ie8 fix
madison

Why 2.4 GHz is a dead end for Wi-Fi

By | July 10, 2007, 5:09pm PDT

Summary: If there is any doubt in anyone’s mind that the channel-constrained 2.4 GHz band is a dead end for Wi-Fi, here are some charts that will put things in to perspective.  The following is a power-level comparison between an Access Point, a Microwave oven, and normal background noise coming from the neighbors Wi-Fi gear.  All [...]

If there is any doubt in anyone’s mind that the channel-constrained 2.4 GHz band is a dead end for Wi-Fi, here are some charts that will put things in to perspective.  The following is a power-level comparison between an Access Point, a Microwave oven, and normal background noise coming from the neighbors Wi-Fi gear.  All measurements were done with a Wi-Spy 2.4x review unit that I just got in the mail.  So far it’s a very cool and useful product that any network engineer must have and I’ll be doing a more formal review of it later.

802.11g Wi-Fi Access Point versus Microwave oven:

Background noise versus Microwave oven:

As you can see from the results, a Microwave oven (when in use) absolutely dwarfs the signal level of a typical consumer 802.11g Access Point.  Channel 6 (4-8) is absolutely murdered, half of channel 11 (9-13) is murdered, and the edge of channel 1 is severely degraded.  Microwave ovens do not interfere with the unlicensed 5 GHz band and it’s no wonder that Microsoft will not give a “premium Vista certified logo” to a hardware device unless it supports the 5 GHz operation.  There is just no way you can reliably deliver HD video to your home theatre over 2.4 GHz when the Microwave is in operation.  The Ruckus smart antenna Access Points might stand a better chance operating on channel 1 but I wouldn’t bet on 100% reliability.

There are only 3 non-overlapping channels in the 2.4 GHz unlicensed band for North America (even fewer in some countries) and these are channels 1, 6, and 11.  Every other channel in between like channel 3 is actually a part of channels 1, 6, or 11 so they can’t really be counted as channels.  Since there are only 3 channels available, your neighbors (especially in urban and denser sub-urban environments) are often as much of a threat.  5 GHz on the other hand has 12 unique non-overlapping channels in North America and even 24 channels in some unique situations.

As I’ve written in my blog on 802.11n - The consequences of abandoning the 5 GHz frontier, consumers will get the short end of the stick with 802.11n.  Unfortunately consumers are paying a hefty premium buying up a lot of draft 802.11n devices which are almost always 2.4 GHz only devices.  Yes there are exceptions like the high-end Buffalo draft 802.11n dual-band wireless routers but this is the exception and not the norm.  Apple Airport Extreme wireless routers uses an either/or solution that either operates in 2.4 or 5 GHz but not both at the same time which means you’re forced to use one or the other and that will often mean 2.4 if you have other wireless devices that are usually 2.4 only.

The fact that most draft 802.11n (even draft 2.0) routers eat up two of three channels and still fail to behave like good neighbors because the IEEE and Wi-Fi Alliance has no teeth in mandating good neighbor behavior means that 802.11n will likely be a huge debacle.  Only Intel (and their logo partners) follows the strict policy of not using dual-channels in the 2.4 GHz band and the Intel 4965agn PCI-Express mini card happens to be dual-band compliant.  At $49 is also one of the cheapest client adapters available.

The lesson here is that you should avoid any router that doesn’t support simultaneous 2.4 AND 5 GHz operation and you avoid any client adapters that don’t support 2.4 or 5 GHz operation.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Disclosure

George Ou

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?page_id=557

Biography

George Ou

George Ou, a former ZDNet blogger, is an IT consultant specializing in Servers, Microsoft, Cisco, Switches, Routers, Firewalls, IDS, VPN, Wireless LAN, Security, and IT infrastructure and architecture.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
65
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

Good question!
n.stockwell@... 15th Jul 2007
I am not trying to give a definitive answer but market forces played a part. 802.11b got on the market two years sooner. In 2001, etc. 802.11a devices cost more because the components were harder to manufacture so they were seen more as a business solution. Since the products were so late it would only be two years before pre-802.11g started showing up in marketplace. Early hardware problems were also a problem.

