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

241–250 of 250 posts

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

#241

Post by School-Cotton »

wongarsu wrote: post #22
_w04p wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find your comparison not so convincing. While there is some common misidentification between the EU and Europe, I’ve never heard anyone in the world refer to “America” in a way that was not for the United States.

"In 1492 Christopher Columbus discovered America" is a sentence I've certainly heard before, but he didn't at any point land on any area covered by the United States of America (except maybe Panama) That ambiguity disappears if you call it "the Americas", but many places see America as one continent (including Latin America, parts of Europe and the Olympic flag)

I have no idea why this informative and totally correct comment was downvoted, but anyway, I upvoted it to balance that out.

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

#242

Post by throw0101d »

craftkiller wrote: post #155
PunchyHamster wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

They are if they're in an urban environment (which is 80% of the population of the United States). Maximizing your channel width only makes sense in suburban/rural areas. You can get a much more reliable connection by using a smaller channel width. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45542444

> They are if they're in an urban environment (which is 80% of the population of the United States).

About 40% of the US population lives in a coastal county:

* https://coast.noaa.gov/states/fast-facts/economics-and-demog...

About two-thirds (66%) of the US population lives with-in 100 miles (150km) of the border:

* https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/your-rights-bord...

The US population is more concentrated than many people realize.

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

#243

Post by throw0101d »

Gigachad wrote: post #231
throw0101d wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Many home internet connections are faster than 40Mhz can provide.

Define "many". The US average, as of 2023, seems to be ≤150Mbps:

* https://www.opensignal.com/2023/05/23/usa-fixed-broadband-ex...

Cloudflare has data of more sustained-use bandwidth that shows lower numbers:

* https://radar.cloudflare.com/quality

1x1 40Mhz = 287Mbps PHY ~ 143Mbps realistic ~ 100Mbps probable. Double that for 2x2 40Mhz: 200 Mbps.

Certainly some connections may need more, and is the reason for >40 Mhz options, but I'm not entirely convinced one of those should be the out-of-box default.

This less of a concern in 6 Ghz because there are many more channels, but this is what the story is all about: how is that frequency band going to be allocated? In US/CA all of it basically went to Wifi, and that gives folks more options, even in more densely populated areas.

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

#245

Post by lxgr »

wkat4242 wrote: post #228
lxgr wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

True, but almost completely unrelated to Wi-Fi.

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

#246

Post by Gigachad »

throw0101d wrote: post #243
Gigachad wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> Many home internet connections are faster than 40Mhz can provide. Define "many". The US average, as of 2023, seems to be ≤150Mbps: * https://www.opensignal.com/2023/05/23/usa-fixed-broadband-ex... Cloudflare has data of more sustained-use bandwidth that shows lower numbers: * https://radar.cloudflare.com/quality 1x1 40Mhz = 287Mbps PHY ~ 143Mbps realistic ~ 100Mbps probable. Double that for 2x2 40Mhz: 200 Mbps. Cer…

I guess the problem is if you default it low, people will end up with slower internet for no reason. While most areas would be perfectly fine at 80mhz. Maybe routers could run their own speed test and self configure to the right bandwidth.

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

#247

Post by kergonath »

School-Cotton wrote: post #100
kergonath wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I actually have no idea what French Guyana, Haiti, or Belize typically do to differentiate between people of the American continent(s) and US persons. In French, people from the Americas are américains . This includes, say québecois and Brazilians. When context matters, people from the US are états-uniens .

Perhaps in Haiti, I don’t know. But at least in France, “américain” means from the US 99% of the time.

Probably because the US are much more mentioned than other American countries. But that’s not really the point, though. People from the US are américains, they’re part of the group of people living in America (which, in French and when it is not qualified, refers to all of them, North, Central, and South).

The point is that nobody would object if you refer to someone from anywhere else in the Americas as américain. Like my lab mate from Buenos Aires or friends from Montréal. And we’re definitely not in Haiti.

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

#248

Post by defraudbah »

welder wrote: post #23
defraudbah wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this would require some encryption and still can be intercepted. Any ideas how to fix that?

No, I'm talking about anyone with SS7 access basically has root on the whole network and can query for locations of any phone number anonymously... no audit trail, no access control. https://youtu.be/xfWyU5iXJ3I?t=860 https://youtu.be/wVyu7NB7W6Y

right, that's how police and criminals do it, I am aware how it works, what I wonder is how do you fix it, replace the protocol? encrypt it?

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

#249

Post by throw0101d »

Gigachad wrote: post #246
throw0101d wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Many home internet connections are faster than 40Mhz can provide. Define "many". The US average, as of 2023, seems to be ≤150Mbps: * https://www.opensignal.com/2023/05/23/usa-fixed-broadband-ex... Cloudflare has data of more sustained-use bandwidth that shows lower numbers: * https://radar.cloudflare.com/quality 1x1 40Mhz = 287Mbps PHY ~ 143Mbps realistic ~ 100Mbps probable. Double that for 2x2 40Mhz: 200 Mbps. Cer…

I guess the problem is if you default it low, people will end up with slower internet for no reason. While most areas would be perfectly fine at 80mhz. Maybe routers could run their own speed test and self configure to the right bandwidth.

> While most areas would be perfectly fine at 80mhz. Maybe routers could run their own speed test and self configure to the right bandwidth.

The Wifi Alliance may wish to provide guidance on this, at least for the residential space. Some ideas:

* have the router/AP do a speed test (at boot; regularly), and if the connect is ≤X Mbps then the wider channels won't help anything;

* do a sweep of the band (boot up; intervals), and if ≥Y% (50?) of it already in use, default to narrower channel.

Either/both of these would be done on a default "Auto-choose" setting, with allowable manual override.

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

#250

Post by namibj »

esseph wrote: post #220
namibj wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Mumbai doesn't have issues of arguably too low density to split digging costs across enough users.

It might have issues with the cost of digging, though.

It's the "homestead in Maine" type of situation where the fiber plow enables economic viability of burial.

Post reply on HN