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

Make educated wireless router/AP upgrade decisions

duckware.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 91 posts

Re: Make educated wireless router/AP upgrade decisions

#11

Post by mjevans »

zbrozek wrote: post #4

I can't say that AFC excites me: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-354364A1.pdf Devices will be sending their GPS coordinates and serial numbers to the FCC to verify what frequencies they can use. It's unclear to me why the serial numbers need to be sent.

I agree that it's very unclear why that is required.

The source IP (v4 or v6) address for the record update, along with the timestamp of update, is already sufficiently identifying, and would be obtained even offhand in a query process to check a given area for interference issues.

The requirement to use GPS also practically mandates that these routers HAVE a GPS receiver inside.

My biggest worries relate to the cost and probable barrier to projects like OpenWRT supporting these devices.

Re: Make educated wireless router/AP upgrade decisions

#12

Post by tzs »

mnm1 wrote: post #6

Wi-Fi 6 looks promising for people with really fast Internet connections that are not capped. For capped internet connections it's almost irrelevant. In my experience, it just reaches the cap quicker and ends up in charges or having to carefully manage things to not reach the cap before the end of the month. I downgraded my connection from 350mbps to 200mbps as I was breaching the 1tb cap too quickly (Comcast). I can…

For a large majority of consumers the amount of data they use per month is only slightly correlated with their internet speed.

They have a certain amount of data they want to use in a month. If their speed goes up or down the amount of data they want to use stays about the same--the speed just determines how long they have to wait for downloads.

You might look into Comcast's XFi Advantage plan, which includes unlimited data. The cost varies by location but I think it is around $15/month in most. You also have to be renting their modem, so add another $10-14/month. You can add unlimited data to any plan, but that's $50/month. Doing it via XFi Advantage is about half of that.

Re: Make educated wireless router/AP upgrade decisions

#13

Post by totetsu »

zbrozek wrote: post #4

I can't say that AFC excites me: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-354364A1.pdf Devices will be sending their GPS coordinates and serial numbers to the FCC to verify what frequencies they can use. It's unclear to me why the serial numbers need to be sent.

Will this lead to restriction on installing open-source firmwares on routers too?

Re: Make educated wireless router/AP upgrade decisions

#14

Post by PaulKeeble »

This article strongly suggests that modern hardware reviews for consumer grade routers have become mostly useless. This has a wealth of practical knowledge in it the likes of which you never see in a review of a router. So much of the modern internet for product reviews is really advertorials.

Re: Make educated wireless router/AP upgrade decisions

#15

Post by brokencode »

mnm1 wrote: post #6

Wi-Fi 6 looks promising for people with really fast Internet connections that are not capped. For capped internet connections it's almost irrelevant. In my experience, it just reaches the cap quicker and ends up in charges or having to carefully manage things to not reach the cap before the end of the month. I downgraded my connection from 350mbps to 200mbps as I was breaching the 1tb cap too quickly (Comcast). I can…

While WiFi 6 is a little faster than older WiFi standards for individual connections, it is really meant to allow for better performance when there are a lot of clients all using the network at once. So for a home network, you might not notice much of a benefit, but in universities, hotels, etc., you might see a bigger improvement.

Re: Make educated wireless router/AP upgrade decisions

#17

Post by lotsofpulp »

tzs wrote: post #12
mnm1 wrote: post #6

Wi-Fi 6 looks promising for people with really fast Internet connections that are not capped. For capped internet connections it's almost irrelevant. In my experience, it just reaches the cap quicker and ends up in charges or having to carefully manage things to not reach the cap before the end of the month. I downgraded my connection from 350mbps to 200mbps as I was breaching the 1tb cap too quickly (Comcast). I can…

For a large majority of consumers the amount of data they use per month is only slightly correlated with their internet speed. They have a certain amount of data they want to use in a month. If their speed goes up or down the amount of data they want to use stays about the same--the speed just determines how long they have to wait for downloads. You might look into Comcast's XFi Advantage plan, which includes unlimit…

>For a large majority of consumers the amount of data they use per month is only slightly correlated with their internet speed.