802.11b is slower but due to the physics of how wavelengths interact with the environment it can penetrate more objects. Therefore when you add all this up there is just no way the consumer market is going to favor a standard which was more expensive, gets less range, and means they have to junk their initial investment. It left a bad after taste.

However, on the corporate side of things there are more dual-band items. Other counties have slowly also begun allowing unlicensed radios on the 5 GHz band. Therefore, I don't believe that the IEEE have purposefully killed the progress in the 5 GHz band, they only have to look at where investment is being made and develop new standards where they think the market will go.

Apparently many countries are allowing operation in the 5.47 to 5.725 GHz as a result of 802.11h which resolved interference issues that arose with military and medical devices in initially Europe.

I also wanted to clarify something. First, Orthogonal frequency division multiplexing is also used with 802.11g. Second, 802.11a is not used as much as b or g but it is not obsolete because as George as pointed out some manufactures are still making new products in the frequency.
0 Votes
+ -
Good advice . . .
n.stockwell@... 10th Jul 2007
but can you name me a dual-band router that works in both bands simultaneously and costs $120 or less? A list of dual-band routers would be nice since they are such a rare breed at this point in time.

On a similar note didn't Draft 2.0 require dual-band routers or is this another case where the Wi-Fi Alliance felt that in the name of "peace" that idea won't be enforced until the final standard becomes ratified?
0 Votes
+ -
There is no such requirement, it's only optional right now. Vista "premium" certified routers will be dual-band and I believe Microsoft has a list of these. Buffalo has dual-band 802.11n draft routers. Apple's Airport Extreme is either/or so that's no good. I'm going to look it up and post a list if I find it.
0 Votes
+ -
802.11n does not mandate 5 GHz dual-band. The standard says you're suppose to drop out of channel-bonding mode in 2.4 GHz if your neighbors use wireless but there is no enforcement mechanism to mandate this behavior. Wi-Fi Alliance says they'll crack down if another vendor complains but I don't put much faith in this. The problem is that the vendors want people to have trouble with their old gear getting jammed by the 802.11n gear so that they're forced to buy new gear.
0 Votes
+ -
You're right . . .
n.stockwell@... 11th Jul 2007
my memory is at fault, but it's too bad they don't mandate it though because of the very issues you bring up in your article.

Maybe if a bunch of Network Administrators, consultants, and others with buying power at least suggest to clients and network vendors that they would first prefer buying dual-band products vendors and chipset makers would actually continue to pursue making such products.

We can't ignore 2.4 GHz only products because of the fact that they are cheap and they are many, but we should advocate consideration and purchase of dual-band products when appropriate.

For instance, I'm currently consulting with business owner who wants to open up a private hotspot. After comparing prices I found out that a Linksys WRT55AG can be about the same price as a WRT54G. Prior to this discovery I thought dual-band routers would be out of consideration because of the price, but since there was little difference in price I will recommend the WRT55AG.
0 Votes
+ -
i can sit my powerbook or any of my friend's laptops directly next to my microwave
oven and they work perfectly, no packet dropping or anything of that nature. I even
stream high bit-rate mpeg 4 and h.264 video from my powermac to the powerbook
and don't experience dropped frames or broken audio.

btw, i've used wireless-A in a home before. it was limited to pretty much the same
room as the router.
0 Votes
+ -
doh!
nix_hed 12th Jul 2007
this should have been a new post
No, I didn't have the door open. But did you use an unbuffered UDP stream? That's the normal testing procedure. IPTV applications and wireless distribution systems have to use unbuffered video because people don't like delays on flipping channels.

I use A too and I have no problems with it working throughout the home. It really depends on the model you use.
0 Votes
+ -
"Only Intel (and their logo partners) follows the strict policy of not using dual-channels in the 2.4 GHz band"

I may have mentioned this before. Apple 11n clients do not use wide channels in the 2.4GHz band.

