[HN Gopher] EE is working with Qualcomm to add Wi-Fi 7 to consum...
___________________________________________________________________
EE is working with Qualcomm to add Wi-Fi 7 to consumer broadband
hubs
Author : beardyw
Score : 72 points
Date : 2023-09-25 10:53 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theregister.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theregister.com)
| 300bps wrote:
| _ISP 's router [...] Put it into modem mode and pass all the
| packets straight through to a third-party router._
|
| Best thing I ever did. Put in a Linksys Deco X55 mesh system with
| WiFi 6 system.
|
| Have four of them strategically placed throughout the 2,500
| square foot house and have perfect coverage on a single SSID.
|
| My iPhone 13 gets a bidirectional 360 Mbps just about anywhere in
| the house (the limit of my $39 per month FIOS line).
| throw0101c wrote:
| The home upgrade that most folks need is a symmetrical fibre
| optic of some kind, with open-access [1] and either municipal [2]
| or non-profit at OSI Layer 1/2, with competition at OSI Layer 3.
| I think at this point 100Mbps would be the minimum, with
| diminishing returns once you start getting above 1Gbps (but
| available with XG(S)-PON(G.98(0)7)/NG-PON2(G.989)/HSP(G.9804) and
| 802.3ca).
|
| It was technically possible to wire up entire countries and
| continents for electricity and phone service, so I doubt there
| are any _technical_ hurdles in doing the same with fibre.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-access_network
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_broadband
| hnreport wrote:
| [flagged]
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| The internet is designed for average people to suck down
| content, rather than create content. It's why I get 1gbps down
| but 35mbps up.
| thfuran wrote:
| The Internet really wasn't designed that way, though the
| modern Internet certainly shaped up that way for the most
| part. Most likely you get that highly asymmetric bandwidth
| because you're using an ISP piggybacking on cable TV service
| infrastructure, which unequivocally was originally designed
| for much more bandwidth in one direction than the other.
| throw0101c wrote:
| The Internet is designed for whatever we decide to design it
| for. The fact that most use cases are currently download-
| heavy does not mean other types of application could not be
| created if more bandwidth was available for upload.
|
| If you told people about streaming >1080p video folks with
| 9600bps modems back in the day would have thought you were
| nuts. Certainly there's probably a point of diminishing
| returns, but why not give as many people 'too much' bandwidth
| and see if folks think of creative ways to use it?
| js8 wrote:
| > The fact that most use cases are currently download-heavy
|
| Is it still true? I am happy with whatever I got but I
| thought a big consumer use case is multiplayer gaming,
| which requires low latency bidirectionally.
| throw0101c wrote:
| I think ten minutes of 4K video probably uses more
| bandwidth than a multi-hour gaming session: game coders
| are probably very efficient about what they send over the
| wire.
| gunapologist99 wrote:
| and, even if the coders were incredibly _in_ efficient,
| it probably wouldn't make much difference at all, because
| 4k is literally multiple orders of magnitude more data
| than just sending coordinates of players and bullets,
| which even Doom was doing back in the day with reasonable
| (playable) latency over dial-up.
|
| As you point out, for most types of online games, most
| limitations are due to latency, not bandwidth.
| dspillett wrote:
| Only the "last mile" of residential connections (and often
| business, if they can't justify the cost of a full fibre
| connection in their current location).
|
| Up to 33k6 modems home internet was generally symmetrical:
| the same speed up and down. 56k6 standards introduced
| asymmetry: it wasn't easy (i.e. inexpensively with that era's
| tech) to reliably transmit at the faster rates over copper in
| both directions (in fact it was rare in one direction - it
| wasn't often I saw faster than 48k, IIRC 45k was what I'd
| usually get) so the upstream was half of down. If I was
| uploading anything like photos of force the connection down
| to 33k6 at the upstream rate would be 33k6 rather than 24k or
| less.
|
| This continued with ADSL and then FTTC: the signalling
| frequencies used are allocated in a way that gives preference
| to downstream speed. This is a good compromise for most home
| users who download far more than they send back, but
| inconvenient when setting up (to pick one example from many)
| large videos recorded on modern phones, which is something
| many home users might want to do regularly. I currently get
| ~55mbit/13mbit and I'd much rather have it more balanced
| (something like 24mbit/24mbit?). I'll be upgrading to FTTP as
| soon as the cables they install a month or so ago are
| enabled, not for better downstream (it isn't often that
| ~55mbit is a significant inconvenience) but for better
| upstream.
