How do you deal with lack of channels?

As the thread title mentions.

I live in a highly congested wireless area. Any given time, I can pick up between 8 to 29 AP's. Depending were I am at in my humble abode, it goes up.. Which kind of sucks. Lucky I can use inSSIDer 2 to try and find an open channel. Sometimes, permitting, I can find an open channel, sometimes not.

How do you deal with highly congested areas and no open channels?

When I was living in a townhome, we had 57 wireless networks in range and they were all over the channels. I put DDWRT on my router and boosted the signal as high as it would go. I then used my laptop and booted BackTrack Linux to track signal strength. I found the least populated channel and tried the router in multiple locations to find the one that gave me a signal where I needed it.

This still had some issues and I seriously considered running a cable.

All i can say is what Thid did. Max out the transmit power one the band that has the least congestion. Sometimes there just isn't an open channel.

Only thing i can think of is if you can use 802.11n/a in the 5Ghz band instead of 802.11g. There might be fewer people using it.

if your wireless router supports it, get an N card and switch to 5ghz. MANY MANY MANY more free channels. However, it does reduce your range.

Otherwise, as long as ya don't break FCC regulations, i'd say make that 2.4ghz scream...

TollhouseFrank said:

if your wireless router supports it, get an N card and switch to 5ghz. MANY MANY MANY more free channels. However, it does reduce your range.

Otherwise, as long as ya don't break FCC regulations, i'd say make that 2.4ghz scream...

Click to expand...

Usually lower latency and faster speeds anyway. Something to look into. It looks like it'd give better range since you have so much congestion anyway.

Even in relatively non-congested area picking a free channel makes a big difference.

I live in a single family residential area with 1/3 to 1/2 acre lots so there is a reasonable (albeit not huge) separation between houses. I have always had a problem with a good wireless signal on the north side of my house (the wireless router is on the south side). Last week, I noticed an encrypted 2Wirexxx SSID as an available network on my laptop with a relatively strong signal. The light bulb in my head lit up bright and I realized my immediate neighbor to the north has a 2Wire AT&T AP. I manually changed the channel (was 6 and went to 10) and immediately made a significant improvement.

I wonder how many people simply let their AP default to channel 6 and then get frustrated because they have poor wireless service?

I also seem to think that some wireless adapters have a better tolerance than others in congested signal areas. I suspect some receivers have higher selectivity (like any FM radio receiver) than others and are better able to lock in to the strongest of multiple signals. It would be nice if some standard RF parameters, like selectivity, sensitivity, etc. were specified for wireless adapters.

RhoXS said:

I wonder how many people simply let their AP default to channel 6 and then get frustrated because they have poor wireless service?

Click to expand...

I see 11 mostly. There is a bunch of the 2wire APs around me. Also a lot of the (Walmart) routers. Just recent, I seen a few of the TWC RR (Time Warner Roadrunner Wideband) routers. Them are set up good usually and use off channels.

So far I only seen one other router using a sub-channel. I am using 5+9 300n. It is using 9+5, on 150n. 9 and 5 are the least used around here.

Enablingwolf said:

I see 11 mostly.

Click to expand...

I switched to ten simply because that was almost as far as I could get away from six which seemed to be the problem area. This was based only on the fact that I defaulted to six, performanc eon six sucked (another competing signal?), and I made the assumption (probably inaccurate) that most routers also defaulted to six.

About an hour ago I downloaded inSSIDer. Very interesting! From inside my house it sees a network associated with a community of town homes to the north of my community. This network is on channel two but inSSIDer shpws it spanning channels 0 through 5. My neighbor is clearly on six and spans 4 through 8. My network on ten, spanned 8 through twelve. I then moved my channel to 11 and at least according inSSIDer I am now clearly alone.

Interestingly, I walked outside my house and suddenly seven other networks appeared, all over the spectrum. Two used WEP and one was in the clear; amazing.

Enablingwolf said:

I see 11 mostly. There is a bunch of the 2wire APs around me. Also a lot of the (Walmart) routers. Just recent, I seen a few of the TWC RR (Time Warner Roadrunner Wideband) routers. Them are set up good usually and use off channels.

So far I only seen one other router using a sub-channel. I am using 5+9 300n. It is using 9+5, on 150n. 9 and 5 are the least used around here.