This will change once the cable boxes go out and all media comes through the internet pipe. I don't know anyone in my network (mid 30s and below) who subscribes to television service. Even the old people in my family have been setup with iPads or Apple TVs or whatnot so they can watch everything on demand.

Re: Make educated wireless router/AP upgrade decisions

#18

Post by ac29 »

mjevans wrote: post #11
zbrozek wrote: post #4

I can't say that AFC excites me: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-354364A1.pdf Devices will be sending their GPS coordinates and serial numbers to the FCC to verify what frequencies they can use. It's unclear to me why the serial numbers need to be sent.

I agree that it's very unclear why that is required. The source IP (v4 or v6) address for the record update, along with the timestamp of update, is already sufficiently identifying, and would be obtained even offhand in a query process to check a given area for interference issues. The requirement to use GPS also practically mandates that these routers HAVE a GPS receiver inside. My biggest worries relate to the cost…

Its required because there are existing, licensed users of that spectrum who have a legal right not to be interfered with.

Its a compromise - it allows licensed users to continue to operate without interference, but also allows the spectrum to be used without a license in areas where doing so wouldnt create interference.

Re: Make educated wireless router/AP upgrade decisions

#19

Post by verandaguy »

teruakohatu wrote: post #5
zbrozek wrote: post #4

I can't say that AFC excites me: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-354364A1.pdf Devices will be sending their GPS coordinates and serial numbers to the FCC to verify what frequencies they can use. It's unclear to me why the serial numbers need to be sent.

Surley the FCC could just publish a data file that clients download and lookup their frequencies.

Nitpick: the FTC is in charge of US consumer protection. You probably wanted to mention the FCC.

Re: Make educated wireless router/AP upgrade decisions

#20

Post by jrockway »

teruakohatu wrote: post #8
jrockway wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They tried the honor system, it was called DFS. According to Wikipedia: "Prior to the introduction of Wi-Fi, one of the biggest applications of 5GHz band was the Terminal Doppler Weather Radar. The decision to use 5 GHz spectrum for Wi-Fi was finalized in World Radiocommunication Conference in 2003; however, meteorological community was not involved in the process. The subsequent lax implementation and misconfigurati…

I don't disagree with you but I am not sure the FCC cares that much about weather sats. They happily auctioned off 24GHz spectrum. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/05/5g-networks-will...

I did some research and found a lot of quite a bit of conflicting information. One source [1] claims that 23.8GHz is the downlink frequency for the weather satellite, which I don't think is the case. It seems that water vapor emits radiation at that frequency, and the satellites detect it. Because radio signals at that frequency are also attenuated by water vapor, much of the signal from the lower levels of the atmosphere are blocked: all you can see are the tops of the clouds. [2] This leads me to believe that 5G signals are likely to be attenuated before they reach the satellite.

It is also important to note that the interesting frequency is 23.8GHz, but the spectrum that was auctioned off is from 24.25 to 24.45 and 24.75 to 25.25GHz... so not overlapping. The Ars article links to a primary source [3] claiming that the Navy desires a guarantee that signals outside of the allocated range are attenuated by -57dB instead of -20dB.

Typically, designers of RF equipment do not want to transmit power that their receivers cannot receive. Power is expensive to waste. So given the separation between the 5G band and water vapor, the attenuation intrinsic to 23.8GHz signals when travelling through the atmosphere, and a desire to produce efficient electronics (better battery life sells phones)... I'm betting this won't be a big problem. Obviously, the scientists that rely on the data are kind of obligated to say "never do anything with the RF spectrum, it interferes with our research", but it's up to the FCC to balance their concerns with the reality that someone other than weather researchers need to use the RF spectrum.

Anyway, this is all theoretical, whereas DFS is not theoretical. You could watch it actively interfere with weather radar, so the next generation of WiFi is using something else. Obviously if 5G interferes with weather satellites, they'll probably ask the licencees to turn their equipment off until they can mitigate the degradation of another licensed user.

[1] https://news.ucar.edu/132669/ucar-statement-opening-24-ghz-s...

[2] https://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints2/523/

[3] https://www.wyden.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Navy%2024Hz%205G%...

Post reply on HN