To WiFi users.

Do you reduce your router’s WiFi Transmit Power to the bare minimum as required by you?

  • Do you just keep it at the default 100%
  • Did you not know you could reduce it (until now)
  • Are you not able to control “your” WiFi router because it’s the ISP provided router and they didn’t give you the password?
  • Do you actually require the 100% !?
  • leaky_shower_thought@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    16 days ago

    i think on mine it is labeled as ‘max transmit power’. i dunno how often it will try to max transmit, but I set it enough to cover the usual places i chill around.

    sometimes i do require 100%, for science. but on day-to-day, nah.

  • yeehaw@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    16 days ago

    You only need to reduce it if it will interfere with another one of your WAPs. In most cases, auto power settings are fine.

    Typically you’d reduce it if you had a high density environment with lots of devices (IE office building) because one WAP and network cable can only handle so much traffic, so the WAPs can load balance or have reduced coverage to split the load.

  • Monument@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    16 days ago

    I reduced max power, but keep my AP’s set to auto manage up to that max level.

    There’s basically a plane of signal that bisects the house where the RSSI of each AP is the same. It intersects with areas where people commonly are on their phones. Depending on humidity, location of people and pets, or even just dumb luck, devices were just bouncing between the AP’s, fishing for whichever had the stronger signal. Dropping the power levels made it so the overlap between the AP’s was less, and adjusting the RSSI at which the AP would hand off clients upward made it so handoffs were less frequent. Small throughput sacrifice in the transition zone, but without the constant bouncing between AP’s (which has no throughput).

    • ulterno@programming.devOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      16 days ago

      I remember someone in the Uni hostel having a similar problem.
      All they could do was change the jumpiness in their device. It worked though.

  • Miles O'Brien@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    16 days ago

    I use my cell data in my bedroom because it’s more stable than my router connection. I wish I had control of the router, but it’s not my house. I’d just move the router to a more centralized location instead of the farthest corner.

    Back before I moved, I kept the router at one of the reduced power modes it had built in(can’t remember the exact settings) since the room it sat in was the best room for signal distribution, you still got full signal anywhere you went.

  • Bruncvik@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    16 days ago

    When I lived in and apartment, I used a WRT wifi router as my bridge, for the sole purpose to boost the signal strength to the maximum, just to power through the interference from other apartments. My house came prewired with Cat-6 cables, so now I have small wifi hubs at minimum strength on each floor for my phone and home automation.

    • ulterno@programming.devOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      16 days ago

      just to power through the interference from other apartments

      Yeah, it would have helped for your neighbours to have reduced their power a bit.

  • pHr34kY@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    16 days ago

    I mounted mine to the outdoor TV antenna mast, added an open SSID and set it to 100%. If I’m covering the entire sports oval next to me I might as well share it.

    (And yes, I know how to isolate the subnet)

  • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮 @pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    16 days ago

    The only devices I’ve ever used that allow that were super high powered Ubiquity devices that could shoot signal several miles away in a straight line that I installed for a WISP. Even my fancy ASUS router doesn’t have any way of lowering the power. 🤨

    And the answer is no. Especially when I setup a few Ubiquity Nanos on my own network to shoot my home wifi all across town. I could go down to the city park and still be on wifi. Shit was dope.

    • ulterno@programming.devOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      16 days ago

      You just went over 9000% instead!

      fancy ASUS router doesn’t have any way

      Maybe it’s just the ATPC, that’s why they thought they didn’t need to add the setting.
      Mine is a pretty old, cheap 2.4GHz only model from the days when 5GHz had just entered the market.

  • bajabound@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    16 days ago

    I let the APs auto manage their tx power. Aerohive firmware does a decent job of not running wide open when it doesn’t need to. I also have 1 AP per floor to get adequate coverage.

    My cable modem doesn’t have Wi-Fi. I turned it off on my router since it’s in the basement and there’s a dedicated AP down there.

  • Brkdncr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    16 days ago

    No but I live in the middle of nowhere.

    I lived in an apt building that the only service provider was att, with a required, unique router. Ever person had the same router, and the routers default settings was to blast at full over 2.4ghz with a 40hz spread.

    It was completely unusable. Everyone was jamming everyone else.

    I bought a router solely so I could turn off 2.4ghz and use only 5ghz.

    • ulterno@programming.devOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      16 days ago

      It was completely unusable. Everyone was jamming everyone else.

      The companies deserve all the flak they get in this case. They know it is congested because they are the ones who did it, but don’t care to think about it.

      The least they could do is to let the user change the settings, but “oooh nooo PICNIC!”

      • Brkdncr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        16 days ago

        Enterprise APs can use their radios to see what channels are full, and make adjustments automatically.

        There’s no good reason att couldn’t do this, especially when they have a micro monopoly in a building. It’s just greed and incompetence.

    • yeehaw@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      16 days ago

      Hopefully they’re far enough apart then, otherwise you can actually reduce performance.

  • MudMan@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    17 days ago

    The bare minimum required by me is past the default my ISP-provided router allowed and I ened up having to do a bunch of extra stuff to get full coverage.

    So no.

  • slazer2au@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    17 days ago

    No. the AP will use ATPC to limit itself so why do something manually when it does it automagically.

      • slazer2au@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        17 days ago

        It’s not like its a well known feature. The only reason I know about it is because I use to be an RF tech.

        • ulterno@programming.devOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          17 days ago

          I looked into my router’s datasheet and all I can say is that it either doesn’t have it or they didn’t care to write it in (home model, nobody cares about details).

          Also, the settings interface doesn’t have any reference, neither is the Transmit Power field saying “Max Transmit Power” (which would have lead me to believe that it may reduce the power in certain cases), so I am going to go with “No”, considering how old it is