Slashdot Mirror
Baby Monitors Killing Urban Wi-Fi
Barence writes "Baby monitors and wireless TV transmitters are responsible for slowing down Wi-Fi connections in built-up areas, according to a report commissioned by British telecoms regulator Ofcom. The research smashes the myth that overlapping Wi-Fi networks in heavily congested towns and cities are to blame for faltering connection speeds. Instead it claims that unlicensed devices operating in the 2.4GHz band are dragging down signals. 'It only requires a single device, such as an analogue video sender, to severely affect Wi-Fi services within a short range, such that a single large building or cluster of houses can experience difficulties with using a single Wi-Fi channel,' the report claims."
Frank: A lot of people are bugging their babies these days. I guess babies can't be trusted.
Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
They're just trying to slow down the net for their parents so they'll have time to play with them!
MidnightBSD: The BSD for Everyone
Consider this, though. If you lived in the countryside, you wouldn't be able to leech wifi from your neighbor because he'd be outside of the wifi AP's coverage.
So essentially you'd get the same service as far as wifi goes, but you also get the benefits of living closer to work and not having to own a car and be able to save all that money just by living in the urban area.
(or are we using code words like "baby monitor" and "urban" to mean something racist?)
Do away with the babies, then we don't need baby monitors anymore. Voila! Better wi-fi. I'm willing to sacrifice all your babies for better wi-fi.
And it was interrupting my raiding schedule. So I hired a hitman to take out my neighbors baby, execution style. Problem fixed itself soon after.
... yet.
I had him plant some weed on the infant to make it look like a drug deal gone bad but I was still questioned at the trial. Thank god Warcraft can't be considered a motive
My work here is dung.
Why not use some awesome alternate firmware to use a channel (14, anyone?) that nobody else in the area is likely using and thus avoid interference?
Isn't it interesting how you come to recognize posters based solely on their sigs???
Won't someone thing of something besides the children!?
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
I've somehow been able to run Wi-Fi with a baby monitor at home in the same general vicinity without a problem. I'm in a fairly dense suburban apartment complex with at least 10-12 WiFi hotspots when I look, it stands to reason other similar baby monitor devices, cordless cellphones, etc. are probably around. I also have a cordless landline phone, but it's on 5.8ghz and annoying everything but my WiFi there :-)
If this becomes a problem, I imagine they'll make baby monitors actually run on Wifi. Imagine your baby monitor being an internet device even if it's only relaying packets back and forth through your hub with nothing special. Maybe as a side benefit you can capture baby audio noises to Wifi network as MP3 or something for posterity, with a noise detector to catch anything significant (I envision emailing grandma 12am baby babble heard through the monitor).
...in bed
Wireless telephones work around the same frequencies. Not true mobile phones, but the house ones that need a basestation. Ours used to interrupt the network when a call came in, or ring when there was a large transfer going on. Until we ditched it.
Isn't that what being part of the unlicensed, open, free spectrum means though? Anyone can use it for anything?
I'd start using the .11a and .11n stuffs, were I you.
that children do not belong on the internet!
Many leave their baby monitors open and unencrypted.
I've found many open baby monitors being leeched by a dozen on more losers. The stolen bandwidth really lagged out the pictures and caused little Johnny to stew in his own poo longer than necessary.
And just try to get one of these leeches to do even a single changing. The second little Johhny finishes an upload the leeches scatter without the courtesy of seeding.
If the cause isn't network-traffic-related, then why aren't those same interfering devices causing problems in rural areas? Even people in rural areas these days have microwaves and baby monitors.
The research smashes the myth that overlapping Wi-Fi networks in heavily congested towns and cities are to blame for faltering connection speeds. Instead it claims that unlicensed devices operating in the 2.4GHz band are dragging down signals.
Since WiFi is yet another one of those "unlicensed devices" that operates in the 2.4GHz frequency range, how exactly does this smash the myth? We all knew that all these various devices operating in the same frequency range would stomp all over each other once there were enough of them.
