LG's UltraFine 5K Display Becomes Useless When It's Within Two Meters of a Router (9to5mac.com) 173
The LG UltraFine 5K Display was designed in part by Apple to work with the New MacBook Pro and as a replacement for the Thunderbolt Display, which was discontinued late last year. According to 9to5Mac, the display apparently wasn't designed to work next to routers as it will flicker, disconnect, or freeze computers when it's within two meters of a router due to electromagnetic interference. The Verge reports: In emails to 9to5Mac, LG acknowledged the problem -- which LG says isn't an issue for any of its other monitors -- noting that routers "may affect the performance of the monitor" and that users should "have the router placed at least two meters away from the monitor" to avoid issues. Once the monitor was moved into a different room away from the router, 9to5Mac says the issues subsided. Despite the fact that it's insane to require a router to be far away from what is likely the main computer in your home, there's been no indication that LG is working on a fix for the issue, which may be more troublesome.
Problem solved (Score:5, Funny)
users should "have the router placed at least two meters away from the monitor" to avoid issues
This reminds me of the uuencode bug in Outlook that made the body of the email invisible if the message started with "begin ". The solution on Microsoft's website back then was to use "start" or "commence" instead of "begin" when writing an email.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably it's due to high energy transmissions in the 2.4GHz band then... So a computer with wifi card or long range Bluetooth might affect it too. Does it crap out whenever your phone powers up the wifi radio?
I'm in the market for a 5k display. Can you get Thunderbolt to DisplayPort adapters? Might be able to get one cheap when they have a fire sale if you can live with this issue (or are willing to wrap it in tinfoil).
Re: (Score:2)
Thunderbolt *is* DisplayPort (precisely, a superset of DisplayPort). Apple computers usually use the mini DisplayPort style connector, but if your DisplayPort display uses a fullsize DisplayPort cable, cheap adapters are readily available.
Re: (Score:2)
A bit of research shows that the required Displayport to USB-C adapter is about £25.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that is a useful clarification for businesses but for home users. That normally will have a cable modem, router and wireless access point as part of one unit called a router. A normally call it a wireless router mostly because I use the cable modem provided by isp as just as the final gateway and use my one router/access point so I have my own control of my network.
But the solution to move it past the Display even 2 meters isn't a good answer.
If someone is going to be using a high end monitor. The
Re: (Score:2)
Citation needed. Because, the only mentions of "router" by LG in the linked article were obviously parroting the term first used by the person asking for information. Rather than correct them, they just went along.
Re: (Score:2)
As the GP pointed out, these emails are in response to the complaint. If the person complaining is having trouble with something they refer to as a router being too close to the monitor, it is easier to tell them to move the router than it is to find out whether it actually is a router and then ask them to move it.
Re: (Score:2)
which some people call routers
you mean like the people from LG who acknowledged the problem and made this suggestion?
Errm, no, it clearly was in answer to somebody calling whatever interacted negatively with the monitor a "router". But hey, not everyone RTFA - but they should when they needlessly nitpick.
Re: Problem solved (Score:5, Funny)
How am I now going to do my woodworking?
Re: Problem solved (Score:5, Funny)
How am I now going to do my woodworking?
It only happens with electric routers.
Use a wireless router, like this one [leevalley.com].
Re: (Score:3)
At least "prepare to standby" messages worked.
Re: (Score:2)
Those where the good old days. You could type this in an email:
begin 644 iloveyou.vbs
and people who received this in outlook would see an empty message with an empty attachment called iloveyou.vbs. Endless fun!
Re: (Score:2)
Oh wait, it was pants that got warmed...
Back then I think the ILOVEYOU was the message subject. But just seeing the two things together would freak most users out and light up the phone.
Ahh, the good old days when attachments were the boogieman...
