Airport Flying Saucer

[dplank]

Is the flying saucer airport router the best? I've had mine since 2003 and it's done a pretty good job, but I'm wondering if anything new from Apple is any better?  

[Xairbusdriver]

Had me going there for a while with that title! Personally, I've never flown a saucer, so I can't give you an objective answer...

However, I do have a 'saucer' hanging on the wall behind our computer desks. It reaches all the house, upstairs and down, out on the back porch...a good 75' circle.

But, as you say, it is several years old. It used the "g" speeds, which are fast enough for most of us. But the new ones are much faster, have more options but a less unique design.

My philosophy, in these kinds of matters, is that if I can justify the new model (business needs, expansion capabilities, etc.), I look for a bargain, save my nickels and...ask my wife if I can! In this case, I'll probably just wait until it dies. OTOH, our grandkids and family are moving in with us late next month. That will mean another iPhone and a MBP. Not sure if that will slow down the throughput, however, since they probably won't all be on-line at the same time. We'll see.

[dplank]

Which of the new faster ones are the best or good ones?

[RHPConsult]

I have the latest Airport Extreme Base Station ("candy box" vs "The Yurt"). When new it was excellent, but something has happened in its "coverage" of our home in just the last few months that so far, escapes identification. There's a huge falloff of broadband speed when measured mol at the AEBS, rather than 75-80 ft away in another corner of the house. It's an 11.n. box

e.g. in the office I share with my wife, within the past few days I was able consistently to DL @ 2l.07 Mb/s, day or night; upload was 4.45 Mb/s. However, 45 feet down the hall another 75 feet, and then to an opposite corner of the house, the speeds (consistently) become DL 0.65 Mb/s and UL 1.60 Mb/s.

Add-in this curiosity: I reside on the San Francisco Peninsula, approximately 2 air miles south of the SF International Airport. Line-of-sight to a Westin Hotel along the Bay Shore is approximately 1.5 miles, from which our AEBS regularly detects a Guest Network, from the very same spot in our residence – significantly removed from the AEBS – where my MacBook Pro has been having difficulty keeping a fast OR stable connection, i.e. 75-80 feet distant.

[attachment=1903:Loyola_to_Westin.jpg]

YMMV (I would hope!)  

PS: I'm hoping to find a meter that measures signal strength to see what I can learn in various sections of the house, but thus far they are quite expensive.

[krissel]

Gee Dick, can you piggyback on that guest network for free?  

[RHPConsult]

Only "guests" of the hotel get the password, apparently.

There's a Starbucks about ⅔ of the distance to the hotel. Out of 100% pure inquisitiveness, I've thought of going down there to see what kind of speeds, at what distances (from whatever is its "base station") might be available. I'm pretty sure that info is of little or no value in my present dilemma, but I am curious. It's one way to gauge "performance", I guess, but my walking about the house should have done that. Repeatedly!

Can anyone think of a meter of any sort that just might give an index of whatever kinds of devices could be interfering with a consistent connection? So far I've eliminated/controlled-for . . .

• time of day
• hardware (i.e moving the 2 Expresses also in "the system")
• having the Apple Store run a Hardware Test
• any 2.4 vs. 5 GHz, or channel 8 vs 9 differences in performance

The enigma in this entire circumstance is that the SAME hardware functioned beautifully, oh, 6 months or so ago. Subsequently, we have acquired only ONE electronic device (called ConnectLine - a blue tooth connector between my hearing aids' streamer and the audio output of the TV) and even though I could not imagine it conflicting with Airport EBS, I disconnected it for a number of walkabout tests, as noted above. No difference.

The AEBS has no port for an external antenna, so I can't jack-up any signals that way. I surmise (if only from the nifty way it worked when it was new) that the designers thought it had enough "power".

I asked AppleCare if hanging the AEBS up near the ceiling of the "office" (it's always been at shoulder-height) might effect positive change. "Negative".

"Meter, meter, anyone got an ideas of a meter?"

[Xairbusdriver]

Sure sounds like someone in your neighborhood added a WiFi router that is interfering with yours. The two channels you tested may or may not be adjacent and there may already have been a neighbor on the one you weren't using. I believe there are many more channels available and would suggest testing every one of them.

