Post #4395982
2026-08-05 15:51 UTC
@circfruit@fosstodon.org @everton137@social.vivaldi.net @fdlamotte@mamot.fr I would still prefer WiFi and 2.4 GHz. Reticulum can use it too (I am not a fan though)
The hardware is ubiquous (every laptop and cell phone and ESP has it) and legally the band is not as limited as the 868 ISM one.
And the achievable speed of even the oldest 802.11b is 11 Mbps! (LoRa is at maximum few kbps)
Both LoRa and WiFi bands are line of sight (+ reflections) anyway, so there is not much disadvantage there in the 2.4G band (except water absorbtion).
Replies (1)
-
@prometheuspetrosss@mas.to 2026-08-05 21:26
@marsik@witter.cz @circfruit@fosstodon.org @everton137@social.vivaldi.net @fdlamotte@mamot.fr That’s something to think about. I’d like to ask: what about power consumption? Since we #reticulum fans want to minimize our dependence on hardware and third parties as much as possible, does Wi-Fi have terrible power consumption compared to LoRa? Even though Wi-Fi has a much higher data transfer rate than LoRa. I think there are already solar-powered Wi-Fi projects, but how energy-intensive are they compared to LoRa? It’s great that every device has Wi-Fi these days, so we can take advantage of it. How much power does a directional Wi-Fi antenna consume over a range of about 2 km compared to LoRa? Thank you.