But probably NOT with *exactly* 2.4Ghz
When I was involved with this, the permitted power levels antenna gain and rain issues meant a couple of klicks was pretty much the usable limit.
Long distance microwave hops are at a different frequency.
Reflection and attenuation are different beasts
Multipath, reflections etc.
someone opening a metal fridge door behind the router, as seen from your position.
etc.
The Natural Philosopher explained on 04/03/2017 :
It was an experiment with 2.4Ghz data link, as I remember staying within the permitted power limits, but using some very specialised dish antennas.
'In Flight Refuelling' rings a bell on this.
It was that experimental link, which prompted me to experiment with a similar, though much shorter link across the village. I had it quite successfully running for several months.
My wifi speed is >20X my broadband speed, so not important.
I worked on the design of mains data transmitting units some decades ago. They suffer from 2 problems. They inherently generate radio interference and the wired propagation distance can vary from a few feet to hundreds of yards. I built the Spice models for various mains wiring configurations. It was a very depressing scenario, particularly in blocks of flats. The RF transmitting distances are inherently dependent on the wavelength characteristics of the house wire lengths. You get the same problems with longitudinal propagation in telephone cables.
Before the fibre arrived the backhaul was over a licenced 5 GHz link of 25 miles. Was supposedly doubly rendundant but who ever selected the kit didn't think as well as it did, as it found a way to fall over. Only serious outage, possibly the only one short of (rare) power loss at the sites, over several years. 100 Mbps IIRC.
Is it 20x the speed your media server can download HD videos at though?
Yep. Setup here comprises a Virgin Superhub 2, in modem+router mode, which spits out WiFi on SSID 1, connects to a conventional CAT5 LAN, and also to an adjacent 'Powerline' device which pumps my network signal into the main s. At the far end of my house is the TP-Link PowerLine device, which just provides WiFi for that area, on SSID 2
OK. Does that apply only to a wifi extender; ie one which sucks in a weak s ignal and boosts it over a wider range (if I'm getting that right?)
So (assuming low traffic, which is fair enough) are you saying there's no b enefit to my current arrangement at all, and I'd be better off putting both on the same SSID, same channel then?
Same SSID I pretty sure isn't a problem at all. If the coverage areas of the two AP's overlap having them on different channels will stop them stomping on each other or having to wait. It's also a bit dependent on whether the two APs can hear each other if on the same channel. If they can they won't transmit at the same time. If they can't they might which will make things messy in the overlap area when traffic levels are high.
If the total traffic from each AP is greater than the maximum bandwidth available on one WiFi link. ie if the WiFi can support 40 Mbps, you could have one AP shifting data at 38 Mbps the other shifting data at 2 Mbps without serious problems. But is that 2 Mbps became 10 Mbps it would start to get messy.
Irrelevant, wouldn't even try to download videos. Video transmission is via modulators and UHF distribution network. Quality is well below SD!! but as was found nearly a century ago, people will watch crap and not notice.
Well we do use 1.5 Ghz for a few links, very long ranges are possible but the bandwidth isn't that much but 40 odd miles sometimes is achievable.
Sometimes 18 Ghz, wide bandwidth at these frequencies. And yet to try them but Ubiquity do have a Fibre link a gig odd thruput at 24 GHz
Have a play with this tool, it will show you what is possible using 2.4 and 5.8
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.