Linksys WAG354G coverage problems

My first foray into wireless networking is by proxy - it's in my
uni-student daughter's house, where she and all her housemates need to
connect to a single ADSL line terminated in the hall. I've got them a
Linksys WAG354G (successor to the WAG54G).

All worked fine when I set it up at home, using a Linksys PCI card in
the home computer. But now that it's installed in this tiny terraced
house half the people in the house can't see the wireless signal.
(Well, if they put it on the floor in the kitchen, just by the pile of
muddy bicycles, they can all see it but the signal strength is low).

I'm a hundred miles away and more, and looking for a solution which
involves least work and has the highest chance of success. Options seem
to include

1. RMA-ing the thing back to the supplier and hoping that another one
will be better. High effort; chances of success ... ?

2. Pouring money on the problem by buying a different device altogether
and sending it down to them for them to set up. Low effort but
expensive and redundant kit; and will they set up encryption properly?

3. Adding an antenna (the WAG354G doesn't have one, amazingly). This is
cheaper and easy to do and is my preferred option right now.

All comments, expressions of sympathy for my remote-support dilemma,
gratefully received.


Henry Law

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 07:06:58 +0100, Henry Law <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>3. Adding an antenna (the WAG354G doesn't have one, amazingly). This is
> cheaper and easy to do and is my preferred option right now.

obviously it does have an antenna, its just that its internal. If so
adding one to it could be an issue.

Get them to rotate it in 45 degree steps in both directions to see
where its rediation pattern is. half of the signal might be going out
of the wall for example. Also angling the laptops may make a
difference.

>All comments, expressions of sympathy for my remote-support dilemma,
>gratefully received.

sit down dear, would you like a cup of tea and a biscuit?

Phil
--

Usenet spam eaten by a Hamster http://www.tglsoft.de/
No more cable clowns :-))
Please do not feed or re-quote the trolls.

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 07:06:58 +0100, Henry Law <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>3. Adding an antenna (the WAG354G doesn't have one, amazingly). This is
> cheaper and easy to do and is my preferred option right now.
>
>All comments, expressions of sympathy for my remote-support dilemma,
>gratefully received.


I have this model and the wireless coverage is much better when it is
"standing up". Aerials are widely available and quite cheap (available
from Maplins etc if they don't want to mail order).
--
Remove any underwear before replying by email

Phil Thompson wrote
> obviously it does have an antenna, its just that its internal. If so
> adding one to it could be an issue.

Dave wrote:
> I have this model and the wireless coverage is much better when it is
> "standing up". Aerials are widely available and quite cheap (available
> from Maplins etc if they don't want to mail order).

.... and the guy from the supplier I bought it from wrote
" Whilst the WAG354G can be used solely with it's built in antenna, it is
" recommended that an external antenna be attached to it in order to
" ensure the best possible performance.

So I've obtained an antenna and despatched off to the battlefront,
hoping that it will cure the problem. (The unit is standing up but I've
told them to rotate it).

But why, if it needs an external antenna to function properly, is it
sold without one, particularly since there is an SMA socket on the top
especially for the purpose? That's a "merchantable quality" question
which I will address to the supplier. In the mean time, WAG354G buyers
beware.

Subsidiary question: some usenet posts I saw suggested that cordless
telephones could interfere, and that changing the channel on the gateway
might help. Anyone confirm or deny this? In my daughter's flat the
cordless phone is right next to the router.

On 27/09/2005 Henry Law wrote:

> But why, if it needs an external antenna to function properly, is it
> sold without one, particularly since there is an SMA socket on the
> top especially for the purpose? That's a "merchantable quality"
> question which I will address to the supplier. In the mean time,
> WAG354G buyers beware.

It functions without an external aerial but its range is improved with
one :-( It operates on a frequency around 2.4GHz, very much line of
sight and no obstructions please.


> Subsidiary question: some usenet posts I saw suggested that cordless
> telephones could interfere, and that changing the channel on the
> gateway might help. Anyone confirm or deny this? In my daughter's
> flat the cordless phone is right next to the router.

Yes, can do they use the same range of frequencies as do micro-waves.
It may be worth trying different channels or moving things around a bit.

--
Jeff Gaines - Damerham Hampshire UK
Using XanaNews 1.17.6.5

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 19:11:32 +0100, Henry Law <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>But why, if it needs an external antenna to function properly, is it
>sold without one, particularly since there is an SMA socket on the top
>especially for the purpose? That's a "merchantable quality" question
>which I will address to the supplier. In the mean time, WAG354G buyers
>beware.

I have several bits of wireless gear with sockets on. It allows you to
attach specialist directional or high gain antenna or remote antenna.
It doesn't imply that the inbuilt patch antenna is useless.

If you look to the bottom of
<http://www.adslguide.org.uk/hardware/reviews/2005/q3/zyxel-334.asp>
you can see performance data for the Linksys HG200 "tesco" one port
version of the one you have.

>Subsidiary question: some usenet posts I saw suggested that cordless
>telephones could interfere, and that changing the channel on the gateway
>might help. Anyone confirm or deny this? In my daughter's flat the
>cordless phone is right next to the router.

probably US information where the 2.4 GHz cordless phone is common,
unlike the DECT phones here at lower frequency (1.7 GHz ?)

channel 1 on the wireless gateway should be best (lowest frequency =
longest range, also unpopular as a default channel).

Phil
--

Usenet spam eaten by a Hamster http://www.tglsoft.de/
No more cable clowns :-))
Please do not feed or re-quote the trolls.

"Jeff Gaines" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On 27/09/2005 Henry Law wrote:
> > Subsidiary question: some usenet posts I saw suggested that cordless
> > telephones could interfere, and that changing the channel on the
> > gateway might help. Anyone confirm or deny this? In my daughter's
> > flat the cordless phone is right next to the router.
>
> Yes, can do they use the same range of frequencies [...]

Not in the UK (or Europe in general, I think) they don't.

Alex

On 27/09/2005 Alex Fraser wrote:

> "Jeff Gaines" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > On 27/09/2005 Henry Law wrote:
> > > Subsidiary question: some usenet posts I saw suggested that
> > > cordless telephones could interfere, and that changing the
> > > channel on the gateway might help. Anyone confirm or deny this?
> > > In my daughter's flat the cordless phone is right next to the
> > > router.
> >
> > Yes, can do they use the same range of frequencies [...]
>
> Not in the UK (or Europe in general, I think) they don't.
>
> Alex


They operate around 1.8GHz to 1.9Ghz, close enough to interfere, mind
you any transmitter is capable of interference if it's close/powerful
enough :-)

--
Jeff Gaines - Damerham Hampshire UK
Using XanaNews 1.17.6.5

Phil Thompson wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 19:11:32 +0100, Henry Law <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:

>> Subsidiary question: some usenet posts I saw suggested that cordless
>> telephones could interfere, and that changing the channel on the gateway
>> might help. Anyone confirm or deny this? In my daughter's flat the
>> cordless phone is right next to the router.
>
> probably US information where the 2.4 GHz cordless phone is common,
> unlike the DECT phones here at lower frequency (1.7 GHz ?)

One thing that definitely can interfere with it, though, is those
wireless TV sender boxes you can get for beaming the picture from your
main TV/VCR/DVD into the bedroom or wherever... fortunately you can
change the frequency on those too, but one of the settings on mine
renders my WiFi network completely dead to the world.

Cheeri,
Calum.