|
| Full fibre doesn't have the limits of copper connections that
| force the choice of how to portion limited frequencies, not
| just because full fibre has cleaner signalling (so far
| reliable throughout) anyway, but also because it is
| synchronous: unlike with copper the signals from each side
| don't interfere with each other. (Copper needn't have this
| limitation but to work around it you'd need to double up the
| number of wires and even then at the speeds offered many
| would prefer such a bonded arrangement to give faster
| downstream at the expense of upstream)
| ilyt wrote:
| That's not "the internet", that's last hop of the internet
| and mostly due to technical limitations (if you got X
| bandwidth giving most of it to upload makes sense). FTH makes
| it easier to give symmetrical access
| thefz wrote:
| With 2.5Gbps I receive 600Mbit up, which is more than comfy
| for a home lab and for self hosting... even media.
|
| But yeah, I would get 1Gbps symmetric if I could.
| TacticalCoder wrote:
| > It was technically possible to wire up entire countries and
| continents for electricity and phone service, so I doubt there
| are any technical hurdles in doing the same with fibre.
|
| France is aiming at 100% fiber coverage. I spent some time in a
| very remote, very rural part of France, far from the closest
| village... And I had fiber to the home (2 Gbps down // 600 Mbps
| up).
| throw0101c wrote:
| > [...] _far from the closest village... And I had fiber to
| the home (2 Gbps down // 600 Mbps up)._
|
| You were probably not surprised that the dwelling you were in
| had electricity. I think at some point having fibre should
| also be as unsurprising.
| smeej wrote:
| Interestingly, there are a lot of places near me in
| northern New England where I genuinely _am_ surprised to
| find electricity (or plumbing, for that matter) in a house.
|
| Some places are just that hard to get to.
| throw0101a wrote:
| IMHO, if you can string a copper wire for power (and
| POTS) you can string a fibre. It's just a matter of us
| deciding to wire things up like was done in the 20th
| century.
| smeej wrote:
| Sure. These really remote places generally have some way
| they're generating their _own_ power, which is why I 'm
| surprised to find it.
| rjsw wrote:
| I got 500Mb/s symmetrical fibre installed last month. Not
| seeing much faster transfer rates from individual servers, I'm
| guessing most do some traffic shaping.
|
| Edit: mistyped G instead of M.
| tw04 wrote:
| I'm assuming you mean 500Mb/s or are being facetious? 500Gb/s
| is internet backbone speeds.
| [deleted]
| ta1243 wrote:
| 500gbit? That's about 5% of the entire capacity of the London
| Internet Exchange.
|
| I assume you're using some WDM to split the carrier into
| multiple 100G nics at each end? Doesn't sound cheap.
|
| What's the onward capacity, I assume your link is directly
| into a major peering centre.
| RIMR wrote:
| The only thing that Wi-Fi 7 might solve right now is powerful
| local and ad-hoc data transfers. 48gbps would allow for SSD-like
| speeds over the air. On a home network, you could back up your
| entire laptop in a few minutes to a NAS. With ad-hoc you could
| film in raw 8K, and back up everything to a battery powered
| storage device in a backpack in real time, without needing to be
| tethered.
|
| It certainly isn't a worthless upgrade, but your average user
| doesn't need it. It's definitely putting the cart before the
| horse, and for the majority of home use cases we need better
| reliability, not more speed.
|
| Ideally, I would like to see a unified standard that allows for
| devices to connect different wireless bands simultaneously,
| allowing for both speed and reliability based on respective
| signal strength and quality.
| karaterobot wrote:
| > There is no consumer problem of today, no domestic use case
| imaginable, where 50Gbps works where 10 will not.
|
| Honestly, 640kbps should be enough for anyone, if you ask me.
| dmw_ng wrote:
| I'd imagine the priority for the service provider is new
| product lines built around wifi sensing rather than the
| marketing about bandwidth. It is /really/ hard to come up with
| new applications that require so much bandwidth constrained to
| a one room, especially given we aren't even remotely tapped out
| on compression fanciness for visual media in mass deployment
| (see e.g. the recent obscenely low bit rate videoconferencing
| codec work from Nvidia)
| tempaway28751 wrote:
| In the UK supposedly they are switching off Landlines in 2025, so
| anyone that still wants a "landline phone" (as opposed to mobile)
| is going to have to do VOIP
|
| Its going to be a shitshow because everyone's Grandma is now
| going to trying to get VOIP phones working and domestic routers
| are just a load of crap that crash all the time.