I also lament the continuing propagation of 2.4GHz-only products, but especially among 11n/11g clients. That's unforgivable these days. Let's focus our protests on these manufacturers.

The routers, especially in retail, face a price pressure to get shelf space that is really non-negotiable - unfortunately. The "either/or" 2.4/5GHz solutions are to be commended in this perspective.

I would say, don't buy 2.4GHz-only equipment, even if that means holding off on 11n altogether.
0 Votes
+ -
LOL, good one
georgeou 11th Jul 2007
Indeed, friends don't let friends do 2.4 GHz only devices and editors shouldn't let their readers do 2.4 GHz only devices.
0 Votes
+ -
The real answer is to use a wired .....
ShadeTree 11th Jul 2007
.... solution using your existing premise wiring. Power Line, Cable or Twisted Pair solutions are available and have sufficient throughput to reliably stream HD.
0 Votes
+ -
I'm sure some ovens are much worse than others in regards to emissions. So hopefully you aren't basing this whole premise on the output from one lousy oven.
I've tested many others before and they're often worse. I've also done far more in-depth analysys with performance over time tests. The graphs in this blog are for simplicity sakes to make a point.
0 Votes
+ -
Microwave Signatures
bcolvin@... 12th Jul 2007
Each microwave will generate it's own unique pattern. the same model will typicaly generate a similar pattern.
0 Votes
+ -
Dual band
Technocrat@... 11th Jul 2007
Is the only way to go. I've got both and found that at my home (near an international airport) gets pulsed on an erratic basis by something in the mix. Both the 2.4 AND 5 GHz bands will get dropped sometimes as often as every 45 seconds but usually about every two minutes. At the office, the 5GHz band gets stepped on about the same but the office is in deep downtown Denver.

I believe that certain military applications also use the 5GHz bands as well.

I'd complain to the FCC but that 'unregulated' means just that. So consumer appliances that have high energy arcing (a broad band source of interference) will always whack wireless connections. Also I've seen that many of the newest wirelss phones use that 5GHz band too so the 802.11a gets whacked for sure by them too.

Fact is, if I need a continuous reliable connection, I HAVE to use wire. Well that is unless I want to turn home and/or office into faraday cages with all sorts of shielding. But I hope that the concept of spread spectrum comes into the consumer world like it has been in the military for at least 25 years. Until then, we're just out of luck in most city areas.
There's expensive window film and paint to block external signals. The government uses a film that blocks 99% of RF energy; enough to protect against an EMP blast.

If you use 5.8 GHz cordless phones like me, that won't interfere with the bottom 8 channels in the 5 GHz band which is somewhere around 5.2 to 5.3 GHz.
0 Votes
+ -
Another Misleading Expert
Da Juicer 11th Jul 2007
Does this mean our highways & byways are also dead - congestion is a fact of life. Anyone that has their microwave running 7X24 should get checked. With advent of N technology,i.e. MIMO, the 5Ghz band will eventually become congested as well. Short term solution = buy WiFi devices with both frequencies and have some wiggle room. Ultimate solution = vendors move up into the 10 to 66 Ghz range where there lots of room and no congestion.
0 Votes
+ -
you can't just keep moving up in frequency in this particular application. higher frequencies are more seriously affected and attenuated when they pass through materials. they get "hit" far more by drywall, rock, wood, plaster, paint, than lower frequencies do. that equals far more power output or more access points to cover the same area.

