Earlier quoted context omitted.
that's why I'm running only 2.4Ghz APs, enough bandwidth for mobile common uses, all static hardware has wires to them. Far better then 5GHz band
Isn't 2.4GHz too congested already, esp considering a lot of wifi-connected devices still work at that range? I typically go the other way around to avoid congestion.
Europe to decide if 6 GHz is shared between Wi-Fi and cellular networks
131–140 of 250 posts
Re: Europe to decide if 6 GHz is shared between Wi-Fi and cellular networks
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
"significantly" is 50%, but still nowhere near 1 channel per network even if all networks cooperated.
5Ghz has 500Mhz worth of total bandwidth, while 6Ghz has (in US/CA, and hopefully in EU eventually) 1200Mhz. That's over double.
6Ghz has more 160Mhz channels (7) than 5Ghz has 80Mhz channels (6).
Re: Europe to decide if 6 GHz is shared between Wi-Fi and cellular networks
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
For better or worse mobile companies will probably make a more efficient use of the space in a country like India at a practical level. I can at least see why you might do this. I don't know anything really about India's telecoms market, but I know in other 'similar' countries you can buy a mobile phone data plan for like a couple/few dollars a month, but a fixed line is 10X that. You could argue it's not very progre…
> mobile companies will probably make a more efficient use of the space Uh... wat? Something like 70%+ of all internet data anywhere goes over a 2.4GHz wifi for its terminal client, squashed into a paltry 100 MHz of spectrum. There are surely engineering minutiae arguments to be made for why radios for dedicated bands can be better in some way, or public safety arguments for why unlicensed users need to be segregated…
A) give the richest 15K of them absolutely no faster WiFi whatsoever because 5GHZ will not be congested at all for them (so there is no problem to solve really)
OR
B) you can have the mobile carrier install a 6Ghz base station on every other telecoms/power pole in town and offer up terabits of mobile data capacity available to everyone throughout the town.
What's the most efficient use?
Re: Europe to decide if 6 GHz is shared between Wi-Fi and cellular networks
#134Re: Europe to decide if 6 GHz is shared between Wi-Fi and cellular networks
#135Just waiting for the Wi-Fi cops to show up
Re: Europe to decide if 6 GHz is shared between Wi-Fi and cellular networks
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
6GHz has worse penetration than 5Ghz, but the difference is indeed not as pronounced as it is compared to 2.4GHz. The main benefit is going to be the additional frequency space. 5GHz effectively has 3ish channels, and 6GHz adds another 3-7 to that. Combine it with band steering and dynamic channel allocation, and you and all of your close neighbours can probably all get your own dedicated frequency.
It would be useful if vendors shipped with 40Mhz channels by default.
A 1x1 40Mhz using 802.11ax will give you a max PHY of 287Mbps:
* https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000...
* https://superuser.com/questions/1619079/what-is-the-maximum-...
Even if you half that, that's (IMHO) probably sufficient for the vast majority of online activities. And if you have a 2x2 client you double it anyway.
Re: Europe to decide if 6 GHz is shared between Wi-Fi and cellular networks
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
"significantly" is 50%, but still nowhere near 1 channel per network even if all networks cooperated.
> "significantly" is 50%, but still nowhere near 1 channel per network even if all networks cooperated. 5Ghz has 500Mhz worth of total bandwidth, while 6Ghz has (in US/CA, and hopefully in EU eventually) 1200Mhz. That's over double . 6Ghz has more 160Mhz channels (7) than 5Ghz has 80Mhz channels (6).
Re: Europe to decide if 6 GHz is shared between Wi-Fi and cellular networks
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 s…
Re: Europe to decide if 6 GHz is shared between Wi-Fi and cellular networks
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
> mobile companies will probably make a more efficient use of the space Uh... wat? Something like 70%+ of all internet data anywhere goes over a 2.4GHz wifi for its terminal client, squashed into a paltry 100 MHz of spectrum. There are surely engineering minutiae arguments to be made for why radios for dedicated bands can be better in some way, or public safety arguments for why unlicensed users need to be segregated…
India has 15% fixed broadband penetration. So let's say you've got a town of 100K households. You can; A) give the richest 15K of them absolutely no faster WiFi whatsoever because 5GHZ will not be congested at all for them (so there is no problem to solve really) OR B) you can have the mobile carrier install a 6Ghz base station on every other telecoms/power pole in town and offer up terabits of mobile data capacity a…
As for most efficient use of the resource, well, consulting my spectrum analyzer, ISM bands are winning by a mile and we should want more of them.
Re: Europe to decide if 6 GHz is shared between Wi-Fi and cellular networks
#140This 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…
Realn solution is to have houses not so close to each other.