will
be available. But that day hasn't come yet, and as far as I'm
concerned, calling such a combination a router is still wrong, and is
likely to confuse many people.
Even without a modem, a "router" often contains an ethernet switch and a
wireless access point.

[snip]
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"The initial word does not lie within the province of the theologian,
but of the historian and the psychologist. [Hugh J. Schonfield,
_The_Passover_Plot_]
Ken Blake
2018-04-18 15:39:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Lloyd
[snip]
Post by Ken Blake
And in the US, there are also many people who do the same thing. One
day they may turn out to be right, and only combination devices will
be available. But that day hasn't come yet, and as far as I'm
concerned, calling such a combination a router is still wrong, and is
likely to confuse many people.
Even without a modem, a "router" often contains an ethernet switch and a
wireless access point.
Yes, and of course that make it a combination device. But since almost
all routers these days contain both of these, that usage of the word
"router" doesn't bother me anywhere near as much as calling a
modem/router combination a router.
Mark Lloyd
2018-04-17 22:14:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 04/17/2018 09:59 AM, Ken Blake wrote:

[snip]
Post by Ken Blake
Personally I use separate devices: a router and a modem. Whether
router/modem, printer/scanner, or anything else, I always prefer to
avoid combination devices, since if one part fails, you need to
replace both.
I would use separate devices, especially a (cable/DSL) modem and router.
The modem is essentially a part of the ISPs network and the router is a
part of MY network, and I should be in control of what happens with it.
Also, I don't want the ISP messing with my custom settings.
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Experience is not what happens to you; its what you do with what
happens to you." - NW
Char Jackson
2018-04-17 15:33:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Art Todesco
Post by David E. Ross
How long should a router last? Mine is over two years old. Twice
today, I had to reboot it in order to access any Web pages.
When you say router, do you mean DSL or Cable / router? My DSL / router
had to be rebooted several time yesterday and the day before ... not
because of the router itself, but because something upstream went down.
If I would have waited, it would have recovered itself, but a reboot
gets service back much faster.
Also, and most importantly, my
DSL/router will not route when DSL goes down. So, you can't even get
from one computer to another during a DSL hiccup or outage. What a
great design! And my guess is that others suffer similar problems.
That's not routing, that's switching. You can overcome that poor design
quite easily. Buy your own switch* and connect each of your PCs to it,
then connect a single Ethernet cable from your new switch to a LAN port
on your modem/router. The next time your DSL goes down, your LAN will
still hum away as if nothing happened.

*Just a switch, not a router, not an access point, not a modem. Pay
attention to speed capabilities, if that matters to you. Gigabit-capable
switches don't cost much more than their slower brothers, the
100-megabit units.
--
Char Jackson
Brian Gregory
2018-04-18 19:28:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
How long should a router last?  Mine is over two years old.  Twice
today, I had to reboot it in order to access any Web pages.
When you say router, do you mean DSL or Cable / router?  My DSL / router
had to be rebooted several time yesterday and the day before ... not
because of the router itself, but because something upstream went down.
If I would have waited, it would have recovered itself, but a reboot
gets service back much faster.  Also, and most importantly, my
DSL/router will not route when DSL goes down.  So, you can't even get
from one computer to another during a DSL hiccup or outage.  What a
great design!  And my guess is that others suffer similar problems.
A DSL modem that's switched on during daylight hours will often have
trouble continuing to work after dark. Switching it off and on will get
it going again.

Quite why they seem to be unable to make them so that they can tell when
the error rates are getting alarmingly high and automatically recover on
their own I don't know. But I've never owned one that wasn't quite happy
to just sit there for hours reporting that it couldn't decode anything
because there was too much line noise for the speed it had initially
negotiated when conditions were better.

Even once a DSL modem has adjusted to the worst conditions (usually
night time) (by being switched off and on late at night) it's likely
it'll occasionally need switching off and on again, maybe about once a week.
--
Brian Gregory (in England).
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-04-18 19:45:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <5Pydncdeq-***@giganews.com>, Brian
Gregory <void-invalid-dead-***@gmail.com> writes:
[]
Post by Brian Gregory
A DSL modem that's switched on during daylight hours will often have
trouble continuing to work after dark. Switching it off and on will get
it going again.
Quite why they seem to be unable to make them so that they can tell
when the error rates are getting alarmingly high and automatically
recover on their own I don't know. But I've never owned one that wasn't
quite happy to just sit there for hours reporting that it couldn't
decode anything because there was too much line noise for the speed it
had initially negotiated when conditions were better.
Even once a DSL modem has adjusted to the worst conditions (usually
night time) (by being switched off and on late at night) it's likely
it'll occasionally need switching off and on again, maybe about once a week.
My cheap dynamode one, plugs away, day and night, very rarely requiring
any action on my part, and has for many years.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