the ultimate solution is one i've used in my home on my 8 computer lan : run a wire.
Valis
0 Votes
+ -
Plus . . .
n.stockwell@... 11th Jul 2007
at anything higher than 10 GHz the wavelength becomes smaller than 1 inch and rain for example signal loss. For my money I would stay where we are.
0 Votes
+ -
Have faith - None we can't overcome
Da Juicer 12th Jul 2007
Remember we were told 10 Mhz over UTP Ethernet could never achieve fiber rates - well leave it to the guys in the labs and now we are now running 1 Ghz Ethernet over UTP - just had to get the correct number of turns/meter. Remember 802.11b (max speed 11 Mbps) became .11g (54 Mbps) and now 11n (540 Mbps). As long as the problem is a technology one, we can fix it. George's original RF scan shows a microwave oven nuking the entire house with potentially damaging RF waves (iononizing radiation). How come our brilliant legislators haven't passed some dumb law that limits microwave oven RF propagation to 40 milliwatts. All it requires is some RF shielding in the oven.
0 Votes
+ -
5 GHz has 12 and possibly even 24 channels. 2.4 GHz has 3 channels. Yes it's possible for 5 GHz to gt conjestion; but it's at least 4 times less likely to do so because it has 4-8 times the capacity.
0 Votes
+ -
Oh, the paper "capacity" argument
Uber Dweeb 11th Jul 2007
It may look good on paper, but get out there and test 5 GHz in the "real world". Throughput and range are absolutely terrible. The extra WAPs required to keep consistent coverage just aren't worth an occasional leaky microwave oven...not that you need an oven to see interference from Godknowswhat in the 2.4GHz spectrum. 2.4GHz is still used today even though these potential interactions are a known quantity because trying to work around with the alternatives becomes expensive and the occasional microwave oven is rarely a concern in the "real world".

I still wonder why you're just becoming aware of these issues now. They've been there for years and aren't news to anyone that actually does IT in the "real world". Do a search on the web for "802.11 microwave oven" and you can read plenty of 5 year old articles, some even with charts showing the signal strength comparisons.
0 Votes
+ -
You think I just started now?
georgeou 11th Jul 2007
"I still wonder why you're just becoming aware of these issues now. They've been there for years and aren't news to anyone that actually does IT in the "real world"."

I've been talking about 2.4 GHz crowding since 3 years ago when I first started blogging for ZDNet. And if you already know everything since you?re the ?uber dweeb?, good for you. If you're just here to knock my work, well you're welcome to do that too because I can always use an extra reader.
0 Votes
+ -
Message has been deleted.
Uber Dweeb Updated - 12th Jul 2007
  • Flagged
Only you get to make smart-ass quips. Go figure.
0 Votes
+ -
Here is a clue, I am not the moderator nor do I have access to delete messages. I didn't even file the complaint to the moderator of your personal attacks, but someone else did who found your post offensive. I read your offensive message and I didn't really give much thought to it but someone else clearly had a problem with it and didn't want to see it here. If you actually thought I had that kind of power to delete posts, wouldn't you conclude that I would delete more than just one post?

If you go overboard with some foul language and personal attacks that get you deleted, you have no one to blame but yourself.
0 Votes
+ -
moron
X41 12th Jul 2007
You a moron, You keep repeating yourself. Most of us in the IT field that have to support wireless know this.

Choose a different topic next time
I don't mind honest criticism, but your name calling is very childish.
0 Votes
+ -
However
Freebird54 13th Jul 2007
not everyone is in that field. In my sheltered life happy I have not actually had a reason to research this topic - and the extent of the difficulties was not something I was aware of. Probably because, for various reasons, I wired the network where I live (more familiar with it, then higher speed, multi OS's..only some of which knew about wireless, multi-hardware types...with a common meeting point of Ethernet).

While I can see that some issues are, shall we say, less earth-shattering than the presentation (or at least the headline!) would suggest - there is still good information in these blogs - and personal attacks on the author are a combination of childishness and a waste of other's time. Thank you for refraining (!) and letting the rest of us read the articles and responses in peace - with greater chance of enlightenment.
0 Votes
+ -
5 GHz 802.11a and Zyklon b
pjrobertz@... 15th Jul 2007
When I took a German history course in college and the professor gave an emotional lecture about Jews being exterminated with Zyklon b, I asked the professor if there was ever a Zyklon a. He replied, yes there was but we don't remember it because it was not efficient!

