8 reasons to turn down the transmit power of your Wi-Fi

By default almost all WiFi access points transmit at full power (100mW on 2.4GHz). This gives maximum coverage and users see a good signal (“full bars”). However, there are good reasons to turn down the transmit power to a fraction of the maximum.

It even makes sense to start with minimum power and increase it until the necessary area is covered.

0. Wi-Fi is about sharing, not competing

In a congested environment it doesn’t matter if your access point is stronger than the neighbor’s. If your AP can receive other APs it will share the air time with them. All APs on the same channel will give other APs equal access to the spectrum. This is how 802.11 was written.
[Edit: I added this point as an afterthought, since this isn’t obvious to many users.]

1. Full power doesn’t increase coverage

Mobile devices like phones and tablets have very limited batteries. To minimise power consumption their radios typically max at 15mW (12dBm), while access points max at 100mW (20dBm) on 2.4GHz and 200mW (23dBm) on 5GHz. However, WiFi connection is always bidirectional. It does no good if the client can receive the AP if the AP can’t receive the client. Have you ever been unable to connect – even though you appear to have good signal? This is the reason.

The bidirectional connection is symmetrical. It doesn’t matter if the AP has a better antenna or is located higher up. The antenna gain and any attenuation factors work symmetrically in both directions. So a good antenna and good location will improve the connection in both directions. Unilateral transmit power increase will only work in one direction.

2. Roaming

In WiFi the client devices decide which access point they want to associate with and when to switch to next. (This is contrary to the mobile telephone network, where access points decide which one will serve which client.) Many devices are very reluctant to roam to another AP. They hold on to the first chosen one even when there is a much stronger AP next to the device. Only when the connection breaks will they associate with the next AP – and keep that connection to the end. This results in clients using far away access points with poor connections. By lowering the transmit power the connection will break sooner and the client will roam to a better access point.

This behaviour affects access point utilisation as well. In the worst scenario the access point by the entrance covers the entire office just barely. When users arrive their devices will associate with the entrance AP and keep using it for the rest of the day. The entrance AP is overloaded while other APs are idle.

3. Battery life

The access point informs the clients what its transmit power is (802.11h TPC, 802.11k TPC or Cisco DTPC). Mobile devices will adjust their transmit power level to match to save battery. The logic is that if the mobile device can receive the AP at that power level, the same applies in reverse as the symmetry was explained earlier. By setting the AP transmit power to 5mW (7dBm) for example, you can increase the battery life of the clients. Such a weak signal won’t penetrate walls, so you need more access points – see the next section Performance…

4. Performance

Back then access points were expensive and they were placed far apart. Now the price is no longer an issue, but WiFi performance is. By adding more access points there will be less clients per AP, hence more bandwidth per client.

Keep in mind that wires are always more efficient than radio waves. The faster and closer you can transfer the data from radio to wires the better. That’s why increasing the number of low-powered access points is the key to a high performance WiFi network. Why low-power? See the next section Interference…

5. Interference

A powerful signal will interfere with neighbouring devices even if they are on different channels (frequencies). At high signal levels the whole device will act as an antenna and induction will cause superfluous signals in the circuits. This is why you need to keep access points at least 10′ (3m) apart or have a thick concrete wall in-between, preferably both.

Access points can still interfere with each other, even if there is enough distance. The WiFi channels are not absolute. While the transmission is on a certain channel, the signal bleeds to the neighbouring channels as well, albeit weaker. At high transmit power this weak signal will be strong enough to interfere.

6. Distortion

If you drive an amplifier at full power the output will distort. This is easy to test with a car radio: turn it on full blast and try to make sense of the lyrics. A distorted signal is hard to decode and in WiFi parlance this means transmission errors and retransmissions, which will slow down the network. You can increase performance by lowering the transmit power.

7. Neighbourliness

A strong signal will cause interference in a large area. Even though the extra milliwatts won’t benefit us, they will consume limited air time and interfere with all other WiFi networks in the area (look back at point 0 at the beginning of the article).

Think about it security wise as well: Why should anyone across the street be able to receive your WiFi signal?

8. Longer lifetime

Lower transmit power equals lower energy consumption equals less heat. Operating at lower temperature increases equipment lifetime. While access points are inexpensive, they tend to break at the most inconvenient time and place. You won’t notice the energy savings on your electricity bill, though.

94 thoughts on “8 reasons to turn down the transmit power of your Wi-Fi”

  1. Great post. Learnt a lot and remembered some almost truly forgotten and valuable and important information.

    Thanks metis.


  2. This is really helpful. I’m hoping it helps with my network. I live in an apartment with lots of wifi signals in the building causing a lot of interference, and my connection drops frequently. I’ve been trying to figure out how to fix it. I’ve tried optimizing for channel interference, but that hasn’t helped, I think, because every channel is being used by several SSIDs on my floor and neighboring floors.