He who prides himself on giving what he thinks the public wants is often
creating a fictitious demand for low standards which he will then satisfy.
- Lord Reith
Wolf K
2018-04-18 21:59:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Brian Gregory
A DSL modem that's switched on during daylight hours will often have
trouble continuing to work after dark. Switching it off and on will
get it going again.
Quite why they seem to be unable to make them so that they can tell
when the error rates are getting alarmingly high and automatically
recover on their own I don't know. But I've never owned one that
wasn't quite happy to just sit there for hours reporting that it
couldn't decode anything because there was too much line noise for the
speed it had initially negotiated when conditions were better.
Even once a DSL modem has adjusted to the worst conditions (usually
night time) (by being switched off and on late at night) it's likely
it'll occasionally need switching off and on again, maybe about once a week.
My cheap dynamode one, plugs away, day and night, very rarely requiring
any action on my part, and has for many years.
My DSL modem, 2-Wire brand, supplied by Bell Canada, has never had to be
rebooted for electrical reasons. When the power goes out, it will reboot
nicely on its own. It's wi-fi, and has 4 Ethernet ports, so it looks
like a router+modem to me.
--
Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.com
"The next conference for the time travel design team will be held two
weeks ago."
Brian Gregory
2018-04-22 02:19:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
<snip>
My DSL modem, 2-Wire brand, supplied by Bell Canada, has never had to be
rebooted for electrical reasons. When the power goes out, it will reboot
nicely on its own. It's wi-fi, and has 4 Ethernet ports, so it looks
like a router+modem to me.
What speed do you get?
--
Brian Gregory (in England).
Brian Gregory
2018-04-22 02:19:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Brian Gregory
A DSL modem that's switched on during daylight hours will often have
trouble continuing to work after dark. Switching it off and on will
get it going again.
Quite why they seem to be unable to make them so that they can tell
when the error rates are getting alarmingly high and automatically
recover on their own I don't know. But I've never owned one that
wasn't quite happy to just sit there for hours reporting that it
couldn't decode anything because there was too much line noise for the
speed it had initially negotiated when conditions were better.
Even once a DSL modem has adjusted to the worst conditions (usually
night time) (by being switched off and on late at night) it's likely
it'll occasionally need switching off and on again, maybe about once a week.
My cheap dynamode one, plugs away, day and night, very rarely requiring
any action on my part, and has for many years.
The ISP can limit the speed of the connection to make it more reliable,
or you can be so close to the exchange that you connect at the max speed
with lots of noise margin every time, or maybe you are a long way from
the exchange so that the troublesome higher frequencies are virtually
unused by the modem.

What speed do you get?
--
Brian Gregory (in England).
Mike S
2018-04-22 04:11:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Gregory
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Brian Gregory
A DSL modem that's switched on during daylight hours will often have
trouble continuing to work after dark. Switching it off and on will
get it going again.
Quite why they seem to be unable to make them so that they can tell
when the error rates are getting alarmingly high and automatically
recover on their own I don't know. But I've never owned one that
wasn't quite happy to just sit there for hours reporting that it
couldn't decode anything because there was too much line noise for
the speed it had initially negotiated when conditions were better.
Even once a DSL modem has adjusted to the worst conditions (usually
night time) (by being switched off and on late at night) it's likely
it'll occasionally need switching off and on again, maybe about once a week.
My cheap dynamode one, plugs away, day and night, very rarely
requiring any action on my part, and has for many years.
The ISP can limit the speed of the connection to make it more reliable,
or you can be so close to the exchange that you connect at the max speed
with lots of noise margin every time, or maybe you are a long way from
the exchange so that the troublesome higher frequencies are virtually
unused by the modem.
Exactly right, I worked for an ISP and we 'capped' (limited the higher
frequencies used by the connection) on problematic lines. In our spare
time we'd look for really slow connections (using a google map that
showed the connection speeds with different color markers for speed
ranges) and tried optimizing them for speed and stability.
Paul
2018-04-22 09:42:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mike S
Post by Brian Gregory
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Brian Gregory
A DSL modem that's switched on during daylight hours will often have
trouble continuing to work after dark. Switching it off and on will
get it going again.
Quite why they seem to be unable to make them so that they can tell
when the error rates are getting alarmingly high and automatically
recover on their own I don't know. But I've never owned one that
wasn't quite happy to just sit there for hours reporting that it
couldn't decode anything because there was too much line noise for
the speed it had initially negotiated when conditions were better.
Even once a DSL modem has adjusted to the worst conditions (usually
night time) (by being switched off and on late at night) it's likely
it'll occasionally need switching off and on again, maybe about once a week.
My cheap dynamode one, plugs away, day and night, very rarely
requiring any action on my part, and has for many years.
The ISP can limit the speed of the connection to make it more
reliable, or you can be so close to the exchange that you connect at
the max speed with lots of noise margin every time, or maybe you are a
long way from the exchange so that the troublesome higher frequencies
are virtually unused by the modem.
Exactly right, I worked for an ISP and we 'capped' (limited the higher
frequencies used by the connection) on problematic lines. In our spare
time we'd look for really slow connections (using a google map that
showed the connection speeds with different color markers for speed
ranges) and tried optimizing them for speed and stability.
That's a function of architecture though.

The old system used 18000 feet (or optionally 36000 feet) of
wire, to connect subscribers all the way back to the CO. On large
operations, the operator simply applied a "blanket cap" and didn't
give a crap. They took 8Mbit/sec max ADSL1 and sold a service
advertising 5Mbit/sec, and then capped it at 3Mbit/sec without
ever examining the statistics. They had the option of selling
it as 3Mbit/sec service, but they didn't, and... they got away
with it too.

The new system uses fiber-to-the-corner, the wire length (final hop)
is closer to 500 feet, as the wire runs from the box on the
corner of your street, to your house. And when they sell
you a service at "X", they actually deliver "X". Shurely
a miracle. No more cap, except for the cap of the
advertised service of X. No more laddling SNR margin
randomly and at their discretion, on top.