|
| edit: source: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/uk-transition-from-
| analogue-to-d...
| yrro wrote:
| It's already begun. The Stop Sell for Wholesale Line Rental
| happened this month, so you can no longer order a analogue
| phoen line in most areas.
| snalty wrote:
| I don't think the Openreach ONT is going away for BT FTTP
| customers any time soon, so for now you are free to just plug
| whatever router you want into your ONT.
| gandalfian wrote:
| Unless you eccentrically expect to use your telephone line to
| make telephone calls. In which case you are rather tied to
| their router to power their propietary VoIP landline service.
| wolrah wrote:
| > Unless you eccentrically expect to use your telephone line
| to make telephone calls. In which case you are rather tied to
| their router to power their propietary VoIP landline service.
|
| If you're the kind of person who cares about your router, why
| would you care about their proprietary VoIP service? Just use
| any other VoIP provider of your choice.
| ta1243 wrote:
| For FTTP (or indeed FTTC) my ISP will sell a voip bundle for
| PS3 a month or something on top. You just plug in a phone,
| maybe stick it on it's own VLAN if you want. There's plenty
| of other voip providers too.
| Daviey wrote:
| Emotive language such as "eccentrically" is strange
| considering the decline in landline subscribers, and even
| less usage of an actual landline.
|
| If you want to have a functioning "landline", why would you
| choose to use one bundled with your internet provider
| compared to a much more competitive independent voip
| provider?
|
| This is a good summary of the decline:
| https://www.wrappz.com/blog/decline-of-the-landline/
| gandalfian wrote:
| Yes Daviey, those of use using a telephone in the
| traditional way are a diminishing number. Hence passively
| becoming eccentric... Not as much as the person riding a
| penny farthing but slowly heading that way.
|
| To the other questions in the UK yes you can move your
| landline telephone number to a third party open standard
| sipp voip service, but setting up a voip adapter to pretend
| to be a landline is fiddly for many and migrating a
| landline telephone number, while it can be done, is not a
| nice process in practice. If you have an openreach ont with
| a telephone socket built in don't expect it to do anything
| in the future. The industry went another way. If you wish
| to carry on plugging in a telephone to your landline
| without any configuration then you will have to start using
| the telephone socket on your wifi router and only the
| router provided by your isp. (With some exceptions). Though
| most people won't care because they just use their mobiles
| now...
| rlpb wrote:
| > If you wish to carry on plugging in a telephone to your
| landline without any configuration then you will have to
| start using the telephone socket on your wifi router and
| only the router provided by your isp.
|
| I find the need to configure a router or VoIP adapter to
| be a strange, over-engineered concept when it comes to
| replacing POTS. We're already authenticated by virtue of
| being physically connected. The exchange should be able
| to pass through the identity of the connecting line and
| no authentication or manual configuration is a
| fundamental requirement. In PPP, authentication is
| optional, but BT/OpenReach require it and complicate
| everything for consumers for no good reason. Since nearly
| every line has only one provider, they should keep track
| of that at their end, and then routers wouldn't need PPP
| configuration in the common case. Everything could be
| negotiated automatically, and the protocol already
| supports this!
|
| We do have TR069 but that adds even more unnecessary
| complexity.
|
| The same goes for a POTS replacement. Authentication is
| not fundamentally necessary. They could autodiscover, and
| then the identity of your physical line could be passed
| through. There isn't an obvious protocol here, but it's
| trivial to achieve technically as long as it isn't
| overengineered (see for example uPnP IGD vs. NAT-PMP). If
| this is a real problem, it can be addressed.
|
| I don't think it's part of most consumer's threat models
| that it matters if their line identity is intercepted and
| used by an adversary, since we all use higher level
| protocols to establish higher level authentication
| anyway. But if it were, then TOFU together with an out-
| of-band update mechanism (eg. "call customer service to
| activate your new phone and/or router" or just "scan the
| QR code on the side of your phone and/orrouter with our
| app to activate it") would be all that's needed to deal
| with that. Client side authentication still wouldn't be
| needed, and can't address that threat model directly
| anyway.
| snuxoll wrote:
| > If you want to have a functioning "landline", why would
| you choose to use one bundled with your internet provider
| compared to a much more competitive independent voip
| provider?
