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

91–100 of 250 posts

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

#91

Post by hombre_fatal »

kergonath wrote: post #88
trueismywork wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Whether they’re joking or not, it’s a good example of the sort of reasoning you see in those town hall meetings where a bunch of ancient home owners come up with straight faced reasons for why an apartment complex shouldn’t get built.

“They’ll have congested internet!” would go well alongside “It will block the sun on my daily walk on that part of the street!”

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

#92

Post by kergonath »

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 problem is not bandwidth. The problem is inconsistent performance and latency spikes caused by interferences.

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

#93

Post by mr_toad »

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?

Ask two different people and get three different answers.

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

#94

Post by matt-p »

mr_toad wrote: post #87
matt-p wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You say that but my TV, Games console, computer, smart lights bridge, printer etc all do.

Having said that I'm still mad they removed it from the MacBook pro and that was like 14 years ago now so I feel you.

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

#95

Post by kergonath »

KAMSPioneer wrote: post #28
lazide wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s even more amusing in some ways. A common way to refer to those from the USA in Brazil, for instance (even an official one!) is ‘Norte Americano’. Which is all kinds of weird because - what about Mexico and Canada? And what about the ‘United states’ part? It’s just to disambiguate from ‘Americano’ as in what others in South America sometimes use to refer to latin Americans and as a little bit of a FU to the USA,…

Ahh, I forgot about that...and to be transparent, 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. I should have said Hispanoamerica, but oh well.

> 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.

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

#96

Post by mr_toad »

liotier wrote: post #43
Xenoamorphous wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 get…

Whenever I’ve heard the term américain it’s been used to refer to a US citizen, not a mexicain or citizen of some other American country.

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

#97

Post by vntok »

matt-p wrote: post #90
kingstnap wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Your smartphone is not talking to your NAS over Ethernet.

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

#98

Post by xoa »

Bombthecat wrote: post #77
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…

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. 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 plopped in the middle too, is also extremely helpful of course too. But the signal just not traveling as far and not going through walls well is the core thing. You don't need special effort EM shielding for it so much, bulk material will do it. And WAPs are cheap now. Having a higher number of smaller cells has been best practice for awhile already, and 6 GHz takes that much further.

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

#99

Post by ux266478 »

Bombthecat wrote: post #77
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…

And you think the same problem wouldn't exist with 6ghz? It will be as crowded as 5

Higher frequency, more bandwidth.

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

#100

Post by School-Cotton »

kergonath wrote: post #95
KAMSPioneer wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ahh, I forgot about that...and to be transparent, 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. I should have said Hispanoamerica, but oh well.

> 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.
Post reply on HN