Xbox 360's Jamming Wireless Signals? 222
WirePosted writes "A report has emerged suggesting the Xbox 360's inbuilt wireless system for communication with wireless controllers and headsets is transmitting over a wide area of the 2.4Ghz spectrum, causing interference to WLAN's and other 2.4Ghz devices."
How long has the XBOX 360 been out? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Note that if this is true and the 360 really is using the 2.4ghz spectrum, you could point to this as evidence that selling their own wireless gizmo separately to make extra cash kind of came back to bite them in the ass - Sony would have figured this out pretty quickly when the wireless internet and the wiress controllers didn't work w
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:How long has the XBOX 360 been out? (Score:5, Informative)
Bluetooth doesn't "play nicely" with WiFi. Bluetooth (from 1.2 onwards) was designed to remove channels that are being used from it's hopping sequence. But until it detects that those channels are in use (which may take quite awhile if your wifi network doesn't have a lot of traffic) you are still going to have interference issues. WiFi will usually "win", in that if either of the devices is going to be affected by the interference it's much more likely to be the bluetooth one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I meant when I said "plays nicely". I didn't feel like going into technical detail. Apparently, WiFi and the 360 coexist as well. The article notes it smothers Bluetooth. (I read the article over the weekend, and crossed my memory of it).
Bluetooth is a lot less resistant to interference then people seem to think. Bluetooth takes all of the 2.4Ghz ISM band, divides it up into 79 channels that are 1mhz wide and then changes channels rapidly (upwards of 1,600 times per second) while in operation. From 1.2 onwards it will remove channels that are heavily used by other devices from it's hopping sequence.
In theory this makes it pretty resistant to interference. In practice spread-spectrum devices (i.e: wi-fi access points) take up large sl
Re: (Score:2)
At best you can say that MS designed a proprietary protocol, which may break WiFi for some people in some environments. I can guarantee your blanket statement is wrong, using the one counter-example in my living room.
In any case, Bluetooth drains batteries like crazy. Xbox controllers last 20+ hours on a charge, and since no Xbox I've ever seen interferes with any networks, I call that a good trade-off.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I must admit to a mistake in my post. The article doesn't mention how the interference impacts WiFi signals. It interfered with the technicians' Bluetooth headsets. So, MS implemented a protocol that doesn't cooperate with Bluetooth. The WiFi, apparently, functions, but they're not sure how well. So, to be sure we know who is blaming what, the network admins are blaming the XBox 360 for interfering with their bluetooth headsets. Given their relative signal strengths, I'd say it is unlikely for the headsets
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
That said, the X360 has been out for over two years now. If this was a major issue I think we'd have heard about it long before now.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like FUD (Score:5, Interesting)
Nothing to see here...
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't notice (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Read TFNOTBOED (Score:4, Insightful)
Something along the lines of:
(1) Tolerate interference from other devices. (2) .... something else that I forget....
You see, the FCC does not want to have to certify that each and every $3 wireless mouse keeps its emissions within 0.2 KHz of 945.343 MHz at a field strength of no more than 330 microvolts / meter.
Welcome to the Republican Spectrum of the Future.
Re:Read TFNOTBOED (Score:5, Funny)
But the Dems are in charge of Congress, so this shouldn't be a problem anymore, right? 'bout time you realize that problem is ALL politicians, you partisan hack.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
802.11b was made an official standard in 1999. It had to be in the works for years before that.
When the FCC made the 2.4 ghz spectrum I doubt that they ever dreamed of every joe on the planet having a wifi network, wireless phone, wireless mouse, wireless keyboard, and a cell phone with Bluetooth.
So yea partition hack sounds very accurate.
Re:Read TFNOTBOED (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Turn YOURS off.
---your friendly ham operator.
Re:Read TFNOTBOED (Score:4, Insightful)
Amateur Radio has secondary allocation status. (Score:3, Informative)
True, provided that you can prove that a device covered under part 15 was indeed causing actual harmful interference, and not just transmitting as designed. Until amateur radio receives primary allocation status of its section of 2.4GHz, I doubt that any ham would be very successful at kicking a part 15 device off their local airwaves.
