| > It's incredible how well WiFi works for the amount of power it uses. Actually, WiFi disproves that we'd have a tragedy of the commons. > Having a limit across the board for all mass manufactured devices prevents an escalating spiral of vendors selling 30, then 40, then 50dbm etc routers. No, the AP and the device both have a strong interest to limit the power used: not just to limit interference with other devices inside the home, but also to increase battery life!! > but wink wink can be patched with easily googled instructions to increase the power to work better I just don't understand why most posters here assume the worst by default. Most people are nice and want to obey the law. WiFi proved that very little legal oversight was necessary to make it work. In fact, it did the opposite: by comparing the efficiency of the use of the 2.4Ghz band (noisy with microwaves etc) to the rest of the spectrum managed by the heavy hand of the FCC, any reasonable person would argue for removing regulations or more parts of the spectrum (starting maybe with the huge chunks waste on HAM radio!) |
For home routers this is a weak argument. Since most people download more than they upload, you could probably send a weaker signal from mobile devices and drown the air with signal from anything plugged into a wall socket.
> I just don't understand why most posters here assume the worst by default. Most people are nice and want to obey the law.
Maybe it's just where I live, but I don't see that on the road (people risking accidents to gain 30 seconds). People will only follow the law if they think it's worth their inconvenience and lots of people weight this in a bad way.
How many hand-tuned APs does it take to make a whole building lose significant bandwidth? After this the regulation has to become looser so the legal devices can keep working, and it never really gets better.