Routers - antenna or not

[PandaBear]

The main benefit in addition to higher bandwidth in 5GHz is the shorter range. It is not the best idea to have the best range in a dense neighborhood, because you'll be fighting for access to the frequency as well as getting interference from your neighbor's wifi, blue tooth, microwave oven, wireless mouse and keyboard, cordless phone, etc. 5GHz is less crowded and smaller in range, thus less interference.

There are lots of tricks you can do to improve your range. If you have the router on one side of your house, you can put a metal plate to reflect its signal to increase range on the other side. There're free cardboard deflector cutout you can print and make out of tin can / foil that increase your range. You can also buy a MIMO router that supports beam forming to increase range. It'll cost more but IMO it is well worth it.

 

[JustinH]

I have a WRT54GS that is over 5 years old, been running non stop with no problem. I just flash the factory firmware on it when they come out with a release.

Mine is a weird version, it has a low amount of flash ram, so I can't use any of the alternative router firmwares.

 

[Nick R]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: Nick R
We have a Netgear WNDR3700, the top end netgear router carried in stores. Range on it is great, but the 2.4Ghz is much better than the 5Ghz channel. But it doesn't choke on the amount of devices and data we use compared to the Linksys E1000. Just in half a month, we used 95GB of data down, 4GB up, according to the traffic meter

(Lots of HD Netflix, Hulu, etc)


95GB? That's the first four seasons of Dexter! I'll pull that kind of data in 24hrs, LMAO!

BTW, you guys don't carry the ProSafe stuff?

The ProSafe WNDAP350 would be what I would expect to be deployed in a larger retail environment (if using inexpensive Netgear equipment).


We do have the prosafe ehternet switches. Both in gigabit and fast ethernet versions.

Top end consumer grade wireless router, is what I meant lol

 

[Rand]

2.4ghz is also the frequency for microwaves, and for water absorption.(sp?)

5ghz basically is less populated which is why its good. Not because its 5ghz but because its not 2.4ghz

 

[SLCraig]

Originally Posted By: Errtt
I'm on my 3rd Router.
1st - was internal antenna, it lasted a couple years but one day died. Had to reset 1-2 times a month, sometimes 3.

2st - was a linksys. Got tired of having to reset it a few times a day. It was their upper end dual channel N draft and wasn't fast. Counter dude lied to me.

3rd - was a NetGear; took it back after a few hours as it started doing reset after reset after reset on it's own. So I don't count this as a working 3rd.

3rd (working now) - is a D-Link DIR-655 and it has three antennas. I notice with this one when I'm in the garage (far end of home) I get full bars signal unlike I did with the previous(1st & 2nd). Reset it once (last week - my son did)and it has been on line about 7 or so months. I have it paired up with a D-Link Modem. So far it's kept me happy and that's what counts.


The 655 is an excellent router, and may be one of the best routers D-link makes period. I have this router at home too.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Nick R
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: Nick R
We have a Netgear WNDR3700, the top end netgear router carried in stores. Range on it is great, but the 2.4Ghz is much better than the 5Ghz channel. But it doesn't choke on the amount of devices and data we use compared to the Linksys E1000. Just in half a month, we used 95GB of data down, 4GB up, according to the traffic meter

(Lots of HD Netflix, Hulu, etc)


95GB? That's the first four seasons of Dexter! I'll pull that kind of data in 24hrs, LMAO!

BTW, you guys don't carry the ProSafe stuff?

The ProSafe WNDAP350 would be what I would expect to be deployed in a larger retail environment (if using inexpensive Netgear equipment).


We do have the prosafe ehternet switches. Both in gigabit and fast ethernet versions.

Top end consumer grade wireless router, is what I meant lol


I meant ProSafe routers and AP's.

 

[brianl703]

Originally Posted By: QuadDriver
How do you think those nextel phones and cop radios work?


Why do you think the CA Highway Patrol still uses lowband VHF?

 

[QuadDriver]

Originally Posted By: brianl703
Originally Posted By: QuadDriver
How do you think those nextel phones and cop radios work?


Why do you think the CA Highway Patrol still uses lowband VHF?


dunno I'll ask my bro (he is CHP)

I do know that his 'SCMODS' operates appx 2.1Ghz...

 

[tmorris1]

Originally Posted By: QuadDriver
Originally Posted By: brianl703
Originally Posted By: QuadDriver
How do you think those nextel phones and cop radios work?


Why do you think the CA Highway Patrol still uses lowband VHF?


dunno I'll ask my bro (he is CHP)

I do know that his 'SCMODS' operates appx 2.1Ghz...

Because lower freqs cover better especially in big cities with lots of buildings which will create lots of mulitpath problems.