    The router I have is a modem + router with 5ghz and 2.4ghz. Should I lower the radio power on both 5ghz and 2.4ghz? The options are 100%, 70%, 50%, 35%, 15%. Any recommendations on what to go with or just experiment? Thanks!

    1. If you have an Android phone then you should install Wifi Analyzer. It will show you the neighboring networks and which channels they use. If a neighboring network is visible then your access point will share the air time with it. 802.11 is based on sharing, not competing. It doesn’t matter if your AP is stronger, it will yield to the other AP as long as it can receive it. Too bad Wifi Analyzer can’t show the utilization of the networks. You can share a channel with many low activity networks while a single high traffic network can gobble up most of the air time.

      In your case I’d look at the environment. Most probably you’ll find the 2.4GHz very congested and in that case I would disable it on my router and use only 5GHz. 5GHz doesn’t penetrate walls as well so you need to check if you have the coverage. Increasing power doesn’t help because phones and laptops have very low transmit power. To match the mobile devices the 15% should be enough, don’t go above 35%. If all your neighbors would also turn down their transmitters we wouldn’t have any congestion problem at all, would we.

      Look at the channels on 5GHz. Quite often the Auto setting will pick a channel in the 36–48 or 36–64 range only. The upper channels (100+) are often vacant or at least not so congested. Which channels are available depends on your local regulations. If you can’t get the coverage on 5GHz then you should consider adding another AP. It can be any brand or model. As long as the network name and security settings are identical you can use them as a single network. It could be that your problems are caused by poor coverage in the first place anyways.

    2. Start at the lowest option and increase power as needed to find the optimal coverage for your apartment.

        1. You are amazing! I was trying to research on this and you have answered what I am really pondering about. Thank you.

  3. This has been awesome!! I’m having challenges with roaming while using Wi-Fi calling. My AP’s are all at full power. I feel that if I bring them down just a fraction that it may improve the “handoff” between AP’s and perhaps the overall utilization. I’m going to put the suggestions in your 8 steps into practice!!

    1. I always suggest you start with the lowest power setting. If you find coverage holes then think which AP you should turn up a notch to fill the hole. Using the least amount of RF power is good design.

  4. Great post! I work for a retail store in Canada and many of our stores have issues with their wifi. When i use a wifi analyser I can see how badly saturated the waves are. Every store in the mall has a wifi, I can see dozens of them. I was thinking of replacing the access point with a more powerful antenna but I think putting multiple wifis and lowering their power might be a better solution.

    Let me know what you think.

    1. The best solution would be to get all stores (or at least your neighbors) to reduce their transmit power. If there is a suitable forum you should open discussion by asking how they feel their Wi-Fi networks perform.

      Multiple access points may be difficult to set up if all the channels are saturated. I usually suggest turning 2.4GHz off altogether so none of your users will ever connect to it by accident. Using the higher channels on 5GHz might be a solution to a working Wi-Fi. Malls and especially food courts are difficult environments.

  5. 9: Security… Reducing power means hackers need to be physically closer to your access point making it harder to attack your wifi network from outside the building.

    1. Thats totally incorrect, having less power, it increases the chances of a man in the middle attack, since hacker would be able to set a rouge ap, and clients would try to connect to it, sending wifi passwords to the rouge ap granting the hacker the information it needs to access the target wifi

      1. I’m sorry but you are completely wrong. You can’t fight rogue APs by increasing tx power. I believe you are referring to an evil twin, which is a malicious kind of a rogue AP.

        First of all, evil twins don’t know the pre-shared key, so they can’t offer WPA/WPA2 to begin with. In WPA/WPA2 the key is not transferred (or revealed to the evil twin) but the client just proves it knows the secret. Since the evil twin doesn’t know the key it can’t verify the client’s key. Typically evil twins offer the same SSID with open authentication since some clients will happily just connect if the SSID is familiar. Then the evil twin can access the data flow from and to the client (a.k.a. man-in-the-middle). But it won’t learn the Wi-Fi password. This of course requires that the evil twin is connected to the wired network so the clients can communicate over it.

        1. I’m no networking expert but based on basic hacking principles I would assume Jose is right. Just because you think you have some amazingly secure key, doesn’t mean I can’t compromise that via a range of other methods and then exploit the weak signal by doing a man in the middle attack to compromise further data that I wouldn’t be able to automatically compromise if the signal were stronger. Don’t act like your key creates perfect security and that all further layers of security are irrelevant.

