 gatorkramNeed for SpeedPremium join:2002-07-22 Winterville, NC kudos:2 | 5gz
When I look at the wifi in use around me, no one is using 5gz, everyone is jamming the 2.4 band.
I think the issue comes down to range. 2.4 simply works better. -- What the heck is a GatorKram? »www.gatorkram.com | |
|
 |  |
 |  |  Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
·DIRECTV
·Optimum Online
·Cablevision
| Re: 5gz Yea right now 5Ghz is free and clear. When I moved to my current apartment the wifi was absolutely horrid in my apartment, I can always see at least 15 APs
I switched to a dual-band router and almost all of my traffic goes over 5GHz, I was surprised how many devices supported this very underutilized band, even my older blu-ray player and my Galaxy S2 support it. In this 2.4 ghz nightmare area, 5Ghz is wonderful right now, I can only see one other AP on the band and real throughput is normally 180mbps to my desktop 450mbps adapter.
But newer wifi revisions rely on 5Ghz by default like 802.11ac, the 5Ghz band is going to eventually get more crowded and is capable of using much more spectrum including 80MHz and 160MHz channel support, 2 to 4 times the spectrum wireless N can use.
Spectrum changes take awhile, this spectrum is in use by the government, they'll have to vacate the spectrum. And hardware manufacturer's will have to build wifi gear that utilizes this additional spectrum, before 802.11ac really takes off would be the best time to do this.
For urban and apartment dwellers this is important. 5Ghz will eventually become crowded like 2.4Ghz in many areas. To dismiss this rare good decision by the FCC as not important is short-sighted. | |
|
 |  |
 |  |  | | Re: 5gz said by djrobx:I think they're jamming 2.4ghz because that's the default of most routers. The range in 5ghz mode seems acceptable.
2.4ghz is horrible. I'm not even in an apartment. Everything wants to use that band. I have a pair of wireless outdoor speakers that obliterate 2.4ghz wifi when turned on, regardless of what channel you use. 
I have to maintain a couple APs on 2.4ghz because we have cell phones and a NEST thermostat that can't pick up 5ghz. And they all default to 1, 6, or 11; even when they're on auto.
I've got a couple of access points around my house on 2.4GHz for phones, and devices that can't pick up 5GHz. They're all on channel 8. I've got my neighbor on channel 4. I do a quick Site Survey and see a flood of AP's on the big 3. | |
|
 |  |  |  Markie join:2003-07-26 Kalispell, MT | Re: 5gz Which is good. 2,3,4,7,8,10,and12 should NEVER be used. The only channels that should ever be used are 1, 6, and 11 as a set or 1,5,9, and 13 as a set. That's it. Ever. Using the in between channels causes and is subject to far worse interference than two AP's on the same channel since they can't use CSMA to play nicely. | |
|
 |  |  |  | | said by PapaMidnight:And they all default to 1, 6, or 11; even when they're on auto. There's a good reason for that. That is the most common set of non-overlapping channels. The rest of the channel have slightly different center frequencies, but they overlap each other.
»farm3.static.flickr.com/2398/249···d9c7.jpg

| |
|
 |  |  |  |  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 | Re: 5gz ...but having two routers dead-set on channel six is not preferable to having those routers offset. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  Markie join:2003-07-26 Kalispell, MT | Re: 5gz said by iansltx:...but having two routers dead-set on channel six is not preferable to having those routers offset. Yes, yes it is... | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  Markie join:2003-07-26 Kalispell, MT | Re: 5gz In my opinion they should only provide 1, 5, and 9 as channel options BUT the problem would be legacy 1-6-11 deployments. Channel 13 would be on Euro routers.
Regardless, 2,3,4,7,8,10, and 12 should just be removed. There's NEVER a reason to use those - ever. | |
|
 |  RWSI join:2012-11-27 Albuquerque, NM Reviews:
·Roadrunner Wirel..
| Some of the signals you can't see doing a standard wifi scan. Over the decades different non ssid broadcast wireless devices have been deployed. Some of these devices are designed to wipe out interference. The only true way to see is to have on hand a very expensive spectrum and special antennas. These signals could be ruining your home wifi at 5gHz and you would never know it. Adding more spectrum only helps the few who can afford the good stuff coming down the road but gives a wireless ISP like us more room to grow. | |
|
 |  cferro join:2003-07-27 Jersey City, NJ | Where I live the same thing is true, most people use the 2.4GHZ band. I do not believe many people know about the 5GHZ band, and what equipment it takes to run it. | |
|
 Reviews:
·ooma
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
| ? I thought the ITU was the standardizing body for 802.11ac.. while the FCC might allocate & regulate spectrum they're not the ones who make or finalize anything about wifi.
besides, there are so many versions of 802.11n; 150, 300, 450 and now 802.11ac is about to become the same... that the wireless network equipment will be a hodgepodge of frequencies & speeds that it will look like the analog modem days from 300 baud to 56000 baud..
