![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
This is sort of off topic, but I know there are some very
knowledgeable people here. I live in a small condo association (20 units) and volunteer to manage our security cameras (15 IP Cameras). Since my unit is near the center of the property and I was able to run fiber to a utility building elsewhere on the property, most of the cameras are hard wired using p.o.e. and work very reliably. However, 3 of the cameras must use 2.4 GHz wifi. My personal wifi easily covers my unit and surrounding area, but barely covers the common area where those 3 cameras are located. That area is roughly 180 feet from my router, so the limited coverage is not a surprise. Quite a few years ago, I purchased a TP-Link WA7210N access point. It is connected to my router via ethernet and is aimed toward those 3 cameras. Adding that AP, made a huge improvement, but it is still not as good as I want. Depending on the weather, whether there are leaves on the trees, and what vehicles are parked nearby, anywhere from 5% to 10% of the messages are lost. Sometimes, no messages are lost for hours. Other times, no contact can be made for 3 or 4 minutes. Usually, it is something in between - a few lost messages per minute. I believe there are three things causing my issues. 1) At 180 feet, the signals are still fairly weak. 2) Being is a well populated area, interference from other wifi networks are a likely problem (one of the cameras can "see" over 50 SSIDs), and 3) being restricted to 2.4 GHz, all my neighbors' microwave ovens are probably causing problems. (My own microwave wipes out those 3 cameras while running, so other people's microwaves are likely to do the same). I have AC power available near the cameras, but there is no protection from the weather available for things like range extenders. I also have no way to run new cables or fiber to that area without digging under long runs of concrete driveway. I am hoping one of you might have an idea I haven't thought of yet. Pat |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Pat wrote:
3 of the cameras must use 2.4 GHz wifi. My personal wifi easily covers my unit and surrounding area, but barely covers the common area where those 3 cameras are located. That area is roughly 180 feet from my router, so the limited coverage is not a surprise. Quite a few years ago, I purchased a TP-Link WA7210N access point. It is connected to my router via ethernet and is aimed toward those 3 cameras. An extender? An extender extends WiFi range. You can put more than one in series. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 9/16/2020 1:22 PM, Pat wrote:
This is sort of off topic, but I know there are some very knowledgeable people here. I live in a small condo association (20 units) and volunteer to manage our security cameras (15 IP Cameras). Since my unit is near the center of the property and I was able to run fiber to a utility building elsewhere on the property, most of the cameras are hard wired using p.o.e. and work very reliably. However, 3 of the cameras must use 2.4 GHz wifi. My personal wifi easily covers my unit and surrounding area, but barely covers the common area where those 3 cameras are located. That area is roughly 180 feet from my router, so the limited coverage is not a surprise. Quite a few years ago, I purchased a TP-Link WA7210N access point. It is connected to my router via ethernet and is aimed toward those 3 cameras. Adding that AP, made a huge improvement, but it is still not as good as I want. Depending on the weather, whether there are leaves on the trees, and what vehicles are parked nearby, anywhere from 5% to 10% of the messages are lost. Sometimes, no messages are lost for hours. Other times, no contact can be made for 3 or 4 minutes. Usually, it is something in between - a few lost messages per minute. I believe there are three things causing my issues. 1) At 180 feet, the signals are still fairly weak. 2) Being is a well populated area, interference from other wifi networks are a likely problem (one of the cameras can "see" over 50 SSIDs), and 3) being restricted to 2.4 GHz, all my neighbors' microwave ovens are probably causing problems. (My own microwave wipes out those 3 cameras while running, so other people's microwaves are likely to do the same). I have AC power available near the cameras, but there is no protection from the weather available for things like range extenders. I also have no way to run new cables or fiber to that area without digging under long runs of concrete driveway. I am hoping one of you might have an idea I haven't thought of yet. Pat maybe a powerline adapter if common electrical circuit or to relocate to a better line-of-sight to your router |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Pat wrote:
