2

WiFi at 60 GHz provides a theoretical data-rate of 7 Gbit/s. The trade-off is limited range and penetration. The main reason for this awesome data-rate is a 9 GHz bandwidth, from 66 GHz to 57 GHz. I think this is country/regulation dependent, so 7 Gbit/s doesn't depend on the full 9 GHz bandwidth. Instead of focusing on increased frequency, why not scrap all the obsolete bands and reassign the 1 GHz - 6 GHz range to WiFi?

  1. The range and penetration of the 1 GHz - 6 GHz bands limit suitability to home usage. Therefore, does it need to be regulated as part of a global spectrum? Regulations should ensure availability of some bandwidth for other home uses only:

  2. Punch out some small bands for bluetooth, cordless phone, TV remote, etc. (below the 1 GHz cutoff: cellular phone, NFC, etc.)

  3. Adaptive frequency hopping to avoid local interference (other routers, microwave, etc.)

  4. Backport latest technology from previous standards: QAM, MIMO, etc.

  5. Make the standard versioned so newer features can be tacked on without requiring a whole new range.

Right? Now tell me why this is a pipe dream.

Air
  • 3,211
  • 4
  • 26
  • 47
user19087
  • 139
  • 4

1 Answers1

4

why not scrap all the obsolete bands and reassign the 1 GHz - 6 GHz range to WiFi?

First of all, these bands are not obsolete, there are many uses that might seem outdated, but won't go away easily. Check for example the use of the Ultra high frequency band.

Notice also that - yes - the use is country dependent, so if one of these bands have a critical application somewhere, it will not be available.

Second, the RF spectrum is a managed and finite resource. In just about every country the portions of the spectrum is auctioned for use. For mobile telephony there is a business that can pay for the use; for WiFi there is not. Don't expect authorities to give a spectrum for free. Perhaps they shouldn't, since part of the spectrum could better be used for other technologies.

In fact, the free ISM bands the are utilised by WiFi are mainly free because they have been considered useless for other purposes. And since this is a physical property the band happens to be free in most of the world.

One common standard is a nice theoretical idea, but it requires the world to agree on spectrum use. It will also require a large semiconductor industry to redevelop their product lines, which is for sure less attractive than gradually tuning what they have. I think some better incentives than "better WiFi" is needed for this to fly.

Eirik M
  • 141
  • 1