Database Users

Update broke my 802.11n Wi-fi

Anybody else?
Before the update I had my D-Link DAP-2553 wireless access point set for 802.11n only even though my stock, unrooted hardware version 3 Evo would never show connected faster than 65Mbps (WPA2+TKIP), it worked fine.
After the update, it won't even connect unless I set my AP to b, g, & n mixed mode. Then the phone phone will connect but only at 54Mbps.
I've rebooted a few times, disabled fast-boot and even pulled the battery but so far wireless N has been broken for me by the update. Did a "forget" in the wireless settings and even reset my AP to factory defaults and set up everything all over from scratch but still no go.
Any ideas?

limpiador31 said:
Anybody else?
Before the update I had my D-Link DAP-2553 wireless access point set for 802.11n only even though my stock, unrooted hardware version 3 Evo would never show connected faster than 65Mbps (WPA2+TKIP), it worked fine.
After the update, it won't even connect unless I set my AP to b, g, & n mixed mode. Then the phone phone will connect but only at 54Mbps.
I've rebooted a few times, disabled fast-boot and even pulled the battery but so far wireless N has been broken for me by the update. Did a "forget" in the wireless settings and even reset my AP to factory defaults and set up everything all over from scratch but still no go.
Any ideas?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
limpiador31, feel your pain. I thought this had only happened to me. I tried everything you mentioned with no success on fixin the issue. When I went into settings About Phone, Hardware Information I see that Wi-Fi is listed as 802.11 b/g when before it had n also. Since I'm rooted I nand back and Wi-Fi n is back. Just glad I'm rooted. Not sure why HTC would bork up something like that as that is taking steps backward and definitely not forward with respect to speed.

Thanks for the feedback.
Like you, I was trying too hard to fix the problem and didn't look at the obvious - 802.11n support has been removed from this update.
This is unacceptable and I consider it an unwelcome downgrade as my SpeedTest numbers on wi-fi have gone from about 11-12 down and 5 up to now 5 down and 3 up.
I'm going to do my best to stir up some trouble about this. People have been kind of meh because there's not a lot to see in the new update but for me, this new "feature" of losing half my connection speed jumped out and ate my face.
Everybody is so damned concerned that they can't get their Netflix fix which isn't HTC's problem, but losing a wireless protocol that's been there from the start is HTC's problem and I want it back!
I work in IT and am a geek/tech kinda gal but have strongly resisted rooting just because I know how much of my time I would invest in it but this may be the last straw that pushes me over the cliff.

limpiador31 said:
Thanks for the feedback.
Like you, I was trying too hard to fix the problem and didn't look at the obvious - 802.11n support has been removed from this update.
This is unacceptable and I consider it an unwelcome downgrade as my SpeedTest numbers on wi-fi have gone from about 11-12 down and 5 up to now 5 down and 3 up.
I'm going to do my best to stir up some trouble about this. People have been kind of meh because there's not a lot to see in the new update but for me, this new "feature" of losing half my connection speed jumped out and ate my face.
Everybody is so damned concerned that they can't get their Netflix fix which isn't HTC's problem, but losing a wireless protocol that's been there from the start is HTC's problem and I want it back!
I work in IT and am a geek/tech kinda gal but have strongly resisted rooting just because I know how much of my time I would invest in it but this may be the last straw that pushes me over the cliff.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I sent an e-mail to Peter Chou, CEO of HTC, to vent my frustration at his tech team for taking a step backward by removing 802.11N support. I also posted a short note on HTC's facebook page. But HTC is only addressing "kind" posts and not those reporting issues. Go figure. I loved the ROM but I use WIFI at work and 4G the rest of the time except when traveling then I usually am forced to go back to 3G due to spotty coverage.

My wi-fi says 802.11b/g after the update to 2.3.3 as well. Not sure what it said prior to the update to be honest. But before the update the best I could get on SpeedTest when in the same room as my Cisco E4200 was 10.65Mbps down and 3.61Mbps up with a 30ms Ping. Just a couple minutes ago, post-update and in the same room as my E4200, I got 14.01 down and 3.67 up, with a 21ms Ping.
Not really sure if my EVO is now faster on wi-fi, but I don't think the update hurt my wi-fi speeds...
YMMV...

It hurt my speeds on mu wifi. I was usually getting around 20-25 down and mow on getting like 10
if you cant live large, look big in the coffin!!!

