7 ms·

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

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 that again in 4x4. If devices need more speed (laptops more than phones) then they can move to 4x4 more? Whereas for mobile operators it would be very useful in outdoor/indoor (airports etc) urban areas that are very busy.

itopaloglu83 11mo ago
And why does it need to be reserved exclusively for them? Can’t they be just another user of a well established standard or do they want to abuse the crap out of it?
- arghwhat 11mo ago
  They are trying to improve service by avoiding noise. Something few realize is that all wireless technologies are, in effect, time-share: Every device on the channel, router/tower included, take turn to talk while everyone else shuts up and listens. If other types of devices also use your channel, you'll have to shut up and wait for airtime even longer. Having WiFi and cellular co-exist mean that they are both fighting eachother over airtime, and both spending a lot of time silent. It's preferable to avoid channel overlap when the services need to co-exist.
  - itopaloglu83 11mo ago
    They don’t need a frequency channel dedicated to them just to improve reception inside a stadium or an airport. Tell me what stops them from using the exact same technology they use for WiFi calling? They just want to own the means the people connect to the internet and be a tax on everyone.
    - arghwhat 11mo ago
      Yes they do? Just like WiFi needs way more channels than it has available to work well inside a Stadium, which is why it doesn't work well inside a stadium or airport at all. Heck, I would never even bother trying WiFi in such a setting - between 5G and WiFi, 5G is much better designed for handling such dense cells. It's important to note that "they" are not trying to fix calls, they are trying to improve cellular connectivity. Getting calls to work is easy, and traditional calls have become a niche use of smartphones. Many already have excellent internet connectivity on their devices and would like that to just remain seamlessly available in all situations rather than having to switch technologies and maintain multiple subscriptions. While I'm quite happy with my fiber at home, I only really use WiFi on my phone at home is to access local devices. In other situations, especially in corporate or public settings, WiFi is not only inconvenient but often a way worse and slower experience than just staying on 5G - after all, my phone gets gigabit on 5G with a public IPv6 address, and the latency is pretty good too, which can't be said for overcrowded WiFi and crap enterprise network solutions. If it wasn't for casting, 5G + tailscale would alleviate most needs to WiFi. Heck, for the smartphone-native generation it might even seem weird that they need another internet subscription for their home when they pay for on for their phone, "just because" 5G or whatever wasn't allowed to step on a spectrum - a quite literal tax. (Don't get me wrong, I like my WiFi, but cellular is not the enemy. We just need to hand out more spectrum to both.)
      - itopaloglu83 11mo ago
        Let’s start with the things we agree and then I’m going to voice my concerns. We do need a lot more frequencies to be opened up both for personal and professional use. New technologies, dynamic long and short range connections etc. We also need to enforce frequency usage as well so that a neighbor of ours doesn’t block the entire 2.4GHz for the entire block with his access points blasting at full power. Here’s the problem, 6GHz already became a WiFi standard and these cellular companies are lobbying to retroactively change the frequency allocation for themself because they think they can use it better and more importantly all the research and development is already done and they don’t want to waste money developing new technologies there. But why? Why would we do all the research and development with public fund and then allocate the frequency bands to cellular companies and let them charge people $100+ per month and have 40%+ profit margins while increasing their prices over 60% since 2020. Hypothetically speaking just a small fraction of that money can be used to put fiber internet all over the place with tons of 6GHz access points and let everyone have free internet. The cellular companies are late to the game here so they can have a small section of the 6GHz or some of the 7GHz can be opened up but there’s no reason for 6GHz to be retroactively given to them because they lobbied for their own benefits.
crote 11mo ago
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 bandwith mostly to yourself. On the other hand, cellular networks are well-regulated: if an airport's entire network is managed by a single party they can just install extra antennas and turn down the power. And it's not like cellular operators will be able to use it often: outdoor use falls apart the moment there are a bunch of trees or buildings in the way, so it only makes sense in buildings like airports and stadiums. Why would the rest of society have to be banned from using 6GHz Wifi for that? Besides, didn't 5G include support for 30GHz frequencies for exactly this application? What happened to that?
- cbg0 11mo ago
  > 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 2.4/5GHz inside their own homes.
  - crote 11mo ago
    You've got to take into account that those bandwidth figures exist on paper only - nobody is getting 5Gbps out of their wifi. In practice it is all about degraded performance. If you're sitting in another room than the AP, close to your neighbour, do you want to be left with 50Mbps remaining out of the original 5000Mbps, or 2Mbps remaining out of the original 200Mpbs?
  - maxsilver 11mo ago
    > 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.

