What can I do about local interference that wipes out both N wavebands?

Daniel James <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> In article <1327778308332976097.271127simonfinnigan-
> (E-Mail Removed)>, Simon Finnigan wrote:
>> By forcing people to use wifi rather than mains networking, they are
>> forcing others to change the way they want to do something.
>
> I think perhaps you're missing my more general point ...
>
> What I was suggesting was that if two (groups of) people each want to
> do something, and one thing interferes with what other people (not
> necessarily limited to members of the other group) want to do, while
> the other does not, then one's sympathies should generally be with the
> group that wants to do the thing that doesn't cause any interference.
>
> (I mean interference in a general sense, here, not specifically
> electromagnetic interference.)
>
> So if, say, Alice wants to light a bonfire in her garden to burn dead
> leaves and her neighbour Bob wants to hang his washing out (while one
> would hope that they might come to some mutually convenient
> arrangement) I think most reasonable people would say that Bob hurts
> nobody by hanging out his washing to dry, but that by lighting her
> bonfire Alice would risk dirtying Bob's clean laundry -- so one would
> say that Bob's wishes should prevail.
>
> I don't think anyone would say "That Bob is being unreasonable by
> washing his smalls, he's stopping Alice from having a bonfire!".
>
> Note that the smoke from Alice's fire might also inconvenience Carol,
> down the road, who wishes to sunbathe in her garden, and Dave next door
> who wants to photograph the lunar eclipse that afternoon ... neither of
> these people is inconvenienced by Bob's hanging out his washing.
>
> One might also note that Eddie the Environmentalist would say that
> Alice shouldn't burn her leaves at all, because that will release CO2
> into the atmosphere, and the leaves could be composted.
>
> So, back to your point: Nobody if forcing anyone to use WiFi. The
> suggestion in an earlier post was that HomePlug-type networking over
> the mains in one house, or between neighbouring houses, might in some
> way affect the ability of the occupant of another house to use some
> sort of radio equipment (what sort doesn't matter, but the OP was
> talking about WiFi).
>
> I don't know whether that is likely to be what's really happening. I
> don't know whether that's something that only happens if the mains
> networking kit is faulty or out-of-spec. I do know that mains noise
> (from sources other than networking kit) is a major problem for devices
> that implement networking over the mains, so I'm sure the manufacturers
> are sensitive to the issues. I do know that there's an IEEE spec for
> networking devices, that sets down standards for the power,
> frequencies, etc., that such devices can use. I do know that the
> HomePlug Alliance have a certification programme that attempts to
> ensure that such devices operate within spec. I'm pretty sure there are
> regulations that are supposed to prevent any mains electricity
> subscriber from (ab)using the supply in any way that might affect the
> quality of service to other customers ... but I can't find any
> reference to them with a quick Google ...
>
> But supposing that is what's happening ... suppose Alice, having been
> persuaded by Eddie to buy a composter, turns on her PC and HomePlug
> network and this in some way causes interference on Bob's radio. That's
> unfortunate, but my sympathies are still with Bob ... just as they
> would be if it had been Alice's WiFi that prevented Bob listening to
> the Proms as he did his ironing, or her Microwave, or her cat's
> automatic cat-flap-opening collar. The point is that Alice has some
> piece of kit that is actively upsetting some kit of Bob's. Bob's radio
> (I'm assuming) doesn't stop Alice's PC from working, doesn't slow down
> her ADSL connection, doesn't make her toaster make toast that's darker
> on one side than the other, doesn't make her hairdryer suck rather than
> blow ... the only interaction between all these devices is that Alice's
> HomePlug screws up Bob's radio.
>
> If I were Bob I'd be pretty pissed off, and I'd want to know what I
> could do about it. If it turned out that Alice had a cheapo knock-off
> HomePlug clone from a nameless far-eastern vendor who hadn't
> implemented noise suppression then I think Bob would be well within his
> rights to suggest that Alice bin it and buy one that wouldn't
> interfere.
>
>> Mains networking makes some things much easier ...
>
> Yes, sure ... but that doesn't mean that anyone has any /right/ to use
> it. We all have to get along in this world, and if that means Alice has
> to get a better HomePlug device -- to run a bit of CAT-5 down her
> stairwell -- in order to let Bob enjoy the Proms in peace so be it.
>
> I'm sure I could get rid of the Jehovah's Witnesses a lot more quickly
> when they come knocking on the door if I belaboured them with a stout
> stick ... but instead I explain politely that we're all Pastafarians
> and they'll probably have more joy with the Sikh family next door, and
> away they go until the next time.
>
>> The extension of that point is that a single person wanting to
>> listen to radio signals in the wifi spectrum should be able to stop
>> everyone else using wifi equipment, which seems ridiculous.
>
> That's taking my point a bit further than reason allows. The WiFi
> spectrum has been set aside for WiFi, so anyone trying to use it for
> anything else is on dodgy ground. If your WiFi kit causes interference
> outside the WiFi spectrum then it's probably crap kit and, yes, I
> should be able to stop you using it -- but that doesn't stop you using
> WiFi, it just means you have to get some new kit that doesn't
> interfere.
>
> I don't think that's unreasonable at all.
>
> Of course, if my radio/TV/whatever is so crap as to pick up your WiFi
> signal as well as the channel it's supposed to be tuned to then that's
> my problem. Finding out whose kit it is that's crap isn't easy!
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel.

