It's not a good idea to use a whole house VPN on a router. Some sites and services won't work with a VPN, such as video streaming and banking. The server is usually fixed with such solutions, which can be an issue if the server is overloaded or offline. Some VPNs support excluding certain sites or apps but that usually requires using the VPN app on a PC or phone. Setting up a second wifi access point using a router that supports a VPN and connecting to that when a VPN is required is a better plan.

I have a house with Cat5e cable in the walls with all lines terminating in the electric box in the basement at the front corner of the house. My Bell Fibe comes in through the wall into my dining room on the main floor near the back of my house.

Typical Bell BS installation. It should have been done where the ethernet cables terminate. I wouldn't have let them install it where they did.

I subscribed to a VPN service but it is too much trouble to use it.

Setting up a router VPN is typically more work to set up and maintain.

 

VPNs are used to protect privacy. A typical home network doesn't really require that unless you network has others using it who might be looking to track you, hack you, etc. You would benefit from a VPN when using a public WiFi or when trying to disguise your location from websites.

 

I myself use a VPN all the time. It runs 24/7. Your ISP (Bell) knows every website you or anyone using your network goes to. If your VPN is giving you problems, then it's the VPN that's the issue. VPNs should be easy to use. With mine, I simply click on their app, pick a location I wish to use and within seconds I'm on vacation in Paris! Or Italy, or Australia. I've never really had issues with mine. You may wish to try a different VPN service. If you're using Cat5e everywhere you're connected, not sure you really need anything else.

 

Related question...If I connected my dining room ethernet jack to the modem and then bought a 16 or 24 port wired managed switch for the basement electric box I could then connect all the house's ethernet ports to the network and even plug in my HD HomeRun devices into the network as well.
Would this work?

In a word, YES. And I agree with ExDilbert - Bell should have run the fibre into the basement. (You may need to get a small switch in the dining room if you need additional ethernet outlets, but don't split the modem outlet you're feeding to the network.)

 

Thanks everyone for your advice!

I figure the Bell installer was focusing on central location of the Bell modem for wireless reception. He never asked about wired internet, and to be fair, I didn't think to mention it. If he had installed in the basement at the front corner where the ethernets terminate, we probably would have needed extenders.

If I still have the Bell modem working but I add a second modem/router/switch (don't know the terminology), couldn't the Bell wifi NOT have the VPN and the other one HAVE the VPN? There is a reason why I would like to have a VPN on at least my work computer at times, and another reason I'd like to have a VPN on a couple of other devices some or all of the time.

 

couldn't the Bell wifi NOT have the VPN and the other one HAVE the VPN?

Definitely. Just be sure to keep them some distance apart (a few feet is ok) and on widely spaced channels, such as 1/11 and 40/153. You may need to turn off automatic channel assignment on both routers and set them manually. I'd recommend using the PC VPN app on the work computer. It can be set to start up automatically with Windows or a login. Other features such as finding the best VPN server, exempting certain applications and dropping the connection if the VPN fails (by application or globally) may be available in the app.

If ethernet connections are required elsewhere, I second the recommendation to run an ethernet cable directly from the modem/router to the service box area and using a switch to feed the ethernet cables there. An unmanaged switch will do but a managed switch would be better. Plug in only the cables in use.

 

Related question...If I connected my dining room ethernet jack to the modem and then bought a 16 or 24 port wired managed switch for the basement electric box I could then connect all the house's ethernet ports to the network and even plug in my HD HomeRun devices into the network as well.
Would this work?

To answer your question, Yes this would work, and this is probably the most ideal and cost effective way of wiring up your house. Ideally your modem should be in a CENTRAL part of your house like the main floor or an office or den. Not everyone wants to install the modem in the basement and then invest in a wireless (mesh) network solution to provide blanket coverage all over their house. the majority of people who use bell or rogers or any isp internet want a simple solution with least amount of out of pocket money and they want good coverage out of the box.

plus if u have all the wires run in your house and have a switch in the basement then you can put your modem anywhere in your house provided its near a rj45 wall jack, it will give signal to all the ethernet wall jacks and no it does not need to be in basement despite what people tell you. i have this setup this way at my fathers house because when we did the basement the signal was garbage

 

Thanks all for the advice.
I'll tinker with my setup, let you know what I did, and report on results.