Amateur radio has to comply with part 97, and the unlicensed devices have to comply with part 15, but the secondary allocation status for amateur radio (on 2.4GHz) puts the
Old News (Score:5, Interesting)
xbox wireless (Score:2)
This isn't just a problem for microsoft though it will most likely be a problem with any console that deals with wireless lan access and wireless controllers that both function in the 2.6 spectrum.
Re:xbox wireless (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem was originally pretty sporadic (like every couple of months) but the ocurrence rate spiked when my TiVO went on the network and increased the overall load.
Not just the x-box (Score:2, Interesting)
2.4GHz: The Wild West of RF (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not just the x-box (Score:4, Informative)
The 360, on the other hand, doesn't have WiFi, and has wireless controllers that use a proprietary (I think) wireless system, on the same frequency spectrum as WiFi. There's every chance that it interferes.
Not surprising... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This sounds a bit iffy (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, a quick google check right now found "about 14,100" matches for "xbox wifi interference". A (somewhat less quick) scan of the first 100 or so m
Seems like FUD to me. (Score:2)
Apostrophe's used for pluralizing!?! (Score:3, Informative)
Put on your tin foil hats! (Score:2, Funny)
Easy to find out... (Score:2)
Room Full of 360s (Score:2)
If the 360 has problems with wireless interference, I sure didn't see it.
Re: Xbox 360's [sic] jamming Wireless Signals? (Score:2)
A little more on topic - Xbox 360s are made by Microsoft. Microsoft has never ever worked or played well with others. Why is anybody surprised that any MS device would hog bandwidth?
The question should be, why does the FCC let them get away with it? Is it because of incompetent FCC people, coprrupt FCC people, or some other reason?
-mcgrew
(if there are typos it's because I went blind [slashdot.org] this morning (see the 1st comment to the journal)
The FCC should be dissolved! (not) (Score:2)
My WiFi will get wonky once in a while when the neighbours use their microwave. Fortunately, the cordless phone is on the 900Mhz frequency.
The other option, is to get licensed spectrum... but if Microsoft had done that (which is totally unrealistic for the application)... we'd get 10 posts from people saying that "the FCC should be dissolved" because the ai
Re: (Score:2)
he Xbox can spit out all the interference it wants there, within some power envelope
Actually the Part 15 regs say that "this device may not cause harmful interference".
we'd get 10 posts from people saying that "the FCC should be dissolved" because the airwaves are a public resource
They are a public resource. Something needs to exist to manage them. In theory the FCC should manage them in the best interest of the public (in reality.... pffft, but that's another story). Should we dissolve the National Park Service too?
802.11a? Anyone? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm looking forward to the IEEE finalizing 802.11n if for no other reason than because I'll finally be able to get 5 GHz access points without paying through the nose for office equipment.
Re:Microsoft and Radio? Help us all.... (Score:5, Informative)
It's bad because 2.4 Ghz is radio, carrying digital info, which due to the nature of the produced sign wave results in a signal distortion more commonly known as "bleed over". Without the ability to separate the signals by a large frequency, digital over analog bleeds all over the place.
The hell? There is nothing magic about digital data that means you can't bandwidth-limit the outgoing transmission. There are plenty of digital radio protocols that use a very well defined slice of bandwidth, without any more bleed over than traditional AM or FM radio analog broadcasts. Just because the signal represents digital data doesn't mean you have to use square waves or something.
I suppose we should all be thankful that radio engineers are better educated than the average Slashdot poster...
(Of course, it's entirely possible there's something broken about the XBOX radio. It's also entirely possible it's just a spread-spectrum transmitter doing exactly what it's supposed to do in a largely unregulated piece of spectrum.)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Rather, I'd hope "radio engineers" would take notes from the Slashdot posters. This way Slashdot posters, who have to trouble shoot wireless systems going down for no apparent reason, don't have to argue with "radio engineers" over a problem that is reproducible.