While the hotel may have a strong signal, they (should) have legal authority for that extra power. The models we consumers use (any brand) are limited to a fraction of a watt. Period. That's why most makers recommend buying multiple units serving as repeaters to cover larger areas, one unit just can't handle much more that ~100 foot circle, IMHO. Normal home construction is not too big a hindrance, but steel studs, as found in most commercial walls, are a BIG signal blocker! And not just for WiFi...

Taking the box to Apple simply 'proves' the box is working, it won't tell you anything about how its signals travel in your home (or any place else, of course). Here's a link to a source of <relatively inexpensive meters> for testing signal strength. It should be able to ferret out any neighbors with over-powered radio equipment, also. OTOH, <here's a meter> that will only reach the 2.5GHz band, so that won't help much with the higher freqs...I guess you can forego the $ 4,395.00 on that one, but I'll bet it comes in a nice box... HOLD THE PRESSES! You can save $ 2,000 by getting that meter <here>! (it would be appreciated if you would provide me with a 10% finders fee on that $2,000 I saved you...please remit in small, unmarked bills...thanks!)

Of course, the simplest scheme is to check the yellow pages for radio testing services and offer them some nice cool tea while watching, on your back porch, the traffic at SFO.

[dplank]

Thanks guys. I'm not sure that helps, but I am getting a course in wi-fi interference problems.

I think I'll update to an Airport Extreme. I'm sure the newer technology will improve my reception.

[Xairbusdriver]

Just remember that a WiFi transmitter/receiver is a WiFi transmitter/receiver (old ones use slower transfer rates, newer ones may also have additional channels and brighter 'whistles'). That's one reason there are few replies to your request for the "best" model. All are limited, by law, to the same maximum output. Apple simply puts theirs in a more different box (although the new ones are hardly uniquely styled), creates the software that makes it easier to set up and supports Macs. There are other brands that work just as well but may be slightly more difficult to set up. Most of them come with browser based (html) access and no other software to install. They are more like a commodity than a particular company's product. I don't think there is any measurable difference between any brand, other than dimensions. Apple also puts these things in a box with a hard drive in it and sells them as wireless backup devices and calls them Time Capsules. So, if you need 1 or 2 TB of external storage, that might be the "best" choice. But, even there, I think you can find similar products from brands and their called 'wireless or network storage devices.'

[dplank]

Thanks for your thoughts. I do appreciate them.

I guess I didn't understand how you were relating my problem to what you guys had experienced.


Thanks again

[Xairbusdriver]

Perhaps I didn't understand your problem (it wouldn't be the first time ). I guess I generalzed too much in my descriptions. While slightly more complicated, WiFi routers are similar to ham radios or, even more closely, to mobile home phones. Different models have different colored boxes and maybe a few extra buttons/dials but they all do the same thing. I doubt that you can find a new 2003 Apple model or most other brands. The newer ones have additional frequencies (just like those mobile phones) which helps in congested areas, but they also have faster throughput. So nobody bothers building the slower, less useful kind. Plus, WiFi-networked storage (hard drives) weren't even thought of in 2003.

So, are the newer models "better?" Most would probably agree, just as 'modern' cars are better thanatos model T. Which are "best?" I think that is a subjective judgement. My '2003' model still works fine, does everything I need and looks unique! I'm happy! Why spend money for something I don't yet need? "No problem? No new/extra costs!"

But if there is a problem, that's a different matter, entirely. Still, the solution is just to buy a new one, pick your favorite flavor. That's about the only difference...but there I go generalizing, again!

[gunug]

This guy may have an improved idea for wifi reception.  Strangely enough I've seen an antenna array that looked
kind of like a stack of coins at a school in the Raymore-Peculiar school district!  It was sort of like this picture except
it had 6-8 circular elements:



I've posted this with you in mind XABD! I can't see a man of your quiet dignity running around with the Dish Network antenna and the tin-foil chapeau
upon your head!  

QUOTE

I am thinking about looking into lining the wall of my bedroom with aluminum foil, where it is adjacent to the Lawrence Freenet router outside my window. If the special paint that they have will block wifi signals I would think that aluminum foil would be better than "duct tape" at least.

http://www.techsurvivors.net/forums/index....showtopic=23049

Seriously you can also work with foil and other things to block the signal coming from another outlaying Wireless Access Point.  We've discussed the paint that is being sold to block wifi in retail locations.  I don't know if this available in retail paint places but I've seen it in electronic outlets (not Radio Shack)!