So which baby is it that's monitoring the killing of urban WiFi? If he/she weren't monitoring it, would it still be happening?
This guy's the limit!
A friend was having trouble with a TV signal repeater he was using to send his TV signal from his aerial to the screen in his kitchen as his DVB-T signal was poor in that room. He couldn't figure out why it was experiencing intermittent interference but he had noticed it was worse when his PC was turned on.
I guessed straight away it was probably due to his wi-fi and moving his network over to channel 1 (reggae ftw!) sorted the problem out. I'm sure it still happens occasionally though, most likely do to someone else in his building having a network on the default channel 11.
Nick
2.4GHz is known "garbage" band, precisely because it is the frequency for microwave cooking ovens.
Consequently, due to obviously low channel availability, licensing was and is unnecessary. Wi-Fi was intentionally designed to use this unlicensed band to avoid over-regulation. Wi-Fi was never meant to be a Metropolitan Area Network technology it now tries to be, but to achieve some kind of "no pigtail" LAN connectivity inside single room/office instead, just a little bit more then Bluetooth. It's main competitor at the time was IrDA!
All devices in the 2.4GHz ISM band are unlicensed devices. Baby monitors and wireless TV bridges are just as legitimate users of the bandwidth as Wifi networks. You can use the relatively free 5Ghz band, but it's only a matter of time until other applications also start to crowd that frequency. That's why the ISM bands have power limits, so that interference is limited to the vicinity of the device.
Does the article not realize that "Wi-Fi" devices are also unlicensed? By definition any device operating in the 2.4GHZ UNLICENSED BAND is an unlicensed device! Wi-Fi devices have the exact same priority as any other device using this frequency band. And really, there's nothing wrong with this. Since this frequency band is unlicensed the FCC is basically saying "use at your own risk, anyone can use this frequency for any purpose they like, and there is no guarantee of any quality of service". If you want something that's more reliable and guaranteed to work shell out the $$$$ for some spectrum and equipment that works on a licensed piece of spectrum that you own.
I rather expected it since it is actually about children.
Speaking as a father who has actually lost a baby to some form of SIDS, I can tell you that concerned parents are not simply being overly cautious. The death of a baby is a kind of darkness that can never be cured or healed.
So what is the solution to the problem? Digital monitor devices that use WiFi protocols to transmit crystal clear sounds and images.
What solves the problems of currently deployed systems that "work just fine and don't need to be replaced?" I dunno... a gift-giving campaign?
Good feminists abort male fetuses
Really good feminists never get close enough to a man to make a fetus.
It kind of annoys me to see big rollouts using 802.11.
First there's the snowjob the ISPs give the cities to get the municipal monopoly, then there's snowjob the eager, wannabe-techno-savvy politicians give their constituents for giving away the farm to yet another municipal monopoly (where I live it was a sweetheart contract to provide in-care wireless to cops and city workers to prop up the ultimately unprofitable sale of wifi to end-users), and then there's the inevitable whining from users about why it doesn't work like the access point within 25 feet of them everywhere else they use 802.11, which they inaccurately call "wireless" and lump the in same category as cell phones, FM radio, etc.
Then we get to the point where providers using a technology not designed for lighting up whole cities start bitching about everyone else using "their" unlicensed spectrum....
I moved ½ a year ago from a apartment to a house. I moved from a place where I could se 20x SIDS to a place where I could see 2-3.
I had some connectivity problems with my different devices + a lot of bluetooth dropouts on mouse and keyboards.
When I was done moving in I got around to setup Wi-Spy to monitor for an entire day.
Channels 6 and 11 was populated with 2-3 access points that did not really make much traffic and I had placed my on channel 1. But all channels from 1 to 11 has a lot of signals that you need at tool like wi-spy to see, signal that looked like cordless phones, baby monitors etc and then cell phones with bluetooth enabled(on top of my wireless keyboard and mouse)
And since I can use channel 13, I moved my AP up there even though it had a bit overlaps with the APs on channel 11.
I got much better sustained throughput because of much less background noise.