Also, you might want to ask why this "IT Director" (me) appears to know more about this problem than you do?
At any rate I've seen the s
Re:Microsoft and Radio? Help us all.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you- Sine Wave.....
I'll fix that next time.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft and Radio? Help us all.... (Score:4, Informative)
You are right about 2.4 GHz devices interfering with each other. That's about it.
First: Wi-Fi devices may be assigned "static channels", but these are not minimally wide frequency bands as you imply. In fact, the channels are 30Mhz wide and contain spread spectrum signals. Channel 1 overlaps channels 2 through 5 enough to cause interference.
Second: Digital modulation techniques need not "bleed over" significantly past the bandwidth required to carry the information (i.e. potentially less than analog transmission of the same information). For example, psk31 is a digital mode with a bandwidth of about 31Hz.
Third: Modulated signals are necessarily not sine waves. Especially signals designed to look like noise (n.b. Wi-Fi is meant to look like noise across 30MHz of spectrum). You will see changes in frequency or phase (I'm not certain which). If individual cycles of the 2.4GHz waveform you saw looked rough then you made a mistake sampling the signal. Visible distortion of a single wave so far out of bad it would not affect any 2.4GHz devices.
BTW, my license says "Extra".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not saying that there isn't a problem. The article reads more like an advertisement in spots, but they do give a modest amount of technical info -- enough that I'm willing to believe the problem is real. It appears that the spread-spectrum controller is interfering with the WiFi signal. That's not overly surprising, but it has absolutely *nothing* to do with the fact that the data is digital. It has everything to do with the fact that these two devices are using each other's bandwidth and not handli
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bad example since as a percentage of channel width FM has about the widest guard area of any communications method. Irrespective of that the 2.4Ghz spectrum is ISM so as long as they meet FCC regs for total power and don't bleed too much into non-ISM spectrum they can be as rude as they want to be.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, since my point was that digital is not necessarily worse than analog, I'd say it was a fine example. Of course, digital can be *better* about it than analog, just as it can be worse. The original form of the data is irrelevant.
Also, just because they're allowed to be rude about the spectrum usage doesn't mean its a good idea. Everyone knows 2.4GHz is crowded; playing nice will make your equipment work better and your customers happier. The real shame is that there aren't general-use bands with w
Re:Microsoft and Radio? Help us all.... (Score:5, Informative)
their internet connection is almost always the real choke point anyways.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Minor detail that you can't legally use that channel in the United States (or Canada?). Granted, the odds of getting caught are next to nothing, but I don't think this is a viable "fix" for anybody in the business world.....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
the choke point is the way the bandwidth slowly atrophies and then I have to reconnect every five minutes or so
Try locking your access point to 802.11b-only mode and see what that does.
I've noticed the exact same problem you describe with a lot of 802.11g chipsets (Intel Pro/Wireless being the worst offender in my experience). Watching the devices they seem to switch speed rates constantly up and down for no obvious reason. Every single time a rate change happens the network communications stop for at least a few seconds. Eventually they just stop communicating altogether until the client is reset.
Once locke
Re: (Score:2)
As for the speed of the connection, there are many cable ISPs which promote 9mbps in the US. Plus, lots of people get their internet from their college, which means they could have pretty fat pipes connected to that access point.
Re: (Score:2)
I use an Intel Pro Wireless 802.11g device, and I've never run into these problems, at least on Linux
*shrug*, I've run into those problems all the time at the office, using Linksys WAP54G APs and Windows XP SP2 on the clients. Disabling the power saving "features" works with most of them, but there's a few devices that we have that just refuse to work nicely with 802.11g. They work just fine with 802.11b so that's the solution I've used, since my company is broke and can't replace the devices.
As for the speed of the connection, there are many cable ISPs which promote 9mbps in the US. Plus, lots of people get their internet from their college, which means they could have pretty fat pipes connected to that access point.
