[OT] What is anyone's experience of the Huawei E220 wireless modem?

I've been struggling with Three Wireless Broadband on my laptop
machine for seven months; is it the service that's crap, or the
modem? (Or perhaps wireless modems generally? I hope not, as
wireless broadband is really the only type which makes sense on a
laptop.)

On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 04:27:48 -0700, korax1214 wrote:[color=blue]
> wireless broadband is really the only type which makes sense on a laptop.)[/color]

Hmm. I always find I end up with the power supply plugged in, and a mouse,
and headphones, and sometimes an external drive - it's no big deal to have
a network cable too :-)

I was going to put in a wireless link between the house and workshop here,
but came to the conclusion that it's *far* easier just to dig up the
ground and properly put some cabling in... the time it takes to do that is
a lot less than I'd spend trying to debug wireless glitches (or being
forced to sit in a specific spot because it was the only place things
worked anything like reliably)

<korax1214@gmail.com> wrote ...
[color=blue]
> I've been struggling with Three Wireless Broadband on my laptop
> machine for seven months; is it the service that's crap, or the
> modem? (Or perhaps wireless modems generally? I hope not, as
> wireless broadband is really the only type which makes sense on a
> laptop.)[/color]

My experiences have been generally good with wireless. Not exactly with a
modem though. My laptop has 2.4 GHZ 802.11g built into the motherboard, with
antenna embedded beside the display. I have used 802.11g adapters with two
desktops. One adapter works well with the networking capabilities built into
Windows XP.

The other adapter sometimes requires a reboot of the machine to get it going
again. However, it uses software provided by the vendor and it is the
software that craps out occasionally, not the hardware.

The router in use is an Actiontec router that accepts both wireless and
Ethernet connections provided by the ISP that I use. It is, in turn,
connected via Ethernet cable to another "black box" installed at the service
entrance for the fiber optic cable to the house.

Overall, the setup works great with both wireless and LAN connections.
--
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

Change is inevitable,
except from vending machines!

Sam Gillett wrote:[color=blue]
> <korax1214@gmail.com> wrote ...
>[color=green]
>> I've been struggling with Three Wireless Broadband on my laptop
>> machine for seven months; is it the service that's crap, or the
>> modem? (Or perhaps wireless modems generally? I hope not, as
>> wireless broadband is really the only type which makes sense on a
>> laptop.)[/color]
>
> My experiences have been generally good with wireless. Not exactly with a
> modem though. My laptop has 2.4 GHZ 802.11g built into the motherboard, with
> antenna embedded beside the display. I have used 802.11g adapters with two
> desktops. One adapter works well with the networking capabilities built into
> Windows XP.
>
> The other adapter sometimes requires a reboot of the machine to get it going
> again. However, it uses software provided by the vendor and it is the
> software that craps out occasionally, not the hardware.
>
> The router in use is an Actiontec router that accepts both wireless and
> Ethernet connections provided by the ISP that I use. It is, in turn,
> connected via Ethernet cable to another "black box" installed at the service
> entrance for the fiber optic cable to the house.
>
> Overall, the setup works great with both wireless and LAN connections.[/color]

wait, fibre optic internet?!

beats crappy copper pairs :(
even cable beats crappy copper pairs, but fibre, that's just greedy :(
*jealous*

"Guesser" <admin@alistairsserver.no-ip.org> wrote ...
[color=blue]
> Sam Gillett wrote:[color=green]
>>
>> The router in use is an Actiontec router that accepts both wireless and
>> Ethernet connections provided by the ISP that I use. It is, in turn,
>> connected via Ethernet cable to another "black box" installed at the
>> service entrance for the fiber optic cable to the house.
>>
>> Overall, the setup works great with both wireless and LAN connections.[/color]
>
> wait, fibre optic internet?!
>
> beats crappy copper pairs :(
> even cable beats crappy copper pairs, but fibre, that's just greedy :(
> *jealous*[/color]

I still have copper between the computer and the router, and between the
router and the "black box". BTW, the "black box" also handles telephone
service which is now on fiber optic also.

In the neighborhood that I live in, I had a choice between fiber optic or
cable internet, either of which beat dialup. My, the times they are a
changing, and the technology it is a changing too!
--
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

Change is inevitable,
except from vending machines!

Sam Gillett wrote:[color=blue]
> "Guesser" <admin@alistairsserver.no-ip.org> wrote ...
>[color=green]
>> Sam Gillett wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> The router in use is an Actiontec router that accepts both wireless and
>>> Ethernet connections provided by the ISP that I use. It is, in turn,
>>> connected via Ethernet cable to another "black box" installed at the
>>> service entrance for the fiber optic cable to the house.
>>>
>>> Overall, the setup works great with both wireless and LAN connections.[/color]
>> wait, fibre optic internet?!
>>
>> beats crappy copper pairs :(
>> even cable beats crappy copper pairs, but fibre, that's just greedy :(
>> *jealous*[/color]
>
> I still have copper between the computer and the router, and between the
> router and the "black box". BTW, the "black box" also handles telephone
> service which is now on fiber optic also.
>
> In the neighborhood that I live in, I had a choice between fiber optic or
> cable internet, either of which beat dialup. My, the times they are a
> changing, and the technology it is a changing too![/color]
not in the merry old English countryside they aint :(

On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 04:27:48 -0700 (PDT), [email]korax1214@gmail.com[/email] wrote:
[color=blue]
>I've been struggling with Three Wireless Broadband on my laptop
>machine for seven months; is it the service that's crap, or the
>modem? (Or perhaps wireless modems generally? I hope not, as
>wireless broadband is really the only type which makes sense on a
>laptop.)[/color]

I've had 3 Mobile Broadband on PAYG for about the same time.

I've noticed that the connection speed has been much lower in recent
months. When I started using it I recorded over 2mbps download but
now the same time of day in the same location typically gives me less
than 512kbps. I suspect that as the number of users has increased 3
have failed to upgrade accordingly.

It's still useful to be able to check email and look up things on the
web while out and about. I recently spent a couple of days in the
middle of nowhere and managed to get a workable connection if I put
the laptop in the window.

It's still early days.

[email]korax1214@gmail.com[/email] wrote:[color=blue]
> I've been struggling with Three Wireless Broadband on my laptop
> machine for seven months; is it the service that's crap, or the
> modem? (Or perhaps wireless modems generally? I hope not, as
> wireless broadband is really the only type which makes sense on a
> laptop.)[/color]

Faulty modem perhaps? I've been using the Huawei E170 (the stick, not
the dongle) on T-Mobile with a MacBook Pro and Dell XPS m1530 for months
with no problems, ever, other than occasional coverage blips.

-n

On 19 Sep, 19:17, Bob <b...@mailinator.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> I checked, I'm still being charged one pound a day, only on the days I use
> it, for tmobile 384Kbps mobile broadband.
> I think it is good value for ocasionall use when I need to access email
> while out and about.[/color]

For *occasional* use, maybe; but for *daily* use like mine, it works
out at £30/month, which for only 384Kbps is a rip-off. From Three I
get (in theory, and sometimes when the wind is in the right direction,
in practice as well) 3.6Mbps for only £10/month.

[...][color=blue]
> I'v seen a few ebay seller claiming to offer special tmobile sim cards
> that will connect at 1.4Mbps and charge fours pounds a day.
> I expect the faster speed would be less reliable so it would
> probably not be much better.[/color]

That's T-Mobile's standard PAYG deal, and as I already said, it works
out at a massive £120/month; a total rip-off, given that Three do
exactly the same deal (but 3.6Mbps) for only £15/month.