itopaloglu83 11mo ago

And why does it need to be reserved exclusively for them? Can’t they be just another user of a well established standard or do they want to abuse the crap out of it?

arghwhat 11mo ago
They are trying to improve service by avoiding noise. Something few realize is that all wireless technologies are, in effect, time-share: Every device on the channel, router/tower included, take turn to talk while everyone else shuts up and listens. If other types of devices also use your channel, you'll have to shut up and wait for airtime even longer. Having WiFi and cellular co-exist mean that they are both fighting eachother over airtime, and both spending a lot of time silent. It's preferable to avoid channel overlap when the services need to co-exist.
- itopaloglu83 11mo ago
  They don’t need a frequency channel dedicated to them just to improve reception inside a stadium or an airport. Tell me what stops them from using the exact same technology they use for WiFi calling? They just want to own the means the people connect to the internet and be a tax on everyone.
  - arghwhat 11mo ago
    Yes they do? Just like WiFi needs way more channels than it has available to work well inside a Stadium, which is why it doesn't work well inside a stadium or airport at all. Heck, I would never even bother trying WiFi in such a setting - between 5G and WiFi, 5G is much better designed for handling such dense cells. It's important to note that "they" are not trying to fix calls, they are trying to improve cellular connectivity. Getting calls to work is easy, and traditional calls have become a niche use of smartphones. Many already have excellent internet connectivity on their devices and would like that to just remain seamlessly available in all situations rather than having to switch technologies and maintain multiple subscriptions. While I'm quite happy with my fiber at home, I only really use WiFi on my phone at home is to access local devices. In other situations, especially in corporate or public settings, WiFi is not only inconvenient but often a way worse and slower experience than just staying on 5G - after all, my phone gets gigabit on 5G with a public IPv6 address, and the latency is pretty good too, which can't be said for overcrowded WiFi and crap enterprise network solutions. If it wasn't for casting, 5G + tailscale would alleviate most needs to WiFi. Heck, for the smartphone-native generation it might even seem weird that they need another internet subscription for their home when they pay for on for their phone, "just because" 5G or whatever wasn't allowed to step on a spectrum - a quite literal tax. (Don't get me wrong, I like my WiFi, but cellular is not the enemy. We just need to hand out more spectrum to both.)
    - itopaloglu83 11mo ago
      Let’s start with the things we agree and then I’m going to voice my concerns. We do need a lot more frequencies to be opened up both for personal and professional use. New technologies, dynamic long and short range connections etc. We also need to enforce frequency usage as well so that a neighbor of ours doesn’t block the entire 2.4GHz for the entire block with his access points blasting at full power. Here’s the problem, 6GHz already became a WiFi standard and these cellular companies are lobbying to retroactively change the frequency allocation for themself because they think they can use it better and more importantly all the research and development is already done and they don’t want to waste money developing new technologies there. But why? Why would we do all the research and development with public fund and then allocate the frequency bands to cellular companies and let them charge people $100+ per month and have 40%+ profit margins while increasing their prices over 60% since 2020. Hypothetically speaking just a small fraction of that money can be used to put fiber internet all over the place with tons of 6GHz access points and let everyone have free internet. The cellular companies are late to the game here so they can have a small section of the 6GHz or some of the 7GHz can be opened up but there’s no reason for 6GHz to be retroactively given to them because they lobbied for their own benefits.

crote 11mo ago

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 bandwith mostly to yourself. On the other hand, cellular networks are well-regulated: if an airport's entire network is managed by a single party they can just install extra antennas and turn down the power. And it's not like cellular operators will be able to use it often: outdoor use falls apart the moment there are a bunch of trees or buildings in the way, so it only makes sense in buildings like airports and stadiums. Why would the rest of society have to be banned from using 6GHz Wifi for that? Besides, didn't 5G include support for 30GHz frequencies for exactly this application? What happened to that?

cbg0 11mo ago
> 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 2.4/5GHz inside their own homes.
- crote 11mo ago
  You've got to take into account that those bandwidth figures exist on paper only - nobody is getting 5Gbps out of their wifi. In practice it is all about degraded performance. If you're sitting in another room than the AP, close to your neighbour, do you want to be left with 50Mbps remaining out of the original 5000Mbps, or 2Mbps remaining out of the original 200Mpbs?
- maxsilver 11mo ago
  > 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.