The article is about the frequency, Sport. That's what is fundamentally wrong with it. The real difference between R/C radios operating in 2.4 GHz band and the old 72 MHz stuff is spread spectrum, so while the article ignored the 'value added' by it, any halfway intelligent discussion of the relative merits of the signaling systems being compared must consider it. I'm not going to write a primer on SS here, there are on-line sources for that. Just a couple of summary items for interested folks to consider:
-The robustness of the control link isn't a just matter of signal strength (S) at the receiver as the author argues or at least infers. It is a function (S) to noise (N) ratio S/N.
-SS provides gain in S/N by sending the same information, redundantly, multiple times into different 'slots'. Copies of the same quantum of info (say a binary bit) are sent to different slots, separated by time and/or frequency. Processing in the receiver sums the energy received in all of the slots, and by a decision algorithm declares that signal is present or not - simple binary yes/no, 1or 0 decision. Intelligent signal (S) is detected in more slots than would contain energy due to random noise (N), so the effective S/Nincreases. That is processing gain, the whole objective of the SSsignalling scheme.
-Sending multiple copies of every quantum of info takes similar multiples of bandwidth - the more redundancy (and robustness)the more bw. That bw simply isn't available in the part of the RFspectrum allocated to us between a couple TVbroadcast channels (72 MHz). That's why 2.4 GHz, not because conditions for propagation of radio waves is better there.
Way oversimplified, but Ihope that does't distort the how/why of the process too much........