Some customers here, used to use DMT and file a trouble
ticket with the ISP, to "fix" the first case. And actually
have the link adjusted properly. Some of those people,
hanging out at DSLReport :-)

There are still areas of the country operating the old
way. And the operator in that case, has absolutely no plan
to fix any infrastructure. It'll take a slap from the government
to keep the physical plant functional. There's a guy in the WinXP
group who is getting the old fashioned "service", complete
with "horse, buggy, and excuses".

Paul
Mike S
2018-04-22 10:01:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul
Post by Mike S
Post by Brian Gregory
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Brian Gregory
A DSL modem that's switched on during daylight hours will often
have trouble continuing to work after dark. Switching it off and on
will get it going again.
Quite why they seem to be unable to make them so that they can tell
when the error rates are getting alarmingly high and automatically
recover on their own I don't know. But I've never owned one that
wasn't quite happy to just sit there for hours reporting that it
couldn't decode anything because there was too much line noise for
the speed it had initially negotiated when conditions were better.
Even once a DSL modem has adjusted to the worst conditions (usually
night time) (by being switched off and on late at night) it's
likely it'll occasionally need switching off and on again, maybe
about once a week.
My cheap dynamode one, plugs away, day and night, very rarely
requiring any action on my part, and has for many years.
The ISP can limit the speed of the connection to make it more
reliable, or you can be so close to the exchange that you connect at
the max speed with lots of noise margin every time, or maybe you are
a long way from the exchange so that the troublesome higher
frequencies are virtually unused by the modem.
Exactly right, I worked for an ISP and we 'capped' (limited the higher
frequencies used by the connection) on problematic lines. In our spare
time we'd look for really slow connections (using a google map that
showed the connection speeds with different color markers for speed
ranges) and tried optimizing them for speed and stability.
That's a function of architecture though.
The old system used 18000 feet (or optionally 36000 feet) of
wire, to connect subscribers all the way back to the CO. On large
operations, the operator simply applied a "blanket cap" and didn't
give a crap. They took 8Mbit/sec max ADSL1 and sold a service
advertising 5Mbit/sec, and then capped it at 3Mbit/sec without
ever examining the statistics. They had the option of selling
it as 3Mbit/sec service, but they didn't, and... they got away
with it too.
The new system uses fiber-to-the-corner, the wire length (final hop)
is closer to 500 feet, as the wire runs from the box on the
corner of your street, to your house. And when they sell
you a service at "X", they actually deliver "X". Shurely
a miracle. No more cap, except for the cap of the
advertised service of X. No more laddling SNR margin
randomly and at their discretion, on top.
Some customers here, used to use DMT and file a trouble
ticket with the ISP, to "fix" the first case. And actually
have the link adjusted properly. Some of those people,
hanging out at DSLReport :-)
There are still areas of the country operating the old
way. And the operator in that case, has absolutely no plan
to fix any infrastructure. It'll take a slap from the government
to keep the physical plant functional. There's a guy in the WinXP
group who is getting the old fashioned "service", complete
with "horse, buggy, and excuses".
   Paul
We're getting fiber installed (Santa Cruz, CA) in the city center areas
now. I stopped using DSL because where I live, even though I'm less than
.75 mile from the CO and got great DSL speeds, the phone wiring is so
old that when it rained I saw frequent slowdowns, lost conn's, or loss
of service, no problems with cable. The fiber will be a lot faster for
the same cost with much lower latency, something like 2 mS if I
understand it correctly, so that will be great and probably feel more
responsive, click and stuff happens faster. The ISP includes a required
fiber-modem rental service where they can monitor or control the modem.
Paul
2018-04-22 12:07:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mike S
Post by Paul
Post by Mike S
Post by Brian Gregory
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Brian Gregory
A DSL modem that's switched on during daylight hours will often
have trouble continuing to work after dark. Switching it off and
on will get it going again.
Quite why they seem to be unable to make them so that they can
tell when the error rates are getting alarmingly high and
automatically recover on their own I don't know. But I've never
owned one that wasn't quite happy to just sit there for hours
reporting that it couldn't decode anything because there was too
much line noise for the speed it had initially negotiated when
conditions were better.
Even once a DSL modem has adjusted to the worst conditions
(usually night time) (by being switched off and on late at night)
it's likely it'll occasionally need switching off and on again,
maybe about once a week.
My cheap dynamode one, plugs away, day and night, very rarely
requiring any action on my part, and has for many years.
The ISP can limit the speed of the connection to make it more
reliable, or you can be so close to the exchange that you connect at
the max speed with lots of noise margin every time, or maybe you are
a long way from the exchange so that the troublesome higher
frequencies are virtually unused by the modem.
Exactly right, I worked for an ISP and we 'capped' (limited the
higher frequencies used by the connection) on problematic lines. In
our spare time we'd look for really slow connections (using a google
map that showed the connection speeds with different color markers
for speed ranges) and tried optimizing them for speed and stability.
That's a function of architecture though.
The old system used 18000 feet (or optionally 36000 feet) of
wire, to connect subscribers all the way back to the CO. On large
operations, the operator simply applied a "blanket cap" and didn't
give a crap. They took 8Mbit/sec max ADSL1 and sold a service
advertising 5Mbit/sec, and then capped it at 3Mbit/sec without
ever examining the statistics. They had the option of selling
it as 3Mbit/sec service, but they didn't, and... they got away
with it too.
The new system uses fiber-to-the-corner, the wire length (final hop)
is closer to 500 feet, as the wire runs from the box on the
corner of your street, to your house. And when they sell
you a service at "X", they actually deliver "X". Shurely
a miracle. No more cap, except for the cap of the
advertised service of X. No more laddling SNR margin
randomly and at their discretion, on top.
Some customers here, used to use DMT and file a trouble
ticket with the ISP, to "fix" the first case. And actually
have the link adjusted properly. Some of those people,
hanging out at DSLReport :-)
There are still areas of the country operating the old
way. And the operator in that case, has absolutely no plan
to fix any infrastructure. It'll take a slap from the government
to keep the physical plant functional. There's a guy in the WinXP
group who is getting the old fashioned "service", complete
with "horse, buggy, and excuses".
Paul
We're getting fiber installed (Santa Cruz, CA) in the city center areas
now. I stopped using DSL because where I live, even though I'm less than
.75 mile from the CO and got great DSL speeds, the phone wiring is so
old that when it rained I saw frequent slowdowns, lost conn's, or loss
of service, no problems with cable. The fiber will be a lot faster for
the same cost with much lower latency, something like 2 mS if I
understand it correctly, so that will be great and probably feel more
responsive, click and stuff happens faster. The ISP includes a required
fiber-modem rental service where they can monitor or control the modem.
The typical last-hop on some of this fiber stuff, is "PON".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_optical_network

