Wireless Networking in Dense Apartment Building

[unfalliblekrutch]

I live in an apartment in a college town so from my living room, I can pick up about 30 SSIDs. This means that channels 1, 6, and 11 have around 8-12 networks each. I can't get my DD-WRT router to negociate anything better than 1mbps with clients and that 1mbps link actually can transmit data at a usable rate only if I'm lucky. Does anyone have any tips for how to create a useful wireless network given that there is so much interference around?

 

[yinan]

Use a wired connection

 

[imagoon]

Hope that 5ghz is more open and use one of the 5ghz techs.

 

[seepy83]

I like the two replies so far. But, other than that, you can try building a Faraday Cage around your apartment :awe:

 

[Specop 007]

Outside of the above options I think you're screwed. If you do find a solution I would be interested in what you come up with.

 

[theevilsharpie]

I also have to deal with a large number of wireless access points. I've put my WAP on a frequency between the non-overlapping channels (I believe I'm using channel 3), and while I never achieve more than 10-15Mb/s, it's been stable.

 

[spidey07]

Hope that 5ghz is more open and use one of the 5ghz techs.

This, really your only option. 802.11a has 12 non-overlapping channels and should do plenty fine in an apartment setting for range.

 

[ScottMac]

If moving to 5G bands is not an option (or wired), you might look into using a "sector" antenna or patch-style that concentrates your RF to your area, and helps the AP to ignore outside signals by virtue of the reduced sensitivity in all but the primary beamwidth.

The trick is to match the radiating pattern to the area you wish to cover ... that might require relocating the AP and/or antenna ... it's all very situational, so a specific recommendation can't be made without seeing it.

 

[Specop 007]

If moving to 5G bands is not an option (or wired), you might look into using a "sector" antenna or patch-style that concentrates your RF to your area, and helps the AP to ignore outside signals by virtue of the reduced sensitivity in all but the primary beamwidth.

The trick is to match the radiating pattern to the area you wish to cover ... that might require relocating the AP and/or antenna ... it's all very situational, so a specific recommendation can't be made without seeing it.

Or use an omni antenna and just spam the area with your signal and screw everyone else.

 

[Fardringle]

I also have to deal with a large number of wireless access points. I've put my WAP on a frequency between the non-overlapping channels (I believe I'm using channel 3), and while I never achieve more than 10-15Mb/s, it's been stable.

All this really does is gives you interference from the APs on channels 1 AND 6 (and anything else that happens to be between them) in your area. Even if there are 10 routers broadcasting each on channels 1, 6, and 11 already, you should still use one of those three if you can't move to the 5ghz range. That way you'll only be getting interference from 10 other signals instead of 20...

 

[Ghiedo27]

Disclaimer: I have no reason to believe this is true for networking equipment other than that it makes perfect sense given the information I'm aware of.

At least with FM radios the further you go from the carrier frequency into the sidebands that overlap other channels the weaker the signal is on those sidebands. Each successive sideband is weaker than the one closer to "center" for that channel (I believe it has to do with moving off resonance for the circuit, but that's just a guess). That would explain why as you move something like a laptop away from an access point you lose connection speed in discrete chunks (assuming that isn't just a display quirk). Every chunk lost is a sideband that's just too weak for that range.

That's just to say that if you're not getting even basic connectivity on a crowded channel you could try a less used channel (even one with some overlap) as an experiment before buying new equipment because your primary channel would have range and power in its favor. It's not the best solution by far, but it might hold you over until you decide on a more permanent arrangement.

 

[Modelworks]

Get 900mhz radios. Most consumers don't use the band for wifi even though it is there.

 

[Binky]

Get a higher power wireless router than those around you, then crank it up even more with Tomato/DD-WRT!

 

[gsaldivar]

I like the two replies so far. But, other than that, you can try building a Faraday Cage around your apartment :awe:

Almost.

You can put a few sheets of tin foil around the wireless router to shield it partially from signals that are interfering.

For example: Behind, below, on top, and on one side can be shielded. The other sides (facing your computer) can be left open to receive the signal you want. Obviously, this isn't an ideal solution. However, it may be "just enough" to improve the wireless performance to a point where you find it usable.

Good luck.

 

[Mediaga]

I guess it's worth asking if you've tried using InSsider or Wireless NetView to determine what channel would serve you best...you may even decide that one of the side channels would work for you if no one else is using them and there is no appliance interference.
It may also be helpful toward determining the best location for the router. Other than that, 5ghz (as mentioned) may be your best bet.

 

[theevilsharpie]

All this really does is gives you interference from the APs on channels 1 AND 6 (and anything else that happens to be between them) in your area. Even if there are 10 routers broadcasting each on channels 1, 6, and 11 already, you should still use one of those three if you can't move to the 5ghz range. That way you'll only be getting interference from 10 other signals instead of 20...

It's true that by using channel 3 (or whatever it's configured for), I'm susceptible to interference from wireless access points operating on channels 1 and 6. However, someone would have to be broadcasting on BOTH channel 1 and channel 6 to to fully interfere with my access point. If someone broadcasting on channel 1 decides to download the latest Windows service pack, they are only taking ~50% of my available wireless bandwidth.

Since switching to an "in-between" channel, my wireless connection has become substantially more stable.