Slashdot Mirror
Wireless Congestion
AllMightyPaul writes "An article on CNN describes the congestion experienced by many users of wireless networks as more and more people begin to use them at home and at work. The unregulated frequencies between 902 and 928, where most Wi-Fi devices operate, sees a lot of traffic, apparently."
According to the article, WiFi uses the 2.4GHz range ("2.4 to 2.483.5 gigahertz")...
1) so-called Wi-Fi, usually 802.11b, uses the 2.4Ghz ism band, not the 900Mhz one. Most wifi is therefore NOT 900Mhz.
2) Of course it's going to be congested! There is a REASON the 2.4Ghz band is where it is. It's dirty, and unlicensed. It was designated in the first place as an ISM band because it's dirty; it's not as commercially attractive as other bands in the same area. The fcc regulations REQUIRE you to accept interference from other devices.
From the article:
Headsets and other gadgets using the Bluetooth standard, newer cordless phones and microwave-powered, energy-saving light bulbs share the 2.4 to 2.483.5 gigahertz frequency range used by Wi-Fi. Household microwave ovens use radio waves in that range to heat leftovers.
802.11b Wi-Fi devices occupy the 2.4 GHz spectrum, not the 900 MHz spectrum as erroneously stated by the article submitter.
802.11a, by comparison, uses the mostly-unoccupied 5 GHz spectrum, making it less prone to interference. It also boasts about 5x the theoretical bandwidth of 802.11b.
Furthermore, there are additional 802.11 hybrids that occupy different frequencies and offer different bandwidths.
The company I work for used a wireless link to get a 45mbit/sec data connection between our two offices for more than a year. Different businesses in the same building initiated wireless links after seeing the sucess we had with ours. One, which was aimed at a nearby wireless ISP was illegally overpowered and wiped out our connection regularly, despite the fact that the dishes weren't even facing the same direction. The other, which made a very short hop, was apparently on poorly configured equipment and would also play merry hell with our shot.
IANAWE(I am not a wireless engineer), but I can't help but feeling that if we're to see the 'unlimited spectrum' as it's been mentioned before, then equipment manufacturers are going to have to do a hell of a lot better job of making wireless kit that minimizes signal bleed.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
What the hell about this article about the false theory of spectrum scarcity no less then 2 hours ago?
I have a 2.4 ghz IEEE 802.11 wireless network in our house. Works great. (All Lucent cards.)
We have a 2.4 ghz phone, with also works great, but when we're on the phone, the throughput on the wireless lan goes down, and similarly, if there's a lot of wireless lan traffic, the phone gets interference. Tried different channels.
Tried out a wireless video relay from Radio Shack which uses 2.4 ghz. The wireless lan (even idle) causes regular noise on the screen, making it unusable. It went back.
Most annoying of all, when our microwave is on, the wireless lan loses most packets, and is almost unusable in the kitchen (and some other places).
The frequency hopping and co-existence in this band doesn't seem to work out as well in practice as it does in theory, unfortunately.
-me
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
And is an unlicensed user of the spectrum. Fortunately current technology can compensate.
At 900 MHz Government and vehicle location are primary, and amatuers are among the secondary authorized users. Part 15 devices just add to the noise that other services must overcome.
In both bands, amatuer operations are swamped, if low power, by the increase in the noise floor. However, amatuers can operate on those bands with enough power using the same spread spectrum scheme such that the WiFi would be useless for PArt 15 devices. But its unlikely given the nature of the amatuer radio service (recently the FCC relaxed the allowable spread spectrum/frequency hopping restrictions on amatuers).
This is where that portion of the FCC regs. for Part 15 devices is critical, in that they must not create interference for the licensed users of the spectrum and must accept interference from them. Not an exact quote, but you get the drift.
In a nutshell, if you use unlicensed devices in spectrum where other services are authorized for higher power, you get what you'd expect. Now 5GHz is a great place to be! BTW when I key up on 2.4 GHz with 10 watts, my 802.11b network shuts down pretty hard. With only 50 feet or so of seperation the front end of the WiFi receivers gets overloaded even though I am not all that close in frequency, it is just the radio circuitry in the WiFi devices is just barely adequate so they can meet their price point and comply with the FCC regs. Better frequency agile receivers could be put in the devices and most likely will be as more devices crowd in. Also automatic power control will get better and the potentially they'll create a third scheme for the spread spectrum use that is more adaptive and as such would accomadate more users.
Last, everyone knows that they can change the channel their network is on, right. I have found several swamped WiFi networks all clashing on channel 1 when there was plenty of usable spectrum up the band. (Powerbooks are great portable diagnostic tools even though the UI is cheesy for the Airport software and the third party tools are scarce due to lack of internal Airport info.)
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
The standard 802.11b usually is preconfigured to be on channel 6. Do yourself a favor, change it when you install your network to something else... The average folks will just plug in the WAP and let it run on that channel. You can have a brain and not compete there.
(somewhat informative: http://www.freespaceoptics.org -- one of many sites on the topic, but one which had a nice pic near the top ;) )
...
...
... I think it will happen. Wait til last year's optical gear is on clearance at Walmart ;)
The site I can't find quickly (anyone?) is one that I know has been mentioned on Slashdot a few times, home-built optical transmitters (In the Czech republic, IIRC) using modified ethernet cards and powerful LEDs to beam multi-kilometer distances
5 years ago I would not have guessed how widespread and cheap 802.11 stuff would be today; right now, you (point of reference, Americans in the lower 48) can get an 802.11 base station for under $100. Glut isn't quite the right word, but lets say there's *a lot* of somewhat decent, moderately versatile wireless gear available for what is in 1st countries not a huge chunk of disposable income, at least for folks middle-class-and-up. The cost of 7 cds gets a working base station
Wouldn't it be nice to see a similar flood of products for optical gear? Yes, there will be lawsuits (eye damage! you hurt my eye!), and ugly warning labels, and ISP crackdowns for retransmission and who knows what else, but
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
It would be irrational to believe that no molecular
disruption will occur in living tissue as a result of
proximate emission of radiation. While the evidence
of causation is anecdotal, it is also quite persuasive
in some cases, as when the form of a tumor mimics the
form of an applied device. The bulk of research on the
subject is currently funded by interested parties, so that
inconclusive results are unpersuasive.
Eventually, the common-sense conclusion that some level
of cancer incidence is directly tracable to body-hugging
microwave transmitters will probably be borne out by
specific statistical analysis of the accumulating mass
of case studies. In the meanwhile, I use a headset, on
the belief that it's much easier to get a hip replaced
than a big chunk of cerebrum. I am sufficiently reckless,
however, to sit with a wifi card in my lap most of the day.
May God Almighty bless my gonads.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-