At the head end, one laser is split 32 ways, by a fiber splitter.
Two colors of light are used, for TX and RX. And this allows each
subscriber to only need one screw-in optical connector in the
garage. Since the two colors of light are independent, it
operates full duplex.

When they share like that, some protocol has to decide which
unit transmits next.

Using schemes like that is cheaper, for the access device at the
end of the street, but as you'd imagine, there are some fault
scenarios where 32 customers will lose service at the same time.

I had a problem with a scheme like that, at work. A shared media
network, where I hadn't put a lot of thought into the reliability
aspects. Then one day, a client unit goes nuts, and stops following
the access protocol. Which causes the whole network to go down.
That's when it occurred to me, exactly how many silicon
chips were in a single fault group. Doh! :-) I don't think anyone
in the chain of command was surprised by the result, probably
more surprised that the Devils Dice had been thrown to give
them a demo of such :-) Your fiber device is likely to be
*much* more reliable than that :-) (Crosses fingers, etc.)

They shouldn't be running "private" fiber to each subscriber,
because that would raise the installed per-channel cost. And
make the box at the end of the street, that much bigger. They
might do it that way some day, but individual fibers is
pretty expensive per channel.

And why did they pick 32 ? The optical loss goes up as the
number of channels increases. Notice how in the Specification
table for this device, for each doubling in subscribers, there's
3dB more loss. Eventually, the laser "won't make its way to the
other end" through that thing. The light is split equally from
the head end, into the fibers. There is likely to be more
loss through the splitter, than through any other component
leading to your house. The splitter is inside the box at the
end of your street.

https://www.fs.com/products/11948.html

1X2 1X4 1X8 1X16 1X32 1X64
4.1 7.2 10.4 13.4 16.4 19.9 dB insertion loss

And I have no idea what they're telling you in terms of
"available" or "guaranteed" bandwidth with such solutions.
The incoming fiber is being split 32 ways, so you get 1/32
of whatever rate that fiber runs at (worst case).

As you can tell, I'd be "full of questions" when the
installer shows up :-) I love stuff like this. Especially
when it's cheaply made and so clever.

Customers absolutely hate statistical multiplexing. I'll
never forget the "angry mob" around the Rogers booth at
the Mall, when the first cable system failed to deliver
on speed. And that's because the provider didn't have nearly
enough equipment in the core of the network, for the
number of subscribers. The mob was so angry, Rogers
closed the booth :-) So people wouldn't mill about
like angry bees. That's fixed now, and the cable network
here is every bit as competitive as any other provider.
No more angry mobs need be formed. The lesson to be learned
from this, is if you want to be a "slimeball ISP", *don't*
set up a booth at the Mall :-) Just some friendly advice.