          1. Jose’s idea of overpowering the evil twin is flawed. Wi-Fi devices will take turns, they won’t transmit on top of each other. You can’t “exploit” a weak signal. As long as the signal is decodable it is as good as a strong signal.
            Yes, multiple layers of security is a good idea. If you want to use transmit power as a security feature, reduce the power as this will make your signal more difficult to decode. See point #7.

  6. Yes. But how do i reduce power on lumia windows phone im asking, huh? Tell me people if you’re so smart.

    1. You can’t control the transmit power on client devices, the article is about access points.

      However, if you turn down the transmit power on access points, client devices will turn down theirs to match. Access points announce the power they are using and since the device is receiving the AP it can trust the same power suffices to reach the AP. This is known as Transmit Power Control or TPC.

      1. Yes, agreed. It’s great to keep these discussions on a higher consciousness level, even though some forget that.
        Nice pro-answer Petri !
        I would like to find a helpful site to show how to turn down these power levels.
        I also use: http://www.FLFE.net to harmonize the EMF’s emitted from wifi’s to calm down the emf-intensity.
        Thanks, Don.

  7. Do the Google WiFi access points use the electrical wiring in the building to transmit signals? Do the Google WiFi access points adjust their power automatically as needed? Are access points always on or do they sleep when there are no requests for transmission? I’m wondering if mesh systems used with cable modems actually reduce RF in my home by being more efficient on each exchange. Thank You

    1. 1) No, Google Wifi uses wireless connections known as mesh. Read this if you want to learn more about meshing.
      2) I am not familiar with them, but they probably will use as much power as they can. There can always be some client trying to connect at the edge of the coverage. They may adjust power according to their reception of each other.
      3) Access points are always on since they can’t predict when some client will want to transmit or connect. They will transmit a beacon ten times every second for example.
      4) If you want to reduce RF noise in your home then you should wire the access points and all stationary devices (printers, desktop computers etc.)

  8. Does it make sense to set the power for 2.4Hz low, while keeping the 5Ghz at High, to have as many clients select the 5Ghz band as possible?

    1. Yes – and it is the recommended way to do band steering. Theoretically 6dB difference will make the signals equally strong and most devices will choose 5GHz over 2.4GHz in that case. Make it 7dB and you are on the winning side.

      1. Band steering is also better accomplished by naming both the 2.4 GHz & 5 GHz wifi networks the same. In other words instead of “jones-2.4” & “jones-5” name both “jones” and use the same password for both.

        1. There can’t be any AP based band steering if the SSIDs are different, it is a requirement. However, band steering causes all kinds of problems, so I avoid it when I can. I prefer to name the networks “Jones” for 5GHz and “JonesSlow” for 2.4GHz. It is incredible how well this kind of band steering works 😁

  9. Your WiFi can be optimized by adjusting to max power and conduct throughput test in all your desired coverage areas. Take the worst case location and reduce the power then check the performance. Repeat as necessary.

    1. I prefer to start with the approximated minimum power level and go up from there. Theoretically we will end up with the same transmit power – either way.

    1. Exactly! On the commercial side this is often the case in shopping malls where each and every store has their own Wi-Fi. You could try by passing the link around if your neighbours are technically savvy at all. If not, you could offer to “fix” or “optimize” their Wi-Fi for free.

  10. I’m not entirely sure that your #6 point is actually correct… but I’m only speaking from my knowledge of amplification, rather than of WiFi.

    Yes, turning up an *analog* amplifier will result in distortion, but a *digital* amplifier should not. If you’re hearing distortion from a digital amp, 99% of the time the source will be the incapable-of-handling-that-volume speakers that are hooked up to it. I don’t know whether the amplification used for WiFi signals is analog or digital, but digital amplification should not result in signal distortion.

  11. Good article. When we built RF systems a gain antenna was always preferred over cranking up the power. However It does matter if the AP has a better antenna or is located higher up. Higher up generally = less obstructions and better antenna (ie: an omni gain or directional gain antenna) = less power is required by the AP and the AP has greater signal to receive from clients.

    1. Yes, very true. The antennas work both ways: antenna gain and good antenna placement improves both reception and transmission equally. Transmit power only effects transmission.

  12. I would like to see also if there are any health benefits in reducing the wifi transmit power signal.
    Is it harmful if its at a higher rate for the human body?

    1. None have been proved so far. Higher or lower data rates won’t make any difference though. Only the transmission frequency (2.4 or 5GHz) and transmit power could matter, if it matters. The energy levels are very low, though, and fade quickly with distance. That’s why you don’t need to worry about the AP at all, but your cell phone or laptop, because they are close to you.

      Wi-Fi (like your car FM) use electro-magnetic waves just like light. Light waves are just very much higher in the frequency spectrum. The way electro-magnetic waves could cause health issued is by heating up your body like a microwave. That requires a lot more power than a smartphone or laptop can provide.

