A Broadband and ADSL forum. BroadbanterBanter

Welcome to BroadbanterBanter.

You are currently viewing as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today.

Go Back   Home » BroadbanterBanter forum » Newsgroup Discussions » uk.comp.home-networking (UK home networking)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.comp.home-networking (UK home networking) (uk.comp.home-networking) Discussion of all aspects of computer networking in the home, regardless of the platforms, software, topologies and protocols used. Examples of topics include recommendations for hardware or suppliers (e.g. NICs and cabling), protocols, servers, and specific network software. Advertising is not allowed.

PIR interfering with wireless network



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 30th 09, 06:25 PM posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.networking,microsoft.public.windows.networking.wireless,uk.comp.home-networking
Peter Hucker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14
Default PIR interfering with wireless network

We have a wireless network at work which appears to have gone downhill since the workmen installed PIRs for the burglar alarm. One of them in particular appears to cause dropped packets the closer a laptop is to it. Is this possible?? It's not a wireless PIR as far as I know, as I can see some leftover cable he was using which is a multicore (about 10 cores) type similar to phone systems, so I assume this is for the signal aswell as power. The person in that office swears blind that there were absolutely no problems until the PIR was installed above her desk, and now when I check, about 60% of the packets are being dropped. Moving her laptop to the opposite side of the room it drops only 5% of packets. PIRs used to just pick up infrared of your bodyheat, but I think now they are also motion sensors? Perhaps this means they are sending out a signal and bouncing it off you? Perhaps this could interfere with wireless networking?

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

"Sir, your daughter says she loves me, she can't live without me, and wants to marry me."
"And you're asking my permission to marry her?"
"No, I'm asking you to make her leave me the hell alone!!"
  #2  
Old January 30th 09, 07:11 PM posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.networking,microsoft.public.windows.networking.wireless,uk.comp.home-networking
Phillip Windell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default PIR interfering with wireless network

"Peter Hucker" wrote in message
news
think now they are also motion sensors? Perhaps this means they are
sending out a signal and bouncing it off you? Perhaps this could
interfere with wireless networking?


That could very well be. Particularly if they operate in the Ghz band.

Options:

1. Set the WAPs to a different channel. Becareful of channel conflicts if
you do that,...3 WAPs that are close together with overlapping signals have
to use 1, 6 & 11 because they have to be separated by a value of
"5",...unless you are doing "roaming". You can't have 4 or more overlaping
because there is not enough room in the channels.

2. Replace the WAPs with ones that run at a higher frequency like the N band
or the older A band. These run at 5ghz instead of the 2.x ghz of the B and
G's.

3. Have the PIRs moved to a more stategic location that won't get in the way
of the WLAN.

That's all I can think of.

--
Phillip Windell
www.wandtv.com

The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or Microsoft,
or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.
-----------------------------------------------------


  #3  
Old January 30th 09, 07:37 PM posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.networking,microsoft.public.windows.networking.wireless,uk.comp.home-networking
Lem
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default PIR interfering with wireless network

Peter Hucker wrote:
We have a wireless network at work which appears to have gone downhill since the workmen installed PIRs for the burglar alarm. One of them in particular appears to cause dropped packets the closer a laptop is to it. Is this possible?? It's not a wireless PIR as far as I know, as I can see some leftover cable he was using which is a multicore (about 10 cores) type similar to phone systems, so I assume this is for the signal aswell as power. The person in that office swears blind that there were absolutely no problems until the PIR was installed above her desk, and now when I check, about 60% of the packets are being dropped. Moving her laptop to the opposite side of the room it drops only 5% of packets. PIRs used to just pick up infrared of your bodyheat, but I think now they are also motion sensors? Perhaps this means they are sending out a signal and bouncing it off you? Perhaps this could interfere with wireless networking?


