[HN Gopher] 5G Advocates Renew Attempts to Poach Wi-Fi's 6GHz Sp...
___________________________________________________________________
5G Advocates Renew Attempts to Poach Wi-Fi's 6GHz Spectrum
Author : danaos
Score : 66 points
Date : 2021-01-05 21:11 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.eetimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.eetimes.com)
| stefan_ wrote:
| This should be an easy choice. Award huge amounts of _indoor
| spectrum_ to a consortium that requires a SIM card to use any of
| it? What are they thinking?
| DavidVoid wrote:
| There are indoor 5G radio units for use in malls and large
| buildings (see Ericsson's Radio Dot products for example [1]).
| That's probably what they were thinking.
|
| [1] https://www.ericsson.com/en/portfolio/networks/ericsson-
| radi...
| SahAssar wrote:
| Is that like a repeater or is there more to it?
| mabbo wrote:
| They were thinking "I would like to make even more money".
|
| Wifi networks are competition. By stealing their spectrum, they
| make the mobile network more appealing, so less people will
| bother using wifi at all.
| dd36 wrote:
| Yeah. Seems like 5g is merely ma bell wifi.
| drewg123 wrote:
| I'm confused; I thought that Wifi 6E equipment using the 6GHz
| band was already available?
|
| I actually just ordered a wifi card based on the Intel AX210:
| https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/docs/wirele...
|
| I'm eagerly awaiting an AP that supports 6GHz and am hoping for a
| few years of relatively interference free wifi in an urban
| setting (like 5Ghz was for the first year or two).
| metaxis78 wrote:
| Although not ideal, 5GHz has significant wall
| reflection/reduced penetration. If you're in a dense, urban,
| noisy environment, you should still be able to achieve decent
| MCS on 5GHz in your home.
|
| 6GHz will add more spectrum with these characteristics, which
| will helpfully alleviate future performance concerns pretty
| thoroughly.
| drewg123 wrote:
| The problem I'm facing is that my friend is a streamer, and
| she can only reliably stream with a wired connection. When
| trying to use Wifi, she has frequent breakups of her stream.
| Using https://packetlosstest.com/, we see that frequently
| many packets are delayed several hundred MS.
|
| The only thing which has seemed to help is reducing the 5Ghz
| channel width and forcing the AP to use one of the lesser
| occupied 5Ghz channels. This is what has made me think that
| interference is the problem. A channel scan shows well over
| 100 APs..
|
| EDIT: Are there AP features or tuning which will influence
| how well, and/or how quick it can react to interference?
|
| I've been hoping that the 6GHz band will improve things for
| her when 6Ghz APs become available. I was going to build her
| an AP using an Intel AX210, however I realized that the AX210
| does not support AP mode so that plan won't work.
| scrps wrote:
| Building a performant wifi network is a serious pain.
| Building material, channel congestion, network load, AP
| placement, other sources of RFI, etc all cause issues.
|
| Your best bet is look for APs that support 802.11r or v
| (also check that clients support it though most modern
| cards do) which allows seamless roaming between APs then
| replace the existing AP with 2 or 3 APs. If you want a
| cheaper solution you can try for a DIY site survey to try
| to find the best placement and channel for the existing AP.
| metaxis78 wrote:
| There are client priority features in wifi, but your device
| may not support them. If her antenna has line of sight to
| the BS then it's not likely to be interference but
| something else, like traffic congestion.
|
| I'm not sure what hardware/chipset you're using, but if
| it's consumer grade, that might be a big part of the
| problem. Competently executed prosumer/soho like the
| amplifi/unifi line or google wifi may make a huge
| difference.
|
| However, ethernet may just be the best option, especially
| for streaming.
| willcipriano wrote:
| In my view: If the packets absolutely positively have to
| get there on time, ethernet is the only option.
|
| WiFi has uses but constantly streaming large volumes of
| data without hiccups isn't one of them.
| metaxis78 wrote:
| With wifi, you need to make accommodations as well. It's
| not just Magic Internet Waves. I've had no problem video
| conferencing on wifi, but I make sure to have reasonable
| line of sight to my AP. I also chose a model with a
| simplistic and streamlined design so that it didn't look
| awful placed prominently in my space.
| labawi wrote:
| Have you considered bringing _an_ AP closer to the client?
| Especially on 5GHz a good line-of-sight / line-of-
| reflection is very helpful, and some extra 10-20dB of
| signal should compensate for a lot of interference.
|
| OFDM MU-MIMO AX 20000+ 1000$ routers with 20 antennas work
| better, but in an inconvenient location, when the noise
| floor is high, it has no chance to compete with a decent
| 2-antenna ac (or even n) AP with good signal propagation
| (same room vs. behind a wall somewhere).
|
| And it would be helpful if you can agree with your
| neighbors to use narrow channels (less competition and
| unintended interference), decrease radiation power (less
| distortion => better signal) and if supported, increase
| minimum bitrate (faster communication => less jamming).
| Also, lower transmission power and faster SSID broadcasts
| help induce roaming, for when you have multiple APs.
| stefan_ wrote:
| The problem with 5GHz is that some 60% of the spectrum is
| locked behind 1/10 min DFS for ill-conceived radar
| coexistence, so all the APs usually bunch in the few channels
| that don't require that.
| dboreham wrote:
| If the AP supports DFS channels at all.
| jjoonathan wrote:
| Proponents of spectrum auctions should be ashamed of themselves.