Cry me a river cuz I still have no sympathy ;) Either live with the "limit" of 5.5mbps on your wireless d
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I guess it really depends on what you're trying to do with your WLAN. Sure, if you're just using it to surf porn at home then I guess it doesn't matter much... But I support a few medical offices and I cringe every time someone mentions wireless. It's hard to get a good signal, it's even harder to keep a solid connection throughout the day. When you
Is that a colon in your pocket (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Cheese w/your whine....? (Score:2)
Gee, and here Apple has moved on w/5.8GHz for 802.11n
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've been tempted to move up to 802.11n for a few years, and then fall back on 802.11g once
Re:Microsoft and Radio? Help us all.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft and Radio? Help us all.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wouldn't it have been better to say "I hate everything that's unlicensed wireless"?
I've never had an interference issue with a cell phone. Of course my cell phone is using a licensed band......
This is the single reason why I've never bought a bluetooth headset. Yet another device to charge. Somebody needs to give me a rational explanation for why mini-usb hasn't become the charging standard across the industry. Motorola is using it for all of their stuff (phones and headsets). Why is nobody else? Yes, I mean you Nokia.....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is why I hate everything that's wireless. Devices interfere with each other, they have to be recharged all the time, and it's slow! I propose a revolution, a revolution where devices don't interfere with each other, they don't need to be recharged, and is fast! I propose the use of thin threads of copper for signal transmission and power supply.
What a great idea!
Now, can you please tell me how to run a wire from my living room to the basement? I've been trying to string up the house with Ethernet so I don't have to use wireless and so far the only thing I've gotten wired is the Wii.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's because this band is essentially unmanaged. It is garbage spectrum, unusable by terrestrial radio astronomers and satellite communications. That's why so much unlicensed crap has been crammed into it. 900MHz is a lot better but the bigger-is-better mentality is what drives the sheeple thought process.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Try being a Technology Director, with a radio license, and an EE from an excellent engineering school, plus 20 years experience in digital communications. I can personally tell you that it still doesn't make one an expert.
However, I can tell you you're way off base in your post. The whole point is that 2.4 GHz (not Ghz, BTW) is that it isn't managed! It's up to everyone to pretty much fend for themselves!
Good grief.
Re: (Score:2)
Devices that use spread spectrum do not cause interference. They may add to the signal noise floor of the frequency band in use, but ideally it doesn't adversely affect any other users of the RF space. In addition, SS devices are not as susceptible to traditional RF interference (thanks to frequency hopping). I admit that I am not an RF engineer, and I
Re:Microsoft and Radio? Help us all.... (Score:4, Informative)
"Devices that use spread spectrum do not cause interference with each other"
There, fixed that for you.
Seriously, anybody that has ever tried to use an analog 2.4Ghz cordless phone near a busy wi-fi network knows that they do cause interference. Hell, I can even tell when my wi-fi has a burst of activity if I'm using my bluetooth headset.... and bluetooth is supposed to avoid channels that are in use.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, I didn't say that the signal wasn't detectable only that it didn't (at least shouldn't) cause interference that made another RF device inoperable. I admit that it would be nice to not have to listen to some background noise (which I did mention in my orig post) when using your analog 2.4GHz phone, but such as the life of using an FCC part 15 device in the
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I didn't say that the signal wasn't detectable only that it didn't (at least shouldn't) cause interference that made another RF device inoperable
An idle wi-fi network doesn't make the cordless phone inoperable (though hearing the clicks every time the wi-fi network beacons is annoying), but a network running some decent traffic load will render the phone next to useless.
but such as the life of using an FCC part 15 device in the ISM band...
Indeed. I'd like to see the FCC open up more unlicensed bands but limit each band to a certain type of device -- i.e: this band for DSSS devices, this band for FHSS devices, etc, etc. Most of the interference with 2.4Ghz seems to be related to devices that use different type
Re: (Score:2)
I had always imagined this was over blown until I switched on my cordless telephone (not mobile phone) next to my computer, which was in wireless mode. The connection dropped and I thought it was my pesky router playing up again. A bit more testing showed my cordless phone was
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nit picky, perhaps.