After posting this all over the world, someone told me the Evo never supported wireless N so I did a little digging... according to most of the published specs I've reviewed, they only list the b/g standards.
When the Evo first came out with Eclair, even though the hardware had a chip capable of 802.11n, it was crippled by HTC. The great dev's here figured out that by changing a few lines of code, wireless N could be enabled. http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=707218
When Froyo came out, the above wireless G speeds were unlocked in the update making the Eclair hack unnecessary. I'm guessing that due to lack of "antenna diversity" i.e. the Evo only having one wireless antenna that this fell short of the 802.11n standard so they maybe never advertised wireless-N? This would also explain why Evo's could only connect at 65mbps rather than at 150 or 300 like true N should do.
All I know is I use to connect to my A/P which was in N only mode (no mixed b/g/n) at 65mbps. After today's update, my Evo can see my A/P in N only mode but not connect to it. If I set my A/P to mixed b/g/n, my Evo will connect at 54mbps and no higher.
Regardless of the standard or b/g/n letter, my Evo now connects into my network at 11mbps slower than it did before the update.

Wow, that's some bull....!!! Is this the same with 2.3.4?? I am going to try SavagedZen 2.3.4 and see.

Same here
Router shows my EVO only connecting as 802.11g, though other devices successfully connecting to 802.11n at the same time. Settings > About Phone > Hardware Information only shows Wi-Fi: 802.11b/g. Why would they reduce such a key feature?!?
I sent a tweet to @sprint and @htc yesterday, no response yet. I'm trying @sprintcare now.

limpiador31 said:
After posting this all over the world, someone told me the Evo never supported wireless N so I did a little digging... according to most of the published specs I've reviewed, they only list the b/g standards.
When the Evo first came out with Eclair, even though the hardware had a chip capable of 802.11n, it was crippled by HTC. The great dev's here figured out that by changing a few lines of code, wireless N could be enabled. http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=707218
When Froyo came out, the above wireless G speeds were unlocked in the update making the Eclair hack unnecessary. I'm guessing that due to lack of "antenna diversity" i.e. the Evo only having one wireless antenna that this fell short of the 802.11n standard so they maybe never advertised wireless-N? This would also explain why Evo's could only connect at 65mbps rather than at 150 or 300 like true N should do.
All I know is I use to connect to my A/P which was in N only mode (no mixed b/g/n) at 65mbps. After today's update, my Evo can see my A/P in N only mode but not connect to it. If I set my A/P to mixed b/g/n, my Evo will connect at 54mbps and no higher.
Regardless of the standard or b/g/n letter, my Evo now connects into my network at 11mbps slower than it did before the update.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah i got slammed by someone in the sprint community saying too may ppl complaing about a feature gone that was never supported by sprint/htc to begin with.
I did some looking and sure enough I couldn't find a single thing that stated the EVO supported wireless N officially from sprint or htc.
What I find real odd is that with the 2.2 update they tweaked the kernel to allow wireless N support in the first place. I am going under the assumption this update was rushed and hence there are some bugs and things lacking in return. I can't see them having a reason to take it out other than they rushed the update. I guess its slightly possible that it coulda borked the kernel or messed with other stuff but I highly doubt that.

I saw the latest kernel modified to fix WiFi n in the dev section under one of the ofical release threads
Sent from my Misfit Speedy Evo using the XDA app

Does Miracast Require Dual Band Wifi?

Miracast is missing from Nexus 7's Android 4.2 release and we are all sad... and now you are seeing people say that Miracast will never come to Nexus 7 because it doesn't have Dual band wireless which is required.
Well I don't believe that Miracast requires Dual Band and here is why (good intro right?.. I wrote it myself)
Quoted from the Miracast whitepaper:
To be certified for Miracast, a device must also be Wi-Fi CERTIFIED for:
• Wi-Fi CERTIFIED n
• WPA2
• Wi-Fi Direct
• WMM
• Wi-Fi Protected Setup
While it is expected that TDLS certification will be commonly pursued for Miracast–certified devices, it is an optional component of the Miracast certification process. Miracast and TDLS are complementary, and vendors seeking Miracast certification for their products have the flexibility to choose whether they want to support TDLS.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The only thing I see see in the required list that would possibly have a bandwidth requirement would be Wi-Fi Direct (please correct me if i'm wrong) and Wi-Fi Direct doesn't require 5Ghz
Quoted from Wifi Alliance's FAQ page (http://www.wi-fi.org/knowledge-cent...-wi-fi-direct-certification-program-work-both):
Does the specification underlying the Wi-Fi Direct certification program work on both frequency bands?
Yes, the specification underlying the Wi-Fi Direct certification program supports operation in both 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz. Devices operating in the 2.4 GHz frequency band only and devices operating in both the 2.4GHz and 5 GHz frequency bands can be certified under the Wi-Fi Direct program. Not all Wi-Fi Direct-certified devices will support both frequency bands, however, so you should check which bands your devices support.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The TDLS Comment is interesting however as it does deal with Dual Band devices (see below). But again TDLS is optional for Miracast.
Quoted from TDLS Whitepaper (https://www.wi-fi.org/sites/default/files/uploads/20120808 TDLS White Paper FINAL.pdf):
In addition, TDLS also provides support for devices to negotiate an alternative channel. For example, if the two TDLS-linked devices are dual-band they may choose to dynamically switch to a 40MHz 802.11n channel in the 5 GHz band. The net result is a significant improvement in performance, latency and network capacity.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It may perform like crap or have to be set to a hidiously small resolution (which could explain why Google decided to not include it off the bat) but there seems to be no reason why it won't work once some custom ROMs/APKs come out for it... Deep breath everybody.
Also, I'm a newb here and can only post every 5 mins till I get some "Thank-Love." If this helped anyone I'd sure appreciate a thumbs up.

