3 ms·
Am I understanding that graph about "distributed-tone resource units" correctly that WiFi is finally going the way of Bluetooth frequency hopping? Ever since I
by lucb1e 1mo ago
Am I understanding that graph about "distributed-tone resource units" correctly that WiFi is finally going the way of Bluetooth frequency hopping?
Ever since I found out that this is possible, it seemed like the obvious better choice because it divides the spectrum across everyone equally with no configuration, whereas on WiFi you (or your router) always had to choose one channel to work on and hope for the best. It might look clear for a full minute, but then the neighbor presses 'next song' 20 seconds later and whatever channel they're on is now trying to push some megabytes of audio. Probably it also has downsides or they'd long ago have done this, though?
Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency-hopping_spread_spectrum#Technical_considerations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency-hopping_spread_spect... (used by Bluetooth) mentions also that some jurisdictions allow a 1000x higher transmit power if you hop between enough frequencies with short enough dwell times on each, which it sounds like Bluetooth would easily reach at its usual 1600 hops per second at the full 2.4 GHz unlicensed band
- roryirvine 1mo agoFHSS was actually used by the original (2 Mbps) 802.11 radio modems in the mid 90s. It wasn't until 802.11b/a came along a few years later that the world moved to DSSS (along with other innovations such as, er, proper intercompatibility between different vendors' kit!). AIUI, DSSS was necessary to make use of the full channel bandwidth, but FHSS is more resistant to interference so might be good for the warehouse use case mentioned in another top level comment.