12-22-2003, 03:00 PM
|
|
Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,171
|
|
Increasing WiFi Interference
As WiFi becomes more prevalent, so does a variety of problems. This article from the Register identifies incompatibilities with various extensions of the 802.11g protocol.
"Broadcom's allegation that 802.11g Wi-Fi products based on chips developed by its rival, Atheros, will degrade the performance of nearby wireless networks appears to have been verified by independent tests. Tim Higgins of web site Small Net Builder carried out a comprehensive series of tests to see if Atheros' Super G technology, which promises to double the range of WLANs built out of Atheros kit, interferes with adjacent networks not based upon the technology. And that's what he found: 'A Super G wireless LAN running at full speed will interfere with an 11g WLAN also running at full speed. Severe throughput loss in the 11g WLAN can occur up to 30 feet away and significant throughput loss may still be seen around 50 feet.'"
Ironically, to me this is the least of the problems with 802.11b/g. I have a site where 802.11b is deployed, where I can see something like 6 other access points, and by definition some of them are overlapping my AP's frequency. I'm thinking of deploying 802.11a at the site, because of the relatively uncluttered 5GHz band. Are you suffering from WiFi interference?
|
| |
|
|
|
12-22-2003, 05:41 PM
|
|
Neophyte
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1
|
|
I wish I'd be so lucky. I live at an apartment complex, and I can pick up 12 other networks on the b/g frequencies. Fortunately, most people leave their APs at the default channel, but I often have to do a scan to make sure no new AP has popped up and overlapped my channel (I actually have 2 indirect overlaps, which I cannot avoid, but mostly concerned about direct overlaps)
I did invest in a dual-band, tri-mode (a/b/g) WAP not long ago, and it was probably the best thing I ever did. There are NO other networks except for mine on 802.11a, and in my opinion, 802.11a is much faster than g (quite possibly due to less interference). I only use the b/g part of the spectrum for my PDA and other things that require it.
|
| |
|
|
|
12-22-2003, 06:13 PM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 141
|
|
I've never seen any other b networks near me, I know of a 2 friends and a few schools that have them but thats about it and they are at least 1/4 mile away.
It must be because I live in the UK.
|
| |
|
|
|
12-22-2003, 07:45 PM
|
|
Pontificator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,202
|
|
I suffered b/g interference with my wireless telephones. I tried "a" thinking the different frequency would help, it did, but the range was too weak to reach all of the rooms in my house. I ended up going back to a b/g setup and replaced the phones with 5.8 GHz models. All happy. :lol:
My point is that there is a lot of technology trying to use the same range these days and I think someone is going to have to find a way to make them all play better together. I'm not an engineer, but I've been told that the higher the frequency, the less range it can travel- which explains my issue with the 802.11a network. Are we running out of "usable" RF? I'm guessing someone is working on a better way to send wireless signals and in 20 years 802.11 will be like a token ring network is today.
whydidnt
|
| |
|
|
|
12-22-2003, 09:15 PM
|
|
|
12-22-2003, 10:29 PM
|
|
Sage
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 667
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by whydidnt
I suffered b/g interference with my wireless telephones. I tried "a" thinking the different frequency would help, it did, but the range was too weak to reach all of the rooms in my house. I ended up going back to a b/g setup and replaced the phones with 5.8 GHz models. All happy. :lol:
|
That was my only interference issue as well. We live on 5 acres so there are no other networks competing with ours, but I did buy both 802.11g and 2.4 GHz phones when we moved here. The phones would just hang up randomly while in use, so I took them back and exchanged them for a 5.8 GHz set and all has been well since. I love our little wireless world here. 
|
| |
|
|
|
12-23-2003, 02:38 AM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 164
|
|
I work for a major corp. where we have several APs in one location (around 70+) and even some Bluetooth usage with little or no interference. In fact, we've used a few different independent contractors (incl Cisco and IBM) to certify our networks. We use 802.11 (old old old), 802.11a (old old, don't think it's fast at all), and 802.11b in the same area.
I think all that's needed is good planning.
*Phil
|
| |
|
|
|
12-26-2003, 04:04 AM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 144
|
|
Good planning is essential. If you have a 2.4 GHz network, why would you buy a 2.4 GHz phone? Get 1.8 or 5.8 GHz phones and you're golden.
|
| |
|
|
|
12-26-2003, 04:15 AM
|
|
Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,171
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tsb_hcy
Good planning is essential. If you have a 2.4 GHz network, why would you buy a 2.4 GHz phone? Get 1.8 or 5.8 GHz phones and you're golden.
|
Sometimes you don't have the luxury of planning -- for example, in an office building in an urban area. That's the situation I was citing above.
--janak
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