Paul
Mike S
2018-04-23 02:45:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul
Post by Mike S
Post by Paul
Post by Mike S
Post by Brian Gregory
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Brian Gregory
A DSL modem that's switched on during daylight hours will often
have trouble continuing to work after dark. Switching it off and
on will get it going again.
Quite why they seem to be unable to make them so that they can
tell when the error rates are getting alarmingly high and
automatically recover on their own I don't know. But I've never
owned one that wasn't quite happy to just sit there for hours
reporting that it couldn't decode anything because there was too
much line noise for the speed it had initially negotiated when
conditions were better.
Even once a DSL modem has adjusted to the worst conditions
(usually night time) (by being switched off and on late at night)
it's likely it'll occasionally need switching off and on again,
maybe about once a week.
My cheap dynamode one, plugs away, day and night, very rarely
requiring any action on my part, and has for many years.
The ISP can limit the speed of the connection to make it more
reliable, or you can be so close to the exchange that you connect
at the max speed with lots of noise margin every time, or maybe you
are a long way from the exchange so that the troublesome higher
frequencies are virtually unused by the modem.
Exactly right, I worked for an ISP and we 'capped' (limited the
higher frequencies used by the connection) on problematic lines. In
our spare time we'd look for really slow connections (using a google
map that showed the connection speeds with different color markers
for speed ranges) and tried optimizing them for speed and stability.
That's a function of architecture though.
The old system used 18000 feet (or optionally 36000 feet) of
wire, to connect subscribers all the way back to the CO. On large
operations, the operator simply applied a "blanket cap" and didn't
give a crap. They took 8Mbit/sec max ADSL1 and sold a service
advertising 5Mbit/sec, and then capped it at 3Mbit/sec without
ever examining the statistics. They had the option of selling
it as 3Mbit/sec service, but they didn't, and... they got away
with it too.
The new system uses fiber-to-the-corner, the wire length (final hop)
is closer to 500 feet, as the wire runs from the box on the
corner of your street, to your house. And when they sell
you a service at "X", they actually deliver "X". Shurely
a miracle. No more cap, except for the cap of the
advertised service of X. No more laddling SNR margin
randomly and at their discretion, on top.
Some customers here, used to use DMT and file a trouble
ticket with the ISP, to "fix" the first case. And actually
have the link adjusted properly. Some of those people,
hanging out at DSLReport :-)
There are still areas of the country operating the old
way. And the operator in that case, has absolutely no plan
to fix any infrastructure. It'll take a slap from the government
to keep the physical plant functional. There's a guy in the WinXP
group who is getting the old fashioned "service", complete
with "horse, buggy, and excuses".
    Paul
We're getting fiber installed (Santa Cruz, CA) in the city center
areas now. I stopped using DSL because where I live, even though I'm
less than .75 mile from the CO and got great DSL speeds, the phone
wiring is so old that when it rained I saw frequent slowdowns, lost
conn's, or loss of service, no problems with cable. The fiber will be
a lot faster for the same cost with much lower latency, something like
2 mS if I understand it correctly, so that will be great and probably
feel more responsive, click and stuff happens faster. The ISP includes
a required fiber-modem rental service where they can monitor or
control the modem.
The typical last-hop on some of this fiber stuff, is "PON".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_optical_network
At the head end, one laser is split 32 ways, by a fiber splitter.
Two colors of light are used, for TX and RX. And this allows each
subscriber to only need one screw-in optical connector in the
garage. Since the two colors of light are independent, it
operates full duplex.
When they share like that, some protocol has to decide which
unit transmits next.
Using schemes like that is cheaper, for the access device at the
end of the street, but as you'd imagine, there are some fault
scenarios where 32 customers will lose service at the same time.
I had a problem with a scheme like that, at work. A shared media
network, where I hadn't put a lot of thought into the reliability
aspects. Then one day, a client unit goes nuts, and stops following
the access protocol. Which causes the whole network to go down.
That's when it occurred to me, exactly how many silicon
chips were in a single fault group. Doh! :-) I don't think anyone
in the chain of command was surprised by the result, probably
more surprised that the Devils Dice had been thrown to give
them a demo of such :-) Your fiber device is likely to be
*much* more reliable than that :-) (Crosses fingers, etc.)
They shouldn't be running "private" fiber to each subscriber,
because that would raise the installed per-channel cost. And
make the box at the end of the street, that much bigger. They
might do it that way some day, but individual fibers is
pretty expensive per channel.
And why did they pick 32 ? The optical loss goes up as the
number of channels increases. Notice how in the Specification
table for this device, for each doubling in subscribers, there's
3dB more loss. Eventually, the laser "won't make its way to the
other end" through that thing. The light is split equally from
the head end, into the fibers. There is likely to be more
loss through the splitter, than through any other component
leading to your house. The splitter is inside the box at the
end of your street.
https://www.fs.com/products/11948.html
   1X2   1X4   1X8    1X16   1X32   1X64
   4.1   7.2   10.4   13.4   16.4   19.9   dB insertion loss
And I have no idea what they're telling you in terms of
"available" or "guaranteed" bandwidth with such solutions.
The incoming fiber is being split 32 ways, so you get 1/32
of whatever rate that fiber runs at (worst case).
As you can tell, I'd be "full of questions" when the
installer shows up :-) I love stuff like this. Especially
when it's cheaply made and so clever.
Customers absolutely hate statistical multiplexing. I'll
never forget the "angry mob" around the Rogers booth at
the Mall, when the first cable system failed to deliver
on speed. And that's because the provider didn't have nearly
enough equipment in the core of the network, for the
number of subscribers. The mob was so angry, Rogers
closed the booth :-) So people wouldn't mill about
like angry bees. That's fixed now, and the cable network
here is every bit as competitive as any other provider.
No more angry mobs need be formed. The lesson to be learned
from this, is if you want to be a "slimeball ISP", *don't*
set up a booth at the Mall :-) Just some friendly advice.
   Paul
Very interesting Paul, I had no idea how the network worked and I had