1. You have a device on the wall that works with your security system
but you don't really know what it is. If it really is a "PIR" then by
definition, it is a "Passive InfraRed" detector, which means that it
receives signals but doesn't send them out ("passive"). And yes, a PIR
is typically used as a motion detector:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_infrared_sensor

2. Just because the installers left some cable behind doesn't mean that
*all* of the devices they installed are wired to the alarm electronics.
Very often, a security system installed in an already-built location (as
compared to one installed during construction) will be a combination of
wired and wireless detectors.

3. Ask the company that installed the security system. Are some of the
sensors wireless, and if so, what frequency band do they use? (AFAIK,
if you're in the UK, as suggested by one of the groups you posted to,
wireless security systems are *supposed* to use 868 MHz, but you never
know). Even if the devices are nominally supposed to use 868 MHz, their
transmitters may be poorly designed and cause interference in the 2.4GHz
band of 802.11G.

--
Lem -- MS-MVP

To the moon and back with 2K words of RAM and 36K words of ROM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Guidance_Computer
http://history.nasa.gov/afj/compessay.htm
  #4  
Old January 30th 09, 07:43 PM posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.networking,microsoft.public.windows.networking.wireless,uk.comp.home-networking
Peter Hucker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14
Default PIR interfering with wireless network

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:11:10 -0000, Phillip Windell wrote:

"Peter Hucker" wrote in message
news
think now they are also motion sensors? Perhaps this means they are
sending out a signal and bouncing it off you? Perhaps this could
interfere with wireless networking?


That could very well be. Particularly if they operate in the Ghz band.


They're not wireless themselves, unless you're referring to the signal they put out to bounce of an intruder?

Options:

1. Set the WAPs to a different channel.


It's causing equal problems with two WAPs I tried, one is channel 11, one is channel 6.

Becareful of channel conflicts if
you do that,...3 WAPs that are close together with overlapping signals have
to use 1, 6 & 11 because they have to be separated by a value of
"5",...unless you are doing "roaming". You can't have 4 or more overlaping
because there is not enough room in the channels.


I tend to have just enough WAPs to cover every area, and have found that if they are close, I need a difference of only TWO channels (eg use channel 3 and 5), and if they are only just visible from one point, then a gap of 1 is enough (eg using channel 4 and 5).

What annoys me is they (mostly Belkins) have an "Auto" setting which simply does not work. I put them all on auto and they all chose channel 1 and killed each other. When they detect something else on the same channel they seem to just shut down, permanently (until I power cycle them).

2. Replace the WAPs with ones that run at a higher frequency like the N band
or the older A band. These run at 5ghz instead of the 2.x ghz of the B and
G's.


I've heard of B (11Mbit) and G (54Mbit) - all but one we have is G 54 Mbit.

We've got about 20 of them and I'm not going to shell out loads of cash just because of these PIRs. They were always fine with the old PIRS, so it's up to the builders to fix the problem they have caused. I just want to make sure it is actually caused by the PIRs.

3. Have the PIRs moved to a more stategic location that won't get in the way
of the WLAN.


Difficult. They could go into another corner of the room, but when the room is an office with 3 or 4 people using wireless laptops on desks throughout the room......

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

For Sale: Parachute. Only used once, never opened, small stain.
  #5  
Old January 30th 09, 07:55 PM posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.networking,microsoft.public.windows.networking.wireless,uk.comp.home-networking
Peter Hucker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14
Default PIR interfering with wireless network

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:37:05 -0000, Lem [email protected] wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:
We have a wireless network at work which appears to have gone downhill since the workmen installed PIRs for the burglar alarm. One of them in particular appears to cause dropped packets the closer a laptop is to it. Is this possible?? It's not a wireless PIR as far as I know, as I can see some leftover cable he was using which is a multicore (about 10 cores) type similar to phone systems, so I assume this is for the signal aswell as power. The person in that office swears blind that there were absolutely no problems until the PIR was installed above her desk, and now when I check, about 60% of the packets are being dropped. Moving her laptop to the opposite side of the room it drops only 5% of packets. PIRs used to just pick up infrared of your bodyheat, but I think now they are also motion sensors? Perhaps this means they are sending out a signal and bouncing it off you? Perhaps this could interfere with wireless networking?