I've got two different brands of home plug kit in my house, and it makes no
difference to my wifi speed having them on or off. Nor does using my
microwave or cordless phone. However, IIRC microwaves and cordless phones
are well known for causing wifi interference, and wifi can have problems
living with baby monitors and the like, as they all use the same bit of
spectrum. You can only have three wifi networks in one area running at full
speed before you start running out of channels and getting interference -
everyone local to me uses the low channels for some reason so I pick a high
channel and get full speed. But if my neighbours all wanted to use wifi and
picked a good channel, then I'd clash with at least one of them. It's a
basic "feature" of current wifi setups. So what do I do in that situation -
give up on wifi and use mains networking, or given up on networking
entirely? Network cables running all over the house aren't safe when used
for laptops on the move round the house.

In the example you give above about the bonfire - the person hanging out
their washing is stopping the person with leaves/wood having a nice fire.
Perhaps they want to get so,e friends round,sit round the fire, have a few
beers and a laugh - something they are allowed to do. Yes they should try
and reach an agreement with the owner of the washing so that they can both
do what they want to do, but the poster moaning about mains networking
wants it to not be used at all, full stop. Which seems selfish, given how
useful the technology can be.

Daniel James <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> In article <20110722142749.7fff5e69@bluemoon>, Rob Morley wrote:
>> Thanks for taking the time ...
>
> I thought, when I started, that I was going to be able to write a
> succinct response of a paragraph or two ... <smile>.
>
> Anyhow, you're welcome!
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel.

The problem is that there seems to be no attempt to reach a compromise -
all I've ever seen is the general attitude that all mains networking is
evil and should be banned forever. Wifi doesn't have the bandwidth, and
running cables to every possible outlet is a massive job - mains networking
gives me a fast connection exactly where I need it, with no measurable
interference to any standard, common uses of the spectrum around my way.

In article <2057541630333141582.808184simonfinnigan-
(E-Mail Removed)>, Simon Finnigan wrote:
> The problem is that there seems to be no attempt to reach a
> compromise ...

I'm not sure what compromise there needs to be?

I've seen a certain amount of evidence that suggests that mains
networking can be unreliable and/or consistently fails to achieve the
bandwidth claimed by the vendors ... but that was some time ago and I
believe quality has improved.

I have heard anecdotally that mains networking can interfere with other
equipment ... but frankly I'm not personally aware of any specific case
in which mains networking has been shown to be unquestionably the cause
of problems.

> ... all I've ever seen is the general attitude that all mains
> networking is evil and should be banned forever.

There *are* things that I think are evil and should be banned forever,
but mains networking has never been one of them!

