Article View: alt.internet.wireless
Article #450Re: limited 802.11b range, SMC WAP/USR client, multiple WAPS, 802.11a as an alternative?
From: Jeff Liebermann
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 14:24
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 14:24
103 lines
5393 bytes
5393 bytes
On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 16:16:13 GMT, "Gary Funck" <gary@intrepid.com> wrote: >SMC7004AWBR - 4 port router/firewall, 802.11b WAP, with printer server Garbage. Limited features and configuration options. >USR2410 - US Robotics 802.11b PCMCIA (client) card No experience. >I looked at 802.11a stuff, but was unwilling to pay $400-$500 more for the >privilege of trying out the latest technology. 5.6GHz has more speed at less range. If you have range problems, 5.6GHz is not the answer. If you want more bandwidth for your Video On Demand installation, then 802.11a is the only answer. >They didn't have the Lucent/Orinoco 802.11b PC card. You should have bought the Lucent/Orinoco/Agere/Wavelan/Whatever card. It's a good card, well supported, and with exellent performance. I did a side by side comparison of an Orinoco Silver card, with a Netgear PCMCIA card. The Orinoco card got much better range and held the connection more reliably. >(...) >driver comes in two flavors: "ad hoc" and "infrastructure", which has >something to do with whether it roams or not, I think, but very little >explanation is given. Ad hoc means that the flow is not controlled by a central access point. Infrastructure means that everything is controlled by the central access point. You probably want infrastructure (unless you're doing something strange). >- now the bad news: with the laptop about 6 feet from the transmitter, I'm >seeing signal strength of about 80%, and "link quality" oscilating between >90-100%, and dropping to 80%. That's normal. Link quality is actually something like data error rate. The assumption is that the bit error rate will get worse as the signal strength drops. It is NOT a direct measure of signal strength. If you get errors from any source, the link quality will drop. If you're too close, you could be dealing with reflections and overload, which probably causes the 80% reading. If you move back a bit, it will probably go to 100% and stay there. Move back furthur, and it will start to drop. >Okay, not so bad - but if I take the computer >upstairs (40 feet, max.) the signal strength drops to 30-40%, and unless the >card is oriented just right, the signal strength and link quality drop to >zero(!). Think in terms of walls. Microwaves do not like to go through walls. They sneak through holes and slots, but to not penetrate anything truely solid. If you're going through one wall, no problem. Two walls is problematical. Three walls is hopeless. Going between floors is the worst case situtation because your in the worst part of the antenna pattern (up/down), and you're probably going through more than one wall. >So much for the advertised 300 feet max. You should be able to get 300 ft line of sight, horizontally if you can see the access point. It will also depend on the laptop orientation. If you block the line of sight with the laptop itself, my guess is 50 ft max. >I tried moving the >transmitter away from the DSL router and computer, but this didn't change >things. Interference is possible, but unlikely. Look for sources of 2.4Ghz interference. There are plenty. Microwave ovens are the biggies. Other users of 802.11b are also a problem. Bluetooth will trash 802.11b. Cordless phones and wireless TV extensions don't seem to bother it much. >What next? External antenna(s) on the access point. >Right now, anything more than 15-20 feet (line of sight) away >looks marginal. Something is broken. You should be able to do much better than that. However, that's about right for trying to go through a wall. Location is everything. You could cheat and run an upstairs external antenna to one of the TNC-R connectors. However, the coax cable loss will probably be fatal. Methinks you should determine what can be expected from your site by borrowing some known working radios, and to test your purchases in a known working (and clean) RF environment. Try asking the same question in the BAWUG mailing list. http://www.bawug.org -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060 (831)421-6491 pgr (831)426-1240 fax (831)336-2558 home http://www.LearnByDestroying.com WB6SSY jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us jeffl@cruzio.com
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<q89tcu8hplk5cqhoelav5i05no52r4o4f6@4ax.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!pln-e!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!enews3References:
<hlez8.20474$Yb1.48036@sea-read.news.verio.net>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fa874,64500d3ffd523aad X-Google-Attributes: gidfa874,public X-Google-Thread: 104fd2,64500d3ffd523aad X-Google-Attributes: gid104fd2,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-04-30 08:50:06 PST Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!pln-e!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!enews3 From: Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> Newsgroups: alt.internet.wireless,ba.internet Subject: Re: limited 802.11b range, SMC WAP/USR client, multiple WAPS, 802.11a as an alternative? Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 07:24:58 -0700 Organization: Committee to Maintain and Independent Xenix Lines: 103 Message-ID: <q89tcu8hplk5cqhoelav5i05no52r4o4f6@4ax.com> References: <hlez8.20474$Yb1.48036@sea-read.news.verio.net> Reply-To: jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us NNTP-Posting-Host: p-406.newsdawg.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548