1. You have a device on the wall that works with your security system
but you don't really know what it is. If it really is a "PIR" then by
definition, it is a "Passive InfraRed" detector, which means that it
receives signals but doesn't send them out ("passive"). And yes, a PIR
is typically used as a motion detector:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_infrared_sensor


It looks cheap and cheerful with one red LED coming on when I walk about. I've seen others (in our temporary huts) with THREE different coloured LEDs that come on seperately when I walk in different directions, which I assume are multi-detection ones. Those don't cause problems with wireless.

2. Just because the installers left some cable behind doesn't mean that
*all* of the devices they installed are wired to the alarm electronics.
Very often, a security system installed in an already-built location (as
compared to one installed during construction) will be a combination of
wired and wireless detectors.


The building is being completely refurbished (everything except the main supporting walls basically). The section with the problem is an extension, a completely new building.

3. Ask the company that installed the security system. Are some of the
sensors wireless, and if so, what frequency band do they use?


He wasn't there when I was testing, but he was when the user noticed a problem. When she asked him if the PIR he'd installed could have caused the problem, he said "don't be rediculous, they don't do that". I've told the project manager to get him to disconnect it for the time being, so I'll see.

(AFAIK, if you're in the UK, as suggested by one of the groups you posted to,


Yes, UK.

wireless security systems are *supposed* to use 868 MHz, but you never
know). Even if the devices are nominally supposed to use 868 MHz, their
transmitters may be poorly designed and cause interference in the 2.4GHz
band of 802.11G.


I once bought a wireless video camera which stated it used 2.4GHz. That had channel settings and only interfered with wireless if on the same channel as the wireless access point.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Capitalism: Man exploiting man.
Socialism: The reverse.
  #6  
Old January 30th 09, 08:14 PM posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.networking,microsoft.public.windows.networking.wireless,uk.comp.home-networking
Bob Willard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default PIR interfering with wireless network

Peter Hucker wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:37:05 -0000, Lem [email protected] wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:
We have a wireless network at work which appears to have gone downhill since the workmen installed PIRs for the burglar alarm. One of them in particular appears to cause dropped packets the closer a laptop is to it. Is this possible?? It's not a wireless PIR as far as I know, as I can see some leftover cable he was using which is a multicore (about 10 cores) type similar to phone systems, so I assume this is for the signal aswell as power. The person in that office swears blind that there were absolutely no problems until the PIR was installed above her desk, and now when I check, about 60% of the packets are being dropped. Moving her laptop to the opposite side of the room it drops only 5% of packets. PIRs used to just pick up infrared of your bodyheat, but I think now they are also motion sensors? Perhaps this means they are sending out a signal and bouncing it off you? Perhaps this could interfere with wireless networking?

1. You have a device on the wall that works with your security system
but you don't really know what it is. If it really is a "PIR" then by
definition, it is a "Passive InfraRed" detector, which means that it
receives signals but doesn't send them out ("passive"). And yes, a PIR
is typically used as a motion detector:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_infrared_sensor


It looks cheap and cheerful with one red LED coming on when I walk about. I've seen others (in our temporary huts) with THREE different coloured LEDs that come on seperately when I walk in different directions, which I assume are multi-detection ones. Those don't cause problems with wireless.

2. Just because the installers left some cable behind doesn't mean that
*all* of the devices they installed are wired to the alarm electronics.
Very often, a security system installed in an already-built location (as
compared to one installed during construction) will be a combination of
wired and wireless detectors.


The building is being completely refurbished (everything except the main supporting walls basically). The section with the problem is an extension, a completely new building.

3. Ask the company that installed the security system. Are some of the
sensors wireless, and if so, what frequency band do they use?


He wasn't there when I was testing, but he was when the user noticed a problem. When she asked him if the PIR he'd installed could have caused the problem, he said "don't be rediculous, they don't do that". I've told the project manager to get him to disconnect it for the time being, so I'll see.

