A dense municipal permit office needs higher per-client rates but already has many neighboring APs on 5 GHz. Which channel-width judgment is most appropriate?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
Wider lanes feel faster until you realize the parking lot only has a few of them — dense offices often need more reusable narrow channels, not every AP hogging 160 MHz. Width is an RF reuse trade, not a switch MTU knob. And 2.4 GHz is the worst place to dream about fat wide channels.
Full Explanation
Channel width trades peak data-rate potential against the number of usable non-overlapping channels and co-channel/adjacent interference risk. In dense municipal offices, expert plans often keep 20/40 MHz (or selective 80 MHz) to preserve reuse rather than deploying 160 MHz everywhere. Channel width is an RF planning parameter, not a wired MTU setting, and 2.4 GHz cannot sustain wide-channel reuse the way 5/6 GHz spectrum can.