[quote]Neighbors. You most likely have them. And they have all the devices that you do, if not more.[/quote]
Good point. I told someone else that they may want to lower their channel width in hopes of finding a less noisy channel. Your bandwidth is decreased, but that often isn't a big deal.
[quote]Yeah, wireless has gotten much better at addressing these issues. But still not 100%. Plus *shudder*, some people still running 802.11b hardware...[/quote]
And don't forget that if any of your random equipment runs b and is far away from the router, it could be connecting at speeds as low as 1Mbps, or whatever your lowest mandatory rate. Since all of your wireless hosts are competing over your wireless network, that piece of equipment can hog substantial time on your wireless network at the detriment of much faster hosts, like your console. I'm not sure most consumer grade routers allow you to disable lower data rates.
Also, unrelated, but something I have always found funny: Liquid sucks for wireless signals. I've had to place directional antennae in warehouses that have shelving stacked high with liquid products.
English
-
And you'd be surprised at the number of building materials that can make a house into a pseudo-faraday cage. In term of the "communicate at the lowest speed", there is an issue that used to affect 802.11 (and may still on the newer standards???), but APs used to function more like a hub than a switch, in the sense that all bandwidth was shared. So there would be a bottleneck there. What I don't know is if they act like USB hubs used to (think is fixed in 3.0??) and drop all communication to least common denominator. If so, that makes that 1.0 mbps you spoke of even more painful. Fairly certain all modern gear doesn't, but we were talking about ppl on older hardware...