Why do shared WAP channels cause intermittent connectivity issues?
Short answer
B Interference
Question
Key Takeaways
The question tests the difference between the physical effect (interference) and the administrative mistake (incorrect channel planning), with the common trap being to answer 'incorrect channel' when the symptom description points to interference.
In the CompTIA Network+ N10-008 exam, WAPs sharing channel 5 can cause intermittent connectivity due to co-channel interference. Most community commenters identify interference (B) as the direct cause, though some debate the channel planning aspect.
Common mistake: Choosing C, 'Incorrect channel,' is the most common mistake because sharing a channel is often a configuration error. However, the WAPs sharing channel 5 produce overlapping RF signals, and the immediate cause of the intermittent connectivity is the resulting interference, not the channel number itself.
Expert Analysis
Why the Answer Is Correct
When two or more access points operate on the same or overlapping 2.4 GHz channels, their RF signals can collide, especially if the cells overlap. This co-channel interference causes intermittent connectivity, packet loss, and retransmissions, exactly matching the symptom. The question explicitly states the affected WAPs "share channel five," so the most likely cause is interference between those devices. While channel selection may be poor, the physical effect that interrupts traffic is interference.
Why the Other Options Are Wrong
A (Polarization) refers to the orientation of antennas and is unlikely to be triggered specifically by turning on WAPs on the same channel. C (Incorrect channel) is a configuration issue that may lead to interference, but the question asks for the most likely cause of the symptom, and interference is the actual phenomenon being observed. D (Low power levels) would cause weak signal or dead spots, not intermittent issues tied to other WAPs powering on. Therefore, B is the most direct and correct answer.
Community Comment Notes
One helpful commenter (3 likes) correctly reasoned that an incorrect channel would lead to "more consistent problems like slow speeds or dropped connections," not intermittent issues. Another commenter (4 likes) mentioned 1-6-11 spacing, which supports good channel planning but still points to interference as the mechanism. A few comments chose C, arguing that sharing channels is an incorrect setup; however, the majority (69 votes) selected B, and the question's wording emphasizes the RF effect. The 1-6-11 rule is ultimately a way to avoid interference, not a separate cause from it.
Exam Strategy
Look for the word 'cause' and match it to the physical phenomenon. If the symptom appears only when multiple WAPs transmit on the same channel, interference is the cause; 'incorrect channel' may be why the interference exists, but it is not the immediate cause.
Community Votes
69% of anonymous learners picked answer B. Votes are pick records left by other test-takers — they are not the verified answer.
Discussion 6 contributions
Compiled from public community threads and reader submissions, lightly edited for clarity. Handles and vote tallies are shown as recorded, and comments reflect the views of individual contributors.
From public community threads 6
-
subaie503 👍 3 Answered BAn incorrect channel could contribute to signal weakness, but it wouldn't necessarily cause intermittent issues. It would likely lead to more consistent problems like slow speeds or dropped connections.
-
Los1994 👍 3 Answered BInterference is causing "intermittent connectivity issue"
-
5H4K1R 👍 2 Answered CIncorrect channel. Whenever access points share channels, it creates issues. Like emilia_088 said, the channels should be separated in a 1-6-11 distance.
-
bdemps98 👍 2 Answered CWouldn't it be incorrect channels causing interference which results in the intermittent connectivity issues?
-
emilia_088 👍 41,6,11 channels C is correct
Show 1 more comment
-
schoha8874 👍 3 Answered Bits b.
Reader comments & corrections
No reader corrections yet — spotted an error or have a note? Share it below.