wondered about how they'd set it up, thanks. I no longer work for the
ISP so here's hoping, lol.
Wolf K
2018-04-22 16:34:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mike S
Post by Brian Gregory
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Brian Gregory
A DSL modem that's switched on during daylight hours will often have
trouble continuing to work after dark. Switching it off and on will
get it going again.
Quite why they seem to be unable to make them so that they can tell
when the error rates are getting alarmingly high and automatically
recover on their own I don't know. But I've never owned one that
wasn't quite happy to just sit there for hours reporting that it
couldn't decode anything because there was too much line noise for
the speed it had initially negotiated when conditions were better.
Even once a DSL modem has adjusted to the worst conditions (usually
night time) (by being switched off and on late at night) it's likely
it'll occasionally need switching off and on again, maybe about once a week.
My cheap dynamode one, plugs away, day and night, very rarely
requiring any action on my part, and has for many years.
The ISP can limit the speed of the connection to make it more
reliable, or you can be so close to the exchange that you connect at
the max speed with lots of noise margin every time, or maybe you are a
long way from the exchange so that the troublesome higher frequencies
are virtually unused by the modem.
Exactly right, I worked for an ISP and we 'capped' (limited the higher
frequencies used by the connection) on problematic lines. In our spare
time we'd look for really slow connections (using a google map that
showed the connection speeds with different color markers for speed
ranges) and tried optimizing them for speed and stability.
I'm about 400m from the node, but service varies anyhow. Depends on
load. Right now, it's very fast: Sunday around noon, not many
subscribers accessing the servers, which are about 10km away.
--
Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.com
"The next conference for the time travel design team will be held two
weeks ago."
Brian Gregory
2018-04-22 12:56:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
<snip>
The ISP can limit the speed of the connection to make it more reliable,
or you can be so close to the exchange that you connect at the max speed
with lots of noise margin every time, or maybe you are a long way from
the exchange so that the troublesome higher frequencies are virtually
unused by the modem.
What speed do you get?
I should add that it also makes a big difference if your line runs most
of the way back to the exchange underground, or if it's up on when we in
the UK call telegraph poles some of the way. Underground is probably
typically best but proximity to lots of other lines in a multicore
underground cable can also be source of interference.
--
Brian Gregory (in England).
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-04-23 18:02:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Gregory
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Brian Gregory
A DSL modem that's switched on during daylight hours will often have
trouble continuing to work after dark. Switching it off and on will
get it going again.
Quite why they seem to be unable to make them so that they can tell
when the error rates are getting alarmingly high and automatically
recover on their own I don't know. But I've never owned one that
wasn't quite happy to just sit there for hours reporting that it
couldn't decode anything because there was too much line noise for
the speed it had initially negotiated when conditions were better.
Even once a DSL modem has adjusted to the worst conditions (usually
night time) (by being switched off and on late at night) it's likely
it'll occasionally need switching off and on again, maybe about once
My cheap dynamode one, plugs away, day and night, very rarely
requiring any action on my part, and has for many years.
The ISP can limit the speed of the connection to make it more reliable,
or you can be so close to the exchange that you connect at the max
speed with lots of noise margin every time, or maybe you are a long way
from the exchange so that the troublesome higher frequencies are
virtually unused by the modem.
About 1.2 miles https://goo.gl/maps/go9J6ZJXyjF2, I _think_ with no
cabinets in between. (I've just googlewalked it, though they could be
hidden under/behind something.)
Post by Brian Gregory
What speed do you get?
Around 11 down, 1 up, according to
https://www.broadbandspeedchecker.co.uk/?&again. More than adequate for
my needs: YouTube and other videos, even HD, download faster than I can
view them, and there's only me in this household, so I can't think of
other things I might want that needs more. (OK, _huge_ downloads - i. e.
in the several G - would take a long time, but I very rarely do those.
And could leave them running while I do something else.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Wisdom is the ability to cope. - the late (AB of C) Michael Ramsey,
quoted by Stephen Fry (RT 24-30 August 2013)
Paul
2018-04-23 22:37:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Brian Gregory
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Brian Gregory
A DSL modem that's switched on during daylight hours will often have
trouble continuing to work after dark. Switching it off and on will
get it going again.
Quite why they seem to be unable to make them so that they can tell
when the error rates are getting alarmingly high and automatically
recover on their own I don't know. But I've never owned one that
wasn't quite happy to just sit there for hours reporting that it
couldn't decode anything because there was too much line noise for
the speed it had initially negotiated when conditions were better.
Even once a DSL modem has adjusted to the worst conditions (usually
night time) (by being switched off and on late at night) it's likely
it'll occasionally need switching off and on again, maybe about once
My cheap dynamode one, plugs away, day and night, very rarely
requiring any action on my part, and has for many years.
The ISP can limit the speed of the connection to make it more
reliable, or you can be so close to the exchange that you connect at
the max speed with lots of noise margin every time, or maybe you are a
long way from the exchange so that the troublesome higher frequencies
are virtually unused by the modem.
About 1.2 miles https://goo.gl/maps/go9J6ZJXyjF2, I _think_ with no
cabinets in between. (I've just googlewalked it, though they could be
hidden under/behind something.)
Post by Brian Gregory
What speed do you get?
Around 11 down, 1 up, according to
https://www.broadbandspeedchecker.co.uk/?&again. More than adequate for
my needs: YouTube and other videos, even HD, download faster than I can
view them, and there's only me in this household, so I can't think of
other things I might want that needs more. (OK, _huge_ downloads - i. e.
in the several G - would take a long time, but I very rarely do those.
And could leave them running while I do something else.)
And what "plan" did they sell you ?

