For "nominal" cell phones (i.e., taking into consideration
that not ever subscriber buys The Latest and Greatest),
what's the "base" WiFi capability one would feel comfortable
assuming? ac? ax?
If you extend that to include *all* phones currently in service
(e.g., 4G onwards), where would you put the cutoff? n? g?
[US market]
On 17/05/2024 07:11, Don Y wrote:
For "nominal" cell phones (i.e., taking into consideration
that not ever subscriber buys The Latest and Greatest),
what's the "base" WiFi capability one would feel comfortable
assuming? ac? ax?
Probably n now in most places with modern chipsets. Cell phones have a lifecycle of about 5 years before the battery swells and dies.
If you extend that to include *all* phones currently in service
(e.g., 4G onwards), where would you put the cutoff? n? g?
[US market]
Probably around n for the Wifi link but you can still find places in rural areas where the cell phones are on 2.5G mobile connections. Only in the cities
can you safely assume 5G and adequate backhaul.
4G mobile broadband service tends to saturate when large crowds all try to do the same thing at once (eg at football matches).
For "nominal" cell phones (i.e., taking into consideration
that not ever subscriber buys The Latest and Greatest),
what's the "base" WiFi capability one would feel comfortable
assuming? ac? ax?
On 5/17/2024 1:20 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 17/05/2024 07:11, Don Y wrote:
Does apple tend to design to a higher performance level than
(e.g.) android? I.e., should I be looking at phones OTHER than
iPhones for a true feel?
On 2024-05-17, Don Y wrote:
For "nominal" cell phones (i.e., taking into consideration
that not ever subscriber buys The Latest and Greatest),
what's the "base" WiFi capability one would feel comfortable
assuming? ac? ax?
Assuming you're limiting the question to the set of cellphones that
actually implement wifi, 802.11b ... but what are you *REALLY* trying to
ask for?
On 5/17/2024 5:55 AM, Dan Purgert wrote:
On 2024-05-17, Don Y wrote:
For "nominal" cell phones (i.e., taking into consideration
that not ever subscriber buys The Latest and Greatest),
what's the "base" WiFi capability one would feel comfortable
assuming? ac? ax?
Assuming you're limiting the question to the set of cellphones that
actually implement wifi, 802.11b ... but what are you *REALLY* trying to
ask for?
There are several different "generations" of WiFi, each with
different effective (data) bandwidths.
The most commonly referenced include: 802.11a, 802.11b, 802.11g,
802.11n, 802.11ac, 802.11ax and, most recently, 802.11be. The
[Note that n is a ~2008 era technology while ac is ~2015
and ax is ~2020. Does this suggest that any phone made
"within the last 5 years" -- an interval Martin suggests
should cover "most" phones now in use -- should be "ax"?]
On 5/20/2024 4:02 AM, Dan Purgert wrote:
On 2024-05-17, Don Y wrote:
On 5/17/2024 5:55 AM, Dan Purgert wrote:
On 2024-05-17, Don Y wrote:
For "nominal" cell phones (i.e., taking into consideration
that not ever subscriber buys The Latest and Greatest),
what's the "base" WiFi capability one would feel comfortable
assuming? ac? ax?
Assuming you're limiting the question to the set of cellphones that
actually implement wifi, 802.11b ... but what are you *REALLY* trying to >>>> ask for?
There are several different "generations" of WiFi, each with
different effective (data) bandwidths.
The most commonly referenced include: 802.11a, 802.11b, 802.11g,
802.11n, 802.11ac, 802.11ax and, most recently, 802.11be. The
It's almost like that list is ... all of the options.
[Note that n is a ~2008 era technology while ac is ~2015
and ax is ~2020. Does this suggest that any phone made
"within the last 5 years" -- an interval Martin suggests
should cover "most" phones now in use -- should be "ax"?]
No. /FLAGSHIP/ models certainly have a high chance of supporting
802.11ax, but that doesn't mean "any" phone.
Again, what are you *REALLY* trying to ascertain here?
I am trying to figure out what the "basic" WiFi capabilities
of "the vast majority" of cell phones currently in use are
likely to be.
The most basic support is still 802.11b; and that'll probably be kind of
"forever" (at least until 2.4 GHz is completely abandoned), same as how
10mbit is still the most basic ethernet-over-twisted-pair support.
