Regulations Enabling 6 GHz Wi-Fi
wi-fi.org
wi-fi.org
* https://www.wi-fi.org/beacon/chuck-lukaszewski/wi-fi-6e-the-...
* https://www.juniper.net/us/en/research-topics/what-is-wi-fi-...
* https://www.ekahau.com/blog/channel-planning-best-practices-...
5925-6425 MHz is UNII 5, and is the most available globally. 6425-7125 MHz is UNII 6, 7, and 8:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlicensed_National_Informatio...
It's also worth pointing out that we're about to lose about half of one of our ISM bands (915MHz, LoRa, Meshtastic, ELRS, various smart home protocols etc) due to the lovely folks at NextNav wanting dedicated bandwidth for a paywalled GPS alternative. It's by far the best ISM band in the US for long range unlicensed communications due to being in a sweet spot of path loss, penetration, and bandwidth.
The bands owned by Cellular providers are not entirely empty at all, in fact they're very well utilised. It is much easier to make efficient use of spectrum when you can plan it properly, and when there is only one system making allocation decisions (e.g. TDMA/FDMA). Collision based systems (like Wifi) have an efficiency cost.
The issue is that spectrum auctions are probably the least efficient and equitable way of distributing allocations available. There isn't a standard unit conversion between utility in dollars and bandwidth in Hz. There are individuals with enough money that they could buy their own national spectrum allocations just for their personal use alone.
That said, there are ways to maintain efficiency. TDMA can still be implemented in a distributed fashion using GPS or device collaboration, we just didn't do it with wifi because it would have been cost prohibitive 20 years ago.
For the sake of argument, a naive approach would be to generate a UTM grid square based on a fraction of some maximum reasonable wifi footprint, then the system in that grid would get a frequency allocation, and everything within that grid would time sync and TDMA on that frequency. Neighboring cells would get a different frequency and devices 2-3 cells over could start reusing frequencies. Obviously this doesn't work in an apartment high-rise but that's fixable.
That's actually fairly efficient.
Pure bureaucratic allocation is much, much less efficient than auctions.
I agree that the auctions as implemented in practice can be improved. Eg you don't need to auction off all the spectrum nationwide. And you don't need to have so many restrictions on what people can do with the bands they won bids on. Eg we can let some hardware consortium bid on space to be used for wifi, even if it was previously allocated to TV.
I am probably putting up some FUD argument here. But, I think this should be a contestable line of reasoning. I'd like to hear from some hams, or other spectrum users before I got with this. (I am neither, cell and wifi aside)
I don't think we need to clear out all of the spectrum from 100khz to 100ghz. If we doubled unlicensed spectrum around 2.4ghz, 5ghz, and 6ghz, we'd solve 90% of our congestion issues at the cost of barely any spectrum. Overhauling the entire electromagnetic spectrum allocations would cost millions of dollars of replacing devices; just throwing a bit more at wifi bands would cheaply solve most issues.
If you assume it’s a smooth degradation where it goes from 50MB/s to 100kb/s, yeah, that’s rare. It is often ‘nothing at all’ for a second or two.
And that is unusable for a lot of things. Or at least infuriating.
It seems like a fun hobby, but they could probably have just as much fun without an exclusive band for them.
Which ironically is one of the first networks to fail when we have widespread storms etc.
Or at least will be out at different times/ways.
Oh, unless there is a major disaster, but those are rare.
A lot of money goes into building the cell network.
Power is extremely reliable in most places I've lived. But I guess you are in the middle of nowhere?
I wonder if it's still an issue: checking aunt Jennie with text or audio is nowhere comparable in terms of data to checking 2K video news or scrolling tiktok for FOMO. Yes there was cutoffs during mass events in 2010', our 2g/3g infra couldn't keep up with people calling each others, and sure the network is faster now. However the next WTC will be another level if we all live-video check aunty Jenny. It seems way too few people understand (as other said) the bandwidth is not an infinite ressource.
And don't start me with ads bloating most website rendering them unusable on a low speed network. I have the chance to live in Europe and the cookie banner is a neat warning of a cumbersome website.
We used to do check news with channels' cable TV and radio (grandpa' grumble) and there was no "network problem".
Spectrum dedicated to individual users in specific areas is a different matter. I expect that there will always be use cases for this, for backhaul, backup links etc.
