Dave Platt wrote:
In article ,

The problem with this is what I call the "alligator" effect. An
alligator is an animal with a big mouth and small ears. Running a 1
watt access point will make the xmitter heard over a much wider area
than it can hear the responses from the clients. Unless the other end
of the link (i.e. client radios) are also running the same high power
level, the range will be limited by the clients tx power. In other
words, the system gain and power levels in both directions have to be
evenly matched to avoid turning the high power access point into what
I consider to be no better than a jamming transmitter.

A not-uncommon scenario, I think. I've seen APs which put out a
signal that has useful strength for blocks, and yet you have to be
within about 100 feet of them to establish contact with a typical
client system.

This same issue is significant in other bands, as well. My area's
ham-radio VHF/UHF repeater coordination group has a firm principle...
a coordinated repeater's transmit coverage and receive coverage should
be consistent. Having an ultra-high-powered transmitter simply causes
interference well outside the repeater's practical use range.

Having overly-sensitive receivers can also be a problem, albeit a
lesser one, as it means that the repeater can be "keyed up" by remote
stations too far away to hear the repeater properly. It's less of
a problem, though, as most repeaters use CTCSS tone squelch these days
and won't respond to signals intended for co-channel repeaters with a
different CTCSS tone. I don't think this is an issue for 802.11
access points at all.


All the problems you state would disappear with the correct algorithms
controlling the packets/encryption/compaction ... there is just not
enough interest to put together a team together to do it, and a
for-profit organization would go broke doing it ... and, you can't get
everyone to agree. The (A)ncient (R)etarded (R)adio (L)aggards) don't
see a need--you see, no brass is required ... :-(

Regards,
JS