 rawgerzThe hell was that?Premium
join:2004-10-03
Grove City, PA | Too close for comfort? 2.5Ghz is a little too close to the ISM band (2.4Ghz) to me. Consumer devices don't always stay in spec and can bleed over to higher channels.
I wouldn't be surprised if something as simple as a microwave caused interference for someone using this equipment.
2.5 is still high as far as penetration is concerned. Maybe if they can implement high sensitivity radios (-90dBm) it would be worthwhile.
--
You can't make all the people happy all of the time. But it should be common sense to shoot for the majority. |
|
| said by rawgerz:2.5Ghz is a little too close to the ISM band (2.4Ghz) to me. Consumer devices don't always stay in spec and can bleed over to higher channels. I wouldn't be surprised if something as simple as a microwave caused interference for someone using this equipment. 2.5 is still high as far as penetration is concerned. Maybe if they can implement high sensitivity radios (-90dBm) it would be worthwhile. -90dBm is very doable, it's all a matter of how many bits/second you're pumping through at what modulation.
On interference from 2.4 Ghz, I would think this interference would be very localized and would affect only the subscriber and not cause system-wide problems. |
|
|
|
rawgerzThe hell was that?Premium
join:2004-10-03
Grove City, PA | That's what I meant. Who knows how many potential subscribers have a device polluting the 2.45Ghz range and up in their house with the range of baby monitors, cordless phones, cheap microwaves, bluetooth, routers, etc. available.
They won't do any homework and instead blame the technology and or provider for a localized problem.
--
You can't make all the people happy all of the time. But it should be common sense to shoot for the majority. |
|
