Author Topic: WZR-HP-AG300H Transmit power  (Read 35507 times)

derf

  • Calf
  • *
  • Posts: 22
Re: WZR-HP-AG300H Transmit power
« Reply #30 on: June 09, 2011, 08:00:24 am »

OK so this is getting very frustrating.  

 

This is what we get form the Marketing Guys at Buffalo;

 

"Buffalo’s AirStation Wireless-N networking solutions provide powerful 802.11n wireless connectivity, offering outstanding performance and range. Designed to IEEE802.11n standard specifications, AirStation Wireless-N solutions offer single band transfer rates from 150 to 300 Mbps and concurrent 300 Mbps on dual band solutions for a combined total of up to 600 Mbps. Great for Web surfing, HD multimedia streaming, gaming and more, Buffalo AirStation Wireless-N is the perfect boost for your wireless network."

 

and this;

 

"Buffalo’s AirStation Wireless-N networking solutions provide powerful 802.11n wireless connectivity, offering outstanding performance and range. Designed to IEEE802.11n standard specifications, AirStation Wireless-N solutions offer single band transfer rates from 150 to 300 Mbps and concurrent 300 Mbps on dual band solutions for a combined total of up to 600 Mbps. Great for Web surfing, HD multimedia streaming, gaming and more, Buffalo AirStation Wireless-N is the perfect boost for your wireless network.

 

add in a graphic range

 

and another

dd-wrt

 

and VOILA you have SCHMUCKS (like me) shelling out $100+ because they believed the advertising.

 

But it goes beyond this.  Indeed if anyone (I did) looks at the FCC report on the device indeed it shows (at least in that report) that indeed it does provide almost the maximum allowable power (900mW if I recall).

 

So the question for me is.  Was that test performed and submitted to the FCC for approval valid, accurate and indicative of what the end-user will experience with the product and if not, should the FCC be pulling it's approval? Wouldn't be the first time that Buffalo was denied sales in the US.


derf

  • Calf
  • *
  • Posts: 22
Re: WZR-HP-AG300H Transmit power
« Reply #31 on: June 09, 2011, 08:30:17 am »

From FCC;

 

 

For verified equipment, any changes may be made to the circuitry, appearance or other design aspects of the device as long as the manufacturer (importer, if the equipment is imported) has on file updated circuit drawings and test data showing that the equipment continues to comply with the FCC rules. 

 

 

And;

 

 

Rule interpretations

Questions regarding interpretations of the Part 2 and Part 15 rules as they apply to low-power transmitters and measurement procedures used to test these transmitters for compliance with the Part 15 technical standards, should be addressed to:

 

Federal Communications Commission

Equipment Authorization Division

Customer Service Branch, MS 1300F2

7435 Oakland Mills Road

Columbia, MD  21046

Tel: (301) 725-1585 / Fax: (301) 344-2050

E-Mail: labinfo@fcc.gov

 

 

So does the software change the design and require an amended FCC Filing?


rapsure

  • Calf
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: WZR-HP-AG300H Transmit power
« Reply #32 on: June 12, 2011, 02:48:29 pm »

I've been doing a bunch of testing myself. There are reports that running 80211n_wlanconfig athX set_txpowercap mac_addr Y{dBm} will make it output more power. From my own testing the command does not increase power especially in the United States. The power appears to be capped at 20dBm and can not be overridden by any command. The same output power is always read by my wireless devices. Also there are claims that the device does not meet expected results and for me after running several tests the WZR-HP-AG300H does outperform other 802.11g access points. The coverage area hasn't necessarily increased because the output power can not exceed 1W peak output power of EIRP (equivelant isotropic radiated power). The keyword is peak and so not at any point in time should the wireless router exceed that power output. I've tried several different wireless channels and each wireless channel has its own peak output power that the router appears to be calibrated to. The calibration values are most likely values that Buffalo have arrived at after extensive testing so that the router does not exceed the EIRP. Antenna gain is included in the EIRP values and hence which is most likely to cause the lower output power values. 