To add to this, esrlabs made their own variant of miracast called android transporter and it's only currently for the nexus 7. It doesn't have sound current as it was just a tech demo.

sark666 said:
To add to this, esrlabs made their own variant of miracast called android transporter and it's only currently for the nexus 7. It doesn't have sound current as it was just a tech demo.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
would love to see this functionality built into cyanogen eventually...
Sent from my Nexus 7

OP sounds right to me. Dual band is just nice to have because you could hypothetically segment Miracast from non-Miracast traffic. It's not necessary so I can imagine the N7 will support Miracast in due time.

The more I think of it, the major rom builder may shy away from building miracast into future builds for fear of infringement. Not sure how its all licensed but its very likely that the miracast portion is proprietary.
Our best hope may come from independent ports. Time will tell.
Sent from my DROID X2 using xda app-developers app

ezieger said:
The more I think of it, the major rom builder may shy away from building miracast into future builds for fear of infringement. Not sure how its all licensed but its very likely that the miracast portion is proprietary.
Our best hope may come from independent ports. Time will tell.
Sent from my DROID X2 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think so, Miracast is an open standard by the Wi-Fi Alliance. It probably costs money to be Miracast certified but ROM builders don't care about that.
Miracast is built into the 4.2 firmware for N4 but not yet N7 and N10. Why is that? Look to to the quote below from the Miracast wikipedia page.
Miracast software needs low level access to hardware supporting Wi-Fi Direct, there is no portable Wi-Fi Direct API for different SoCs and platforms. The lack of a single Application Programming Interface compatible with different Wi-Fi Direct supported hardware platforms makes it difficult for software developers to design portable Miracast Source or Sink applications.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think it will just take some time. Less than six months, hopefully.

ezieger said:
The only thing I see see in the required list that would possibly have a bandwidth requirement would be Wi-Fi Direct (please correct me if i'm wrong) and Wi-Fi Direct doesn't require 5Ghz
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are right Wi-Fi Direct doesn't require 5GHz. I have the PTV3000 and I am stuck on my Nexus 7 at the same point I am with my 3 month old ASUS laptop with 3rd Gen Ivy Bridge i5. My laptop has a Qualcomm Atheros AR9485 wireless network chip. The Atheros is only 2.4 GHz but the AR9485 also includes 150 Mbps Data Rate, Atheros Direct ConnectTM peer-to-peer technology and is Wi-Fi Alliance CERTIFIED.
Intel's site is full of people ticked off that lost Wi-Di when they upgraded from Windows 7 to 8 that stopped working on their PTV2000/3000. I didn't get the PTV3000 before I upgraded to Windows 8 so I was doing a lot of research on my AR9485 that as I said is only 2.4 GHz.
So now I have a PTV3000, Nexus 7 and Laptop that none of them play together.

Netgear has sold so many of these damn ptv3000s on the basis of it being precertified for miracast and the expectation that the N7 would be. I'd love to see the sales numbers. Betting they spiked in the last two weeks and are back to almost nada. The whole situation is pretty frustrating.
Sent from my DROID X2 using xda app-developers app

Just to confirm, the ptv3000 is not certified for miracast? Doesn't it advertise that? I was going to pick one up if I saw one cheap (although with n7 currently not having miracast my interest has waned) but if it definitely doesn't I'll look elsewhere.