      Ionizing radiation is a totally different matter and it is bad for health. People often confuse these.

      1. Thank you for your reply Petri, it was always a concern of mine if the two were related and if Wi-Fi was actually harmful.

      2. Petri,
        I am learning by many of your comments- Thank you.
        However Harm to the living cells- human and animal : have been the subject of extensive research on 2 sides of the issue: pro-wireless providers , and neutral or ‘clean’-scientific organizations.
        Even the WHO-World Health Org. – has demanded and won many requests to clean up the science of wireless, especially in Europe.
        You are correct that the EMF’s do not heat up cells- heat as being one cause of cancer. However , there are thousands of honest studies showing that many EMF waves: do affect the normal electrical functioning of living cells , heat is not involved at all.
        Cells are indeed affected:
        1- normal electrical activity is altered affecting the rate of cellular functioning.
        2- DNA – in some cells are affected in long term studies also.( I am merely opening a new thought here- not to trash your decent input to assist others, but it does concern me that EMF’s are harmless. I am not a conspiracy theorist either- I stay away from them- for good reasons !
        See these links,below to open a new discussion:
        a- YouTube.com = Dr.Devra Davis . A Dr. on national board to advise on EMF hazards: simple & quick video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqAxTpJEHVs
        b- also Petri , Here is an easy to read book of over 30 years research on wireless & EMF radiation : called: ”OVERPOWERED ” by Dr. Martin Blank, PhD. – very readable, interesting.
        ** These references above are NOT to stop all wireless & EMF devices, Just to bring awareness and help create a better future with less harmful waves.
        Thank you Petri & Metis for your input here..
        All the Best, Don K.

  13. You start at 0 and end at 8. Should this be titled _9_ reasons to turn down the transmit power of your Wi-Fi?

    1. Yeah, I added #0 as an afterthought, but I didn’t want to change the title. I thought everybody knew 802.11 is cooperative and not competitive, but I learned it was a wrong assumption.

  14. This was really informative. Ty 🙂
    I had absolutely no idea about the shared airtime.

    A follow up question if u don’t mind? 🙂

    When picking channels and deciding signal power, is it just how many other ap’s that your ap can see, or is it a problem allso if the client see neighboring ap’s that your ap can’t see?

    Will a client that gets connection issues because “thinks” it has a good connection (based on high transmit power from ap) que up all other clients that actually has a good connection. Thus making everyone on that ap experience the same latency as the “worst one”?

    1. a) Yes, the client will wait for the channel to be clear before transmitting. If the AP can’t receive these remote transmitters it will transmit on top of them. It can well happen that the client can’t decipher it because of the interference.
      b) The client will try to send data at some rate first, but it will retransmit and drop down the rate until the AP acknowledges the packet. This way the speed may be different in each direction (or for each packet sent, actually). All these tries and retransmissions will eat air time from other clients.

  15. Not that helpful to me. I’ll state my opinion for every point.

    0. This should not be included as a point. The focus is “Why do we have to reduce the power of the transmitter”, and clearly, this isn’t one of the reasons. Maybe add this content in the beginning, not within a point.

    1. Point made.

    2. Only applicable to setup with multiple routers. For single router users, this doesn’t make any sense.

    3. Okay, but again, for multiple router users only.

    4. Access points being cheap is subjective. For third world countries like mine, routers and internet subscription is still expensive.

    5. This is the part I’m most confused. I get the point that having full power will interfere other’s APs, BUT isn’t that only benefiting the neighbor? E.g. If I set my power to 80% and my neighbor is at 100%, then I only made my signal weaker, make their AP easier to interfere my signal, giving me less performance! This will ONLY be a point if ALL people managed to do this, but with only me doing it? No thanks, effects are worse.

    6. Point made. Actual test results may help for us to believe.

    7. Same content to point five, same response.

    1. 0: It is not counted among the 8, it is at the beginning.. I just wanted to set straight a common misconception. Your points 5&7 reveals that you haven’t grasped its full meaning either.
      2: Yes, this applies if you have multiple access points. It is common to have multiple APs even in larger homes. (You shouldn’t have multiple routers unless you have a very complicated network.)
      3: The battery life consequence has nothing to do with multiple APs. This applies in a single AP scenario as well.
      4: The price of APs has come down significantly. If you consider them to be expensive now then they were really expensive just a few years back.
      5: This whole point is not about neighbors, though the same applies to all Wi-Fi devices regardless of the owner. This point is about multi AP environments where your own APs will interfere with each other if they are using too much power.
      6: I suggested an actual test with your car radio. Amplifiers will distort the signal at max power.
      7: Yes, you would benefit if your neighbor would turn down their power. The point is that there is no advantage in using excessive power. Wi-Fi is not a competition. The APs are not trying to yell louder to overcome the other. They are taking turns as long as they can detect each other. Interference or turntaking with your wall neighbors is almost inevitable. However, interference across the street is pointless. You gain nothing and you are making life harder for others.

