Europe to decide if 6 GHz is shared between Wi-Fi and cellular networks

https://www.theregister.com/2025/11/09/europe_to_decide_if_6/

by FridayoLeary • 8 months ago

173 245 8 months ago

theregister.com

mvandermeulen• 8 months ago

Thank you Europe?

buddhistdude• 8 months ago

No worries brother

hk__2• 8 months ago

EU, not Europe.

embedding-shape• 8 months ago

The Register, being British, should probably have gotten this right, but people constantly get this wrong. Even a lot of people living in the union don't even realize the different between EU, Europe, EEA, Schengen and all the other layers, so maybe it's hard to blame "outsiders" from not getting it either.

I'm guessing maybe the "European Commission" threw them off, because it's an EU entity (basically the executive branch), not "Europe wide" one, which the name kind of implies. But then "EU" also implies "Europe wide" in its name, and people seem to kind of get the difference most of the times.

rsynnott2• 8 months ago

The Register know very well what the EU is. However, in practice, the EU is colloquially referred to as "Europe" in many contexts in the UK.

The rules the EU establishes will also apply to the EEA, and in practice will almost certainly also be adopted by the UK, which has tended to take its lead from the EU on such matters since Brexit. So, while pedantically these are not rules for Europe, _for practical purposes_ they likely will be.

NoboruWataya• 8 months ago

I think most people realise there is a difference. If nothing else, Brexit made it very clear to those who didn't already know that you can be in this part of the world but not in the EU. But rightly or wrongly, people still use "Europe" as shorthand for "the European Union". It's no different to referring to the US as "America".

I do think the media should aim to do better so agree that the Register should have used the correct term.

umanwizard4• 8 months ago

You’re right, but this is probably a losing battle. People are probably never going to stop colloquially referring to the political entity that contains most of Europe’s land and population as “Europe”.

And, being on an island, British people are probably never going to stop thinking of “the continent” as at least a little bit of a different thing from themselves.

mschuster91• 8 months ago

And on top of that, when it comes to anything radio, ITU has quite the lot to say as well, and you got the ham radio community / IARU as well.

Radio, by virtue of physically not caring about borders, is a really really hot mess, with lots of very powerful and very monied interests floating around.

TitaRusell2• 8 months ago

Switzerland is not in the EU but they follow EU legislation.

It's kinda like Canada and the US.

StopDisinfo910• 8 months ago

It’s called a metonymy and is purposeful.

Everyone understood that it was the relevant nearly pan-European political entity which was actually designed by the geographical designation.

Zironic• 8 months ago

It's essentially exactly the same as when people refer to the US as 'America'. While the US does not encompass all of the American continent, there is only one political entity called 'America' so it's not ambigious.

cromka• 8 months ago

As others mentioned, this is British press and Britts tend to colloquially refer to EU as 'Europe'.

thrance• 8 months ago

EU is more Europe than USA is America, yet you don't see much complaining about the latter.

0x4573• 8 months ago

yet you don't see much complaining about the latter.

I see that a lot. It just needs people from not the US, but from Americas in comments. Suddenly there are people that are complaining about it.

afavour• 8 months ago

I think people understand that a continent isn’t making decisions.

ttoinou6• 8 months ago

To be really pedantic we should acknowledge there's no good reason to separate Europe from Asia, it's all one geographical continent.

The distinction between EU and Europe is very important. They're "word stealing" something as neutral as a geographical concept, to make it political.

But in this case here, probably if EU legislate on this, others non-EU european countries will follow

FinnKuhn• 8 months ago

Do you also write "USA, not America" for every headline that uses the later?

PunchTornado• 8 months ago

You are the one who corrects america with usa?

welder2• 8 months ago

I wish govt would put a condition on the mobile carriers to fix SS7 vulnerabilities.

defraudbah2• 8 months ago

this would require some encryption and still can be intercepted. Any ideas how to fix that?

welder2• 8 months ago

No, I'm talking about anyone with SS7 access basically has root on the whole network and can query for locations of any phone number anonymously... no audit trail, no access control.

https://youtu.be/xfWyU5iXJ3I?t=860

https://youtu.be/wVyu7NB7W6Y

_ink_• 8 months ago

Yeah, but how could their secret services then snoop on everyone?

Iolaum• 8 months ago

update to the latest software

kristofferR4• 8 months ago

Isn't that simply fixed by shutting down the old 2G and 3G networks, like is happening in a lot of countries now?

supertrope3• 8 months ago

No. SS7 predates cellphones. It's the legacy control plane for the PSTN (public switched telephone network). It was never designed for security since it originally never crossed corporate boundaries as everyone had to use the monopoly provider. (Except for international calls).

alerighi3• 8 months ago

You can't shut down 2G, because there are a lot of devices, mainly embedded systems like alarms, lift emergency call button, GPS trackers, etc. that still use 2G. Also 2G is the only reliable network connection in a lot of areas that are not otherwise reached by 3G/4G/5G, mainly because a 2G connection is more tolerant to low signal and noise, and also is low frequency, thus 2G is the only option available in situations such as on top of mountains and stuff. And finally there is still a lot of people, maybe elders, that don't have/want a smartphone (mainly because they are more complex to use etc.) and still use an old Nokia with 2G networks (they only need to call or send SMS in the end).

Also: VoLTE is not a thing since a lot of years, and probably there are even a ton of smartphones out there that does not support it (and thus switch back to 2G/3G to place voice calls).

UltraSane4• 8 months ago

I get 20 to 30 spam calls a day now.

Mashimo2• 8 months ago

In EU? Where are you located?

srg0• 8 months ago

At some point this year I was getting 14-20 spam calls per hour. I'm in Italy.

adrr• 8 months ago

Carriers will never fix issues that they have a revenue stream off of. They sell services to detect call forwarding attacks, sim swap attacks etc to banks and other services.

Its like robocalling, fraud texts and calls you received. Carriers can't sell services to filter them if they fix the issues that allow these to happen in the first place.

Way to fix it is to make the carrier liable. It will be fixed instantly.

oytis• 8 months ago

For the context - what do US, UK and China do?

da_chicken• 8 months ago

In the US, it's open for unlicensed use for very low power devices. That is, it's open for WiFi. It's used by WiFi 6E, 7, and 8.

https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-opens-entire-6-ghz-band-ver...

sidpatil• 8 months ago

Perhaps not for much longer:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45785987

craftkiller5• 8 months ago

The Trump administration is diligently working to undo that. Why dedicate such a resource to the public, when you can let private companies charge us to use it?

https://publicknowledge.org/ted-cruz-wants-to-sell-your-wi-f...

hunta2097• 8 months ago

They're also planning some overlap.

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/spectrum/innovative-use-of-spectrum...

riobard2• 8 months ago

China has already reserved the entire 6GHz for cellular and vehicles.

martinald2• 8 months ago

Tbh it's probably much more useful for mobile operators than wifi. 6GHz does not propagate well at all at wifi power limits and as such one 320MHz band probably won't overlap much with neighbours, even in apartment buildings. This does preclude having 640MHz bands though in future wifi standards, but I'm not sure how important that is - Wifi7 on MLO could theoretically deliver 7.2gbit/sec in 2x2 config and double that again in 4x4. If devices need more speed (laptops more than phones) then they can move to 4x4 more?

Whereas for mobile operators it would be very useful in outdoor/indoor (airports etc) urban areas that are very busy.

itopaloglu833• 8 months ago

And why does it need to be reserved exclusively for them?

Can’t they be just another user of a well established standard or do they want to abuse the crap out of it?

arghwhat3• 8 months ago

They are trying to improve service by avoiding noise. Something few realize is that all wireless technologies are, in effect, time-share: Every device on the channel, router/tower included, take turn to talk while everyone else shuts up and listens.

If other types of devices also use your channel, you'll have to shut up and wait for airtime even longer. Having WiFi and cellular co-exist mean that they are both fighting eachother over airtime, and both spending a lot of time silent.

It's preferable to avoid channel overlap when the services need to co-exist.

crote6• 8 months ago

That's exactly why it should be used for wifi!

2.4GHz is completely unusable in urban environments, because you're getting interference from two dozen neighbours. And everyone has a poor connection, so their "handy" nephew will turn up the transmission power to the maximum - which of course makes it even worse.

6GHz barely makes it through a concrete wall, so you're only receiving your own AP, so you have the whole bandwith mostly to yourself.

On the other hand, cellular networks are well-regulated: if an airport's entire network is managed by a single party they can just install extra antennas and turn down the power.