Is it a plan for 11 that delivers 11 ?

There's a curve on this page, that shows what a typical
result should be. 1930 meters is "18000Kbps down" on ADSL2+.
That's if there were no other constraints in place. Since
that is a line rate, the "Goodput" is the rate that results
when the PPPOE overhead is removed.

https://www.internode.on.net/residential/broadband/adsl/easy_broadband/performance/

Loading Image...

Paul
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-04-24 02:10:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Brian Gregory
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Brian Gregory
A DSL modem that's switched on during daylight hours will often
have trouble continuing to work after dark. Switching it off and
on will get it going again.
Quite why they seem to be unable to make them so that they can
tell when the error rates are getting alarmingly high and
automatically recover on their own I don't know. But I've never
owned one that wasn't quite happy to just sit there for hours
reporting that it couldn't decode anything because there was too
much line noise for the speed it had initially negotiated when conditions were better.
Even once a DSL modem has adjusted to the worst conditions
(usually night time) (by being switched off and on late at night)
it's likely it'll occasionally need switching off and on again,
maybe about once
My cheap dynamode one, plugs away, day and night, very rarely
requiring any action on my part, and has for many years.
The ISP can limit the speed of the connection to make it more
reliable, or you can be so close to the exchange that you connect at
the max speed with lots of noise margin every time, or maybe you are
a long way from the exchange so that the troublesome higher
frequencies are virtually unused by the modem.
About 1.2 miles https://goo.gl/maps/go9J6ZJXyjF2, I _think_ with no
cabinets in between. (I've just googlewalked it, though they could be
hidden under/behind something.)
Post by Brian Gregory
What speed do you get?
Around 11 down, 1 up, according to
https://www.broadbandspeedchecker.co.uk/?&again. More than adequate
for my needs: YouTube and other videos, even HD, download faster than
I can view them, and there's only me in this household, so I can't
think of other things I might want that needs more. (OK, _huge_
downloads - i. e. in the several G - would take a long time, but I
very rarely do those. And could leave them running while I do something else.)
And what "plan" did they sell you ?
Is it a plan for 11 that delivers 11 ?
I think it was "up to 8" when I first took it; when I first measured it,
it was 5-6, which was good then. I don't know when it went up - possibly
when they went from ADSL to ADSL+ (or is it ADSL2+). I don't remember
being conscious of them specifically saying they'd raised it, but since
even 5 was enough for me, I probably wouldn't have noticed. I was
slightly surprised when I measured it sometime in the last week or so (a
regular correspondent asked me) and found it had gone up to 11.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder...
Paul
2018-04-24 05:17:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I think it was "up to 8" when I first took it; when I first measured it,
it was 5-6, which was good then. I don't know when it went up - possibly
when they went from ADSL to ADSL+ (or is it ADSL2+). I don't remember
being conscious of them specifically saying they'd raised it, but since
even 5 was enough for me, I probably wouldn't have noticed. I was
slightly surprised when I measured it sometime in the last week or so (a
regular correspondent asked me) and found it had gone up to 11.
Whatever you do, don't phone up and ask :-)

Or they'll turn it down again.

Paul
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-04-24 12:02:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I think it was "up to 8" when I first took it; when I first measured
it, it was 5-6, which was good then. I don't know when it went up -
possibly when they went from ADSL to ADSL+ (or is it ADSL2+). I don't
remember being conscious of them specifically saying they'd raised
it, but since even 5 was enough for me, I probably wouldn't have
noticed. I was slightly surprised when I measured it sometime in the
last week or so (a regular correspondent asked me) and found it had
gone up to 11.
Whatever you do, don't phone up and ask :-)
Or they'll turn it down again.
Paul
(-:

I've just had connection fail two or three times in a row, so I've
switched from my trusty dynamode MoDem/router/wifi to the (second-hand)
Netgear one I acquired recently (a 3300, I think). Checking with that,
the speed is the same, ~11 down 1 up (wifi or cable-connected, made no
difference). I _suspect_ there's nothing wrong with the dynamode, since
I had a similar failure the other day - I think it's the line or
exchange. I'll stay on the Netgear for a few days.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Never. For me, there has to be a meaning. There's not much meaning in eating
bugs. - Darcey Bussell (on whether she'd appear on /I'm a Celebrity/), in RT
2015/11/28-12/4
sticks
2018-04-17 13:12:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David E. Ross
How long should a router last? Mine is over two years old. Twice
today, I had to reboot it in order to access any Web pages.
My experience has been warranty length plus 1 day. 8-)
Wolf K
2018-04-17 13:21:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
How long should a router last?  Mine is over two years old.  Twice
today, I had to reboot it in order to access any Web pages.
My experience has been warranty length plus 1 day.  8-)
Dlink. No problems in over 5 years. Bell Canada also supplied
mode/router, again, no issues (except for DSL failures upstream).

The router is cabled to the modem so visitors have the choice of
connecting via it or the modem.
--
Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.com
"The next conference for the time travel design team will be held two
weeks ago."
Ken Blake
2018-04-17 14:55:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 17:48:12 -0700, "David E. Ross"
Post by David E. Ross
How long should a router last? Mine is over two years old. Twice
today, I had to reboot it in order to access any Web pages.
The answer is "it depends." My current router is a Netgear, and it's
been working here for 13 years.
Ken Blake
2018-04-17 15:02:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ken1943
On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 17:48:12 -0700, "David E. Ross"
Post by David E. Ross
How long should a router last? Mine is over two years old. Twice
today, I had to reboot it in order to access any Web pages.
The answer is "it depends." My current router is a Netgear, and it's
been working here for 13 years.
Sorry, my mistake. My router is a D-Link, not a Netgear--a DIR-655.
Ken Blake
2018-04-17 15:17:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
Post by ken1943
On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 17:48:12 -0700, "David E. Ross"
Post by David E. Ross
How long should a router last? Mine is over two years old. Twice
today, I had to reboot it in order to access any Web pages.
The answer is "it depends." My current router is a Netgear, and it's
been working here for 13 years.
Sorry, my mistake. My router is a D-Link, not a Netgear--a DIR-655.
Another error on my part. Sorry again. I bought it on March 20, 2010,
only eight years ago.
Boris
2018-04-17 21:14:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
Post by ken1943
On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 17:48:12 -0700, "David E. Ross"
Post by David E. Ross
How long should a router last? Mine is over two years old. Twice
today, I had to reboot it in order to access any Web pages.
The answer is "it depends." My current router is a Netgear, and it's
been working here for 13 years.
Sorry, my mistake. My router is a D-Link, not a Netgear--a DIR-655.
And two D-links here, one wifi, the other non-wifi, used as an access point.
Thirteen years old.

