@Fietzompeu70

The values ​​look good for the IB4.

I also had repeated problems with the automatic channel search and then set the channel manually according to the WLAN quality information, but now only with the 2.4GHz WLAN.

WalterB

@Fietzompeu70

It automatically always used channel 1 for 2.4GHz, even though my neighbors were already using it for the most part. I have now set it manually to channel 4 and so my home switch always remains stable.

However, there are many Sunrise and Salt users in the area.

Below the WLAN quality of 2.4GHz and 5.0GHz.

In the past, I always had channel 100 reset to channels 36-48 on the 5.0GHz because of the alleged weather radar and it now automatically stays on channel 100.

@Fietzompeu70

This is also the case with channel 112 on the IB3, as there are regulations regarding flight and weather radar, which are located on the higher channels, that starts with the channels higher than 48.

@Fietzompeu70

It’s nice that there has now been an improvement with the channel change.

As an additional measure, I would recommend setting the channel width of the WLAN 2.4 GHz fixed to 20 MHz and the WLAN 5 GHz fixed to 80 MHz on the IB4.

The vast majority of WLAN devices can’t handle the “excessively wide” channel widths anyway and narrower channel widths also have a positive effect, reducing mutual interference with the neighbors, which in turn helps everyone.

In densely populated Switzerland, the default values ​​of the WLAN settings of the Internet boxes of 20/40 and 80/160 MHz are actually not optimal and therefore, except in very lonely locations, it is usually worthwhile to manually fix the channel width to be used by the router.

By the way, all of my top WiFi speeds were achieved on the 5GHz with the fixed channel width of 80 MHz.

If you are interested, here is the technical background:

https://www.elektronik-kompendium.de/sites/net/1712061.htm

Yep, Sunrise is hanging around in the 5GHz and destroying the 5GHz. If you have manually set a low power band, then it stays down there. Even if the performance is worse than in the high power range from channel 100 (under normal circumstances). I have a slightly different opinion than Werner on the subject of channel bandwidth, but it doesn’t really matter at the moment.

The interactions with other WLAN networks are greatly overestimated. That’s why I generally recommend the standard IB settings. There is just a special situation in 5GHz at the moment. I would ask the neighbors who has the sunrise nonsense and ask them to turn off the devices 😉

Everything else about manual adjustment is voodoo!

Without wanting to be mean, but the fact that you should use low power channels is pretty nonsense,

Neither Apple nor Samsung devices cause problems in general.

Since almost all 1.7 million Internet boxes are set to automatic WLAN settings, you can see that almost all of them use channel 100. The channels are allowed to use massively more power, which affects speed and range. Radar isn’t really a problem in the crowd.

Yes, according to RIR1010, the transmission power of the wireless access point may be increased in the upper 5 GHz frequency band (5470 - 5725 MHz).

https://www.ofcomnet.ch/api/RIR/1010

EIRP from 200 mW to 1000 mW. Wow!!!

\=>But this increase in transmission power does not bring any added value if you do not use directional radio antennas.

[https://www.bakom.admin.ch/bakom/de/home/geraete-anlagen/besondere-geraete/zulassige-sendeleistung-eirp.html](https://www.bakom.admin.ch/bakom/ de/home/geraete-anlagen/besondere-geraete/zulassige-sendeleistung-eirp.html)

An omnidirectional antenna has an antenna gain of around 3 dBi. An omnidirectional antenna is an antenna that radiates evenly all around, i.e. has an illumination angle of 360°. And a standard wireless access point should have a coverage angle of 360°.

[http://www.ralf-woelfle.de/elektrosmog/redir.htm?http://www.ralf-woelfle.de/elektrosmog/technik/antennen\_3.htm](http://www.ralf- woelfle.de/elektrosmog/redir.htm?http://www.ralf-woelfle.de/elektrosmog/technik/antennen_3.htm)

Commercially available WLAN radio modules, such as the DNXA-116, deliver a maximum of 15 dBm (around 32 mW) at the antenna output.

https://www.unex.com.tw/sheet/DNXA-116.pdf

Without taking into account the usual attenuation (due to losses in the antenna cable, plug connection and so on), this roughly results when using an omnidirectional radiator:

15dBm + 3dBi = 18dBm = 63mW EIRP

You are welcome to measure the difference with an IB 😉

@5018

There is a physical reason why the legislature has allowed channels over 100 to have more transmission power.

This is simply compensation for the fact that the range decreases at higher frequencies.

Admittedly, there may have been a little overcompensation, but that is no reason to make the lower channels in the 5GHz band fundamentally bad.

In practice, in my experience, the difference between the performance of the lower and upper channel parts of the 5 GHz band is very small.

I’m happy to leave the rest of the physical principles to the engineer here in the forum.

I currently see the risk of overuse of the 5 GHz WiFi band in Switzerland coming mainly from two directions:

- Providers like Swisscom and Sunrise, which, regardless of the knowledge that probably not 5% of their customers own a device that is technically capable of using a channel width of 160 MHz, simply set Switzerland as the default value on their provider routers -Spam the entire 5 GHz band with the technically largest possible channel widths

- The whole electronic mesh war with the additional WLAN backhauls, where the router providers sell more and more “WLAN weapons” so that you can still prevail against your neighbors in terms of radio technology

A cooperative system where everyone only uses as much WiFi as they actually need would be much better for the overall benefit.

Settings are based on recommendations from the chipset manufacturers and experience. And how the boxes behave is evaluated. That’s why it all makes sense.

But of course everyone can think about it what they want.

My recommendation remains: let the Internet boxes do their thing. This is usually the best solution.

If you have to work at the dining table all day, you have your notebook connected to the power supply anyway, so an additional network cable no longer bothers you.

Of course, LAN cable is always the best solution anyway, you’re absolutely right.

For cell phones and tablets, WiFi is of course very practical and therefore essential.

---

@5018

My recommendation remains: let the internet boxes do it. This is usually the best solution.

---

Basically you are right.

Of course, this only applies as long as the default values ​​of the chip producers and the provider routers are reasonable for the benefit of the customers.

Currently, router manufacturers and Internet providers mainly just want to “pose” with their maximum technical performance.

True to the motto, if you drive too slowly through the city center, you simply have to get a larger SUV with even more horsepower…

I know we will never agree on this topic, but at least we can agree that we disagree on this point -)-)-)

---

@Werner wrote:

…

For cell phones and tablets, WiFi is of course very practical and therefore essential.

---

But for cell phones and tablets, 10-20 Mbit/s is also enough, meaning you can save yourself the great effort of constant manual WLAN optimization.

Therefore, use smartphones and tablets normally (i.e. without looking at the speedometer) and

Laptop, PC, server, NAS, TV, TV-Box, printer, scanner, media center, … consistently connect to Gigabit Ethernet and it’s good.