Wi-Fi 7 Signals the Industry's New Priority: Stability (ieee.org) 45
Multi-link operations and the 6-GHz band promise more reliability than before. From a report: The key to a future Wi-Fi you can depend on is something called multi-link operations (MLO). "It is the marquee feature of Wi-Fi 7," says Kevin Robinson, president and CEO of the Wi-Fi Alliance. MLO comes in two flavors. The first -- and simpler -- of the two is a version that allows Wi-Fi devices to spread a stream of data across multiple channels in a single frequency band. The technique makes the collective Wi-Fi signal more resilient to interference at a specific frequency. Where MLO really makes Wi-Fi 7 stand apart from previous generations, however, is a version that allows devices to spread a data stream across multiple frequency bands. For context, Wi-Fi utilizes three bands-2.5 gigahertz, 5 GHz, and as of 2020, 6 GHz.
Whether MLO spreads signals across multiple channels in the same frequency band or channels across two or three bands, the goals are the same: dependability and reduced latency. Devices will be able to split up a stream of data and send portions across different channels at the same time -- which cuts down on the overall transmission time -- or beam copies of the data across diverse channels, in case one channel is noisy or otherwise impaired. MLO is hardly the only feature new to Wi-Fi 7, even if industry experts agree it's the most notable. Wi-Fi 7 will also see channel size increase from 160 megahertz to a new maximum of 320 MHz. Bigger channels means more throughput capacity, which means more data in the same amount of time.
That said, 320-MHz channels won't be universally available. Wi-Fi uses unlicensed spectrum -- and in some regions, contiguous 320-MHz chunks of unlicensed spectrum don't exist because of other spectrum allocations. In cases where full channels aren't possible, Wi-Fi 7 includes another feature, called puncturing. "In the past, let's say you're looking for 320 MHz somewhere, but right within, there's a 20-MHz interferer. You would need to look at going to either side of that," says Andy Davidson, senior director of technology planning at Qualcomm. Before Wi-Fi 7, you'd functionally be stuck with about a 160-MHz channel either above or below that interference.
Whether MLO spreads signals across multiple channels in the same frequency band or channels across two or three bands, the goals are the same: dependability and reduced latency. Devices will be able to split up a stream of data and send portions across different channels at the same time -- which cuts down on the overall transmission time -- or beam copies of the data across diverse channels, in case one channel is noisy or otherwise impaired. MLO is hardly the only feature new to Wi-Fi 7, even if industry experts agree it's the most notable. Wi-Fi 7 will also see channel size increase from 160 megahertz to a new maximum of 320 MHz. Bigger channels means more throughput capacity, which means more data in the same amount of time.
That said, 320-MHz channels won't be universally available. Wi-Fi uses unlicensed spectrum -- and in some regions, contiguous 320-MHz chunks of unlicensed spectrum don't exist because of other spectrum allocations. In cases where full channels aren't possible, Wi-Fi 7 includes another feature, called puncturing. "In the past, let's say you're looking for 320 MHz somewhere, but right within, there's a 20-MHz interferer. You would need to look at going to either side of that," says Andy Davidson, senior director of technology planning at Qualcomm. Before Wi-Fi 7, you'd functionally be stuck with about a 160-MHz channel either above or below that interference.
Re: (Score:1)
Are we being sarcastic now?
Just in case... (Score:4, Interesting)
5 ghz penetration of walls wasnt bad enough, let's go with 6!
I'm sure the digital protocols and channel stacking is fantastic tech, but you cant beat the laws of physics.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You just need more power. Hell, lets take this to its logical conclusion: Lasers. Practically infinite bandwidth. It will be great. Sure they don't go through solid objects very well but that just means you need more power. What could possibly go wrong
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You just need a glass rod through the wall on a line of sight between the router and the receiver.
It would be best to put the rods at the top of the wall then use a mirror to reflect it back down.
You'll have to reposition the mirror when you change seats, but that is a minor inconvenience. Maybe you could Use a low power tracking laser and a servo motor to follow the laptop around.
Re: (Score:2)
You just need a glass rod through the wall on a line of sight between the router and the receiver.
I wonder if we could make very long and thin, so far as to be flexible, and choose the materials so that the laser light stays inside the "rod".
I also recall these things called "wave guides" for microwaves, basically metal tubes for directing EM waves. You could also insert an extra conductor passing along the middle of the tube to adjust its properties. I believe it was called "co-axial" or something. Future engineers might find a way to miniaturize these things to match the size of these "lap-tops".
Re: (Score:2)
Nor the performance and reliability of a wired connection.
No need to compromise anything.
Re: (Score:2)
5 ghz penetration of walls wasnt bad enough, let's go with 6!
The limited propagation is actually a feature for those in dense city or apartment housing, where dozens or more access points may be visible and finding a channel without interference is impossible.
Yes, but it's also a drawback for those of us with a little more space. Our house is only 1500 square feet plus the basement. When we switched from 2.4GHz to 5GHz our WiFi started to get a bit sketchy at the farther limits, and was outright crappy not very far into our small back yard. I had to add an old 2.4GHz router as a second AP to provide better coverage.
Re: (Score:3)
Assuming that the link can fall back gracefully to a lower frequency when necessary, and remain reasonably stable, just slower; it becomes a lot easier to see the higher frequency bands as just a nice bandwidth bonus that you get when you happen to have decent line of sight on an AP; rather than something you simply cant' trust because having your link drop is deeply irksome.
