It’d be real freakin awesome if every IoT device didn’t still rely on 2.4Ghz
shortwavesurfer@monero.town 11 months ago
I am just glad that 6E and 7 have access to 6GHz so that once my devices support it i can disable both 2.4 and 5GHz to lower interference from neighboring networks. The higher it goes in frequency the less interference everyone will get.
CmdrShepard@lemmy.one 11 months ago
ghastly_03_startup@infosec.pub 11 months ago
Cheaper wi-fi NIC for cheap devices. Won’t change. Those devices use so little bandwidth and often are placed all over the house so 2.4G’s greater ability to pass through walls / floors makes 2.4G ideal for those devices.
Enk1@lemmy.world 11 months ago
But also prone to interference whenever the microwave is used. My wireless headphones lose their shit when the microwave kicks on
Tangent5280@lemmy.world 11 months ago
I think the more expensive microwave body offers better isolation.
AtariDump@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Same happened to me.
I bought a new microwave.
shortwavesurfer@monero.town 11 months ago
Tell me about it. I find that stupid as hell.
SmoothLiquidation@lemmy.world 11 months ago
It’s a good excuse to use your old router on a separate network for those devices. If you have a smart enough switch, you can even keep them completely off your LAN, which can be good for security. YMMV though, and if you need direct access it won’t work that way.
waitmarks@lemmy.world 11 months ago
You wont want to disable 2.4 and 5GHz on wifi 7. The reason it gets so much higher speeds than 6e is that it can send data on all 3 spectrum simultaneously. If you turn off 2.4 and 5GHz you would essentially be limiting yourself to 1/2 speed.
Cycloprolene@lemm.ee 11 months ago
Not really, most of the bandwidth benefit comes from the new 320mhz bandwidth, not the freq aggregation
waitmarks@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Are the 320mhz wide channels going to be actually usable in the real world though? wider channels increase chance of interference. That’s why nearly everyone recommends 80mhz wide channels on 5ghz even though 160mhz channels have been available for a while. You dont usually see speed increases in the real world with the 160mhz channels except in specific situations.
shortwavesurfer@monero.town 11 months ago
Yeah, it can do that. On cellular its called carrier aggrigation. However imo only having access to 320MHz of 6GHz spectum (3.2GBPS) is fine.
Player2@sopuli.xyz 11 months ago
Some day most people will upgrade their devices and it will become smarter to go back to 5GHz
Would be funny, anyway
shortwavesurfer@monero.town 11 months ago
Maybe, bur doubtful since lower frequency goes farther
circuscritic@lemmy.ca 11 months ago
Less RF interference, sure, but a lot more wall and physical object interference as the higher frequencies aren’t able to go through them nearly as much.
Overall, it’s great to have more spectrum available, especially in a less crowded range. More options means more optimal solutions to be had.
Sibbo@sopuli.xyz 11 months ago
Just wait until we enter the gamma spectrum, then it should be quite penetrative.
circuscritic@lemmy.ca 11 months ago
They already have that, but it’s only been a limited release so far. Just a drop in the ocean.
shortwavesurfer@monero.town 11 months ago
Thats true. And the higher it goes the more money you have to spend to properly network. I have heard 60GHz requires you to be in the same room as the AP but gives fantastic speeds. What i eventually plan on doing is buying say a 24 port PoE switch and running 2 cables to the ceiling in each room (for redundancy) and putting an AP in every room. I know that will cost a good chunk of money, but with an AP in every room that would future proof the network for higher and higher frequencies in the future.
andrew@lemmy.stuart.fun 11 months ago
If you’re wanting to future proof, run conduit not just wires. For now a setup like that is overkill and probably straight up won’t work well, since roaming is a client decision and the clients make really silly choices sometimes.
SidewaysHighways@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Yep! once evening runs on fiber or USB C, you can easily pull more wires to that location!
howrar@lemmy.ca 11 months ago
I keep seeing this brought up but I can’t find information on how they work. How do you actually get new wire through a conduit? Do they not get stuck in corners? Or on the ridges of the tubes? What if you need to send wires upwards?
circuscritic@lemmy.ca 11 months ago
60GHz is more of a PTP or PTMP use case spectrum i.e. outdoor, long range, high throughput, but requires line of sight.
I have an enterprise style network stack like you described, albeit a bit more. It allows me to be dedicate a single spectrum per SSID e.g. my IoT network is only 2.4GHz, or use multiple spectrums across multiple access points for a single SSID e.g. guest wifi uses 2.4GHz & 5GHz across several across points for roaming.
So with that said, you can’t future proof yourself with an AP, as standards evolve and change - but you can somewhat protect yourself by running the right cable (Cat 6a). Regardless, if you’re just trying it get wifi in two rooms, you probably only need a single access point, but far be it for me to lecture someone on excessive home IT spending.
shortwavesurfer@monero.town 11 months ago
I need more than one access point for sure. My house is made of brick and even the internal walls are extremely thick. So signals have real trouble penetrating the walls. That is why i intend to do 1 ap/room.
sunbeam60@lemmy.one 11 months ago
This is it. All this speed is theoretical, unless you’re willing to fork out a lot for a grid of APs with LoS.