Baby monitor interference?

[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] 900 MHz won't interfere with 2.4 GHz. That would be a good move.

No.

John Navas hath wroth:

Yes. Some of the wireless routers have a feature where they select the channel based on the interference level. In most wireless routers, the selection of channel is manual and fixed. Pick a channel and take your chances. In the new an improved mutations, the channel is automatically selected on the basis of the least amount of interference. For example:

- Automatic Channel Support Selects Best Available Wireless Networking Channel

In theory, your unidentified model baby monitor only occupies part of the 2.4Ghz band. It probably has a 4 or 6 position switch to select the channel. You could experiment with your Belkin wireless channel selection to see if you can find a channel that does not interfere. No need for a new wireless router. If the baby monitor and the wireless devices were sufficiently separated (at least 5ft), the interference should be minimal if each were set to opposite ends of the 2.4GHz band.

However, there are plenty of things that can go wrong. The unidentified model baby monitor might be a frequency hopper which is required by the FCC to hop over the entire 2.4GHz band. If that's the case, there will be no useable channel and automatic channel selection will not help.

Do some testing with the channels before spending money.

[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

I'm familiar with that feature (which doesn't really "protect" the router), but I've not found it to be terribly useful in practice. The basic problem is that the router is only measuring signals at its own location, whereas the interference problem may well be at the client location and/or intermittent. Having struggled in a couple of installations with this feature picking the wrong channel, I now just use the standard ad hoc manual method augmented by checking with a radio utility. Course even that can go for naught when a neighbor sets up a new wireless network on "your" channel. [sigh] This is one of the reasons that I've sometimes found an overlapping channel (e.g., 3 or 4, 8 or 9) to work "best".

I used it for a "portable" installation (outdoor faire) where there was no control over what channel was going to be used by others and where it was likely to change during the event. It was fairly good at avoiding interference but took forever (about 10 minutes) to switch.

I agree that it's not really "protection". More like avoidance.

Agreed. However, I've noticed that the routers tend to be in better locations and have better antennas than the clients. It's not a total solution to the interference problem, but it does seem to help somewhat.

I've had no luck with the in-between channels. They get interference from both sides from 1, 6, and 11. Granted it's not as much interference as from someone exactly on channel or one channel over. However the interference tends to be there more often and longer as it's coming from 2 or more networks. I stick with 1, 6, and 11 and only use the others when all three are fully occupied.

Actually, I do have a solution to the interference problem, but it's fatal to ALL the nearby networks. I fire up a Breezecom (Alvarion) frequency hoppers (SA-10, AP-10, WB-10). They'll do about

1.5Mbits/sec thruput, which is usually sufficient. The problem is that these frequency hoppers occupy the entire band. There are no clear channels. FHSS is also far less susceptible to interference than DSSS. FHSS also doesn't show up on Netstumbler or Kismet. Meanwhile, all the local DSSS networks just go almost comatose while I barely notice any slowdown.