That shouldn't impact 20 vs 40MHz operation though. An AP/router will dynamically switch between 20MHz and 40MHz operation in that case. All my Apple devices happily coexist with all of my non-Apple devices on my wireless network and all of my non-Apple devices more than happily gobble down 40MHz channel width worth of wireless bandwidth even with my Apple devices streaming content, etc. on 2.4GHz.Looks like you're not getting the wide channels to take...
Beacon may say it's supporting wide channels, but most modern chipsets will fall back to 20MHz protection if there are other AP's in the area.
Also, note that if you have any Apple devices, they send out the 40MHz Intolerant Bit in their management frames in 2.4GHz, and most current AP's will honor that request.
If you're limited to 2.4GHz, use narrow channels (20Mhz) on the AP - you'll get better range and performance for the most part, and less interference to/from adjacent networks - bonus also here if you're using Bluetooth for anything (WideChannels impact Bluetooth in a fairly significant manner in many cases.
Your example is one of those exceptions perhaps...That said, there are perks to using 20MHz channels, especially in 2.4GHz. The range gain is generally only at extreme range, even at long range (if there is NO other interference mind you) 40MHz performs quite a bit better.
I can see your point of view clearly. But what about those that use 2.4GHz wide channels and have no neighbors to interfere with? Should they be punished unnecessarily?
Really what it needs is just better co-existance checking enforced in firmware is what it needs, not it disabled entirely.yes... lol...
Every situation is different, but in urban/suburban neighbourhoods - for the most part, it's better to run narrow channels.
Less interference for the neighbors, less interference for the local AP (as their AP's are noise/jammers as well) - esp in the example cited..