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

171–180 of 250 posts

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

#171

Post by matt-p »

craftkiller wrote: post #102
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

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

There is arguably less? 6Ghz is considered 5945 to 6425, 5Ghz allows far more if you include outdoor and fixed wifi.

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

#172

Post by Mashimo »

kergonath wrote: post #89
Mashimo wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In EU? Where are you located?

I’m in France. I don’t get 30 a day, but at least 2 to 5. I automatically ignore unknown callers and my voice mail message basically says to send a SMS instead.

Wow, I have about 2 or 3 per year. It's always a robot voice telling me the police is looking for me.

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

#173

Post by matt-p »

supertrope wrote: post #130
matt-p wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you'll find downloading files to your phone from a NAS is like 0.01% type behaviour.

iCloud backups are something normal people do each time they plug in their phone.

50Mb is more than fine for iphone backups.

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

#174

Post by matt-p »

TitaRusell wrote: post #168
muststopmyths wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Few people have phone landlines anymore in India, but wired broadband to the home is not uncommon. It would be annoying to not then be able to have a home WiFi 6G router. Mobile data is cheap, but broadband is much cheaper.

Mobile doesn't scale for densely populated mega cities. The signal also doesn't penetrate glass and concrete very well.

"Mobile doesn't scale in cities" is the exact reason they need 6Ghz (because higher frequencies enable much higher density of cells, reducing terminals per cell). 6Ghz will penetrate buildings terribly, I agree, but it's honestly just not that simple, for example it's now becoming really common for carriers to be doing in building deployments; shopping centres, sports stadiums, the transit network (e.g 4g in the subway) hospitals, the list goes on. Secondly by lifting terminals off of say 800Mhz or 1.8Ghz band and into 6Ghz outside where you can, you free up capacity on those lower frequency bands that do penetrate buildings or reach weird areas like the middle of a park that has tree cover (or whatever).

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

#175

Post by Hendrikto »

alerighi wrote: post #147
Hendrikto wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You claim that they cannot be disabled, while this is already happening [0][1][2]. Some countries, like Switzerland, already completed the shutdown years ago [2]. [0]: https://newsroom.vodafone.de/2g-abschaltung-macht-lte-und-5g... [1]: https://www.telekom.de/hilfe/2g-abschaltung [2]: https://www.rosenberger-telematics.com/en/news/switching-off...

It's easy to make the switch in a rich country with less than 10 millions of inhabitants, mostly living in big cities.

Check out reference 2. This is being done across the whole of Europe. It has already been done in Australia.

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

#176

Post by drewg123 »

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…

Agreed. I live the USA in a 100 year old apartment building, and can see a zillion ISP provided routers, all squabbling over the same handful of 5GHz channels. 6E is a game changer.

5Ghz is stuttery and laggy and makes it pretty much impossible to have a clean video call. I don't game, but gaming on it would be miserable. I've measured latency, and it regularly spikes above 1s.

6E is far, far better. Rock solid video calls. Latency testing sites show low, steady latency. The only real problem is signal attenuation seems to be far worse with 6E. Getting a signal 2 walls away from the router is nearly impossible. Though this is also a strength, as it limits the number of devices competing for spectrum.

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

#177

Post by jdewerd »

matt-p wrote: post #169
jdewerd wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never said anything about free or government-run WiFi, just about auctioning off the spectrum. Companies that build out the infrastructure should be able to charge for access, but they shouldn't be able to prevent others from competing by paying the government for exclusivity. That's a scam.

It's a technical/commercial necessity to have exclusive use over the spectrum in a given area. If you don't believe me why doesn't every city in the world have a paid wifi network? With 5Ghz it should be faster than typical 4G/5G speeds, and it only needs lampost level APs, pretty similar to the microcells that carriers deploy but an order of magnitude cheaper. Instead mobile carriers would rather buy 3 or 6ghz spect…

ISM is thriving, the only tragedy is that carriers haven't figured out how to charge rents on it and that's a tragedy for them, it's a spectacular success for everyone using it for free.

Carriers don't need 6GHz for backhaul. They have fiber and cable and (other) microwave. Not to mention the ability to shape their own links with antennas and beam forming and do a good job of it rather than a "default job." What they don't have -- and shouldn't be given under any circumstances -- is the excuse to build a moat in the bustling public park.

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

#178

Post by matt-p »

PunchyHamster wrote: post #149
ddalex wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is Europe where we have concrete or masonry walls and good insulation, I see maybe 2 other APs in the worst days in the apartment. On the good days I have no other APs.

I saw about 50 in maybe 10 years old apartment building, once the new ISP in the block started giving people routers with wifi enabled by default

I don't know about other areas but any apartment buildings post like 1990s are just absolute junk when it comes to separation. Before then it was just concrete or structural brick and now somehow it's often 'fireproof magicboard'.

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

#180

Post by ndriscoll »

matt-p wrote: post #169
jdewerd wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never said anything about free or government-run WiFi, just about auctioning off the spectrum. Companies that build out the infrastructure should be able to charge for access, but they shouldn't be able to prevent others from competing by paying the government for exclusivity. That's a scam.

It's a technical/commercial necessity to have exclusive use over the spectrum in a given area. If you don't believe me why doesn't every city in the world have a paid wifi network? With 5Ghz it should be faster than typical 4G/5G speeds, and it only needs lampost level APs, pretty similar to the microcells that carriers deploy but an order of magnitude cheaper. Instead mobile carriers would rather buy 3 or 6ghz spect…

At the very least, I don't see a need to grant exclusivity across an entire country. e.g. from my home, I can see 5 wifi networks including mine. Of those, only 1 other than mine has a 5GHz signal that reaches me, and everything other than mine is in the -80 to -95 dBm range. There's simply no need to reserve short-range signals in the suburbs in the way that there is for block of giant apartment buildings each with 100s of networks on top of each other.

On top of that, mobile data is quite expensive in the US, so the only time I have data when out and about is... when I'm on free public wifi networks (which is most of the time). So I don't see much reason to give more of a monopoly to mobile providers. I honestly don't even see a use-case for cell service outside of super rural areas; the only reason I even have it is because it's necessary for MFA. Cell providers are legacy tech as far as cities are concerned IMO.

To me it'd make way more sense to me to let wifi have more bands with stricter limits on power levels, and any exclusivity should be to municipalities who can contract with companies to build and manage their infrastructure.

Post reply on HN