Topic 'Re: 2.4Ghz Really?' in forum '' - dslreports.com

Re: 2.4Ghz Really?

Fri, 25 Nov 2011 20:57:58 EDT

anon posted : Sure, the interference may be brief as you say, but if it opens your garage door in the middle of winter that just might be a problem.

Re: 2.4Ghz Really?

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 19:25:14 EDT

tshirt posted : Most of these systems are/were planned to be able to offer "near real time" info via a website, so consumers can see the effect of usage (pavlovian response is the most effective way to train consumers to use less, much as auto mfg's use leaves/plants/green symbols on the dashboard of their "ECO" vehicles)
so rathe then 45 seconds in a single burst expect thousands of short bursts per day,PER METER, not a problem in the 'burbs, but would really suck in apt/condo land where free/uncongested channels are already a forgotten luxury.

Re: 2.4Ghz Really?

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 19:16:22 EDT

PDXPLT posted :

said by Tesla_X :

Damn nice of them to garbage up the wireless spectrum like that.

The 2.4 GHZ ISM band is "garbage" by definition. That's why it's unlincensed; it's free to be used by all sorts of devices, from microwave ovens to Wi-Fi routers. And no one is free from interference; in fact, interference is almost guaranteed.

Look at the manual for any Wi-Fi router, or any other Part 15 device that uses wireless spectrum, and you'll find an FCC required notice that says, among other things, that the device must accept interference from other spectrum users. In other words, if you complain to the FCC about it, they won't do anything. it's just the dog-eat-dog world if unlicensed spectrum.

Re: 2.4Ghz Really?

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 17:49:55 EDT

Linklist posted :

said by flwpwr :

I use inSSIDer 2.0 to scan my neighborhood and you are right about the 2.4 Ghz spectrum. Almost all are now using 802.11n and most are either 300mbps(double wide channel set) or 150 mbps(single channel set). They are stepping all over each other.

I use the 5 Ghz channels for my iPad, AppleTV, Gateway Laptop and no one but me is using them. Never have a problem. Unfortunately the Nintendo Wii and my Android smartphone and a Kindle Fire only can use 2.4 Ghz 802.11 G&N. I really had to make sure I picked a channel range that was somewhat uncluttered. Luckily, most neighbors are not real close and the signals are weak and performance is pretty good, but every once in awhile the devices just pause for a couple seconds.

My Netgear WNDR3700 Wireless Router does dual radios - 1 for 2.4 Ghz and 1 for 5 Ghz. They can both run simultaneously and handle double wide channel sets with speeds on 802.11n up to 300 mbps. The 2.4 Ghz radio occasionally drops back automatically to a single wide channel set with speeds up to 150 mbps when interference gets too high.

[att=1]
--
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
»www.politico.com/rss/2012-election-blog.xml

Re: 2.4Ghz Really?

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 17:31:24 EDT

anon posted :

said by Linklist
I am sure using unlicensed bandwidth was much cheaper as well as the meters being cheaper to build using std wifi chipsets.

To be fair, the meters only come on for about 45 secs/day, so real interference will be pretty brief unless you live in an apartment complex with dozens of meters chirping away nearby.
[/BQUOTE :

If you live in an apartment complex you should already be screwed on 2.4 Ghz, had to grab SSIDer the other day for my wife, her wireless kept getting knocked off, check ed out the spectrum and wham no safe place anywhere [thanks to comcast supplying wireless combo devices they do not disable even when the sub is not using them [home-whatever = dory with no setup...>], popped over to 5Ghz on her card, and no one, crickets, down to BB to get a 5 Ghz router, and its beautiful now. Of course this is all after I replaced out phone with a dect 6.0 model becasue I though tit may be the issue.

This entire news article is useless and stirring up imaginary controversy for no purpose at all.

Re: 2.4Ghz Really?

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 17:05:58 EDT

BF69 posted :

said by Tesla_X :

Oh you mean the same frequency as cell phones? Maybe that's your issue.

Re: 2.4Ghz Really?

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 17:01:35 EDT

en103 posted : I doubt that the radio is only on for 1 minute / day, in bursts of a few seconds.
The radio is most likely active 24x7, but only transmitting/receiving updates on an as needed basis.
With hourly metering set up, I don't think its 'off' most of the time, but realtime stats are only available next day.

»www.sce.com/CustomerService/smar···nect.htm
»www.sce.com/CustomerService/smar···ions.htm

Re: 2.4Ghz Really?

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 16:21:47 EDT

rradina posted : 6ghz phone? Do you mean 5.8Ghz or 6.0 DECT? The 6.0 DECT phones actually use 1.9Ghz.

