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.telecom.broadband (UK broadband)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) (uk.telecom.broadband) Discussion of broadband services, technology and equipment as provided in the UK. Discussions of specific services based on ADSL, cable modems or other broadband technology are also on-topic. Advertising is not allowed.

SmartWireless



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 13th 11, 05:02 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Chris Davies
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 444
Default SmartWireless

I see that BT is now purveying a Home Hub 3 with "SmartWireless" (TM)
technology. Apparently this changes the AP's wireless channel to the
one with the least interference.

So if this shiny new AP cannot hear a lower powered AP then it's likely
to trample all over its signal. It's seems to me that this is a design
rule of the selfish, and unless everyone plays by these new rules people's
network channels will get arbitrarily stomped over.

Thoughts, please?
Chris
  #2  
Old May 13th 11, 05:32 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Graham.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 503
Default SmartWireless


"Chris Davies" wrote in message ...
I see that BT is now purveying a Home Hub 3 with "SmartWireless" (TM)
technology. Apparently this changes the AP's wireless channel to the
one with the least interference.

So if this shiny new AP cannot hear a lower powered AP then it's likely
to trample all over its signal. It's seems to me that this is a design
rule of the selfish, and unless everyone plays by these new rules people's
network channels will get arbitrarily stomped over.

Thoughts, please?
Chris


Agree 100%

I first saw this "feature" on a D-Link DIR-615 supplied by Virgin Media.
Once I realised what it did my natural instinct was to turn it off and
choose a channel manually after a site survey.

But once these things become the norm they will be constantly fighting
amongst themselves for 2.GHz spectrum space and things will be worse.

I got a massive (A0?) poster through the post from BT, extolling the virtues of
Smart Wireless (TM).

Do the public really chose an ISP on the claims made about the supplied access point performance??? (Rhetorical)



--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%


  #3  
Old May 13th 11, 05:37 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Graham J
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 620
Default SmartWireless


"Chris Davies" wrote in message
...
I see that BT is now purveying a Home Hub 3 with "SmartWireless" (TM)
technology. Apparently this changes the AP's wireless channel to the
one with the least interference.

So if this shiny new AP cannot hear a lower powered AP then it's likely
to trample all over its signal. It's seems to me that this is a design
rule of the selfish, and unless everyone plays by these new rules people's
network channels will get arbitrarily stomped over.



If you were choosing which channel to use, could you do any better?

Of the 11 (perhaps 13) available, each channel overlaps the adjacent
channels to some extent, so simultaneous use of channels 1, 5 and 11 in the
same location represents the maximum spectrum load. Any other channels used
will reduce the effective range and throughput some or all the channels.
Your choice is obviously to transmit over the weakest other channel ...

The whole concept is misguided. We moved from repeaters to switches to
avoid large collision domains, and wireless brings back a large collision
domain with a much less efficient transport protocol. Much better to use
wires!

--
Graham J


  #4  
Old May 13th 11, 06:50 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Paulg0
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 65
Default SmartWireless

"Graham J" [email protected] wrote in message
...

"Chris Davies" wrote in message
...
I see that BT is now purveying a Home Hub 3 with "SmartWireless" (TM)
technology. Apparently this changes the AP's wireless channel to the
one with the least interference.

So if this shiny new AP cannot hear a lower powered AP then it's likely
to trample all over its signal. It's seems to me that this is a design
rule of the selfish, and unless everyone plays by these new rules
people's
network channels will get arbitrarily stomped over.



If you were choosing which channel to use, could you do any better?

Of the 11 (perhaps 13) available, each channel overlaps the adjacent
channels to some extent, so simultaneous use of channels 1, 5 and 11 in
the same location represents the maximum spectrum load. Any other
channels used will reduce the effective range and throughput some or all
the channels. Your choice is obviously to transmit over the weakest other
channel ...

The whole concept is misguided. We moved from repeaters to switches to
avoid large collision domains, and wireless brings back a large collision
domain with a much less efficient transport protocol. Much better to use
wires!