      Thank you for your input! I may edit the post at some point to clarify my intentions.

    2. Hi Anony Resu,

      I was living and working in IT for years in the third world countries such as Cambodia and Thailand. With their (yours) low-speed plans and limited access they (you) unlikely need for high-performance Wi-Fi AP (do not be confused in this IT terminology). If you need for robust and fast connection just trow a UTP cable and plug it in a cheapest gigabit TP-Link switch. I could trow cable from window to window or easily drill a hole trough a walls in Cambodia without consents and complains. BUT…
      But being in New Zealand I can not do so – need for consents, certified carpenter, electrician, painter and so on. And my WiFiAnalizer shows me overcrowded 2.4GHz range and bunch of 5GHz / 80MHz networks in neighborhood as the providers send to the clients preconfigured 2.4/5GHz WiFi-routers. My WiFi-router sits at one end of the house and my workstation with 4K TV as monitor at another end and they connected by means of radio bridge (affordable MikroTik APs). I have got Gigabit Internet plan recently (950/450 Mbit/s) and it is really problem how to utilize its speed over radio and do not kill my valet with all this installations. Have bought used Cisco Aironet AP2702i for $3 on local flee auction and now trying to set it up to top of IT standards.
      I found this article very helpful but your complains exaggerated. Could not stop from writing it even my time are pretty valuable for me and my family.

      Most important: be patient and calm instead of being blunt and arrogant. Read, watch and do hands-on labs as much as possible before you come to teach professionals who went as far as you can not imagine and you will definitely be able to grasp more knowledge.
      Cheers bro, take care!

      Petry, I take my hat off before your expertise and willingness to share your skills and experience. Thanks a lot!

    1. No, there are so many APs on the market and new ones introduced every month. However, most of the APs I have looked at do have transmit power adjustment, even consumer grade devices. In the last few months I’ve looked at some Asus ADSL/router/firewall/Wi-Fi devices that had it hidden in the advanced configuration page. Some similar ZyXEL device had it as well, but I can’t remember where. Some let you set a decibel value, some have percentage and some have hard coded levels. In those cases you shouldn’t use more than 14dBm, 25% or medium (preferably low) setting accordingly.

      1. Hello, and thanks for your really great posts.

        A few quick questions/clarifications:

        1. When in the post above you say “In those cases you shouldn’t use more than 14dBm, 25% or medium (preferably low) setting accordingly.” does this relate to Tx power for 2.4GHz band, 5.0GHz band or both? I suspect this relates to 2.4GHz band as the 14dBm/25% combination would correspond to 20dBm/100%, i.e. max Tx power for 2.4GHz, but can you confirm?

        2. In that case, for the 5.0GHz band one would start from either
        23dBm/100% (channels 36-64)
        30dBm/100% (channels 100-140).
        Applying your recommendation to set Tx Power 6dB stronger in the 5.0GHz band vs the 2.4GHz band, i.e. at about 20dBm, are the following settings correct if my Tri-band AP allows only % adjustments of Tx power?
        20dBm/50% (channels 36-64)
        20dBm/10% (channels 100-140)
        Or does the 6dB rule apply only to channels 36-64, in which case by how much should we “pump up” further the Tx power for channels 100-140?

        3. Finally, I would be very interested in another of your very hands-on posts (or a good reference) that would cover the typical attenuation losses from typical obstacles in a house, e.g. brick wall, concrete floor, wooden floor, glass window of various types, etc. There are a series of references available on the web but they are often very theoretical & not really applicable to estimating “back of the envelope” impact in a real setup. Elements of information that are missing are for example:
        a. Differences in “Straight through” loss in dB for different frequency bands: 2.4GHz, 5.0GHz (36-64), 5.0GHz (100-140)
        b. Impact of wall/floor thickness (1 brick vs 2 bricks, etc.)
        c. Impact of angle of incidence vs “straight through”, i.e. what if direct path between AP and device is at an angle of 30° / 45° / 60° of the wall or floor instead of the usual 90° assumed in most documents?


