"Ideal" isn't doing as much heavy lifting as I thought it would be in this article. This is a basic wardriving setup on flat ground.
Standard wifi is phy limited to ~1600m unless you can increase ack response time limit, otherwise retransmissions will be sent by the sender while ack's are being transmitted by the receiver.
Then, per friis equation, with enough power and antenna gain (it's the antenna gain that really matters) the limit is only obstructions/terrain. Get yourself high enough (mountains, planes, satellites, moons, etc), or bounce of an opportune reflector (planes, moon, aurora, meteors, ionosphere, rain, hail, etc), and there is no real limit, besides how big of an antenna you're willing to build in orbit :P
or just make the throughput really really really REALLY slow and ice your receivers with liquid He.
For discussion purposes just "WiFi" isn't doing much. I doubt typical AP<->phone 802.11ac on 5GHz can achieve >1km let alone 802.11ax/be on 6Ghz carrier, even 802.11n can only reach a few hundred meters with line-of-sight, sunny day, and no interference
Long range WiFi is a "solved" problem with 802.11ah with sub-Ghz carrier and can reach more than a km depending on bandwidth requirements
All that assuming tx power is within regulation, no enterprise grade antenna, and all with commercially available parts
Ubiquiti do 5.8GHz bridges that work well over long distances.
I used a pair to link from my house to a nearby block of flats, around 9km LOS, and back to my friend's house (we didn't have LOS to each other) around 15km.
They worked well at full link speed, around 80Mbps. These were just bog standard off-the-shelf ones, although for space considerations I "mix'n'matched" the links using one with a 10dB dish at one end and the patch antenna at the other.
Here in the UK at least, you can use as high an EIRP as you like, so there's nothing to stop you taking a cheapy USB wifi or bluetooth dongle and 3D printing an adaptor to mount it on the boom of a cheap satellite dish.
I've been running a 1.1km 5Ghz 802.11ac wifi link between two highly directional antennas for three years now. They have line-of-sight, albeit just barely. The kit I got cost $100 at the time. It was quite easy to setup even and supposedly can go much further than I'm using them for.
With so much benefit we’re getting from wireless connectivity, one hopes that more frequency bands would be opened up, especially in the sub-1GHz range, to enable long distance connections.
And it should be open to public use. Not yet another carrier frequency they will charge us an arm and a leg to use, some of the cell phone connectivity charges are insane, hundreds of dollars for low bandwidth iot sims.
It is immensely frustrating that there is so little unlicensed spectrum available vs the massive amounts of spectrum available to militaries and very rich network operators.
Worse is that the unlicenced spectrum that is available is often so heavily encumbered with restrictions in many parts of the world. Wi-Fi HaLow for example, in ETSI regions, is limited to a paltry 14dBm EIRP in no wider than 2MHz channels and an unacceptably punishing duty cycle restriction in most cases that render it barely able to make a TCP connection (some mitigations exist that involve channel hopping on some products but nothing that works for things that require fixed channels, e.g. IBSS or 802.11s).
The licensed spectrum is not empty. It is scarce because it is fully allocated! Chances are that most of the allocated users are not using it in a given geographical area, so there's space to argue about allocation policies, however.
You can also consider trying to get a license. Costs and probability of success vary widely, but you may as well find out what they are before complaining.
Some European hacker events get temporary licenses to run their walkie talkies and even their own 4/5G cellphone networks. I assume they are cheaper and easier to get than permanent licenses.
> Worse is that the unlicenced spectrum that is available is often so heavily encumbered with restrictions in many parts of the world
It's one of the great things about the UK. As long as you're not causing interference to anyone that's actually paying for a licence, you can pretty much do what you like.
Likewise. Every query returns dozens and dozens of AI generated domains and blog posts like this. It’s MUCH better than google with filters and small web but still sad.
I heard that they might have fixed the problem, but I initially dropped it when they stopped respecting quotes, even in verbatim mode. Like, if I’m looking for an obscure product number, I don’t want a bunch of shit with a few digits off if there are no actual hits. I want no hits if the settings and query demand it.