2.4Ghz networking is a complete waste of time here, there are 34 networks
competing for use of the 3 overlap free channels which has slowed everyone
to a crawl. I gave i a while back and bought myself a dual band router. I
have the only 5Ghz network within range.....

Paul

  #6  
Old May 14th 11, 10:51 AM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
alexd
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,765
Default SmartWireless

Meanwhile, at the uk.telecom.broadband Job Justification Hearings, Graham.
chose the tried and tested strategy of:

"Chris Davies" wrote in message
...


So if this shiny new AP cannot hear a lower powered AP then it's likely
to trample all over its signal. It's seems to me that this is a design
rule of the selfish, and unless everyone plays by these new rules
people's network channels will get arbitrarily stomped over.


In what sense do people's network channels /not/ get arbitrarily stomped
over without such a system? Very few AP owners are aware there may be
channels that their AP uses; fewer still will know that adjacent channels
overlap each other to a large degree. To avoid interfering with someone
else's network, you need to know the position of all their nodes in relation
to all of your nodes. This would be hard enough with two networks near each
other, but quickly becomes mind boggling as you add more networks and nodes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_node_problem

But once these things become the norm they will be constantly fighting
amongst themselves for 2.GHz spectrum space and things will be worse.


I don't think it's all that new a feature anyway. I've seen automatic
channel selection on other APs.

Given the need for independently operated wireless networks with little
regulatory involvement, a "tragedy of the commons" type situation is
inevitable.

Sure, you could come up with some system where adjacent APs try to
coordinate to avoid stomping on each other, but the success or otherwise of
such a system would be subject to being implemented correctly and in a
compatible fashion by every AP maker. And that's without considering those
trying to game such a system to get more throughput for themselves.

The commons at 5GHz, however, haven't been trashed yet [possibly because the
range is as far as at 2.4GHz].

Do the public really chose an ISP on the claims made about the supplied
access point performance??? (Rhetorical)


As Graham J alluded to, if performance was a factor, wireless wouldn't be
considered.

--
http://ale.cx/ (AIM:troffasky) )
10:34:30 up 7 days, 14:33, 6 users, load average: 0.57, 1.10, 0.61
"People believe any quote they read on the internet
if it fits their preconceived notions." - Martin Luther King

  #7  
Old May 14th 11, 11:41 AM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
The Natural Philosopher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,728
Default SmartWireless

alexd wrote:
Meanwhile, at the uk.telecom.broadband Job Justification Hearings, Graham.
chose the tried and tested strategy of:

"Chris Davies" wrote in message
...


So if this shiny new AP cannot hear a lower powered AP then it's likely
to trample all over its signal. It's seems to me that this is a design
rule of the selfish, and unless everyone plays by these new rules
people's network channels will get arbitrarily stomped over.


In what sense do people's network channels /not/ get arbitrarily stomped
over without such a system? Very few AP owners are aware there may be
channels that their AP uses; fewer still will know that adjacent channels
overlap each other to a large degree. To avoid interfering with someone
else's network, you need to know the position of all their nodes in relation
to all of your nodes. This would be hard enough with two networks near each
other, but quickly becomes mind boggling as you add more networks and nodes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_node_problem

But once these things become the norm they will be constantly fighting
amongst themselves for 2.GHz spectrum space and things will be worse.


I don't think it's all that new a feature anyway. I've seen automatic
channel selection on other APs.

Given the need for independently operated wireless networks with little
regulatory involvement, a "tragedy of the commons" type situation is
inevitable.

Sure, you could come up with some system where adjacent APs try to
coordinate to avoid stomping on each other, but the success or otherwise of
such a system would be subject to being implemented correctly and in a
compatible fashion by every AP maker. And that's without considering those
trying to game such a system to get more throughput for themselves.

The commons at 5GHz, however, haven't been trashed yet [possibly because the
range is as far as at 2.4GHz].

Do the public really chose an ISP on the claims made about the supplied
access point performance??? (Rhetorical)


As Graham J alluded to, if performance was a factor, wireless wouldn't be
considered.