And it's not like cellular operators will be able to use it often: outdoor use falls apart the moment there are a bunch of trees or buildings in the way, so it only makes sense in buildings like airports and stadiums. Why would the rest of society have to be banned from using 6GHz Wifi for that?

Besides, didn't 5G include support for 30GHz frequencies for exactly this application? What happened to that?

cbg0• 8 months ago

6GHz barely makes it through a concrete wall, so you're only receiving your own AP, so you have the whole bandwith mostly to yourself.

I agree with this and the fact that 6GHz should still be available for wifi, but this whole bandwidth frenzy over wifi has always seemed like a meme for anyone except power users. A 4K netflix stream caps out around 15mbps, so >95% of typical home users will be just fine using 2.4/5GHz inside their own homes.

fainpul• 8 months ago

6GHz barely makes it through a concrete wall, so you're only receiving your own AP, so you have the whole bandwith mostly to yourself.

I'm no expert and only speak from personal experience. When the signal is weak, you don't have the whole bandwith, you only get low throughput. Ideally you would want a strong, high penetration signal (low frequency) and all users on separate channels. It's of course impossible in densely populated areas.

Whenever I have to deal with setting up WLAN in the office or at home, I hate the experience and I try to use wired connections wherever possible.

MrBuddyCasino• 8 months ago

The question then is: do we really need the whole 1Ghz of spectrum for wifi, if it doesn't really propagate to your neighbour? It should be much easier to avoid interference than on 2.4Ghz, so you need less channels.

vlovich1232• 8 months ago

Doesn’t 6ghz have essentially the same penetration as 5ghz and thus in a few years will have all the same problems as people shift to 6ghz?

martinald2• 8 months ago

You're misunderstanding what is being proposed.

It's not saying 6GHz shouldn't be used for WiFi. It's saying that 6-6.4GHz (approx) is reserved for WiFi and 6.4-7GHz should be used for cellular networks.

My point isn't that we shouldn't have no WiFi on 6GHz, but 1GHz extra for WiFi is limited utility compared to cellular networks.

You can still fit an entire 320MHz channel width in the lower 6GHz and if it doesn't overlap like you say why bother with 3x that?

0x4573• 8 months ago

6GHz barely makes it through a concrete wall, so you're only receiving your own AP, so you have the whole bandwith mostly to yourself.

6GHz barely makes it thought a piece of paper. I live in dense downtown area of Los Angeles and I see zero 6Ghz networks except mine, sometimes three 5Ghz networks (usually just two). No issues using 160Mhz wide channel on 5Ghz, at least for me.

My balcony separated from AP with a 2 panel window, other than that it's in line of sight: 6Ghz not visible at all, 5Ghz poor signal, but better than 2.4Ghz. 2.4 Ghz is unusable in my area at all.

wtmt• 8 months ago

In response, the Wi-Fi Alliance and the DSA are trying to stoke fears that such a move would severely dent Europe's digital development, claiming Wi-Fi is the primary way consumers access the internet and constraining it would impact progress.

Just today, there’s a news report in India where the major telecom companies have lobbied that the entire 6 GHz band be reserved for mobile services and that even part of it shouldn’t be left for unlicensed WiFi. [1]

The problem in India is that the penetration of wired broadband is very low, and the telcos don’t seem to be interested in expanding it as much as they are in grabbing more of wireless spectrum.

I don’t believe it’s a good move to reserve these exclusively for mobile services. We (in general) need more unlicensed spectrum for innovation. Let the companies figure out another way out.

I also know that these bands are already allowed for unlicensed WiFi use in the US.

[1] https://telecom.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/industry/j...

matt-p23• 8 months ago

For better or worse mobile companies will probably make a more efficient use of the space in a country like India at a practical level. I can at least see why you might do this.

I don't know anything really about India's telecoms market, but I know in other 'similar' countries you can buy a mobile phone data plan for like a couple/few dollars a month, but a fixed line is 10X that. You could argue it's not very progressive to reserve the spectrum for the 'rich' who can afford fixed lines.

muststopmyths• 8 months ago

Few people have phone landlines anymore in India, but wired broadband to the home is not uncommon. It would be annoying to not then be able to have a home WiFi 6G router.