When I took my A+ certification course, the textbook explained in detail how 802.11b and 802.11g work. There was some mention of the earlier 802.11a standard which used 5GHz frequencies and a trick called "orthogonal frequency division multiplexing" to get to 54Mbps, yet 802.11a became obsolete with the adoption of b and g standards which use 2.4 GHz. Why did a become obsolete? "Becauss it vas not efisshundt!" was all I heard, other than not to worry about how 802.11a worked.

The real question is why the standards committees thought 2.4GHz was a better idea than 5 GHz.
0 Votes
+ -
Good question!
n.stockwell@... 15th Jul 2007
I am not trying to give a definitive answer but market forces played a part. 802.11b got on the market two years sooner. In 2001, etc. 802.11a devices cost more because the components were harder to manufacture so they were seen more as a business solution. Since the products were so late it would only be two years before pre-802.11g started showing up in marketplace. Early hardware problems were also a problem.

802.11b is slower but due to the physics of how wavelengths interact with the environment it can penetrate more objects. Therefore when you add all this up there is just no way the consumer market is going to favor a standard which was more expensive, gets less range, and means they have to junk their initial investment. It left a bad after taste.

However, on the corporate side of things there are more dual-band items. Other counties have slowly also begun allowing unlicensed radios on the 5 GHz band. Therefore, I don't believe that the IEEE have purposefully killed the progress in the 5 GHz band, they only have to look at where investment is being made and develop new standards where they think the market will go.

Apparently many countries are allowing operation in the 5.47 to 5.725 GHz as a result of 802.11h which resolved interference issues that arose with military and medical devices in initially Europe.

I also wanted to clarify something. First, Orthogonal frequency division multiplexing is also used with 802.11g. Second, 802.11a is not used as much as b or g but it is not obsolete because as George as pointed out some manufactures are still making new products in the frequency.
0 Votes
+ -
It's what he thrives on. Not facts, figures, or good reporting.

Let's just say this: none of our friends/family have issues with microwaves and WiFi. I can surf all day with our microwave on. Now 2.4Ghz cordless phones, that's another (to be expected) story.
0 Votes
+ -
Clear Wire - sensational
mighetto 11th Jul 2007
Lets just say this: WiFi was a rip off from the start. The preferable mechanism for replacing wires indoors has always been infrared or light spectrum because the signal stays indoors. I mean seriously, why do we use infrared for controlling our home entertainment units and not our computers?

When you can answer that one, then answer this. Why does WiFi extend more than 300 feet or so so that it can be globbed onto by others outside? We in the IT industry screamed bloody hell about the WiFi rip off security issues and were ridiculed for it. Somebody made money on Wifi at the expense of US consumers. If the US government had down its job of protecting consumers WiFi would not have been implemented except where it had already been - on garage door openers. Argh! Such archaic technology.

The attraction to WiFi is that it is unregulated spectrum. The need to also regulate that spectrum is oh so obvious today. Lets see the US government restrict WiFi to 300 feet.

Then lets make certain that the freed spectrum from the HDTV efforts in the YSA gets used immediately for WiMax. Let ClearWire and similar services have it. Doing otherwise harms the US economy.

No other nation on earth has such a huge opportunity to advance both democracy and its economy. Those TV airwaves go through buildings and have been protected from interfering appliances for decades - my God how could any responsible government official consider selling them to out of country corporations.

US consumers will not be ripped off on 3GM. Its a WiMax future for us. Back off EU corporations who would dump that technology on us. The churning must end.

Frank L. Mighetto CCP
0 Votes
+ -
Infrared? Huh?
paul2011 11th Jul 2007
Wireless does not require direct line of sight and infrared does. All infrared implementations I've seen were slow, very sensitive to obstacles and worked only at close distances. Examples are remotes, palm pilots, windows mobile PDAs and laptops with infrared.

