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

211–220 of 250 posts

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

#211

Post by xoa »

matt-p wrote: post #109
xoa wrote: post #98

Earlier 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…

>We said this about 5Ghz when that came out.

To the extent "we" said this, we were absolutely, 100% correct. 5 GHz was and remains a massive improvement over 2.4 GHz, exactly as hoped. But in the decade and half since demands have gone up a lot. 6 GHz will be even better as it propagates even worse and has even more bandwidth available, while human population density won't change.

>I'm sorry to say it's not true, there's more than enough spectrum in 5Ghz if properly managed and co-ordinated

I'm sorry to say you're wrong, there is not remotely enough usable spectrum, and that's regardless of "proper management" which in reality is completely contrary to the practical reality local networks in a setting with a high density of independent people/organizations.

>I would rather fix that first.

That's nice. Most fortunately you are not in charge.

>Why is it we can run WiFi for thousands of developers in one room/venue just fine

That's a low demand situation under the control of a single entity where people are going to be understanding of compromise given the special circumstances, unlike in home or business.

>but people living in apartment blocks are apparently struggling with a dozen devices per 60sqm apartment?

You're wondering why might want their own independent LANs in their own homes? Well, I'm sure you can think of one or two reasons if you put your mind to it.

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

#212

Post by xgstation »

matt-p wrote: post #123
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…

We gave WiFi 800Mhz in the 5Ghz band and we said the same thing at the time 'this is the last we'll need'. That's 10x as much as in 2.4ghz and at a higher frequency. I remember a lot of people at the time getting really upset about how wasteful that was. Just saying.

there is only 160MHz on 5Ghz that's non DFS/Weather Radar

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

#213

Post by namibj »

esseph wrote: post #206
msh wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Back when LTE was rolled out initially the competitor was wimax.

It was around that same timeframe that "TV Whitespace" was going to become the next big thing. Anyway, LTE should be the literal last option. It requires more than 2x as many towers as fixed wireless, with gear more than 20x more expensive. That's also more than 2x-3x the required amount of of battery backup systems, networking equipment, and land / tower leases. If you have extreme density, you NEED fiber and you ne…

Nowhere with even just an "improved" road (i.e., gravel road, not "only" a path cleared of tall vegetation) is too low density for fiber.

Unless local conditions make you want to use aerial cable, you'll just cable plow a speed pipe and put in a small access riser every 2~3 miles. You blow the cable in segment-by-segment, either splicing at these locations or spooling the ongoing length up before moving the blower and doing the next segment.

If the cable is damaged you measure with OTDR where the break is, walk there with a shovel, some spare speedpipe, and two speedpipe connectors. You dig out the damage, cut it out, put good pipe in, join it to the open ends where you cut the damaged section out, and bury it while taking more care to make it last better this time. You pull/blow out the section of cable and blow in a fresh one, splice it to the existing cable and both ends of the segment, and the connection is fixed.

AFAIK cable plow for fiber in not-very-hard ground is cheaper than planting "telegraph" poles like they did in the old days.

The only expensive parts about fiber optic Internet are the machine that allows you to splice (about 1k$, unlike the 5$ LSA tool for attaching RJ-45 sockets to Cat.5/6/7 cable; this only blocks DIYers from easily doing it) and digging up developed area with more finely controlled tools than a literal plow if you forgot to put in speed pipe the last time the ground was dug up for any infrastructure at all (say, piped water).

Oh, and arguably the optics if you expect to be cheaper than copper on distances within a building at speeds under 10 Gbit/s.

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

#214

Post by supertrope »

kristofferR wrote: post #186
supertrope wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Even when the phones on both ends use IP calling technology, the interconnection between phone companies is usually not IP.

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

#215

Post by Aardwolf »

rsynnott wrote: post #36
Aardwolf wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What continent does UK consider itself part of then?

Context matters; you can generally tell whether someone's talking politics or geography.

But in politics the distinction between EU and Europe matters, there's the political EU region, but countries like Switzerland and Norway are politically still in Europe despite not being in EU just due to all the neighboring countries, in theory same should apply to UK

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

#216

Post by arghwhat »

itopaloglu83 wrote: post #122
arghwhat wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are trying to improve service by avoiding noise. Something few realize is that all wireless technologies are, in effect, time-share: Every device on the channel, router/tower included, take turn to talk while everyone else shuts up and listens. If other types of devices also use your channel, you'll have to shut up and wait for airtime even longer. Having WiFi and cellular co-exist mean that they are both fighti…

They don’t need a frequency channel dedicated to them just to improve reception inside a stadium or an airport. Tell me what stops them from using the exact same technology they use for WiFi calling? They just want to own the means the people connect to the internet and be a tax on everyone.

