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

81–90 of 250 posts

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

#81

Post by vlovich123 »

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…

Doesn’t 6ghz have essentially the same penetration as 5ghz and thus in a few years will have all the same problems as people shift to 6ghz?

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

#82

Post by fundatus »

ttoinou wrote: post #67
fundatus wrote: post #41

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. 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

> There are benefits splitting America in two

Are there? Most Latin American countries, who see all of America as a single continent, would disagree.

It really makes no sense to argue about this. As I already mentioned, there is no universally agreed model of which continents exist and where the boundaries lie. In the end people feel like they belong to one or the other and that's as far as it will probably ever get.

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

#83

Post by throwaway127482 »

trueismywork wrote: post #78
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…

Realn solution is to have houses not so close to each other.

Not a realistic solution at all

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

#84

Post by sofixa »

trueismywork wrote: post #78
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…

Realn solution is to have houses not so close to each other.

This would come at the expense of lowering density and multiplying infrastructure costs by a few orders of magnitude, making everything less accessible in doing so.

Hard, hard no.

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

#85

Post by matt-p »

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 progressive to reserve the spectrum for the 'rich' who can afford fixed lines.

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

#86

Post by ddalex »

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…

that's why I'm running only 2.4Ghz APs, enough bandwidth for mobile common uses, all static hardware has wires to them. Far better then 5GHz band

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

#87

Post by mr_toad »

matt-p wrote: post #79
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…

There's still a load of non-DFS channels you could be using? At least in an apartment you can run an ethernet cable for the most important devices.

So few devices have Ethernet ports these days.

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

#88

Post by kergonath »

trueismywork wrote: post #78
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…

Realn solution is to have houses not so close to each other.

Great one!

Or, if you are not being sarcastic, the solution to wireless networking issues is to… rebuild cities in which billions of people live and spread those people over… where? Never mind the fact that cities are the best way of arranging lots of people, where would you build those "houses not so close to each other" that is not a desert, a cliff, or an ocean?

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

#89

Post by kergonath »

Mashimo wrote: post #70
UltraSane wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get 20 to 30 spam calls a day now.

In EU? Where are you located?

I’m in France. I don’t get 30 a day, but at least 2 to 5. I automatically ignore unknown callers and my voice mail message basically says to send a SMS instead.

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

#90

Post by matt-p »

kingstnap wrote: post #65
cbg0 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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!

But your home NAS should be on ethernet? Who would buy a NAS and then not wire it in??

The point here is that only devices like a TV, mobile, tablet or laptop should be on WiFi and it's pretty hard to notice the difference between say 50Mbps and 500Mbps on any of those except maybe if you are moving files around on your laptop.

Post reply on HN