Very good post, if I may say so.

Which just supports my growing belief that WiFi access is fundamentally
pants.


  #8  
Old May 16th 11, 12:16 AM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Chris Davies
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 444
Default SmartWireless

alexd wrote:
In what sense do people's network channels /not/ get arbitrarily stomped
over without such a system?


The part of the system that frustrates me is the automatic switching of
channels, and not so much the automatic (one-off) selection.

When I got stomped on the other week I was able to find another channel,
and as I'm reasonably sure that my neighbours won't be fiddling with
their APs, I feel I'm "safe" for now. If their APs started switching
around seemingly arbitrarily, I'd be forever playing catch-up.


Sure, you could come up with some system where adjacent APs try to
coordinate to avoid stomping on each other


This system is called SmartWireless. It claims to try to avoid channels
with interference. Consider three routers A, B, C, where A and B are
adjacent, B and C are adjacent, but A and C cannot hear each other. If
all three have SmartWireless then the system works. If one does not have
this new feature, then it loses out.


such a system would be subject to being implemented correctly and in a
compatible fashion by every AP maker. And that's without considering those
trying to game such a system to get more throughput for themselves.


Absolutely.


As Graham J alluded to, if performance was a factor, wireless wouldn't be
considered.


There are different levels of performance. For the single user PC
(with maybe a smartphone or 'pad), data transfer is bounded by the
broadband speed. For many users with multiple PCs I would suspect that
actually there is not a lot of interaction between those PCs, so again
the performance is bounded by the broadband speed. Those of us dicussing
this topic, with or without multiple PCs, are very much in the minority.

Chris
  #9  
Old May 16th 11, 01:12 AM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
The Natural Philosopher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,728
Default SmartWireless

Chris Davies wrote:
alexd wrote:
In what sense do people's network channels /not/ get arbitrarily stomped
over without such a system?


The part of the system that frustrates me is the automatic switching of
channels, and not so much the automatic (one-off) selection.

When I got stomped on the other week I was able to find another channel,
and as I'm reasonably sure that my neighbours won't be fiddling with
their APs, I feel I'm "safe" for now. If their APs started switching
around seemingly arbitrarily, I'd be forever playing catch-up.

Possibly..or note. see below

Sure, you could come up with some system where adjacent APs try to
coordinate to avoid stomping on each other


This system is called SmartWireless. It claims to try to avoid channels
with interference. Consider three routers A, B, C, where A and B are
adjacent, B and C are adjacent, but A and C cannot hear each other. If
all three have SmartWireless then the system works. If one does not have
this new feature, then it loses out.


such a system would be subject to being implemented correctly and in a
compatible fashion by every AP maker. And that's without considering those
trying to game such a system to get more throughput for themselves.


Absolutely.


frequency agile systems can sort out the interference problems .
Essentially both ends agree to hop to a new channel. This doesn't
eliminate issues, but it means that the full spectrum is better utilised.

I am not sure if any wifi systems use this, but its common in e.g. radio
control on the 2.4Ghz band.




As Graham J alluded to, if performance was a factor, wireless wouldn't be
considered.


There are different levels of performance. For the single user PC
(with maybe a smartphone or 'pad), data transfer is bounded by the
broadband speed. For many users with multiple PCs I would suspect that
actually there is not a lot of interaction between those PCs, so again
the performance is bounded by the broadband speed. Those of us dicussing
this topic, with or without multiple PCs, are very much in the minority.

I could not get the clean 100Mbps I have over cat5 between my server and
the desktops, using wifi.


Chris

  #10  
Old May 16th 11, 01:11 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Chris Davies
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 444
Default SmartWireless

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I could not get the clean 100Mbps I have over cat5 between my server and
the desktops, using wifi.


And without wireless (or powerline, but let's not go there) I wouldn't
be able to get any connectivity between our "family PC" and anything
else. I'd prefer a wired connection, but in our house that's not an
option and probably won't ever be, so a wireless connection at say,
5 Mbps, is an acceptable second best.

Chris
 




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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:34 AM.


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.