Option to disable SonosNet

  • 25 July 2010
  • 72 replies
  • 29318 views


Show first post
This topic has been closed for further comments. You can use the search bar to find a similar topic, or create a new one by clicking Create Topic at the top of the page.

72 replies

Userlevel 2
+1 for the option to disable wireless
Userlevel 2
Less airwave pollution? As I have stated a few times in this thread, if Sonos is hardwired, it will use ethernet, and the airwave "pollution" it puts out will be negligible. It is not as if Sonos will be streaming via WiFi and ethernet simultaneously.

So, just to be clear, this means I can set my WiFi router to use the same channel as my SONOS system and (as long as all my Sonos boxes are wired) I will suffer very little drop in performance of my wireless system? That's great but wasn't clear to me until I read this thread! Something for the FAQ/user guides perhaps.
So, just to be clear, this means I can set my WiFi router to use the same channel as my SONOS system and (as long as all my Sonos boxes are wired) I will suffer very little drop in performance of my wireless system? That's great but wasn't clear to me until I read this thread! Something for the FAQ/user guides perhaps.

You are correct, but I'm confused as to why you want your WiFi to be the same channel as Sonos? There is really no benefit to it, with a wired or unwired system, and setting them to different channels is not difficult.
Userlevel 2
+1 for "per device"
Userlevel 2
You are correct, but I'm confused as to why you want your WiFi to be the same channel as Sonos? There is really no benefit to it, with a wired or unwired system, and setting them to different channels is not difficult.

It's the same reason everyone is asking to disable it, simply because I have multiple WLANs and am running out of channels. My Sonos is wired so there is no point in me not using the Sonos channel for another WLAN if the Sonos is not generating much traffic.
It's the same reason everyone is asking to disable it, simply because I have multiple WLANs and am running out of channels. My Sonos is wired so there is no point in me not using the Sonos channel for another WLAN if the Sonos is not generating much traffic.

But if Sonos is wired, it's not going to affect any of your wireless channels. No reason to set it any differently, the traffic used by Sonos will be less than the interference from naturally occurring noise.
Userlevel 2
But if Sonos is wired, it's not going to affect any of your wireless channels. No reason to set it any differently, the traffic used by Sonos will be less than the interference from naturally occurring noise.

That's exactly what I am saying. I've been avoiding the Sonos channel until now but plan to start using it for another WLAN.
That's exactly what I am saying. I've been avoiding the Sonos channel until now but plan to start using it for another WLAN.

Ok, got it now. Yes, you don't need to worry about the Sonos channel selection if you have it wired.
Userlevel 2
+1 to have a possibility to disable wireless
Userlevel 7
Badge +21
+1 on this as well. All my stuff is wired anyway (except for my phone and tablet)... There's no need for SonosNet to be chewing up another 2.4 GHz frequency when it's not being used, especially since I live in a Condo community with a high concentration of WiFi networks in a small area.
+1 on this as well. All my stuff is wired anyway (except for my phone and tablet)... There's no need for SonosNet to be chewing up another 2.4 GHz frequency when it's not being used, especially since I live in a Condo community with a high concentration of WiFi networks in a small area.

Once again, Sonos is not "chewing up another 2.4 GHz frequency when it's not being used" because it is actually not being used! Sonos always chooses a wired path over a wireless path, so there will be nothing happening on the wireless network, aside from the almost negligible traffic to maintain the network, which will be less than the interference from naturally occurring noise.
Userlevel 7
Badge +21
Once again, Sonos is not "chewing up another 2.4 GHz frequency when it's not being used" because it is actually not being used! Sonos always chooses a wired path over a wireless path, so there will be nothing happening on the wireless network, aside from the almost negligible traffic to maintain the network, which will be less than the interference from naturally occurring noise.

When all Sonos devices are wired, they're likely creating as much noise/interference/traffic as any other WiFi network that isn't being used... 10 beacon packets per device (since it's a mesh, every device is likely transmitting the beacon packets) every second, without the SSID so that other WiFi devices can't see the network name (whatever it may be).

I only have two Sonos devices right now mind you, but for people with more complex setups, they could be looking at 40, 50, 60, or more beacon packets every second on that wireless channel. While it may be insignificant for WiFi, it's still noise that could prevent other 2.4 GHz devices from working well (Bluetooth, cordless phones, and myriad other devices that use this license-free band). Having to tie up two channels - one for your own WiFi network, and one for SonosNet - when one of them isn't even needed is a waste of spectrum that other devices could be using.

And keep in mind, there are people that live in apartments or condos that have lots of neighbors with their own WiFi networks. At any time, from any room in my condo, I can see 15+ WiFi networks. That's at least 5 networks for each of the three channels that Sonos supports (because most routers will only auto-select channels 1, 6, or 11, and 95% of the networks are on those 3 channels).

I still support adding an option to disable SonosNet when it is not needed.
When all Sonos devices are wired, they're likely creating as much noise/interference/traffic as any other WiFi network that isn't being used... 10 beacon packets per device (since it's a mesh, every device is likely transmitting the beacon packets) every second, without the SSID so that other WiFi devices can't see the network name (whatever it may be).

I only have two Sonos devices right now mind you, but for people with more complex setups, they could be looking at 40, 50, 60, or more beacon packets every second on that wireless channel. While it may be insignificant for WiFi, it's still noise that could prevent other 2.4 GHz devices from working well (Bluetooth, cordless phones, and myriad other devices that use this license-free band). Having to tie up two channels - one for your own WiFi network, and one for SonosNet - when one of them isn't even needed is a waste of spectrum that other devices could be using.