(AFAIK, if you're in the UK, as suggested by one of the groups you posted to,


Yes, UK.

wireless security systems are *supposed* to use 868 MHz, but you never
know). Even if the devices are nominally supposed to use 868 MHz, their
transmitters may be poorly designed and cause interference in the 2.4GHz
band of 802.11G.


I once bought a wireless video camera which stated it used 2.4GHz. That had channel settings and only interfered with wireless if on the same channel as the wireless access point.


If it is difficult to remove that PIR, then just cover it up with
something made of iron or copper or tin to present a shield between the
PIR and the wireless laptops.

--
Cheers, Bob
  #7  
Old January 30th 09, 08:42 PM posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.networking,microsoft.public.windows.networking.wireless,uk.comp.home-networking
Peter Hucker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14
Default PIR interfering with wireless network

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:14:31 -0000, Bob Willard wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:37:05 -0000, Lem [email protected] wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:
We have a wireless network at work which appears to have gone downhill since the workmen installed PIRs for the burglar alarm. One of them in particular appears to cause dropped packets the closer a laptop is to it. Is this possible?? It's not a wireless PIR as far as I know, as I can see some leftover cable he was using which is a multicore (about 10 cores) type similar to phone systems, so I assume this is for the signal aswell as power. The person in that office swears blind that there were absolutely no problems until the PIR was installed above her desk, and now when I check, about 60% of the packets are being dropped. Moving her laptop to the opposite side of the room it drops only 5% of packets. PIRs used to just pick up infrared of your bodyheat, but I think now they are also motion sensors? Perhaps this means they are sending out a signal and bouncing it off you? Perhaps this could interfere with wireless networking?

1. You have a device on the wall that works with your security system
but you don't really know what it is. If it really is a "PIR" then by
definition, it is a "Passive InfraRed" detector, which means that it
receives signals but doesn't send them out ("passive"). And yes, a PIR
is typically used as a motion detector:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_infrared_sensor


It looks cheap and cheerful with one red LED coming on when I walk about. I've seen others (in our temporary huts) with THREE different coloured LEDs that come on seperately when I walk in different directions, which I assume are multi-detection ones. Those don't cause problems with wireless.

2. Just because the installers left some cable behind doesn't mean that
*all* of the devices they installed are wired to the alarm electronics.
Very often, a security system installed in an already-built location (as
compared to one installed during construction) will be a combination of
wired and wireless detectors.


The building is being completely refurbished (everything except the main supporting walls basically). The section with the problem is an extension, a completely new building.

3. Ask the company that installed the security system. Are some of the
sensors wireless, and if so, what frequency band do they use?


He wasn't there when I was testing, but he was when the user noticed a problem. When she asked him if the PIR he'd installed could have caused the problem, he said "don't be rediculous, they don't do that". I've told the project manager to get him to disconnect it for the time being, so I'll see.

(AFAIK, if you're in the UK, as suggested by one of the groups you posted to,


Yes, UK.

wireless security systems are *supposed* to use 868 MHz, but you never
know). Even if the devices are nominally supposed to use 868 MHz, their
transmitters may be poorly designed and cause interference in the 2.4GHz
band of 802.11G.


I once bought a wireless video camera which stated it used 2.4GHz. That had channel settings and only interfered with wireless if on the same channel as the wireless access point.


If it is difficult to remove that PIR, then just cover it up with
something made of iron or copper or tin to present a shield between the
PIR and the wireless laptops.


Aha! Wish I'd thought of that! So it has to be iron copper or tin? Not just any metal? The first metal thing I can think of that would be to hand is the lid of a tin of chocolates. Cadbury's Roses I think, not sure what they use.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

(\
\)
,____/')
( __ /
(/ \)
  #8  
Old January 30th 09, 08:58 PM posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.networking,microsoft.public.windows.networking.wireless,uk.comp.home-networking
Phillip Windell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default PIR interfering with wireless network


"Peter Hucker" wrote in message
news
I tend to have just enough WAPs to cover every area, and have found that
if they are close, I
need a difference of only TWO channels (eg use channel 3 and 5), and if
they are only just visible
from one point, then a gap of 1 is enough (eg using channel 4 and 5).


