No Tx power adjustment for RT-AC1900P ?

[TonyH]

"TonyH - I worked S. Africa with 500mW home brew TX dangling at a feed point of a gain antenna facing long path using coherent CW mode."

I hope you didn't have the 500mW TX antenna broadcasting in 2.4Ghz right next to where you spent most of your time working... and they say keeping a cell phone in your pocket is bad... yikes.

I've got my own strange experience with 2.4Ghz Tx and it isn't good. It's not really a story for this thread. I don't want to frighten the average user but let's just say from my experience I would highly recommend keeping exposure to 2.4Ghz radio signals at a minimum.

You haven't got a clue what coherent CW mode is. No more wasting time.

 

[SoCalReviews]

You haven't got a clue what coherent CW mode is. No more wasting time.

Relax TonyH, We're all supposed to trying to be helpful here aren't we? I'm not a HAM radio operator nor have I ever claimed to be any type of communications or wireless networking expert. I hope you posted to help answer questions relating to the topic of this thread... and not try to impress the world with your knowledge... or I would agree that you are just wasting time.

 

[SoCalReviews]

If Asus does something related to the FCC, I am legally forced to leave that code untouched.

I get it. No more water tank escape tricks. Stay safe my friend.

 

[L&LD]

[QUOTE="SoCalReviews, post: 271787, member: 13952I've got my own strange experience with 2.4Ghz Tx and it isn't good. It's not really a story for this thread. I don't want to frighten the average user but let's just say from my experience I would highly recommend keeping exposure to 2.4Ghz radio signals at a minimum.[/QUOTE]

Would love to read about this further. Please post it in other discussions.

 

[thiggins]

FCC ranting aside, reducing Tx power is helpful to prevent coverage overlaps and co-channel interference in multi-AP setups. If the new FCC rules prevent this (and I find it hard to believe they do), that will be a very bad thing for enterprise Wi-Fi installs.

 

[SoCalReviews]

FCC ranting aside, reducing Tx power is helpful to prevent coverage overlaps and co-channel interference in multi-AP setups. If the new FCC rules prevent this (and I find it hard to believe they do), that will be a very bad thing for enterprise Wi-Fi installs.

Exactly... and this issue does effect me because I am using two separate wifi networks broadcasting 2.4Ghz. I don't need full 2.4Ghz power on one of the networks. My neighborhood is already very crowded on 2.4Ghz so it helps to only broadcast with the least Tx power I need to reach the middle of my house. My other router is full 2.4Ghz Tx power and reaches everywhere in and around my house.

Quoting my post earlier in this thread...

"For various reasons with my setup I have two routers that are on completely different networks... one on each side of my house. One uses 2.4Ghz full power and the other is reduced power... mostly so I don't crowd an already crowded wifi in my area and to reduce radiation in my office where I sit next to it."

It really doesn't make sense for the FCC to force router owners to blast their 2.4Ghz signal and potentially overlap their neighbors. But completely restricting access to Tx power controls does just that. 5Ghz doesn't go very far anyway and in comparison it doesn't pose the same radiation risks that 2.4Ghz does (the higher 5Ghz frequency doesn't penetrate matter and vibrate water molecules the way 2.4Ghz does) so I don't mind going full Tx power with 5Ghz. I hope Asus re-enables the option to lower the power in their future firmware.

 

[SoCalReviews]

[QUOTE="SoCalReviews, post: 271787, member: 13952I've got my own strange experience with 2.4Ghz Tx and it isn't good. It's not really a story for this thread. I don't want to frighten the average user but let's just say from my experience I would highly recommend keeping exposure to 2.4Ghz radio signals at a minimum.

"...Would love to read about this further. Please post it in other discussions."

I have my experience that I can talk about privately or in another thread. I won't discuss it here because for whatever reason it seems to be such a sensitive issue. There are no secrets about this. It's been a known scientific fact that 2.4Ghz frequency range has unique characteristics compared to other frequencies in that it has the ability to excite water molecules. You can do an internet search and read about it on thousands of sites. The debate on this issue is what level of power poses any kind of health risk. I'll just leave it at that. Let me know if you want to discuss it further or if you want you can do your own research.

Common knowledge about 2.4Ghz frequency radiation...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_2.4_GHz_radio_use

Common scientific knowledge about the human body and it's percentage of water....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_water

 

[sfx2000]

I have my experience that I can talk about privately or in another thread. I won't discuss it here because for whatever reason it seems to be such a sensitive issue. There are no secrets about this.

It's not that you have feelings one way or another - and collectively, we're probably more aligned than not... I'm not trying to quash conversation - rather - I'm trying to limit the noise...

It's just that the whole FCC thing has been debated to death here - and it is what it is - and I have an have FCC license that allows me to experiment with Tx levels far beyond Part 15... but I understand their position and the community posture - and I'm very sympathetic towards the hobbyist community.