 

This is a 'piggy-back question. I will soon be getting Bell Fibe installed. Apparently, it. they will use existing home wiring, if sufficient. I will have two choices, ethernet, installed in 2011 [prob. Cat.5] & coax. With a run of less than 50' [as the crow flies] or maybe 75', installed, would either one provide any advantage over the other?
Thanks.

 

Using the ethernet cable should be better than using coax, which would require MOCA adapters. If it's installed in 2011, there's a good chance the ethernet cable is CAT5e. CAT5 is rated at 100Mbps but can potentially deliver up to 1GBps. CAT5e is rated at 1Gbps but can potentially deliver up to 2.5Gbps. I would check the ethernet cable. The type should be written on the cable itself. A speed test from one PC to another will determine the usable speed, provided the PCs themselves are capable of 1Gbps.

 

@ExDilbert

Gb Ethernet was designed to use plain CAT5, before 5e was even available. It's good for 100M. 5e is the same cable as 5, but with tighter tolerances.

 

The spec for CAT5 says 100Mbps up to 100m. I agree that, in practice, CAT5 was often used for 1Gbps, especially at shorter distances. CAT5e and CAT6 are electrically compatible but specify better cable construction in order to guarantee 1Gbps speeds at longer distances.

 

Here's what Wikipedia says:

"Category 5 cable is used in structured cabling for computer networks such as Ethernet over twisted pair. The cable standard prescribes performance parameters for frequencies up to 100 MHz and is suitable for 10BASE-T, 100BASE-TX (Fast Ethernet), 1000BASE-T (Gigabit Ethernet), and 2.5GBASE-T."

Do not confuse that 100 MHz with data rate. Ethernet uses a complex modulation method that provides multiple bits for that bandwidth. That's described in this book.

 

Other sites have a different description. Like I said, the original spec and common practice differ. Wikipedia may be including CAT 5e in that description.

The O'Reilly books were good in their day but that one, published in 2000 is dated. Does it mention CAT 8?

 

@ExDilbert

No, but it describes CAT5 and Gigabit, which is what's being described here.

As I mentioned, Gigabit Ethernet was designed for CAT5. The signalling rate for Gb is the same as for 100Mb, but uses more complex modulation to carry more data.

 

to answer your question, YES its a good plan, go ahead with it.

 

I have Bell Fibe service for internet, TV and home phone. The modem included is the Bell Giga hub with Gigabit Fibe 3.0 service. The hub is located in a central location on the top (second) floor of the house where most of my ethernet cables also terminated. One of the ethernet ports from the hub is connected to a 16-port Netgear ethernet switch, to which other ethernet cables are connected. The ethernet cables already in the walls are mainly Cat5e, (a few cat 5). My question is whether that is the best setup I can have with the equipment and service I have. Would having a second modem (as per subject of this thread, be useful in my situation? If so, could you briefly describe the setup and equipment (links) that you would suggest. Thank you in advance for all comments and suggestions.

 

The hub is located in a central location on the top (second) floor of the house where most of my ethernet cables also terminated.

It doesn't get much better than that. On the first floor may be better if the basement is finished and used as living space. Other factors are the floor space in the house, how fast the wifi connection needs to be and personal preferences for connection speed. I'd suggest using a smartphone wifi analyzer app to check for weak signals or dead zones. Be sure to include outside locations that are used frequently.