And I did not understand the rant about democracy, government and economy at all happy
0 Votes
+ -
Wrong!
Uber Dweeb 12th Jul 2007
"I mean seriously, why do we use infrared for controlling our home entertainment units and not our computers?"

Primarily because our home entertainment units are in the same location as the user and we have line-of-sight between the controller and the device. IR requires line-of-sight. The second reason is cost. IR controllers are extremely cheap.

When you get into multi-room entertainment devices (i.e. multi-tuner DBS receivers), the solution is also met via RF in order to allow penetration through the structure between the controller and device. These are often in shared spectrum that won't interfere with wireless networks, 900 MHz for example.

There is no exemption for any of the shared radio spectrum. The reason 5GHz is more open to networking is that it just doesn't work as well. 802.11a has been readily available and hasn't taken off for a reason. If something appears to be open today, someone will invent some other gizmo to stomp on your device made yesterday.

Many devices share the same radio spectrum and still function. I would find it much more useful to see how well-made systems are able to reject signals that aren't part of their communication and continue to operate. I've found that running my home network in 802.11g only mode is much more effective by ignoring much of the 2.4GHz noise in my neighborhood. There will always be noise. Show me how a two-way system can use things like modulation techniques that better separate the wheat from the chaff and can still extract the signal from the noise.

When you have neighbors that have an "SSID" of "linksys" on channel 6 and their device is still using the default administrator password, you know that some consumers are a bit challenged by the technology. What I'd really like to see from manufacturers is 3 non-overlapping channel selections for their devices (in the US of course). The uneducated can too easily step on 2 usable channels by a poor channel selection.
0 Votes
+ -
5 GHz is no cakewalk either
brad@... 11th Jul 2007
The problem is that 5 GHz, while much less crowded, is not as attractive in terms of penetration ability. Do you know why Microwaves use 2.4 GHz? Well, obviously there's spectrum licensing to consider, but 2.4 GHz also has great penetration ability. It passes through matter more readily than 5 GHz, so your food cooks all the way through. 5 GHz takes a significant hit, even from wood studded walls.
802.11a sucks for range and throughput, and that's all the time, not only when someone is running a microwave oven.

Why this is a problem for George to raise now is very interesting. Microwave ovens and 2.4 GHz wireless devices are nothing new. Must be a slow week. Is that the best over-hyped alarmist headline he could come up with?
0 Votes
+ -
Look, it really depends on the model.
georgeou 13th Jul 2007
Look, it really depends on the model. Only in the earlier days did some 5 GHz models have problems with range and penetration. Most enterprises deploy 5 GHz especially when they want high-density deployments. You can always use a bigger antenna on the Access Point if you want more range.
0 Votes
+ -
My phone is 2.4 ghz, and when I had to call tech support about a NAT issue, sure enough, it kept dropping. It certainly makes sense that if my handset which has no power to speak of could do this, imagine what a microwave could do. Excellent article.
0 Votes
+ -
Try it
paul2011 11th Jul 2007
I also imagine what microwave could do happy but it does not do anything. My microwave is 2 feet away from dsl modem, wireless router and 1 feet away from phone jack and the phone. I had this setup for more than 3 years and did not notice anything.
0 Votes
+ -
I use 5.8 GHz cordless phones
georgeou 11th Jul 2007
I use 5.8 GHz cordless phones. That leaves the bottom 8 channels for 5.2 to 5.3 GHz wide open and it doesn't affect 2.4 GHz at all. Analog 2.4 GHz cordless phones and devices are the worst.
0 Votes
+ -
What are the 5 GHz band vendors
nucrash 11th Jul 2007
Right now, they are so few and far between, that they are hard to even consider using because of the lack of device support.
0 Votes
+ -
Not when it's dual-band
georgeou 11th Jul 2007
Your argument makes sense if we're talking about single-band 5 GHz devices. But that's not a problem since no one makes single band devices. Dual-band lets you do both.
0 Votes
+ -
Totally agreed.
CobraA1 11th Jul 2007
Totally agreed with your article. I've set up a lot of home networking stuff, and trying to get several computers running is a pain - we ended up going with a wired system, with only one computer being on the wireless.

