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

231–240 of 250 posts

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

#231

Post by Gigachad »

throw0101d wrote: post #124
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

> And you think the same problem wouldn't exist with 6ghz? Yes. 5 Ghz has 12x 40MHz channels, 6 Ghz has (in the US/CA where it is basically 'fully unlocked' for Wifi) 29x 40Mhz channels. It's the difference between 500Mhz worth of total bandwidth and 1200Mhz: over double. * https://www.everythingrf.com/community/what-frequency-band-d... * https://spectrum.potatofi.com * http://www.potatofi.com/posts/spectrum-viewer/…

I don't see any reason not to use 80Mhz. Many home internet connections are faster than 40Mhz can provide.

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

#232

Post by Gigachad »

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…

Most of 5Ghz is unusable because of DFS. In Australia, only 2 out of the 6 80mhz channels are usable. 6 Ghz has 6 of them completely usable today, with possibly more on the upper end usable in the future.

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

#233

Post by Gigachad »

stego-tech wrote: post #208
Seattle3503 wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The fact new construction in 2025 doesn’t mandate ethernet drops in every non-bathroom is what’s contributing to Wi-Fi crowding, and prevalent last-mile wired access ensures that mobile operators have to compete on cost rather than data caps - and thus hinders their monopolization efforts. This would raise the cost of construction, in the middle of widespread housing shortages.

By peanuts and pennies for a significant ROI. Many places still mandate some form of coaxial or telephone wiring, which means you already have the drop points for ethernet. Even better, telephone runs are often done with CAT5e due to cost, and could easily be rewired for ethernet if it’s laid structurally in the first place. You’re talking a $10k expense on a new home, tops. That’s chump change and easily shoved into…

I can't imagine it's anywhere near $10k to install if it's done at the same time as the other electrical before the drywall goes up. Retrofitting it is so much more expensive.

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

#234

Post by itopaloglu83 »

arghwhat wrote: post #216
itopaloglu83 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Let’s start with the things we agree and then I’m going to voice my concerns.

We do need a lot more frequencies to be opened up both for personal and professional use. New technologies, dynamic long and short range connections etc.

We also need to enforce frequency usage as well so that a neighbor of ours doesn’t block the entire 2.4GHz for the entire block with his access points blasting at full power.

Here’s the problem, 6GHz already became a WiFi standard and these cellular companies are lobbying to retroactively change the frequency allocation for themself because they think they can use it better and more importantly all the research and development is already done and they don’t want to waste money developing new technologies there.

But why? Why would we do all the research and development with public fund and then allocate the frequency bands to cellular companies and let them charge people $100+ per month and have 40%+ profit margins while increasing their prices over 60% since 2020.

Hypothetically speaking just a small fraction of that money can be used to put fiber internet all over the place with tons of 6GHz access points and let everyone have free internet.

The cellular companies are late to the game here so they can have a small section of the 6GHz or some of the 7GHz can be opened up but there’s no reason for 6GHz to be retroactively given to them because they lobbied for their own benefits.

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

#235

Post by Gigachad »

cbg0 wrote: post #48
crote wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. 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…

The average normie now is downloading 100GB Call of Duty updates over wifi. 5Ghz is ok but most of it is unusable due to DFS.

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

#236

Post by boruto »

matt-p wrote: post #85
wtmt wrote: post #39

> In response, the Wi-Fi Alliance and the DSA are trying to stoke fears that such a move would severely dent Europe's digital development, claiming Wi-Fi is the primary way consumers access the internet and constraining it would impact progress. Just today, there’s a news report in India where the major telecom companies have lobbied that the entire 6 GHz band be reserved for mobile services and that even part of it…

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…

I pay 30$ a year for 2/3 GB per day and unlimited calls. This is more than enough for me.

For broadband I pay 10$ a month for 100 Mbps.

Mobile is terrible at times, Broadband service is amazing, even though it is slow.

Broadband is not that common

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

#237

Post by wuming2 »

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…

I wonder if delegating LiFi to do downstream and very narrow bands of Wifi for upstream would solve congestion problems. As example if existing smartphones could receive LiFi signal with current front facing sensors.

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

#238

Post by arghwhat »

itopaloglu83 wrote: post #234
arghwhat wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Let’s start with the things we agree and then I’m going to voice my concerns. We do need a lot more frequencies to be opened up both for personal and professional use. New technologies, dynamic long and short range connections etc. We also need to enforce frequency usage as well so that a neighbor of ours doesn’t block the entire 2.4GHz for the entire block with his access points blasting at full power. Here’s the pr…

I have no idea where your 100 USD+ per month comes from, my 5G plan is 10 USD per month - considerably cheaper than my 50 USD per month fiber connection, even though they're both gigabit. And the fiber rollout cost more.

> Hypothetically speaking just a small fraction of that money can be used to put fiber internet all over the place with tons of 6GHz access points and let everyone have free internet.

That's what 5G is: fiber running to a bunch of APs running a suitable technology for covering an entire area with a lot of devices in high-speed internet.

WiFi is not that technology (it doesn't target that kind of device density or coexistence, and only really works well with very low device counts in RF quiet buildings), nor would anything about that be cheaper - sounds like the issue you voice is mainly greedy ISPs, while using WiFi deployments would not give them any reason to be any less greedy. A free internet service is a choice that can be done with both WiFi and 5G.

(Yes it would be nice if they didn't both trample on upper 6GHz, but improving cellular, but I'm not sure if WiFi is the greater value prop for those channels.)

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

#239

Post by ajross »

lxgr wrote: post #191
matt-p wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure obviously giving it to WiFi and then installing town wide free WiFi would be the absolute most efficient option but I'm trying to stay realistic.

Wi-Fi is not a very efficient way to cover a whole town, due to its inherently low range (at least when involving consumer devices on one end). You'd be spending a lot of resources on base stations that never see any usage.

WiFi literally covers basically all of the urban US already, I'm not understanding this point.

It's true that there's no single service one can sign up for and you have to bounce around cafe and Xfinity and whatever "Free WiFi!" networks are being offered. Which is definitely annoying and it's nice to have a single company sell you service in a neatly packaged "phone" product.

But again, trying to phrase that as a technical point is ridiculous. Free bands are just plain better, technically. You get more data to more people for less money using open spread spectrum protocols than you do with dedicated bands. Period.

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

#240

Post by port11 »

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…

Hmm, I'm in a 60-apartments block and we don't have this problem at all. Heck, even my shitty Meross devices manage despite all the 2.4 and 2.4+5 GHz connections around. What I struggle with is reliable 4G, and even 5G is so shabby I might as well keep it disabled. More spectrum for network signal sounds like it would help much more than improving Wi-Fi, which is already very reliable and plenty fast. My 2 cents…
Post reply on HN