|
| So much this. Even the local Cable co. charges more for
| residential home phone than competitors like Ooma do, and
| of course if I wanted to go the whole way with deploying
| small SIP PBX in my house I could do it for less than a
| couple bucks a month getting a DID from Flowroute.
|
| I guess getting it bundled by your triple-play provider of
| choice means you don't have to worry separately about
| battery backup because regulations usually require they
| provide that with their CPE; but it's not a big deal to
| hook your equipment up to a UPS either.
| garblegarble wrote:
| Is that different from the landline service they offer
| directly from the ONT? My Openreach ONT has a telephone jack
| as well as the RJ45. I've never actually used the telephone
| jack, but I'd imagine I would get a voip-backed fake dial
| tone if I did?
| ta1243 wrote:
| I used to have BT Broadband FTTP in a previous house, which
| had a bidirectional fibre into a box of some sort, which
| was battery powered, and went into another box which
| emerged as a telephone jack, and an RJ45.
|
| This was 2016. The battery box was there to provide power
| and service for a landline in a power cut.
|
| My router plugged into that RJ45 with a pppoe client,
| username "bthomehub@btbroadband.com" and looks like any old
| password ("BTSux" for example)
| aeadio wrote:
| This article is completely inept. I'm nowhere near an expert in
| WiFi tech, but having done a lot of in-office WiFi setups over
| the past several years, it's easy to see the differences in
| quality generation over generation.
|
| > Trouble is, the woes listed in the messaging are those that
| previous versions of services and wireless standards claimed to
| fix. If they didn't fix them, why should we believe this lot
| will? If they did, what is Qualcomm actually saying? It's a
| paradox.
|
| Previous iterations of WiFi DID fix these problems. Modern "WiFi
| 6" is significantly better at handling many simultaneous clients
| than the old 802.11b/g were. We've been through multiple
| generational improvements to the old scheme, such as,
| - 802.11n using 5 GHz with lower penetration, making it easier to
| create more and smaller cells - 802.11n introducing MIMO,
| leveraging airspace better - 802.11ac introducing MU-MIMO,
| allowing simultaneous transmission for multiple clients -
| 802.11ax expanding MU-MIMO into the frequency domain, making it
| more effective - Much better and quicker channel reuse
| during potential collisions - Quicker transmission means
| the time slices clients DO get are more meaningful
|
| WiFi has gotten so much better over the past several years, that
| I suspect people just don't remember how unreliable it was
| before. Part of this is because it's been a gradual improvement,
| as new standards have come out, on-market hardware has slowly
| taken up these new features, and client devices need to be aged
| out and replaced before a newer device can make use of these
| newer features -- which users might just attribute to their new
| device being "better", and not that the WiFi got better.
|
| It's not hard to look at the WiFi 7 (802.11be) Wikipedia page and
| see that it offers several improvements to handle increased
| client load, - Multi-Access Point (AP)
| Coordination (e.g. coordinated and joint transmission) -
| Enhanced link adaptation and retransmission protocol (e.g. Hybrid
| Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ)) - Enhanced resource
| allocation in OFDMA - Optimized channel sounding that
| requires less airtime - Implicit channel sounding -
| Support of direct links, managed by an access point
|
| > There is no consumer problem of today, no domestic use case
| imaginable, where 50Gbps works where 10 will not.
|
| WiFi quality is not dictated by the advertised transmission rate.
| That's just the number hardware vendors love to advertise,
| because it keeps getting bigger and bigger generation-on-
| generation, whereas all these other improvements are much more
| nuanced and tough to communicate in marketing copy.
|
| > The 6GHz band, which in the US actually goes some way beyond
| 7GHz, is more easily blocked by walls and other physical stuff
| necessary for gracious living than 5GHz, so coverage problems
| won't be fixed.
|
| Which may actually be desirable. Less penetration through walls
| means smaller cells that don't interfere (need to share airspace)
| with as many neighbors. This has been a boon in dense settings
| (office buildings, apartment buildings, public WiFi) during the
| 2.4 GHz -> 5 GHz transition.
|
| If you have a large house with many walls separating each room,
| you may now need more APs to cover the same area. But looking at
| the proliferation of mesh-based systems, it seems the market is
| already moving that way anyway.
|
| > It would be amazing if one in a hundred households notice an
| iota of difference if their current router magically sprouted Wi-
| Fi 7, and this won't change much for the years it takes to get
| phones, laptops, and everything else with older versions of the
| standard upgraded. Good luck getting those managed end-to-end
| services up and running too.