The ptv3000 is pre-certified. It needs a firmware update to be miracast. As of right now it doesn't even work with an N4. Best to just not buy anything until the smoke settles. Unless it's a crazy good deal... lol
Sent from my Nexus 7 using xda app-developers app

ezieger said:
The ptv3000 is pre-certified. It needs a firmware update to be miracast. As of right now it doesn't even work with an N4. Best to just not buy anything until the smoke settles. Unless it's a crazy good deal... lol
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It works with Galaxy S3

innov8ion said:
It works with Galaxy S3
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Can you offer a sample? Video, photos, etc.

http://forums.androidcentral.com/sp...allshare-cast-netgear-ptv3000-w-miracast.html

innov8ion said:
http://forums.androidcentral.com/sp...allshare-cast-netgear-ptv3000-w-miracast.html
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The video doesn't seem to be pulling up on my screen
seriously. no video, no believe.

ezieger said:
The video doesn't seem to be pulling up on my screen
seriously. no video, no believe.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ask that guy. I'm skeptical too.

miracast not working with asus infinity tf700 either, that has tye
So, after the last firmware update, my Samsung s3 can project to ptv3000 ( though i had to use triangle away on my rooted s3 first). However, no such luck wih my asus inffinty tf700, which has the same isue as nexus 7 -stuck on 2.4ghz... i read somewhere that miracast requires 2.4 ghz to connct and 5 ghz to screencast. This might be true as my tf700 does show connected sometimes, but does not creencast. Asus tech support do not confirm or deny this.
---------- Post added at 10:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:18 PM ----------
So, after the last firmware update, my Samsung s3 can project to ptv3000 ( though i had to use triangle away on my rooted s3 first). However, no such luck wih my asus inffinty tf700, which has the same isue as nexus 7 -stuck on 2.4ghz... i read somewhere that miracast requires 2.4 ghz to connct and 5 ghz to screencast. This might be true as my tf700 does show connected sometimes, but does not creencast. Asus tech support do not confirm or deny this.

Wi fi direct 5 ghz
Does anybody knows if i use wi fi direct with 5ghz , intead of 2.4 ghz, could it reduce the lag while playing fast games like need for speed?
I have a MOTO X, so the only way to see the phine screen on tv is wifi direct or miracast

5Ghz wireless?

I know this may not be in my favor, but sometimes questions un-asked, never get an answer...
I have the issue of a very congested 2.4Ghz wireless environment. No open channels and not much I can do about it.
My router for 2.4 works really good, but I would like to use the 5Ghz range. I have two radios on the router, 2.4 & 5.
Is there a way to use the 5Ghz range with this tablet? Since it's like a deserted island on that.

Enanlingwolf said:
I know this may not be in my favor, but sometimes questions un-asked, never get an answer...
I have the issue of a very congested 2.4Ghz wireless environment. No open channels and not much I can do about it.
My router for 2.4 works really good, but I would like to use the 5Ghz range. I have two radios on the router, 2.4 & 5.
Is there a way to use the 5Ghz range with this tablet? Since it's like a deserted island on that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As stated on the spec sheet here,
http://www.asus.com/Tablet/ASUS_Transformer_Pad/ASUS_Transformer_Pad_TF300T/#specifications
the radio only supports 2.4GHz. Also, this thread was posted a long while ago:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1648145

Is there anyway to make a WIFI Direct connection on the 5GHZ band?

Hi everyone,
I'm part of a robotics club in my school, and we use wifi direct with 2 phones to communicate between the robot and the remote control. We found that at times there would be a big delay between an input and a response from the robot at competition. We're assuming it has to do with a ton of other teams all using wifi direct at the same time and crowding up the 2.4 GHz band. So we were wondering if there was anyway to use WIFI Direct on the 5 GHZ band with the Nexus 6P or possibly any other phone you know of.
Thx in Advance

Bump... Huge problem at Worlds (lost our first two matches), because between FTC and FRC, there are over 1,000 WiFi devices communicating (or trying to and failing) on just 3 channels!!! Matches were being won and lost on the whims of the team phones' Wifi connections, rather than which teams were actually better. Our team (FTC #10298) is getting two Galaxy S5s for next season and really wants a way to use 5Ghz.

Build jammers and win your match that way. Lol. All jokes aside, I don't think there is a way for wifi direct on 5ghz.
Just came up in my mind. No idea how much dev time you have left, but you could build something to control your drone/device using a cellular connection like 4g?
Googling "drone 4g control github" should help you out.

