Cisco Support Community
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Announcements

Welcome to Cisco Support Community. We would love to have your feedback.

For an introduction to the new site, click here. If you'd prefer to explore, try our test area to get started. And see here for current known issues.

New Member

Is client right to request 802.11g for use with thick walls

Hi,

I have a client who tells me his only reason for requesting 11g is that he has thick walls at his location. Is he right to do so?

I know the obvious answer here is to perform a site survey and do the tests but I would like to know if 11g is any better at penetrating thick walls than 11a or 11b? My thinking is that the thick walls are an issue on its own, regardless of the standard used. And this is effected by the power output of the AP.

Does anybody have an opinon to share on this?

Many thanks

  • Other Wireless - Mobility Subjects
3 REPLIES
Cisco Employee

Re: Is client right to request 802.11g for use with thick walls

I am not sure where he got this information from.

Both B and G use the same radio frequency band and as such there environmental behaviour will be almost identical.

If any thing I would say B would be slightly better as any time you increase the data rate your tollerance to low SNR decreases but the difference prob would be so small that it would be next to impossible to measure

New Member

Re: Is client right to request 802.11g for use with thick walls

Answering my own question in case anyone else was contemplating the same question......

The anecdotal evidence that I have recieved over the last few days would suggest to me that the use of .11b or .11g would be better than .11a. This is in part due to the fact that .11a operates at a higher waveband than both .11b or .11g

Regards

Steve

Green

Re: Is client right to request 802.11g for use with thick walls

Above ~900MHz, there is no penetration, only bouncing. The smaller wavelength of the higher frequencies will allow the radio waves to squeeze through smaller openings, but at 2.4GHz, there is virtually no penetration of solid materials.

5.6GHz bounces better, but it's a lower power level and scatters easier (it take fewer bounces to kill the signal, especially non-smooth surfaces).

Pretty much anything with water in it (plants, trees, shrubs, humans) will absorb the signal at either frequency.

FWIW

Scott

106
Views
0
Helpful
3
Replies