Re: (Score:2)
They're definitely making this an Apple-like product. They match pace with "You're holding it wrong" with their own "You're letting it stand still in the wrong place"
Re: (Score:2)
are lacking in critical thinking skills, formal (relevant) education
Unless you want a career in academia, "formal" education matters only for the first job after college. A good resume and decent real life achievements are much stronger credentials than a document that a school sold you for a small fortune.
Shielding? (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps they don't have proper shielding? or is this a USB-C cable related problem?
Somebody should experiment by covering it up in various ways and see where the problem is. Start with the cable... since USB-C seems to have not been well thought out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You have a very interesting take on "interference must be accepted"
Re: (Score:2)
Surely it shouldn't have passed it's FCC (and CE etc) certification if it can't handle interference from other devices?
Scrolled waaaaaay to far for this.
Re:Shielding? (Score:5, Informative)
It's not USB-C that is the problem, it's Thunderbolt. USB 3.1 supports up to 10Gb/sec through a USB-C connector. Thunderbolt pushes that up to 40Gb/sec. So naturally cables designed for USB 3.1 compliance are not designed to be run at 4x the data rate, meaning you need special cables certified for Thunderbolt 3 use which look the same and have the same connector as USB 3.1 cables do. Even worse you have cheap USB-C cables and adapters that are only designed for 5Gb/sec or even 0.5Gb/sec.
Naturally Thunderbolt 3 cables very, very expensive. Therefore people will naturally try to use much cheaper USB cables, and often they will work. The whole thing was a disaster waiting to happen.
Router? (Score:2)
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest it's the hotspot doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to get teckienical, the problem is RF interference.
For all we know a cordless home phone, microwave, or cell phone sitting under the monitor could screw it up. In any case, something wasn't properly RF shielded...
Re: (Score:3)
Yep.
"This device complies with part 15 of the FCC Rules. Operation is subject to the following two conditions: (1) This device may not cause harmful interference, and (2) this device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation ."
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it accepts the interference and then allows it to cause undesired operation, so it looks like it's perfectly compliant.
Re: (Score:2)
And to be clear, when they say "accept" they mean "not catch fire", not that it must work properly.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep.
"This device complies with part 15 of the FCC Rules. Operation is subject to the following two conditions: (1) This device may not cause harmful interference, and (2) this device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation ."
Well, something is breaking (1).
Re: (Score:2)
Well, something is breaking (1).
No, it isn't. The interference from the access point isn't harmful. It is accepted and causes undesired operation.
This seems strange (Score:5, Interesting)
Given the amount of money and time poured into these products, you'd think they'd have done proper EMI susceptibility at some point. It's moderately expensive, but easy enough for LG to afford.
If I owned one of these, I'd have to be pushing for them to take it back - there's bound to be other devices that trigger the problem than routers.
Re:This seems strange (Score:5, Funny)
Are you talking about QA? This is crazy expensive. To find this bug they would have had to setup a test environment similar to what end users would have; the price tag for that would have been a one-time expense of a thousand dollars, plus labor. There's just no way either LG or Apple could afford that.
Re: (Score:2)
I was trying to be clever and make fun of the nonchalance of immensely rich corporations but I apparently failed. Obviously even without getting into the whole EMI thing they should have simply tested their products properly but it seems nowadays quality is optional.
Re: This seems strange (Score:2)
It's a question of must accept all interference even if it causes undesired operation.
Re: (Score:3)
Where did LG get a pass? It's required to pass RF transmission standards, not "receiving" interference. The law is to prevent products from interfering with other devices or causing harmful radiation, not sucking as a product. That one's up for the tech/consumer review sites to trash it...
Re: (Score:2)
I'm seeing too many Chinese products that don't have the FCC marking
That only happens when they run out of the fake stickers.