This is sort of off topic, but I know there are some very knowledgeable people here. I live in a small condo association (20 units) and volunteer to manage our security cameras (15 IP Cameras). Since my unit is near the center of the property and I was able to run fiber to a utility building elsewhere on the property, most of the cameras are hard wired using p.o.e. and work very reliably. However, 3 of the cameras must use 2.4 GHz wifi. My personal wifi easily covers my unit and surrounding area, but barely covers the common area where those 3 cameras are located. That area is roughly 180 feet from my router, so the limited coverage is not a surprise. Quite a few years ago, I purchased a TP-Link WA7210N access point. It is connected to my router via ethernet and is aimed toward those 3 cameras. Adding that AP, made a huge improvement, but it is still not as good as I want. Depending on the weather, whether there are leaves on the trees, and what vehicles are parked nearby, anywhere from 5% to 10% of the messages are lost. Sometimes, no messages are lost for hours. Other times, no contact can be made for 3 or 4 minutes. Usually, it is something in between - a few lost messages per minute. I believe there are three things causing my issues. 1) At 180 feet, the signals are still fairly weak. 2) Being is a well populated area, interference from other wifi networks are a likely problem (one of the cameras can "see" over 50 SSIDs), and 3) being restricted to 2.4 GHz, all my neighbors' microwave ovens are probably causing problems. (My own microwave wipes out those 3 cameras while running, so other people's microwaves are likely to do the same). I have AC power available near the cameras, but there is no protection from the weather available for things like range extenders. I also have no way to run new cables or fiber to that area without digging under long runs of concrete driveway. I am hoping one of you might have an idea I haven't thought of yet. Pat They give an overview (of sorts) here. https://www.waveform.com/pages/wifi-...er-differences Powerline networking only works, if the two units are on the seoondary of the same power transformer. Your cameras in the parking lot are unlikely (by chance) to be on the same transformer as your unit in the condo. I don't know if it's the Extender idea I don't like, as much as the possibility of foliage in the way. And you want to test before leaf-fall, to get the full effect. If your Wifi kit was pointed at a second floor window as its outlet, you might be shooting through foliage all the way to the destination. With extensive attenuation. As for other exotic solutions, now you've got multiple layers of equipment. Which doesn't make for the easiest setup and debug. https://www.telcoantennas.com.au/sit...ti-nanostation There is only so much you can do from a signal strength point of view. Strong signals can cause detectable multipath, confusing the device at the other end. The FCC defines power limits based on EIRP (equivalent power), which means if you stick a 30dB dish on one end, the beamwidth might drop to 5 degrees wide, and maybe not all the cameras would be within the cone of the beam, and the "equivalent power" is way above what the FCC allows. By writing a power limit that takes antenna gain into account, they cut out the "sharks with lasers on their heads" crowd, that try to beat the limit using antenna gain. If people complain to a communications authority, that's when someone comes out and checks for the interfering source. And that's when they might notice the usage of a dish which just happens to spew part of its beam into someones house, wiping out their "ordinary" signals. The whole purpose of having a low unlicensed limit, is to try to avoid trouble requiring truck rolls from the authorities. The radios on the units themselves, can adjust the transmitter power according to situation. If the equipment detects that each receiver is having no trouble "seeing it", the transmitter power can be reduced (automatically and maybe without even showing in a status dialog). They only go to full power if reception is marginal. There *is* a radio standard which can be used by consumers to go long distances. Like all the way across a ranch. The problem is, the data rate is maybe 2 Kilobits, suitable for taking temperature readings or wind speed readings. You can't carry video on a standard like that. Still, it's impressive that at least some communications was possible. As far as I know, that's a wideband technique and works across multiple bands. Paul |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[I've embedded comments in Paul's reply below]
On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 15:24:43 -0400, Paul wrote: Pat wrote: This is sort of off topic, but I know there are some very knowledgeable people here. I live in a small condo association (20 units) and volunteer to manage our security cameras (15 IP Cameras). Since my unit is near the center of the property and I was able to run fiber to a utility building elsewhere on the property, most of the cameras are hard wired using p.o.e. and work very reliably. However, 3 of the cameras must use 2.4 GHz wifi. My personal wifi easily covers my unit and surrounding area, but barely covers the common area where those 3 cameras are located. That area is roughly 180 feet from my router, so the limited coverage is not a surprise. Quite a few years ago, I purchased a TP-Link WA7210N access point. It is connected to my router via ethernet and is aimed toward those 3 cameras. Adding that AP, made a huge improvement, but it is still not as good as I want. Depending on the weather, whether there are leaves on the trees, and what vehicles are parked nearby, anywhere from 5% to 10% of the messages are lost. Sometimes, no messages are lost for hours. Other times, no contact can be made for 3 or 4 minutes. Usually, it is something in between - a few lost messages per minute. I believe there are three things causing my issues. 1) At 180 feet, the signals are still fairly weak. 2) Being is a well populated area, interference from other wifi networks are a likely problem (one of the cameras can "see" over 50 SSIDs), and 3) being restricted to 2.4 GHz, all my neighbors' microwave ovens are probably causing problems. (My own microwave wipes out those 3 cameras while running, so other people's microwaves are likely to do the same). I have AC power available near the cameras, but there is no protection from the weather available for things like range extenders. I also have no way to run new cables or fiber to that area without digging under long runs of concrete driveway. I am hoping one of you might have an idea I haven't thought of yet. Pat They give an overview (of sorts) here. https://www.waveform.com/pages/wifi-...er-differences Powerline networking only works, if the two units are on the seoondary of the same power transformer. Your cameras in the parking lot are unlikely (by chance) to be on the same transformer as your unit in the condo. [I agree, but I may get lucky in this case. While my condo and the common area are definitely on different transformers, the utility building I mentioned in my original post supplies power to all the common areas including where the cameras are located. Since I have network access in that building via the fiber optic cable I installed last year when a section of the driveway was being replaced, it might work. Powerline data is something I've never tried because of 40 years of fighting with X-10 issues. I realize, though, that the ethernet over power lines technology is very different. The underground power lines leaving the utility building are all very long with lots of LED lighting running at night, so I expect lots of interference and don't have high hopes. However, I'll buy a few modules and do some experimenting.] I don't know if it's the Extender idea I don't like, as much as the possibility of foliage in the way. And you want to test before leaf-fall, to get the full effect. If your Wifi kit was pointed at a second floor window as its outlet, you might be shooting through foliage all the way to the destination. With extensive attenuation. [Definitely an issue here. Lots of foliage.] As for other exotic solutions, now you've got multiple layers of equipment. Which doesn't make for the easiest setup and debug. https://www.telcoantennas.com.au/sit...ti-nanostation There is only so much you can do from a signal strength point of view. Strong signals can cause detectable multipath, confusing the device at the other end. The FCC defines power limits based on EIRP (equivalent power), which means if you stick a 30dB dish on one end, the beamwidth might drop to 5 degrees wide, and maybe not all the cameras would be within the cone of the beam, and the "equivalent power" is way above what the FCC allows. By writing a power limit that takes antenna gain into account, they cut out the "sharks with lasers on their heads" crowd, that try to beat the limit using antenna gain. [I have tried upping the transmit power from the AP, but it didn't help. The cameras may have heard the AP better, but upping the power didn't help the AP's receiver to hear the replies from the cameras any better. I returned the setting to the max legal value.] If people complain to a communications authority, that's when someone comes out and checks for the interfering source. And that's when they might notice the usage of a dish which just happens to spew part of its beam into someones house, wiping out their "ordinary" signals. The whole purpose of having a low unlicensed limit, is to try to avoid trouble requiring truck rolls from the authorities. The radios on the units themselves, can adjust the transmitter power according to situation. If the equipment detects that each receiver is having no trouble "seeing it", the transmitter power can be reduced (automatically and maybe without even showing in a status dialog). They only go to full power if reception is marginal. There *is* a radio standard which can be used by consumers to go long distances. Like all the way across a ranch. The problem is, the data rate is maybe 2 Kilobits, suitable for taking temperature readings or wind speed readings. You can't carry video on a standard like that. Still, it's impressive that at least some communications was possible. As far as I know, that's a wideband technique and works across multiple bands. Paul Thanks to Paul, John Doe, and Zaidy036 for your responses. See my comments above. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 13:22:23 -0400, Pat wrote:
This is sort of off topic, but I know there are some very knowledgeable people here. I live in a small condo association (20 units) and volunteer to manage our security cameras (15 IP Cameras). Since my unit is near the center of the property and I was able to run fiber to a utility building elsewhere on the property, most of the cameras are hard wired using p.o.e. and work very reliably. So far, so good. However, 3 of the cameras must use 2.4 GHz wifi. My personal wifi easily covers my unit and surrounding area, but barely covers the common area where those 3 cameras are located. That area is roughly 180 feet from my router, so the limited coverage is not a surprise. Quite a few years ago, I purchased a TP-Link WA7210N access point. It is connected to my router via ethernet and is aimed toward those 3 cameras. Adding that AP, made a huge improvement, but it is still not as good as I want. Regarding the 3 cameras that can only do 2.4GHz WiFi, perhaps they don't need to connect to an AP that's all the way back at your building. Have you considered allowing them to connect to AP(s) that are physically closer to the camera? Since the other cameras are hard wired, you have an opportunity to place AP(s) near any of those cameras and let the WiFi cameras connect there. snip I believe there are three things causing my issues. 1) At 180 feet, the signals are still fairly weak. This exact concern is addressed above. 2) Being is a well populated area, interference from other wifi networks are a likely problem (one of the cameras can "see" over 50 SSIDs) Also somewhat addressed above, if you can allow those 3 cameras to connect to an AP that is physically closer. and 3) being restricted to 2.4 GHz, all my neighbors' microwave ovens are probably causing problems. Shorter distance also helps with interference. (My own microwave wipes out those 3 cameras while running, so other people's microwaves are likely to do the same). I have AC power available near the cameras, but there is no protection from the weather available for things like range extenders. I also have no way to run new cables or fiber to that area without digging under long runs of concrete driveway. I am hoping one of you might have an idea I haven't thought of yet. For your own sanity, please take range extenders off the table. They're awful. You'll probably regret going down that road. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Char Jackson wrote:
For your own sanity, please take range extenders off the table. They're awful. You'll probably regret going down that road. That advice might be true generally, but... I bought a Netgear WNDR4300 router and two Netgear WN2500RP extenders off eBay for $50 about seven years ago (very rough estimate), used. Gotten much more than my money's worth out of them. Have been using one extender for high-speed Internet, for several years. Doing great. Been using the router for a security camera in recent years. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 22:18:11 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote: On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 13:22:23 -0400, Pat wrote: This is sort of off topic, but I know there are some very knowledgeable people here. I live in a small condo association (20 units) and volunteer to manage our security cameras (15 IP Cameras). Since my unit is near the center of the property and I was able to run fiber to a utility building elsewhere on the property, most of the cameras are hard wired using p.o.e. and work very reliably. So far, so good. However, 3 of the cameras must use 2.4 GHz wifi. My personal wifi easily covers my unit and surrounding area, but barely covers the common area where those 3 cameras are located. That area is roughly 180 feet from my router, so the limited coverage is not a surprise. Quite a few years ago, I purchased a TP-Link WA7210N access point. It is connected to my router via ethernet and is aimed toward those 3 cameras. Adding that AP, made a huge improvement, but it is still not as good as I want. Regarding the 3 cameras that can only do 2.4GHz WiFi, perhaps they don't need to connect to an AP that's all the way back at your building. Have you considered allowing them to connect to AP(s) that are physically closer to the camera? Since the other cameras are hard wired, you have an opportunity to place AP(s) near any of those cameras and let the WiFi cameras connect there. snip I believe there are three things causing my issues. 1) At 180 feet, the signals are still fairly weak. This exact concern is addressed above. 2) Being is a well populated area, interference from other wifi networks are a likely problem (one of the cameras can "see" over 50 SSIDs) Also somewhat addressed above, if you can allow those 3 cameras to connect to an AP that is physically closer. and 3) being restricted to 2.4 GHz, all my neighbors' microwave ovens are probably causing problems. Shorter distance also helps with interference. (My own microwave wipes out those 3 cameras while running, so other people's microwaves are likely to do the same). I have AC power available near the cameras, but there is no protection from the weather available for things like range extenders. I also have no way to run new cables or fiber to that area without digging under long runs of concrete driveway. I am hoping one of you might have an idea I haven't thought of yet. For your own sanity, please take range extenders off the table. They're awful. You'll probably regret going down that road. Hi Char, You make a very good point regarding placing an AP closer to the cameras. There are two condo units close enough to be helpful in that regard. One is used as a "get away from it all' second home and the owner does not have Internet. The other doesn't want anyone touching their router because of all the news stories about hacking. Both of those units are in separate buildings so I have no way to run ethernet or fiber to them. Regarding range extenders, I have actually had some good luck with one at another location (a friend's house). However, I do not have a convenience place to mount one that would help in my situation here. If the "ethernet over power lines" experiment I am going to try doesn't work out, I will reconsider a range extender/AP. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 04:21:25 -0000 (UTC), John Doe
wrote: Char Jackson wrote: For your own sanity, please take range extenders off the table. They're awful. You'll probably regret going down that road. That advice might be true generally, but... I bought a Netgear WNDR4300 router and two Netgear WN2500RP extenders off eBay for $50 about seven years ago (very rough estimate), used. Gotten much more than my money's worth out of them. Have been using one extender for high-speed Internet, for several years. Doing great. Been using the router for a security camera in recent years. I have a similar experience with a WN3000RP extender I bought a number of years ago. My initial experience was bad. Any device connected to it would disconnect every few hours. I threw it in a junk box and forgot about it. A year later, I found new firmware was available and installed it. It is in use at a friend's house and has worked perfectly ever since - also used with a security camera. I wish I had a good place to install one here. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 9/16/2020 10:22 AM, Pat wrote:
This is sort of off topic, but I know there are some very knowledgeable people here. I live in a small condo association (20 units) and volunteer to manage our security cameras (15 IP Cameras). Since my unit is near the center of the property and I was able to run fiber to a utility building elsewhere on the property, most of the cameras are hard wired using p.o.e. and work very reliably. However, 3 of the cameras must use 2.4 GHz wifi. My personal wifi easily covers my unit and surrounding area, but barely covers the common area where those 3 cameras are located. That area is roughly 180 feet from my router, so the limited coverage is not a surprise. Quite a few years ago, I purchased a TP-Link WA7210N access point. It is connected to my router via ethernet and is aimed toward those 3 cameras. Adding that AP, made a huge improvement, but it is still not as good as I want. Depending on the weather, whether there are leaves on the trees, and what vehicles are parked nearby, anywhere from 5% to 10% of the messages are lost. Sometimes, no messages are lost for hours. Other times, no contact can be made for 3 or 4 minutes. Usually, it is something in between - a few lost messages per minute. I believe there are three things causing my issues. 1) At 180 feet, the signals are still fairly weak. 2) Being is a well populated area, interference from other wifi networks are a likely problem (one of the cameras can "see" over 50 SSIDs), and 3) being restricted to 2.4 GHz, all my neighbors' microwave ovens are probably causing problems. (My own microwave wipes out those 3 cameras while running, so other people's microwaves are likely to do the same). I have AC power available near the cameras, but there is no protection from the weather available for things like range extenders. I also have no way to run new cables or fiber to that area without digging under long runs of concrete driveway. I am hoping one of you might have an idea I haven't thought of yet. Pat I wonder whether you could effectively increase the gain by placing a V or U-shaped tin foil reflector behind the TP-Link. A good deal of experimenting is needed to get the optimal distance. Perhaps more practical is to connect a 2.4 Hi-gain antenna to the antenna port on the TP-Link, e.g., $30 https://amzn.to/2ZNRGJn |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Char Jackson wrote:
Shorter distance also helps with interference. That's right. Just shorten the distance between you and the device... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|