Second line or ethernet cable?

Iron Tusk

Active Member
I am moving house in a few weeks and have been spoilt with 200mb virgin fibre where I am now.
Unfortunately max speed I can get in the new house is 32mb fibre and virgin not available.
The current phone line goes into the second floor but i`m guessing that the wifi signal to the ground floor is not going to be great.
I will be using it for gaming so could do with as steady signal as possible.
I have two options (apart from tp-link through plug socket) I think!
1. Drill holes through walls and run ethernet cable down to ground floor or outside and down front of house then back in?
2. When I move get new phone line installed and have the router on the ground floor.....I tried to read the thread about having two routers but was left a bit confused!
If I have two routers plugged into two separate phone lines will they not just connect?
 

mickevh

Distinguished Member
"Proper" wired Ethernet links is almost always the best (fastest and most reliable) networking solution.

You can only have a single "router" on the end of a telephone line - it's just how the technology works. It doesn't really matter where it is, as long as it's the only device talking to the ISP equipment in the telephone exchange.

The threads/discussion about using multiple routers is something different. That's about using additional "routers" as extra Wi-Fi Access Points (AP's) by "crippling" them and cabling them up in a certain kind of way that avoid using the circuitry/functionality that they use to talk to the ISP.

Two (separate) phone lines, each with their ISP link is yet another discussion (and wouldn't give you more "speed," it would increase bandwidth.)

BTW the "ethernet" cable is called UTP (Unshielded Twisted Pair) and has multiple uses, not just ethernet. You can also use it for telephone circuits (indeed, that was it's original purpose, it was reverse engineered to carry ethernet.) This can all get a bit confusing because both telephone signals and ethernet can be conveyed over UTP, so try to be clear in your own mind what you are looking to achive with UTP lobes - are you looking to extend the reach of the incoming "telephone" (ADSL/VDSL) signal to somewhere it's more convenient to locate your router, or are you looking to take ethernet from one (or more) of your routers "LAN" ports to somewhere else. Both are possible using UTP cable.
 
Last edited:

Iron Tusk

Active Member
Ok thanks think that makes sense.
So no point in having two phone lines/two routers running at the same time so that has certainly cleared that up for me.
I think my best option will be to get the new phone line fitted in ground floor and have the router down there so I can use ethernet for my PS5 without the need to then drill and run the cable outside or through the walls etc.
Then just use wifi for the tv etc upstairs which I think i`ll get away with as it will only be netflix etc.
 

mickevh

Distinguished Member
There is a use case for multiple routers and multiple phones lines, but it's (probably) not what you think: It does not give you an Internet link that's "twice as fast."

Let me use a further "roads" analogy. Imagine I have a 50mph road. As a function of that "speed" my road can convey a stream of cars - a certain number of cars per hour. If I then add a second road, also with a 50mph "speed" that's availed me the ability to convey a second stream of cars at 50mph, (double the capacity) but either given stream of cars is just as fast as it was when I only had a single road - it's still a stream of 50mph traffic. But with two roads, I can now run two of them simultaneously whereas with one road, I could only facilitate one. Two hasn't yielded me a 100mph stream.

Pretty much the same for data networking - multiple links gives increase in capacity, it doesn't make any particular stream of data "twice as fast." There's plenty of caveats and exceptions, but the take home message is that if you procure two 32mbps data links, you're not going to get a 64mbps usage experience to any given end point because the technology does distribute (A/B) the traffic across both links.

It sucks, but if you need a fast link, then you need a fast link - there's no getting around it. (Well not easily/cheaply.) In my last job, I had one site in the middle of Notting Hill where the best service available was 10mbps. There just simply wasn't anything better available - crap broadband is not just a symptom of rural areas. At time of writing, mobile phones might offer better option, but the latency can be an issue with that if you are a hard core gamer.
 
Last edited:

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: The Best TVs of 2021, plus our favourite & memorable reviews of the year
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom