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

Europe to decide if 6 GHz is shared between Wi-Fi and cellular networks

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 250 posts

Re: Europe to decide if 6 GHz is shared between Wi-Fi and cellular networks

#101

Post by stego-tech »

Multiple things can be true simultaneously. For instance:

* The reach for 6GHz by mobile service providers is straight-up greed, as Wi-Fi is a threat to their business expansions towards monopolization

* Wi-Fi is incredibly overcrowded, and a shift to 6GHz will not solve the underlying issues causing the crowding in the first place (mobile device density, over-reliance on Wi-Fi instead of running ethernet to capable devices and drop points)

* ISPs would prefer mobile service providers get 6GHz so they can get higher speeds to fixed receivers without the requisite network buildout

My personal position? Give 6GHz to Wi-Fi, but also make it clear that this is the last spectrum the standard will get. Simultaneously, promote (through regulations, subsidies, or municipal buildouts) wired networking wherever practicable. The fact new construction in 2025 doesn’t mandate ethernet drops in every non-bathroom is what’s contributing to Wi-Fi crowding, and prevalent last-mile wired access ensures that mobile operators have to compete on cost rather than data caps - and thus hinders their monopolization efforts.

Re: Europe to decide if 6 GHz is shared between Wi-Fi and cellular networks

#102

Post by craftkiller »

Bombthecat wrote: post #77
fguerraz wrote: post #60

This is just corporate greed! I live in a EU country in an apartment and 5GHz is completely crowded and pretty much unusable because of DFS (making your WiFi AP unexpectedly stop to do a complete scan and choose a new channel), so 6GHz is the only stable, high bandwidth option here, and we need more channels so that most peopole chan switch to it. The cellular networks operators can have that shitty 5GHz part of the…

And you think the same problem wouldn't exist with 6ghz? It will be as crowded as 5

There is significantly more spectrum available for wifi in the 6ghz band than in the 5ghz band, so even if we moved everything off of 5ghz and ignored the attenuation benefits of 6ghz, we'd still have significantly less congestion on 6ghz than 5ghz wifi. In my apartment, my laptop can see ~50 wifi networks, we need some spectrum elbow-room to spread that out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WLAN_channels

Re: Europe to decide if 6 GHz is shared between Wi-Fi and cellular networks

#103

Post by valzam »

stego-tech wrote: post #101

Multiple things can be true simultaneously. For instance: * The reach for 6GHz by mobile service providers is straight-up greed, as Wi-Fi is a threat to their business expansions towards monopolization * Wi-Fi is incredibly overcrowded, and a shift to 6GHz will not solve the underlying issues causing the crowding in the first place (mobile device density, over-reliance on Wi-Fi instead of running ethernet to capable…

I mean given the computing devices most people use are you suggesting a large majority of the population switches to ethernet adapter's for their tablets and phones?

Re: Europe to decide if 6 GHz is shared between Wi-Fi and cellular networks

#104

Post by n_u »

valzam wrote: post #103
stego-tech wrote: post #101

Multiple things can be true simultaneously. For instance: * The reach for 6GHz by mobile service providers is straight-up greed, as Wi-Fi is a threat to their business expansions towards monopolization * Wi-Fi is incredibly overcrowded, and a shift to 6GHz will not solve the underlying issues causing the crowding in the first place (mobile device density, over-reliance on Wi-Fi instead of running ethernet to capable…

I mean given the computing devices most people use are you suggesting a large majority of the population switches to ethernet adapter's for their tablets and phones?

Wireless ethernet adapters

Re: Europe to decide if 6 GHz is shared between Wi-Fi and cellular networks

#105

Post by crote »

alerighi wrote: post #63
kristofferR wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that simply fixed by shutting down the old 2G and 3G networks, like is happening in a lot of countries now?

You can't shut down 2G, because there are a lot of devices, mainly embedded systems like alarms, lift emergency call button, GPS trackers, etc. that still use 2G. Also 2G is the only reliable network connection in a lot of areas that are not otherwise reached by 3G/4G/5G, mainly because a 2G connection is more tolerant to low signal and noise, and also is low frequency, thus 2G is the only option available in situati…

A lot of this is a chicken-and-egg problem.

For example, lower-frequency bands have longer reach, but lower bandwidth. Because everyone has 2G support, it makes sense to put 2G on the lower frequencies as fallback, with 3G/4G/5G on higher frequencies as optional bandwidth booster. But this also means 5G reliability is being limited by its frequency! You could have better 5G - if it could use the frequency currently occupied by 2G...

It also doesn't help that 2G and 3G aren't forward-compatible. They require their own dedicated frequency, so you need to sacrifice a lot of potential bandwidth for a small number of low-data devices. 4G and beyond can play nice with future tech: a single base station using a single frequency can handle both 4G and 5G connections at once - it'll dynamically allocate the air time as needed.

About the elderly: my 95-year-old grandma uses a tablet for video calls and a big-button 4G-capable feature phone. My 85-year-old other grandma has fully embraced her smartphone. Turns out they really like seeing pictures of their great-grandkids! Give them a reason to switch and they will adopt it - they both ditched their land lines.

Same with elevators and stuff: schedule a kill date 5 years into the future and they'll be replaced by 4G-capable units instead of ancient slightly-cheaper 2G-only ones when their warranty inevitably expires.

Re: Europe to decide if 6 GHz is shared between Wi-Fi and cellular networks

#106

Post by Kye »

valzam wrote: post #103
stego-tech wrote: post #101

Multiple things can be true simultaneously. For instance: * The reach for 6GHz by mobile service providers is straight-up greed, as Wi-Fi is a threat to their business expansions towards monopolization * Wi-Fi is incredibly overcrowded, and a shift to 6GHz will not solve the underlying issues causing the crowding in the first place (mobile device density, over-reliance on Wi-Fi instead of running ethernet to capable…

I mean given the computing devices most people use are you suggesting a large majority of the population switches to ethernet adapter's for their tablets and phones?

Having to blast wifi through an entire building is part of the problem. If transceivers only need enough power to go a foot or three from an ethernet port with a wifi dongle on it, the problem is solved.

See also: cell phones having to boost power for more distant towers.

As things are, every device has to scream to be heard.

Re: Europe to decide if 6 GHz is shared between Wi-Fi and cellular networks

#107

Post by craftkiller »

vlovich123 wrote: post #81
crote wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly why it should be used for wifi! 2.4GHz is completely unusable in urban environments, because you're getting interference from two dozen neighbours. And everyone has a poor connection, so their "handy" nephew will turn up the transmission power to the maximum - which of course makes it even worse. 6GHz barely makes it through a concrete wall, so you're only receiving your own AP, so you have the whole b…

Doesn’t 6ghz have essentially the same penetration as 5ghz and thus in a few years will have all the same problems as people shift to 6ghz?

I count approximately twice as many channels available on 6ghz than 5ghz, so even if we ignore the penetration differences between 5 and 6ghz, the 6ghz band is still better. Plus this isn't a "pick one" type of scenario (especially with MLO), 5ghz + 6ghz is 3x as many channels as 5ghz alone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WLAN_channels

Re: Europe to decide if 6 GHz is shared between Wi-Fi and cellular networks

#108

Post by crote »

aryonoco wrote: post #72
alerighi wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't shut down 2G, because there are a lot of devices, mainly embedded systems like alarms, lift emergency call button, GPS trackers, etc. that still use 2G. Also 2G is the only reliable network connection in a lot of areas that are not otherwise reached by 3G/4G/5G, mainly because a 2G connection is more tolerant to low signal and noise, and also is low frequency, thus 2G is the only option available in situati…

I can tell you that here in Australia we shut down 2G in 2011 and 3G in 2022-2023. And yes many things broke, train ticket vending machines stopped working, smart meters stopped working, etc. But then the got replaced. 2G and 3G is a horrible waste of bandwidth compared to 5G. Keeping them on and wasting all that bandwidth is borderline negligence.

Interestingly, my country turned off 3G before 2G.

I think the reasoning was that the heavy data 3G users had already upgraded to 4G and beyond, and low data 3G users could fall back to 2G, so retiring 3G would have negligible impact - while opening up a lot of bandwidth for 4G and 5G.

On the other hand, there were plenty of 2G-only low data users around, so retiring that early would break stuff for a lot of people. Keeping it around longer gave people more time to upgrade.

Re: Europe to decide if 6 GHz is shared between Wi-Fi and cellular networks

#109

Post by matt-p »

xoa wrote: post #98
Bombthecat wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you think the same problem wouldn't exist with 6ghz? It will be as crowded as 5

> And you think the same problem wouldn't exist with 6ghz? Yes. Probably because they have some basic grasp of electromagnetic reality, which perhaps you might consider studying a bit before forming strong opinions? > It will be as crowded as 5 Physically impossible. 6 GHz simply does not have the material penetration, that's the point. Having way more raw bandwidth on tap, all available all the time without DFS plop…

We said this about 5Ghz when that came out. I'm sorry to say it's not true, there's more than enough spectrum in 5Ghz if properly managed and co-ordinated. I would rather fix that first. Why is it we can run WiFi for thousands of developers in one room/venue just fine but people living in apartment blocks are apparently struggling with a dozen devices per 60sqm apartment?

APs using 160MHZ channel widths with 1 or 2 spatial streams because it's cheaper than 80MHZ channels and 3 or 4 spatial streams. Absolutely crap 'auto' channel selection, too high a power (because cheaper than a second AP), poor AP placement and inappropriate channel width (in an apartment block 40Mhz per AP might be optimal).

Post reply on HN