FCC took away a bit, and they gave a lot in return - and take it from me - the FCC has some pretty sharp engineers, and they have a heck of a problem they're trying to solve.

 

[SoCalReviews]

It's not that you have feelings one way or another - and collectively, we're probably more aligned than not... I'm not trying to quash conversation - rather - I'm trying to limit the noise...

It's just that the whole FCC thing has been debated to death here - and it is what it is - and I have an have FCC license that allows me to experiment with Tx levels far beyond Part 15... but I understand their position and the community posture - and I'm very sympathetic towards the hobbyist community.

FCC took away a bit, and they gave a lot in return - and take it from me - the FCC has some pretty sharp engineers, and they have a heck of a problem they're trying to solve.

Ok, I understand that the forum has been brow beaten with FCC topic based threads. There has been a gnashing of teeth over the regulations. I prefer not having to regurgitate these issues if I don't have to.

I don't have your access or knowledge relating to the FCC. I wouldn't have minded if the regulations simply restricted access to increasing Tx power. I do have an issue with restricting access to lower Tx power from whatever the maximum allowed power is... and I prefer to have my router capable of broadcasting the maximum allowed within reasonably safe standards. I'm not advocating more restrictions or regulations. I'm simply stating common scientific facts and want personal control over the Tx power levels on my wireless router.

As I stated before the 2.4Ghz frequency range has unique characteristics that make it different than the other frequencies especially with how it reacts with water molecules. This has been well known and utilized for many non-communications based applications. Why this often has to be treated like some conspiratorial secret is really beyond any rational and logical thinking.

If the FCC really wanted to provide a solution to these issues they should consider opening up other frequencies for unlicensed public other than 2.4Ghz and 5Ghz, (60Ghz is available but the technology is not there yet and may never be). Oops.... I mentioned 1.9Ghz band before this edit as a potential band to open up... It's not going to happen because besides DECT cordless phones that's obviously also one of the common cell phone bands.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordless_telephone

 

[SoCalReviews]

An update on my evaluation of the RT-AC1900P... What others have posted about it in this forum is true... It's a really good router. It could be the best 3 x 3 ac1900 router available right now. The wireless signal is very stable and strong. My wireless devices are running at full speed on 5Ghz one and a half rooms distance away... Macbook Pro is a solid 450 Tx and 450 Rx. iPad Air is maxed at 300 Tx and 300 Rx.

My 68P is also very good but this 1900P is just as stable and I think a little more responsive. I'm not sure it's worth upgrading if you already have a 68u/68p... probably not but definitely the 1900P should be considered in the mix if you are choosing to buy a new router. The only thing about it I don't like is that the Tx power option missing compared to the 68P. I'm considering whether I will keep it despite the lack of Tx power adjustment because it's performing so well.

My other option is trying the 88u or 3100. I wish I had an Asus 88u/3100 to compare it to. My guess is that there wouldn't be much difference in performance with 3 x 3 or lesser clients but I'm curious if there are any performance differences anyway.

 

[sfx2000]

If the FCC really wanted to provide a solution to these issues they should consider opening up other frequencies for unlicensed public other than 2.4Ghz and 5Ghz, (60Ghz is available but the technology is not there yet and may never be). Oops.... I mentioned 1.9Ghz band before this edit as a potential band to open up... It's not going to happen because besides DECT cordless phones that's obviously also one of the common cell phone bands.

FCC recently opened up 160MHz of spectrum in the 3.5GHz band as a shared public/private resource for licensed and unlicensed use.... there's some strings attached to it (always is seems like), but it's in a good frequency for in-building use - nice overview below;

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story...place-spectrum-sharing-35-ghz-band/2016-04-28

 

[SoCalReviews]

FCC recently opened up 160MHz of spectrum in the 3.5GHz band as a shared public/private resource for licensed and unlicensed use.... there's some strings attached to it (always is seems like), but it's in a good frequency for in-building use - nice overview below;

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story...place-spectrum-sharing-35-ghz-band/2016-04-28

3.5Ghz would be a good band for public Wifi. It's good to see the FCC is willing to toss the peasants a few scrap bones once in a while to quiet down the grumbling. As you stated the initial enthusiasm usually gets squelched in the fine details...

From your link: " Not everyone agreed with the final rules, as Commissioner Ajit Pai had pushed for the commission to shrink the exclusion zones and move more quickly to open them up for consumer use. "I have also said that the FCC should be creating greater incentives for providers to invest in this band," he said. "Indeed, the IEEE 802.11 Working Group has expressed little interest in developing a technical standard for this band because of these issues." "

Unfortunately we'll see public consumer access to once seen as impossible technologies like quantum entangled particle networking before we see movement on developing these newly opened frequency bands. That's how far behind the FCC has been with re-allocating our radio spectrum resources.

