802.11n: Another Tangible Demonstration Of A Wireless Range Limitation

In past writeups, I’ve discussed the range-versus-frequency tradeoffs of 802.11’s two ISM bands (2.4 GHz and 5 GHz), along with the more fundamental limitations of wireless versus other networking technologies. Here’s some more quantification of the disquieting situation, in a testing environment different than the one I normally use (i.e. different from my Truckee, CA home office).

As I type these words, my friend’s simultaneous-dual-band Apple Time Capsule is 22 feet (and one stucco wall) away from me. WiFind reports that the 5 GHz beacon (specifically channel 149, i.e. 5.745 GHz) coming from the HDD-augmented router has a 19%-of-max signal strength at my MacBook Air, while the 2.4 GHz (channel 6, i.e. 2.437 GHz) signal strength is 35% of peak.

If I sit outside on the deck, less than 10 incremental feet (and only one more stucco wall) away from where I am now, the 5 GHz signal’s strength drops to low single digits in percentage and a sustained connection is not possible. The 2.4 GHz signal also plummets to below 20% of peak but doesn’t completely drop. Nearby neighbors’ Wi-Fi signals are 2.4 GHz-only, have single-digit strength percentages, and are on non-overlapping channels (1 and 11).

I suspect that the attenuation is caused by Faraday cage-reminiscent chicken wire construction materials in the wall. And I also suspect I might also be able to improve things if I overrode the router’s default channel selections. But as I pointed out the other day, most consumers don’t have either the time, understanding or interest in doing such tech-twiddling. As such, I think the operating range results I’m seeing are pretty sad. What do you think?