3 ms·

Wifi7 can use 320MHz channels on 6GHz. There's only 1 of those in many locations.

appreciatorBus 1y ago
Yes, exactly, this means you shouldn’t use 320Mhz. Find quietest 20mhz available on 5 or 6 GHz. It’ll be far more reliable than trying to battle someone over the 320.
- tymscar 1y ago
  But also faaaaaaar slower
  - bcrl 1y ago
    The only person I've encountered recently that had a legitimate actual need for multi-gigabit wireless and internet access works on cleaning up LIDAR data from construction site scans. Maybe if you're editing a lot of video content, but people doing that tend to benefit more from fast local storage during the editing process. End-user wise the only customer I've had that sustained a gigabit transfer rate for multiple days was doing something stupid: they uploaded their 20 TB NAS to a backup service, reformated the unit, then downloaded it. They could have done an in place filesystem conversion cheaper and way faster, but they chose an option in the idiot realm instead. I'm guessing they don't have backups of their data and will be very disappointed when one of the HDDs dies.
    - tymscar 1y ago
      As it turns out, I do play with LiDAR all the time. I think I have a blogpost about scanning my environment too
      - KeplerBoy 1y ago
        Got a link to that blog?
        tymscar 1y ago
        Here’s one where I did a Gaussian Splat. But I talk about my LiDAR scanned head there too https://blog.tymscar.com/posts/gaussiansplat/ https://blog.tymscar.com/posts/gaussiansplat/
        KeplerBoy 1y ago
        Oh, completely missed that you're the OP and this was all your blog.
- wpm 1y ago
  How likely am I to even detect my neighbors 6GHz network? I live in a very dense part of Chicago. 2.4 and 5 are a minefield, just a thick soup of interference on everything but the DFS channels (which I get kicked off of too often being close to two airports). While it could be that zero neighbors have 6E or 7 equipment, I find that hard to believe, but nothing comes up on the scan.
  - bcrl 1y ago
    6 GHz capable access points / routers are in the Extremely Expensive realm, as a 6 GHz radio on its own is almost useless these days unless all your devices are high end and brand new. Got a security camera? No 6 GHz. Got an old laptop? Nope. What about that iPad from 2019 that still works great? Nope. Smart TV? Nope. Very few people are using 6 GHz at this time.
    - wpm 1y ago
      "Extremely Expensive"? I can get an Archer BE3600 from my local Microcenter for $90. Comcast is sending 6E/7 capable router/AP combos to customers with fast enough connection speeds.
      - bcrl 11mo ago
        The Archer BE3600 is uninteresting to me. It only does 2x2 MIMO which means that beamforming is not as effective as it is for 3x3 or 4x4 MIMO routers, and it therefore has worse coverage. The end result is that previous gen 3x3 or 4x4 routers are a better option for typical users. Going to 3x3 or 4x4 with 3 bands is where things become ridiculously expensive. If all you care about is the peak speed at short range, sure, maybe it's the right choice. But for most people coverage is far more important. The Archer C80 has 3x3 MIMO and costs under US$40. I get 400-500Mbps over wireless (which is firmly in the Good Enough territory for many uses) with it on most 2x2 devices, plus I can install twice as many for the cost of a single Wifi 7 router to get better coverage. That seems like a win to me.
        11mo ago

Yes, exactly, this means you shouldn’t use 320Mhz. Find quietest 20mhz available on 5 or 6 GHz. It’ll be far more reliable than trying to battle someone over the 320.

tymscar 1y ago
But also faaaaaaar slower
- bcrl 1y ago
  The only person I've encountered recently that had a legitimate actual need for multi-gigabit wireless and internet access works on cleaning up LIDAR data from construction site scans. Maybe if you're editing a lot of video content, but people doing that tend to benefit more from fast local storage during the editing process. End-user wise the only customer I've had that sustained a gigabit transfer rate for multiple days was doing something stupid: they uploaded their 20 TB NAS to a backup service, reformated the unit, then downloaded it. They could have done an in place filesystem conversion cheaper and way faster, but they chose an option in the idiot realm instead. I'm guessing they don't have backups of their data and will be very disappointed when one of the HDDs dies.
  - tymscar 1y ago
    As it turns out, I do play with LiDAR all the time. I think I have a blogpost about scanning my environment too
    - KeplerBoy 1y ago
      Got a link to that blog?
      - tymscar 1y ago
        Here’s one where I did a Gaussian Splat. But I talk about my LiDAR scanned head there too https://blog.tymscar.com/posts/gaussiansplat/ https://blog.tymscar.com/posts/gaussiansplat/
        KeplerBoy 1y ago
        Oh, completely missed that you're the OP and this was all your blog.
wpm 1y ago
How likely am I to even detect my neighbors 6GHz network? I live in a very dense part of Chicago. 2.4 and 5 are a minefield, just a thick soup of interference on everything but the DFS channels (which I get kicked off of too often being close to two airports). While it could be that zero neighbors have 6E or 7 equipment, I find that hard to believe, but nothing comes up on the scan.
- bcrl 1y ago
  6 GHz capable access points / routers are in the Extremely Expensive realm, as a 6 GHz radio on its own is almost useless these days unless all your devices are high end and brand new. Got a security camera? No 6 GHz. Got an old laptop? Nope. What about that iPad from 2019 that still works great? Nope. Smart TV? Nope. Very few people are using 6 GHz at this time.
  - wpm 1y ago
    "Extremely Expensive"? I can get an Archer BE3600 from my local Microcenter for $90. Comcast is sending 6E/7 capable router/AP combos to customers with fast enough connection speeds.
    - bcrl 11mo ago
      The Archer BE3600 is uninteresting to me. It only does 2x2 MIMO which means that beamforming is not as effective as it is for 3x3 or 4x4 MIMO routers, and it therefore has worse coverage. The end result is that previous gen 3x3 or 4x4 routers are a better option for typical users. Going to 3x3 or 4x4 with 3 bands is where things become ridiculously expensive. If all you care about is the peak speed at short range, sure, maybe it's the right choice. But for most people coverage is far more important. The Archer C80 has 3x3 MIMO and costs under US$40. I get 400-500Mbps over wireless (which is firmly in the Good Enough territory for many uses) with it on most 2x2 devices, plus I can install twice as many for the cost of a single Wifi 7 router to get better coverage. That seems like a win to me.
      - 11mo ago