Mobile data is cheap, but broadband is much cheaper.

ajross2• 8 months ago

mobile companies will probably make a more efficient use of the space

Uh... wat? Something like 70%+ of all internet data anywhere goes over a 2.4GHz wifi for its terminal client, squashed into a paltry 100 MHz of spectrum.

There are surely engineering minutiae arguments to be made for why radios for dedicated bands can be better in some way, or public safety arguments for why unlicensed users need to be segregated from the system that provides emergency service.

But "more efficient use of the space" seems ridiculous on its face.

reaperducer• 8 months ago

I don't know… probably… probably… I don't know anything really

If you don't know what you're talking about, why even bother to post? Maybe wait for a topic that you know something about before responding.

boruto• 8 months ago

I pay 30$ a year for 2/3 GB per day and unlimited calls. This is more than enough for me.

For broadband I pay 10$ a month for 100 Mbps.

Mobile is terrible at times, Broadband service is amazing, even though it is slow.

Broadband is not that common

fguerraz• 8 months ago

This is just corporate greed!

I live in a EU country in an apartment and 5GHz is completely crowded and pretty much unusable because of DFS (making your WiFi AP unexpectedly stop to do a complete scan and choose a new channel), so 6GHz is the only stable, high bandwidth option here, and we need more channels so that most peopole chan switch to it.

The cellular networks operators can have that shitty 5GHz part of the spectrum if they want it!

Bombthecat• 8 months ago

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

It will be as crowded as 5

xoa2• 8 months ago

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

Yes. Probably because they have some basic grasp of electromagnetic reality, which perhaps you might consider studying a bit before forming strong opinions?

It will be as crowded as 5

Physically impossible. 6 GHz simply does not have the material penetration, that's the point. Having way more raw bandwidth on tap, all available all the time without DFS plopped in the middle too, is also extremely helpful of course too. But the signal just not traveling as far and not going through walls well is the core thing. You don't need special effort EM shielding for it so much, bulk material will do it. And WAPs are cheap now. Having a higher number of smaller cells has been best practice for awhile already, and 6 GHz takes that much further.

ux266478• 8 months ago

Higher frequency, more bandwidth.

craftkiller5• 8 months ago

There is significantly more spectrum available for wifi in the 6ghz band than in the 5ghz band, so even if we moved everything off of 5ghz and ignored the attenuation benefits of 6ghz, we'd still have significantly less congestion on 6ghz than 5ghz wifi. In my apartment, my laptop can see ~50 wifi networks, we need some spectrum elbow-room to spread that out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WLAN_channels

topspin• 8 months ago

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

Wi-Fi 6E and later standards that unlock 6 GHz are designed to mitigate contention through several dynamic power management and multiplexing capabilities: TWT, MLO, OFDMA, improved TPC, etc. While these things aren't somehow inherent to 6 GHz, the 6 GHz band isn't crowded with legacy devices mindlessly blasting the spectrum at max power, so it is plausible that 6 GHz Wi-Fi will perform better in dense urban environments. The higher frequency also contributes because attenuation is substantially greater, although in really dense, thin-walled warrens that attenuation won't solve every problem.

I know if I had noisy Wi-Fi neighbors interfering with me, the few important Wi-Fi only devices I have would all be on at least 6E 6 GHz by now, not only because 6 GHz has fewer users, but also in the hope that ultimately, when the users do appear, their devices will be better neighbors by design. I don't actually have that problem, however. The nearest 5 GHz AP I can actually see (that isn't mine,) in Kismet (using rather high gain antennas) is -96 dB, and my actual APs hardly ever see those at all. I've yet to actually detect a 6 GHz device that isn't mine. I known there are a few because the manufacturers and model numbers of many APs are visible, but between the inherent attenuation and the power level controls, I don't see them.

throw0101d8• 8 months ago

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.

exasperaited• 8 months ago

But perhaps all that matters is, does a band support more connections than there would be apartments or businesses in range? For some people in dense apartment complexes, 5Ghz evidently does not. But if 6Ghz supports twice as many, that might be a limit that gets hit by vastly fewer "localities" like that.

(Student wifi hotspots in a large lecture theatre, that's another problem entirely!)

trueismywork2• 8 months ago

Realn solution is to have houses not so close to each other.

throwaway127482• 8 months ago

Not a realistic solution at all

sofixa• 8 months ago

This would come at the expense of lowering density and multiplying infrastructure costs by a few orders of magnitude, making everything less accessible in doing so.