I would (still) tend to avoid mains networking because of concerns over
its reliability. I've also heard that the electricity distribution
companies are unhappy that their cabling may be being used to transmit
data between different premises without their collecting any revenue
for the privilege, and that prompts a concern that some sort of
charging scheme (or blocking of signals) may be dreamt up in the
future.

I've not heard that it's intrinsically evil.

However, I can well believe that it would be possible for damaged or
sub-standard mains networking kit (as is the case with other kinds of
poor quality kit) might cause interference. I can sympathize with
anyone who may suffer from such interference, and I should like to
think that they might have some recourse against the user of the bad
kit.

> Wifi doesn't have the bandwidth, and running cables to every
> possible outlet is a massive job - mains networking gives me a fast
> connection exactly where I need it, with no measurable interference
> to any standard, common uses of the spectrum around my way.

I must say that I will always prefer a wired connection when I can get
it -- and if I were having my home rewired I would certainly put a 1GB
ethernet port (or two) in every room -- and that WiFi generally has all
the bandwidth I need when I haven't got a wired connection available.
YMMV, of course, and if mains networking works for you and doesn't
upset your neighbours (as I'm sure it needn't) then good for you!

Cheers,
Daniel.

In article <1462249274333141091.691023simonfinnigan-
(E-Mail Removed)>, Simon Finnigan wrote:
> In the example you give above about the bonfire - the person
> hanging out their washing is stopping the person with leaves/wood
> having a nice fire.

No, I disagree.

The fire is active, the washing is passive. The presence of the fire
means that the other person can't hang out their washing, but the
presence of the washing doesn't stop the first person from lighting
their fire -- it just means that the washing will (probably) be dirtied
and have to be washed again.

Your argument (that the washing prevents the fire) only applies if the
person wanting the fire actually cares about their neighbour and takes
their wishes into account. The converse (that the fire prevents the
washing) applies whether the washer cares about their neighbour or not.

> Perhaps they want to get so,e friends round,sit round the fire,
> have a few beers and a laugh - something they are allowed to do.

Are they? It's a question of degree ... if they and their drunken
friends thought that it was "a laugh" to throw petrol bombs over the
garden wall and set light to the neighbours washing the neighbour would
have every right to call the police. Where do you draw the line between
smoke and fire? I'd say that any activity that might *actively* impinge
on someone else's use of their own home/garden should be forbidden (or,
at least, permitted only with that neighbour's agreement) ... within
reason, of course -- a line still has to be drawn somewhere.

> ... the poster moaning about mains networking wants it to not be
> used at all, full stop.

I'm not sure that's true ... there was a post that suggested that Ofcom
don't seem to want to do anything about "homeplug Ethernet-over-
powerline crappy networking gear" which he alleged was "a notorious
cause of wideband interference" ... but think he was only suggesting
that such gear be banned if it was actually causing interference.

I'm all in favour of not causing interference, but it's far from clear
that HomePlug-type gear will necessarily cause any.

Cheers,
Daniel.

Daniel James <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> In article <1462249274333141091.691023simonfinnigan-
> (E-Mail Removed)>, Simon Finnigan wrote:
>> In the example you give above about the bonfire - the person
>> hanging out their washing is stopping the person with leaves/wood
>> having a nice fire.
>
> No, I disagree.
>
> The fire is active, the washing is passive. The presence of the fire
> means that the other person can't hang out their washing, but the
> presence of the washing doesn't stop the first person from lighting
> their fire -- it just means that the washing will (probably) be dirtied
> and have to be washed again.
>
> Your argument (that the washing prevents the fire) only applies if the
> person wanting the fire actually cares about their neighbour and takes
> their wishes into account. The converse (that the fire prevents the
> washing) applies whether the washer cares about their neighbour or not.
>
>> Perhaps they want to get so,e friends round,sit round the fire,
>> have a few beers and a laugh - something they are allowed to do.
>
> Are they? It's a question of degree ... if they and their drunken
> friends thought that it was "a laugh" to throw petrol bombs over the
> garden wall and set light to the neighbours washing the neighbour would
> have every right to call the police. Where do you draw the line between
> smoke and fire? I'd say that any activity that might *actively* impinge
> on someone else's use of their own home/garden should be forbidden (or,
> at least, permitted only with that neighbour's agreement) ... within
> reason, of course -- a line still has to be drawn somewhere.

