On 09/07/2019 22:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 09/07/2019 19:50, druck wrote:
>> On 09/07/2019 09:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 09/07/2019 09:00, druck wrote:
>>>> Or have a number of access points in the places WiFi is used most, 
>>>> all set to minimum power, so it is easy for the client to pick the 
>>>> the strongest signal. In places equidistant, it will probably be 
>>>> worse than one high power access point, but its never going to be 
>>>> perfect.
>>>>
>>> My understanding of RF theory sugggests that messing with the power 
>>> levels isnt really going to help much. It will just change the point
>>> at which  one WAP becomes preferable to another.
>>
>> Exactly - the aim is to make the signals from the access points in 
>> other rooms much weaker than the one in the current room, so it is 
>> used in preference.
>>
> But then when you go into the other rooms, you will use the one from the 
> fisrt room when you shouldnt be..
> 
> As I said, it moves the boundary, that's all.

Whoosh, whoosh and thrice whoosh.

You are not going to get perfect reception in every room with a house 
like that. There are probably two or three places in the house that you 
use your phone/tablet/laptop the most, and those should have a lower 
power access points. In those places the nearest access point will 
dominate and give a fairly decent rate, elsewhere your mileage will vary.

---druck

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05