infectiousoma

Also we clean up the messes that other fools that don't know wifi create. They create self interference and we get called in to redo it. We don't even need to change equipment. They just throw **** up they don't understand and cause the channels to overlap.

https://kb.wisc.edu/ns/page.php?id=7829 Oops I mixed up 100 meters with feet. So a little more than 200. Also you don't understand the OSI model. Every camera is a computer. Wifi or not. And as for security, encryption man. It takes a very powerful computer to decrypt 1024 or larger AES.

You understand that we are talking about cameras here not laptops? You dont seem to have any experience with ip cameras. Yes, laptops and phones can easily accommodate and make up for packet loss..They also are not streaming 100 percent of the time..LEARN...STUDY...WOW A true green novice. I may have given you too much credit..They shouldn't let you carry the screws....wait in the truck. I did state that we do Surveillance as-well. And basically any IP device goes by the same principals. An IP light switch, thermostat, anything. It works the same. If you have a cheapy camera, you're going to have a bad time. If the antenna has a low Dbi your gonna have a bad time, if your access point is inferior well, your gonna have a bad time. Networking is networking and equipment is equipment. We set up wireless cameras from axis, they work fine. If you know wireless it works fine. An engineer can take the same camera and access point that you had a bad time with, and make it work with little to no effort. I feel bad for your customers...hopefully you are using the edge storage available on those cameras....It seems like you guys have no clue...no worriers...eventually a new competent contractor will clean up your mess. Every statement you made in your original post proves you are incompetent. Not knowing the basic specs for ethernet range? Come on. You are clueless. Sad really. Hopefully you didnt install wifi cameras at fenway and yacht clubs in Massachusetts ...its now a huge security risk... Our customers are happy. I have not seen a single post from a Red Sox fan complaining about our wifi, and the billion dollar Yacht Clubs are happy with our Wifi and Wireless surveillance so yeah, I cant argue with stupid.

You understand that we are talking about cameras here not laptops? You dont seem to have any experience with ip cameras. Yes, laptops and phones can easily accommodate and make up for packet loss..They also are not streaming 100 percent of the time..LEARN...STUDY...WOW A true green novice. I may have given you too much credit..They shouldn't let you carry the screws....wait in the truck. I did state that we do Surveillance as-well. And basically any IP device goes by the same principals. An IP light switch, thermostat, anything. It works the same. If you have a cheapy camera, you're going to have a bad time. If the antenna has a low Dbi your gonna have a bad time, if your access point is inferior well, your gonna have a bad time. Networking is networking and equipment is equipment. We set up wireless cameras from axis, they work fine. If you know wireless it works fine. An engineer can take the same camera and access point that you had a bad time with, and make it work with little to no effort.