|
| And this is just uselessly defeatist. My current devices don't
| support the new standard, so why bother? WiFi has seen tremendous
| advances in quality and capability over the past 15 years, and
| users have always realized those advances as their devices age
| out. Back in the 802.11g days, it would've been unheard of to
| have multiple TVs and iPads in a single apartment within a
| densely populated apartment building streaming 4K video over WiFi
| simultaneously.
| pzo wrote:
| > Wi-Fi 6's comparable maximum rate is 9.6Gbps. There is no
| consumer problem of today, no domestic use case imaginable, where
| 50Gbps works where 10 will not.
|
| iphone has just 2x2 MIMO antena so even with WiFi 6 can get only
| max 2.4Gbps (1.2Gbps per antena - someone correct me if I'm
| wrong). And those are only max speed in labs in perfect
| conditions. So there is definitely use case for WiFi 7 in
| consumer devices e.g. VR/AR/Drones streaming cameras, remote
| control etc. Higher bandwidth should also make connection more
| robust and overall latency possibly reduced.
|
| I'm definitely looking forward for WiFi 7
| ilyt wrote:
| Streaming raw video to VR headset is probably _only_ situation
| when it makes sense for consumers. For near every single other
| thing it 's a massive overkill
| pzo wrote:
| another example: Apple added camera continuity for latest
| tvOS, you might want make video call with 4k at 60fps - sure
| you probably want to compress it but still you want to reduce
| latency.
|
| Also with smartphones that have 1 TB of storage would be nice
| to use it as fast wireless hard drive
| ta1243 wrote:
| There's no qos or control over the radio channels. A 120gbit,
| 120fps, 8k stream is lovely, until you have network
| interference of 10ms and you drop a frame.
| ac29 wrote:
| >Higher bandwidth should also make connection more robust
|
| Nope. Higher bandwidth could mean two things:
|
| Larger channel size: larger channels have a higher noise floor
| and are are therefore less robust
|
| Faster throughput: Faster throughput generally means larger
| channels (as above) or various techniques to get more bits/Hz
| (such as more complex modulation), both of which are less
| robust
| pzo wrote:
| I was more thinking if there is some frame collision and have
| a lot of data to send then overall robustness latency should
| be reduced? Similar like in a bus even if they travel at the
| same speed if you miss your bus or bus is full you have to
| wait. On the other hand if the bus is bigger with more sits
| or bus scheduled more frequent it's less likely you will have
| to wait. Also if bus breaks there is another one not far away
| behind to pickup passengers from broken bus.
| eximius wrote:
| I think I read this somewhere but I am struggling to recall
| where, so hopefully I didn't dream this: I believe the larger
| channels are much, much larger and include adaptive
| techniques to dynamically exclude noisy regions within
| channel. It can afford to entirely sacrifice bands in this
| way because the channels are much larger.
| ac29 wrote:
| Even in the absence of all anthropogenic RF noise, the
| noise floor on larger channels is higher. Specifically, I'm
| thinking of thermal noise:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson%E2%80%93Nyquist_noise
| cycomanic wrote:
| What you're writing isn't really correct either, this partly
| stems from the difficulty of what we mean by "robust".
|
| To increase throughput (i.e. bitrate ) we can either increase
| the channel bandwidth or the SNR (and use that SNR for higher
| modulation formats). Increasing the channel bandwidth does
| increase the noise power (assuming matched filtering) but we
| typically also assume that the psd of the signal stays the
| same => signal power increases and SNR stays the same.
|
| If we mean by "robust" that the signal is not as susceptible
| to fluctuations of the noise, than increasing the bandwidth
| could help. Assuming we want the same bitrate, we could use
| the larger bandwidth to reduce the modulation format and thus
| the required SNR while keeping the bitrate the same. However
| a larger bandwidth typically also increases probabilities of
| impairments (interferers, filtering...) but this is typically
| still a win, because capacity throughput is linearly
| proportional to bandwidth but only logarithmically to SNR.
| [deleted]
| jeroenhd wrote:
| The 2.4Gbps phy rate is nowhere close to usable bandwidth. With
| wide channels, good reception, not too much interference, and
| no really old hardware interfering with your connection, you
| can get over 1gbps on it, but the theoretical maximum is
| irrelevant to most use cases.
|
| In practice, most people don't have their routers set up for
| 160MHz bands (because older devices don't support it and will
| fall back to the much slower 2.4GHz otherwise) and in some
| areas near radars you can't even use those bands in the first
| place. However, with modern equipment, you can definitely get
| plenty of bandwidth over WiFi 6.
