4 ms·
All good advice, but you forgot to account for the apartment building situation. Your neighbours could be screwing it up for everyone else.
by encom 6y ago
All good advice, but you forgot to account for the apartment building situation. Your neighbours could be screwing it up for everyone else.
- samMouret 6y agoThus recommendation #1 - Use 5GHz only. 5GHz propagation across walls is much worse than 2.4GHz propagation, therefore only nearby neighbors may interfere with your access point, and on 5GHz there are enough non-overlapping channels to choose an alternate channel avoiding this interference completely.
- xvf22 6y agoThere really aren't when you have 2x80Mhz on either side of you leaving only DFS which can be tricky since a lot of older consumer routers didn't support it. WiFi 6E should help as the allocation is massive with less propagation.
- samMouret 6y ago160MHz channels are a rarity even today, neither the latest Samsung S10 nor the latest iPhone support 160MHz. Much more common is 80MHz channel, and even then, there is a distinction between the "main" 40MHz and the "secondary" 40MHz sub-channel. If you monitor the packets over the air, you'll notice that the secondary channel is much less occupied - all mobile devices switch to 40MHz to save considerable power, unless downloading a big file. In the US, there are 6 available 80MHz channels, which is more than needed (think 4-color graph coloring).
- mikelward 6y agoWiFi analyzer shows about 26 access points on 5 GHz that aren't mine. I agree it should be much better than 2.4 GHz -- only 2 of my neighbors are stronger than -70 dBm -- but more channels would be nice. (I guess 6 GHz could help, but then I'll have to upgrade all my clients, too.)
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]