Compatibility of 2.4Ghz Router with 2.4Ghz CCTV

I currently have a wireless CCTV system (Deccavision) which uses the
2.4GHz frequency. This system allows for 4 cameras (although I only use 2).

My telephone exchange is due to be Broadband enabled in June this year
and I have been considering a router for my 2 PCs (currently networked
with wire).

I would rather like to buy a wireless router but I note that they also
use the 2.4GHz frequency. From this, I have two questions, please:-

1) What are the chances of either system interfering with the other?

2) Is it possible to combine the two systems so that, for instance, the
CCTV signal passes through the router. My reason for asking this is that
my two cameras are not in the same direction as viewed from the
receiving aerial. That aerial is directional and I have to accept a
reduced quality of signal in order to receive a picture from both
cameras. The routers I have seen have omnidirectional aerials which
would be an advantage in my situation.


--
Howard Neil

Howard Neil wrote:
> I would rather like to buy a wireless router but I note that they also
> use the 2.4GHz frequency. From this, I have two questions, please:-
>
> 1) What are the chances of either system interfering with the other?

Fairly high, but the chances of it making either system unusable are
slim. Simply choose the channel on the router which, when in use,
causes the CCTV system to exhibit the least amount of interference. I
use an 802.11g router and a 2.4GHz cordless 'phone with no problems.

Your other option is to purchase (more expensive) 802.11a equipment.
This operates in the 5GHz band, thus fixing any interference issues.

> 2) Is it possible to combine the two systems so that, for instance, the
> CCTV signal passes through the router.

No.

--
Gareth Halfacree
http://gareth.halfacree.co.uk

Gareth Halfacree wrote:
> Howard Neil wrote:
>> I would rather like to buy a wireless router but I note that they also
>> use the 2.4GHz frequency. From this, I have two questions, please:-
>>
>> 1) What are the chances of either system interfering with the other?
>
> Fairly high, but the chances of it making either system unusable are
> slim. Simply choose the channel on the router which, when in use,
> causes the CCTV system to exhibit the least amount of interference. I
> use an 802.11g router and a 2.4GHz cordless 'phone with no problems.
>
> Your other option is to purchase (more expensive) 802.11a equipment.
> This operates in the 5GHz band, thus fixing any interference issues.
>
>> 2) Is it possible to combine the two systems so that, for instance,
>> the CCTV signal passes through the router.
>
> No.
>

Thanks for the reply, Gareth.

Since the answer to question 2 is "no", I may be better off using a
wired system, then, and remove the risk of interference. Both computers
are, after all, already networked (using ICS). I presume I would just
remove the wire from the LAN port of one computer and plug it into the
router, adding a second wire from that computer to the router? This also
sounds cheaper.

--
Howard Neil

Howard Neil wrote in
4433da23$0$33918$(E-Mail Removed):

> Since the answer to [Is it possible to combine the two systems so that,
> for instance,
> the CCTV signal passes through the router] is "no", I may be better off
> using a
> wired system, then, and remove the risk of interference. Both
> computers are, after all, already networked (using ICS). I presume I
> would just remove the wire from the LAN port of one computer and plug
> it into the router, adding a second wire from that computer to the
> router? This also sounds cheaper.

I'd recommend always using Ethernet rather than wireless if you have the
choice: if the PCs are fixed in one place and running cables to them is
feasible. Even with a good signal, I've had dropouts with wireless from time
to time.

Strictly speaking, the Ethernet cables from PC to router should be patch
cables rather than the crossover cable that you'll have between the PCs at
present for ICS. However most (all?) routers these days have auto-sensing
inputs so they will work equally well with either patch or crossover cables.

Martin Underwood wrote:
> Howard Neil wrote in
> 4433da23$0$33918$(E-Mail Removed):
>
>> Since the answer to [Is it possible to combine the two systems so that,
>> for instance,
>> the CCTV signal passes through the router] is "no", I may be better off
>> using a
>> wired system, then, and remove the risk of interference. Both
>> computers are, after all, already networked (using ICS). I presume I
>> would just remove the wire from the LAN port of one computer and plug
>> it into the router, adding a second wire from that computer to the
>> router? This also sounds cheaper.
>
> I'd recommend always using Ethernet rather than wireless if you have the
> choice: if the PCs are fixed in one place and running cables to them is
> feasible. Even with a good signal, I've had dropouts with wireless from time
> to time.
>

Thanks for confirming that. The PCs are definitely fixed and I have them
connected at the moment so it will be no hardship to continue down that
route.

> Strictly speaking, the Ethernet cables from PC to router should be patch
> cables rather than the crossover cable that you'll have between the PCs at
> present for ICS. However most (all?) routers these days have auto-sensing
> inputs so they will work equally well with either patch or crossover cables.

Thanks for that tip. I will check that the one I buy has auto-sensing.
It will just save me a little money and effort if I don't have to
replace that particular cable.

--
Howard Neil

In MsgID<4434139f$0$33898$(E-Mail Removed)> within
uk.comp.home-networking, 'Martin Underwood' wrote:

>However most (all?) routers these days have auto-sensing
>inputs so they will work equally well with either patch or crossover cables.

Not all, but the ones that don't usually have one particular feed socket
that is switchable between the two wiring setups.

I've never understood (perhaps someone will explain the flaw in my
reasoning) why they didn't just use *one* system of connections to the
sockets and define *all* cables as crossovers. It'd fix this silly problem
once and for all and do away with the internal complexity of auto-sensing.

Can anyone here see the reason (assuming there was one) for starting out
with two different socket plans? Maybe the designer had a friend in the
cable industry?

Dave J.

"Gareth Halfacree" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
[snip]
> I use an 802.11g router and a 2.4GHz cordless 'phone with no problems.

Are you sure your telephone is 2.4GHz? DECT telephones use 1.88-1.9GHz.

Alex

Alex Fraser wrote:
> "Gareth Halfacree" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> [snip]
>> I use an 802.11g router and a 2.4GHz cordless 'phone with no problems.
>
> Are you sure your telephone is 2.4GHz? DECT telephones use 1.88-1.9GHz.

Fairly sure - at least, that's what the manual says. As far as I'm
aware, W-DECT is the 2.4GHz standard, with DECT being 1.88-1.9GHz.

It's a Doro combined 'phone and answering machine, bought on the cheap
from eBuyer; as a result, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if the manual
was lying to me with regards to the frequencies used.

--
Gareth Halfacree
http://gareth.halfacree.co.uk