I also monitored the 5 GHz band and it was dead quiet compared to 2,4. So I would move everything there if only my stupid airport extreme(old version) could run both channels at the same time, but I have 2 devices that does not support 5 GHz.
This is how rumors get started, Beavis!
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
Why the heck are baby monitors on 2.4GHz anyway? What the hell do they need that much bandwidth for?
Why can't they operate on lower frequencies, like the 900MHz bands? 900MHz goes through walls better, too.
I've worked tech support a long time, and three years ago we already had dozens of calls every week about wireless network signals disrupted by those bargain bin 2.4 GHz cordless phones
IFAIK there is a general licen{s|c}e for the use of approved products in the 2.4GHz ISM band in the UK. Baby monitors and video senders with a 'CE' mark are approved, and Wi-Fi devices have to share the spectrum with them (and the bloody ovens!). The idiocy was putting Wi-Fi in an ISM band to start with - it should have been allocated its own band to be used only by approved Wi-Fi products.
"You said the word "Man". Please report to the centre for re-education.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
So after reading the article, I can't really agree on this. I have "lots of EE friends in high places" and they also disagree to a large extent.
Back in 03 when I was deploying my company's first wireless networks, this article explained a lot.
And further reading here...funny how this has already been covered this year.
And remember, the ISM band *was allocated because of microwave ovens* as in...it wouldnt be fair to license out this band because it is interference prone, so they made it a sort of free for all...if a baby monitor is interfering with your cordless phone or WiFi, that is probably the least of your problems!
Is the solution.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
WiFi monitors kill urban babies.
The story of wifi is an excellent demonstration of the virtues of a technology that, while sucky, is cheap, fairly easy to use, and freely usable without any sort of licensing hassle(beyond that undergone by the manufacturer, of course). The fact that just anybody can set a system up has made wifi ubiquitous. Unfortunately, this only works because wifi uses a rather nasty bit of unlicensed spectrum, which isn't all that great in physics terms, and is shared with all sorts of sources of noise.
Perhaps, with subsequent spectrum allocations, we should (rather than selling it off to the phone company) create blocks of "semi-licensed" spectrum. Like the unlicensed spectrum, anybody would be able to set up a device anywhere, without legal interference; but, unlike the 2.4GHz band, only devices compliant with a wifi-like open industry standard would be allowed to use it, preventing interference from arc welders and microwaves and horrendous super-noisy legacy designs and things. Since RF devices have to be tested and licensed anyway(to prevent interference with licensed bands) the additional regulatory overhead on the manufacturers of these wifi-like modules would be fairly small. It seems to me that this would preserve the virtues of wifi, while simultaneously protecting that slice of spectrum from severe interference.
AM radio stations nearby can also be a big source of problems. When I moved I didn't have high-speed for a while so I used my 3-year-old US-Robotics dialup modem. It didn't work, and when I listened to the dialing, I heard music. Turns out the local AM station signal, which is only about 1.5 miles away, is getting into the modem, making it into an AM radio. "Dammit, Jim, I'm a modem, not a radio!:
I tried to buy a filter, but the shop said they were out and the web ones were expensive. Fortunately, a cheap $11 internal modem was able to work. Here's a toast to the cheapy! Made in Taiwan (not mainland China). Thank you Taiwan: cheap & works.
Table-ized A.I.
Two words: DECT monitors. Much better range, you don't hear or cause interference at all. Plus the battery life's better. Been available for years.
Call me when urban wifi starts killing baby. That'll be news !
\u262D = \u5350
"WEASELPENIS"
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
"You said the word "Man". Please report to the centre for Inguinal Orchiectomy."
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
I have a Summer Best View baby monitor http://www.summerinfant.com/categories_products_view.php?id=322 that I found at Target and as much as I love this little device, it brought my wireless G network to a crawl. I could no more longer stream movies across my wireless. The camera end does let you choose between two frequencies and I found that if I change the channel on my router to 1 from the default 6 and changed the channel on my baby monitor, I have the speeds almost back to normal. I did have a problem with my wireless devices reconnecting and had to reconfigure most of them. I was really surprised that these devices were permitted to use the 2.4GHz frequencies, but at least I found a way to cope with it.
