XPost: sci.electronics.repair, alt.comp.os.windows-10
From: G6JPG@255soft.uk
On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 at 13:26:55, Dan Purgert wrote (my
responses usually FOLLOW):
>J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 at 10:22:44, mike wrote (my
>> responses usually FOLLOW):
>>>For distance, is it true that 2.5GHz travels farther (assuming
>>>obstructions) than does 5GHz? Noise shouldn't be a problem in a
>>>campground but distancei is.
>>
>> As Dan has said, in theory, 2.5 is less obscured by obstructions than 5;
>> conversely, in built-up areas, it's far more likely to be noisy -
>> microwave oven leakage, security cameras, and many other things. In what
>> I would imagine to be the rural location of most campsites, that might
>> be less the case though. On the whole the 5 GHz band is more recently
>> developed, so connections on it are likely to be faster/higher capacity
>> than the older band - if they work at all.
>
>Don't forget that "campgrounds" can also be densely populated
>(especially on weekends) with people looking to get away. A
>modest-sized campground may have 100 sites (or even more)...
>
>
>
True! Though probably won't have the security cameras, etc., and other
"noise sources", you'd get in a more built-up area, and presumably most
people who "get away" to them will be out walking, or similar. But I
suppose if there's sudden bad weather or something, there might be lots
sitting in their RVs trying to use the net - possibly enough to swamp
the 11 or 13 channels on the 2.4 MHz band. Though again, whether enough
of them would have the ability to use any such facility based at the
site office, rather than using data on the cellular/mobile network
directly ...
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here: this is the war room!" (Dr. Strangelove)
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