Click to expand...

There is a very good article on Small Net Builder that explains why you shouldn't use 9/5.

While technically you can choose any of these channels, in practice, you should use only channels 1, 6, or 11. The reason for this limitation is channel overlap. 802.11b and g use eleven channels in the 2.4GHz band, spaced at 5MHz intervals. Since the commonly accepted width of each channel is 22MHz for 802.11b and 20MHz for 802.11g, both 802.11b and g are said to have three non-overlapping channels (1, 6 and 11).

Click to expand...

The full articles are here:

How To Fix Your Wireless Network - Part 1

How To Fix Your Wireless Network - Part 2: Site Surveying

How To Fix Your Wireless Network - Part 3: Increasing Coverage

How To Fix Your Wireless Network - Part 4: Antennas

I used these articles when I setup my network in a very congested area. It helped immensely, even keeping the "ok" hardware that I had.

hmmm, I say by one of these to take care of your neighbors routers

http://www.amazing1.com/emp.htm

turbohans said:

hmmm, I say by one of these to take care of your neighbors routers

http://www.amazing1.com/emp.htm

Click to expand...

Some of that stuff looks like a death ray lol

thideras said:

There is a very good article on Small Net Builder that explains why you shouldn't use 9/5.The full articles are here:

How To Fix Your Wireless Network - Part 1

How To Fix Your Wireless Network - Part 2: Site Surveying

How To Fix Your Wireless Network - Part 3: Increasing Coverage

How To Fix Your Wireless Network - Part 4: Antennas

I used these articles when I setup my network in a very congested area. It helped immensely, even keeping the "ok" hardware that I had.

Click to expand...

If I use channels 1, 6 or 11. I get less than 400Kb/s transfers. Channel 5 gives the best signal and close to N speeds as I can get. Which is about 8MB/s transfer. It took about a week of trial and error to find this out. I do not use channel 9, but it's my sub-channel. If I am on a G network, my settings are not right. Since I got an N setup. Which is 40MHz, not 20MHz.

If I am really close to the router. It goes up some. Not much, but it is more stable being closer to it. Obvious why though.

The reason it is probably faster is because you have people around you that have no idea what they are doing and it is causing interference on those channels. If 5 works best for you, no reason not to use it.

HAHA, I guess if my last post wasn't funny I should post something relevant.

I have noticed with my WRT54GL (Broadcom I believe) that has DD-WRT on it when turned up past 100mw created a lot of errors in sending.

Also I can set my router up to like channel 15 or something but not everything (like phones, ps3's) can go that high.

maybe if what you need wifi for can use an ultra high channel like that it would be better, along with possible better antennae and an ACK timing little lower than normal.

I think with a lower ACK timing you would also be exposing your router to less 'pings' from other wifi sniffing devices.

I really am no expert, though. Just something to maybe think about if you haven't yet.


Still think an EMP would work wonders with your situation though

turbohans said:

I have noticed with my WRT54GL (Broadcom I believe) that has DD-WRT on it when turned up past 100mw created a lot of errors in sending.

Click to expand...

I have an older WRT54GS v1.0 around here, not the later WRT54xx versions that are weak devices.. Compared to the GL. It is a BCM 4712 @ 200MHz with 32RAM/16Flash (Yes, your router is Broadcom based, it actually should be a BCM5352 @200 16RAM/4Fash.) I also use(d) DDWRT on it, and only once seen it on stock firmware. I really like that old reliable plow horse. (I wanted to switch over to gigabit networking and have the option for 300n.)

I have an even better router now and use OpenWRT. I got a Buffalo WZR-HP-G300NH. Using a Atheros 9132 @ 400MHz 64RAM/32Flash. Though I like the Broadcom better. I get more powah to move around and do things.

Enablingwolf said:

I have an older WRT54GS v1.0 around here, not the later WRT54xx versions that are weak devices.. Compared to the GL. It is a BCM 4712 @ 200MHz with 32RAM/16Flash (Yes, your router is Broadcom based, it actually should be a BCM5352 @200 16RAM/4Fash.) I also use(d) DDWRT on it, and only once seen it on stock firmware. I really like that old reliable plow horse. (I wanted to switch over to gigabit networking and have the option for 300n.)