I'm in the big city. I've experimented with using my running/position lights only on slower, congested streets at night when the street is well illuminated. I know I have a car with annoyingly bright LED headlights, so it feels like I'm being courteous. The LED position lights are surprisingly bright too, but at least it' s diffuse. When the street is less illuminated or traffic is more sparse my regular headlights go on.
This does not influence the behavior of oncoming traffic with high-beams on, whether due to ignorance, entitlement, or because their low-beams are burnt out and they can't be bothered, or afford to replace them.
It's also not legal to do what I do, so it's ironic that I'm probably at higher risk for ticketing for not driving with headlights than people with high-beams or broken lights (to be fair not a lot of people get ticketed for basic violations in STL city).
I do wish I could have them angled down on demand, or follow a set level point regardless of vehicle tilt (like on hills, speedbumps, etc). They do have a feature where the lights steer into the direction of travel, if only they did that vertically too.
My century-old fortune 50 workplace does not have free. Autodrip coffeemakers are provided, but the coffee isn’t free. Employees bring it in with a jar to collect “coffee club membership fees.”
My blogpost titled “Millennials are killing ham radio” has received the most hits out of all of my other posts. It got me an interview with IEEE Spectrum and basically cemented my name as a ham radio influencer.
Amateur radio is a remarkably niche hobby so that kind of attention is rare, but it took ragebait to do it. A title like “The Next Generation of Ham Radio” would have flopped. I know this because that’s what I titled it first, and after 40 views in 2 months I slightly rewrote it and reposted it under the new title and within a day it appeared on just about every ham radio forum, facebook group, numerous email reflectors, and so on.
I finished reading this comment wondering what should I take away from it. Is it better to include alarming titles and be read? Or the other way around? Or what would be the sweet middle point?
Before reading the article, I guessed the headline was alluding to the popularity of Hypochlorus Acid as a sanitizer, made from electrolysis of slightly acidic salty (NaCl) water. I had a kid and the algorithm led me to discovering a brand of in-home electrolysis generators, and after a fair bit of research on safety and efficacy I’ve been using it quite a bit.
That makes a lot of sense… I’m in the rich/middle class north Atlanta burbs visiting family, and the entrance to every cul-de-sac has a flock LPR pointing inwards.
I didn’t notice it at all last year but the cameras were there. Benn blew the cap off and now they’re omnipresent.
>theoretically, that type of pattern could randomly show up if you were just driving through mud. Is it the intent that makes it illegal? Is it the presence of it that makes it illegal? If you have a certain amount of mud on your license plate and that cop doesn't likeyou, could he use this law and be a dick and put you in jail the same way that he would if you were driving with an open bottle of Absolut and swerving in and out of your lane?
Not only does he acknowledge intent is a thing, I think this is more a commentary on the ambiguity of the bill, which states:
>A person may not alter the original appearance of a vehicle registration certificate, license plate, temporary license plate, mobile home sticker, or validation sticker issued for and assigned to a motor vehicle or mobile home, whether by mutilation, alteration, defacement, or change of color or in any other manner.
The lack of the word "knowingly" makes it ambiguous whether intent matters. A person who drives with a plate covered in mud, bugs, or bird shit could be theoretically be charged by this law not because of intent to obscure it, but because of the person neglected their duty to keep the plate clear of obstructions so it could be read by these LPR cameras that infringe his Fourth Amendment right.
I'm sure theres a lot of other legal context and case law but laws shouldn't be written with loopholes or ambiguity like that in the first place.
Standard wifi is phy limited to ~1600m unless you can increase ack response time limit, otherwise retransmissions will be sent by the sender while ack's are being transmitted by the receiver.
Then, per friis equation, with enough power and antenna gain (it's the antenna gain that really matters) the limit is only obstructions/terrain. Get yourself high enough (mountains, planes, satellites, moons, etc), or bounce of an opportune reflector (planes, moon, aurora, meteors, ionosphere, rain, hail, etc), and there is no real limit, besides how big of an antenna you're willing to build in orbit :P
or just make the throughput really really really REALLY slow and ice your receivers with liquid He.
Hams make a game of it: https://www.arrl.org/files/file/WA50-Standings/Distance-Reco...