So who will be the first to make baby monitors that work on your WiFi network?
It's no secret that 2.4G and 5GH devices screw with wireless networks... heck, I bet they also found that in dense areas, WIRELESS NETWORKS EFFECT THE PERFORMANCE OF WIRELESS NETWORKS! Guess what, so do microwaves!
Network and other data devices should 1) be relegated to dedicated frequencies, like TVs, radio, and phones already are. Restrict only data systems to that band. 2) narrower band restrictions should be employed (or expanded ranges) to allow more chanels to agregate in the same space. 11 chanels, including the crossover which really leaves us with 5-6 viable chanels, is not NEARLY enough... 3) Portable household devices (like phones, monitors, etc) and other wireless systems (home theatre speakers, game remotes, etc) should be relegated to their own bands not used for network/data.
I just moved into a new house. I bought a lot of new equipment to go in it. My new wireless phones are 8.2GHz. My HT rear speakers run on line-of-sight, not 2.4GHz like most. My Wifi runs on 5GHz (and also 2.4, but that's reserved for the guest network SSIDs which are disabled completely unless I have a guest). My baby monitors run in the 900MHz range. Everything that COULD be wired IS wired. As a coutesy, on the devices I can, I have turned down the gain so the signal is only clear to the distances required. (my wifi penatrates all my rooms at 4 or 5 bars at only 60% signal strenght, i have no need to be on wifi 250 feet from my house...).
There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
Not as cheap, but if you move up to 802.11a you can enjoy the wide open spaces of 5 Ghz, non-overlapping channels, and more of them. Until they start making 5 Ghz babies.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
I know that my household wifi drops like an anchor whenever I start using a typical 2.4GHz hobby remote-control. The RC transmitters and receivers in that band usually work with a digital encoded "sub-channel" and communicate in a broadband fashion, unlike the older 72MHz analog schemes that had specific narrowband sub-channels. I empathize with the wifi users who get blasted offline when an RC conflicts, but I'd be more concerned if my RC helicopter can't communicate due to wifi interference: a comms drop-out at 100ft can cost a lot of money and repair time, unlike a wifi connection.
[
"Baby Monitors Killing Urban Wi-Fi" can be recycled as "Urban Wi-Fi Monitors Baby Killing".
One needs to recycle where one can. You know... for kids.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Why don't we create things like city-wide WiFi and similar services that should be at least somewhat reliable with a system of routers that would require licensing, in a spectrum that is explicitly dedicated for something like this? Or have all spectrums already been sold to some corporations?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
> Instead it claims that unlicensed devices operating in the 2.4GHz band are dragging down
> signals.
Um, WiFi devices _are_ unlicensed devices. They use the 2.4GHz band on the condition that they do not interfere with authorized uses of the band and accept any interference with their operation. Baby monitors have just as much right to use the band as do your WiFi devices and both must yield to authorized uses.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
"US Navy SEALs, armed with baby monitors, successfully attacked and destroyed the North Korean Iranian Al Qaida scary nuclear weapons plant, by disrupting their communications command and control systems . . . by using the baby monitors."
"A Pentagon spokesman declined to comment that a Defense Department Special Warfare Squad was being trained exclusively with RC toy equipment obtained from 'Toys R Us.'"
"Although an anonymous comment from a person familiar with the situation, stated 'That truck that can flip over is real cool.'"
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Because surprisingly, it turns out that other WiFi devices are not to blame for most WiFi interference, as previously thought. Rather, interference is primarily caused by devices that don't cooperate on the channel as well, either because they simply can't (microwave ovens for example) or because they're badly or egoistically designed. In other words, the band isn't really getting full or even crowded, but some light regulation is in order to force users of the band to cooperate more nicely in the future.
I would have got first post if it wasn't for those goddamn BREEDERS and their filthy RUGRATS JAMMING my wifi.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
I don't buy 2.4GHz wireless phones any more. Not worth the trouble.