        1. 1. I would use 14dBm for 5GHz and 8dBm for 2.4GHz in most cases (indoors, rather dense user base, plenty of APs). After surveying I may need to change some local setting. My advice is to start with low power and increase it if needed. Even better if you start out with 10dBm for 5GHz and 4dBm for 2.4GHz.
          2. That’s why nobody likes percentage settings: The maximums depend on the jurisdiction. Over here we max at 23dBm for UNII-I&II and 14dBm for UNII-III. I would use the same absolute (dBm or mW) power setting through all 5GHz since I don’t want my clients to choose a more distant AP in any case. I would use 6dBm less for 2.4GHz since I do want my clients to choose 5GHz over 2.4GHz.
          3. There aren’t any posts or references, since there are no rules of thumb. All walls are different: a simple dry wall with gypsum boards attenuates typically 2-3dBm if the frames are wooden. Metal frames create odd patterns of attenuation. All glass panes behave differently, especially if they are tinted.
          Wall thickness is simpler. Doubling the thickness doubles the loss, if the construction is the same. Same goes for angles: Waves going directly through travel the shortest distance inside the wall thus attenuate least. Deviation from straight angle increases the attenuation. Check your old trigonometry book for details 🙂
          However, attenuation of a wall is simple to measure. Set up an AP on the same side of the wall as you are. Move as far from the AP as you can while keeping a clear line of sight (several yards/meters). Check the signal level with some tool. Next, move the AP just to the other side of the wall (less than a foot or 30cm). Check the signal level from the same spot. The settings on the AP doesn’t matter as long as they are the same for both measurements. You are only interested in the difference.

    2. I have a RT-AC66U. It have settings for transmit power.
      It’s a pretty old router but can handle 150mbps. It can also run custom firmwares.

      But I recommend that you check out other Asus routers that’s a bit newer.

  16. What about using thin foil between the router and the wall to “block” some of the wifi signals to reach areas it doesn’t need to?
    It could also block signals from the outside.

    Couldn’t it also help the router to receive signals better, like a parabolic antenna?

    1. Yes, metal will block signals but it will also reflect. If you have a reflector close to the antenna (in terms of wavelength) you will get very interesting interference patterns. Your coverage area will be completely different from what you would expect. Place the metal sheet at least several wavelengths (12cm for 2.4GHz, 6cm for 5GHz), preferably a meter from the antenna. Look up Fresnel zone, too, and note it extends well beyond the antenna.
      Designing antenna reflectors is a very complicated subject. I would assume you could google for introductory papers, but it will take years of study to learn. (I have a friend who wrote his doctorate dissertation on antenna design.)
      Life would be easier if we had some handy materials to absorb microwaves, but stone and concrete are difficult to add afterwards. A body of water would also work, but is hard to place or maintain.

  17. The main, and only meaningful, reason to reduce router transmit power is to avoid adverse health effects. Non-ionizing radiation DOES cause biological effects, even at lower signal strengths.

    1. Yes, it actually does. It heats up tissues. That is how microwave ovens work. The difference is in the power. Ovens use typically 800 Watts while Wi-Fi devices use 0.2W at most. In the text I suggest lowering that to 0.02W range. However, the power attenuates quickly with distance. Unless you sleep with the access point under your pillow your only concern should be the client device, which is close you. The AP transmit power plays no role because of the distance.

  18. You didn’t mention health reasons!

    There is no reason to increase the power of micro waves beaming through your body 24/7. Especially at night when our cells regenerate and heal. FCC regulations take an exposure average level over time, they don’t account for the burst peak levels of millisecond RF spikes. FCC regulations also assume that a single wireless AP is used in a single home and conduct health studies accordingly, they don’t account for being bathed in 40 of your apartment neighbors’ super gaming AP’s creating an RF ocean of exposure 24/7 in your apartment!! Apartment complexes are ridiculously over-saturated with concentrated RF to a degree which hasn’t been properly studied for health effects.

    Ionizing or not, the health studies are not properly conducted to account for these real-world scenarios, and is frankly irresponsible science to rely on!

    RF and EMF exposure will be the new smoking as we move foreward. In 10 years we’ll look back and discover all the health studies were improperly conducted by the same industries that produce the technology.

    1. I didn’t propose increasing the power. The title suggests turning it down. In the previous comment I explain that because of the distance the AP transmit power is insignificant when compared to the client device next to the user. If you are worried about RF radiation you should keep your cell phone in flight mode all the time.
      There are no bursts or spikes of radio energy in Wi-Fi. The transmit power is at a constant level, which is used when there is data to send. If there is no data there is no transmission. FCC and ETSI regulations prohibit exceeding the maximum transmit power at any time.
      You don’t need to worry about your neighbor’s APs because they are even further away. This has been studied extensively and you may look up Free-Space Path Loss (FSPL) yourself. In an apartment complex the paths are not free but there are walls in-between, which will attenuate the radiation even more.

      1. I’m not an expert on data packets but surely if I’m downloading or uploading something chunky, it travels in bits, therefore it will have a power, then no power, then some power, then no power, etc. So even if you say the power is constant when in use, the actual use-or-not status is going to be changing many times per second isn’t it?

