Slashdot Log In
Baby Monitors Killing Urban Wi-Fi
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Mon May 11, 2009 09:55 AM
from the along-with-my-full-night's-sleep dept.
from the along-with-my-full-night's-sleep dept.
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."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Baby Monitors (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Baby Monitors (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Baby Monitors (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Baby Monitors (Score:5, Informative)
You are right sir. We can be proud of our British offspring [youtube.com].
Parent
Re:Baby Monitors (Score:4, Funny)
Besides, if you don't monitor them you can't be sure they've eaten their meat. Think of all the children that might get pudding without having eaten their meat.
Parent
Re:Baby Monitors (Score:4, Insightful)
I do understand the need to prevent service degradation and I like my wi-fi signal as strong as anyone. However I'm also the parent of a 6 month old and there's no way I'm giving up my monitor. Fortunately I live in an area where this does not affect others as the closest house is quite some distance away. And actually, neither does it interfere very much with my wi-fi either. Most parents have no clue what frequency various items in their household are operating on. Nor do I expect them to. I would suggest that manufacturers are the ones responsible to ensure that devices do not step on each other. I do understand that many businesses will do whatever is legal without regard for what you or I may think is right. In that case, since we're operating in the public spectrum, oversight perhaps is required. In any event, expecting parents to not use monitors is wishful thinking :)
Parent
Re:Baby Monitors (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is that they need to understand that any device run on open frequencies can not and must not be trusted or relied on.
If I jam your baby monitor, you have no recourse, because the FCC blurb on it states quite clearly that it must accept any and all signals, including harmful ones.
If you rely on your baby monitor, or trust what it sends, switch to one that doesn't run on open frequencies.
Parent
Baby crying (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Parent
Re:Baby crying (Score:5, Funny)
Umm, those of you without children probably think that a cry is some generic thing. It's not. I can tell my daughter's cry from other babies, and putting some pre-recorded sounds will probably not do anything other than have me pull out a yagi and hunt your ass down.
I'll play some pre-recorded crying to you when I find you. (after I make you cry.)
Parent
Think of the children? (Score:5, Funny)
They're just trying to slow down the net for their parents so they'll have time to play with them!
You know what that means... (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:You know what that means... (Score:5, Funny)
Sarcasm aside :-p I more realistically forsee a banning of baby monitors actually happening as the 2.4ghz airspace continues to clutter, either that or baby monitors actually joining WiFi spots as I said in an earlier post below, though what did they do in the days before baby monitors? Even when my baby monitor has a failure (forgot to turn on, unplugged, dead battery, etc.), I can usually still hear my baby screaming me awake, I keep telling my wife we really don't need the monitor just to amplify the volume of said scream...
Parent
Re:You know what that means... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:You know what that means... (Score:5, Informative)
Microwave ovens use this space, because water absorbs it very well. Because ovens use it, and atmospheric water absorbs these frequencies, the standards people knew it wouldn't be very useful for communications, so they made the band unlicensed for limited output power. (Microwave ovens are not supposed to leak, but sometimes they do. If your or your neighbor's microwave causes much interference, have it checked out, the leakage could be dangerous.)
Anyway, because this spectrum was unlicensed the free market took over, and tons of devices started to use it.
There's plenty of licensed spectrum that you can use, just get a license.
Parent
Re:You know what that means... (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:You know what that means... (Score:5, Informative)
They could be in the same part of the spectrum, but designed by sane people. If your router is newer, for example, it probably supports frequency scanning and self-configuration for channel. Routers which have that ability will scan the usable channels, and pick the one that has the least interference, and are able to change channels on the fly when somebody opens up and starts cluttering your channel.
Likewise, higher end baby monitors are able to broadcast/receive on at least a dozen channels, and I've seen ones that are capable of using 48 different channels and more. These will pick a frequency where there's less interference in order to work.
You could be being affected by engineers who actually knew what they were doing when they designed your hardware, in other words. I know. it's rare. But things will be ok.
Parent
Re:You know what that means... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
I Had This Problem (Score:5, Funny)
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
Re:I Had This Problem (Score:5, Funny)
I was in an instance last weekend and a guy has to go AFK because of the baby crying. Came back and said
"Wife took over, have a newborn"
I jokingly asked if he was still at the hospital:
"Yep, wifi on a laptop. Baby was born 9:00 server time"
Parent
Channel 14 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Channel 14 (Score:5, Interesting)
Because channel 14 is splattered hard by baby monitors.
Get yourself a spectrum analyzer and be appalled at the splatter these damned baby monitors have.
Move to A or real N and get away from the wasteland that is 2.4ghz
Parent
Re:Channel 14 (Score:5, Informative)
That being said ...
Using channel 14 in the USA (and other non-channel 14 countries) can be done via a DD-WRT compatible router, and Wireless cards where you can change the CRDA to Japan (like Atheros cards that work with ath5k and ath9k on linux.)
The linux command to change your regulatory domain is:
bash# iw reg set JP
The issue with channel 14 is that it is reduced power, meaning in most cases you'll only get 802.11b speeds with it.
Now why something is critical as wifi has to exist with stupid consumer shit is the real crux of the issue ...
Parent
Re:Channel 14 (Score:4, Informative)
WIfi IS stupid consumer shit. ;-)
There is currently a huge uproar over how the 802.11 wants to use 40MHz bandwidth leaving no space for other (arguably more critical) devices like 802.15.4 based sensors and controls.
Interestingly 15.4 can cope much better with filthy 2.4GHz radios as the modulation scheme is designed for robustness rather than speed.
Get you bandwidth hogging butts out of 2.4GHz.
Parent
Re:Channel 14 (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
OMG (Score:5, Funny)
For me... (Score:5, Interesting)
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).
