I have one of these
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Dericam-H502...item4abbba336c

It works fine, but the streaming speed is very disappointing most of the
time. It is connected wirelessly - the signal is very strong - all the
other equipment around the house is wired.

The camera supports up to 25fps, but apart from a short period last week
where is suddenly started to stream at 22-24fps I have never seen it
working at over 10-11fps, and often at only 5fps. Even placing the
camera immediately next to the router didn't improve matters. Wiring it
to the router resulted in around 15fps.

There are no other wi-fi network in the house/area.

The camera and the router are both static and I tried to boot them both
and disconnect everything else, but couldn't get a faster speed.

Any tips as to how to try and get fps?

TIA.

On 05/12/2014 14:20, JoeJoe wrote:
I have one of these
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Dericam-H502...item4abbba336c


It works fine, but the streaming speed is very disappointing most of the
time. It is connected wirelessly - the signal is very strong - all the
other equipment around the house is wired.

The camera supports up to 25fps, but apart from a short period last week
where is suddenly started to stream at 22-24fps I have never seen it
working at over 10-11fps, and often at only 5fps. Even placing the
camera immediately next to the router didn't improve matters. Wiring it
to the router resulted in around 15fps.

There are no other wi-fi network in the house/area.

The camera and the router are both static and I tried to boot them both
and disconnect everything else, but couldn't get a faster speed.

Any tips as to how to try and get fps?

TIA.


Have you checked for firmware updates?

--
Rod

On 05/12/2014 19:31, polygonum wrote:
On 05/12/2014 14:20, JoeJoe wrote:
I have one of these
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Dericam-H502...item4abbba336c



It works fine, but the streaming speed is very disappointing most of the
time. It is connected wirelessly - the signal is very strong - all the
other equipment around the house is wired.

The camera supports up to 25fps, but apart from a short period last week
where is suddenly started to stream at 22-24fps I have never seen it
working at over 10-11fps, and often at only 5fps. Even placing the
camera immediately next to the router didn't improve matters. Wiring it
to the router resulted in around 15fps.

There are no other wi-fi network in the house/area.

The camera and the router are both static and I tried to boot them both
and disconnect everything else, but couldn't get a faster speed.

Any tips as to how to try and get fps?

TIA.


Have you checked for firmware updates?


Yes, I have the latest.

I wouldn't be too bothered had I not seen the camera streaming at a high
speed. My setup is clearly capable of it, I just cannot see what stops
it from doing it all the time.

"JoeJoe" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 05/12/2014 19:31, polygonum wrote:
On 05/12/2014 14:20, JoeJoe wrote:
I have one of these
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Dericam-H502...item4abbba336c



It works fine, but the streaming speed is very disappointing most of the
time. It is connected wirelessly - the signal is very strong - all the
other equipment around the house is wired.

The camera supports up to 25fps, but apart from a short period last week
where is suddenly started to stream at 22-24fps I have never seen it
working at over 10-11fps, and often at only 5fps. Even placing the
camera immediately next to the router didn't improve matters. Wiring it
to the router resulted in around 15fps.

There are no other wi-fi network in the house/area.

The camera and the router are both static and I tried to boot them both
and disconnect everything else, but couldn't get a faster speed.

Any tips as to how to try and get fps?

TIA.


Have you checked for firmware updates?


Yes, I have the latest.

I wouldn't be too bothered had I not seen the camera streaming at a high
speed. My setup is clearly capable of it, I just cannot see what stops it
from doing it all the time.

With that seller's feedback record, I'd be asking him what he is going to do
about it.

On 06/12/2014 05:16, Rod Speed wrote:


"JoeJoe" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 05/12/2014 19:31, polygonum wrote:
On 05/12/2014 14:20, JoeJoe wrote:
I have one of these
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Dericam-H502...item4abbba336c




It works fine, but the streaming speed is very disappointing most of
the
time. It is connected wirelessly - the signal is very strong - all the
other equipment around the house is wired.

The camera supports up to 25fps, but apart from a short period last
week
where is suddenly started to stream at 22-24fps I have never seen it
working at over 10-11fps, and often at only 5fps. Even placing the
camera immediately next to the router didn't improve matters. Wiring it
to the router resulted in around 15fps.

There are no other wi-fi network in the house/area.