Thanks for informing me that the 11n standard is no better, and that determining support for 5 GHz is more important. I'll be looking for 5 GHz stuff in the future.

Frankly, though, here's my advice: If you can, go with wired. IMHO a few "ugly" cables is much better than having to deal with the interference and low bandwidth of wireless connections.

IMHO, the ultimate solution is to start wiring houses with Ethernet connections. Wireless is nice for going on trips, but I think wired is fine for houses and wireless is really unnecessary for inside a house.
0 Votes
+ -
Wireless is necessary
georgeou 11th Jul 2007
Wireless is necessary and I use it for convenience on top of cables. I'll be 3 feet from my router and I don't bother plugging it in and use Wi-Fi instead. The issue with 802.11n is that people need to make sure they don't buy one unless it supports dual-band.
0 Votes
+ -
convenient, yes. necessary, no
cwallen19803 12th Jul 2007
Thats great for your laptop, but any static device, such as a desktop or HD receiver is a good candidate for a wired connection. Really, how many times are you going to move it?

My experience with cheap-after-rebate desktop cards is that they suck. Maybe I just got what I paid for, but now that it's on a wired connection, pure joy.

And yes, I always use the wireless connection with my laptop, as you do, and for the same reasons.
0 Votes
+ -
HD receiver might be in the wrong place and you're too lazy and/or it's too expensive to lay cables. It comes down to a cost benefit analysis and a convenience issue.
0 Votes
+ -
Unfortunately, microwave ovens aren't regulated the way wireless transmitters are. They're made to much looser tolerances so they leak a lot, and the very design principles of the oven keep it from being focused specifically on a narrow frequency. It's unlikely that this will change but the regulatory authorities could wake up and take that into account in their frequency licensing schemes to prevent the "jamming" that is inevitable. I've had trouble with wifi and microwaves (and portable phones and microwaves) for a while now. Even the neighbors' microwaves cause my wifi to drop out (that took a little sleuthing.)
0 Votes
+ -
Most of the asertions in your posting are just plain incorrect. I've been in the RF engineering arena for over 30 years and will attempt to set the facts straight.

The 2450 Mhz band is an unlicensed ISM (Inductrial/Scientific/Medical) band - subject to the provisions of Part 15 of the FCC regulations in the USA. ALL devices in an ISM band are on equal footing; since all are unlicensed, they must tolerate any interference from any other properly operating device. It is up to the manufacturer of a device to access the interference immunity of his product and design it accordingly.

Microwave ovens and cordless phones have been around MUCH longer than 802.11 B/G network devices (microwave ovens have operated in this band since at least the mid 60s - the first microwave ovens in the 50s operated in the 928 MHz ISM band). The manufacturers of 802.11 devices knew full well the RF "landscape" they where entering, so put the shoe of blame on the right foot (and it isn't the manufacturers of microwave ovens).

If your neighbor's microwave is interfering with your wi-fi, and assuming that the microwave's RF emissions are within the limits of Part 15 of the FCC rules, then it is YOUR responsibility to fix the problem, not the owner of the microwave. Change over to a 802.11a system, shield your system (place shielding on the wall towards your neighbor) or do whatever is necessary to fix the problem, but don't blame your neighbor or his microwave. The issue is NOT "jamming": jamming is an INTENTIONAL interference with a radio transmission. Go read Part 15 and you'll become enlightened.
0 Votes
+ -
Kudos to you!
Uber Dweeb 12th Jul 2007
Thank you for your very logical and informative post. A very refreshing read with good perspective.
0 Votes
+ -
HomePlug AV
coda9 12th Jul 2007
I've been using HomePlug 1.0 PowerLine adaptors for some time. I find it works great in my house even when the appliances are running. Maybe a combination of HomePlug AV and 802.11n will solve the problem of walls blocking the 802.11n signal?

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
Click Here
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix