3 ms·
Dead outside the US unfortunately, worse range than regular wifi due to being strangled by lower channel width and ridicolously low power limits. The two bulky
by moffkalast 2mo ago
Dead outside the US unfortunately, worse range than regular wifi due to being strangled by lower channel width and ridicolously low power limits. The two bulky HaLowLink routers are the only off the shelf thing with support for it, it's nonexistent as a wifi standard.
I was so excited when I discovered it a few months back after struggling for years to set up reliable wifi for outdoor robotics, only to realize we can't have nice things. The struggle continues.
- Neikius 2mo agoLoRa is not fast enough?
- euduhdhbene 2mo agoDon’t know about the parent, but I found LoRa adequate for (tiny) payloads (sensor data and such) but OTA updates are a PITA without some alternative channel. Speeds are measured in bytes / sec.
- ac29 2mo agoSame channel width and power restrictions. The US' 915MHz band is much much better than the EU 869MHz band
- iberator 2mo agoNo one is using it in real life. It's a super weak hobbyist protocol with a lot of hype and marketing. Seriously. Only rich nerds in SAN FRANCISCO are using it.
- GJim 2mo agoLoRa has rather iffy security. I certainly would not use it for anything serious.
- BenjiWiebe 2mo agoLower channel width improves range, at the cost of bandwidth.
- moffkalast 2mo agoNo I mean the total frequency range is much smaller. The US has 26 MHz width, while EU/Africa/India only allocated 7 MHz total. The difference in absolute frequency is minimal at ~30 MHz, you almost get more difference from using different channels in the US. What affects range even more is that in the US you can transmit at 1000 mW vs. 25 mW, so the end result is about ~5-10 km vs. 100-200 m. At that range 2.4 GHz is king and stomps it at over four times the allowed power to transfer ridiculously higher amounts of data.