| Quote from: steveben2004 |
| I note your comments but having had virtually no problems with the router supplied by my previous ISP for a peiod of 4 years, I would have thought that I should expect the same from this router. |
With respect, you can think what you like but you need some knowledge of RF principles to have a hope of being correct about it. I have a little over 20 years professional experience with transmission systems, by the way.
There is a small chance that you have been unlucky and PN have supplied you with two broken routers. There is a much greater chance that the routers are fine and it is your expectation that is at fault. The argument you are proposing is somewhat analogous to claiming a particular car is not fit for purpose because the fuel consumption or top speed might vary slightly between examples of similar cars. The fault is expecting all similar cars too perform exactly the same way in all conditions. Patently, in all things, some variation is to be expected.
| Quote |
| There is nothing in any documentation that I have seen that tells me to wrap the router in tin foil plastic or whatever. |
CAUTION Never wrap a wireless router, or any other radio transmitter, in tin foil. You may damage the device irreparably and there is a risk of the device catching fire.
In view of your having confused a simple and safe instruction with an inadvisable and possibly dangerous configuration... I don't think I need to explain further why such tweaks are omitted from the manuals.
The radio in your router does not read the manual but never the less behaves according to Physical laws; note they are 'laws.' Those laws state that radio waves will reflect from a metallic surface, adding to the signal strength in the opposite direction. It is the same principle that causes the the metal reflector on the back of an electric fire to intensify the heat in front the fire. Radio waves and radiated heat both being examples of electro magnetic energy at different wave lengths within the same spectrum. Placing a metallic surface behind a router's antenna is safe, as the RF energy can still radiate away. Wrapping a router in tin-foil is similar to placing a metal plate directly in front an electric fire and is similarly ill-advised.
| Quote |
| So, from my perspective, the router supplied is sub-standard insofar as the whole idea behind a wireless rooter is tha you can connect to the outer, from pretty well anywhere within a standard 3 bed semi. |
From your perspective. You have a device which is most likely operating within the manufacturers specification. You are trying to argue that the device is not fit for purpose because you do not understand what the specifications means.
Where, in the documentation, did you read that, the whole idea behind a wireless router revolves around a 3 bed semi, then? No one with RF expertise is going to guarantee that a single Wi-Fi access point will entirely cover the inside space of a 3 bed family home and no manufacturer provides such a guarantee.
Wi-Fi was invented by NCR/AT&T, as a method of connecting cash registers and EPOS systems, within large open plan retail spaces, to corporate Ethernet networks. In 1991, when Wi-Fi was launched, a cheap 10mbps hub cost ~£500. Outside of corporate budgets Wi-Fi was, pie-in-the-sky, prohibitively expensive. Three bed semis were never a feature of the Wi-Fi design spec. Mass adoption of the Internet, Ethernet and eventually Wi-Fi, by the domestic market took another 15 years.
Back with the laws of Physics, 100mw @ 2.4 GHz (a wireless router) is not enough power, at too high a frequency, to guarantee penetration through walls and ceilings laced with electrical cables. Add the EMI from games consoles, computers and a multitude of other wireless devices using the unlicensed 2.4Ghz ISM band. It turns out that the typical 3 bed family semi is actually quite a challenging environment for a Wi-Fi installation. You might get coverage from a single access point but it's always going to be a marginal situation. Reliability being subject to transient environmental conditions and the design and manufacturing variations across specific devices.
So I return to where I started. I have some experience in the field and believe you are expecting too much from the technology at the price you are paying. It is your choice to apply the technology and your choice to buy the devices you buy. Manufacturers and suppliers are not responsible for your own faulty assumptions.
Separate access points located centrally on each floor would almost certainly provide you with greater satisfaction from the technology. Good luck with whatever kit you try next. Hopefully I have been informative, if not agreeable.
And Please DO NOT wrap your router in tin-foil.