|
| The 50Gbps number stated also assumes very wide channels and
| even more recent devices, if WiFi 6 isn't doing it for you
| today, WiFi 7 won't be that much better.
| danaris wrote:
| I'm honestly struggling to come up with a use case for a
| _single iPhone_ to need more than 300 megabytes per second
| (2.4Gbps) of bandwidth at any given time. (Noting that 8K
| video, in fairly un-optimized scenarios, appears to need about
| 96Mbps--just 12 megabytes per second, or 4% of that "low"
| bandwidth.)
|
| What are you doing, streaming raw, uncompressed video from
| multiple sources to a single iPhone? If you've got that many
| devices you _need_ to stream from...it seems to me that it
| makes sense to invest in some dedicated hardware to handle
| that, rather than expect to do everything with just an iPhone.
| supertrope wrote:
| Faster link speed allows the Wi-Fi radio to finish
| transmission faster and go to sleep prolonging battery life.
|
| TCP throughput is about half of the link rate. iPhones before
| the 15 Pro maxed out at 1200 Mbps link rate because they are
| 2x2 MIMO with 80 MHz max channel banwdidth.
| rubatuga wrote:
| There may be diminishing returns on watts per bit,
| something that 10gbe Ethernet is not great at.
| pzo wrote:
| for iPhones maybe not but for drones or AR devices if you
| want to stream 4k at 60fps or 120fps then there is a lot of
| data to send. You could use iPhone as Drone payload for doing
| some site/construction inspection etc. Same with drones -
| they can fly very fast so would be nice to stream at
| 4k@120fps. Drones or iphones can/have many camera including
| lidar, depthmap (trudepth)
| danaris wrote:
| ...Then what was the point of specifically calling out the
| 2x2 MIMO antennae of the iPhone?
| pzo wrote:
| that 9.6Gbps speed mentioned in the article doesn't apply
| for most consumer devices because they have only 2
| antennas. Only expensive routers have many antennas to
| reach such speed. Not sure if we can have 8 antennas in
| smartphones
| ilyt wrote:
| That is only the case if you wanted to stream uncompressed
| data (which for drones is defeinitely not needed), so VR/AR
| maybe, anything else it would be a waste.
| ilyt wrote:
| That is only the case if you wanted to stream uncompressed
| data (which for drones is definitely not needed), so VR/AR
| maybe, anything else it would be a waste.
| pzo wrote:
| compressing big video frames (4k) takes time. If your
| application is latency critical (and drones moving at
| 100km/h is) and you are streaming at 120fps you have only
| 8ms for video frame processing. Sometimes you also want
| uncompressed data (lidar, depthmap) not for human but for
| machine computer vision / processing.
| sp332 wrote:
| And MIMO means the AP can talk to multiple such clients at the
| same time, even if each iPhone is only using 2x2.
| two_handfuls wrote:
| Really looking forward to better wifi for better wireless VR.
| giantg2 wrote:
| I would rather have ethernet in every room and a less
| sophisticated/powerful wifi. It seems ethernet is fairly rare
| even in new construction.
| hk1337 wrote:
| Ethernet is how I see the full ~1Gig for up and down at home. I
| trust the security of ethernet over wifi more too, although at
| home I am less concerned on wifi.
| DoingIsLearning wrote:
| To be fair it's a lot less cumbersome to do yourself than a
| full on electrical installation.
|
| Most diy shops will sell baseboards with precut pockets for
| cable routing.
|
| For any reasonably hands on technical person it's a 1 or 2 day
| job ripping baseboards and installing new ones with CAT6
| cabling behind.
|
| Of course it's definitely the sort of thing you can only get
| away with if you own the house.
| rockostrich wrote:
| My house is new construction (although I had no input to the
| construction) and it wasn't wired for ethernet which is crazy
| to me. Although it is at least wired with coax so I just bought
| 2 pairs of MoCA adapters and now I have wired connections where
| I want them.
| malfist wrote:
| When I built my house in 2014, they told us we got 2 phone
| jacks that were cat5e that we could convert to ethernet if we
| wanted. That was the default they provided, we upgraded to 24
| ports throughout the house, but I can't imagine this is common.
|
| Two years ago when we were thinking about buying a new house,
| we toured a bunch of homes that were built in the past decade,
| probably over a hundred houses. Less than 10 had more than 1 or
| 2 ethernet ports. Only 2 had ethernet in most rooms.