But, in practice, most phones support something more capable
than 802.11b -- just like most enets support something more
capable than 10BaseT/2.
Designing for the lowest POSSIBLE vs. LIKELY means unnecessarily
limiting the capabilities that you can exploit.
On 2024-05-17, Don Y wrote:
On 5/17/2024 5:55 AM, Dan Purgert wrote:
On 2024-05-17, Don Y wrote:
For "nominal" cell phones (i.e., taking into consideration
that not ever subscriber buys The Latest and Greatest),
what's the "base" WiFi capability one would feel comfortable
assuming? ac? ax?
Assuming you're limiting the question to the set of cellphones that
actually implement wifi, 802.11b ... but what are you *REALLY* trying to >>> ask for?
There are several different "generations" of WiFi, each with
different effective (data) bandwidths.
The most commonly referenced include: 802.11a, 802.11b, 802.11g,
802.11n, 802.11ac, 802.11ax and, most recently, 802.11be. The
It's almost like that list is ... all of the options.
[Note that n is a ~2008 era technology while ac is ~2015
and ax is ~2020. Does this suggest that any phone made
"within the last 5 years" -- an interval Martin suggests
should cover "most" phones now in use -- should be "ax"?]
No. /FLAGSHIP/ models certainly have a high chance of supporting
802.11ax, but that doesn't mean "any" phone.
Again, what are you *REALLY* trying to ascertain here?
The most basic support is still 802.11b; and that'll probably be kind of "forever" (at least until 2.4 GHz is completely abandoned), same as how 10mbit is still the most basic ethernet-over-twisted-pair support.
On 2024-05-20, Don Y wrote:
On 5/20/2024 4:02 AM, Dan Purgert wrote:
On 2024-05-17, Don Y wrote:
On 5/17/2024 5:55 AM, Dan Purgert wrote:
On 2024-05-17, Don Y wrote:
For "nominal" cell phones (i.e., taking into consideration
that not ever subscriber buys The Latest and Greatest),
what's the "base" WiFi capability one would feel comfortable
assuming? ac? ax?
Assuming you're limiting the question to the set of cellphones that
actually implement wifi, 802.11b ... but what are you *REALLY* trying to >>>>> ask for?
There are several different "generations" of WiFi, each with
different effective (data) bandwidths.
The most commonly referenced include: 802.11a, 802.11b, 802.11g,
802.11n, 802.11ac, 802.11ax and, most recently, 802.11be. The
It's almost like that list is ... all of the options.
[Note that n is a ~2008 era technology while ac is ~2015
and ax is ~2020. Does this suggest that any phone made
"within the last 5 years" -- an interval Martin suggests
should cover "most" phones now in use -- should be "ax"?]
No. /FLAGSHIP/ models certainly have a high chance of supporting
802.11ax, but that doesn't mean "any" phone.
Again, what are you *REALLY* trying to ascertain here?
I am trying to figure out what the "basic" WiFi capabilities
of "the vast majority" of cell phones currently in use are
likely to be.
802.11a/b/g/n. Flagship models (or former flagships) will have 802.11ac
or ax; as appropriate for their release date.
The most basic support is still 802.11b; and that'll probably be kind of >>> "forever" (at least until 2.4 GHz is completely abandoned), same as how
10mbit is still the most basic ethernet-over-twisted-pair support.
But, in practice, most phones support something more capable
than 802.11b -- just like most enets support something more
capable than 10BaseT/2.
It's almost like "the base" isn't what you want then.
Designing for the lowest POSSIBLE vs. LIKELY means unnecessarily
limiting the capabilities that you can exploit.
Which is why you toss in an 802.11ax AP (or 802.11ac, if the ax units
are prohibitively expensive for your house/office/whatever), and leave
it up to the client device to negotiate for the best common option.
It's not like an 802.11ax AP doesn't support a/b/g/n/ac ...
On 5/20/2024 4:37 AM, Dan Purgert wrote:
On 2024-05-20, Don Y wrote:
On 5/20/2024 4:02 AM, Dan Purgert wrote:
On 2024-05-17, Don Y wrote:
On 5/17/2024 5:55 AM, Dan Purgert wrote:
On 2024-05-17, Don Y wrote:
For "nominal" cell phones (i.e., taking into consideration
that not ever subscriber buys The Latest and Greatest),
what's the "base" WiFi capability one would feel comfortable
assuming? ac? ax?