Re: (Score:2)
Lack of penetration is what makes it good. Less interference from other nearby networks.
Stick a 6GHz AP in your living room, and another in your study. Turn down the power on 5GHz and have a few of them in your house. 2.4GHz is a write-off in many places.
Re: (Score:2)
hm... I run 2.4 and 5GHz networks. I haven't spammed enough access points around to get 5 everywhere reliably on my phone, so I use 2.4.
Re: (Score:2)
Where I live the 2.4GHz band is pretty saturated. Even 5GHz has a few other networks, although they are all on the default lowest channel. For some reason the auto channel selection on every AP I've ever seen selects that band on 5GHz, and often manually changing it doesn't work. Maybe a driver or chip problem.
Anyway, I have three non-overlapping 5GHz networks at home. Have not updated to a 6GHz capable AP yet, although my phone supports it.
Re: Just in case... (Score:2)
I'm talking proper brick walls, not the chipboard that passes for walls in some cheap houses.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Just in case... (Score:2)
Europe uses brick interior walls. I just renovated an apartment in Spain, completely gutted it, and they used brick for the interior walls. It's pretty standard there. I had multiple ceiling mounted access points installed, thinking the walls would kill the signal, but honestly it's not that bad and I would have been more than the with 2 APs instead of 3. Honestly 1 centrally located probably would have been fine...
Re: Just in case... (Score:2)
Dont get out of the USA much do you. Try most of europe for brick and concrete homes. We build proper houses here, not the cheap oversized wooden sheds you people call a house.
Will this make old hardware redundant ? (Score:2)
I have some old bits of kit that I use, I do not want to have to chuck them out because they will not work with new access points, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because whenever a new WiFi standard comes out, nothing interoperates with previous generation hardware, right?
Different ends of wireless links have been able to negotiate and upgrade connections using bog-standard 20 year old 2.4Ghz 802.11b to initiate for quite some time now.
Re: (Score:1)
Yearning for Internet--Without ISPs (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
We would be ... if it wasn't for the legal implications.
7 already? (Score:2)
Meanwhile, I still don't think I've upgraded to Wi-Fi 6 yet... I think my current APs go up to 802.11ac, whatever consumer-oriented name that corresponds to. Still seems to work fine, but I guess I should upgrade one of these years.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that's Wifi 5.
Wifi 6 isn't much of an upgrade. Wifi 6e might be, but is also much more expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
Still seems to work fine, but I guess I should upgrade one of these years.
Why? If it works fine, why update it?
My old Airport Extreme has been working fine for around a decade. The wifi is stable, covers the house pretty well, and the speed I'm seeing from device to device over 802.11ac is still higher than what Comcast is giving me to the world at large (on wireless I'm getting ~ 500-600 down and 100+ up; wired I'm seeing about 900 down). So what's the advantage of upgrading?
Re: (Score:2)
This is what I do - upgrade a "core" AP, and use your old AP as a mesh node that doesn't require as high performance, such as extending your network into the garage for when you need youtube videos about how to fix shit, or cars that you trust to update software via WiFi.
Upgrade by attrition at some point after you've expanded coverage and SnR to where you want it to be - kicking the oldest AP off the island at some point in the future. I have 4 APs covering my house because it has foil-backed insulation E
Lower frequency option (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
900mhz. Lots of other stuff there, though, and the data rates are anemic - 150-200kbps is typical. There were a few products back in the 1990s that worked on this band. Today you'll find specialized bridges for the purpose where traditional WiFi is unable to perform due to interference or LoS issues.
Re:Lower frequency option (Score:4, Informative)
There is unlicensed spectrum in the 33cm band (902Mhz to 928Mhz), but that's where a whole lot of ill-behaved old consumer devices live. Like cordless land-line phones, garage door openers, TV remotes, etc. - I once had a very nice (for the time) pair of wireless Sennheiser headphones that operated in this band, and they were fantastic, until I took them to work and had a constant pop... pop... pop... coming from the RF phone repeaters in use for company wireless phones that support people could carry with them previous to an IP telephone rollout.
That's one of the reasons why the 2.4Ghz ISM band was decided on to begin with - to avoid all the random interference in the lower unlicensed band, and other unwanted 2.4Ghz signals don't penetrate as good so the possible interference is more localized, and thus more preventable.
Re: (Score:2)
Plus, forgot to mention: 26Mhz of spectrum at less than half the frequency would impact bandwidth as well. There are some wireless networking products that use the 33cm band, but they'll be the first to mention that you'll be incredibly lucky to get 50Mbps in a best-case scenario interference-free environment. Typical throughput would be in the 5Mbps range.
Re: (Score:2)
Standard Wi-FI channel width is 20MHz - 2.4GHz has 3 non-overlapping channels, for example. So 900MHz only has 1 channel available, making available band
Re: (Score:2)
AX25 [wikipedia.org] is what you're looking for.
Re: (Score:2)
No kidding 3G and lower were better especially in rural areas. :(
Awesome! Let's try for some security next (Score:2)
WPA2 is a security nightmare, WPA3 has barely any support.
How about we fix the glaring security holes before the pat ourselves on the shoulders for new features nobody gives a fuck about?
Re: (Score:1)
Nintendo patch notes? (Score:2)
I'm just here for the Nintendo jokes.
(If you know, you know)