        1. No. Wi-Fi is not encoded in on-off. Think of it more like light: red light is one and blue light is zero. The brightness/power is constant. The problem with on-off encoding is that a missing signal is interpreted as a stream of zeros.

  19. Thank you for your input.. Now I know why my center with 32 APs is having low signal or no signal at all or areas where signals drops and comes back..
    Do you think that
    1. reducing the transmission power of all APs at the same level will help?
    2.making the distance between APs more consistent will be a factor?
    3.how to avoid signal dropping or getting weaker?
    4. there are areas where there are a lot of metal pipes where APS are installed…do you think the metal pipes will interfere with the signal?

    1. 1) No, reducing transmission power will not help low signal level.
      2) By adding more APs you can get a more uniform signal level.
      3) See #2.
      4) Definitely yes. Do not place the APs behind or between the pipes. Metal will block and reflect signals. Uniform reflections are not a problem, but a pipe array will cause scattering like a disco ball.

  20. Hi Petri, thank you for sharing these very interesting thoughts. I cannot quite understand the point 1. If a typical mobile device does a max TX power of 15mW, and a typical AP does 100mW – what is the reason for such a disparity? Does increasing the TX power of the AP above 15mW only make sense if the receiver is also able to TX 100mW (say a PCI wifi card)?

    1. Short answer: yes. (And the typical default for 5GHz is 200mW)

      However, slightly higher AP power makes sense, since often most of the traffic is downloading. In that case it makes sense to have a better connection in one direction. It doesn’t matter if the acknowledgements are transmitted at a lower rate as long as the AP can still receive the acks.

      If you have a mixed environment (like most are) you are hurting the laptop users if you set the AP power to 15mW. The laptops get shorter range and worse rates than they would get with higher AP power. This can be solved by adding more APs so the range will always be short, but it costs more money and takes more effort to administer. That’s why Wi-Fi is so challenging to tune.

      1. Hi Petri, thank you for your advice. I have recently bought a “for parts” Linksys WRT1900ACSv2 from ebay, which seems to be functioning well. It is missing all 4 antennas, however. Would you recommend buying four 6dBi antennas, or one/two high gain ones? Thank you!

        1. You’ll need four antennas for the device to function properly. I strongly recommend low gain omni antennas, unless you really need directionality.

  21. Dear Petri, Thank you so much for taking your valuable time to explain all these points. I find your intelligence and manner to be excellent and have learned so much reading all that you have to offer. I am very grateful to you and wish you all the best. And if you can or want to, it would be interesting to create an ethernet–>Wifi super micro adapter that directionally feeds something like an Amazon Echo or an iPad or something similar so that those of us (I am one, especially nowadays in this virus era) who are definitely sensitive in some manner to the frequencies in the tech that has taken over our homes and offices can use Wifi only gizmos without worrying about these frequencies affecting us. Perhaps an adapter with a shield cover that can be velcroed onto something?

    1. You don’t need to worry about the Wi-Fi microwaves. The power levels are very low and there is always some distance. The signal attenuates very quickly with distance. (I don’t think anyone sleeps with an access point under his pillow.) If anything, the only microwave device you carry next to your body, day after day, is your cell phone. Yet, for some reason, people don’t want to give up their cell phones or switch to flight mode, because they want to be connected – wirelessly – all the time. I can’t wrap my head around this reasoning.

      There are activist groups in many countries attacking cell towers, because they are afraid of the radiation. Yet they carry their own transmitter next to their bodies. Very few people read and write letters in candlelight.

    1. You need to log in to the AP, typically with a browser. The address, admin user and password are typically in the sticker at the bottom of the AP.

  22. Hi Petri, first thanks for all info.
    sencond in this current times we would like to be more clarified regarding EMFs.
    some of us are interested in reducing them at max.
    how can i configure my router for that?
    tx power would be better at 100% 40% 20%?
    should people use 802.11 /b/g or n?

    1. You don’t need to worry about the Wi-Fi microwaves. The power levels are very low and there is always some distance to the AP. The signal attenuates very quickly with distance. For technical reasons described in the post you should run your AP at as low power as is possible while keeping the network functional. Try with 20% and increase the power if necessary.

      If you are worried about radiation you should look at what is close to you: your cell phone next to your skin and your laptop at arm’s length. If you wrap aluminium around the AP antennas your client devices will increase power to keep connected to the AP. Completely the opposite of what you are trying to achieve.

  23. Great beat ! I wish to apprentice even as you amend your web site, how can i subscribe for
    a weblog web site? The account helped me
    a appropriate deal. I have been tiny bit acquainted of this
    your broadcast provided vivid transparent idea

  24. Thanks for this excellent, informative, and well-written post. As well for your attentive responses to comments, several of which responses exhibit the patience of a saint!

