I've recently installed a Netgear DG834G for a relative. I chose this unit primarily because it got good reviews for coverage. I've found however that the coverage is awful. The unit is installed at desk height, about 20cm to the side of corner. Round that corner is along hallway and I'm finding that I lose signal (both with a laptop and standalone WIFI signal strength meter) after a mere 6 meters.
I realise it's hard to diagnose an issue like this with just the above information, but has anyone got any ideas why the range is so poor? Are there any environmental that could reduce the range so much, does it sound like a faulty unit, may an external antenna help or would do I just need a more powerful router - six meters does seem pretty poor?
Amazing. I recently ran into EXACTLY the same issue.
I recently installed a Netgear WGR614v5, which is the same as the DG834G router without the DSL modem, in a medical office. I had similar coverage problems only when turning the corner into offices. However, I didn't have time to investigate much but did have a WRT54Gv2.2 handy that was going to my next customer. Using the WRT54G improved the range somewhat, but didn't really solve the basic problem. Turning the corner into the offices tended to kill the connection.
So, I installed Netstubler on the customers laptop and did some comparison testing between the two wireless routers. I could put either router in the window, and walk down the street, maintaining line of sight about 50 meters before the signal would become totally useless. Line of sight range was somewhat better with Linksys. I would consider both to be operating normally as long as I had line of sight. I did have to change channels to avoid interference from a nearby access point.
However, inside the office, the difference was dramatic. Turn the corner at about 10 meters, using the WFGR614v5, and the connection would literally drop. Do the same with the Linksys, and it would slow down dramatically, but continue to work. Apparently, something was different in the way the chipsets handled reflections or signal loss.
It didn't take long to discover that the walls were full of foil backed insulation. There was even aluminum foil duct tape to connect the gap across the vertical studs. Even the doors had some kind of foil or metal inside. This was undescored when I found that I could get 3-4 bars on my phone call with the door open, but "no service" when the door was closed. These offices were shielded. (I later found out that this was intentional).
Since I didn't want to give them the WRT54G, I decided to see if I could tweak the settings to improve the situation. The major change was to fix the wireless speed at 6Mbits/sec which is the slowest OFDM speed but is faster than their 1.5Mbit/sec DSL connection. That worked with the Netgear WGR614 sufficiently to be considered acceptable. They still had to leave the doors open to use the wireless.
My guess(tm) is that the Netgear products emphasize speed over data reliability and will aggressively attempt to use the fastest speed possible. This is wonderful for getting impressive benchmarks, but not very useful in a highly reflective environment.
My suggestion is to repeat my test. First, perform a line of sight test. Use Netstumbler to record the signal levels. You should get at least 25 meters range without any dropouts or tendencies to die. At extreme range, 50 meters would be my guess for normal operation. If the router can't do that, it's defective. Verify with a 2nd laptop if possible.
Then use Netstumbler to do a "site survey" of the working area. Are there any RF holes? Any places where the "noise" level goes rediculously high, which might imply interference or reflections? Does repositioning the DG834G help? Do this with the wireless speed set to "auto". Then try it again with the speed fixed at 6Mbits/sec. If the signal strengh is generally higher (it should be), and the noise levels are generally lower (they might be), then you have a winner. If you have a different model access point or router available, it can also be tested.
Incidentally, I have a really bad attitude about all in one modem/router/wireless boxes. Details if you want them.
Amazing. I recently ran into EXACTLY the same issue.
I recently installed a Netgear WGR614v5, which is the same as the DG834G router without the DSL modem, in a medical office. I had similar coverage problems only when turning the corner into offices. However, I didn't have time to investigate much but did have a WRT54Gv2.2 handy that was going to my next customer. Using the WRT54G improved the range somewhat, but didn't really solve the basic problem. Turning the corner into the offices tended to kill the connection.
So, I installed Netstubler on the customers laptop and did some comparison testing between the two wireless routers. I could put either router in the window, and walk down the street, maintaining line of sight about 50 meters before the signal would become totally useless. Line of sight range was somewhat better with Linksys. I would consider both to be operating normally as long as I had line of sight. I did have to change channels to avoid interference from a nearby access point.
However, inside the office, the difference was dramatic. Turn the corner at about 10 meters, using the WFGR614v5, and the connection would literally drop. Do the same with the Linksys, and it would slow down dramatically, but continue to work. Apparently, something was different in the way the chipsets handled reflections or signal loss.
It didn't take long to discover that the walls were full of foil backed insulation. There was even aluminum foil duct tape to connect the gap across the vertical studs. Even the doors had some kind of foil or metal inside. This was undescored when I found that I could get 3-4 bars on my phone call with the door open, but "no service" when the door was closed. These offices were shielded. (I later found out that this was intentional).
Since I didn't want to give them the WRT54G, I decided to see if I could tweak the settings to improve the situation. The major change was to fix the wireless speed at 6Mbits/sec which is the slowest OFDM speed but is faster than their 1.5Mbit/sec DSL connection. That worked with the Netgear WGR614 sufficiently to be considered acceptable. They still had to leave the doors open to use the wireless.
My guess(tm) is that the Netgear products emphasize speed over data reliability and will aggressively attempt to use the fastest speed possible. This is wonderful for getting impressive benchmarks, but not very useful in a highly reflective environment.
My suggestion is to repeat my test. First, perform a line of sight test. Use Netstumbler to record the signal levels. You should get at least 25 meters range without any dropouts or tendencies to die. At extreme range, 50 meters would be my guess for normal operation. If the router can't do that, it's defective. Verify with a 2nd laptop if possible.
Then use Netstumbler to do a "site survey" of the working area. Are there any RF holes? Any places where the "noise" level goes rediculously high, which might imply interference or reflections? Does repositioning the DG834G help? Do this with the wireless speed set to "auto". Then try it again with the speed fixed at 6Mbits/sec. If the signal strengh is generally higher (it should be), and the noise levels are generally lower (they might be), then you have a winner. If you have a different model access point or router available, it can also be tested.
Incidentally, I have a really bad attitude about all in one modem/router/wireless boxes. Details if you want them.
Must be some other factor. I live in a typical UK brick built 4 bedroom detached house. 3 of the bedrooms have computers that get 'good' signal strength in each from my DG834G which is located downstairs . I can also take my laptop out on to our patio and work when the weather is fine (a rare event here) even though the signal strength is then 'weak' (thru 3 brick and breeze block walls and about
Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.