I believe 1.9Ghz is better than 5.8Ghz. Several years ago I tried several 5.8Ghz phones but I could barely use them on the second floor or in the basement. I took them back and finally got a 6.0 DECT (which uses 1.9Ghz) and the problems vanished. Lower frequencies penetrate obstructions better than higher frequencies.

Re: 2.4Ghz Really?

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 16:14:19 EDT

Gbcue posted :

said by Tesla_X :

These things are on for much more than 45 sec a day, and are fairly consistently chatting with other nodes in the mesh network on an almost constant duty cycle.

In our neighborhood, the units operate on a 850-900mhz frequency, and that pretty much jammed our cordless phones that had functioned well for many years, and required me to purchase a 6ghz phone to get that functionality back.

Damn nice of them to garbage up the wireless spectrum like that.

Continuous duty cycle, eh? Citation needed.
--
My Blog 2.2

Re: 2.4Ghz Really?

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 15:56:24 EDT

anon posted : These things are on for much more than 45 sec a day, and are fairly consistently chatting with other nodes in the mesh network on an almost constant duty cycle.

In our neighborhood, the units operate on a 850-900mhz frequency, and that pretty much jammed our cordless phones that had functioned well for many years, and required me to purchase a 6ghz phone to get that functionality back.

Damn nice of them to garbage up the wireless spectrum like that.

Re: 2.4Ghz Really?

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 15:27:43 EDT

iansltx posted : The bandwidth required for AMR is so low that they could use a few KHz slice of 500MHz and do quite well. Plus, 500MHz propagation is better than 900 and doesn't interfere with 900MHz devices, so I think 500 would be a great idea.

Re: 2.4Ghz Really?

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 15:26:47 EDT

iansltx posted : Sounds like a better idea than 2.4GHz. The co-op my parents use has something over the power lines (but not BPL). I've heard the word "Turtle" bandies about regarding that tech.

In town, 900MHz is used for AMR. So no 900MHz WISP gear there. However it's a significantly better idea than 2.4GHz (seriously people?!?).

Re: 2.4Ghz Really?

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 15:19:31 EDT

Linklist posted :

said by elray:

If its a mesh network, the radio is active a lot more than 45 seconds/day - and indeed, the article so states. Where did you get such a figure?

Here:
»news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-57328···fic-jam/

interference is brief since smart meters communicate for less than a minute a day in bursts of a few seconds, according to the utility.

»www.pge.com/myhome/edusafety/sys···/rf/faq/

Do electric SmartMeters™ constantly emit RF?
No. SmartMeters™ communicate intermittently, with each RF-signal typically lasting from 2 to 20 milliseconds. These intermittent signals total, on average, 45 seconds per day. For the other 23 hours and 59 minutes of the day, the meter is not transmitting any RF.

said by elray:

the very intermittent nature of their operation makes for the worst kind of interference - random and hard to isolate.

I agree with that. But most users won't notice.

--
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
»www.politico.com/rss/2012-election-blog.xml

Re: 2.4Ghz Really?

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 15:09:56 EDT

cooldude9919 posted :

said by fifty nine:

said by cooldude9919:

Seems like a bad frequency for smart meters for several reasons. One would think most power companies would use something in a much lower (probably licensed as well) frequency for better signal propagation.

Our cooperative uses frequencies below 500kHz for AMR. Works pretty well for them.

Id say so thats a damn low frequency.
Its not like its steaming TV or something so these things dont need much bandwidth/throughput so hell they should have at least gone for 900mhz.

Re: 2.4Ghz Really?

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 14:58:37 EDT

elray posted :

said by Linklist:

said by cooldude9919:

If its a mesh network, the radio is active a lot more than 45 seconds/day - and indeed, the article so states. Where did you get such a figure?

While I don't believe these units cause health issues, the very intermittent nature of their operation makes for the worst kind of interference - random and hard to isolate. Will the utility and the government compensate customers when it is finally so proven?

Re: 2.4Ghz Really?

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 14:31:11 EDT

fifty nine posted :

said by cooldude9919:

Our cooperative uses frequencies below 500kHz for AMR. Works pretty well for them.

Re: 2.4Ghz Really?

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 14:27:12 EDT

Linklist posted :

said by cooldude9919:

I am sure using unlicensed bandwidth was much cheaper as well as the meters being cheaper to build using std wifi chipsets.

To be fair, the meters only come on for about 45 secs/day, so real interference will be pretty brief unless you live in an apartment complex with dozens of meters chirping away nearby.
--
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
»www.politico.com/rss/2012-election-blog.xml

2.4Ghz Really?

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 14:09:33 EDT

cooldude9919 posted : Seems like a bad frequency for smart meters for several reasons. One would think most power companies would use something in a much lower (probably licensed as well) frequency for better signal propagation.