Re:For me... (Score:4, Interesting)
Why can't my cordless phone do some magic VOIP in my house (even if the base still sends the signal over POTS)?
I don't know, why can't it? WiFi SIP phones exist, and you can buy adaptors that will bridge POTS to SIP. Although, if you're using SIP for the endpoint, why not go the whole way and use SIP for the entire call? My mobile phone can talk WiFi and SIP and so when I'm in my house (or near some other WiFi point I've told the phone to trust) I can receive incoming calls to my SIP number and make cheap outgoing calls. The idea of having a phone for a house, rather than for a person, is quaint but not very useful.
Parent
Portable phones too. (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re:Portable phones too. (Score:4, Insightful)
That's why the DECT band was set aside. The 1.9 GHz band is reserved exclusively for voice communication, and as such doesn't overlap wireless networks, baby monitors, etc.
No, I don't know why baby monitor makers haven't interpreted "voice communications" to cover baby monitors. Maybe the FCC ruled it doesn't count until they can speak a language?
Parent
Re:Portable phones too. (Score:4, Informative)
Isn't that what being part of the unlicensed, open, free spectrum means though? Anyone can use it for anything?
No, it only means that anyone can use it. There are still rules about how it can be used; it can't be used for just anything. for example, the maximum transmit power for 2.4ghz is something like 1 watt. If you transmit over that power, you're in violation and the FCC can shut you down.
Parent
More evidence... (Score:5, Funny)
Then why isn't this happening is rural areas? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Then why isn't this happening is rural areas? (Score:4, Funny)
Packets in the country are friendlier and more courteous than those goldang city packets.
Parent
Re:Then why isn't this happening is rural areas? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're just reading this whole thing with the wrong emphasis. The interesting part of this is not that a baby monitor can cause interference for WiFi. The interesting aspect is more that the interference many people experience in urban areas is because of devices like baby monitors.
Lots of people in big cities find trouble maintaining a stable WiFi network because the signal keeps dying even though everything is well within range. The assumption has been that it's a result of too many people having WiFi in too great a concentration, and so they're all interfering with each other. So the news here is the idea that, no, it's not other WiFi devices, it's baby monitors.
Part of the problem is, being in a city, it's not easy to tell what the problem is. If at random times of the day your WiFi cuts out, how are you to know that one of your neighbors is turning on the baby monitor? If you live out on a farm with nothing in range but your own house, you're probably going to figure it out much more quickly.
Parent
"Smashes" the myth? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
fun with titles (Score:3, Funny)
Nothing to see here (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
"Unlicensed devices" (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
All 2.4Ghz devices are unlicensed! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:All 2.4Ghz devices are unlicensed! (Score:5, Informative)
By definition any device operating in the 2.4GHZ UNLICENSED BAND is an unlicensed device!
Close, but not exactly correct. Technically if you get a amateur radio / ham radio license you can operate on a secondary basis in that band up to 1500 watts as per FCC 97.301 with special notice of 97.303(j)2(iv) and 97.303(j)2(B). Note that there is a heck of alot more to following FCC part 97 than just these two little sections. You probably mean any device operating under FCC unlicensed rules is an unlicensed device, but thats not saying much, more or less?
(B) Amateur stations operating in the 2400-2417 MHz segment must accept harmful interference that may be caused by the proper operation of industrial, scientific and medical equipment.
(iv) The 2417-2450 MHz segment is allocated to the amateur service on a co-secondary basis with the Federal Government radiolocation service. Amateur stations operating within the 2417-2450 MHz segment must accept harmful interference that may be caused by the proper operation of industrial, scientific, and medical devices operating within the band.
http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/ [arrl.org]
It's non unusual for multiple services to be allocated on one frequency or frequency band with some being licensed and some not being licensed and some being primary allocations and some secondary allocations.
Parent
My personal experience. (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Time for a "semi-licenced" band? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
"Unlicensed"? (Score:5, Informative)
> 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.
Here in the U.S. (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:No, it's okay. Urban living still rocks (Score:5, Insightful)
(or are we using code words like "baby monitor" and "urban" to mean something racist?)
Or are you just following up an otherwise interesting post with a flamebait comment?
Parent
WHAT!!!!???? WiFi KILLING BABIES!!!!???? (Score:5, Funny)
This is how rumors get started, Beavis!
Parent
More PERTINENT Post... (Score:5, Informative)
Back in 03 when I was deploying my company's first wireless networks, this article explained a lot [wi-fiplanet.com].
And further reading here [slashdot.org]...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!
Parent
Re:I see it red (Score:5, Funny)
I would have got first post if it wasn't for those goddamn BREEDERS and their filthy RUGRATS JAMMING my wifi.
Parent
Re:Why 2.4GHz? (Score:4, Informative)
> Why the heck are baby monitors on 2.4GHz anyway?
It is an unlicensed band. Anyone can use it, and no one can (legally) complain, since they "knew" that it was a free-for-all (it is hidden in the fine print in your router directions, probably).
> Why can't they operate on lower frequencies, like
> the 900MHz bands? 900MHz goes through walls better, too.
Because those are all licensed bands, with only the selected providers allowed to operate their (your cell phone can use it only to connect to a licensed provider) equipment in your area.
Parent
Re:Why 2.4GHz? (Score:5, Informative)
My old 915MHz WaveLAN network I still have set up at home hasn't been bothered at all by the baby monitors. Last I checked, 902 to 928 MHz is still open for unlicensed ISM use in Region 2.
> Because those are all licensed bands, with only the selected
> providers allowed to operate their (your cell phone can use
> it only to connect to a licensed provider) equipment in your area.
Parent