Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> And you think the same problem wouldn't exist with 6ghz?

Yes.

5 Ghz has 12x 40MHz channels, 6 Ghz has (in the US/CA where it is basically 'fully unlocked' for Wifi) 29x 40Mhz channels. It's the difference between 500Mhz worth of total bandwidth and 1200Mhz: over double.

* https://www.everythingrf.com/community/what-frequency-band-d...

* https://spectrum.potatofi.com

* http://www.potatofi.com/posts/spectrum-viewer/

And given attenuation increases as frequencies goes up, your neighbours' signals won't travel as far as the lower frequency bands, which helps with localization.

We just have to hope that vendors don't ship 80 or 160Mhz channels by default for residential devices, which will potentially eat up bandwidth (though Wifi 7 makes Punctured Transmission / Preamble Puncturing mandatory, where previously it was optional). Though even if they do, 6Ghz has more 160Mhz channels than 5Ghz has 80Mhz ones (7 vs. 6).

A 1x1 40Mhz using 802.11ax will give you a max PHY of 287Mbps:

* https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000...

* https://superuser.com/questions/1619079/what-is-the-maximum-...

Even if you half that, it's (IMHO) probably sufficient for the vast majority of online activities. And if you have a 2x2 client you double it anyway.



I don't see any reason not to use 80Mhz. Many home internet connections are faster than 40Mhz can provide.


> Many home internet connections are faster than 40Mhz can provide.

Define "many". The US average, as of 2023, seems to be ≤150Mbps:

* https://www.opensignal.com/2023/05/23/usa-fixed-broadband-ex...

Cloudflare has data of more sustained-use bandwidth that shows lower numbers:

* https://radar.cloudflare.com/quality

1x1 40Mhz = 287Mbps PHY ~ 143Mbps realistic ~ 100Mbps probable. Double that for 2x2 40Mhz: 200 Mbps.

Certainly some connections may need more, and is the reason for >40 Mhz options, but I'm not entirely convinced one of those should be the out-of-box default.

This less of a concern in 6 Ghz because there are many more channels, but this is what the story is all about: how is that frequency band going to be allocated? In US/CA all of it basically went to Wifi, and that gives folks more options, even in more densely populated areas.


I guess the problem is if you default it low, people will end up with slower internet for no reason. While most areas would be perfectly fine at 80mhz. Maybe routers could run their own speed test and self configure to the right bandwidth.


> While most areas would be perfectly fine at 80mhz. Maybe routers could run their own speed test and self configure to the right bandwidth.

The Wifi Alliance may wish to provide guidance on this, at least for the residential space. Some ideas:

* have the router/AP do a speed test (at boot; regularly), and if the connect is ≤X Mbps then the wider channels won't help anything;

* do a sweep of the band (boot up; intervals), and if ≥Y% (50?) of it already in use, default to narrower channel.

Either/both of these would be done on a default "Auto-choose" setting, with allowable manual override.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: