From: Wim J on
In my neighbourhood, I see about 10 access-points being
active. About 40% on channel 1, 20 % percent on channel 6
and 40 % on channel 11. So I take channel 4 and 13 for
my two access-points. I thinks thats the best I can do.

In general, performance is very good, so I think most
of my neighbours are not the kind of heavy users.

What I like to know is the "network load" of an idle access-point
and/or laptop.
I assume there are some regular "pings" to show that you
are alive, but I was not able to find more
detail about that.

Anyone knows?

Wim
From: John Navas on
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 17:05:34 +0200, in
<4c616abf$0$22945$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl>, Wim J <nospam(a)pc004.local>
wrote:

>In my neighbourhood, I see about 10 access-points being
>active. About 40% on channel 1, 20 % percent on channel 6
>and 40 % on channel 11. So I take channel 4 and 13 for
>my two access-points. I thinks thats the best I can do.

Your best bet is probably to avoid the channels with the strongest
signals (for both access point and client radios), not necessarily the
most access points.

>In general, performance is very good, so I think most
>of my neighbours are not the kind of heavy users.

Wi-Fi is designed to coexist, and has enough capacity that even degraded
performance tends to be faster than broadband Internet and thus not a
bottleneck.

>What I like to know is the "network load" of an idle access-point
>and/or laptop.

Near zero.

>I assume there are some regular "pings" to show that you
>are alive, but I was not able to find more
>detail about that.

SSID broadcast from access points, but the load is minor.

--
John FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
From: Wim J on
John Navas wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 17:05:34 +0200, in
> <4c616abf$0$22945$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl>, Wim J <nospam(a)pc004.local>
> wrote:
>
>> In my neighbourhood, I see about 10 access-points being
>> active. About 40% on channel 1, 20 % percent on channel 6
>> and 40 % on channel 11. So I take channel 4 and 13 for
>> my two access-points. I thinks thats the best I can do.
>
> Your best bet is probably to avoid the channels with the strongest
> signals (for both access point and client radios), not necessarily the
> most access points.
>

I did some check with netstumbler. All other AP are 20-30Db weaker then
my AP.

Wim
From: Char Jackson on
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 08:27:28 -0700, John Navas
<spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 17:05:34 +0200, in
><4c616abf$0$22945$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl>, Wim J <nospam(a)pc004.local>
>wrote:
>
>>In my neighbourhood, I see about 10 access-points being
>>active. About 40% on channel 1, 20 % percent on channel 6
>>and 40 % on channel 11. So I take channel 4 and 13 for
>>my two access-points. I thinks thats the best I can do.

To the OP, hopefully you live in an area where using channel 13 is
allowed, i.e., not in the US.

>Your best bet is probably to avoid the channels with the strongest
>signals (for both access point and client radios), not necessarily the
>most access points.
>
>>In general, performance is very good, so I think most
>>of my neighbours are not the kind of heavy users.
>
>Wi-Fi is designed to coexist, and has enough capacity that even degraded
>performance tends to be faster than broadband Internet and thus not a
>bottleneck.

802.11g is probably still dominant, with a max throughput of about 24
Mbps. It doesn't take much interference or congestion to cut that in
half or even less. Meanwhile, many ISP's are selling service at the
8-16 Mbps level, with some plans being higher, (such as 22 Mbps with
bursting to 30 Mbps in my case), not to mention the new DOCSIS 3
service tiers that are beginning to roll out with 50 Mbps service, and
announcements/rumors of doubling and quadrupling that.

Be careful when saying, with a broad stroke, that wireless is faster
than broadband Internet.

From: John Navas on
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 15:36:19 -0500, in
<5jd3669b7jpatgl614h6ogeicutt2nei65(a)4ax.com>, Char Jackson
<none(a)none.invalid> wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 08:27:28 -0700, John Navas
><spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 17:05:34 +0200, in
>><4c616abf$0$22945$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl>, Wim J <nospam(a)pc004.local>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In my neighbourhood, I see about 10 access-points being
>>>active. About 40% on channel 1, 20 % percent on channel 6
>>>and 40 % on channel 11. So I take channel 4 and 13 for
>>>my two access-points. I thinks thats the best I can do.
>
>To the OP, hopefully you live in an area where using channel 13 is
>allowed, i.e., not in the US.
>
>>Your best bet is probably to avoid the channels with the strongest
>>signals (for both access point and client radios), not necessarily the
>>most access points.
>>
>>>In general, performance is very good, so I think most
>>>of my neighbours are not the kind of heavy users.
>>
>>Wi-Fi is designed to coexist, and has enough capacity that even degraded
>>performance tends to be faster than broadband Internet and thus not a
>>bottleneck.
>
>802.11g is probably still dominant, with a max throughput of about 24
>Mbps. It doesn't take much interference or congestion to cut that in
>half or even less. Meanwhile, many ISP's are selling service at the
>8-16 Mbps level, with some plans being higher, (such as 22 Mbps with
>bursting to 30 Mbps in my case), not to mention the new DOCSIS 3
>service tiers that are beginning to roll out with 50 Mbps service, and
>announcements/rumors of doubling and quadrupling that.
>
>Be careful when saying, with a broad stroke, that wireless is faster
>than broadband Internet.

It's nonetheless rare for wi-Fi to be an actual bottleneck:
* Super-speed broadband is still relatively rare.
* Wi-Fi usually runs fast enough for even super-speed broadband.
* Speed tends to be limited by remote servers to less than
super-speed (something ISPs probably count on).

--
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern´┐Żs Law of Suspended Judgement]