5 ms·

This looks like a money-making scheme from big telecom companies to me. They have to compete with faster, cheaper, more reliable hardwired connections, and can

This looks like a money-making scheme from big telecom companies to me. They have to compete with faster, cheaper, more reliable hardwired connections, and can only benefit from hobbling WiFi. WiFi 6E is necessary and potentially revolutionary for indoor spaces. If you’ve ever lived in a large apartment building, then you have probably seen the huge number of neighbor WiFi routers with varying signal strengths interfering with your WiFi connection. I’ve found WiFi to be completely unusable for gaming for that exact reason, and have to use a MoCA adapter instead. WiFi 6 helps, but most devices on 5Ghz are still not on WiFi 6, and won’t be for a long time. Any non-WiFi 6 device on the same channel will interfere with the more advanced devices. WiFi 6E not only introduces a new 6Ghz band where every device is using WiFi 6, but it also has significantly more channels, allowing for more routers in a limited area without interference. On top of that, it has higher speed and lower latency than even WiFi 6 on 5Ghz. I’ve seen some claims that it might be used for wireless VR headsets, though that remains to be seen. This is a technology apartment dwellers don’t even know they’ve been dreaming of, and it should not be delayed.

gruez 6y ago
>On top of that, it has higher speed and lower latency than even WiFi 6 on 5Ghz. On a 802.11ac 5GHZ connection I'm getting 1ms pings to my router. Does lowering latency beyond that even make a difference?
- Nextgrid 6y ago
  It’s less about latency and more about stability. That 1ms will skyrocket at the smallest interference.
- grogenaut 6y ago
  reading other comments it's not about latency its about signal propagation and interference.
- snvzz 6y ago
  As with scheduling latency (try cyclictest from rt-tests), the average doesn't really matter, as it's low enough. What matters is the maximum value. That's the one you'll feel when it happens. WiFi has packet loss to worry about, on top of that.
  - wtallis 6y ago
    Another good way of looking at the problem is that you need to test latency under load, not latency on an otherwise-idle network. Ping tests on an idle network only tell you the best-case latency. If you try doing that a while couple of devices are running video streams (especially if it's two-way from videoconferencing rather than Netflix), you get a very different picture of your network's performance.
- Triv888 6y ago
  There's always a use for less latency... HTF (high frequency traders) are in the nano-seconds. There's probably other areas where lower latency will always matter.
  - edmundsauto 6y ago
    These situations will not use WiFi though.
    - londons_explore 6y ago
      But they would if they could.
    - accountofme 6y ago
      HFT CAN and will use wireless if it is faster than fibre (refractive index of air vs glass). Albeit not WiFi but they do use Ham Radio to front run trades between cities and continents. There have been a few articles posted to HN over the years....
xt00 6y ago
Likely here is the thinking process for carriers right now. 1. how do we make our service as good as possible so we can provide the most value to customer / (and make the most money) 2. when you get home your phone switches from 5G to wifi network -- which often in many people's houses sucks 3. we will provide you a "combo / bundle" offering.. we will bring fiber to your house and install a small repeater which will provide "5G" at home -- which will basically just be higher frequency bands of 5G service -- higher frequency means does not go through walls / trees / barriers outside as well, so those bands are harder to use anyway for that -- better to use like 1GHz if possible 4. Man, that 6GHz band looks might tempting for us to use.. I wish we could have that be part of our service.. rather than people switching to wifi, they should just keep using their wireless network all the time at home / on the go etc.. 5. we will "manage" that spectrum better than a bunch of cowboy's with their random 6GHz routers they buy on aliexpress While all of that may be true, the important thing here is that many people have limited options (both price wise and option's wise) for cellular providers, and similarly for fiber or cable internet. So selling the spectrum to the cellular carriers is basically saying that is who gets to use it, and people are even more dependent upon cellular data because existing 2.4GHz and 5GHz bands don't work well enough for people. The end goal world for cellular carriers is that you use them all day everyday. I think most people would judge that having 6GHz be an open band that people can use in multiple ways is pro-consumer. But I personally would say, if the carriers want to use a small portion of that for the same goal where they "manage" it, then why not give them some too and we can see who manages it better. But the idea that the cellular carriers end up getting all of it seems like a disaster for consumers. That is a ton of spectrum, and cellular guys would happily charge you tons of money for it vs. you just buying a router and hooking up to a cheap fiber connection.
36r7r7ddyd 6y ago
Seems like a weird takeaway to me. As far as the consumer is concerned wifi and cellular serve the same purpose. The speed argument isn't even really that relevant when people can already play Overwatch and other latency sensitive games on a mobile hotspot, the shortcoming there isn't speed it's simply data use. I'd much rather just have a mobile network I can connect to anywhere and let the tech crowd pay extra for features and politics only they care about.
- pie_flavor 6y ago
  Taking a position on the politics isn't leaving the politics to the tech people. Whoever says 'it doesn't matter' first loses, because that means it shouldn't matter to them and so the other party can get their way. 5G already gives the cell users everything they need. In the places where this matters, the tools are already there. The 6GHz band would not actually help anything, for them, especially given that it's an indoor frequency and would need some kind of repeater to be useful. But for WiFi it does solve an immediate, important need.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- brokencode 6y ago
  Maybe 5G is much more advanced than I understand, but I don’t think those networks would be able to take on the added load of most people switching away from wired internet anytime soon. But I do know that 5G in my apartment does not match my fiber internet connection in terms of bandwidth or stable latency yet. But maybe it’d be good enough? That’s an interesting question. I’ve never tried it, so it’s hard to say how it’d hold up. I do have bad memories of previous cable internet plans that were really fast during the day, only to slow down a lot at nights when everybody was streaming. My current fiber internet is the only connection I’ve been 100% satisfied with, so it’s not tempting to seriously consider any alternatives.
bunnie 6y ago
Can't agree more... 5G adoption hasn't been as fast as anticipated, and an easy fix to that problem is to give customers no choice but to upgrade to 5G by using regulatory mechanisms to prevent the roll out of potentially competitive upgrades. Even if function wise they are different radios, consumers don't really know the difference - phone providers just need something new to pitch the next generation of handsets and wifi 6 could compete with 5G for being the 'it' upgrade on a generation of handsets. "As long as a number goes up, it must be better...right?"

