What’s your evidence, Richard Easton??!?

  • henfredemars@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    69
    ·
    6 months ago

    Note that this frequency hopping is no longer used in most WiFi networks today. It is, however, critical to classic Bluetooth, and BLE still somewhat uses it. I have no idea how it’s related to GPS.

    • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Frequency hopping in wifi was never well supported. 802.11a was primarily DSSS and afaik, very few, if any consumer devices supported the FHSS mode.

      • henfredemars@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        6 months ago

        Indeed. Just speaking from a signals point of view, frequency hopping is not competitive for high bandwidth applications. It is however surprisingly durable in the presence of interference despite its simplicity. We’re seeing this play out in newer Bluetooth standards.

        • maynarkh@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          6 months ago

          Isn’t it still extensively used for RC stuff like drones and model aeroplanes / cars though? Asking as an amateur.

          • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            6 months ago

            It very much is! It’s widely touted as a safety feature, since interference on one frequency means you wont lose control of the flying blender for more than a few milliseconds (well, usually…)

          • henfredemars@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            6 months ago

            Yes. It works well because this is an application that requires low bandwidth, and interference could cause you to lose control and is even expected with multiple operators in the vicinity. You definitely want to have resilience to other interfering signals.

        • theneverfox@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          From a human perspective, yes, that’s exactly what it does

          If you want to get pedantic about the technical details, it’s not time splitting if you’re not splitting the time…

          • henfredemars@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Technically speaking, isn’t differentiating between any two things pedantic? For example the moon, and chocolate, both are things. If you don’t want to get pedantic about it.

            • theneverfox@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              What I mean is if you don’t slice time into slots, you’re not using time slicing. It doesn’t make sense to talk about time slicing at all anymore

              Two devices can transmit at the same time with all sorts of setups, even on the same frequency. And it’s not inaccurate to describe time slicing as “a method to allow multiple devices to transmit and receive simultaneously”

              The question isn’t valid. Being truly pedantic would be pointing out that any number of devices can transmit at the same time, you didn’t say the messages would be received