 

[QuadDriver]

BUT, lower VHF requires quite a big 'tenna. you dont see those on CHP, LACSD or LAPD cars at all (in fact, LAPD is 100% digital), and since the body radios are tied to the cars....and the guys are not walking around with arials....

edited to add - 700-800mhz

 

[tmorris1]

Originally Posted By: QuadDriver
BUT, lower VHF requires quite a big 'tenna. you dont see those on CHP, LACSD or LAPD cars at all (in fact, LAPD is 100% digital), and since the body radios are tied to the cars....and the guys are not walking around with arials....

edited to add - 700-800mhz

You could have a VHF digital radio and the antenna isn't that much different. Either way, they are not using 700-900MHz because it carries better.

 

[QuadDriver]

Originally Posted By: tmorris1
Originally Posted By: QuadDriver
BUT, lower VHF requires quite a big 'tenna. you dont see those on CHP, LACSD or LAPD cars at all (in fact, LAPD is 100% digital), and since the body radios are tied to the cars....and the guys are not walking around with arials....

edited to add - 700-800mhz

You could have a VHF digital radio and the antenna isn't that much different. Either way, they are not using 700-900MHz because it carries better.


Originally Posted By: CHP in 2001
The system would be based on a hybrid combination of VHF-HB channels and 800 MHz channels (the State considers that the 800 MHz band includes the entire range from 741 MHz to 869 MHz). 800 MHz has significantly less propagation range than VHF-HB, and would be used in the metropolitan and more-developed areas, where a relatively dense network of base stations is necessary and practical. VHF-HB would be used in the rural areas, where its superior range is valuable, and where the terrain and sparser population would make 800 MHz costly and impractical. The entire UHF land-mobile band, i.e., from 406MHz (including military frequencies) through 869MHz, is under consideration for the hybrid system.


This is from their website, 10 years ago, but for all we know its a lie to throw off criminals. At any rate, VHF hi and UHF are now used with 2.1Ghz cellular applications for the laptops. And of course the department issued cellular...

but the original point still stands, for entering partially enclosed places blah blah blah, higher freqs are used. It is therefore likely no accident that routers, repeaters, rabbiters (tv signals), sat remotes etc are in the 2.4ghz range rather than lower....

 

[tmorris1]

Originally Posted By: QuadDriver

but the original point still stands, for entering partially enclosed places blah blah blah, higher freqs are used. It is therefore likely no accident that routers, repeaters, rabbiters (tv signals), sat remotes etc are in the 2.4ghz range rather than lower....

No, the reason is that this is the license free ISM band allocated by the FCC. That is why microwaves, Bluetooth, WIFI, Etc use those freqs.

 

[QuadDriver]

Originally Posted By: tmorris1
Originally Posted By: QuadDriver

but the original point still stands, for entering partially enclosed places blah blah blah, higher freqs are used. It is therefore likely no accident that routers, repeaters, rabbiters (tv signals), sat remotes etc are in the 2.4ghz range rather than lower....

No, the reason is that this is the license free ISM band allocated by the FCC. That is why microwaves, Bluetooth, WIFI, Etc use those freqs.


I hear what you are saying, but am inclined to disagree for there are a lot of blues, greens and offwhites in this chart.....

Quote:
Frequency range [Hz] Center frequency [Hz] Availability
6.765–6.795 MHz 6.780 MHz Subject to local acceptance
13.553–13.567 MHz 13.560 MHz
26.957–27.283 MHz 27.120 MHz
40.66–40.70 MHz 40.68 MHz
433.05–434.79 MHz 433.92 MHz
902–928 MHz 915 MHz Region 2 only
2.400–2.500 GHz 2.450 GHz
5.725–5.875 GHz 5.800 GHz
24–24.25 GHz 24.125 GHz
61–61.5 GHz 61.25 GHz Subject to local acceptance
122–123 GHz 122.5 GHz Subject to local acceptance
244–246 GHz 245 GHz Subject to local acceptance

 

[tmorris1]

What is there to disagree with? You don't just pick what frequency you want to use.

 

[Errtt]

Low freqs require a longer antenna, that is if you go full wave. But antennas can utilized multiples of the frequency - half wave, quarter wave and so forth. An antenna for example a quarter wave, can be shorten more in the antenna by coiling the wire. So in effect, the antenna is the same length (wire) but smaller in size by the coiling of wire. Low frequencies can get great distance when conditions permit, solar activity etc.
High frequencies utilize smaller antennas, but as it goes higher then it becomes more in line to depend on line of site. The wave does bend some but there are more limitations. It generally doesn't bounce between the planet and atmosphere layers as effect as low freqs can to get around the planet curvature.
Carrier - cw (constant wave / morse) is not like voice modulation which then gets into amplitude modulation / frequency modulations etc.
Low power UHF/VHF can reach via the use of repeaters. Also, don't know if its widely used, a small low power talkie can band through a mobile unit to provide additional reach via the mobile unit.
Ah, enough rambling I guess...

 

[scudpilot]

I use an Apple Airport Extreme router. It has no external antenna and I get a strong connection over 100 ft away.