• DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Next they are gonna take away amateur radio frequencies so it would be illegal to communicate outside of the internet.

    Then its very easy to do censorship, just turn off power to ISPs and its information blackout.

  • cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    2 hours ago

    The cell carriers don’t need more bandwith. 5G is already quite fast with the existing allocations. The only times I’ve used 5G and thought it’s too slow has been in rural areas where the issue is a lack of nearby cell towers, not a lack of bandwidth. The cell carriers already have loads of millimeter wave bandwidth available for use in densely packed, urban areas where the lower frequency bands are insufficient.

    It’s WiFi that should be getting more bandwidth. Home internet connections keep getting faster. Multi gigabit speeds are now common in areas with fiber.

  • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    4 hours ago

    It’s a bad band for cellular. It’s short-range and shit at penetration.

    It’s really not even that good for wifi unless you’re close or have a mesh network with APs all over the building.

    • Cousin Mose@lemmy.hogru.ch
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      mesh network

      Or traditional network with Ethernet backhaul and lots of access points. I really wish mesh networks would die off honestly.

      • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 minutes ago

        Sometimes re-wiring a house or building isn’t as practical as setting up a mesh network that’s good-enough.

  • Kairos@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Well whoever ends up buying that band is in for a load of shit because I and a lot of other people are NOT going to stop using 6GHz WiFi

    Same thing with Meshtastic. Go ahead and see just how much you’ll waste your money.

    • cogman@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Yup, the band is already littered with 6g devices. It’d be a stupid purchase.

      But also, 6GHz is somewhat of a useless band for carriers. It’s high enough frequency that it’ll get absorbed by most things yet low enough frequency that it’ll struggle to really carry a whole lot of data.

  • MeekerThanBeaker@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    So if I’m reading this right… wired Internet providers are against this due to home Wi-Fi Internet speeds and phone providers are for this for mobile speeds/bandwidth?

    I don’t know how I feel about this as I currently have T-Mobile home Internet and it’s not the best experience… but it mostly works and it’s cheaper than my previous cable provider. However, home Wi-Fi really needs 6 GHz for future IoT devices.

    But I am definitely against it because Ted Cruz is for it. He obviously is getting paid/bribed by the telecoms… and he sucks.

      • fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Yeah IoT devices don’t need bandwith, they need range (at low powers) and those lower frequencies get them that. 6ghz wifi has pretty small range and is awful for IoT stuff.

      • MeekerThanBeaker@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 hours ago

        I kinda meant for like future products when AR and VR combine with IoT products, but if those can work on lower ranges with those 6 Ghz devices, then great… but VR and AR will definitely need 6 GHz to be more useful.

    • chaospatterns@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      WiFi is on all three bands. It’s not so much what’s newer vs older. Newer devices tend to support 2.4, 5, and 6 and switch between them based on quality of signal and support by the WiFi network. Higher frequencies like 5 and 6GHz are generally better because there’s less interference.

      Cheaper devices tend to only support 2.4GHz

    • AlternateRoute@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Current generation wifi 6E and 7 add 6Ghz which offers substantially more bandwidth / speed.

      Wifi 7 also allows devices to use 2.4/5/6Ghz at the same time instead of just hard switching between them.

      Would be a major setback since 6Ghz allows devices to easily hit Gigabit speeds wirelessly.

    • TheFogan@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      802.11a is over 20 years old, fortunately this law isn’t talking about shutting down existing routers. the 6 GHZ is the next frontier to expand to, the military already owns the 7 GHZ spectrum… So the 6 GHZ is the one that can be expanded into. Of which origionally was planned to be made for the next generation of wifi… but now is going to be sold off to phone providers to use in the next generation of mobile networks.

      So in short, our existing routers will continue to work as designed, but future routers will not be making any leaps forward.

      Basically the choice between better faster wireless LANs, is getting killed in favor of better networks for cellphone services… of which the carriers will set the price on.

      • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        6GHz compatible devices are already being sold. If your phone is new-ish it likely supports it, and many routers already have it.

        This isn’t a “next gen” problem, it’s a “current gen bleeding edge” problem.

    • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      5 hours ago

      802.11a was 5ghz, 802.11b was 2.4ghz. Both developed at the same time.

      802.11g was 2.4ghz and extended b since 2.4 took off faster than 5ghz in the market.

      Since g, n onwards has been used across both bands.

      Since 802.11ax we now have 6ghz.