    You’ll perhaps be relieved to know I’m not enquiring about health hazards. Instead, in my case I have discovered that a devious neighbor has hacked into my router. Among other measures I’ve reduced my Tx to 20% and now to 10% to try and attenuate the transmission strength in his direction.

    However even 30 metres away from my house I’m still getting three stars or -60dBm and at that point I’m at the fence between the properties. Question: can I go even lower, say to 5%? What might be possible disadvantages to doing so? Needless to say, I have ample speed and coverage in my house and my yard. Is there any downside to removing the router antennae entirely? Thanks

    1. You can go as low as the AP still keeps working. At some point the circuitry will cease functioning. You’ll notice that when you can’t see the SSID any longer. I’ve successfully used 5% when all the clients are in the same room as the AP, but it depends on the quality of the electronic design.
      Removing the antenna is a bad idea. You will need to use a 50Ω dummy load or you will risk damaging the RF amplifier.
      Lowering the power won’t work as a security mechanism, however. It will help to avoid drawing attention, but if you are targeted, then a directional antenna can pick up the signal. A 2ft/60cm disc costs less than 100€ and will pick up the 5% signal a mile away. Use good passphrases and keep your firmwares up to date instead.

      1. Thanks for the advice. Sounds like I need a new router, since mine hasn’t had a firmware update available for years. I had no idea that weak signals could be targeted like that.

  25. Hello, Petri.

    Thank you for this very informative article. If you don’t mind, I would like to post a link to your article in my social media feed: https://mastodon.social/@shahaan

    Your article helped me optimize the wifi in my home. I was struggling with thick concrete walls and heavy steel doors separating three rooms where I needed the signal to reach. Thankfully, each room has a wired connection leading back to a single router. So I placed a WAP in each room and lowered the tx power to 2mW. I further optimized the DTIM (10) and ACK TIMING (30) settings, as well as having each wifi on separate, non-overlapping channels (1, 6, 11). Of course, all SSIDs and shared keys are the same so devices can roam easily.

    Now all devices have very fast net access! Also, the device batteries do not drain while idle!

    One question, if you please: Would having the WAP tx power at 2mW appear to a client as though the AP is too far away, thus showing such a low signal strength, and ultimately causing the client to boost its transmission power high in order to “reach” the AP which is believes to be so far away?

    Thank you,

    1. Well done!
      As to your question: No, in the same room 2 mW provides a good signal. I presume you have full Wi-Fi bars on your phones? In no case will the client try to increase its transmit power. It will use its hard coded setting or match the WAP transmit power, if your WAPs support 802.11h TPC reporting.

      1. Yes, all clients show full bars. That is good to know, thank you for the quick response!

      2. Hello, Petri.
        A quick follow-up, if I may: I have introduced a 5Ghz WAP into my network. Now the 2mW transmission power previously set for 2.4Ghz WAPs seems inadequate. Is there a calculation I can use to find an “equivalent” transmission power for the 5Ghz WAP?
        Thanks for your time!

  26. Petri,
    You are very much appreciated for your valuable advice.
    Am I right to assume that the WiFi “signal bars” on an iPhone, indicate signal quality and not just signal strength?
    If so, can we use an iPhone to get a general idea of the signal quality in areas we suspect interference from devices or defective appliances? I once had a “quality” stereo headset transmitter that reduced my WiFi reception to 20 feet.

    1. I haven’t figured out what the bars at the top of the screen indicate. They are crude at best, often misleading. Too bad iOS doesn’t allow apps to use the Wi-Fi. The apps can only see a network connection, but no details. That makes iOS a poor platform for Wi-Fi tools. The best app I have used is Wi-Fi Sweetspots. Android doesn’t have any such restrictions so there are plenty of good tools available. If you have an Android phone or table on hand, search for WiFi Analyzer in Google Play.

  27. Very good article.
    In my case I would like to reduce power but can’t . I use my iMac computer as a hot spot, and it always chooses ch 11 as determined by its algorithm., and send full power. There is no control for frequency or power. Unfortunately, my house has internet access by means of a radio link that is fixed to Ch 11 in the 2 Ghz band. Occasionally my local hot spot signal radiates up thru the house and over comes the Internet ch 11. Or rather, when the Internet signal fades due to weather, trees, whatever, my hot spot signal interferes with the Internet radio wave reception, and the link goes down.

    1. You are out of luck unless you want to invest 20€ for an AP. That’s the lowest price around here for 802.11ac/router/firewall device – and Finland is one of the most expensive countries in the world. Unless you live in Switzerland or Norway you should find better bargains.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.