Hard, hard no.

kergonath5• 8 months ago

Great one!

Or, if you are not being sarcastic, the solution to wireless networking issues is to… rebuild cities in which billions of people live and spread those people over… where? Never mind the fact that cities are the best way of arranging lots of people, where would you build those "houses not so close to each other" that is not a desert, a cliff, or an ocean?

matt-p23• 8 months ago

It's not even that, it's just build apartment blocks out of real materials like concrete and brick not wood and plasterboard.

I have lived in the centre of a city in a victorian apartment block and looking back it was a dream. About a foot of brick wall between me and the next flat either side. Never heard a peep, excellent WiFi.

GuB-42• 8 months ago

A way to solve this would be to switch to a hyperbolic space. We should have evolved from Euclidean geometry long ago. R'lyeh has no problem with wireless networking, you never drop a call.

matt-p23• 8 months ago

There's still a load of non-DFS channels you could be using? At least in an apartment you can run an ethernet cable for the most important devices.

mr_toad3• 8 months ago

So few devices have Ethernet ports these days.

ddalex2• 8 months ago

that's why I'm running only 2.4Ghz APs, enough bandwidth for mobile common uses, all static hardware has wires to them. Far better then 5GHz band

matt-p23• 8 months ago

Hahaha.

freehorse3• 8 months ago

Isn't 2.4GHz too congested already, esp considering a lot of wifi-connected devices still work at that range? I typically go the other way around to avoid congestion.

dietr1ch• 8 months ago

Same, if a wireless device needs more than 54Mbps (802.11g, what the ancient Linksys WRT54G already offered) then I feel I'm doing something wrong and I'd better off just plugging it to my USB-C dock to get ethernet and power.

It's enough to stream 4k video (though barely, and I'd be better off moving to a TV), has better wall penetration and is fast enough for browsing and updating software.

I don't have to deal with congestion though. I think I've only seen a neighbour's AP once and I doubt they started hiding their SSID. My guess is that congestion is an issue because transmission power isn't low enough and there's little you can do to fix someone else's AP other than be increasingly louder than them.

drewg1232• 8 months ago

Agreed. I live the USA in a 100 year old apartment building, and can see a zillion ISP provided routers, all squabbling over the same handful of 5GHz channels. 6E is a game changer.

5Ghz is stuttery and laggy and makes it pretty much impossible to have a clean video call. I don't game, but gaming on it would be miserable. I've measured latency, and it regularly spikes above 1s.

6E is far, far better. Rock solid video calls. Latency testing sites show low, steady latency. The only real problem is signal attenuation seems to be far worse with 6E. Getting a signal 2 walls away from the router is nearly impossible. Though this is also a strength, as it limits the number of devices competing for spectrum.

throw0101d8• 8 months ago

I live the USA in a 100 year old apartment building, and can see a zillion ISP provided routers, all squabbling over the same handful of 5GHz channels. 6E is a game changer.

What channel width (20/40/80/other) are you typically seeing?

MichaelZuo• 8 months ago

How is this even possible?

Even a few sheets of drywall greatly attenuates 5 GHz. Your scenario simply seems impossible unless you have a weird router that can only utilize a tiny portion of the channels.

wuming2• 8 months ago

I wonder if delegating LiFi to do downstream and very narrow bands of Wifi for upstream would solve congestion problems. As example if existing smartphones could receive LiFi signal with current front facing sensors.

port11• 8 months ago

Hmm, I'm in a 60-apartments block and we don't have this problem at all. Heck, even my shitty Meross devices manage despite all the 2.4 and 2.4+5 GHz connections around. What I struggle with is reliable 4G, and even 5G is so shabby I might as well keep it disabled. More spectrum for network signal sounds like it would help much more than improving Wi-Fi, which is already very reliable and plenty fast. My 2 cents…

stego-tech4• 8 months ago

Multiple things can be true simultaneously. For instance:

* The reach for 6GHz by mobile service providers is straight-up greed, as Wi-Fi is a threat to their business expansions towards monopolization

* Wi-Fi is incredibly overcrowded, and a shift to 6GHz will not solve the underlying issues causing the crowding in the first place (mobile device density, over-reliance on Wi-Fi instead of running ethernet to capable devices and drop points)