Quantum entangled particle networking just around the corner...
http://phys.org/news/2016-06-worldwide-quantum-web-graphs.html

Btw, I've attended a few lectures on quantum networking technology and it's really going to be a game changer in terms of improving speed and security vs. the current systems we are using. The Wireless Quantum Network...
https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.0387

 

[RMerlin]

FCC ranting aside, reducing Tx power is helpful to prevent coverage overlaps and co-channel interference in multi-AP setups. If the new FCC rules prevent this (and I find it hard to believe they do), that will be a very bad thing for enterprise Wi-Fi installs.

I suspect that the FCC wording might be too vague (forbidding changes without specifying if it's limited to boosting only), and it got Asus's legal department worried.

In this case, I would blame the FCC for poor wording of the rules (if that's the case).

Sent from my Nexus 9 using Tapatalk

 

[doczenith1]

While I'm sure this is not the most accurate way to measure the output it seems as if the Tx power adjustment value is not making much of a difference in my situation. I am using a Nexus 7 2013 with the Wifi Analyzer app. At about 15 feet and one wall away from the router I'm seeing around -30 dBm with Tx power set to 100% and around -40 dBm with Tx power set to 1%. Seems like it should be lower when set to 1%.

 

[L&LD]

While I'm sure this is not the most accurate way to measure the output it seems as if the Tx power adjustment value is not making much of a difference in my situation. I am using a Nexus 7 2013 with the Wifi Analyzer app. At about 15 feet and one wall away from the router I'm seeing around -30 dBm with Tx power set to 100% and around -40 dBm with Tx power set to 1%. Seems like it should be lower when set to 1%.

That is a 'huge' difference, in and of itself. But don't forget that 0% will not be 'no signal', but rather, the lowest signal possible that is usable by both the router and the client(s) (if they are close enough).

Further, the firmware self regulates the power to where it needs to be for each particular client. The Tx value is just a 'suggestion' we give it (it may or may not follow it at all depending on the environment and the devices it is used in).

 

[ColinTaylor]

@doczenith1 There is no fine control over the power setting, it's done in bands of power.

I don't know what it is now (because the wireless code is closed source) but in the old firmware the bands were typically <20mW, <40mW, <70mW, <80mW and 80mW.

 

[TonyH]

While I'm sure this is not the most accurate way to measure the output it seems as if the Tx power adjustment value is not making much of a difference in my situation. I am using a Nexus 7 2013 with the Wifi Analyzer app. At about 15 feet and one wall away from the router I'm seeing around -30 dBm with Tx power set to 100% and around -40 dBm with Tx power set to 1%. Seems like it should be lower when set to 1%.

Did you reduce the power from 100mW to 1Mw? Reduction to 1/100th is 20dbm so typically close to router it gives ~20 dbm reading vs. -40dbm looks OK to me. I believe f/w calculated power is not measured erp rather theoretical calculation based. radio amp chip consumed DC power x amp efficiency.

 

[SoCalReviews]

Updates relating to this thread...

- I have decided to keep the 1900p router despite it's lack of Tx power adjustment. I still am hoping future official Asus firmware adds this feature back. The performance and stability of the 1900p has been excellent. Range seems good. It's an great option for anyone wanting to upgrade from a Asus n66u or ac66u or older model router.

- If you have a 68u or 68p I'm not sure it's worth upgrading 1900p but you should see a small improvement in performance and/or responsiveness if you decide to. I am not sure if there is any difference in wireless range. The big question is whether there is any performance difference between the 1900p and the 88u or 5300s for most users who don't have client devices that support Asus 4 x 4 MU-MIMO. My guess is no but until someone runs real tests for the 1900p we won't know for sure. I suspect Asus is releasing products that support their newer wireless technology in the near future so that could make a difference to users who want to use the latest 4 x 4 technology.

- I mentioned in this thread a 68p router I managed that had reported to have failed at a remote location. That router in fact had not failed. When I had access to it that 68p seemed to have had the radio and LEDs turned off possibly from someone on site handling it and accidentally depressing external buttons. I took the opportunity to update the firmware and that router also still had the Tx power option after updating which makes 5 out of 5 68p routers still having Tx power option after updating to the latest official Asus firmware.

 

[sfx2000]

- If you have a 68u or 68p I'm not sure it's worth upgrading 1900p but you should see a small improvement in performance and/or responsiveness if you decide to. I am not sure if there is any difference in wireless range.

minor incremental improvement at best - perhaps the next step up from an AC86U would be the RT-AC3100, maybe, but even then, most folks won't see a difference.

Given a choice if adding/replacing a failed unit - the RT-AC1900 series probably is a good choice.