M
asked on
What is the frequency band of 802.11a?
What is the frequency band of 802.11a?
Context: “802.11a has a wider frequency band, enabling more channels and therefore more data throughput.”
Does the wider frequency band of 802.11a mean the range is extended more, for instance, 5.15 GHz to 5.875 GHz?
Context: “802.11a has a wider frequency band, enabling more channels and therefore more data throughput.”
Does the wider frequency band of 802.11a mean the range is extended more, for instance, 5.15 GHz to 5.875 GHz?
masnrock
5 GHz, whereas 802.11b and 802.11g used 2.4 GHz.
ASKER
@ masnrock. Thank you, but I know understand what the author meant.
The original 802.11 spec only had a range of about 20 feet indoors. 802.11a was closer to 75.
Context: “802.11a has a wider frequency band, enabling more channels and therefore more data throughput.”While the range did increase over the original 802.11 spec, this statement was more about bandwidth (original 802.11 was only about 1-2 Mbps, while 802.11a hit 54 Mbps). Also, especially at that time, very few devices utilized 5 GHz.
Does the wider frequency band of 802.11a mean the range is extended more, for instance, 5.15 GHz to 5.875 GHz?
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
I am no signal expert so please consider part of what follows might be approximative at best.
The range depends mostly of the power of the emitter and sensibility of the receptor.
In a real world scenario, a huge number of emitters will trash the signal. Interference or possibly self interference is also a huge issue. That includes reflection on walls or possibly the sky ( which happens with radio short waves enabling astonishly long ranges xith no direct view ) diffraction on for exaplf water droplets...
in that specific indoors case, 2.4 is very close to microwaves. Which implies absorbtion by water. Around 50pct per centimeter if i m not mistaken. A fish tank will very effectively block a 2.4 signal. A human being will produce quite the messy interference.
And additionally the latter channels are wider, and more "modulateable " meaning more frequency variations can be transmitted over higher frequencies.
The range depends mostly of the power of the emitter and sensibility of the receptor.
In a real world scenario, a huge number of emitters will trash the signal. Interference or possibly self interference is also a huge issue. That includes reflection on walls or possibly the sky ( which happens with radio short waves enabling astonishly long ranges xith no direct view ) diffraction on for exaplf water droplets...
in that specific indoors case, 2.4 is very close to microwaves. Which implies absorbtion by water. Around 50pct per centimeter if i m not mistaken. A fish tank will very effectively block a 2.4 signal. A human being will produce quite the messy interference.
And additionally the latter channels are wider, and more "modulateable " meaning more frequency variations can be transmitted over higher frequencies.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
All, thank you for your input on this. What @atlas_shuddered wrote, is more in line with what the author in the book wrote. I had to read more to understand what he meant. But this goes to show, you can interpret something from different view points.