I don't call the RV park across the street and ask them to change channels on any of the 6 Aps I can receive. I set up a cantenna and blasted their nearest AP until they changed the channel. ps- their 'Internet Guy' is the owner's brain-damaged nephew. He means well.
I don't bug my neighbors about their changing channels almost weekly. I just rig the cantenna again and blast 'em. They change. Life is good. ps- they do NOT understand that the RV park has 9 APs, and we can easily get 6 of them. They don't know it's me trying to use a channel they chose. pps- they moved in 3 months ago, and just got their AP running. They barely know what to do, and I profess ignorance - I'm not into unpaid support any more. Their 9-year old son is handling the admin duties, I think.
My niece has a baby monitor, but it's probably a 27MHz one, never hurt their WiFi.
WiFi has its limitations. At least here in the US, we let the NSA handle the surveillance, and thyey usually don't interfere with the signal. Nice guys there. Kinda wierd, but nice.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
My baby is three months old and I've been using a baby monitor since day 1. And here I thought it was just Time Warner's usually crappy service...on second thought, it is just Time Warner's usual crappy service.
How is it inaccurate to call it "wireless" if, in fact, no wires are used to transmit signals? What in the world do you propose?
I agree.
A lot of co-existing WiFi may slow things down somewhat in an urban area, however the 802.11 wireless protocols are well designed to handle access to the channel. For the most part WiFi client devices and access points recognize the transmissions of neighbors on the same channels and will mediate amongst themselves to provide reasonable fair access to the spectrum. This is further improved by the fact that 11b only devices are becoming quite rare reducing the need for APs to automatically enter performance sapping 11b/11g compatibility mode.
Non WiFi devices use their own protocols and are perceived as pure noise. They offer no chance of channel access negotiation and fair access.
The best way to address this would be to develop these consumer devices to work using the WiFi protocols (with some smart features such as no-transmit on silence/no video change) Lastly, consumers need to drop their fear of 5 Ghz 802.11a and take advantage of the greatly increased spectrum available with 5 Ghz.
in the internet age
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Problem solved for those who own an iPhone: http://precognitiveresearch.com/content/baby_alert_pro/
I had similar problems with my Wi-Fi connection dropping and was finally fed up, so I did some research and found the MetaGeek Wi-Spy spectrum analyzer (ONLY $99-$199). http://www.metageek.net/ I ordered the $99 Wi-Spy v1, haven't received it yet, but I suspect that I have a neighbor that is using a 2.4ghz phone (in the Ch 1 range) that is causing my dropped connections.
I think 802.11 based devices outnumber the analog uses of the 2.4GHz band. The only things that should be in that band are 802.11, microwave ovens and ISM and that's all.
Make the baby monitor makers either shift to DECT, or drop down to 900MHz again. I don't get the shift up, 900MHz has reasonable propagation characteristics compared to 2.4GHz.
My parents' cordless telephone kills the wireless every time it rings, and for as long as it's in use.
Sometimes.
I think it depends on the channel the router was using... it was set to automatically pick the "best" channel. Well, until the phone rang.
Changing the channel to a fixed value solved the problem, I think. Apparently the phone was only interfering on some of the channels' frequencies.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Would WIFI exist and be as common if there wasn't a junk band like 2.4GHz?
If it were me, I'd use a directional antenna to figure out where the interference was coming from and build an aluminum mesh/foil faraday shield on a wall to block it.
There might be power limitations, but are there limitations on the type of signal encodings you can do? I always thought that the unlicensed bands could be used for anything - as in remote control toys, walkie-talkies, wireless video/audio transmission (like, say, wireless speakers for your home theater system, or wireless video/security cameras, etc), baby monitors, computer equipment, phones, whatever?
Can't you do pretty much anything in that band as long as you stay within the power output limits and don't go outside of the band?
This just goes to show how backwards we are in the States. They already solved this problem is Japan. - Stop having babies.