Basically anyone claiming to understand Wifi while making statements like, Computers and phones don't care about packet loss. Or whatever his exact words were, and wifi wouldn't work in a crowded city. Well as I stated above, my laptop and other devices were effected by an interfering channel until I changed the channel. That debunks his statement. The crowded city statement can have truth, but in that case you are mostly securing your apartment from inside, and perhaps your outside your door. The apartment complex should already have security. My relatives live in Cambridge, in a house. A small house, but enough distance where they can select an unused channel, also tuning the antennas dbs to an appropriate level for the distance you need would help too. If you really have an issue you could set up a network on the unlicensed white space, and then connect the radios to the ethernet jack on the camera. Be careful because there are frequencies that if your caught using, the FCC will bust your ass. 900 Mhz is a good frequency that our company uses a lot too, but can get interference from many small devices. But basically, you can find a way to make it work without packet loss, and such. The issues described are from someone that doesn't understand networking and the same issues can occur over copper as-well and will need some decent troubleshooting. Even our technicians had trouble debugging a networking issue over an ethernet that had no obvious issues. The wire seemed fine, but the network was still not working. A camera is the same as any other network device, it can work just as well as a laptop, assuming the hardware is on the up and up. There are plenty of products with **** tier hardware and that goes for wired products as well. Cameras, wireless nics on your laptop or desktop, in your phone. The point is you get what you pay for, and even if the product is fine and your router is fine, you need to know what your doing or you get the issues described. And as I have stated twice, laptops and phones are effected too, its the router that chooses to prioritize those devices, but once a small handful of devices are on it you will still get issues. I had my laptop and phone on, but my friend attached his laptop to the network and suddenly I lost internet, even while having a decent signal. Clearly the packet loss that boogieman claimed didn't effect laptops. I changed the channel to 11, a channel my neighbors weren't using because most comcast techs will use the low channels and my wife was flawless. Also my Cisco router reaches about twice as far as my comcast one. I have two networks and they don't interfere with each other. And when I put my Cisco router in the center of the house, I will cover everything except my back yard, but a sector ap will cover the entire acre just fine, but the camera would need an external sector subscriber module as we call them to point right at the sector since the omni won't reach across the acre. Or I could swap antennas and it would work just fine. My issue there is that I would still need to run power to cameras an acre away. But thats still half the copper that I'd need to use if it was wired, and they can cut it. They can cut my power, but an external battery as a backup would circumvent that, and I doubt they would be expecting that.

We also do the surveillance at all the Yacht Clubs in Massachusetts as-well.

I want to put in my two cents seeing as how I work for the company that installed the wireless network in Fenway park, and as I'm sure you realize they have many factors that can interfere. With wifi, the spectrum is split into channels. Unless you live in a crammed apartment complex with 100's of units, the spectrum isn't going to be eaten up. Even if you do live in such a place, only so many apartments are even in range to interfere. So out of the 11 channels, and you have either 2.4 or 5 Ghz to choose from, you can surely find an unused channel for your access point. You're cheap Comcast router wont' have the software to analyze the signal and determine which channels are free, but our hardware has it built in, and also my cisco router at home. Now you can always just try each channel or download a spectrum analyzer to use on your laptop. The issues you depict sound just like there were two networks colliding. I had that issue with my network and I couldn't even use my laptop properly and when another person got on my wifi our devices fought each other for use. Now after I changed to channel 11; problem solved. Sounds just like the thing you claim doesn't effect computers huh. Another factor is range. My ****ty comcast router is in the center of the house, and when I go to either end I get poor signal, my cisco router in my room at one end of the house is accessible all the way on the other end out on my porch. Of course I will move it to the center when I set up my camera system, and I have no concern for a wireless system because unlike you I'm not an idiot. Now if you feel like spending ****loads on cable be my guest, but many large campuses use wireless to transmit between buildings, or even segments of a building, then use wired to go to each room. Saves thousands. I have a pool house and I want to mount cameras there. Instead of spending the cash on 200 feet of cable and a signal amplifier because ethernet is ineffective over more than 100, I will use a sector access point. Like 45 degrees or smaller, since we all know that an omni-directional access point has its restrictions. From there I will have a switch and link my cameras to that. Now I will admit the flaw in wireless is that it can be jammed. But smart enough technology can switch between channels and even frequencies. I'm sure these cameras don't have that. Guess what though, your average Joe burglar doesn't have a signal jammar, or even realize how easy it is to do so. Also, and this applies to all IR sensitive cameras on even the most high end systems. If I have IR LEDS around my head and an IR flashlight, your camera is blind. It uses IR to see in the night, but it picks up the reflected IR. Direct IR will blind it. A dead giveaway if the system is being monitored live, but not for an average home system that is only storing it for later and even for many stores that aren't being constantly monitored. What you shown is that you don't understand wireless and that's why you can't use the technology. Maybe you had someone streaming netflix or playing wow on the same router that you had your camera on. Also just to point out, copper cable has a life span, and is fragile. The camera can be detectable and even accessible, but still drop packets. Everything can test out and seem fine and you can still have an issue. So to make a long story short, you don't know what your talking about.