|
Post Time: 28/12/2007 11:06:43 |
Jonny
Total Forum Posts: 7 |
Is UMTS a reasonable alternative to wifi for extremely electrosensitive perople? E.G., if neighbours could have a separate subscription to a UMTS line from every computer in their home, and link to the internet through that instead of via wifi, is the field emitted likely to be the same as that from a mobile phone working via UMTS or stronger? It is more expensive than wifi, is data dowload also slower for the user and if so by how much? Is computer connection via UMTS likely to affect an extremely electrosensitive neighbouring person less than wifi if the person is badly affected by wifi?
Thanks for your help.
|
|
Post Time: 02/01/2008 11:16:00 |
alasdairP
Total Forum Posts: 173 |
First choice would always be ADSL or ADSL2 or cable broadband. These are fastest, most secure, and give of virtually no EMF/EMR.
It is not clear how the far end of your WiFi link (i.e. the Access Point or Router) is connected to the internet - it is usually via cable or ADSL phone connection - so why can't you just swap the WiFi access point with a standard wired ethernet one and just plug the computer(s) into that and have no wireless connections at all?
We are unable to judge between WiFi and UMTS re health effects, but unless you have a 3G/UMTS base station close to your house/flat, then UMTS links will be working at a higher transmit power than a local WiFi link. So, a WiFi link with the access point/modem as far as reasonable away from where you sit with the computer would be preferable (so you don't sit close to two transmitters at the same time).
Alasdair
|
