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

41–50 of 250 posts

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

#41

Post by fundatus »

ttoinou wrote: post #34
afavour wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think people understand that a continent isn’t making decisions.

To be really pedantic we should acknowledge there's no good reason to separate Europe from Asia, it's all one geographical continent. The distinction between EU and Europe is very important. They're "word stealing" something as neutral as a geographical concept, to make it political. But in this case here, probably if EU legislate on this, others non-EU european countries will follow

> To be really pedantic we should acknowledge there's no good reason to separate Europe from Asia, it's all one geographical continent.

To be even more pedantic you have to throw in Africa as well, as that is connected by land to Asia just like Europe is! Now we have the supercontinent Afroeurasia which contains like 85% of the worlds population.

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

#42

Post by ksec »

rsynnott wrote: post #7
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…

The Register know very well what the EU is. However, in practice, the EU is colloquially referred to as "Europe" in many contexts in the UK. The rules the EU establishes will also apply to the EEA, and in practice will almost certainly also be adopted by the UK, which has tended to take its lead from the EU on such matters since Brexit. So, while pedantically these are not rules for Europe, _for practical purposes_ t…

>the EU is colloquially referred to as "Europe" in many contexts in the UK.

It really should have been EUR for Europe, and EU as in European Union.

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

#43

Post by liotier »

Xenoamorphous wrote: post #38
_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.

Maybe in English. In Spanish (and we’re a bunch, the native Spanish speakers) I guarantee that if you say “América” you’re referring to the continent. The country is “Estados Unidos” (United States) or its abbreviation, EEUU. And its citizens, “estadounidenses”, not “americanos”.

> estadounidenses

And in French the inhabitants of "les Etats-Unis" are "Etats-uniens". I've taken the habit of referring to them as USAians, which often gets negative reactionsand remains rare - but I find it is the most accurate demonym and I'll keep pushing it.

I look forward to the world inventing demonyms for the citizens of the European Union, because at least it will mean that our emerging national body is getting mindshare !

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

#44

Post by itopaloglu83 »

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…

And why does it need to be reserved exclusively for them?

Can’t they be just another user of a well established standard or do they want to abuse the crap out of it?

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

#45

Post by crote »

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 bandwith mostly to yourself.

On the other hand, cellular networks are well-regulated: if an airport's entire network is managed by a single party they can just install extra antennas and turn down the power.

And it's not like cellular operators will be able to use it often: outdoor use falls apart the moment there are a bunch of trees or buildings in the way, so it only makes sense in buildings like airports and stadiums. Why would the rest of society have to be banned from using 6GHz Wifi for that?

Besides, didn't 5G include support for 30GHz frequencies for exactly this application? What happened to that?

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

#46

Post by crote »

Aardwolf wrote: post #33
rsynnott wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Register know very well what the EU is. However, in practice, the EU is colloquially referred to as "Europe" in many contexts in the UK. The rules the EU establishes will also apply to the EEA, and in practice will almost certainly also be adopted by the UK, which has tended to take its lead from the EU on such matters since Brexit. So, while pedantically these are not rules for Europe, _for practical purposes_ t…

What continent does UK consider itself part of then?

It likes to believe it is somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.

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

#48

Post by cbg0 »

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.

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 2.4/5GHz inside their own homes.

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

#49

Post by fainpul »

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.

I'm no expert and only speak from personal experience. When the signal is weak, you don't have the whole bandwith, you only get low throughput. Ideally you would want a strong, high penetration signal (low frequency) and all users on separate channels. It's of course impossible in densely populated areas.

Whenever I have to deal with setting up WLAN in the office or at home, I hate the experience and I try to use wired connections wherever possible.

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

#50

Post by throwaway198846 »

fundatus wrote: post #41
ttoinou wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be really pedantic we should acknowledge there's no good reason to separate Europe from Asia, it's all one geographical continent. The distinction between EU and Europe is very important. They're "word stealing" something as neutral as a geographical concept, to make it political. But in this case here, probably if EU legislate on this, others non-EU european countries will follow

> To be really pedantic we should acknowledge there's no good reason to separate Europe from Asia, it's all one geographical continent. To be even more pedantic you have to throw in Africa as well, as that is connected by land to Asia just like Europe is! Now we have the supercontinent Afroeurasia which contains like 85% of the worlds population.

Suez Canal exists and cuts off Africa from Eurasia
Post reply on HN