And keep in mind, there are people that live in apartments or condos that have lots of neighbors with their own WiFi networks. At any time, from any room in my condo, I can see 15+ WiFi networks. That's at least 5 networks for each of the three channels that Sonos supports (because most routers will only auto-select channels 1, 6, or 11, and 95% of the networks are on those 3 channels).

I still support adding an option to disable SonosNet when it is not needed.


40-50 packets a second on a WiFi network that can handle 54 mbps is not eve a blip. Even if a packet is a relatively large 2k, the worst case strain on the network would be around 1%. I assume it is actually significantly less. If that is going to impact your network, then yes you should be able to turn off your wireless. But you and I know it isn't even a blip. As a matter of fact, in 7 years there has never been a complaint that a wired Sonos has any effect at all on surrounding WiFi networks. That alone tells me this request has more to do with fears of EM radiation than anything else. Which is fine if that is one's fear, just don't dress it up with hyperbolic claims of Sonos "hogging" or "chewing up" bandwidth. 1% isn't chewing anything, it isn't even a nibble.
I only have two Sonos devices right now mind you, but for people with more complex setups, they could be looking at 40, 50, 60, or more beacon packets every second on that wireless channel. While it may be insignificant for WiFi, it's still noise that could prevent other 2.4 GHz devices from working well (Bluetooth, cordless phones, and myriad other devices that use this license-free band). Having to tie up two channels - one for your own WiFi network, and one for SonosNet - when one of them isn't even needed is a waste of spectrum that other devices could be using.
As the background Sonos wireless traffic is "insignificant for WiFi" when all Sonos devices are wired, then in the spirit of neighbourliness why not put Sonos on the same channel as your own WiFi?
Userlevel 2
Badge +5
Hi,

I think the option to disable Sonosnet is becoming more important but not for the reasons previously expressed in this thread.

I've been struggling with poor Sonos performance for about a year now, with dropouts a common occurrence. The Sonos support teams both in Australia and the US have been excellent in trying to assist with optimising the network and resolving the problems. Eventually I got to the point where cabling seemed like the only option to make my system workable, but given the high cost of cabling an existing house, I decided to test EoP first to see if cabling was a viable option.

Interestingly, while this change helped, it turns out that even cabled zones can suffer from dropouts if there is significant wireless congestion/interference, as the ZP CPU usage goes very high when there is a lot of wireless interference, and the resulting high CPU usage results in dropouts.

So it seems logical to me that given the dedicated controllers are being discontinued, there would be significant advantages in being able to turn off Sonosnet wireless and remove the problem of high CPU usage resulting from wireless interference on cabled zones.

I understand that the sort of congestion I see (over 20 wifi networks are visible at times) is not common, but there's no doubt that increasing wifi usage will see more and more Sonos users struggling with interference and turning off Sonosnet could be a simple way to avoid those problems where cabling zones is an option.

Cheers
Chris
So it seems logical to me that given the dedicated controllers are being discontinued, there would be significant advantages in being able to turn off Sonosnet wireless and remove the problem of high CPU usage resulting from wireless interference on cabled zones.
If anything the retirement of the CR200 and its de facto replacement with one's choice of SonosNet-connected Android device argues the opposite. I see SonosNet getting more use as a resulting of roaming Android devices, not less.
I'll echo ratty. I have my Android controller configured to use SonosNet because SonosNet yields more uniform coverage compared to WiFi in my house.
Userlevel 2
Badge +5
Hi Ratty and Buzz,

Thanks for the replies. I think perhaps I didn't make my point very clearly.

I'm not advocating being able to turn Sonosnet off because the dedicated controllers have been discontinued, but rather because when Sonosnet is operating, wifi interference can cause dropouts even when zone players are wired via ethernet.

My comment about controllers was in the context that when I bought my first Sonos zones, the dedicated controller, and hence Sonosnet, were absolute requirements. Now that they are not I would think there could be more flexibility in dealing with reliability issues if Sonosnet could be disabled as an option.

Cheers
Chris
I'm still struggling slightly with the idea that a fully wired system would be prone to problems caused by WiFi interference. As far as I can make out the Spanning Tree Algorithm will continue to send control packets over the (blocked) wireless links between wired Sonos devices but the actual bandwidth requirement is tiny. Have you tried putting SonosNet on the same channel as your own WiFi?
Userlevel 2
Badge +5
Hi Ratty,

I agree that it doesn't seem to make sense, but this possibility was confirmed by Sonos support, and the dropouts are caused by very high CPU usage when there is a high level of interference.

I can only comment on my own experience, so I have no idea if this cause of dropouts is a common occurrence. If not it wouldn't make much sense to devote resources to making Sonosnet optional, but if growing wifi congestion does cause problems even for wired networks then making Sonosnet optional might be worthwhile.

Cheers
Chris
Userlevel 2
if you disable Sonesnet, would that not mean that the controllers would not be able to commucate with the system.
Userlevel 2
Badge +5
Hi ExKiwi,

(From another ex kiwi), both Android and IOS devices can control Sonos via normal wifi, so Sonosnet is no longer required to control the system.

Cheers
Chris
Hi ExKiwi,

(From another ex kiwi), both Android and IOS devices can control Sonos via normal wifi, so Sonosnet is no longer required to control the system.

Cheers
Chris


Actually, Android devices can connect to Sonosnet now. It is optional, but the option is there.
Userlevel 2
+1 for disabling SonosNet if the user wants to.
I have Gigabit everywhere in my house, and I don't want a useless wireless network to run !
Save power, and possibly save brains ! 😉
Userlevel 2
+1 for disable option wifi sonos
Plain and simple request this one.

On the drop down box where you select your WiFi channel number can we have the extra option of "off" added under the channels 1, 6 and 11.

This would disable WiFi as its a pain if your local WiFi area is cluttered.

Thanks!

Mark

note: Please reply and "+1" if you agree.