Baby Monitors Killing Urban Wi-Fi 348
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."
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).
Then why isn't this happening is rural areas? (Score:3, Interesting)
That works both ways (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
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
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.
Re:For me... (Score:3, Interesting)
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).
It's called an IP camera. They have been available for a really long time.
Throw a chumby in your bedroom and it's all done. Problem is that most parents are cheap bastards and dont want to pay $399.00 for a IP based baby monitor plus have the education or the IQ to read the instructions to set it up and use it.
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.
Re:Channel 14 (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:You know what that means... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
2.4GHz hobby RC (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Then why isn't this happening is rural areas? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm right out on the edge of suburbia here - green fields on two sides - and my (admittedly pretty old) microwave kills the WiFi network nicely.
Fortunately about a year ago I got off my lazy arse and ran Cat5e for all the important machines. The Wifi is really only for visitors and for playing with toys like my eee PC ..
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.