They may seem to work but you can still loose signal. You are loosing the
signal "width" because the overlapped part is "lost", or more accuartely,
"destroyed". The width of the signal takes up more than one channel. They
need to be separated by 5.

----Channel Options in overlaping areas----
Single WAP = any channel
Two WAPs = 1,6 or 2,7 or 3,8 or 4,9 or 5,10 or 6,11
Three WAPs = 1,6,11 This is the only option, no other options
Four WAPs = none available for 4 WAPs unless using roaming


What annoys me is they (mostly Belkins) have an "Auto" setting which
simply does not work. I
put them all on auto and they all chose channel 1 and killed each other.
When they detect
something else on the same channel they seem to just shut down,
permanently (until I power
cycle them).


Home user products,.....home user quality.

Home-User WAPS = $50 - $80
Commercial quality WAPS = $200 - $1500 (and maybe more)

2. Replace the WAPs with ones that run at a higher frequency like the N
band
or the older A band. These run at 5ghz instead of the 2.x ghz of the B
and
G's.


I've heard of B (11Mbit) and G (54Mbit) - all but one we have is G 54
Mbit.


I'm not talking about the IP thoughtput speed,...I'm talking about the
frequency Band of the radio signal.

PIRs. They were always fine with the old PIRS, so it's up to the builders
to fix the problem they
have caused. I just want to make sure it is actually caused by the PIRs.


Kill the power to the PIR,...if the WAP starts acting better, ..then it was
the PIR.
Contact the vendor of the PIRs. Maybe they have adjustments that can be
made with the PIRs.

--
Phillip Windell
www.wandtv.com

The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or Microsoft,
or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.
-----------------------------------------------------


  #9  
Old January 30th 09, 09:14 PM posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.networking,microsoft.public.windows.networking.wireless,uk.comp.home-networking
PeeGee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 311
Default PIR interfering with wireless network

Phillip Windell wrote:
"Peter Hucker" wrote in message
news
I tend to have just enough WAPs to cover every area, and have found that
if they are close, I
need a difference of only TWO channels (eg use channel 3 and 5), and if
they are only just visible
from one point, then a gap of 1 is enough (eg using channel 4 and 5).


They may seem to work but you can still loose signal. You are loosing the
signal "width" because the overlapped part is "lost", or more accuartely,
"destroyed". The width of the signal takes up more than one channel. They
need to be separated by 5.

----Channel Options in overlaping areas----
Single WAP = any channel
Two WAPs = 1,6 or 2,7 or 3,8 or 4,9 or 5,10 or 6,11
Three WAPs = 1,6,11 This is the only option, no other options


This being "uk.comp. ", what's wrong with 7,12 and 8,13
2,7,12 and 3,8,13 ?

Four WAPs = none available for 4 WAPs unless using roaming


--
PeeGee

"Nothing should be able to load itself onto a computer without the
knowledge or consent of the computer user. Software should also be able
to be removed from a computer easily."
Peter Cullen, Microsoft Chief Privacy Strategist (Computing 18 Aug 05)
  #10  
Old January 30th 09, 09:14 PM posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.networking,microsoft.public.windows.networking.wireless,uk.comp.home-networking
Lem
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default PIR interfering with wireless network

Peter Hucker wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:14:31 -0000, Bob Willard wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:37:05 -0000, Lem [email protected] wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:
We have a wireless network at work which appears to have gone downhill since the workmen installed PIRs for the burglar alarm. One of them in particular appears to cause dropped packets the closer a laptop is to it. Is this possible?? It's not a wireless PIR as far as I know, as I can see some leftover cable he was using which is a multicore (about 10 cores) type similar to phone systems, so I assume this is for the signal aswell as power. The person in that office swears blind that there were absolutely no problems until the PIR was installed above her desk, and now when I check, about 60% of the packets are being dropped. Moving her laptop to the opposite side of the room it drops only 5% of packets. PIRs used to just pick up infrared of your bodyheat, but I think now they are also motion sensors? Perhaps this means they are sending out a signal and bouncing it off you? Perhaps this could interfere with wireless networking?

