Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture
Rich <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.misc |
|---|---|
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
c186282 <[email protected]> wrote: > On 8/17/26 20:47, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> On 2026-08-17, Rich <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> The Natural Philosopher <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> 2.4Ghz will happily do a miles as many RC modelers have found. Just not >>>> with trees in the way. >>> >>> Living trees are quite full of lots of water, which is a very good >>> 2.4G signal absorbing medium. >> >> Good point. There's a reason microwave ovens operate at 2.45 GHz. > > Alas 5ghz interacts poorly with STRUCTURES. 5Ghz is much more easily absorbed by structures. Brick and concrete are very good absorbers of 5Ghz signals. Brick and concrete also absorb 2.4Ghz signals as well, just not to the attenuation level that 5Ghz is absorbed. > I doubt there's a 'perfect frequency' that will > get thru structures, veggies AND offer a good > data rate. There is no "perfect frequency". Ignoring FCC rules that mean you can't use every frequency anyway, if you want more penetration (less attenuation) from structures you want lower frequency. But lower frequency comes along with lower bandwidth for data, so lower data speeds. Reality is you have tradeoffs, and have to decide which tradeoff is acceptable to you. > Best, shitty, fix is to have multiple repeaters in house and then > pick the BEST one to connect to in any given part of the structure. Yes, that is the best way, but also the more complicated way, so most non-techie folks won't end up going that route.