I have an even better router now and use OpenWRT. I got a Buffalo WZR-HP-G300NH. Using a Atheros 9132 @ 400MHz 64RAM/32Flash. Though I like the Broadcom better. I get more powah to move around and do things.

Click to expand...

Oh deffinitly! Yea, I probably could have gotten a better one, and would love gigabit!! (right now I have both my LAN's from my mobo truncated to try to fight bottlenecking, but still only 100mb on the WAN port so that don't help much) But this router has been soooo good to me. Soon I might pick up one of those buffalo soldiers haha

I would deffinitly keep the 54GL around as a repeater though but would love to be able to run more than 1000 ports at a time without my router getting mad. LOL

I was actually looking into high-gain antennae for it before I realized the shortcomings of the ram and non-gigabit ports.

Most people that don't know might think why would he need gigabit, but I laugh at anyone paying for 10mb/s+ internet speeds running on 10/100 but I shouldn't because It took me a long time to learn that 10/100 can only move 10mb/s LOL


To get back to your OP though, maybe you could look into how much bandwidth you really need on wifi, as maybe a lower speed might work better. Like turn the "Transmission Fixed Rate" down to like 11mb instead of 54mb, of you can deal with just 1mb/s for like browsing or something. Not sure but I would think that might make a diffrence.

turbohans said:

To get back to your OP though, maybe you could look into how much bandwidth you really need on wifi, as maybe a lower speed might work better. Like turn the "Transmission Fixed Rate" down to like 11mb instead of 54mb, of you can deal with just 1mb/s for like browsing or something. Not sure but I would think that might make a diffrence.

Click to expand...

You know my OP was not me asking for help. I was showing I got a clogged neighborhood and asking others how they deal with their clogged neighborhoods. Reiterating the thread title.

Kicking the router to 11Mb would kill me. I got a 30/5 internet line.

Me said:

As the thread title mentions.

I live in a highly congested wireless area. Any given time, I can pick up between 8 to 29 AP's. Depending were I am at in my humble abode, it goes up.. Which kind of sucks. Lucky I can use inSSIDer 2 to try and find an open channel. Sometimes, permitting, I can find an open channel, sometimes not.

How do you deal with highly congested areas and no open channels?

Click to expand...

turbohans said:

Soon I might pick up one of those buffalo soldiers haha

Click to expand...

It is not a perfect router by any means. There is issues that I knew going into it. 'Buffalo branded' DDWRT has an issue with the Wireless that kicks the power on the TX down to 16dBm. (The 'easy' Buffalo firmware does not present this.) I got it because I could go crazy with the OpenWRT and do neato things with the device.

It has the USB port for adding a disk and running more storage on the appliance itself (I got 32gigs of onboard storage.) Plus the feature of it having a built in torrent client. Also the localized filesharing built in. Not just it can do firewall duty. Which was appealing to me.

In knowledgeable care. This router is rather fun.

Enablingwolf said:

You know my OP was not me asking for help. I was showing I got a clogged neighborhood and asking others how they deal with their clogged neighborhoods. Reiterating the thread title.

Kicking the router to 11Mb would kill me. I got a 30/5 internet line.







It is not a perfect router by any means. There is issues that I knew going into it. 'Buffalo branded' DDWRT has an issue with the Wireless that kicks the power on the TX down to 16dBm. (The 'easy' Buffalo firmware does not present this.) I got it because I could go crazy with the OpenWRT and do neato things with the device.

It has the USB port for adding a disk and running more storage on the appliance itself (I got 32gigs of onboard storage.) Plus the feature of it having a built in torrent client. Also the localized filesharing built in. Not just it can do firewall duty. Which was appealing to me.

In knowledgeable care. This router is rather fun.

Click to expand...

My posts were mearly my opinion on how I deal with such a problem and I apologize for phrasing them as suggestions.

turbohans said:

My posts were mearly my opinion on how I deal with such a problem and I apologize for phrasing them as suggestions.

Click to expand...

Tis ok, maybe someone later will benefit from everything posted here. Heck, maybe someone right after you posted benefited.

I seen something that is only going to get worse for a lot of folks. Since it is harder and harder to find devices that are not wireless.

My thing is I do not want others thinking I am asking for help, but I want a discussion on the topic. (Clarifying so to speak.)