🚀 go-pugleaf

There are two FCCID issued to the same SMC7004AWBR

One is mfg by AMIT with "PBL-WIP-300" (35 mW)
Second one is mfg by ACCTON with "HEDWG3004A-17" (13 mW)

Looks like SMC ordered from different OEM and using the same plastic case.
makes one wonder which one is better or were they made by the same company
with different quality control.
Again, ACCTON could have ordered from AMIT then apply itself a FCCID#.

Colgate

"Gary Funck" <gary@intrepid.com> wrote in message
news:eoCA8.10282$JZ6.213699@dfw-read.news.verio.net...
>
> "Elroy the Seedy Impaler" <elroy@impaler.com> wrote in message
> news:3cd28a97.1926740@news-server.neo.rr.com...
> > My $.02 to this thread:
> >
> > I just set up an SMC7004AWBR with Orinoco USB NICs.  I have great
> > reception from the first floor to the attic, in opposing corners of
> > the house.  No mods to the antenna.
> >
> > Something is definitely wrong with your hardware.  In my setup, the
> > crappy link monitor app that Orinoco provides says there is a "poor"
> > connection, but the recieved signal level is -70dBm and the SNR is
> > over 20.  Most of these receivers have sensitivity levels of around
> > -85dBm at 11Mbps.  In my engineering opinion, 15dB above the lower
> > level is more than adquate.
>
> Yes, I was a bit unhappy with limited info. that the Orinoco card's
monitor
> program gives. Lesser brand cards offer more definitive data regarding
> signal strength and error rates.  I've read there's a program (or special
> firmware) that offers more info. from the Orinoco card, but I haven't
tried
> to chase it down, yet.
>
> A key phrase in your reply, I think, is "in the attic".  Did you locate
your
> WAP in the attic? I'm thinking of trying that next to see if it gives
> better/adequate coverage.  This creates some logistic problems, however,
> because I would be unable to use the router/firewall/print server features
> of the SWC70004AWBR if I choose to locate the WAP there.  I'll really only
> need a WAP in that case, and I'll need to run Cat5 to the attic at a
minimum
> (using one of the pairs for power, using an adaptor).
>
> BTW, I did return the first SWC unit that I purchased - there was
something
> definitely wrong with its transmitter/receiver.  The current SWC unit
seems
> comparable in range to a Netgear that I borrowed for a side-by-side test,
> but it looks like there's problems with my house's construction (perhaps
> mylar insulation or some such) that block the signal.  I'm hoping the
> attic-placement experiment will be successful.
>
> Which model of the SWC7004AWBR do you have? I seem to have purchased the
> ill-fated  #720.5435, which frequently hangs on the wired LAN, and has
some
> other glitches that in my mind make this unit unusable.  Apparently, the
> older #720.5312 is much better, and is the unit that has generally
received
> decent reviews.
>
> >
> > The SMC7004AWBR isn't the best (it's not a Cisco/Aironet), but then
> > again, I'm not setting up an enterprise network.
>
> I'm seriously considering trading up to a better brand. Since I have
> Lucent/Orinico cards, I was thinking of looking at the RG-1000.  Does
anyone
> have (hopefully positive) experiences with the Lucent gear?
>
> >
> > Don't modify the antenna circuit unless you really know what you are
> > doing.  Microwave designs are very touchy.
>
> Yeah, it was just a thought. :) I did read that SMC sells a higher gain
> antenna for $60. That would've been my next experiment.  But, I'm quite
> dis-enchanted with SMC at the moment. I think SMC should not have sold a
new
> (and apparently inferrior/unreliable) implementation of the SWC7004AWBR
> without renaming the product, so that it is clear to both users and
> reviewers that this is a new beast. Based on my experience, I'd strongly
> discourage anyone from buying and using the #720.5435 model (look under
> "supplier part number" on the identifying label area of the product's
> carton).
>
>