Re:This seems strange (Score:5, Insightful)
Given the amount of money and time poured into these products
Have you ever worked for a big company? It is quite common for product teams to be starved of resources for a number of reasons, often driven by office politics. This was an orphan project dumped by Apple, and I doubt if it is selling well, since no one else is making a USB-C monitor, and this is a 27" monitor, a size that has been available for Macs for 6 years. Every Mac user that wants a 27" monitor already has one, and the extra resolution makes no perceptible difference at that size. If they had actually thought this through, this would be a 30" - 36" 5k monitor that people would actually want to buy.
Re:This seems strange (Score:5, Insightful)
"It is quite common for product teams to be starved of resources for a number of reasons, often driven by moron executives"
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
"This monitor comes with so many pixels, you won't even know there are that many!"
Re:This seems strange (Score:5, Informative)
5k at 27" is actually the ideal size and resolution.
The de-facto standard for computer displays is 96 DPI. A 24" monitor with 2k resolution (1920x1080) has around 96 DPI. Everything looks about the right size on screen, the size it was designed to look good at.
If you move up to 4k then ideally you want 200% scaling. Double every pixel. That way things will at least look no worse than a 2k monitor, and vector images like fonts will be nice and sharp. So 4k at 24" is the ideal. All these 27" and 32" 2k monitors require awkward scaling ratios of 175% or 150% and end up looking crap.
Apple knows this which is why they always go for 2x the old resolution with their "retina" displays. The ideal 96 DPI resolution at 27" is 2560x1440, which doubled gives you 5k. This monitor is the right size and resolution.
Don't place it next to your LG smartphone either (Score:2)
Router? (Score:2, Informative)
When did we start calling wireless access points "routers"? Oh, sure, I know lots of consumer routers have access points built in, and maybe I'm just being pedantic, but come on already. We already use the word "router" for something and we already had a perfectly good word for "access point". I had to dig through three articles before I learned what the actual problem was.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Router? (Score:5, Funny)
I tried an LG display next to my router. It works just fine, but it gets covered with sawdust pretty quickly. I'm going to test it with the table saw next.
You're placing it wrong (Score:5, Funny)
In new Chinese year of Rooster, the most correct Feng Shui location for illustrious LG monitor is diametrically opposite the WAP when WAP in same room. If your abode is too small to for this most beautiful solution, retire WAP to original box of delivery and borrow most fine neighbors internet connection.
Re: (Score:2)
What if your neighbors on either side have their WAPs against the shared walls?
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it insane for the router to be far? (Score:2)
Ohhhhhh, wait, I get it. They're testing this with a Macbook Pro, which doesn't have an Ethernet jack, so they're usin
Re: (Score:3)
Ethernet was not designed to avoid the problem of RF interference.
Well, yes, that was exactly what it was designed to do. The first implementation, 10base5, had coax cables with extra braided shielding precisely for that reason.
Re: (Score:2)
My car has a radio and speakers in it too, but that's not what it was "designed to do."
Move the router (Score:2)
If the problem lies in the router being 2 meters away, just put the router _6_ feet away!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
LG has recommended a simple workaround (Score:5, Funny)
Elsewhere I read that LG recommended a simple workaround. Just put your wireless router in a Faraday cage and your LG monitor will work fine when it's nearby the router.
Although they recommend a certified LG brand "Wireless Router Faraday Cage" that they will be launching soon, I understand that Monster Cable will also be announcing one that works better -- something to do with the gold content and balanced geometry apparently.
Apple bug... (Score:2)
You are holding it wrong, you are placing it wrong, you don't need a headphone jack, you don't need sd card and standard usb ports... get the gist?
Electromagnetic Immunity (Score:5, Interesting)
I get to deal with weird stuff like this at work all the time. Based on the behavior, I'd guess there's a clock and/or data running at a harmonic of the wifi data. Freezing seems to indicate it's coupling into the core of the LCD controller board, which again I would guess is a timing violation or data corruption. Where it's coupling in is a bit hard to determine without further testing. It could be the video cable, could be the power cable (not likely), could be the LCD panel itself acting as an antenna, or an interconnect cable that is poorly shielded or just the right length to couple in wifi. It could also be power supply ripple caused by a feedback loop getting energy coupled in, though if that's possible then there's not enough timing margin to begin with.