It's a long game. Yeah, we can't just say "fuck it, everyone go nuts" tomorrow. There are satellite downlinks that cant be readily changed, equipment capex that needs to depreciate etc. What we should be doing is adding and expanding ISM space as aggressively as we reasonably can and refusing to issue new exclusive licenses without an extremely good reason (and probably exclusively for public/civil purposes).
Maybe we need a new definition of public use at “reasonable EIRP” without the industrial heating and whatever other weird uses of RF are out there.
I agree though, reasonable EIRP is something we need to talk about. For instance, there should probably be more of a logarithmic equation for calculating an EIRP alternative that allows more effective power in beam forming systems but to a sane limit. In other words, don't handicap people trying to be responsible with where they send signals but that doesn't mean you can build an absolute laser of an antenna array and start screaming at satellites coming over the hill behind your receiver.
> dedicated bandwidth for a paywalled GPS alternative.
I think you've answered your own question here; especially if I look at the huge prices paid in spectrum auctions in the UK and Europe some years ago. Spectrum is an asset, so there's strong pressure to turn it into property that can be charged for rather than let the public use it.
Spectrum auction don't just give everything to the highest bidder, alas. Instead it's a beauty contest judged by bureaucrats.
Interesting to see that countries are tilting towards unlicensing even with strong lobbying of telecoms
Wifi-7 modems (some of them are AP-capable) are now available for around 15-30€. They support all bands (2, 5, 6)
Have a look at the Mediatek (MT7925E) and Intel (BE200-BE202) cards. There also the more pricy Qualcomm QCNCM865.
The Mediatek and Qualcomm also works with AMD mainboards. The Intel cards are not compatible with AMD mainboards as they are using a proprietary stuff.
At leas the Mediatek works fine with Linux (currently running in Thumbleweed) and AMD.
Just to add additional context, there are a whole loads of components from RF Filter to antenna itself, RAM, etc for an AP or Router. In case anyone got the wrong estimate of BOM cost. Ignoring any other R&D / NRE or Capex involved. And all that excludes the cost of software.
But by buying one of these m.2 cards this stuff is already done. Connect it to the PC and U.fl antenna and start playing around with them.
Maybe I should have clarified that these mentioned chips are already places onto M.2 cards you can buy from Ali/Amazon&Co.
Edit: Qualcomm= atheros, sorry
Wi-Fi Alliance Brings Wi-Fi 6 into 6 GHz
I disagree. The best way to fix that is smaller segmentation for less overlap/congestion. Eg use more APs, make the coverage area for each smaller, intelligently adjust power on the devices so they aren't blasting farther than they need to.
Is there a reason to only use the best way, and not multiple ways working together? There's even a synergy that more intelligent power adjustment and beamforming is most effective when it gets new frequencies free of legacy equipment.
In the US, 2.4GHz and 5GHz have the same max power, 4 watts EIRP. Except for the part of 5GHz that is only 1 watt. Were 2.4GHz routers not using their full power, or are you talking about somewhere outside the US, or what?
6GHz lets some devices in some bands in some locations run at 4 watts. The rest, the "low power indoor" access points, are limited to 1/16 of a watt EIRP per 20MHz of channel width. 350Mhz of spectrum is only available in this mode. To me that sounds pretty good for reducing congestion.
Or if they build one AP wiring point on the ceiling per room for new homes / small offices or rely on the other bands for backhaul in a mesh network.
That will make it useless for a home network. If I need to mount wired access points in every room, I can just use the wired network I already have.
But how are you going to use Ethernet for your phone and smart lights?
The way this is attempted with 2.4/5GHz deployments is to put an AP in every room and turn the power way down, but this only helps a little bit.
Whereas with more space-efficient transit, like trains, trams (streetcars) and buses, you can often increase capacity on existing lines or build more capacity for reasonable cost and space, so induced demand isn't as much a problem.
Congestion indicates transportation capacity is below demand. But once the medium is congested, you can't measure what the demand is; only how long it's congested.
You can reduce congestion by increasing capacity, or decreasing demand. If you have a pandemic and encourage people to stay at home, you'll find that the transportation networks that are still operating have plenty of capacity. If you add another lane to the 405 in LA, you'll find the duration of congestion has a step change reduction, but as population continues to grow, congestion duration will also continue to grow. If you add mass transit capacity, highway congestion duration will likely be reduced too.
