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

221–230 of 250 posts

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

#221

Post by kristofferR »

supertrope wrote: post #214
kristofferR wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

From what I've read that tends to change when the phone companies in question have shut off 2G and 3G though. The only reason to keep using SS7 is for intercompatibility with legacy networks who still have 2G or 3G devices on them.

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

#222

Post by manwithaplan »

drewg123 wrote: post #209
throw0101d wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. What channel width (20/40/80/other) are you typically seeing?

I've been using the free version of NetSpot, and it does not seem to show the width. The ISP really should configure the narrowest width possible. Our ISP provided router does seem to default to 20MHz (I think; I cannot recall if I changed it). It offers the choice of 20 or 40Mhz.

I can recommend https://github.com/VREMSoftwareDevelopment/WiFiAnalyzer for a pretty comprehensive Wi-Fi analysis.

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

#223

Post by happyopossum »

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…

> On top of that, mobile data is quite expensive in the US

It's not 2015 - that narrative is long dead. There are countless options for unlimited mobile data (5G, with hotspot) for $15-$20/mo.

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

#224

Post by kalleboo »

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…

Ever since the analog TV shutdown and the refarming of those low frequencies to 4G LTE, you see that 4G actually has higher coverage than 2G/3G (this both in sparsely-populated places like Australia and dense ones like Japan).

And for 2G especially GSM has a physical cell size limit due to TDMA that LTE does not have so in sparse areas the same transmitter location can reach further.

If in your country 2G still has better coverage that's not due to technical superiority of the standard but due to decisions made by the operator.

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

#225

Post by esseph »

matt-p wrote: post #204
esseph wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm aware, but, um, without sounding insensitive, not for $50 per sub in hardware cost. Tarana is about 10X that. If you have that kind of money labour is cheap enough to run fibre for the same amount.

The only way that starts to make any sense is if you're doing 128way-256way gpon splits which is not something most are willing to do if they need to make any kind of profit and sell anything more than 100Mbps packages. I wasn't even willing to do 64w splits over 10 years ago now and in hindsight that was wise.

You could go active but then your SFP/SFP+ per port cost eats you up.

For less than 1mil fixed wireless is going to cover 2,800km/sq. You are not going to to get anywhere near that cost trying to do the same thing to 2048(or more) subs in that footprint with fiber. That wouldn't even cover your fiber material cost!

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

#226

Post by kalleboo »

matt-p wrote: post #173
supertrope wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

50Mb is more than fine for iphone backups.

Family of 4 comes home after a long day out, all plug in their phones at the same time to charge and drop down in the sofa to vegetate in front of Netflix. Why is it buffering so bad?!?

Traffic is bursty. Higher bandwidth connections make the whole internet more efficient - if you can race to idle then servers have fewer concurrent connections to keep track of, routers can more quickly clean up their NAT tables etc etc

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

#228

Post by wkat4242 »

lxgr wrote: post #195
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…

> 6 GHz simply does not have the material penetration, that's the point. Really? Is there something special about 6 GHz absorption through common construction materials? Otherwise, why would a 20% higher frequency be that much worse?

The main 5G frequency in Europe is 3.5Ghz so it's about twice as high.

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

#229

Post by wkat4242 »

TitaRusell wrote: post #68
embedding-shape wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Register, being British, should probably have gotten this right, but people constantly get this wrong. Even a lot of people living in the union don't even realize the different between EU, Europe, EEA, Schengen and all the other layers, so maybe it's hard to blame "outsiders" from not getting it either. I'm guessing maybe the "European Commission" threw them off, because it's an EU entity (basically the executive…

Switzerland is not in the EU but they follow EU legislation. It's kinda like Canada and the US.

Not directly though. They get some exceptions and they have referenda to implement things.

They align with the EU a lot for commercial reasons but not completely. Same with Norway. And really, if they did align completely there'd be no reason to not join.

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

#230

Post by creatonez »

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…

It's already been completely shut down in large swaths of the world.

> mainly because a 2G connection is more tolerant to low signal and noise

Huh? Everything I've heard about 2G indicates that it is an incredibly noisy protocol with horrible congestion characteristics, and that it craps out even when there's only a few devices. Maybe it's only winning because it has nearly completely disappeared?

Post reply on HN