But me listening to my music in my back garden stops my neighbour enjoying
their garden in silence. Listening to music in my own house at a reasonable
volume can still drown out the tussling of leaves, should I be banned from
listening to music in my own house? How bout talking to my wife in the back
garden, which would cause the same problem. How about mowing my lawn, that
makes lots of noise that may disturb a neighbour. What if I want to garden
naked in my own back garden surrounded by a high fence - my neighbour may
still see me and be upset. What if a fat woman wants to sunbathe in their
back garden wearing a bikini - if their neighbour finds it offensive then
surely that means we must ban this from happening.

Where do you draw the line, when you start proposing to ban things that may
upset other people you need to define limits.

>> ... the poster moaning about mains networking wants it to not be
>> used at all, full stop.
>
> I'm not sure that's true ... there was a post that suggested that Ofcom
> don't seem to want to do anything about "homeplug Ethernet-over-
> powerline crappy networking gear" which he alleged was "a notorious
> cause of wideband interference" ... but think he was only suggesting
> that such gear be banned if it was actually causing interference.
>
> I'm all in favour of not causing interference, but it's far from clear
> that HomePlug-type gear will necessarily cause any.
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel.

Daniel James <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> In article <2057541630333141582.808184simonfinnigan-
> (E-Mail Removed)>, Simon Finnigan wrote:
>> The problem is that there seems to be no attempt to reach a
>> compromise ...
>
> I'm not sure what compromise there needs to be?
>
> I've seen a certain amount of evidence that suggests that mains
> networking can be unreliable and/or consistently fails to achieve the
> bandwidth claimed by the vendors ... but that was some time ago and I
> believe quality has improved.
>
> I have heard anecdotally that mains networking can interfere with other
> equipment ... but frankly I'm not personally aware of any specific case
> in which mains networking has been shown to be unquestionably the cause
> of problems.
>
>> ... all I've ever seen is the general attitude that all mains
>> networking is evil and should be banned forever.
>
> There *are* things that I think are evil and should be banned forever,
> but mains networking has never been one of them!
>
> I would (still) tend to avoid mains networking because of concerns over
> its reliability. I've also heard that the electricity distribution
> companies are unhappy that their cabling may be being used to transmit
> data between different premises without their collecting any revenue
> for the privilege, and that prompts a concern that some sort of
> charging scheme (or blocking of signals) may be dreamt up in the
> future.
>
> I've not heard that it's intrinsically evil.
>
> However, I can well believe that it would be possible for damaged or
> sub-standard mains networking kit (as is the case with other kinds of
> poor quality kit) might cause interference. I can sympathize with
> anyone who may suffer from such interference, and I should like to
> think that they might have some recourse against the user of the bad
> kit.
>
>> Wifi doesn't have the bandwidth, and running cables to every
>> possible outlet is a massive job - mains networking gives me a fast
>> connection exactly where I need it, with no measurable interference
>> to any standard, common uses of the spectrum around my way.
>
> I must say that I will always prefer a wired connection when I can get
> it -- and if I were having my home rewired I would certainly put a 1GB
> ethernet port (or two) in every room -- and that WiFi generally has all
> the bandwidth I need when I haven't got a wired connection available.
> YMMV, of course, and if mains networking works for you and doesn't
> upset your neighbours (as I'm sure it needn't) then good for you!

I find that wifi is fine for browsing, but not for moving any decently
sized files. I use mains networking to keep the floors of my house
connected, but run cables between the two rooms with the main PC's in. The
alternative is running a very long cable along a very tortuous route.