I suggest a number of tests to narrow down details of the source:
- Test 2.4GHz and 5GHz independently. Test each wifi channel independently.
- Try a different length cable. Try a different brand cable. Does this monitor remain on with nothing connected? If so then try it with no cable, or no PC at the end.
- Try different antenna angles. Try different TX power levels (at what level does it start).
https://tech.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
Based on those results I'd have more recommendations.
If someone wants the real root cause, feel free to send me one and I'll debug it (though it will probably require disassembly).
Sounds like my froend's kid (Score:2)
Compliance failure (Score:5, Interesting)
It sounds like a clear failure of the LG monitor and if the nature of the failure reported is correct it sounds like it is not up to standard for immunity. Assuming the problem reported is in the USA then it will be the FCC standards that apply. If I was an owner of an affected LG monitor I would be demanding a copy of the immunity compliance test report. The test report will document what power level was used for the WiFi frequencies and these can be compared with the legal limit for WiFi devices.
Bottom line is this should never happen on modern products. I know my teams have spent many hours modifying product designs to ensure compliance before we release to market. If LG have not done this then they need to step up and fix the problem at their expense, before the FCC demand a product recall.
Re: (Score:3)
CE and the relevant FCC bits are self-certified. If your product is not an intentional radiator (i.e. it doesn't have any kind of RF transmitter in it) then you can just self-certify that it has the required level of shielding, doesn't accidentally radiate too much and shouldn't catch fire if you put a wifi router next to it.
You only need to get it externally tested if you are deliberately transmitting, which the LG monitor is not. It is likely that they never bothered to test it, because they have establis
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Still means that they are selling a product that is not compliant and they need to step up and fix it. Personally if was me I would be ringing up LG and demanding a full refund for a none compliant product while in the meantime informing trading standards (I live in the UK) that LG are selling products that are not CE compliant by their own admission.
Re: (Score:2)
It's compliant with the CE/FCC requirements, in that it doesn't explode when the route is near it. I'm not 100% sure about the FCC stuff, but the CE requirements are safety and non-interference with other devices only, it can malfunction (in a safe manner) all it likes.
But yeah, I'd return it. Laws vary but where I live, if there is a design defect that the vendor can't correct in a reasonable length of time (typically 28 days) you are entitled to a full refund in the first six months, no question. In fact
Re: (Score:2)
99% of compliance is about the emission. Immunity compliance can basically be achieved by a 2 year old with a fun way into electronics diagram. There's little to nothing that requires your device to operate in the presence of interference. There's some regarding permanent damage and damage to other devices but in general the device is probably will within CE and FCC regulations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(emphasis mine)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Compliance failure (Score:2)
The FCC doesn't care.
CE doesn't matter to me in the US.
It is unfit for the purpose, I think, but that is a matter for consumer protection laws - not bodies that govern RF emissions.
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC doesn't care.
True, but they should.
CE doesn't matter to me in the US.
True as a consumer. As a manufacture you make for world markets and if you pass CE then FCC is usually easier to pass.
It is unfit for the purpose, I think, but that is a matter for consumer protection laws - not bodies that govern RF emissions.
Also true, but EMC compliance gives you a tool to argue your case under consumer protection laws.
Rout is any WiFi device, right? (Score:2)
That's so "it compiles, let's ship it" mentality
This is why people like(d) Apple branded stuff (Score:2)
It's not just the aesthetics, though that's a big part of it. Apple overbuilt a lot of their peripherals, even though they could've made them much cheaper. But they weren't flimsy and I don't recall a time where interference was a problem. We don't know if Apple would've made a better monitor today, but past experience makes me think that they probably would've. User experience out of the box is (used to be?) priority one, and it's what's kept so many of us loyal for so long.