1. You have a device on the wall that works with your security system
but you don't really know what it is. If it really is a "PIR" then by
definition, it is a "Passive InfraRed" detector, which means that it
receives signals but doesn't send them out ("passive"). And yes, a PIR
is typically used as a motion detector:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_infrared_sensor
It looks cheap and cheerful with one red LED coming on when I walk about. I've seen others (in our temporary huts) with THREE different coloured LEDs that come on seperately when I walk in different directions, which I assume are multi-detection ones. Those don't cause problems with wireless.

2. Just because the installers left some cable behind doesn't mean that
*all* of the devices they installed are wired to the alarm electronics.
Very often, a security system installed in an already-built location (as
compared to one installed during construction) will be a combination of
wired and wireless detectors.
The building is being completely refurbished (everything except the main supporting walls basically). The section with the problem is an extension, a completely new building.

3. Ask the company that installed the security system. Are some of the
sensors wireless, and if so, what frequency band do they use?
He wasn't there when I was testing, but he was when the user noticed a problem. When she asked him if the PIR he'd installed could have caused the problem, he said "don't be rediculous, they don't do that". I've told the project manager to get him to disconnect it for the time being, so I'll see.

(AFAIK, if you're in the UK, as suggested by one of the groups you posted to,
Yes, UK.

wireless security systems are *supposed* to use 868 MHz, but you never
know). Even if the devices are nominally supposed to use 868 MHz, their
transmitters may be poorly designed and cause interference in the 2.4GHz
band of 802.11G.
I once bought a wireless video camera which stated it used 2.4GHz. That had channel settings and only interfered with wireless if on the same channel as the wireless access point.

If it is difficult to remove that PIR, then just cover it up with
something made of iron or copper or tin to present a shield between the
PIR and the wireless laptops.


Aha! Wish I'd thought of that! So it has to be iron copper or tin? Not just any metal? The first metal thing I can think of that would be to hand is the lid of a tin of chocolates. Cadbury's Roses I think, not sure what they use.

Covering the sensor with the Cadbury's lid (mainly, the shield needs to
be made of an electrically conductive material; copper works best
(unless you want to use silver); aluminum foil would probably work just
as well) may help your wifi problem, but it will also make it rather
useless for the security system. If you can find the main control box
for the security system, perhaps there is make/model info there that
will help you determine if some of its sensors are wireless and if so,
on what frequency.

I've also seen 2.4GHz security cams, but from a quick Google search, it
seemed that the wireless sensors used in UK security systems were all
supposed to be 868 MHz. I don't know how to reconcile those facts (I'm
neither in the UK nor particularly knowledgeable about security systems).

--
Lem -- MS-MVP

To the moon and back with 2K words of RAM and 36K words of ROM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Guidance_Computer
http://history.nasa.gov/afj/compessay.htm
 




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Totally wireless or combined wired/wireless network? Ed uk.comp.home-networking (UK home networking) 4 June 16th 07 11:15 AM
Interfering with next doors broadband connection? John uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 34 January 19th 07 09:33 PM
wireless network interfering with sky TV reception? Adam Lipscombe uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 17 September 23rd 06 01:17 PM
wired network cam & wireless network Dean uk.comp.home-networking (UK home networking) 0 October 9th 04 05:41 PM
Home wireless network unavailable after connecting to work network - Windows XP Linksys Router Marc J. Osborne uk.comp.home-networking (UK home networking) 0 October 5th 03 03:48 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2019 BroadbanterBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.