When it's a real situation, the question is usually what intervention allows for the most additional transportation capacity given realistic funds availability. Somewhere like the LA area usually takes an all options approach: there is investment in mass transit as well as highways that service mass transit, individual transportation and commercial shipping. Although intentionally reducing population could work too :p
But congestion is also part of what controls the demand. It's not a "true" demand that you're just not seeing because of congestion. Once the congestion is solved, the demand will increase as that changes the attractiveness of driving.
Since driving then for some people will outcompete bus, cycling, trains etc., they will then shift over to driving even though they had no demand for it earlier. It will then reach a new equilibrium, not far off the old congestion.
Congestion is a pushback signal that reduces actual demand, by reducing quality/utility of the actual ‘product’.
Congestion is demand being throttled through the mechanism of reduction in quality/availability, instead of some other mechanism, like increases in pricing (tolls), or reduction in customers (aka population decreases or exclusionary rules) through the natural usage of the system. Due to induced demand. Because there is almost always more ‘low quality’ demand, than ‘high quality’ demand. It’s a type of tragedy of the commons.
In any ‘free’ system, it almost always ends up this way (see crazy long wait times in nationalized health systems!) precisely because the other options are excluded. Just like on free ways.
I've done a couple very informal low sample count surveys, and as far as I can tell the result of pricing in the externalities and building what mass transit is realistic (not much, in certain places) would lead to at least a short-term reduction in satisfaction.
Google some more before/after car infrastructure photos: https://www.google.com/search?q=before+after+car+infrastruct...
So you see it’s NOT just about the environment. It’s about cities being pleasant or dreadful.
I agree with everything you said and would add
> That's not bad though
Of course people who aren't paying something would rather not pay it. In the case of externalizing those costs, they're getting an effective subsidy from society at large for something they disproportionately participate in!
I think the complaint about induced demand for roads is that it induces demand in those who have the means and motive to drive. The land those roads are on (and the environment the cars may pollute) is also demanded for other uses like green space or railway or housing.
It's a rivalrous finite resource and the part of society that doesn't benefit from more roads may be the larger part.
The 2.4GHz band is tiny and also is just pure noise at this point and the 5Ghz band can be pretty congested in urban areas. 6GHz gives WiFi a huge amount of extra bandwidth. So much that you could use only WiFi to network a dense office of PCs pretty effectively if you used sophisticated smart WiFi access points that effectively allocated the 6GHz channels.
Reducing power also reduces the range. It would be very annoying if my neighbor putting a new AP next to the shared wall meant my AP reduced its range to only half of the room, instead of just sharing the bandwidth while keeping the same range like it currently does.
main benefit for home use is that 6 ghz is uncongested, which is very very nice if living in a dense neighborhood.
and of course lightning fast wireless file transfers are possible on the LAN now, which could be beneficial to certain people.
Would you prefer hardwiring to "mesh" as well? Obviously hardwire will always have better performance but the convenience and value should also be a consideration.
In my experience, it can work but is often not nearly as good as you’d expect.
Hardwired at the APs are way more reliable, and faster.
TP Omada at least has 10GE support.
Seeing as the majority of Wi-Fi devices will get absolutely nowhere near the theoretical maximum though, even 2.5GE is unlikely to be saturated.
seems like this one doesn't currently have MLO but might come in a future firmware update. Though then limited by single 2.5Gbps ethernet port
I tested out with U7 Pro Max (MLO enabled on EA firmware) and QC WiFi7 card and it topped out at about 800-900Mbps within the same room. Impressive for WiFi still, but reading the WiFi speed numbers on the box and expecting them to actually be achievable wasn't realistic for a decade now.
Examples
2 yrs ago hitting 3.9Gbps https://www.reddit.com/r/HomeNetworking/comments/13ipl7n/tp_...
https://www.reddit.com/r/linux4noobs/comments/1hal8bm/intel_... "I have a BE200 in use on KDE neon. Kernel is compiled with the usual wifi7 modules. I hit 4Gbit/s on an MLO network."
https://www.reddit.com/r/telus/comments/1b3xrlf/wifi_7_speed... "WiFi 7 can reach WiFi speeds up to 4 Gbps on my phone"
hopefully they roll it out sometime this year!
I'm running the Mediatek MT7925E on a AMD with OpenSUSE Thumbleweed distribution without problems.