Assuming you're limiting the question to the set of cellphones that >>>>>> actually implement wifi, 802.11b ... but what are you *REALLY*
trying to ask for?
There are several different "generations" of WiFi, each with
different effective (data) bandwidths.
[...]
No. /FLAGSHIP/ models certainly have a high chance of supporting
802.11ax, but that doesn't mean "any" phone.
Again, what are you *REALLY* trying to ascertain here?
But, in practice, most phones support something more capable
than 802.11b -- just like most enets support something more
capable than 10BaseT/2.
It's almost like "the base" isn't what you want then.
[...]
Which is why you toss in an 802.11ax AP (or 802.11ac, if the ax units
are prohibitively expensive for your house/office/whatever), and leave
it up to the client device to negotiate for the best common option.
And, when you want to pass a gigabit of data to the phone each second,
how does that AP help the phone GET the data when the pipe TO THE HANDSET
is considerably narrower?!
It's not like an 802.11ax AP doesn't support a/b/g/n/ac ...
You're missing the point, completely.
It's almost like "the base" isn't what you want then.
[...]
Which is why you toss in an 802.11ax AP (or 802.11ac, if the ax units
are prohibitively expensive for your house/office/whatever), and leave
it up to the client device to negotiate for the best common option.
And, when you want to pass a gigabit of data to the phone each second,
how does that AP help the phone GET the data when the pipe TO THE HANDSET
is considerably narrower?!
Then I buy a phone that can support 802.11ac Wave2 with 160 MHz channel width, and at least 3x3 spatial streams. Assuming, of course:
- that the AP supports those minimum requirements as well, AND
- The conditions allow for negotiation of MCS8 (~2300 mbps link rate,
ballpark 1gpbs sustained data rate, but WiFi math is "fun") AND
- There aren't other devices also requesting airtime (especially ones
using slower options -- 2x2 streams, 802.11n, MCS5, etc.) AND
- The server has enough bandwidth (incl. read buffers, disk I/O, etc.)
to sustain that 1gpbs transfer to my phone.
- The phone has enough bandwidth (incl. write buffers, "disk" I/O,
etc.) to sustain a 1gbps transfer from the server.
Or, I don't use WiFi (to a phone or otherwise) because if I *need*
1gpbs, then a wire's gonna give me that without any of the conditions
imposed by half-duplex radio communications.
It's not like an 802.11ax AP doesn't support a/b/g/n/ac ...
You're missing the point, completely.
It's almost like the whole reason I've repeatedly asked "what do you
*REALLY* want to know" is because your question is vague.
- If you're building some form of WiFi access point --> who cares,
the phone will negotiate with the AP for the best common mode
between them given local conditions (e.g. 802.11n @ MCS2)
- If you're building some form of application that needs some minimum
data rate --> you can't really guarantee you're going to get that
rate, unless it's less than 1Mbps (802.11a/b/g) or MCS0
(802.11n/ac/ax; exact rate varies depending on available spatial
streams).
On 5/20/2024 10:03 AM, Dan Purgert wrote:
It's almost like "the base" isn't what you want then.
[...]
Which is why you toss in an 802.11ax AP (or 802.11ac, if the ax units
are prohibitively expensive for your house/office/whatever), and leave >>>> it up to the client device to negotiate for the best common option.
And, when you want to pass a gigabit of data to the phone each second,
how does that AP help the phone GET the data when the pipe TO THE
HANDSET
is considerably narrower?!
Then I buy a phone that can support 802.11ac Wave2 with 160 MHz channel
width, and at least 3x3 spatial streams. Assuming, of course:
- that the AP supports those minimum requirements as well, AND
- The conditions allow for negotiation of MCS8 (~2300 mbps link rate, >> ballpark 1gpbs sustained data rate, but WiFi math is "fun") AND
- There aren't other devices also requesting airtime (especially ones >> using slower options -- 2x2 streams, 802.11n, MCS5, etc.) AND
- The server has enough bandwidth (incl. read buffers, disk I/O, etc.) >> to sustain that 1gpbs transfer to my phone.
- The phone has enough bandwidth (incl. write buffers, "disk" I/O,
etc.) to sustain a 1gbps transfer from the server.