In article <1960420384333314542.930209simonfinnigan-
(E-Mail Removed)>, Simon Finnigan wrote:
> But me listening to my music in my back garden stops my neighbour
> enjoying their garden in silence. Listening to music in my own
> house at a reasonable volume can still drown out the tussling of
> leaves, should I be banned from listening to music in my own house?

As I said: a line has to be drawn somewhere ... I can't tell you where
to draw it. One should use a degree of common sense, and should be
sensitive to the feelings of one's neighbours ... there is no "one size
fits all".

> Where do you draw the line, when you start proposing to ban things
> that may upset other people you need to define limits.

You can't define limits, because there is no set of limits that is
appropriate for every situation. What you can do is say "you can't do
this if it causes a nuisance" ... and if you do that thing and nobody
complains then it must be assumed not to be causing a nuisance.

If someone does complain then the case needs to be considered
carefully. Is it reasonable to do that thing (at all)? Was it
reasonable to complain about it? Is there some other way to do it that
would not have given rise to the complaint?

There can be no hard-and-fast rule as to what constitutes unacceptable
behaviour, but there needs to be legislation to prevent it,
nonetheless.

Cheers,
Daniel.

Simon Finnigan wrote:

> Daniel James <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > In article <1462249274333141091.691023simonfinnigan-
> > (E-Mail Removed)>, Simon Finnigan wrote:
> >> In the example you give above about the bonfire - the person
> >> hanging out their washing is stopping the person with leaves/wood
> >> having a nice fire.
> >
> > No, I disagree.
> >
> > The fire is active, the washing is passive. The presence of the
> > fire means that the other person can't hang out their washing, but
> > the presence of the washing doesn't stop the first person from
> > lighting their fire -- it just means that the washing will
> > (probably) be dirtied and have to be washed again.
> >
> > Your argument (that the washing prevents the fire) only applies if
> > the person wanting the fire actually cares about their neighbour
> > and takes their wishes into account. The converse (that the fire
> > prevents the washing) applies whether the washer cares about their
> > neighbour or not.
> >
> >> Perhaps they want to get so,e friends round,sit round the fire,
> >> have a few beers and a laugh - something they are allowed to do.
> >
> > Are they? It's a question of degree ... if they and their drunken
> > friends thought that it was "a laugh" to throw petrol bombs over
> > the garden wall and set light to the neighbours washing the
> > neighbour would have every right to call the police. Where do you
> > draw the line between smoke and fire? I'd say that any activity
> > that might actively impinge on someone else's use of their own
> > home/garden should be forbidden (or, at least, permitted only with
> > that neighbour's agreement) ... within reason, of course -- a line
> > still has to be drawn somewhere.
>
> But me listening to my music in my back garden stops my neighbour
> enjoying their garden in silence. Listening to music in my own house
> at a reasonable volume can still drown out the tussling of leaves,
> should I be banned from listening to music in my own house? How bout
> talking to my wife in the back garden, which would cause the same
> problem. How about mowing my lawn, that makes lots of noise that may
> disturb a neighbour. What if I want to garden naked in my own back
> garden surrounded by a high fence - my neighbour may still see me and
> be upset. What if a fat woman wants to sunbathe in their back garden
> wearing a bikini - if their neighbour finds it offensive then surely
> that means we must ban this from happening.
>
> Where do you draw the line, when you start proposing to ban things
> that may upset other people you need to define limits.
>
> >> ... the poster moaning about mains networking wants it to not be
> >> used at all, full stop.
> >
> > I'm not sure that's true ... there was a post that suggested that
> > Ofcom don't seem to want to do anything about "homeplug
> > Ethernet-over- powerline crappy networking gear" which he alleged
> > was "a notorious cause of wideband interference" ... but think he
> > was only suggesting that such gear be banned if it was actually
> > causing interference.
> >
> > I'm all in favour of not causing interference, but it's far from
> > clear that HomePlug-type gear will necessarily cause any.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Daniel.

This could be the basis of a good game - get from subject A (e.g. wifi
interference) to subject B (e.g. fat lady in bikini) in less than 5
posts and without going off topic.

--