| em-bee wrote:
| 20 years ago when we renovated an old house, while the
| electrician was digging chases into the walls i asked him to
| add an extra empty pipe for ethernet next to each cable pipe.
| it barely cost any extra work, and later i ran the ethernet
| cable myself with the help of a friend.
|
| i don't live in that house any more, but my usage patterns with
| a laptop moving around frequently make wifi a far more
| practical experience. the extra effort of cabling just isn't
| worth the cost.
|
| in a larger houses i'd want one ethernet cable from the
| entrance to the center and to the back so that you can hook up
| multiple wifi access points, but that's it.
| rlpb wrote:
| My prediction of future bandwidth growth is that to get super
| high speed wi-fi you'll need line of sight to an access point
| that has fast enough (ie. wired) backhaul. Even today you can
| get considerable speedup by doing that. So I think power and
| network cabling (or just PoE) to eg. every area of ceiling or
| wall is still worth it and reasonably future-proof since
| that'd typically be enough for up to 10G per area.
| corn13read2 wrote:
| Generally I disagree with this sentiment. Do not wait to make a
| pipe bigger because it is full. We had this issue with phone
| lines and then CAT5 and CAT still sucks because commercial
| equipment is so expensive. How can the world innovate in-home
| technology when it's not cheap and ubiquitous.
|
| I can definitely imagine things I can do with that in-house, not
| just for me but for other adopters.
| RIMR wrote:
| I agree with you that we shouldn't wait to upgrade until after
| we are facing constraints, but the current state of home
| networking is so robust that we're absolutely nowhere close to
| the pipe being full. I am in no way opposed to the development
| and deployment of Wi-Fi 7, but I do have a problem with it
| being marketed as a major upgrade for consumers, when the
| average consumer is more likely to be adversely affected by
| worsening radio coverage than benefit from the increased
| maximum speed.
| agloe_dreams wrote:
| What annoys me is this: I have a TMobile iPhone 15 Pro and three
| Erro Pro 6 units, all with wired backhaul. Over the wire, my
| fast.com results repeatedly reach ~1.2 Gigs. Over Wifi, from a
| foot away, my results are around 650Mbps.
|
| The local church recently had T-Mobile install a 5G antenna array
| around it. I'm about two blocks away.
|
| Over 5G, I get 1.4Gigs down, though my walls, through an entire
| house between us.
|
| But my Wifi router only gets 650 down with the phone using it as
| a stand.
| bombcar wrote:
| 640Mbps should be enough for anyone!
|
| It is kind of amusing that 5G surpasses wifi when it's
| obviously a more complicated protocol (though, it's frequency
| regulated whereas your wifi is not; perhaps testing your wifi
| in the middle of a field in Kansas with nothing around would
| get better speeds).
| agloe_dreams wrote:
| OP here, few findings from here: 1. My iPhone only supports
| 2x2, makes sense now. 2. My M1 14 inch macbook pro only
| supports 2X2 as well. That is interesting:
| https://support.apple.com/guide/deployment/macbook-pro-wi-fi...
| 3. The phone next to the router was a bit of a joke, but yeah,
| still same performance. 4. TMobile is not messing around I
| guess.
| treis wrote:
| I think pretty much all wifi devices lie about the speed they
| can obtain. A lot that claim gigabit combine the speeds of
| 2.4GHz & 5GHz to get to 1 Gbps. Few devices out there
| legitimately offered the speed they advertise. At least that's
| what I saw when I looked a couple years ago.
| ac29 wrote:
| >But my Wifi router only gets 650 down with the phone using it
| as a stand.
|
| I cant speak to WiFi, but on the long range wireless stuff I
| work with the hardware does almost as poorly with signal levels
| that are too high as signal levels that are too low. Putting
| your phone literally on top of the WiFi router is likely not
| going to be a best case test scenario.
| agloe_dreams wrote:
| My apologies, I was trying to make a bit of a joke of the
| context of the distance and items between the 5G signal vs
| the router, below the cause is explained well.
| SAI_Peregrinus wrote:
| Getting too close takes you out of the "far field" and into
| the "near field"[1] where the device just won't work at all.
| It's probably actually connecting via reflections from the
| walls if stuck right on top of the router. You need to be at
| least 7.5cm away from a 5Ghz router with 15cm antennas to be
| in the far field, and anything within about 4.5cm will be
| entirely inside the reactive near field (and have very poor
| coupling with standard antennas designed for far field use).
