And.... And the lion's share of wireless still happens on three non-overlapping channels in the 2.4 Ghz band.
Re: And.... Yep, because 5GHz equipment on the AP side is still expensive, and has shorter range.
Re: And.... No it's not. The TP-Link TL-WDR3500 is a simultaneous dual-band router (so it can do 2.4 and 5 at the same time), and costs $50 at retail... I'm sure there are cheaper examples too.
To put this in context, my WRT54GL cost more than that.
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org
Re: And.... AC only runs in the 5ghz band... a lot of AC routers also support 2.4ghz N. However, it remains to be seen how much AC catches on.
Re: And.... Good routers are a lot more than $50 nowadays, like the ASUS RT-N66U Dark Knight with N900.
5 Ghz Doesn't Seem to Need More Channels :)? As you can see below, there's a ton of 2.4 devices and only two 5(My router and a possible U-verse Wireless Receiver AP)
El Paso, TX
Re: 5 Ghz Doesn't Seem to Need More Channels :)? That's pretty bad, do you live in an apartment complex?
Re: 5 Ghz Doesn't Seem to Need More Channels :)? No, just holding my wireless adapter really high :P. I only normally pick up 8 or so when placed on top of my computer on the 2nd floor . WNDA4100
Re: 5 Ghz Doesn't Seem to Need More Channels :)? Lol I asked the same thing in a thread a month or so ago on this website. Most of them are 2wire U-verse gateways :P! Channel 1 is actually the clearest out of them all.
For your enjoyment with not holding my adapter up in the air:
Re: 5 Ghz Doesn't Seem to Need More Channels :)? The AT&T U-Verse gateways don't look around to see how congested the bands are and instead default. You have to manually change the channel. Luckily for me, none of my neighbours seem to have this figured this out, leaving me the opportunity to set my APs on different channels with less interference.
Re: 5 Ghz Doesn't Seem to Need More Channels :)? Both of my gateways that I received from AT&T had "Auto" for channel as the default.(3800/3801)
Re: 5 Ghz Doesn't Seem to Need More Channels :)? I hate this. I'm forced to use channel 9 because 1, 6, and 11 are completely saturated. One neighbour runs two access points on two separate channels with 40MHz bandwidth and another uses channel 4. My LAN speeds over Wireless N rarely go past 20mbps on most channels. I get 30mbps on channel 9.
Another AP popped up last week on channel 7. I think 802.11ac will be my saving grace. I keep putting more devices on my wired network every week.
Re: 5 Ghz Doesn't Seem to Need More Channels :)? You can also use dual-band N900, which works great.
| |antdudeA Ninja AntPremium,VIPReviews:
| |said by BF69:Not everyone is an expert, but illiterates. They just set them up and be done. Do they care about security? Nope.
Why are all those people using channel 11? Are they stupid? I bet their connections suck which they promptly blame on their ISP instead of themselves.
Santa Clara, CA
Re: 5 Ghz Doesn't Seem to Need More Channels :)?
said by elios: The old 1Mbps radios used fhss. It is not an efficient modulation method.
i dont get why WiFi doesnt use some thing like FHSS? we use it with our RC gear and it works great
| |antdudeA Ninja AntPremium,VIP
Re: 5 Ghz Doesn't Seem to Need More Channels :)?
said by Jazzemt:Probably InSIDDer.
Which software are you using to display that?
TV OTA Spectrum? Are they going to do away with that I thought there was talk that by 2016 or so the government would like to see OTA TV go away for good.
Re: TV OTA Spectrum? No, no one ever said they were going to do away with OTA. This has nothing to do with that anyways. What they wanted to do with OTA is to get 120 MHz of the 222 MHz of OTA UHF spectrum and auction it off for mobile. They still plan to do that but they are now counting on getting at best 80 MHz and probably closer to 60 MHz. There still would be 42 MHz on hi-VHF like there is today.
probably in the 5330-5700 range Where radar detection is already being approved... Not really new spectrum, just allowing more home stuff to use it...
Interference As a user of the 5 GHZ spectrum in our market area there is nothing left here to use.
Any new devices will do nothing but cause degradation of bandwidth and nothing but trouble to anyone attempting to deploy product.
We are already in competition with other major users and have been problems increasing final cost to the end user.
I'm betting the new spectrum will be so low power it won't go any distance and be so regulated to add more DFS requirements to devices making them absolutely not worth a damm.
All I'm saying is the FCC needs to make it right and do what is right instead of making spectrum useless.
| |alphapointeDon't Touch MePremium,MVMReviews:
·Socket Internet ..
Re: Interference Same deal here. Most people have newer dual-band WAP's and beat the shit out of both 2.4 and 5.8GHz. Doesn't bother my PtP UBNT link, as I'm a ham radio operator and run mine above 5900MHz where consumer unlicensed gear can't go.
Consumer grade wifi is almost useless in this building, and I have to keep telling tenants that there's nothing I can do about it.
"When the hammer drops, the bullshit stops"