sharing my broadband connection

[gaz.d]

my mum wants broadband on her comp and i dont wanna get the wireless bb thingys

i thought a 2 way splitter going into the phone socket with adsl filter going to each modem would work, but it doesnt :bang: , im now getting it in the neck and am lost, we cant really go swapping the filters around each time one of use want to go on

is it possible to get a adsl filter with 2 RJ-11 inputs on it, i have been looking and with no joy

any other possible things i could try, without networking up the computers

 

[The Negotiator]

Gaz I don't think you can do what you want to do?

What's up with a simple and cheap router?

 

[gaz.d]

cause i am under the impression we need network cars etc, or that what it says on the adsl router box

i could install a complete network in the house, it would be good practice for me

a simple switch will do if they do one, just flick it for mine or my mums

 

[The Negotiator]

I couldn't find one anywhere, they may exist but it's hard to find - most places offer you one with a plug for the phone and one for the modem when you type in "Dual" "twin" "double" "two" etc. - I tried them all.

You would only be sharing the connection and it would be kind of rubbish compared to if you get something like this:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=86760&item=5740732969&rd=1

OK, £35 inc. postage (just the first one i saw, probs get better/cheaper so don't just think i'm saying get it lol). Couple of Cat 5 cables to each computer involved and if they don't have network cards built in (are you sure they don't? Most computers in the past few years have had them) you could pick 2 up for less than £10 easily these days. Total cost no more than £55 and (assuming you have a simple way of routing the wires) it will take less than an hour.

That particular unit actually has the ADSL modem built into it too so no extra boxes.

 

[The Negotiator]

For example, this guy will get you 2 x PCI network cards if you do need them for around a tenner:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=3704&item=5741167564&rd=1

You can also get USB ones (no need to open up PC) but they are more expensive @ £10 each or so from Hong Kong.

Cabling, I am not sure how far away your computers are but a few examples:

5m patch lead:
£2.70 delivered (probs get cheaper)
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=57188&item=6731624155&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW

10m patch lead:
£4.17 delivered:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=57188&item=6732861670&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW

20m patch lead:
£6.26 delivered
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=57188&item=6732861707&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW

 

[gaz.d]

cheers paul, someone actually explained something in english

cable is not a problem, have got loads i have 'borrowed' from uni - theperks of being a network student , although i know nothing lol

but i wanted the easy option and it doesnt work

 

[The Negotiator]

Np Gaz, you're more than welcome It's unlike me to explain something in plain english!

Trust me, if you go down this route and do so looking for the best value for money you will have a much better final product that has future potential (i.e. you can upgrade that to wireless easily if you ever want to) and have the experience of it.

 

[gaz.d]

does the internet speed suffer, cause this is another reason i dont want to share my connection if it does

 

[The Negotiator]

Yes, it will have that affect because you will be sharing your connecting but only if the other person is downloading and surfing etc. To put this into context, does your Mum just surf the internet? If so, you wouldn't notice it. If she downloads DVDs (lol) you would.

 

[gaz.d]

ah so the connection will only be slower if we are using it at the same time?? it makes sense lol, maybe i should think more

we will very rarely be using it at the same time and all she uses it for is msn

 

[The Negotiator]

In that case you won't feel any affect whatsoever.

You're correct, it will only be slower if she uses it properly. I.e. if your connection allows downloading at 50 and you both download, you will both get say 25 each. If she sits on MSN it only requires say 1 so you still have 49 and won't notice it.

We share ours between 5+ computers with often 3 being used at the same time, you do notice it because I think my sister is downloading stuff from winMX (I know, my own sister going against me but that's a long story lol)

Anyway Gaz, there's plenty on here that can help you

 

[Stu DemonD]

I run a 3 PC network at work, just using a standard BT 512 ADSL line through a Draytek router; even if all 3 of us using it at once, which is quite rare tbh coz the 3rd PC is on a spare desk, there is never really a discernible drop in speed.

 

[gaz.d]

will she be able to see what i download

i just told her to tidy the rooms, im installing a network lol

 

[The Negotiator]

Not easily no.

Although some routers however do have logging capabilities. That is you can tell it to record all the websites you have visited/all the data that has been in/out. However, as you are setting it all up, you will have the password to this and can switch it on/off or delete what you want. I have mine off permamently, there's no need for it in my house but if i wanted to check up on my little sister (which i do!) i could use it

I.e. no she can't but you could find out what she sees!

 

[gaz.d]

woohoo, looks like i will be going this route then

at least it will give me a few days of peace until she hopsfully forgets about it

 

[polecat]

Even if you are both downloading at the same time you will usually only lose about 40% of your capacity rather than half of it.

Strange as it may seem it is usually quicker to download two files simultaneously than it is to download them sequentially. I usually have 2 PCs permanently connected and working on the net.

I'll leave Paul to explain the science and exceptions.

p.s. Paul, I already know.

 

[The Negotiator]

I don't understand that but I have found that IME too Dave. I have always wondered why? Maybe more effective use of the bandwidth? I really don't know.

Please let me know if you would?

 

[polecat]

Yes, that is the overarching reason.
In simple terms it can be explained by queueing theory. Two queues at a counter will move at different speeds. If you put 100 people into two queues of 50 and don't let them switch then at some time 1 teller will be sitting idle and the total time to clear the 100 people will be extended. If you let them switch then the queue will always move at the best speed.
On a network if one data stream loses or delays 10 packets of information then that additional space can be filled by the second data stream with no loss in overall throughput.
That is about as simple as it gets.

 

[The Negotiator]

Ah i see, cheers for that - I have always wondered why you seem to be able to get better like that.

I was going to question whether it is something to do with TDM (time division multiplexing) but I only know what is taught at A level physics about that so not very certain.

 

[polecat]

No, it actually works because it is not a TDM system.

Imagine a circular track with a train so long that the engine is connected to the rear coach. It has lots of coaches each with a set number of red, yellow and green seats. Mr red can only use red seats; mr yellow, yellow seats; etc... When mr red has no-one to put into one of his red seats, mr green cannot use them for his extra people.

The advantage of this system is that mr green knows there will be space (green seats) in the next carriage.

Therefore, TDM offers better Quality of Service (QoS) at the expense of flexibility.

Our next story will be Goldilocks....