gruez 6y ago

>On top of that, it has higher speed and lower latency than even WiFi 6 on 5Ghz. On a 802.11ac 5GHZ connection I'm getting 1ms pings to my router. Does lowering latency beyond that even make a difference?

Nextgrid 6y ago
It’s less about latency and more about stability. That 1ms will skyrocket at the smallest interference.
grogenaut 6y ago
reading other comments it's not about latency its about signal propagation and interference.
snvzz 6y ago
As with scheduling latency (try cyclictest from rt-tests), the average doesn't really matter, as it's low enough. What matters is the maximum value. That's the one you'll feel when it happens. WiFi has packet loss to worry about, on top of that.
- wtallis 6y ago
  Another good way of looking at the problem is that you need to test latency under load, not latency on an otherwise-idle network. Ping tests on an idle network only tell you the best-case latency. If you try doing that a while couple of devices are running video streams (especially if it's two-way from videoconferencing rather than Netflix), you get a very different picture of your network's performance.
Triv888 6y ago
There's always a use for less latency... HTF (high frequency traders) are in the nano-seconds. There's probably other areas where lower latency will always matter.
- edmundsauto 6y ago
  These situations will not use WiFi though.
  - londons_explore 6y ago
    But they would if they could.
  - accountofme 6y ago
    HFT CAN and will use wireless if it is faster than fibre (refractive index of air vs glass). Albeit not WiFi but they do use Ham Radio to front run trades between cities and continents. There have been a few articles posted to HN over the years....

xt00 6y ago

Likely here is the thinking process for carriers right now. 1. how do we make our service as good as possible so we can provide the most value to customer / (and make the most money) 2. when you get home your phone switches from 5G to wifi network -- which often in many people's houses sucks 3. we will provide you a "combo / bundle" offering.. we will bring fiber to your house and install a small repeater which will provide "5G" at home -- which will basically just be higher frequency bands of 5G service -- higher frequency means does not go through walls / trees / barriers outside as well, so those bands are harder to use anyway for that -- better to use like 1GHz if possible 4. Man, that 6GHz band looks might tempting for us to use.. I wish we could have that be part of our service.. rather than people switching to wifi, they should just keep using their wireless network all the time at home / on the go etc.. 5. we will "manage" that spectrum better than a bunch of cowboy's with their random 6GHz routers they buy on aliexpress While all of that may be true, the important thing here is that many people have limited options (both price wise and option's wise) for cellular providers, and similarly for fiber or cable internet. So selling the spectrum to the cellular carriers is basically saying that is who gets to use it, and people are even more dependent upon cellular data because existing 2.4GHz and 5GHz bands don't work well enough for people. The end goal world for cellular carriers is that you use them all day everyday. I think most people would judge that having 6GHz be an open band that people can use in multiple ways is pro-consumer. But I personally would say, if the carriers want to use a small portion of that for the same goal where they "manage" it, then why not give them some too and we can see who manages it better. But the idea that the cellular carriers end up getting all of it seems like a disaster for consumers. That is a ton of spectrum, and cellular guys would happily charge you tons of money for it vs. you just buying a router and hooking up to a cheap fiber connection.

36r7r7ddyd 6y ago

Seems like a weird takeaway to me. As far as the consumer is concerned wifi and cellular serve the same purpose. The speed argument isn't even really that relevant when people can already play Overwatch and other latency sensitive games on a mobile hotspot, the shortcoming there isn't speed it's simply data use. I'd much rather just have a mobile network I can connect to anywhere and let the tech crowd pay extra for features and politics only they care about.

pie_flavor 6y ago
Taking a position on the politics isn't leaving the politics to the tech people. Whoever says 'it doesn't matter' first loses, because that means it shouldn't matter to them and so the other party can get their way. 5G already gives the cell users everything they need. In the places where this matters, the tools are already there. The 6GHz band would not actually help anything, for them, especially given that it's an indoor frequency and would need some kind of repeater to be useful. But for WiFi it does solve an immediate, important need.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
brokencode 6y ago
Maybe 5G is much more advanced than I understand, but I don’t think those networks would be able to take on the added load of most people switching away from wired internet anytime soon. But I do know that 5G in my apartment does not match my fiber internet connection in terms of bandwidth or stable latency yet. But maybe it’d be good enough? That’s an interesting question. I’ve never tried it, so it’s hard to say how it’d hold up. I do have bad memories of previous cable internet plans that were really fast during the day, only to slow down a lot at nights when everybody was streaming. My current fiber internet is the only connection I’ve been 100% satisfied with, so it’s not tempting to seriously consider any alternatives.

bunnie 6y ago

Can't agree more... 5G adoption hasn't been as fast as anticipated, and an easy fix to that problem is to give customers no choice but to upgrade to 5G by using regulatory mechanisms to prevent the roll out of potentially competitive upgrades. Even if function wise they are different radios, consumers don't really know the difference - phone providers just need something new to pitch the next generation of handsets and wifi 6 could compete with 5G for being the 'it' upgrade on a generation of handsets. "As long as a number goes up, it must be better...right?"