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

181–190 of 250 posts

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

#181

Post by amsterdorn »

matt-p wrote: post #171
craftkiller wrote: post #102

Earlier 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

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

This isn't true, 6GHz uses 5.925 to 7.125.

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

#182

Post by matt-p »

amsterdorn wrote: post #181
matt-p wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This isn't true, 6GHz uses 5.925 to 7.125.

WiFi uses the above, for now.

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

#184

Post by esseph »

matt-p wrote: post #117
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.

Given we know 5Ghz can give us like 600Mbps real world on 80Mhz channels, would a fixed line in India typically be above that speed? Is it all GPON these days or still DSL/WISP type stuff?

WISP can do 1Gbps in 6GHz now, reliably, with Tarana. The technology is staggering.

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

#185

Post by matt-p »

ndriscoll wrote: post #180
matt-p wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I certainly agree about regional licensing. I think the best scenario would actually be to allow some for WiFi and some for carriers, especially since selling licenses is a two way door in a way that ISM isn't.

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

#186

Post by kristofferR »

supertrope wrote: post #62
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?

No. SS7 predates cellphones. It's the legacy control plane for the PSTN (public switched telephone network). It was never designed for security since it originally never crossed corporate boundaries as everyone had to use the monopoly provider. (Except for international calls).

I admittedly don't know that much about it, but the googling I did indicated the SS7 is only active when you roam/call to legacy networks with 2G/3G that aren't all-IP?

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

#187

Post by esseph »

matt-p wrote: post #174
TitaRusell wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 subw…

You could do gigabit fixed wireless for less than 1/10 the cost of LTE, and have better performance.

LTE is what somebody would do without much telecom experience and more money than sense.

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

#188

Post by throw0101d »

PunchyHamster wrote: post #148
throw0101d wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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).

so in reality you're 1 channel up over 6GHz becasue people are not buying wifi6 router to stay on 80MHz channel

> so in reality you're 1 channel up over 6GHz becasue people are not buying wifi6 router to stay on 80MHz channel

In reality, a 1x1 80Mhz connection gives you a 600 Mbps PHY rate:

* https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000...

* https://superuser.com/questions/1619079/what-is-the-maximum-...

Even if you halve that, how many online activities are going to make use of that bandwidth? And if you have a 2x2 client, you double it anyways. A 1x1 40Mhz using 802.11ax will give you a max PHY of 287Mbps. How many activities use >100 Mbps, especially continuously?

Off the top of my head: certainly downloading a new game or software updates can eat up those bits, and photo/video editing or creation (local NAS or uploading) it might be useful; are there any other activities that use that?

As I commented elsewhere: it would be great if residential Wifi devices defaulted to 40 MHz.

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

#189

Post by esseph »

matt-p wrote: post #133
ajross wrote: post #119

Earlier 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…

The best plan would be fiber + fixed wireless + satellite. This is considering cost to deploy, end subscriber cost, and overall performance.

Fiber won't go everywhere, fixed wireless extends the reach much, much cheaper than LTE, satellite fills in the gaps.

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

#190

Post by silisili »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #91
kergonath wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great one! Or, if you are not being sarcastic, the solution to wireless networking issues is to… rebuild cities in which billions of people live and spread those people over… where? Never mind the fact that cities are the best way of arranging lots of people, where would you build those "houses not so close to each other" that is not a desert, a cliff, or an ocean?

Whether they’re joking or not, it’s a good example of the sort of reasoning you see in those town hall meetings where a bunch of ancient home owners come up with straight faced reasons for why an apartment complex shouldn’t get built. “They’ll have congested internet!” would go well alongside “It will block the sun on my daily walk on that part of the street!”

I feel like this is an unfair characterization. Having attended a couple of these type meetings, the common complaints are always traffic and crime.

Are they legitimate worries? I don't know.

But certainly more legitimate than congested internet and shade.

Post reply on HN