Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google, Microsoft, Comcast Say Verizon’s New Cellular Tech Could Wreck Wi-Fi

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 184 posts

Re: Google, Microsoft, Comcast Say Verizon’s New Cellular Tech Could Wreck Wi-Fi

#161

Post by pconner »

JustSomeNobody wrote: post #107
mikecb wrote: post #13

That comcast is part of this coalition is hilarious. My apartment building is flooded by xfinitywifi beacons, in addition to each subscribers private SSIDs. Why they insist on turning on this functionality even in urban environments boggles the mind.

I'm actually torn on this. I mean, I like that they are trying to push for wifi everywhere. But I kind of thing they should restrict it to certain businesses (Malls, pizza joints, etc) and not residential. I don't ever find myself without wifi at home unless the entire freaking neighborhood is out too (common with Comcast).

I thought that the xfinitywifi was just for Comcast subscribers. You can't call it "wifi everywhere" if it's only usable by certain people.

Re: Google, Microsoft, Comcast Say Verizon’s New Cellular Tech Could Wreck Wi-Fi

#162

Post by pconner »

indlebe wrote: post #48
thescriptkiddie wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It makes things look more crowded, but unless people are actually using the Comcast WiFi it isn't actually adding to congestion. The periodic SSID beacons are an annoyance but they use negligible bandwidth. That said, don't ever use an ISP provided access point.

>That said, don't ever use an ISP provided access point. Because the hardware is often inferior to what you can pick up for ~$200 at a tech store, not to mention the lack of control you get with an ISP AP.

With some uverse subscriptions, you have to use the ISP provided access point (at least as a modem, not necessarily for wireless) because the TV service is through IPTV and the uverse modem is needed do dns for the TV (you also can't use an arbitrary alternative dns server).

Re: Google, Microsoft, Comcast Say Verizon’s New Cellular Tech Could Wreck Wi-Fi

#163

Post by gst »

wtallis wrote: post #155
gst wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have quite a bit of networking knowledge and also used to work at an ISP for several years. Back then I wouldn't have used any router that didn't run my custom OpenWRT built with QoS settings, etc. But times have changed: On my old ADSL line QoS made a huge difference due to congestion (and the large buffer sizes). SSH was nearly unusable while uploading a file. My current Comcast line is so fast that I don't exper…

> " My current Comcast line is so fast that I don't experience any issues due to congestion - so how would I benefit from QoS? " Are you sure you don't have a few hundred milliseconds of bufferbloat in your cable modem, as is the case for almost all modems out there?

No - I'm not. But my connection works well enough and I don't notice any delays on either SSH or VoIP connections. So why should I invest time/energy into changing something that doesn't affect me?

Re: Google, Microsoft, Comcast Say Verizon’s New Cellular Tech Could Wreck Wi-Fi

#164

Post by JustSomeNobody »

pconner wrote: post #161
JustSomeNobody wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm actually torn on this. I mean, I like that they are trying to push for wifi everywhere. But I kind of thing they should restrict it to certain businesses (Malls, pizza joints, etc) and not residential. I don't ever find myself without wifi at home unless the entire freaking neighborhood is out too (common with Comcast).

I thought that the xfinitywifi was just for Comcast subscribers. You can't call it "wifi everywhere" if it's only usable by certain people.

Excellent point.

Re: Google, Microsoft, Comcast Say Verizon’s New Cellular Tech Could Wreck Wi-Fi

#165

Post by mjn »

JustSomeNobody wrote: post #107
mikecb wrote: post #13

That comcast is part of this coalition is hilarious. My apartment building is flooded by xfinitywifi beacons, in addition to each subscribers private SSIDs. Why they insist on turning on this functionality even in urban environments boggles the mind.

I'm actually torn on this. I mean, I like that they are trying to push for wifi everywhere. But I kind of thing they should restrict it to certain businesses (Malls, pizza joints, etc) and not residential. I don't ever find myself without wifi at home unless the entire freaking neighborhood is out too (common with Comcast).

I think their goal is to get coverage of commercial areas partly through nearby residential subscribers, since lots of them are in mixed-use areas. Even if the pizza joint doesn't have Comcast, the apartment upstairs (or across the street) might. So Comcast has a bigger chance of getting xfinitywifi coverage to places like the pizza joint if they turn on the functionality for residential routers too.