Etc. But, I don't want to FORCE you to buy capabilities that you
don't ALREADY HAVE -- hence the question as to the prevalence of
a particular "minimum" WiFi standard in current phones.
I WANT TO KNOW WHAT SET OF WiFi CAPABILITIES I CAN EXPECT FROM
PHONES CURRENTLY IN USE. What's so vague about that?
Find every phone currently in use. Determine its WiFi capabilities
based on its published specifications. Tabulate these results.
Identify any patterns observed.
I could similarly ask for the nominal WEIGHT of phones currently in
use. Or, size. Or, color. Or, ... The approach would be the same. Would it MATTER how I was using this information? Or, why? Would
the data CHANGE??
On 20/05/2024 19:39, Don Y wrote:
On 5/20/2024 10:03 AM, Dan Purgert wrote:
It's almost like "the base" isn't what you want then.
[...]
Which is why you toss in an 802.11ax AP (or 802.11ac, if the ax units >>>>> are prohibitively expensive for your house/office/whatever), and leave >>>>> it up to the client device to negotiate for the best common option.
And, when you want to pass a gigabit of data to the phone each second, >>>> how does that AP help the phone GET the data when the pipe TO THE HANDSET >>>> is considerably narrower?!
That sort of continuous datarate would probably overheat many (most?) mobile phones. Some of them can get quite hot when worked hard.
Etc. But, I don't want to FORCE you to buy capabilities that you
don't ALREADY HAVE -- hence the question as to the prevalence of
a particular "minimum" WiFi standard in current phones.
I WANT TO KNOW WHAT SET OF WiFi CAPABILITIES I CAN EXPECT FROM
PHONES CURRENTLY IN USE. What's so vague about that?
It varies depending on who is using them. There are a lot of people glued to their less than year old super phone 24/7 who have the latest of everything and
OLED screens. Then there are the people (typically parents or grandparents of the above) who have the hand me down phones.
And a bunch of Luddites still on completely dumb phones for their extended battery life or other elderly friendly features like large buttons. I reckon
there are still a fair proportion of totally dumb phones in the older generation and a bunch of people in the UK who are going to be very surprised when the 3G signals are finally switched off.
I have a feeling that 2.5G will outlive 3G since some remote areas have nothing
else. 5G is now common in cities and 4G elsewhere.
Find every phone currently in use. Determine its WiFi capabilities
based on its published specifications. Tabulate these results.
Identify any patterns observed.
You could probably make a fairly safe assumption that any phone in regular use
for more than 5 years will be on its last legs now (and/or slowed down from as
new performance by battery saver tricks).
Just look back to see what network capabilities were most common in popular models 5 years ago. Secondhand smart phones from a few years back sell for quite low prices these days unless they are iToys.
I could similarly ask for the nominal WEIGHT of phones currently in
use. Or, size. Or, color. Or, ... The approach would be the same. >> Would it MATTER how I was using this information? Or, why? Would
the data CHANGE??
The annoying thing for me is that with each new generation the mobile phone gets larger which is good from the point of view of the handset being more nearly compatible with the distance form ear to mouth but bad from the point of
view of it falling out of a shirt pocket!
All of my smart phones eventually end up with chips in their upper top edge of
the supposedly "unbreakable" Gorilla glass...
I can offer some real-world data that may be of use. I manage
WiFi access points in offices around the world. In every case,
i have disabled 802.11b and nobody has complained. The reason for
doing this is that some devices such as high-definition cameras
and screen sharing devices send large amounts of data using
multi-casting. If one WiFi recipient is connected very slowly
this uses up all the available WiFi bandwidth causing the whole
network to grind to a halt.
Setting a minimum connection speed of 12MHz at 2.4GHz and 24MHz
at 5GHz is also useful and does not appear to cause any problems.
On 5/21/2024 3:43 AM, John R Walliker wrote:
I can offer some real-world data that may be of use. I manage
WiFi access points in offices around the world. In every case,
Setting a minimum connection speed of 12MHz at 2.4GHz and 24MHz
at 5GHz is also useful and does not appear to cause any problems.
But, how much *higher* than that might you be able to go without
folks complaining about "equipment incompatibilities"?