Yes they do? Just like WiFi needs way more channels than it has available to work well inside a Stadium, which is why it doesn't work well inside a stadium or airport at all. Heck, I would never even bother trying WiFi in such a setting - between 5G and WiFi, 5G is much better designed for handling such dense cells.

It's important to note that "they" are not trying to fix calls, they are trying to improve cellular connectivity. Getting calls to work is easy, and traditional calls have become a niche use of smartphones. Many already have excellent internet connectivity on their devices and would like that to just remain seamlessly available in all situations rather than having to switch technologies and maintain multiple subscriptions.

While I'm quite happy with my fiber at home, I only really use WiFi on my phone at home is to access local devices. In other situations, especially in corporate or public settings, WiFi is not only inconvenient but often a way worse and slower experience than just staying on 5G - after all, my phone gets gigabit on 5G with a public IPv6 address, and the latency is pretty good too, which can't be said for overcrowded WiFi and crap enterprise network solutions. If it wasn't for casting, 5G + tailscale would alleviate most needs to WiFi.

Heck, for the smartphone-native generation it might even seem weird that they need another internet subscription for their home when they pay for on for their phone, "just because" 5G or whatever wasn't allowed to step on a spectrum - a quite literal tax.

(Don't get me wrong, I like my WiFi, but cellular is not the enemy. We just need to hand out more spectrum to both.)

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

#217

Post by 0x457 »

crote wrote: post #45
martinald wrote: post #32

Tbh it's probably much more useful for mobile operators than wifi. 6GHz does not propagate well at all at wifi power limits and as such one 320MHz band probably won't overlap much with neighbours, even in apartment buildings. This does preclude having 640MHz bands though in future wifi standards, but I'm not sure how important that is - Wifi7 on MLO could theoretically deliver 7.2gbit/sec in 2x2 config and double tha…

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…

> 6GHz barely makes it through a concrete wall, so you're only receiving your own AP, so you have the whole bandwith mostly to yourself.

6GHz barely makes it thought a piece of paper. I live in dense downtown area of Los Angeles and I see zero 6Ghz networks except mine, sometimes three 5Ghz networks (usually just two). No issues using 160Mhz wide channel on 5Ghz, at least for me.

My balcony separated from AP with a 2 panel window, other than that it's in line of sight: 6Ghz not visible at all, 5Ghz poor signal, but better than 2.4Ghz. 2.4 Ghz is unusable in my area at all.

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

#218

Post by 0x457 »

maxsilver wrote: post #64
cbg0 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 6GHz barely makes it through a concrete wall, so you're only receiving your own AP, so you have the whole bandwith mostly to yourself. I agree with this and the fact that 6GHz should still be available for wifi, but this whole bandwidth frenzy over wifi has always seemed like a meme for anyone except power users. A 4K netflix stream caps out around 15mbps, so >95% of typical home users will be just fine using 2.4/5…

> A 4K netflix stream caps out around 15mbps Yeah, but that's just because Netflix streams are ridiculiously over compressed -- they use extremely low quality encodes. It's technically a "4K" stream, sure, but at a bitrate only realistically capable of 1080p. An actual 4K stream (one capable of expected resolution at 4K) is around 30 to 40mbps.

Back in the day, it was better to upscale netflix's 720p to 1080p than to stream 1080p.

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

#219

Post by 0x457 »

thrance wrote: post #26
hk__2 wrote: post #3

EU, not Europe.

EU is more Europe than USA is America, yet you don't see much complaining about the latter.

> yet you don't see much complaining about the latter.

I see that a lot. It just needs people from not the US, but from Americas in comments. Suddenly there are people that are complaining about it.

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

#220

Post by esseph »

namibj wrote: post #213
esseph wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was around that same timeframe that "TV Whitespace" was going to become the next big thing. Anyway, LTE should be the literal last option. It requires more than 2x as many towers as fixed wireless, with gear more than 20x more expensive. That's also more than 2x-3x the required amount of of battery backup systems, networking equipment, and land / tower leases. If you have extreme density, you NEED fiber and you ne…

Nowhere with even just an "improved" road (i.e., gravel road, not "only" a path cleared of tall vegetation) is too low density for fiber. Unless local conditions make you want to use aerial cable, you'll just cable plow a speed pipe and put in a small access riser every 2~3 miles. You blow the cable in segment-by-segment, either splicing at these locations or spooling the ongoing length up before moving the blower an…

Are we talking about Mumbai or an area w/ 0.2 homes per 10sq km? Because I'm talking about how to do both. Vastly different challenges and economic viability, and I have experience doing both types of environments.
Post reply on HN