Quote:
Originally Posted by davis449
I'm sorry that I didn't explicitly state that my router operates very well in 2.4 GHz mode despite the saturation of the spectrum where I live. Also, it should be noted that 5 GHz is on it's way to the same saturation issues 2.4 GHz has been experiencing for years. Providers are now, and have been for a long time, sending out their connectivity equipment with built-in N routers with 5 GHz spectrum for the N and, lately, AC routers. Not to mention most consumer N routers are 5 GHz capable and have been for quite some time.
Most people don't have an inkling as to how to create a unified wireless network on a small scale. As easy as it seems to you and I, most end up barely getting the "faking it" unified network up. We agree on this here.
|
No matter how you spin it. 2.4GHz will always have more cochannel interference problems than devices operating on 5GHz. 2.4 only has 3 non overlapping channels. Depending on the channel width you're using with 5GHz, you're starting with 24 non overlapping channels. This is also not taking into account devices which are not network related operating on the 2.4 GHz channel such as baby monitors and microwaves.
With new construction homes, buyers now have the option to have structured wiring laid out so there isn't a need to worry about tearing up dry wall after moving in. But in my mind, these structured wiring companies need to go one step further and have staff who are trained up in wireless. Now a days, if someone is buying new construction, there's no excuse for not having LAN drops placed in specific areas of the ceiling on each floor to facilitate ease of installing APs.
Because of so much misinformation out there about shooting out the hottest signal and the explosion in the demand for wireless connectivity, a new standard is being drafted called 802.11ad which proposes to use 60 GHz as the operating frequency. The idea is to contained areas of high speed wireless connectivity without worrying about neighboring RF interference.
As far as the perceived complexity of setting up a unified wireless system, it's not as complicated as you make it out to be. Yes, unified wireless systems based on a physical wireless controller are complex to set up. But the systems set up to operate with a virtual controller among member APs are not. I have extensive experience with Aruba's Instant APs. All you need to do is set up IP addresses on each member AP and the VIP. Once the APs see each other, they will automatically create a cluster. If you don't designate a specific AP to be the master controller, the APs will automatically set one among the member APs via an election. From what I understand Ubiquiti is also simple to set up. There are more and more systems coming out on the market which operate on a unified basis targeted for the home market such as Google WiFi, Orbi, and Eero. So it's beginning to be no excuse for not having a proper unified wireless system deployed especially since many of the new unified WiFi systems can also create wireless backhauls between APs.