4 ms·
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 professio
by 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.
- arghwhat 11mo agoI have no idea where your 100 USD+ per month comes from, my 5G plan is 10 USD per month - considerably cheaper than my 50 USD per month fiber connection, even though they're both gigabit. And the fiber rollout cost more. > 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. That's what 5G is: fiber running to a bunch of APs running a suitable technology for covering an entire area with a lot of devices in high-speed internet. WiFi is not that technology (it doesn't target that kind of device density or coexistence, and only really works well with very low device counts in RF quiet buildings), nor would anything about that be cheaper - sounds like the issue you voice is mainly greedy ISPs, while using WiFi deployments would not give them any reason to be any less greedy. A free internet service is a choice that can be done with both WiFi and 5G. (Yes it would be nice if they didn't both trample on upper 6GHz, but improving cellular, but I'm not sure if WiFi is the greater value prop for those channels.)