|
| If you pop up a spectrum analyzer anywhere there are people,
| you'll see loads of traffic jammed into the "free-for-all" ISM
| bands, you'll see AM & FM radio, and you'll see precious little
| else. If you have a really good spectrum analyzer, you'll be able
| to spot the occasional cellular traffic, but by and large the
| spectrum that has been auctioned off to corporate owners goes
| almost entirely to waste.
|
| 50 years ago when fixed-frequency narrowband receivers were all
| we had, this made sense. It was a necessary compromise. Nobody
| needed bandwidth but everybody needed a dedicated frequency to
| accommodate their primitive hardware. Today it's the opposite,
| and the relative usage of ISM bands vs everything else proves it.
| The radio-frequency situation makes the real-estate markets with
| block after block of unoccupied apartments look downright
| efficient by comparison. We need to fix this.
| gruez wrote:
| >If you have a really good spectrum analyzer, you'll be able to
| spot the occasional cellular traffic, but by and large the
| spectrum that has been auctioned off to corporate owners goes
| almost entirely to waste.
|
| Just because you don't see any usage in your area
| (rural/suburbs?) doesn't mean it's unused. They could be
| heavily used major metropolitan centers, for instance.
| dboreham wrote:
| If he can't see it where he is then by definition it isn't
| being used in that location. Use on some other part of the
| planet isn't relevant because these frequencies don't
| propagate far.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| It's true. However there's a question of what to do about
| this. You can't sell a wireless device to someone in Ohio
| and expect it not to be used in New York City. And certain
| emergency frequencies might be rarely utilized but very
| important when used.
|
| That said, I'd like to see more allocation of spectrum for
| consumer use. It's very frustrating that cellular companies
| get more and more spectrum but we can't feasibly deploy
| public LTE for example.
|
| Perhaps if the wireless device has GPS and network
| connectivity we could give the government permission to
| enable and disable extra frequencies depending on location.
| Though of course this scheme invites suppression of
| dissent.
| gruez wrote:
| OP's impression seems to be that because of it's unused,
| it's being "wasted", and is therefore bad. However, that
| doesn't factor in that most of the usage occur in urban
| areas, where most of the country's population lives. The
| consequence of the spectrum auctions/allocations is that
| someone living in rural wyoming can't use the 1Ghz to 7Ghz
| band (numbers made up) for himself, even though nobody else
| is using it. Is that a shame? I suppose, but only if he's a
| radio enthusiast. For the vast majority of the population,
| this unused spectrum doesn't impact their lives. They can
| still use their 802.11ac 5Ghz routers and get 500 Mb/s
| transfer speeds in their homes.
| thatcat wrote:
| If he could use it, tech that is useful to him would be
| developed, allowing him greater connectivity at lower
| costs. Say he owns a ranch and wants to have fully
| autonomous ranching hardware that benefit from
| connectivity for example...
| klondike_ wrote:
| Some parts of the spectrum are only suitable for certain uses.
| Cell phone providers prefer frequencies in the MHz range
| because they penetrate buildings well. Higher or lower
| frequencies wouldn't be suitable for this purpose.
|
| In addition, a lot of Tx and Rx equipment moves around. A quiet
| part of the spectrum in a rural area might be crowded in a
| city, for example, and poorly designed equipment could be
| subject to harmful interference
| sinak wrote:
| The reason the ISM bands look so "hot" or busy on a spectrum
| analyzer is exactly because they're a "free for all." It's a
| classic tragedy of the commons: everyone keeps "shouting" at
| max volume to be heard and there's no coordination between
| operators and users of different ISM services.
|
| Here's an example: in a typical apartment block, each resident
| runs their WiFi access point at full power. In any one
| apartment, there's a ton of interference from neighboring
| units. If everyone coordinated and reduced their WiFi power to
| just what was necessary to cover their unit, it would result in
| less interference and higher net data rates for everyone. But
| no one is incentivized to do take action unilaterally.
|
| LTE and 5G networks are very careful planned to limit intracell
| interference and handover zones between towers. This central
| planning maximizes the efficiency of the network. It allows
| your cell phone to connect to a tower 10km away if you're in a
| rural area, and results in higher spectral efficiency for the
| overall network by increasing signal-to-noise ratios for all
| users.
|
| With a more sensitive spectrum analyzer, you'll see that the
| cellular bands are actually extremely busy. In fact, macro
| networks are almost always at capacity during peak usage.
| However, all the devices are "speaking" at the lowest volume
| necessary to be heard.
| swiley wrote:
| Why the hell are we not just using beam forming with WiFi? Why
| are we restricting the construction of computer networks to some
| few privileged companies?
|
| What the hell is going on here?
| r00fus wrote:
| Grift. Rent Seeking. The same old formula. Sadly it still works
| well today.
| gruez wrote:
| >Why the hell are we not just using beam forming with WiFi?
|
| AFAIK the router I have from years ago is advertised to have
| "beam forming". Whether/how well it works is another story.
|
| >Why are we restricting the construction of computer networks
| to some few privileged companies?
|
| The theory is that building out networks in a planned/organized
| fashion would produce better results than ad-hoc deployment.
| It's not hard to imagine how an apartment building that deploys
| its own APs at carefully selected places, configuring them to
| use non-overlapping channels, and avoiding unnecessarily high
| transmit power, would result in a better network than each
| tenant placing their router/modem combo wherever, set their
| channel configuration to "auto", and left the transmit power at
| "maximum".
| [deleted]
| brokencode wrote:
| 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.
|
| 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 wrote:
| >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 wrote:
| It's less about latency and more about stability. That 1ms
| will skyrocket at the smallest interference.
| grogenaut wrote:
| reading other comments it's not about latency its about
| signal propagation and interference.
| snvzz wrote:
| 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.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-01-05 23:00 UTC)