Another D-link wifi at mom-in-law's, same vintage.
Ted
2018-04-17 23:06:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ken1943
On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 17:48:12 -0700, "David E. Ross"
Post by David E. Ross
How long should a router last? Mine is over two years old. Twice
today, I had to reboot it in order to access any Web pages.
The answer is "it depends." My current router is a Netgear, and it's
been working here for 13 years.
I purchased an inexpensive Belkin router in 2001. It was defective so I
sent it back for replacement. They sent me a refurbished one and I have
been using it ever since without a problem. Couldn't be happier. Love
refurbished.....
Cheers
Ted
Stephen
2018-04-17 18:54:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 17:48:12 -0700, "David E. Ross"
Post by David E. Ross
How long should a router last? Mine is over two years old. Twice
today, I had to reboot it in order to access any Web pages.
They shouldnt break that easily as the biggest market is the ISPs and
the last thing they want is boxes that need to be swapped out and
replacements paid for.

Most of my upgrades jave been down to service changes.

My router comes with the cable service, so only a problem if you start
to get issues.

The cable co has updated the service from 128 Kbps originally to 150
Mbps now over ~ 20 years in 4 or 5 steps

started with Ethernet off the settop box and a separate router, then a
separate modem (went thru 3 or 4 SOHO routers on the service) and
eventually a combined badged Netgear with cable modem + router.
- 1 router upgrade was for a flaked route & anothers to keep up with
the service speed increases

Biggest reason for swapout has been wireless issues
- standards changes
- wireless builds that didnt do handoff between boxes well.

I have given up on WiFi off the routers as I need other access points
because of the cable entry point and now use a separate access point.
--
Stephen
Mark Lloyd
2018-04-17 22:21:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 04/17/2018 01:54 PM, Stephen wrote:

[snip]
Post by Stephen
I have given up on WiFi off the routers as I need other access points
because of the cable entry point and now use a separate access point.
Is this another router used as just an access point (no WAN connection)?
That's what I would do if I needed another AP (with no cable modem).
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Experience is not what happens to you; its what you do with what
happens to you." - NW
Stephen
2018-04-20 21:12:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Lloyd
[snip]
Post by Stephen
I have given up on WiFi off the routers as I need other access points
because of the cable entry point and now use a separate access point.
Is this another router used as just an access point (no WAN connection)?
That's what I would do if I needed another AP (with no cable modem).
No dedicated Ubiquiti Unifi device
- roughly double the range on the best router I tried
- partly down to location (now on ceiling of 1st floor landing in the
centre of the 3 floor house since it is PoE)
- partly down to better WiFi implementation.....

I tried the router as an AP setup on a few different devices.
- they all could be persuaded do the basic AP stuff (although every
one had some basic wierdnesses, and functions such as stats tend to
break), but none that i tried can do handoff / roam very well (or at
all).
--
Stephen
s|b
2018-04-17 19:36:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David E. Ross
How long should a router last? Mine is over two years old. Twice
today, I had to reboot it in order to access any Web pages.
It depends. Is your router running Windows 7?
--
s|b
Ken Blake
2018-04-17 21:13:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s|b
Post by David E. Ross
How long should a router last? Mine is over two years old. Twice
today, I had to reboot it in order to access any Web pages.
It depends. Is your router running Windows 7?
??? Is this some kind of joke I don't understand?
Paul
2018-04-18 01:56:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s|b
Post by David E. Ross
How long should a router last? Mine is over two years old. Twice
today, I had to reboot it in order to access any Web pages.
It depends. Is your router running Windows 7?
And I think the question has been adequately answered.
That routers this year, are reliable. They haven't always
been, like in the "bad cap" era.

Rebooting a router, causes a couple things to happen. Sure,
it restarts the router. But it also wipes out the connection
information in Windows 7, when DHCP comes back up. A symptom
of "my networking came back", might erroneously assume it
was the router reboot that fixed it, when in fact it was
a Windows 7 issue.

I've found when debugging, there's always overlap,
and someone has to take the bull by the horns to make
progress.

If we always shaved every problem down into tiny little
silos ("legal-style debugging"), with no integration
of results, we wouldn't get anywhere.

Our role here, isn't to spread misery thickly with a knife.
Toss out an idea, and move on.

If you want to see providers of misery, drop over to the
HVAC group sometime, and ask a question about your furnace :-)

Paul
Mr. Man-wai Chang
2018-04-18 15:11:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David E. Ross
How long should a router last? Mine is over two years old. Twice
today, I had to reboot it in order to access any Web pages.
Definitely depends on your needs! For basic internet use, it could last
forever. :)
--
@~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不賭錢! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 不求神! 請考慮綜援
(CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa
Stan Brown
2018-04-19 03:10:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David E. Ross
How long should a router last? Mine is over two years old. Twice
today, I had to reboot it in order to access any Web pages.
FSVO of "last". :-) I am still using the one I got about a decade
ago. I thought I had to reboot it frequently, but it turns out that
my Dell laptop's wireless is a bit shaky, so turning wireless off and
on on the Dell fixes problems. I discovered this when I bought an
Asus laptop, which has no problems with the wireless.

If you're sure that the fault is in the router and not the computer,
I guess you could replace it. But it depends on how often you have to
reboot it and how annoying that is. An occasional reboot is really
standard operating procedure for any router, I think.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://BrownMath.com/
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
Shikata ga nai...
Loading...