![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
MikeB4:
I will go out on a limb and suggest its a new branch of science.
At least they're getting to the root of the problem.
(Sorry, I know it's punacceptable but I tried really hard to resist, I swear...)
"I was born not knowing and have had only a little time to change that here and there." | Octopus Energy | Sharesies
- Richard Feynman
sidefx:
(Sorry, I know it's punacceptable but I tried really hard to resist, I swear...)
Don't pine over it.
MikeB4 wood have been the instigator - not yew, even if there's tree fellas playing the game now.
trig42:
I saw that headline on the Herald webpage yesterday, and thought to myself, how can trees (obviously outside your house) interfere with WiFi? They can't.
They can interfere with Wireless Broadband, which IMO is not WiFi.
If only the Herald had someone on their staff that could differentiate these things...
Exactly me too.
tdgeek:
trig42:
I saw that headline on the Herald webpage yesterday, and thought to myself, how can trees (obviously outside your house) interfere with WiFi? They can't.
They can interfere with Wireless Broadband, which IMO is not WiFi.
If only the Herald had someone on their staff that could differentiate these things...
Exactly me too.
I'm not bothered much - what's presented includes an allegedly direct quotation from an expert:
"Trees can interfere with wi-fi - but all wireless is not created equal," he says.
Apart from that confusion over "Wi-fi", I thought otherwise the article was quite informative and well-written - to a pretty good standard.
Here's some more - the judge used also used the term "wi-fi" - and Keall is still clearly not understanding - by his comment about "use of wi-fi in the broad sense".
If you want to be pedantic - reply to the tweet.
I think @dolsen just won this thread.
"I was born not knowing and have had only a little time to change that here and there." | Octopus Energy | Sharesies
- Richard Feynman
xpd:
I too would be terrified of all those dangerous transmissions hitting the tree, chop them all down I say.
Bloody hell! Was that in your neighbor's garden? I'd maybe opt for a pole or tower to solve an 'interference' problem.
- NET: FTTH, OPNsense, 10G backbone, GWN APs, ipPBX
- SRV: 12 RU HA server cluster, 0.1 PB storage on premise
- IoT: thread, zigbee, tasmota, BidCoS, LoRa, WX suite, IR
- 3D: two 3D printers, 3D scanner, CNC router, laser cutter
So this one circled back to me... i pulled the numbers on issues that have been related possibly to trees on spark 4G Wireless broadband.
came out to be 0.4% of all faults logged with the callcentre.
That's an extremely rough number, and i could argue atleast half of even those cases aren't actually tree issues.
If you ask me that's pretty marginal. in many of these situations an alternative connection or fibre was provided too to ensure a quality experience.
the likes of @coffeebaron probably has a higher ratio of tree related issues given he's often doing rural installations.
#include <std_disclaimer>
Any comments made are personal opinion and do not reflect directly on the position my current or past employers may have.
|
![]() ![]() ![]() |