Is 2.4 Ghz dead, for mission critical ?

[SPP]

I read this :

Page 2 - SCOPE
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/doc...s_for_Apple_Devices_on_Cisco_Wireless_LAN.pdf

===================
As per established enterprise best practices, and both Cisco and Apple's joint recommendation, the use of the 2.4 GHz band is not considered suitable for use for any business and/or mission critical enterprise applications. Cisco and Apple strongly recommends a 5 GHz-only (802.11a/n/ac) wireless network for Apple devices. This document focuses completely on a 5 GHz network layout as a best practice for all Apple Devices, and there are no recommendations for a 2.4 GHz-only or dual-band networks.
====================

I am not discussing performance difference between 2.4Ghz vs 5 Ghz.
I am worried on the over crowding of 2.4 Ghz.

What will happen to us flyers using 2.4 Ghz ?

I personally been avoiding flight in wifi dense area.
I was scanning wifi signals while I was on an elevated highway in my city. Its road height its like 3 storey buildings. Holy cow, there are so much wifi signals on the air.

What do you guys think for our future on 2.4Ghz for controlling drones ?
I will say flying a drone is a mission critical category. I mean if our 2.4ghz get intereference and drone hit someone in the face, that is so scarry.

Many thanks...

 

[PdxSteve]

5GHz doesn't penetrate objects nearly as well as 2.4GHz. 900MHz is even better for penetration and long range than 2.4Ghz. There's actually a mod being developed by Philip Rowse that does 900MHz. It supposedly has a range of about 50KM and the link is encrypted.

 

[Toiletbowl]

the 2.4 is ok but the problem is a massive wireless company uses 2.4 so the enemies are the noise / interference because in wireless communications less noise more clean transmission in my opinion 3dr developer should go to 900Mhz or 3.65Ghz because few people or big company uses these frequency

 

[SPP]

Guys,

Can 900 Mhz do video transmission with ease ?
Lower frequency, they cant carry video/massive data as well as say 2.4 and 5 ghz...correct ?

I am seeing 60 Ghz transmitter now...wow !!

 

[Toiletbowl]

Guys,

Can 900 Mhz do video transmission with ease ?
Lower frequency, they cant carry video/massive data as well as say 2.4 and 5 ghz...correct ?

I am seeing 60 Ghz transmitter now...wow !!

well 900 can carry 150mbps 20km range base on what i read some wireless company like ubnt

 

[fpvsteve]

Guys,

Can 900 Mhz do video transmission with ease ?
Lower frequency, they cant carry video/massive data as well as say 2.4 and 5 ghz...correct ?

I am seeing 60 Ghz transmitter now...wow !!

No.
Bandwith at 900MHz is simply not sufficient for video. Not even analog video.
60GHz will work only in near field communications or with directional antennas in LOS direction. No way to use in a RC model aircraft.

Also, there is a world wide agreed usage policy for radio frequencies. By law you cannot just go and grab a frequency for your own use.

2.4 is the best compromize for mid range communication along with sufficint bandwith for digital applications and what was chosen by the regulators world wide and it will be continued in use for RC models (such as Solo).

 

[Pedals2Paddles]

My Y6 has 433mhz RC, 900mhz telemetry, and 5ghz video.

The 433mhz control is a full 1 watt, ground and air. Nice big 1/2 wave antenna on the controller, and a 1/4 wave antenna on the bird. That thing will go forever, and trees had zero effect on it. I could descend behind a house and maintain control. I toyed with running telemetry down the control link, and it worked, but I decided to keep the separate 900mhz telemetry link for redundancy. The furthest out I ever flew was a mile and it still had 75% signal. Mind you, that's a mile at 75% signal... with omnidirectional whip antennas. Nothing directional.

The telemetry is 3DR 900mhz radios, little omnidirectional whip antennae on both ends. This usually started to lose link around 3000ft, well before the 433 control. With higher gain antennas, I could probably push that further. Trees usually weren't a problem at all. Getting totally behind a house usually works, as long as it wasn't too far away.

The video is 5ghz, using omnidirectional CP antennae on both ends. The CP makes all the difference in signal stability and reliability. But you can only transmit 5hz so far before it begins to fade. Even with a clear line of sight, the 5ghz starts fading out shortly before the telemetry. This again could probably be extended with higher gain antennae, or directional antennas. But nonetheless, still the weakest of them all. And easily blocked by trees and buildings no matter what you do.

Before I went to the 433mhz control, I had a basic 2.4ghz control link. Not wife, just FHSS. It was terrible. The range with no obstructions sucked. And got help you if a tree moved in the wind. The solo's range with 2.4ghz WiFi is much better than the cheapo 2.4ghz control I had on it.


If I were to build a custom mission critical UAV, and all legalities were put aside for the greater good, I would not use 2.4ghz for anything. It's too crowded, and too easy to compromise (on purpose or by accident).

 

[Pushjerk]

Fun little trick I picked from the TBS guys up for flying my fixed wing FPV birds running 2.4 video in dense 2.4 environment, though no applicable with Solo:

Running CP omni (like a clover leaf) on vTX, and a higher gain LP Yagi on the vRX. Instead of orienting the Yagi elements vertically, lay them down 90deg, so your receiving a horizontally polarized signal, instead of vertically - which is how the vast vast majority of any signal pumping out on 2.4 in the real world is oriented. Your Yagi now picks up your CP video transmission with negligible DB loss, and doesn't see the vertically polarized wifi and ISM around you.

Again, not applicable to Solo and a datalink system. But for running RC/FPV based systems like 3DRs pre-Solo line, this is a good little nugget.

 

[SPP]

thanks all of you...great info