• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

2.4GHz Wireless devices & USB 3 devices = issues

Elixer

Elixer

Lifer
For those that don't know this yet, if you have a 2.4GHz device in proximity to a USB 3 device, the 2.4GHz device acts very erratic, or not at all.

Intel posted this about this issue:
http://www.intel.com/content/dam/ww...-papers/usb3-frequency-interference-paper.pdf

Problem is, I can't locate any USB 3 device that is shielded correctly as that paper specifies.
This goes for the motherboards as well, virtually none of them do it, and that includes intel motherboards.

In this situation, they got wireless devices that they wear around their neck, using the 2.4GHz spectrum, and their new machine was bought to get the USB 3 speeds to do backups.

Wrapping foil around the USB 3 device isn't an option for a variety of reasons, and, they can't remove the wireless device from their neck, so, how do you fix this conundrum?
Go back to using an older machine + eSATA (if you can still find laptops with that), or, is there another option here?
 
Interesting, never knew about this usb 3.0 issue. What a sucky side effect.

Unfortunatly it seems what ever wireless device they have needs to be in operation while they are doing the backup, so unless you can get devices with 5ghz then you are left using usb 2.0 or esata if you want. You can easily add esata to a laptop with a pci express card slot.
 
Isn't it interesting in that we were comfortable for decades thinking that devices had to accept interference but not give it off? Yet we clearly have a wired transceiver technology (Intel USB3) giving it off.

It reminds me of that broadband provider that went bust before launch because its transmissions, which were kept within the bandwidth they were allotted, interfered with devices listening outside of its allotted bandwidth. Instead of enforcing the over-listening industry--mostly focused on first responders transceiver equipment--they told the broadband company to fly a kite and go bust.
 
I find it troubling that there isn't one motherboard maker that has extra shielding around the USB 3 ports.
Yeah, it would add 2 cents to the board cost... :colbert:

But, come on, it is a well documented issue, that is avoidable!
I am wondering why the FCC don't do anything here, it is interfering in a spectrum it shouldn't.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top