(and the whole point of having a STANDARD) is guaranteed interop at the highest capacity & backwards compatability | |
|
 |  kitsune join:2001-11-26 Sacramento, CA | Re: ? said by tmc8080:besides, there are so many versions of 802.11n; 150, 300, 450 and now 802.11ac is about to become the same... that the wireless network equipment will be a hodgepodge of frequencies & speeds that it will look like the analog modem days from 300 baud to 56000 baud.. Those are not different versions of 11n. Just a different number of bonded channels. Which is supported by the 11n standard. Though bonding channels on the 2.4 spectrum causes a lot of problems for your neighbors. | |
|
 | | Wi-Fi Where I live in my complex there are 10 other access points. I just love the radation my body gets on a daily basis. | |
|
 |  |
 |  |  | | Re: Wi-Fi said by djrobx:said by brianiscool:Where I live in my complex there are 10 other access points. I just love the radation my body gets on a daily basis. That's all? I see 14 (4 of which are mine, LOL), and I'm in a house in a suburban neighborhood. AT&T's U-verse is a big hit in our neighborhood, and their gateways put out a lot of power. Them and Verizon both. Do a quick Site Survey in a densely populated area served by FiOS...
By the way, out of curiosity, why use different SSID's on each AP? Would it not be easier to keep the same SSID on each AP for the purposes of roaming between them? | |
|
 |  |  |  | | Re: Wi-Fi That's what I always did when I lived in a rented house that needed two AP's to cover the entire house, Was much easier. | |
|
 |  |  |  | | yes u can roam around but still u will need to reconnect since each AP has its own mac...and ull be surprised why ur signal is so low....either way works ^_^ | |
|
 |  |  |
 |  | | microwaves are non ionizing, so unless your getting toasty hot, you have nothing to worry about. | |
|
 |  | | I see about 25 2.4 Ghz networks around me where I live since the 2.4 Ghz I am using the 5 Ghz band (more stable and not crouded) | |
|
 | | Linked Artcile The first link doesn't work. Says article does not exist. | |
|
 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
| Crowed 2.4 Ghz networks where I live there are at least 25 2.4Ghz networks around me not including mine because I am using the 5 Ghz band there is one other person using the 5 Ghz band in my area but it is very weak. since I am using the 5 Ghz it is more reliable also hides me from my neighbors | |
|
 Reviews:
·Comcast
·AT&T U-Verse
1 edit | 5GHz 5GHz is empty here. Only my router and a U-verse wireless receiver AP that's far is on 5 GHz.
Also a thing to note: I'm putting up all my APs on one channel to force everyone off >:). Well... it's not that effective but at least it pushes my neighbor off the channel when I do it lol. | |
|
 | | i would like to see special 'non commercial' spectrum one thing that would actually be very pro consumer would be to allocated i nice chunk of spectrum for 'non-commercial' and/or free wireless only.
for example spectrum that could be used unlicensed for home usage or free/open networks but no paid or add sponsored networks allowed.
if carriers want to wifi instead of cellular let them pay for the spectrum they use. | |
|
 |  Markie join:2003-07-26 Kalispell, MT | Re: i would like to see special 'non commercial' spectrum The only way to do that would be to make it licensed and make the licenses personal only. They do this for GMRS. $75 buys you a license for your immediate family's use only. Do you really want to see that? Remember, your friends won't be allowed to use your Wi-Fi (they wouldn't be licensed).
BTW, yes, that means most GMRS users are breaking the law. And no, almost nobody cares. | |
|
 |  |  b10010011Whats a Posting tag? join:2004-09-07 Bellingham, WA Reviews:
·Comcast Formerl..
| Re: i would like to see special 'non commercial' spectrum How about licensing commercial WiFi and regulating them to not use an area of the band set aside for non commercial use? -- Bellingham Scanner Kicks Ass! »bhamscanner.kicks-ass.org/ | |
|
 |  |  |  Markie join:2003-07-26 Kalispell, MT | Re: i would like to see special 'non commercial' spectrum What is commercial WiFi? That's an insanely horrible idea, sorry, but it is. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  Markie join:2003-07-26 Kalispell, MT | Re: i would like to see special 'non commercial' spectrum P.S. just to be clear on some reasons WHY this a horrible idea:
1. There only are 3 non-overlapping channels (1,5,9,13) and 13 is illegal in the US (thus 1, 6, 11 are usually used to get a bit more guard space for legacy 802.11b). If you made even ONE CHANNEL (say from 7-12) non commercial, you'd leave Americans with only TWO CHANNELS to use in large office buildings, schools, etc. That would be HORRIBLE. THREE IS BAD ENOUGH.
