On 07/12/2014 13:32, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 07 Dec 2014 09:44:50 +0000, polygonum wrote:

On 07/12/2014 09:40, fred wrote:
In article , polygonum
writes
On 07/12/2014 01:09, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2014 23:32:33 +0000, polygonum wrote:

Then use 5GHz...

What makes you think that would make any difference? Anyway the AP
doesn't do 5 GHz and was free as in skip.

It makes a big difference to clashing with other 2.4GHz stuff.

I did a standard bottom-post response to your whole response - but you
only quoted half - the bit that was not relevant.

If you mean the, "Then use 5GHz..." post then that was all it contained,
no snippage that I can see.


=====
On 06/12/2014 23:20, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2014 15:14:02 +0000, JoeJoe wrote:

- No other network in the vicinity.

Only WiFi points that are broadcasting an SSID show up on a "network
scan". Point to point links generally don't and there is an awful lot
of other kit that uses 2.4 GHz, like video senders.

- Pretty much line of sight between router and camera.

You can have too much signal that causes overload of the recievers.
My phones WiFi really doen't like being within 3' of the WiFi access
point.

Then use 5GHz...
====

My entire response, sans sig, was as above. I thought that it was fairly
clear that 5GHz was as opposed to 2.4GHz.

What makes you think that 5 GHz receivers are less likely to suffer
from overload? I think you are missing the point, it's not the number
of different signals (thiugh that doesn't help) but how strong even a
single signal is. Move my phone to 12' from the AP and it's much
happier.

I think I must have fallen into a strange parallel universe in which the
words I use, which appear to make sense to me (on context) don't to
others. :-(

If you are able to hop over to 5 GHz then you avoid competing with all
the crap like video senders. Round here, it also reduces the number of
visible Wifi signals.

--
Rod