The camera and the router are both static and I tried to boot them both
and disconnect everything else, but couldn't get a faster speed.

Any tips as to how to try and get fps?

TIA.


Have you checked for firmware updates?


Yes, I have the latest.

I wouldn't be too bothered had I not seen the camera streaming at a
high speed. My setup is clearly capable of it, I just cannot see what
stops it from doing it all the time.

With that seller's feedback record, I'd be asking him what he is going
to do about it.

I bought it from another seller who is no longer on eBay... :-(

JoeJoe pretended :
I have one of these
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Dericam-H502...item4abbba336c

It works fine, but the streaming speed is very disappointing most of the
time. It is connected wirelessly - the signal is very strong - all the other
equipment around the house is wired.

The camera supports up to 25fps, but apart from a short period last week
where is suddenly started to stream at 22-24fps I have never seen it working
at over 10-11fps, and often at only 5fps. Even placing the camera
immediately next to the router didn't improve matters. Wiring it to the
router resulted in around 15fps.

There are no other wi-fi network in the house/area.

The camera and the router are both static and I tried to boot them both and
disconnect everything else, but couldn't get a faster speed.

Any tips as to how to try and get fps?

That is fair for a wireless link, if you need more you need it to be
wired. Wireless is much slower than wired anyway, then both out bound
and in bound have to share the capacity, collisions and any external
interference reduce that even more, as will other devices sharing your
wifi.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

On 06/12/2014 12:23, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
JoeJoe pretended :
I have one of these
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Dericam-H502...item4abbba336c


It works fine, but the streaming speed is very disappointing most of
the time. It is connected wirelessly - the signal is very strong - all
the other equipment around the house is wired.

The camera supports up to 25fps, but apart from a short period last
week where is suddenly started to stream at 22-24fps I have never seen
it working at over 10-11fps, and often at only 5fps. Even placing the
camera immediately next to the router didn't improve matters. Wiring
it to the router resulted in around 15fps.

There are no other wi-fi network in the house/area.

The camera and the router are both static and I tried to boot them
both and disconnect everything else, but couldn't get a faster speed.

Any tips as to how to try and get fps?

That is fair for a wireless link, if you need more you need it to be
wired. Wireless is much slower than wired anyway, then both out bound
and in bound have to share the capacity, collisions and any external
interference reduce that even more, as will other devices sharing your
wifi.


I understand all that, however:

- Without making any change to my setup saw the link holding 25fps.
- There are no other devices sharing the wi-fi.
- No other network in the vicinity.
- Pretty much line of sight between router and camera.

This is why I am a little puzzled bout the low speed...

"JoeJoe" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 06/12/2014 05:16, Rod Speed wrote:


"JoeJoe" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 05/12/2014 19:31, polygonum wrote:
On 05/12/2014 14:20, JoeJoe wrote:
I have one of these
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Dericam-H502...item4abbba336c




It works fine, but the streaming speed is very disappointing most of
the
time. It is connected wirelessly - the signal is very strong - all the
other equipment around the house is wired.

The camera supports up to 25fps, but apart from a short period last
week
where is suddenly started to stream at 22-24fps I have never seen it
working at over 10-11fps, and often at only 5fps. Even placing the
camera immediately next to the router didn't improve matters. Wiring
it
to the router resulted in around 15fps.

There are no other wi-fi network in the house/area.

The camera and the router are both static and I tried to boot them
both
and disconnect everything else, but couldn't get a faster speed.

Any tips as to how to try and get fps?

TIA.


Have you checked for firmware updates?


Yes, I have the latest.

I wouldn't be too bothered had I not seen the camera streaming at a
high speed. My setup is clearly capable of it, I just cannot see what
stops it from doing it all the time.

With that seller's feedback record, I'd be asking him what he is going
to do about it.

I bought it from another seller who is no longer on eBay... :-(

Then I'd check if others are complaining about that problem with that
camera.

You could try asking the manufacturer, but you may not get a sensible
answer.

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.

--
Cheers
Dave.

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...

--
Rod

On Sat, 06 Dec 2014 23:32:33 +0000, polygonum wrote:

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...

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

--
Cheers
Dave.

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

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...

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.

--
Rod

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.
--
fred
it's a ba-na-na . . . .

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.

--
Rod

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.

--
Cheers
Dave.

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