Live data from Hacker News

EE is working with Qualcomm to add Wi-Fi 7 to consumer broadband hubs

theregister.com

11–20 of 124 posts

Re: EE is working with Qualcomm to add Wi-Fi 7 to consumer broadband hubs

#11
ISP's router [...] Put it into modem mode and pass all the packets straight through to a third-party router.

Best thing I ever did. Put in a Linksys Deco X55 mesh system with WiFi 6 system.

Have four of them strategically placed throughout the 2,500 square foot house and have perfect coverage on a single SSID.

My iPhone 13 gets a bidirectional 360 Mbps just about anywhere in the house (the limit of my $39 per month FIOS line).

Re: EE is working with Qualcomm to add Wi-Fi 7 to consumer broadband hubs

#12
The home upgrade that most folks need is a symmetrical fibre optic of some kind, with open-access [1] and either municipal [2] or non-profit at OSI Layer 1/2, with competition at OSI Layer 3. I think at this point 100Mbps would be the minimum, with diminishing returns once you start getting above 1Gbps (but available with XG(S)-PON(G.98(0)7)/NG-PON2(G.989)/HSP(G.9804) and 802.3ca).

It was technically possible to wire up entire countries and continents for electricity and phone service, so I doubt there are any technical hurdles in doing the same with fibre.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-access_network

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_broadband

Re: EE is working with Qualcomm to add Wi-Fi 7 to consumer broadband hubs

#13

What annoys me is this: I have a TMobile iPhone 15 Pro and three Erro Pro 6 units, all with wired backhaul. Over the wire, my fast.com results repeatedly reach ~1.2 Gigs. Over Wifi, from a foot away, my results are around 650Mbps. The local church recently had T-Mobile install a 5G antenna array around it. I'm about two blocks away. Over 5G, I get 1.4Gigs down, though my walls, through an entire house between us. But…

>But my Wifi router only gets 650 down with the phone using it as a stand.

I cant speak to WiFi, but on the long range wireless stuff I work with the hardware does almost as poorly with signal levels that are too high as signal levels that are too low. Putting your phone literally on top of the WiFi router is likely not going to be a best case test scenario.

Re: EE is working with Qualcomm to add Wi-Fi 7 to consumer broadband hubs

#14

What annoys me is this: I have a TMobile iPhone 15 Pro and three Erro Pro 6 units, all with wired backhaul. Over the wire, my fast.com results repeatedly reach ~1.2 Gigs. Over Wifi, from a foot away, my results are around 650Mbps. The local church recently had T-Mobile install a 5G antenna array around it. I'm about two blocks away. Over 5G, I get 1.4Gigs down, though my walls, through an entire house between us. But…

Well, what rate do you get through your router over a wired connection?

That is, is the problem with your Wifi connection the Wifi, or your ISP or service plan?

Re: EE is working with Qualcomm to add Wi-Fi 7 to consumer broadband hubs

#15

The home upgrade that most folks need is a symmetrical fibre optic of some kind, with open-access [1] and either municipal [2] or non-profit at OSI Layer 1/2, with competition at OSI Layer 3. I think at this point 100Mbps would be the minimum, with diminishing returns once you start getting above 1Gbps (but available with XG(S)-PON(G.98(0)7)/NG-PON2(G.989)/HSP(G.9804) and 802.3ca). It was technically possible to wire…

The internet is designed for average people to suck down content, rather than create content. It's why I get 1gbps down but 35mbps up.

Re: EE is working with Qualcomm to add Wi-Fi 7 to consumer broadband hubs

#16
post #6

> Wi-Fi 6's comparable maximum rate is 9.6Gbps. There is no consumer problem of today, no domestic use case imaginable, where 50Gbps works where 10 will not. iphone has just 2x2 MIMO antena so even with WiFi 6 can get only max 2.4Gbps (1.2Gbps per antena - someone correct me if I'm wrong). And those are only max speed in labs in perfect conditions. So there is definitely use case for WiFi 7 in consumer devices e.g. V…

>Higher bandwidth should also make connection more robust

Nope. Higher bandwidth could mean two things:

Larger channel size: larger channels have a higher noise floor and are are therefore less robust

Faster throughput: Faster throughput generally means larger channels (as above) or various techniques to get more bits/Hz (such as more complex modulation), both of which are less robust

Re: EE is working with Qualcomm to add Wi-Fi 7 to consumer broadband hubs

#17
post #6

> Wi-Fi 6's comparable maximum rate is 9.6Gbps. There is no consumer problem of today, no domestic use case imaginable, where 50Gbps works where 10 will not. iphone has just 2x2 MIMO antena so even with WiFi 6 can get only max 2.4Gbps (1.2Gbps per antena - someone correct me if I'm wrong). And those are only max speed in labs in perfect conditions. So there is definitely use case for WiFi 7 in consumer devices e.g. V…

I'm honestly struggling to come up with a use case for a single iPhone to need more than 300 megabytes per second (2.4Gbps) of bandwidth at any given time. (Noting that 8K video, in fairly un-optimized scenarios, appears to need about 96Mbps—just 12 megabytes per second, or 4% of that "low" bandwidth.)

What are you doing, streaming raw, uncompressed video from multiple sources to a single iPhone? If you've got that many devices you need to stream from...it seems to me that it makes sense to invest in some dedicated hardware to handle that, rather than expect to do everything with just an iPhone.

Re: EE is working with Qualcomm to add Wi-Fi 7 to consumer broadband hubs

#18

What annoys me is this: I have a TMobile iPhone 15 Pro and three Erro Pro 6 units, all with wired backhaul. Over the wire, my fast.com results repeatedly reach ~1.2 Gigs. Over Wifi, from a foot away, my results are around 650Mbps. The local church recently had T-Mobile install a 5G antenna array around it. I'm about two blocks away. Over 5G, I get 1.4Gigs down, though my walls, through an entire house between us. But…

[deleted]

Re: EE is working with Qualcomm to add Wi-Fi 7 to consumer broadband hubs

#19

The home upgrade that most folks need is a symmetrical fibre optic of some kind, with open-access [1] and either municipal [2] or non-profit at OSI Layer 1/2, with competition at OSI Layer 3. I think at this point 100Mbps would be the minimum, with diminishing returns once you start getting above 1Gbps (but available with XG(S)-PON(G.98(0)7)/NG-PON2(G.989)/HSP(G.9804) and 802.3ca). It was technically possible to wire…

The internet is designed for average people to suck down content, rather than create content. It's why I get 1gbps down but 35mbps up.

With 2.5Gbps I receive 600Mbit up, which is more than comfy for a home lab and for self hosting... even media.

But yeah, I would get 1Gbps symmetric if I could.

Re: EE is working with Qualcomm to add Wi-Fi 7 to consumer broadband hubs

#20

The home upgrade that most folks need is a symmetrical fibre optic of some kind, with open-access [1] and either municipal [2] or non-profit at OSI Layer 1/2, with competition at OSI Layer 3. I think at this point 100Mbps would be the minimum, with diminishing returns once you start getting above 1Gbps (but available with XG(S)-PON(G.98(0)7)/NG-PON2(G.989)/HSP(G.9804) and 802.3ca). It was technically possible to wire…

The internet is designed for average people to suck down content, rather than create content. It's why I get 1gbps down but 35mbps up.

The Internet really wasn't designed that way, though the modern Internet certainly shaped up that way for the most part. Most likely you get that highly asymmetric bandwidth because you're using an ISP piggybacking on cable TV service infrastructure, which unequivocally was originally designed for much more bandwidth in one direction than the other.
Post reply on HN