We are actually in the off-season right now. Unfortunately, we are only allowed to connect via WiFi-direct. However, there are no rules against rooting/custom ROMs, so if there are any ways to force it to use 5GHz through rooting, that would be great.

Mediatek E4 bad AES performance

I've been looking at the benchmark results for E4 and noticed that the Mediatek variant has sub-optimal AES performance compared to the Qualcomm one.
Specifically, the Qualcomm version scores about 300MB/s/core while the Mediatek falls short at 15MB/s/core (!).
The MT6737 arm core is actually the same as the Snapdragon 425 (i.e. it supports the hardware AES accelerator) however it seems not enabled in the kernel.
I found some MT6737 based phones (like the Asus Zenfone 3 Max) where the AES speed is approximately the same as the one in Qualcomm.
Other designs however exhibit the same poor performance.
Now this is something that could be easily overlooked during the compilation of the kernel, but it has dramatic effects when running a VPN (say to the office). The Qualcomm variant will hardly notice the VPN while the Mediatek will use most of the processors for AES encryption/decryption and become sluggish, battery-hungry etc.
Not to speak about the crypto world (i.e. wallets etc where aes is also used for verification and general checksumming).
Can you confirm this is an issue with the mediatek version of Moto E4 ?
If possible, I'd like you to test and report about download/upload speed tests performed while under VPN (OpenVPN and similar). VPN normally use AES ciphers (either AES128 or 256) so that will be a good indicator about speed of the AES acceleration.
xdadevc

It's a $50 phone. If you're looking to do resource intensive things, and crypto type things, and super speed is necessary... Spend a couple more bucks. That said, I have the Qualcomm version and using a VPN works fine. Pure VPN in my case. But it's doubtful anyone is going give you the response you want, it's an entry level phone. Get one and test it. I've seen them for $25.

madbat99 said:
It's a $50 phone. If you're looking to do resource intensive things, and crypto type things, and super speed is necessary... Spend a couple more bucks. That said, I have the Qualcomm version and using a VPN works fine. Pure VPN in my case. But it's doubtful anyone is going give you the response you want, it's an entry level phone. Get one and test it. I've seen them for $25.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly! FWIW - I have a Qualcomm variant and run a VPN based firewall 7x24 with zero subjective performance hit. Haven't bothered with objective analysis as throughput and battery endurance exceed expectations for a budget device.

Sorry, I think I did not make myself clear.
I understand it's a cheap phone. It's more like $100 without operator subsidies in Europe too, but this is not the point.
My point was more technical. I noticed that *this* phone, in the MTK version, regardless of having the right CPU with hardware AES support, did not seem to be using it. So I sought some confirmations (because I don't own it atm). Take my thread as a bug-report if you like pointing that the kernel for MTK missed something. I know the Qualcomm is OK, as I wrote in the OP.
And, IMHO, VPN is not advanced stuff at all. It's rather a basic security provision everybody shall just keep in the background of their phone while connecting out of their own home, and I mean even using mobile service too, in addition to the obvious free and unsecured wifi hotspost that we all like to use.

xdadevc said:
Sorry, I think I did not make myself clear.
I understand it's a cheap phone. It's more like $100 without operator subsidies in Europe too, but this is not the point.
My point was more technical. I noticed that *this* phone, in the MTK version, regardless of having the right CPU with hardware AES support, did not seem to be using it. So I sought some confirmations (because I don't own it atm). Take my thread as a bug-report if you like pointing that the kernel for MTK missed something. I know the Qualcomm is OK, as I wrote in the OP.
And, IMHO, VPN is not advanced stuff at all. It's rather a basic security provision everybody shall just keep in the background of their phone while connecting out of their own home, and I mean even using mobile service too, in addition to the obvious free and unsecured wifi hotspost that we all like to use.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I didn't say it was advanced, I said "resource intensive".
I was pointing out (admittedly sarcastically) that I doubt anyone is going to give you the answer involving the testing you're requesting.
I know a VPN isn't advanced, I use one on all my devices, have for years. Nothing you said was "advanced", I just don't think anyone cares enough to do the testing you're asking.
Granted, I worked long hours that week and was a little "rough" on you. But it doesn't look to be getting responses.
Sorry for being ... Well, kinda jerky.
And most Qualcomm chipsets are going to outperform similar mtk ones.

No problem man. Perhaps somebody from lenovo will see the thread and (dare to) fix the E4.
Meanwhile there are perfectly good MT6737 based chinese copy-cats that work at the same speed as the qualcomm (it's the same cpu core ater all).