Routing it (Score:2)
LG to their customers: "You're routing it wrong".
Tape some foil to the back? (Score:2)
What are they going to do.. (Score:2)
When say a Ham radio operator starts operating on 2.5 Ghz at high power. The ham has legal priority. Too bad, so sad
LG screwed up
Brings back memories (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it does not. Part 15 means that if your unlicensed device is causing interference with a licensed service, you have to stop using it. Likewise, if someone is interfering with your unlicensed device, too bad. Neither apply here.
FTC, not FCC, for two reasons (Score:5, Informative)
There are two reasons this doesn't run afoul of the FCC rules on harmful interference.
First, "routers may effect the monitor". The monitor isn't *causing* interference, it's having problems because the *router* is causing interference with the monitor (which the monitor isn't protected against). The "accepting interference" clause means LG (or their customers) can't sue whoever is causing the interference.
Second, it's actually perfectly legal and normal for your wifi to interfere with mine (or with my monitor) because we're both on the same level, the third-level priority called "unlicensed". What an unlicensed evice may NOT do is interfere with users at the "primary" or "secondary" levels, which are licensed levels. A secondary user, such as a mobile phone operator, may not cause harmful interference to a primary user, such as an ambulance service.
Re: (Score:2)
Why does this get an 'informative'? It's plain wrong: consumer electronics are also required to be tolerant against electromagnetic interference.
Re: (Score:3)
His statement is entirely correct, and you are wrong. The Part 15 statement, which you are obviously misinterpreting, consists of three parts:
'Complies with part 15' - means this is an UNLICENSED device, and by design all emissions from the device are within allowable limits. No other requirements.
'May not cause harmful interference' - means that this unlicensed device may not interfere with any LICENSED operation. Even if the device is operating 100% correctly, if it is causing interference with a licen
"Including undesired operation" (Score:3)
Read it again, paying careful atttention to the part after the comma:
(2) this device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation.
It says that while interference may cause "undesired operation" (the device doesn't work right due to interference), you have to accept that as part of using unlicensed bands shared with other users.
It does NOT say "must never exhibit undesired operation". It says the device may exhibit undesired operation, and you have to acce
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC requires that all consumer equipment not cause interference, so I guess LG will have to fix the problem.
No. The monitor is not interfering. The router is.
Re: (Score:2)
The router is interfering. The monitor is being interfered with.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC rules are not written in scientific language, you idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Part 15.5 [ecfr.gov]
They define "harmful interference" as
Re: (Score:2)
No, your monitor is not a radio device.
Yes, it is. Infrared emissions from the display bleed into the microwave spectrum. But it's not a source significant enough to cause problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now tell us how a monitor is a radio as used in that definition.
If it doesn't comply with FCC rules, it might be. "Any emission, radiation or induction" is a pretty wide definition.
Re: (Score:2)
I would be more worried about cancer if your router is that close to your monitor.
You are more likely to get hit by a meteor than you are to get cancer from your router's RF.
Re: (Score:2)
You are more likely to get hit by a meteor than you are to get cancer from your router's RF.
Are you saying that there's no chance at all, or did you mean meteorite?
Re: (Score:2)
It's really hard to get hit by a meteorite. They're really heavy.
Re: Not the only problem (Score:2)
How is that different from ahy other politician?
Re: Not the only problem (Score:4, Insightful)
You won't die of cancer from either of those, (unless the radar is putting out something else in addition to the detection radiation) you might die from your brain boiling or lead poisoning, but not from cancer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Not the only problem (Score:2)
Disconnect, by Devra Davis.
Re: EMC Testing? (Score:3)
Up the stakes with EMP testing for consumer products.
Re: poor shielding in the monitor... (Score:2)
Not all products, I still have to see it on a hammer.
Re: (Score:2)
When you write a summary, you summarize the article. That's what the article says. You shouldn't write your own interpretation into the summary.