On 21/05/2024 23:26, Don Y wrote:
On 5/21/2024 3:43 AM, John R Walliker wrote:
I can offer some real-world data that may be of use. I manage
WiFi access points in offices around the world. In every case,
Setting a minimum connection speed of 12MHz at 2.4GHz and 24MHz
at 5GHz is also useful and does not appear to cause any problems.
But, how much *higher* than that might you be able to go without
folks complaining about "equipment incompatibilities"?
My instinct is that there are still a *lot* of phones out there (at least in the UK) where wireless n is the fastest they support.
Give it another 3 years or so and that will change. Do you care if some
Luddites can't use whatever it is you are making?
The only way to know for sure would be to disable n and see how many people scream at you.
On 5/22/2024 2:07 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 21/05/2024 23:26, Don Y wrote:
On 5/21/2024 3:43 AM, John R Walliker wrote:
I can offer some real-world data that may be of use. I manage
WiFi access points in offices around the world. In every case,
Setting a minimum connection speed of 12MHz at 2.4GHz and 24MHz
at 5GHz is also useful and does not appear to cause any problems.
But, how much *higher* than that might you be able to go without
folks complaining about "equipment incompatibilities"?
My instinct is that there are still a *lot* of phones out there (at
least in the UK) where wireless n is the fastest they support.
Give it another 3 years or so and that will change. Do you care if some
Do you expect "whatever is the current standard" to be the new "design in"?
Or, will there still be some manufacturing premium for that (even in cell phone quantities!) so that something "a bit older" (at THAT time) ends up being the new "commodity level"?
Luddites can't use whatever it is you are making?
No; that was the point of my "1950's Philco" anecdote.
BUT (!), I don't want to restrict the market to only folks who like gold-plating!
Think of the disappointment you feel when something you want isn't
compatible with "what you have". E.g., why can't I run Windows
on my ______. Or, why can't I keep using my 5 year old printer
(has marking technology advance to the point that 5 years makes
something obsolete??) Or...
"For 'nominal' cell phones (i.e., taking into consideration
that not ever subscriber buys The Latest and Greatest), ..."
It's a balancing act; if you extend your support "backwards"
(in time/capabilities), then you potentially address more users.
But, you offer a product with diminished capabilities.
My instinct is that there are still a *lot* of phones out there (at least in
the UK) where wireless n is the fastest they support.
Give it another 3 years or so and that will change. Do you care if some
Do you expect "whatever is the current standard" to be the new "design in"?
Not necessarily. I suspect the market will diversify between those who value respectable battery service life and those that insist on streaming full 4k video onto an 4" OLED screen. They must have incredible eyesight is all I can say!
Or, will there still be some manufacturing premium for that (even in cell
phone quantities!) so that something "a bit older" (at THAT time) ends up
being the new "commodity level"?
We have sort of reached that stage with the consumer grade PCs. Improvements for single threaded usage are now very slow indeed.
Luddites can't use whatever it is you are making?
No; that was the point of my "1950's Philco" anecdote.
BUT (!), I don't want to restrict the market to only folks who like
gold-plating!
Think of the disappointment you feel when something you want isn't
compatible with "what you have". E.g., why can't I run Windows
on my ______. Or, why can't I keep using my 5 year old printer
(has marking technology advance to the point that 5 years makes
something obsolete??) Or...
Pretty much. You can extend the life of some kit with third party drivers or other tricks but the OS has a nasty habit of prohibiting useful things to make
life easier for the lowest common denominator of user. Windows Safe mode or whatever it is called Lock In for instance.
Many things today are clipped and glued together on a one time basis with no reasonable prospect of safely prizing it apart again even though the glue used
is nominally thermoplastic.
"For 'nominal' cell phones (i.e., taking into consideration
that not ever subscriber buys The Latest and Greatest), ..."
It's a balancing act; if you extend your support "backwards"
(in time/capabilities), then you potentially address more users.
But, you offer a product with diminished capabilities.
Famously IBM got it completely wrong insisting that OS/2 must run on the then shipping 286 models even though it was dire on that hardware. Conflating the OS/2 launch with lockin PS/2 MCA hardware didn't help.
It opened a Window for MS to take market share with Win3 that targetted the 386
only. We all know the outcome of that monumental IBM cock up. It united all of
the PC clone makers to produce the EISA standard bus.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 415 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 161:09:06 |
Calls: | 8,707 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 13,270 |
Messages: | 5,951,461 |