 

So with my testing of the different channels and the corresponding maximum output power I have consistently achieved the same maximum range. In developing a HP access point there are two issues to consider namely: antenna gain, output power. There needs to be high gain antennas because if the antennas are not high gain then the 802.11 devices will be able to receive the data from the AP but the AP will not receive packets from the 802.11 device such as a laptop. However with higher gain antennas there will be a corresponding lower output power because the antennas themselves are more efficiently radiating the available power. 

 

From a testing perspective the device needs to be setup in an EM anachoic chamber and measured. I do have access to such equipment but is it really worth my time? For me the access point is already giving higher speed connection rates on both the Tx and Rx than another Linksys 802.11g device. So from the current testing that I've performed Buffalo achieved better coverage by attacking the problem in two directions. 

 

It is not okay in my opinion to be transmitting above the 1W EIRP due to interference with the neighbors. I have someone who is doing such a thing with dd-wrt loaded Linksys WRT-54GL routers. When such a situation occurs it can cause lots of difficult to diagnose problems with connecting to the wireless AP.


axiomatic

  • Calf
  • *
  • Posts: 8
Re: WZR-HP-AG300H Transmit power
« Reply #33 on: June 15, 2011, 11:41:22 am »

Is there anything new on this issue Buffalo?

 

I own 2x WZR-HP-AG300H? as well as 1x WZR-HP-G300NH? and I see this low power TX issue on both models. I have had to "bench' my Buffalo solution and I am unfortunately back to using 2x DIR-855's from D-Link to service my location again as the Buffalo routers will not push more than 13 to 15 dbm? where my D-Link DIR-855's is at least pushing 23+ dbm?.

 

Whats worse is I'm beyond my time that I can return these Buffalo routers. I'm stuck with you Buffalo. Please fix this situation or at least state in detail when you plan to address this and the dates we can expect these fixes to arrive as a downloadable DD-WRT FW off of Buffalotech.com.

 

I really want to support you guys. Help me keep these routers and continue to speak highly of your company by getting these routers to perform at the published specs your marketing materials claim they run at. I want to be an advocate of your technology.


derf

  • Calf
  • *
  • Posts: 22
Re: WZR-HP-AG300H Transmit power
« Reply #34 on: June 15, 2011, 03:15:58 pm »

What Buffalo seems to be forgetting is that Early Adopters affect the overall success of a product.  As an example take the new ASUS Transformer.  I picked one up as soon as I could get my hands on it. I also tried and tested the Acer Iconia.  What's abundantly clear is that the hands on reviews all over the Net on the ASUS only furthers the status of the product.   Compare that to the WZR-HP-AG300H.  Sure many stellar reviews popped up as the unit was released, but as time passed and ACTUAL USERS started to respond, you can see that in fact the hardware/software as it currently stands DOES NOT live up to the HYPE.

 

Does Buffalo think for one second that a User that is considering the WZR-HP-AG300H and it's DD-WRT Firmware isn't looking into this forum? 

 

A quick look at Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk provides all the info one needs if indeed Range is what you're looking for??


derf

  • Calf
  • *
  • Posts: 22
Re: WZR-HP-AG300H Transmit power
« Reply #35 on: June 15, 2011, 03:17:47 pm »

PS  Just switched to OpenWrt on this unit.  TIme will tell if it's any better 


drmemory

  • Big Bull
  • *****
  • Posts: 1152
Re: WZR-HP-AG300H Transmit power
« Reply #36 on: June 15, 2011, 03:48:10 pm »

The BT Pro (DDWRT) FW does not accurately report the output power. The power matches what you see in the FCC report. The power output is actually very close to the FCC limit as shown in the FCC report, it just isn't being shown correctly in the DDWRT GUI. We've discussed this with DDWRT in Germany and they agree. We are working with them to resolve the reporting of the output power.


buddee

  • Big Bull
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
Re: WZR-HP-AG300H Transmit power
« Reply #37 on: June 15, 2011, 06:44:37 pm »

Erm no, that is incorrect, they don't agree that it measures the power incorrectly, maybe to buffalo they state that but to the community its quite a different reply. Actually the dd-wrt devs state that 20dBm is the max this unit can do, whereas the FCC and other sources (not using dd-wrt on it) say otherwise. So which is it? Power measured incorrectly or 20dBm limitations? We'll never know...