I found it necessary to delete many of my old memories to make room for new ones.
I had to forget Kindergarten thru the 2nd grade so I could learn Calculus.
I can no longer add or subtract without my calculator, but I can derive like nobodies business!
I love how the article makes it sound as if these devices are not "supposed" to be on the same spectrum as the Wi-Fi devices, which are also "Unlicensed" devices.
The ISM band is an unlicensed band that anyone can use, and you can't complain if someone interferes with you.
Get rid of the video camera and start using your eyes! Or those of a baby sitter. I know I really don't have the first hand experience of a parent. I'm only 20, but when i do have a child I know myself, or my wife, or a baby sitter (one that I feel I could trust with my own life, since she's trusted with something much more important than my own life) will be near that child constantly! And if you can't afford to take care of your kids with a baby sitter or have enough time to take care of them yourself, then you probably shouldn't have any until you can. And if that means never, then that means never.
If you bring someone into this world, make sure they're going to be well socialized moralized and educated, otherwise you're just making more problems for the rest of us. And more problems for your entire future lineage.
My RC Helicopter is controlled using 2.4 GHz digital link. And there are more and more 2.4 GHz devices, as radio components are now cheap enough. I wonder when (digital) CB and PMR devices start using 2.4 GHz too.
If I found a baby monitor feed broadcast where I live, I think my first reaction would be to override it with a stronger goatse/tubgirl feed.
Forget that, just override the audio with prerecorded sounds of a baby crying. Send that 4 times a night at random times and I'm sure it won't be very long before you don't have to worry about any interference.
So...
Where is the OpenWRT/DD-WRT hack to autodetect baby monitors and transmit attention-getting sounds across them to ensure they are quickly turned off? Any suggestions? A few below:
- The sound of a baby reciting the Satanic Verses backwards
- Various baby-stealing sounds
- Periodic pinging (think submarine movies)
- Herb Alpert Techno Remixes.
my microwave totally screws up my wireless in my house for minutes. every time i use it.
Hey! I'm a radio astronomer, and you'll pry that spectrum from our cold, dead hands! In fact, I'm actually working that specific frequency.
Maybe I'm a naive boy, but I solved this problem a long time ago: I don't use WiFi if I can avoid it.
I ran wire from a gigabit switch to the places I normally use my laptop. My desktops (and my server, of course) are all on wire. Cheap, fast, reliable, and no interference.
Yes, I know that there are times when WiFi is pretty useful and practical (I was helping a person in #ubuntu on Freenode yesterday via my netbook on the kitchen counter while I was making breakfast, in fact) but if you don't use WiFi for anything critical, the lack of reliability will never be a deal breaker.
I don't know what this aversion to wire is. It reminds me of the time when my sister-in-law was on the phone with my wife, and the call ended suddenly. Nothing, nothing, nothing, and no answer when my wife called her back. About half an hour later, my sister-in-law called back to say that the power had failed. Yes, cordless phones do die when the power fails, but what sane person doesn't have at least one wired phone to use in an emergency? The answer is - a lot of people don't. I guess not everyone thinks like I do.
"Wardrivers kill babies"
Maybe the babies are using the bandwidth and just faking the minds of these researchers into thinking its the fault of the baby monitors. Are we sure this isn't just the next generation of mutant children hogging the bandwidth with psychic chat about their post-natal experiences?
Think of the children... because they're thinking of you!
Cliff Yablonski? Is it really you?
This is proof that the general public will buy anything if you market it right. If you need a baby monitor that operates at a distance that can't be reached by 900MHz, chances are you're parenting skills are pretty poor to begin with.
What, is your floor plan on the order of an acre in size or something? Or do you just like listening to the aliens on it? As a parent that eschewed overpriced plastic crap targeted towards newborns and their parents, I never understood the point of the device which you seem to find indispensable. I'd say that if you rely on such a device so much, you're doing it wrong. At least a wi-fi signal is *useful* in someone's home. Your plea to save the children sounds just like the plea to save ER doctors from a dull existence by insisting that cell phones in theaters allow them to have lives while on-call.
