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

61–70 of 250 posts

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

#61

Post by freehorse »

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?

Whenever I go to the UK, people there seem to consistently refer to EU or the rest/continental europe in general as "europe", esp in political/economic context. My impression is that the UK is just too important to be grouped together with other countries.

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

#62

Post by supertrope »

kristofferR wrote: post #40
welder wrote: post #6

I wish govt would put a condition on the mobile carriers to fix SS7 vulnerabilities.

Isn't that simply fixed by shutting down the old 2G and 3G networks, like is happening in a lot of countries now?

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).

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

#63

Post by alerighi »

kristofferR wrote: post #40
welder wrote: post #6

I wish govt would put a condition on the mobile carriers to fix SS7 vulnerabilities.

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 situations such as on top of mountains and stuff. And finally there is still a lot of people, maybe elders, that don't have/want a smartphone (mainly because they are more complex to use etc.) and still use an old Nokia with 2G networks (they only need to call or send SMS in the end).

Also: VoLTE is not a thing since a lot of years, and probably there are even a ton of smartphones out there that does not support it (and thus switch back to 2G/3G to place voice calls).

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

#64

Post by maxsilver »

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…

> 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.

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

#65

Post by kingstnap »

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…

This ~10 to 20 Mbps is enough nonsense is like claiming that 24 fps is enough to play games.

I mean sure, its usable, but its not good. You can notice the differences in buffering / scrubbing speed well into the 100+ mbps range.

Plus being able to download and upload files quickly. Particularly from something like a home NAS, is important. 15 mbps is like using a shitty USB 2 stick for everything!

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

#66

Post by ttoinou »

fundatus wrote: post #58
throwaway198846 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suez Canal exists and cuts off Africa from Eurasia

Obviously, but in case the sarcasm of my comment didn't come through: I was trying to make the point that you can't draw lines between continents just because of geography (or tectonic plates for that matter). It's arbitrary - after all we can't even agree which continents do exist. Relevant watching: Map Men: How many continents are there? ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrsxRJdwfM0 )

Yes it is arbitrary (like most of things actually) but the distinction between Europe and Asia is the most arbitrary of all of them

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

#67

Post by ttoinou »

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.

Tell me more how Europe is separated by a canal from Asia ? There are benefits splitting America in two, splitting Africa from Eurasia, splitting Australia from Eurasia. What's the benefit of splitting Eurasia into Europe and Asia, besides catering to europeans who believe they're unique in the world ? It only creates more problems

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

#68

Post by TitaRusell »

embedding-shape wrote: post #5
hk__2 wrote: post #3

EU, not Europe.

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.

Post reply on HN