 

http://svn.dd-wrt.com:8000/ticket/2081?


KingJL

  • Tatanka
  • **
  • Posts: 51
Re: WZR-HP-AG300H Transmit power
« Reply #38 on: June 15, 2011, 08:39:25 pm »

Are both radios working on OpenWrt?  I want to move to OpenWrt on this router when I see some success out there.  Plz, keep us informed on your progress with OpenWrt on the wzr-hp-ag300h. 

 

I moved to OpenWrt on my wzr-hp-g300nh and never going back.  When setting the power to Max (27dBm), I saw a 7db increase in the signal level being received by attached clients.  So much for "erroneous power reporting" by dd-wrt.  The fact is dd-wrt's mad-wifi cannot currently correctly set up the ateros 71xx chipsets.  Ubiquiti realized this a long time ago.


drmemory

  • Big Bull
  • *****
  • Posts: 1152
Re: WZR-HP-AG300H Transmit power
« Reply #39 on: June 16, 2011, 08:38:58 am »

We're getting our information directly from DDWRT personnel, as of a few days ago.


blackomegax

  • Calf
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: WZR-HP-AG300H Transmit power
« Reply #40 on: June 16, 2011, 06:34:45 pm »

My own real-world testing confirms buffalo's official statement a few posts up.

The router does vastly outperform other routers at the same reported output power, range, and obstacles, indicating the true output power is indeed much higher than DD-wrt is reporting.


rapsure

  • Calf
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: WZR-HP-AG300H Transmit power
« Reply #41 on: June 16, 2011, 08:36:33 pm »

I have tested the output power as well. Even though the reported values don't change above 13dBm a setting of 16dBm output more power than a setting of 13 dBm and a setting of 20dBm output more power than the setting of 16dBm. The test was run by setting a laptop ~30 feet from the access point with both the access point and the USB wireless adapter using Atheros chipsets. The maximum output power that can be set for the device is 20dBm and is correct as the output power can vary by 8dBm. A setting of 27dBm in openwrt is not compliant with FCC regulations.


buddee

  • Big Bull
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
Re: WZR-HP-AG300H Transmit power
« Reply #42 on: June 17, 2011, 05:31:58 am »

Thats funny, you know in the dd-wrt forum you claimed the opposite, and now claim it works, your "real-world" tests are done with inSSIDer? That is not "real" test equipment.

 

http://www.dd-wrt.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=139546?


axiomatic

  • Calf
  • *
  • Posts: 8
Re: WZR-HP-AG300H Transmit power
« Reply #43 on: June 17, 2011, 03:53:07 pm »

I wish I could agree with you but my real world testing is not as successful as yours was. I'm seeing about 1/3 the coverage distance with my two WZR-HP-AG300H?'s than I get with my considerably older two D-Link DIR-855's. I feel duped. I really needed the additional range and I thought the WZR-HP-AG300H? was the ticket.

 

Well I think I've learned a hard lesson here as an early adopter. I wont make this mistake again. I'll hang on for the new FW as I have no chance of returning these to Amazon, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

My apologies for so much cynicisim but I'm not made of money guys. I cant afford to make $300 mistakes. :smileysad:

 

 

?


rapsure

  • Calf
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: WZR-HP-AG300H Transmit power
« Reply #44 on: June 17, 2011, 08:03:59 pm »

I've walked the distance of coverage. At ~150 feet through an apartment building with eight units the signal begins to drop and measures at -88dBm. I would have obtained a better connection with a better wireless card though. On the other side where there aren't as many obstructions to pass through I get ~200 feet. Still a better wireless card would have given me more distance. There was more than enough coverage to get the entire apartment building.