Expecting people with common sense (which excludes many parents these days) to see the value of baby monitors is wishful thinking. ;-) Flash those wi-fi routers, geeks -- boost those signals!
We had a couple with a newborn living a building away from us. One day, around the time of the new arrival, our wireless, which had worked fine for a couple of years, essentially stopped working. This is despite a high gain omni on the base station. Even 10 feet from the base station the signal (on whatever channel) was unusable. Even after I swapped the router/base station.
Funny thing, the neighbors are gone now, and our signal is once again wall-to-wall and ten feet tall.
At one point I was going to buy directional antennas and failing that a (thoroughly illegal) high power repeater, but never got around to it. Thank God I don't need it now.
If you have a problem with collisions on a protocol newer 802.11a/b, then it's a problem with your equipment, not the channels your neighbors select. g and n get along fine with other devices sharing frequencies. Anyway, base stations channel hop all on their own.
They can. Some operate in the 1.9 GHz range. Look up DECT in Wikipedia if you want details.
I know, "data" isn't the plural of "anecdote", but I've seen this first-hand. Somebody's audio+video baby monitor completely wiped out the entire 802.11g frequency range. The laptop couldn't pick up a signal more than about 2 feet from the AP, and even that was only on channel 1. Turn the baby monitor off, and instantly everything worked great.
A few years ago, I was at a examining a wireless base station/router that kept crashing.
This turned out to be caused by a wireless TV transmitter that was used to get the TV signal to another room during some reconstruction.
That 802.11g wireless router consistently crashed after several minutes when the wireless TV transmitter was used. I haven't seen this happen on any other wireless router though.
Also, when the microwave was used, it jammed the wireless TV signal.
I used to live in a one-bedroom apartment with a 802.11g router and a 2.4 GHz cordless phone. As expected, the spread-spectrum cordless phone would knock out the wi-fi when I made or answered a call.
The solution? Both devices were next to each other in the living room. I ran some Cat 5 through the HVAC duct between the two rooms and put the WAP in the bedroom. Problem solved--I could even talk on the phone next to the WAP and still use my laptop.
It's common these days for universities to not allow personal WAPs or cordless phones in the dorms for obvious reasons. I can imagine a student running an RC car down the hall and clobbering wi-fi. We've all heard of systems that can pinpoint rogue WAPs...wonder if they'd work with other crap...
It's very nice! ---- Free Share Sex 18 Girls Porn Videos. http://zord800.blogspot.com/ No Signup,No username.
I have used WiFi for many years now and have had to explain to many folks that 2.4Ghz is a unlicensed free for all band for the most part. There are hundreds of different devices that can use that frequency which results in obvious conflicts. Even worse early N based routers sucked up 2 channels and some were known for disabling Wifi G routers. The solution? Use Wifi A also known as 5Ghz. The particular band Wifi A uses was dedicated for the most part for WiFi. The result virtually NO interference. The trade-off is shorter working distance due to higher frequency but most folks don't need that MUCH range in reality. I'm highly disappointed Wifi A didn't become the standard. Originally it didn't because it cost more and was considered business class WiFi. Sadly, it's what high density population areas should be using. I was lucky enough to get a Linksys WRT55AG v2 (firmware updated triband router Wifi A B G) before Linksys stopped making it as my home access point. Nowadays your best bet is an expensive dual band N router. The difference? Well my WiFi A router has never lost a single connection in 3 years of useage even when transferring huge 10GB files over Wifi short of a power outtage. G has never been that stable.
My baby Monitor that I use for my Grand Daughter does not mess up my WI-FI. Nor do my Phones. They are all on different freqs. Also I have various hard wired outlets around the house to negate the Wi-FI problems. Since I have a FCC license to operate on almost any freq. I have set my router to a Ultra High freq so that it is harder for my neighbors to invade. Needless to say my neighbor hates me because my wireless router blocks her baby monitor. I don't feel bad since she had the fatest and ugliest baby I have ever seen in my life.