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field
| danaris wrote:
| Well, what rate do you get through your router over a _wired_
| connection?
|
| That is, is the problem with your Wifi connection the Wifi, or
| your ISP or service plan?
| dv_dt wrote:
| It's more the provisioning of the network in your area than the
| actual link tech. t-mobile speeds outside my house have been
| going down from 10mbps down to around one as they've rolled out
| 5G upgrades (or maybe merged in sprints network).
| secondcoming wrote:
| I use a 5G router. I get about 600mbps from it over Ethernet,
| and 300mbps over Wifi
| throw0101c wrote:
| > _What annoys me is this: I have a TMobile iPhone 15 Pro and
| three Erro Pro 6 units, all with wired backhaul. Over the wire,
| my fast.com results repeatedly reach ~1.2 Gigs. Over Wifi, from
| a foot away, my results are around 650Mbps._
|
| I have an iPhone 12 talking to a Sagemcom 5689E that gets about
| the same.
|
| Want faster? Get gear that's designed to go faster, i.e./e.g.,
| both ends support 802.11ax (Wifi 6E).
|
| If I upgraded to an iPhone 15 I'd be able to use the 6 GHz
| signal and probably get higher bandwidth.
| supertrope wrote:
| 650 Mbps is a very good result for Wi-Fi 6. 2x2 MIMO and 80
| MHz channel yields a link rate of 1200 Mbps. Throughput of
| half the link rate is typical. iPhones don't support 4x4 MIMO
| or 160 MHz wide channels needed to go significantly faster
| (2400 Mbps with one enabled or 4800 Mbps with both features).
| throw0101a wrote:
| I'm curious to know if going to 6GHz (Wifi 6E) would help
| at all, or does that band simply allow for more channels
| that have less noise?
|
| I don't think any new MCSes were added for 6E. Though,
| AFAICT, there will be for 802.11be/Wifi 7, 12-15:
|
| * https://scdn.rohde-
| schwarz.com/ur/pws/dl_downloads/premiumdo...
| supertrope wrote:
| 6e is more channels. There's plenty of room to hog a 160
| MHz channel in the 6 GHz band. In 5 GHz there's only two
| 160 MHz channels. https://systemzone.net/wp-
| content/uploads/2020/01/5-GHz-Chan...
| [deleted]
| mastercheif wrote:
| That's because iPhones (and all other smartphones) use 2x2 mimo
| WiFi arrays.
|
| The only way you'll get > 1 GBPS on WiFi is on a device with
| 3x3 or 4x4 mimo WiFi.
|
| 2x2 is used because it's less power intensive and takes up less
| physical space in the device.
| standing_user wrote:
| Are there smartphones with 3x3 or 4x4 mimo wifi?
| supertrope wrote:
| No.
| throw0101c wrote:
| > _The only way you'll get > 1 GBPS on WiFi is on a device
| with 3x3 or 4x4 mimo WiFi._
|
| At 160 MHz 802.11ax (5 GHz) should be able to get 1200 Mbps
| at the PHY layer with a single spatial stream:
|
| * https://www.arubanetworks.com/assets/so/ReferenceGuide_8021
| 1...
|
| Two streams gets you 2400 Mbps (PHY).
| dboreham wrote:
| And you have to divide the PHY symbol rate by 4 to get the
| real world TCP throughout achievable.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| That sounds rather low, the Eero Pro 6 should support 4x4 MU-
| MIMO in the upper 5.8GHz band. You'll never get the advertised
| 2400mbps even on that band, but the 650mbps figure you state
| comes closer to the 2x2 rate of the lower 5.2GHz band.
|
| Maybe you need to check your APs' settings, because these
| numbers sound off.
|
| Edit: never mind, iPhones use 2x2 antennae. A little strange to
| not put in more in such a high-end device, but I guess it saves
| a bit of power. They do use 4x4 on the 5G chip, though? Very
| peculiar.
| supertrope wrote:
| https://www.duckware.com/tech/wifi-in-the-us.html#wifispeeds
| mikelward wrote:
| Does this affect BT, too?
|
| Their branding is a bit of a mess at the moment.
| samcat116 wrote:
| This article has nothing to do with the next wifi version being
| bad, rather they're just upset EE doesn't allow bridge mode on
| their routers it seems.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-09-25 23:00 UTC)