Tons of things do, old cordless, legacy proprietary wireless
mice/keyboard/remote controls, ir-replacements, random bits of
pseudo-ethernet devices (sonos audio system comes to mind), bluetooth,
and most anything else "wireless" defacto runs in 2.4ghz, including
99.9% of wireless computers blasting out torrents (literally) of
packetized and attuned rf.
I won't reiterate a plethora of wireless bits, but 2.4 bites for lack of
total non-overlapping channels, it's more or less the cesspool every
device defaults to, good, bad, or ugly.
I did read somewhere that supposed there was a 3.6ghz spectrum released
for general consumption to give more network band, and there's always
5ghz, which is preferred with 802.11a, or 802.11n that can use either band.
-mb
On 06/12/2012 11:06 PM, Derek Trotter wrote:
> It's unfortunate that someone deliberately comes up with something like
> this that adds a lot of junk to a band that's already full of sources of
> interference. Then there's that 2.4 ghz source you have in your kitchen
> or office breakroom. I get my internet
> connection wirelessly via the library across the street. My connection
> dies whenever I use the microwave. While I'm waiting on my burrito to
> cook, I can scan for available networks but won't find any.
>
> Besides cordless phones, what sources of interference are there to
> 802.11n networks?
>
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list -
PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
(text/plain)