Some one said that if I detect other networks that broadcast on certain channels, then I should use a different channel that differs by 5. Evidently this is due to sharing. I dont quite understand this if people use diffeent ISP's.
If it is advisable, then I may need to change the channel both on the client and therefore on the router. I assume that I will be able to change both on the client. This procedure may need to be conducted quite often depending on which networks are connecting.
Any idea what difference it might make if people are using the same channel, for example, two networks.
Note my router has not yet arrived, hence all my questions may see very basic. But I will learn in time and with experience.
It is radio interference rather like the boundary between two radio stations on the same frequency. You get a garbled result that the comm hardware and software still have to process, decide it is garbled and send a retransmit order. Which itself might get garbled and it waits for a response before timing out and requesting another retransmit.
It's a little more complicated than that because it's more like overlapping bell curves but you should get the idea.
Even without the garbling, both your computer and router still have to process every signal to determine if it is for your network, ignoring those that aren't.
The 5 separation between channels means the bell curves are far enough apart in the frequency spectrum so you don't get any overlap so you don't get any interference from that source.
You should only need to do it at the router. The computer should lock onto it.
But having said that if your neighbour also has a wireless router you should discuss what channels you each use. You might not have a choice if there is a community/utility router but your wireless software should tell you somewhere what channel it uses if you connect to it.
As an example, if two people on different networks are uising the same channel, and say that both have a signal of 20%, does this mean that for this channel, %40 of the bandwith is being used. Hence, %60 is left. Speed will be reduced by %40.
I have just read your post regarding interference. I realise now that the same channels will interfere. On the point regarding neighbours'. I have no idea where the signals are comming from. Only that they tend to be weak, less than %20. That's why I wondered if the weak signals would make much difference to my reception. I suppose two weak intereferences are worse than one weak interference.
Worse than that. Queueing theory raises its ugly head. The more bandwidth used, the greater the likelihood of having to wait to send a message.
This was standard fare for designers of on-line systems in the days of slower computers and 4800 baud modems. Thirty-odd years ago I made my living applying it to computer systems (comm lines, transactions queued up for a task, even disk I/O).
Basically, the greater the channel utilisation, the more likely you are to wait to get on to it.
Average wait is governed by a factor of p/(1-p) where p is the utilisation. For low utilisation p is small so the result is very small but it's a curve that gets a lot bigger faster than p does.
If there is nothing on the channel then the p/(1-p) is zero so there is no wait.
50% utilisation gives p of 0.5 so the average wait is
0.5/(1-0.5) = 1, ie the same as the transmission time of the message.
So including the wait the total time is twice the original message time.
75% utilisation gives p as 0.75 so the average wait is
0.75/(1-0.75) = 3, ie three times the message transmission time.
So including the wait the total time is four times the original message time.
This is an extreme example because everything is a lot faster these days but it shows the relationship isn't linear.
And there is a heck of a lot of bandwidth wasted with poorly designed web sites, animated ads etc.
Bottom line: if somebody else is on the same channel, use a different one.
If someone has a router that has both a wired connection and wifi connections, but the person concerned does not use wifi, they simply use the wired connection, then presumably the wifi ports will still transmit. Is this correct? So if I se a wif connection somewhere, I might be seeing simply a transmitting port. Have I got this right?
I assume that all channels broadcast and receive at the same power? Therefore I can make free choices.
Is a computer that is connected to a router by a wire known as an Ethernet connenction?
Ps. As a matter of interest, I assume that there is no way that I can know where these other transmitters are. In the same way, others cannot know of my location.
Yes. But you should disable the wireless port from the device manager.
For the same adapter and receiver. But remember the overlapping bell curves which can cause interference.
Colloquially but it's better to say Wired Ethernet to avoid ambiguity.
Ethernet is a multilayered protocol with at the bottom a physical transmission layer. The cable oe the wireless stream are the physical layer.
It depends what you want. When I visited friends in Silicon Valley a while back their city had municipally provided wired internet. There was an on-line map showing their locations. You can by instruments which detect transmissions and use them.
Incidentally it surprised me how many of their neighbours had no encryption on their routers so anybody could leech off them if they wanted to.
But does it really matter if they know your location? Use a neutral name for the SSID that is distinctive like "Battersea Dog's Home", not "Fred's Network" or "Home Network". Use the strongest encryption your router will support.
One of the problems with public wifi is that it is not encrypted.
The latest home routers from Netgear and other companies allow two different levels of use - your own and guest with different passkeys so guests can use the router to get to the broadband connection but not access your private stuff eg your networked backup disk.
Don't know. Probably which mode, B, G or N it's in.
They are the furthest apart to avoid interference. 1,6 and 11 are completely separated. Try to use one of these if they are not too crowded. In a crowded environment, one will have to start splitting channels, using the other frequencies which partially overlap with 1,6 and 11. It really doesn't matter which frequencies, just that you try to get a full 5 separation.
Probably to connect to/with a specied Access Point seen by your radio.
Generally, you are looking for a minimum 20dB signal to noise ratio. Generally that means you want to have a -75 dB signal or better, but it depends on the local noise/interference levels. The percentage measurement your router vender uses is an arbitrary term and I ignore it. Instead, just look at the S/N level, or simply the signal level. -80 db is low but sometimes workable. -70db is usually good enought for a reliable connection, but again, it depends on the local environment.
No. The cable is shielded so as to not act as an antenna. It connects the antenna which is a calibrated length for the frequency it is designed to work at.
ISP is irrelevant. It's the WiFi frequency airwaves that you are concerned with sharing at this point.
Do a site survey with your client or router. Note which channels are showing up strongest in your area. For example, you might see two neighbors are on 11, several more at 6 and only one weaker one at
Choose a channel on your router/AP that is as separated as possible from the stronger ones. In this case it would be 1. If all three channels are already in use and strong in your area (-80 or better?) , then pick 3, 4 or 8 maybe.
Once "enrolled" or "paired" (I forget the correct term) to the router/AP of your choice, your client will automatically connect to chosen router on whatever channel the router is currently set for when fire up and connect. Generally no need to mess with any settings on the client. Just the router. It's not usually changed much once set
- unless problems develop.
More interference, causing loss of data, retransmits etc, causing more clogged airwaves and slowing data movement down.
I was just looking up some instructions on the Net for setting up wifi and they say that I'll be asked to enter the wireless security key. The instructions say use the wpa-psk key is on the router. They also say that the code is 10 characters and capitalised.
This key does not seem very secure to me. But it's the recommended procedure.
Others have remarked on the need for a complex key. Does this key need to be typed on each occasion, or will it be stored in the client. Can it be changed?