Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design Subject: Re: "Safe" cell phone WiFi capabilities? Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 10:07:20 +0100 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 22 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 11:07:22 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="aacfc37cc8405ac73fc30d2653f115ec"; logging-data="1176145"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+XNBQCu8vPycngzz4Dqu8jBf+uTLophHj4ad/TiSW8uA==" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:vDyv4OPPDBlCWceyG3B3gmY/dEY= Content-Language: en-GB In-Reply-To: Bytes: 2230 On 21/05/2024 23:26, Don Y wrote: > On 5/21/2024 3:43 AM, John R Walliker wrote: >> I can offer some real-world data that may be of use.  I manage >> WiFi access points in offices around the world.  In every case, > >> Setting a minimum connection speed of 12MHz at 2.4GHz and 24MHz >> at 5GHz is also useful and does not appear to cause any problems. > > But, how much *higher* than that might you be able to go without > folks complaining about "equipment incompatibilities"? My instinct is that there are still a *lot* of phones out there (at least in the UK) where wireless n is the fastest they support. Give it another 3 years or so and that will change. Do you care if some Luddites can't use whatever it is you are making? The only way to know for sure would be to disable n and see how many people scream at you. -- Martin Brown