[jorvi]

Were the naysayers saying 2.4GHz was impossible at all, or were they saying in a normal setting?

The distinction is quite important because I imagine anything bigger than the tiniest of villages will be swamped with interference..

[FrankPetrilli]

In particular, people used to plain FSK RC protocols like Spektrum DSM, FrSky D8, Futaba FASST, and similar which tend to failsafe around <1km even with 100mW of power believed that a 2.4GHz link could never do 100km regardless of interference or noise issues.

Also notably, LoRa does tremendously well with real-world noise and interference. Of course any receiver is susceptible to frontend overload, but in "normal" situations I never worry about flying 2.4GHz even in crowded cities, and have never had a failsafe even in some ridiculous situations. As someone above mentions, LTE on the 800MHz band with 900MHz control links are much more of a problem - I've had a failsafe for that exact reason at <200m total distance from takeoff.

[jorvi]

Damn, that's quite impressive. Thank you for clarifying!

[topspin]

> Were the naysayers saying 2.4GHz was impossible at all, or were they saying in a normal setting?

The naysayers, even if they aren't strawmen, weren't "saying" anything of note. There aren't any mysteries or questions here: what can be achieved is predetermined by the factors involved. The key figures of merit are power, gain, path loss, noise and receiver sensitivity. Whatever those factors are determines feasible range, and they are all well understood.