328
Yep, just set your Wi-Fi routers to use 6GHD and trample all over the other people in the band until they figure out that they can't control it.
this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2025
328 points (99.4% liked)
Technology
72212 readers
2819 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
For what it's worth, I think Cruz's proposal (all of it) was defeated 99-1.
This would need like a Canadian or Mexican to help provide the internet from across the border, because if they pull the Iran style blackout there will be zero internet for the entire country.
load more comments
(23 replies)
Its always Cruz.
Rat Bastard Rafael Cruz
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.
What do you mean by same thing with Meshtastic, are they trying to sell spectrum around 900mHz too?
IDK I heard something about it. I think it may have been the 866 MHz one?
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.
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.
Because of its shortcomings as a communication bandwidth, it's really, really good at cell-based positioning.
mesh network
Or traditional network with Ethernet backhaul and lots of access points. I really wish mesh networks would die off honestly.
Like anything else, they have their place. But they've been shoved into use cases they dont fit as well.
Sometimes re-wiring a house or building isn't as practical as setting up a mesh network that's good-enough.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
and on top of that, 5G afaik is specifically made so that if you need more density, you can turn down the cell power and install more cell sites rather than take more spectrum
it was designed for venues like sports stadiums so you could keep installing more and more cell towers inside stadiums etc to accommodate huge crowds
This exactly. Wifi is damn near unusable in dense residential settings. It'll cut it for streaming and web browsing, but much more than that and you'll feel the pain of interference from all the other wifi APs in the area.
Especially with most of them defaulting to 80MHz on 5GHz and many of those defaulting away from UNII-2. which leaves 4 non-overlapping channels (with one of them giving trouble with a lot of devices). We're right back to where we were in 2.4. Even worse, I think, since wifi is more ubiquitous.
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.
Eh, IoT devices typically use 2.4ghz, or even 933mhz...
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.
Right, I figured they meant in order to make room. There’s too much cluttering 2.4 — zigbee, zwave, bluetooth, IO peripherals, microwave ovens, cordless handsets, walkies, and more. WRT general WiFi traffic, in dense residential settings 2.4 is often only used for initial client device handshake.
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›