2. Since you'd have to prove non-commercial use, there'd probably be a license fee.
3. The law woud be blatantly ignored anyways. | |
|
 SmokChsrWho let the magic smoke out?Premium join:2006-03-17 Saint Augustine, FL | I'm seeing more activity on 5Gig I'm using 5 gig for point to point shots, and when I first put up the devices 2years ago, it was wide open, Nuttin in site. Now I'm seeing a fair amount more signals. My sites are typically 100'+ up a tower so I can see a long way. Still for the most part most home equipment I go right over and it never sees my signal, nor do I see it. A few more channels would be nice, but so far I've had no problems getting data from one site to the next | |
|
 |  1 edit | Re: I'm seeing more activity on 5Gig Nice little area I live in has a total of 5 people, including me, on the 2.4 frequency and 0 on the 5ghz. 
I've worked on all 4 of the other people's setups also, so I know which channel they are all on. Not that it makes much difference with that few connections around anyway. 
Does the FCC actually do anything? Sarcastic question. -- The Firefox alternative. »www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/ | |
|
 |  |  SmokChsrWho let the magic smoke out?Premium join:2006-03-17 Saint Augustine, FL | Re: I'm seeing more activity on 5Gig said by cork1958:Does the FCC actually do anything? Sarcastic question. You'd be surprised, they tend to show up when you least expect them (speaking of the EB {Enforcement Bureau}). If you put up a 5 gig on the wrong freq too close to one of the new TDWR radar sites it may not take long for them to show up. | |
|
 iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| The FCC can't add more 2.4 spectrum...and more 5GHz is good ...because it's already licensed out on both sides of the band. On the upper side, it's a company (I want to say Immersat or someone like that). On the lower side, I believe it's other services that can't be easily moved...and routers don't support below channel 1 anyway.
Also, think for a minute about semi-rural areas that are just out of reach of cable, and are being abandoned by DSL providers (or at most being provided low speeds at high prices). These customers can be reached via 5GHz wireless in many cases, and more available spectrum in the band allows for more capacity/less interference from competing networks. So maybe your WISP can, for customers a couple miles or less from the AP, run 40MHz channels and offer 30 Mbps down and 10 Mbps up, consistently, where cable won't go, where they'd be able to only offer half that with less available spectrum (due to running afoul of other 5GHz users).
As for 2.4 GHz congestion, sure, it's there. There are twelve distinct networks visible at my location, and to my knowledge they all use 2.4 (too lazy to check). However I have no issue pushing 50 Mbps over my WiFI (also in 2.4). Then again, I have a router that's built for high RF performance (600 mW output...though I have it turned down to around 200 mW) so I don't get dropouts due to lousy equipment on either side of the link. | |
|
 |  | | Re: The FCC can't add more 2.4 spectrum...and more 5GHz is good I have 68 other WiFi networks on 2.4 Ghz. All I did on 2.4 Ghz was print and stream music on my 4th Gen iPod Touch. Even just streaming music was horrible. It will cause buffering. I had to keep switching from channel 6 then back to channel 3 back and forth because of interference.
I then bought a new iPod Touch and a new dual band router and I now have no problems streaming music on the 5 Ghz. My new 5th Gen iPod Touch is the only thing that I have that works on 5 Ghz. Even my Dell XPS laptop from September 2011 only has a crappy 2.4 Ghz wireless so I keep it plugged into Ethernet like anything else that has a Ethernet port is hardwired. | |
|
 |  |  Markie join:2003-07-26 Kalispell, MT | Re: The FCC can't add more 2.4 spectrum...and more 5GHz is good While sure not a fun RF environment (especially if they aren't nicely laid out 1-5-9-13 or 1-6-11), I bet 2.4GHz is workable. Look at something like Ruckus, their AP's will run standalone (controller isn't needed) and will handle a high noise environment far better. Cost is about $600. | |
|
 kevver join:2003-12-11 Palatine, IL | 2.4 crowded The 2.4 GHz band is very crowded here in my condo complex. I can see about 20 APs, most of them are Uverse gateways that have wifi turned on by default (even if their wifi is never used). There is only one other user on the 5GHz band. When this new bandwidth becomes available, manufacturers will have to make new models of routers and adapters. This may take a long time. If you try to find a 802.11n "final" router it is still very difficult; everyone is still selling old 802.11 "draft" models. | |
|
 |
|