Re: Google, Microsoft, Comcast Say Verizon’s New Cellular Tech Could Wreck Wi-Fi

#166

Post by dheera »

0_00_0 wrote: post #143
dheera wrote: post #94

Considering 5 GHz doesn't really travel well through walls, is this a serious concern? 5 GHz Wi-Fi typically requires an access point in every room. Conversely, I imagine their cellular tech would really only improve the outdoor cellular experience.

Do you live in a concrete bunker? I have one dual band AP for my entire house.

I live in a huge concrete building, yes ...

Re: Google, Microsoft, Comcast Say Verizon’s New Cellular Tech Could Wreck Wi-Fi

#167

Post by vanattab »

qb45 wrote: post #141
gst wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you get to this conclusion? The density is probably not going to get much higher than it is already, but the technology is going to continue to improve.

More high-def everything, people moving from cable TV to streaming, WiFi displays, ever growing software updates, realtime online games... Growing expectations may easily compensate for technological improvement. Maybe wallpapers are too much pita, but if it came preinstalled in the walls and floors? Why not?

Do the wallpapers/paints block cell signals at all?

Re: Google, Microsoft, Comcast Say Verizon’s New Cellular Tech Could Wreck Wi-Fi

#168

Post by mirimir »

pconner wrote: post #159
mirimir wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, some of us live in homes with rooms and walls, and so 5GHz is pretty useless.

Some of us live in apartment complexes where a lot of APs are broadcasting in a small area, and the 3 non-overlapping channels in 2.4ghz are pretty limiting.

So there use 5GHz?

Or use http://www.amazon.com/YSHIELD-EMF-Shielding-Paint-HSF54/dp/B... ;)

Re: Google, Microsoft, Comcast Say Verizon’s New Cellular Tech Could Wreck Wi-Fi

#169

Post by warmwaffles »

vanattab wrote: post #167
qb45 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More high-def everything, people moving from cable TV to streaming, WiFi displays, ever growing software updates, realtime online games... Growing expectations may easily compensate for technological improvement. Maybe wallpapers are too much pita, but if it came preinstalled in the walls and floors? Why not?

Do the wallpapers/paints block cell signals at all?

They can if they can form a faraday cage

Re: Google, Microsoft, Comcast Say Verizon’s New Cellular Tech Could Wreck Wi-Fi

#170

Post by simoncion »

jrockway wrote: post #157
wtallis wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you look up actual measurements of 2.4GHz vs 5GHz penetration through common household materials, it's clear that it makes far less difference than the conventional wisdom seems to indicate. I think a lot of it comes down to two major factors: pre-802.11ac devices being designed to prioritize 2.4GHz antenna performance over 5GHz, and people having their networks arranged to account for where the dead spots are on…

Precisely. The big problem with 5GHz's reputation is that most access points, by default, pick channels where only low power is allowed. Lower power than 2.4GHz == lower range than 2.4GHz. Although I believe all channels are high-power channels now (as of late last year or early this year?), switching to one of the old high-power-allowed channels can help. 149 is recommended. I have yet to see any scientific paper th…

> Although I believe all channels are high-power channels now...

If they are, my Linux systems aren't yet aware of the change.

They make the claim that the only ranges with a 30dBm transmit power are 2402 - 2472MHz and 5735 - 5835MHz. All other WiFi bands are 23dBm. (Though it does seem like the transmit power in the 5.49 - 5.73 GHz range got increased from 17 to 23dBm somewhat recently.)

> I have yet to see any scientific paper that says 5GHz penetrates structural elements worse than 2.4GHz.

I can't point you to any studies, but -anecdotally- I've found that (at the same transmit power, and all other things being equal) a 5GHz link provides a lower SNR than a 2.4GHz link. Before I switched to an AP with better antenna and radio, I found that I would not-infrequently permanently lose the 5GHz connection in my bathroom [0][1], but the 2.4GHz connection could be reliably established in the bathroom and remained solid.

Even after I've switched APs, I get a substantially better signal [2] from the 2.4GHz connection than the 5GHz one.

[0] My bathroom is tile covered, filled with pipes, and the furthest point in the apartment from my AP.

[1] "Permanently" as in "once I left the bathroom I could reestablish the 5GHz connection".

[2] Obviously, a better signal doesn't guarantee a faster connection. At my site, 2.4GHz is so overcrowded as to be nearly useless.

Post reply on HN