[Cu-wireless] major interference

[Paul A. Kennedy]

> On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 10:08:00AM -0500, Sascha Meinrath wrote:
> > I think it will probably be easier for the CUW network to move ourselves
> > from channel 11 -- I recommend channel 3 since no one seems to be using it
> > and it's fairly far from both channel 6 and channel 1.  Most off the shelf
> > hardware defaults to channel 11, so I would expect that we'd constantly
> > have interference problems popping up on it.  I think if we hard-coded our
> > software to use channel 3 we'd be able to do a network wide switchover in
> > just a couple hours.
> 
>   On channel 3, we will take heavy interference from volo.net on "both
>   sides," channels 1 and 6. Interference from consumer gear on channel 11
>   will ordinarily be lighter than volo interference. If we tune channel 8,
>   9, or 10, then we may better off than at 3.

I meant to weigh in on this earlier--I am in agreement with Dave at this
point.  The wireless "channel" is really a misnomer--it's more of a
center frequency.  This is a spread spectrum technology (i.e., wide
bandwidth in exchange for better anti-jamming properties from things
transmitting in one range).

I think that we should stay away from where Volo is operating.  It's in
nobody's interest to have us interfering with each other.

I'm not fully convinced that moving away from channel 11 should be the
major focus of effort.

Paul