Why 2.4 GHz is a dead end for Wi-Fi
Summary: If there is any doubt in anyone's mind that the channel-constrained 2.4 GHz band is a dead end for Wi-Fi, here are some charts that will put things in to perspective.
If there is any doubt in anyone's mind that the channel-constrained 2.4 GHz band is a dead end for Wi-Fi, here are some charts that will put things in to perspective. The following is a power-level comparison between an Access Point, a Microwave oven, and normal background noise coming from the neighbors Wi-Fi gear. All measurements were done with a Wi-Spy 2.4x review unit that I just got in the mail. So far it's a very cool and useful product that any network engineer must have and I'll be doing a more formal review of it later.
802.11g Wi-Fi Access Point versus Microwave oven:

Background noise versus Microwave oven:

As you can see from the results, a Microwave oven (when in use) absolutely dwarfs the signal level of a typical consumer 802.11g Access Point. Channel 6 (4-8) is absolutely murdered, half of channel 11 (9-13) is murdered, and the edge of channel 1 is severely degraded. Microwave ovens do not interfere with the unlicensed 5 GHz band and it's no wonder that Microsoft will not give a "premium Vista certified logo" to a hardware device unless it supports the 5 GHz operation. There is just no way you can reliably deliver HD video to your home theatre over 2.4 GHz when the Microwave is in operation. The Ruckus smart antenna Access Points might stand a better chance operating on channel 1 but I wouldn't bet on 100% reliability.
There are only 3 non-overlapping channels in the 2.4 GHz unlicensed band for North America (even fewer in some countries) and these are channels 1, 6, and 11. Every other channel in between like channel 3 is actually a part of channels 1, 6, or 11 so they can't really be counted as channels. Since there are only 3 channels available, your neighbors (especially in urban and denser sub-urban environments) are often as much of a threat. 5 GHz on the other hand has 12 unique non-overlapping channels in North America and even 24 channels in some unique situations.
As I've written in my blog on 802.11n - The consequences of abandoning the 5 GHz frontier, consumers will get the short end of the stick with 802.11n. Unfortunately consumers are paying a hefty premium buying up a lot of draft 802.11n devices which are almost always 2.4 GHz only devices. Yes there are exceptions like the high-end Buffalo draft 802.11n dual-band wireless routers but this is the exception and not the norm. Apple Airport Extreme wireless routers uses an either/or solution that either operates in 2.4 or 5 GHz but not both at the same time which means you're forced to use one or the other and that will often mean 2.4 if you have other wireless devices that are usually 2.4 only.
The fact that most draft 802.11n (even draft 2.0) routers eat up two of three channels and still fail to behave like good neighbors because the IEEE and Wi-Fi Alliance has no teeth in mandating good neighbor behavior means that 802.11n will likely be a huge debacle. Only Intel (and their logo partners) follows the strict policy of not using dual-channels in the 2.4 GHz band and the Intel 4965agn PCI-Express mini card happens to be dual-band compliant. At $49 is also one of the cheapest client adapters available.
The lesson here is that you should avoid any router that doesn't support simultaneous 2.4 AND 5 GHz operation and you avoid any client adapters that don't support 2.4 or 5 GHz operation.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Good advice . . .
On a similar note didn't Draft 2.0 require dual-band routers or is this another case where the Wi-Fi Alliance felt that in the name of "peace" that idea won't be enforced until the final standard becomes ratified?
There is no such requirement, it's only optional
802.11n does not mandate 5 GHz dual-band
You're right . . .
Maybe if a bunch of Network Administrators, consultants, and others with buying power at least suggest to clients and network vendors that they would first prefer buying dual-band products vendors and chipset makers would actually continue to pursue making such products.
We can't ignore 2.4 GHz only products because of the fact that they are cheap and they are many, but we should advocate consideration and purchase of dual-band products when appropriate.
For instance, I'm currently consulting with business owner who wants to open up a private hotspot. After comparing prices I found out that a Linksys WRT55AG can be about the same price as a WRT54G. Prior to this discovery I thought dual-band routers would be out of consideration because of the price, but since there was little difference in price I will recommend the WRT55AG.
Did you leave the microwave door open?
oven and they work perfectly, no packet dropping or anything of that nature. I even
stream high bit-rate mpeg 4 and h.264 video from my powermac to the powerbook
and don't experience dropped frames or broken audio.
btw, i've used wireless-A in a home before. it was limited to pretty much the same
room as the router.
doh!
No, I didn't. But did you use an unbuffered UDP stream?
I use A too and I have no problems with it working throughout the home. It really depends on the model you use.
Friends don't let friends buy G-only devices
I may have mentioned this before. Apple 11n clients do not use wide channels in the 2.4GHz band.
I also lament the continuing propagation of 2.4GHz-only products, but especially among 11n/11g clients. That's unforgivable these days. Let's focus our protests on these manufacturers.
The routers, especially in retail, face a price pressure to get shelf space that is really non-negotiable - unfortunately. The "either/or" 2.4/5GHz solutions are to be commended in this perspective.
I would say, don't buy 2.4GHz-only equipment, even if that means holding off on 11n altogether.
LOL, good one
The real answer is to use a wired .....
George, did you test multiple microwave ovens?
I've tested many others before and they're often worse
Microwave Signatures
Dual band
I believe that certain military applications also use the 5GHz bands as well.
I'd complain to the FCC but that 'unregulated' means just that. So consumer appliances that have high energy arcing (a broad band source of interference) will always whack wireless connections. Also I've seen that many of the newest wirelss phones use that 5GHz band too so the 802.11a gets whacked for sure by them too.
Fact is, if I need a continuous reliable connection, I HAVE to use wire. Well that is unless I want to turn home and/or office into faraday cages with all sorts of shielding. But I hope that the concept of spread spectrum comes into the consumer world like it has been in the military for at least 25 years. Until then, we're just out of luck in most city areas.
There's expensive window film and paint to block external signals
If you use 5.8 GHz cordless phones like me, that won't interfere with the bottom 8 channels in the 5 GHz band which is somewhere around 5.2 to 5.3 GHz.
Another Misleading Expert
higher frequencies create different problems
the ultimate solution is one i've used in my home on my 8 computer lan : run a wire.
Valis
Plus . . .
Have faith - None we can't overcome
5 GHz has 12 and possibly even 24 channels