Baby monitor interference?

Hi,

I recently tried to use a 2.4Ghz video baby monitor but, as I have since
learned is quite common, it interfered with our home wireless network.
It's run through a 3-year-old Belkin 54G.

Switching channels on the monitor didn't help, so I returned it (it had
other problems, too)

I've noticed a few on the market, however, that transmit at 900mhz. I
was wondering if I would be less likely to experience network problems
using a 900mhz device, or if that doesn't matter.

I've also been considering getting a new network router, as I've never
liked the Belkin much. Are newer models better protected against
interference like this?

Don't know much about this, obviously. I scouted out some wireless
network cameras as an option, but they're a little too expensive/buggy
right now.

Thanks, if you have any advice.

[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <(E-Mail Removed)> on Tue, 7 Mar 2006 00:38:07
-0800, Pupkin <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I recently tried to use a 2.4Ghz video baby monitor but, as I have since
>learned is quite common, it interfered with our home wireless network.
>It's run through a 3-year-old Belkin 54G.
>
>Switching channels on the monitor didn't help, so I returned it (it had
>other problems, too)
>
>I've noticed a few on the market, however, that transmit at 900mhz. I
>was wondering if I would be less likely to experience network problems
>using a 900mhz device, or if that doesn't matter.

900 MHz won't interfere with 2.4 GHz. That would be a good move.

>I've also been considering getting a new network router, as I've never
>liked the Belkin much. Are newer models better protected against
>interference like this?

No.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR ALT.INTERNET.WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FAQ_for_alt.internet.wireless>

John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> hath wroth:

>>I've also been considering getting a new network router, as I've never
>>liked the Belkin much. Are newer models better protected against
>>interference like this?

>No.

Yes. Some of the wireless routers have a feature where they select
the channel based on the interference level. In most wireless
routers, the selection of channel is manual and fixed. Pick a channel
and take your chances. In the new an improved mutations, the channel
is automatically selected on the basis of the least amount of
interference. For example:

http://www.buffalotech.com/products/...&categoryid=29
offers:
- Automatic Channel Support Selects Best Available Wireless
Networking Channel

In theory, your unidentified model baby monitor only occupies part of
the 2.4Ghz band. It probably has a 4 or 6 position switch to select
the channel. You could experiment with your Belkin wireless channel
selection to see if you can find a channel that does not interfere. No
need for a new wireless router. If the baby monitor and the wireless
devices were sufficiently separated (at least 5ft), the interference
should be minimal if each were set to opposite ends of the 2.4GHz
band.

However, there are plenty of things that can go wrong. The
unidentified model baby monitor might be a frequency hopper which is
required by the FCC to hop over the entire 2.4GHz band. If that's the
case, there will be no useable channel and automatic channel selection
will not help.

Do some testing with the channels before spending money.

--
Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <(E-Mail Removed)> on Tue, 07 Mar 2006 09:30:19
-0800, Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> hath wroth:
>
>>>I've also been considering getting a new network router, as I've never
>>>liked the Belkin much. Are newer models better protected against
>>>interference like this?
>
>>No.
>
>Yes. Some of the wireless routers have a feature where they select
>the channel based on the interference level. In most wireless
>routers, the selection of channel is manual and fixed. Pick a channel
>and take your chances. In the new an improved mutations, the channel
>is automatically selected on the basis of the least amount of
>interference. ...

I'm familiar with that feature (which doesn't really "protect" the router),
but I've not found it to be terribly useful in practice. The basic problem is
that the router is only measuring signals at its own location, whereas the
interference problem may well be at the client location and/or intermittent.
Having struggled in a couple of installations with this feature picking the
wrong channel, I now just use the standard ad hoc manual method augmented by
checking with a radio utility. Course even that can go for naught when a
neighbor sets up a new wireless network on "your" channel. [sigh] This is
one of the reasons that I've sometimes found an overlapping channel (e.g., 3
or 4, 8 or 9) to work "best".

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR ALT.INTERNET.WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FAQ_for_alt.internet.wireless>

On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 19:41:59 GMT, John Navas
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <(E-Mail Removed)> on Tue, 07 Mar 2006 09:30:19
>-0800, Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> hath wroth:
>>
>>>>I've also been considering getting a new network router, as I've never
>>>>liked the Belkin much. Are newer models better protected against
>>>>interference like this?
>>
>>>No.
>>
>>Yes. Some of the wireless routers have a feature where they select
>>the channel based on the interference level. In most wireless
>>routers, the selection of channel is manual and fixed. Pick a channel
>>and take your chances. In the new an improved mutations, the channel
>>is automatically selected on the basis of the least amount of
>>interference. ...

>I'm familiar with that feature (which doesn't really "protect" the router),
>but I've not found it to be terribly useful in practice.

I used it for a "portable" installation (outdoor faire) where there
was no control over what channel was going to be used by others and
where it was likely to change during the event. It was fairly good at
avoiding interference but took forever (about 10 minutes) to switch.

I agree that it's not really "protection". More like avoidance.

>The basic problem is
>that the router is only measuring signals at its own location, whereas the
>interference problem may well be at the client location and/or intermittent.

Agreed. However, I've noticed that the routers tend to be in better
locations and have better antennas than the clients. It's not a total
solution to the interference problem, but it does seem to help
somewhat.

>Having struggled in a couple of installations with this feature picking the
>wrong channel, I now just use the standard ad hoc manual method augmented by
>checking with a radio utility. Course even that can go for naught when a
>neighbor sets up a new wireless network on "your" channel. [sigh] This is
>one of the reasons that I've sometimes found an overlapping channel (e.g., 3
>or 4, 8 or 9) to work "best".

I've had no luck with the in-between channels. They get interference
from both sides from 1, 6, and 11. Granted it's not as much
interference as from someone exactly on channel or one channel over.
However the interference tends to be there more often and longer as
it's coming from 2 or more networks. I stick with 1, 6, and 11 and
only use the others when all three are fully occupied.

Actually, I do have a solution to the interference problem, but it's
fatal to ALL the nearby networks. I fire up a Breezecom (Alvarion)
frequency hoppers (SA-10, AP-10, WB-10). They'll do about
1.5Mbits/sec thruput, which is usually sufficient. The problem is
that these frequency hoppers occupy the entire band. There are no
clear channels. FHSS is also far less susceptible to interference
than DSSS. FHSS also doesn't show up on Netstumbler or Kismet.
Meanwhile, all the local DSSS networks just go almost comatose while I
barely notice any slowdown.



--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558 (E-Mail Removed)
# http://802.11junk.com (E-Mail Removed)
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS