A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

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.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Windows 10 » Windows 10 Help Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Wifi cameras



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 16th 20, 06:22 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Pat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 55
Default Wifi cameras

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
  #2  
Old September 16th 20, 07:01 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
John Doe[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,378
Default Wifi cameras

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  
Old September 16th 20, 07:46 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Zaidy036[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 79
Default Wifi cameras

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  
Old September 16th 20, 08:24 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default Wifi cameras

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  
Old September 16th 20, 10:47 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Pat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 55
Default Wifi cameras

[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  
Old September 17th 20, 04:18 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,449
Default Wifi cameras

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  
Old September 17th 20, 05:21 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
John Doe[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,378
Default Wifi cameras

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  
Old September 17th 20, 12:08 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Pat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 55
Default Wifi cameras

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.
  #9  
Old September 17th 20, 12:00 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Pat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 55
Default Wifi cameras

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.


  #10  
Old September 17th 20, 08:49 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
John Doe[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,378
Default Wifi cameras

Char Jackson wrote:

Shorter distance also helps with interference.


That's right. Just shorten the distance between you and the device...
  #11  
Old September 17th 20, 05:23 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Bennett[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default Wifi cameras

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
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2023 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.