> We had interference somehow. Our remotes were set up to operate at the same frequency. Each remote controlled both devices.

That's not "interference" in the technical sense.

Interference actually causes signal degradation, distortion, or loss.

This is the system "working as expected" technically. It was just set up wrong.

▲

thaumasiotes 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> That's not "interference" in the technical sense.

But it is "interference" in the sense that that is what the word "interfere" means.

	▲	troad an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Interestingly, the -fere in interfere comes from the Latin ferīre, meaning 'to hit', 'to strike', etc. My first guess would have been something like facere/fāre or -fer, but that quickly falls apart on reflection (to do across? between-bearer?). Inter + ferire = to strike one another. Makes sense. Bonus point: the aforementioned -fer ('bearer', like conifer or aquifer) is distantly related to ferīre, as it is to English to bear, Greek phérō ('to carry'), Slavic brat ('to take'), Sanskrit bhárati ('to carry'), etc. I suppose ferīre itself must be the result of semantic drift along the lines of 'to carry/bear' -> 'to bring forth [blows]' -> 'to strike/hit'.
	▲	2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]

▲

MawKKe 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-channel_interference

One could argue that "interference" is not entirely a objective technical definition, but also subjective w.r.t quality of the service expected.

Also, in this scenario, if the two remotes were to transmit simultaneously, it is possible both boxes could have received some mangled, unregonizable waveform due to the interference.