Dead zones can be eliminated using wifi access points or repeaters. Wired access points are best located near the dead zone. Wireless repeaters are best located about half way between the router and the dead zone but that may vary due to obstacles that block the wifi signal. I prefer to use a wired router configured as an access point. Ready made access points and repeaters tend to be slower than a good router. A mesh system (such as Bell's pods) can also be used but they would need to be compatible with the Bell router and the same caveats about speeds apply.

 

you can not have a second modem, that would mean having a second account with a separate monthly bill and I do not know if they deliver more than one fiber into your house unless you legally have a second suite in your house.

 

Thank you ExDilbert! In my setup, I also have two WiFi pods rented from Bell for $10/mo. I'm not sure I really need them... But I'm also wondering, if I did need them, do I need to use the Bell pods with my system or would other WiFi extenders work as well? Someone mentioned that sometimes these pods can degrade the service because their speed is less than the main hub. Do you think that's the case? Regarding the wired access points, would I be able to connect them as any other device to unused ports on the ethernet switch? What advantages are there to using access points instead of the Bell Pods? I guess I don't quite understand whether the Bell Fibe system is designed to be used with only Bell-supplied equipment. Tx

 

The pods are wireless mesh repeaters. The pods themselves are slow and the send/receive nature of wireless repeaters can slow down the entire wifi system. Still, they are an easy way to eliminate dead zones.

Wired repeaters are connected to the LAN at any location where working ethernet connection is available, including the main router. A direct connection to the router might be preferable if there is heavy traffic on the wired LAN.

The Bell router and pods use mesh technology. Mesh equipment often doesn't work between brands. Mesh systems are touted as being better than plain repeaters and access points but I don't see much difference in practice.

 

I think your home network looks good and nothing wrong with it, The wifi pods are great to fill in the coverage gaps that your modem does not cover.
If you have a part of your house with no wireless coverage but do have a ether net run or ethernet jack,you can use the ethernet as the backhawl to the modem to avoid the problem that ExDilbert mentioned about slow send/receive problem

 

Thank you both. I do have ethernet cables going to various locations in the house going to the area of the main hub. What equipment (link) can I use to connect to the hub via an ethernet cable. Would that perform better than a Bell pod? I do sense that the Bell fibe system is designed to work best with Bell supplied equipment. That may be why Bell is able to rent relatively inexpensive pods for the price they charge?? Thoughts?

 

Bell's wifi mesh pods are made by Plume and have fairly impressive specs. There is only so much that can be done with such a small device though. Another thing to consider is that the energy footprint is fairly high, about the same as leaving two LED lamps on continuously when in use. The energy used by four pods could light a small house 24/7. Bell probably gets a much better price than consumers but the other factor is overall cost savings. The pods can save a lot of money in installation and maintenance costs, especially for larger houses.

Plume Home

Trusted by hundreds of CSPs and millions of homes globally, Plume Home offers a suite of Smart Home Services that transforms WiFi for subscribers.

www.plume.com

 

One thing I have noticed, is the older I get I like more simple things in life. If you use any consumer Wi-Fi Extenders, they will require you to configure and manage the SSID and password on each extender, you can change this, however every time you change it, you must go on the devices and change it. If you have the ones from Bell, it will use the same ssid and password as your modems wireless access point. your devices will connect seamless to the bell access point, if u change the ssid and pass on your modem, the bell pods will also reflect this and change to the new name, making it one less thing to change or manage.

maybe some geeks or teckies don't care, but the older i get the more easier I prefer my life to be and this is one thing I appreciate, though i am not endorsing this product I have only seen it in use and will consider getting it but also im questioning the $10 /month monthly fee.

 

I agree with the KISS principle, DIY solutions often become complicated to maintain. I have a sufficiently long and secure wifi password that hopefully will never need to be changed on all the connected devices.

The $10 fee is actually very reasonable. The hardware (four pods) alone would cost about $1000 to purchase from Plume and they charge $15/mo to maintain a subscription. That's unreasonable.

 

Just to clarify, I believe Bell has two types of WiFi pods. I have two of the larger pods and am paying $10 per month for both of them ($5 each).