[asterisk-users] Recommend Wireless IP Phone

[Michael Graves]

On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:05:46 -0500, Drew Gibson wrote:

>Wilton Helm wrote:
>> Good points.  I got an access point instead of a router specifically 
>> so I could locate it in the best position.  IMO Wi-Fi routers are dumb 
>> by definition because where you want a router is probably NOT anywhere 
>> close to the best point for the Wi-Fi part.  This unit has a 
>> particularly sensitive receiver to compliment the higher power.  It 
>> would have been nice it it had MIMO, too, as that always helps.  
>> Repeaters would be a challenge in this case because most of the 
>> property is natural wooded (so no power or protection) and I'm trying 
>> to cover a road by only own property at one end.
>
>"naturally wooded" does not bode well for WiFi. Trees are much better 
>than walls at absorbing 2.4GHz signals due to their high water content. 
>Mountains block 2.4GHz even better. If the woods are deciduous, it may 
>work well in the winter but fade away come spring.
>
>If the road is fairly straight, a directional antenna like a Yagi at one 
>end might give you coverage there. As for the rest of your property, you 
>will have to get an omni antenna up high, say one of your mountains.
>
>You may be better off with something that uses lower frequencies. The 
>old analogue cordless phones have much better range than 2.4GHz digital 
>stuff.
>

This is also one reason why DECT, operating at 1.9 GHz can sometimes
work better than Wifi at 2.4 GHz in the same location. It's even worse
with 5.8 GHz wifi type A.

Of course, the old 900 MHz stuff has great propogation qualities. That
why so many people paid so much for the spectrum once reserved for VHF
TV channels, but soon to be used for other things.

Michael
--
Michael Graves
mgraves<at>mstvp.com
http://blog.mgraves.org
o713-861-4005
c713-201-1262
sip:mjgraves at pixelpower.onsip.com
skype mjgraves
fwd 54245