* ISPs would prefer mobile service providers get 6GHz so they can get higher speeds to fixed receivers without the requisite network buildout

My personal position? Give 6GHz to Wi-Fi, but also make it clear that this is the last spectrum the standard will get. Simultaneously, promote (through regulations, subsidies, or municipal buildouts) wired networking wherever practicable. The fact new construction in 2025 doesn’t mandate ethernet drops in every non-bathroom is what’s contributing to Wi-Fi crowding, and prevalent last-mile wired access ensures that mobile operators have to compete on cost rather than data caps - and thus hinders their monopolization efforts.

valzam• 8 months ago

I mean given the computing devices most people use are you suggesting a large majority of the population switches to ethernet adapter's for their tablets and phones?

n_u• 8 months ago

Wireless ethernet adapters

Kye• 8 months ago

Having to blast wifi through an entire building is part of the problem. If transceivers only need enough power to go a foot or three from an ethernet port with a wifi dongle on it, the problem is solved.

See also: cell phones having to boost power for more distant towers.

As things are, every device has to scream to be heard.

stego-tech4• 8 months ago

No, not remotely? I don’t know why folks jump to that (wrongest) conclusion whenever someone mentions ethernet being made a requirement in construction or use.

Can tablets and phones use ethernet? Yes! Should they? Perhaps for a fixed installation, but otherwise no, because that’s not their primary role? Same goes for laptops: if it’s stationary, plug it in; if not, WiFi is fine.

The goal is to shift traffic where reasonable and practical onto wired networks. Desktops, laptops, set top boxes, streaming rigs, control panels, SBCs, game consoles, the list goes on. The only “Wi-Fi required” devices are really just laptops, phones, tablets, watches, and similarly high-mobility devices.

Otherwise, ethernet should be the norm.

matt-p23• 8 months ago

We gave WiFi 800Mhz in the 5Ghz band and we said the same thing at the time 'this is the last we'll need'. That's 10x as much as in 2.4ghz and at a higher frequency.

I remember a lot of people at the time getting really upset about how wasteful that was. Just saying.

stego-tech4• 8 months ago

It’s wasteful on its face when not combined with regulation and incentives to shift stuff off of Wi-Fi. 6GHz has practical applications in the AR/VR space, which is why I’m in favor of giving it to Wi-Fi. Ultimately though, we need the industry to stop being lazy and start really agitating for ethernet in construction and devices as the norm, not Wi-Fi.

xgstation• 8 months ago

there is only 160MHz on 5Ghz that's non DFS/Weather Radar

Seattle35032• 8 months ago

The fact new construction in 2025 doesn’t mandate ethernet drops in every non-bathroom is what’s contributing to Wi-Fi crowding, and prevalent last-mile wired access ensures that mobile operators have to compete on cost rather than data caps - and thus hinders their monopolization efforts.

This would raise the cost of construction, in the middle of widespread housing shortages.

stego-tech4• 8 months ago

By peanuts and pennies for a significant ROI. Many places still mandate some form of coaxial or telephone wiring, which means you already have the drop points for ethernet. Even better, telephone runs are often done with CAT5e due to cost, and could easily be rewired for ethernet if it’s laid structurally in the first place.

You’re talking a $10k expense on a new home, tops. That’s chump change and easily shoved into regulations regarding new builds without significantly harming progress. The real regulations impacting housing are zoning anyway.

walletdrainer• 8 months ago

I just unlocked the entire 5GHz and 6GHz bands for my equipment, it’s not like my networks will penetrate my exterior walls anyways.

Just waiting for the Wi-Fi cops to show up

mono442• 8 months ago

How would this even work when the devices are already on sale and people are using them?

riobard2• 8 months ago

OK, can we have 7GHz and 8GHz for Wi-Fi please?

wkat42423• 8 months ago

6Ghz will suck for mobile due to the incredibly bad building penetration. One of the reasons that makes it pretty ideal for indoor WiFi.

panick21_• 8 months ago

I really don't understand the underlying physics, politcs or really anything. Why don't we at home just host 'cellular' networks instead of WiFi? Could we just have a our own little cellular network? Why do we need both?

Europe to decide if 6 GHz is shared between Wi-Fi and cellular networks

Related Stories