https://www.thethingsnetwork.org/article/new-lora-world-reco...

But, that's receiving 3 of maybe thousands of packets.

There's work on bouncing of LoRA signals off the moon:

https://engprojects.tcnj.edu/lora-eme/

Yes, but Joe Shmoe won't see this on their home setup trying to talk to a buddy 2 miles away behind a hill.

WiFi sensitivity is about -90dB, while LoRa sensitivity is around-150dB…. So that’s about a million times more sensitive. So you need about a million times more signal strength to use low bandwidth WiFi (still impossibly fast by LoRa standards) than to use low bandwidth LoRa.

Those are radio specifications. Real links require about 10db more to get any kind of reliability, but the comparison stands.

I never did much 2.4ghz stuff because that was what rich people did, or people mad enough to modify microwave oven magnetrons. However I was always under the impression that freespace loss on 2.4 was terrible. but it turns out its "only" ~9db more than 865

> Wifi HaLow 802.11ah. LoRa is another level. It works down to -146dBm. 802.11ah dies around -100dBm.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47890598

LoRa looks like someone is dropping a saw wave on the spectrum. It so clearly looks like such a blunt force user of spectrum. Just wild.

lower than 430 you start to run into severe bandwidth issues though. and its not allowed to transmit lora/dss on 430 in the us without license hence the 900mhz

at 2.4ghz the real world usage is limited. might as well use wifi. the only advantage is short range bandwidh while keeping lora compat.