• "Safe" cell phone WiFi capabilities?

    From Don Y@21:1/5 to All on Thu May 16 23:11:47 2024
    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]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Brown@21:1/5 to Don Y on Fri May 17 09:20:04 2024
    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).

    --
    Martin Brown

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Y@21:1/5 to Martin Brown on Fri May 17 03:28:02 2024
    On 5/17/2024 1:20 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
    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.

    I'd have thought a more "current" WiFi generation. I have iPhones
    dating back to 2015/2017 that all tout ac. Android phones from
    the same era are n or ac. Current iPhones are ax.

    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?

    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.

    I think 3G is gone, here. I know none of my 3G phones will even display
    the correct time of day!

    4G mobile broadband service tends to saturate when large crowds all try to do the same thing at once (eg at football matches).

    I don't see a phone maker touting their WiFi capability as a selling
    point -- but, I don't shop for cell phones so can't speak to the mindset
    of folks who do.

    The other question is whether or not the phones can saturate such a pipe
    or if their capabilities are more "bursty"... lower *average* data rates.
    It seems like most phone uses (excepting streaming video) tend to be
    more interactive/bursty. The processors used SHOULD be able to do a fair
    bit of work. This, assuming their OSs are slick enough and power management doesn't too aggressively meter the CPUs abilities.

    It seems like multitasking, in phones, is driven heavily by which app
    has the focus. So, any other ACTIVE apps likely don't place much demand
    on resources (?)

    File transfers could pose a longer-term load on the connection. But, they inherently have very little *processing* involved.

    The iPhone "garden" makes it hard for me to deploy a benchmark to
    test their capabilities. But, I should be able to do something
    on android.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dan Purgert@21:1/5 to Don Y on Fri May 17 12:55:02 2024
    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?

    --
    |_|O|_|
    |_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
    |O|O|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Don Y on Fri May 17 23:44:56 2024
    On 17/05/2024 8:28 pm, Don Y wrote:
    On 5/17/2024 1:20 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 17/05/2024 07:11, Don Y wrote:

    <snip>

    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?

    Apple does like to create the impression that they have the latest and greatest.

    Google, who created the Android operating system for mobile phones, is
    an actual technical pioneer, which is why a number of mobile phone
    suppliers use their operating system.

    You should put in enough work to get past the marketing hype.

    <snip>

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Y@21:1/5 to Dan Purgert on Fri May 17 09:30:47 2024
    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
    last four of these are now referenced as "WiFi 4" thru "WiFi 7".
    E.g., the APs in my house are compatible with all *to* "WiFi 6".

    The level/revision of WiFi implemented by phones vary -- with
    their date of manufacture, along with the goals of their
    designers. E.g., the examplars that I presented (elsewhere)
    show iPhones supporting (802.11)ac while other manufacturers
    were still supporting n.

    [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"?]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dan Purgert@21:1/5 to Don Y on Mon May 20 11:02:08 2024
    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.

    --
    |_|O|_|
    |_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
    |O|O|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dan Purgert@21:1/5 to Don Y on Mon May 20 11:37:12 2024
    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 ...

    --
    |_|O|_|
    |_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
    |O|O|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Y@21:1/5 to Dan Purgert on Mon May 20 04:23:14 2024
    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.

    Martin suggests phones have a useful life of 5 years.
    If so, the majority of phones currently in use were
    likely designed long after 802.11a/b (1999), g (2003),
    n (2008), ac (2014) and even ax (2019).

    If a phone does NOT support WiFi (perhaps some of the
    "closed" markets?), then it has no impact on the data.

    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.

    [would you design an enet device that ONLY expected to be capable
    of accessing 10mb bandwidth]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Y@21:1/5 to Dan Purgert on Mon May 20 05:59:40 2024
    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.

    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.

    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.

    You're going to shoot a movie for direct-to-consumer distribution.

    IF YOU WANT EVERYONE TO BE ABLE TO WATCH IT, you shoot in black & white,
    with monophonic sound, 10KHz bandwidth in a 4:3 aspect ratio. The old
    geezer in east bumphuck will be able to watch it on his VHS attached to
    his 1950's Philco -- and, the yuppie on Park Avenue will also be able to
    watch it on his 120" 4K set with 5+1 surround sound!

    Or, you shoot it in a wide format and then (pay to) post-process it (pan&scan) to fit that ancient VHS/CRT viewer.

    *OR*, you decide you can *ignore* some portion of your POSSIBLE market
    and just shoot in a more modern format with better sound on the assumption
    that your REAL market will likely now -- or RSN! -- have one of those new-fangled TVs and will appreciate the capabilities in that medium THAT
    YOU EXPLOITED DURING FILMING/PRODUCTION.

    "Let's make N different productions to fully exploit the capabilities
    of the various ages of technology that folks MIGHT use... and, folks
    using older/cheaper/less capable technology will be disappointed with
    the product because it is so crippled TO THEIR TECHNOLOGY! ('Gee,
    this looks SO much better on YOUR screen than on mine...')"

    When you want to install W11 on a PC, doesn't it REQUIRE a certain level
    of capability in the PC's hardware/configuration? Why can't it install
    on my 1990 vintage lunchbox?? Obviously, MS looked at their LIKELY
    market and felt it a safe bet to set the minimum/base requirements
    where they did -- KNOWING that it would exclude some machines (that may
    even have been purchased "recently")

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dan Purgert@21:1/5 to Don Y on Mon May 20 17:03:40 2024
    On 2024-05-20, Don Y wrote:
    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?!

    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).

    --
    |_|O|_|
    |_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
    |O|O|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Y@21:1/5 to Dan Purgert on Mon May 20 11:39:21 2024
    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.

    E.g., I can replace gigabit with whatever I decide the application
    requires. Or, design the application to use the capabilities
    *expected*.

    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.

    Then you're stuck with a cable.

    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.

    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??

    Had I (or YOU!) personal experience DESIGNING cell phones, I
    could enumerate the criteria that were used in selecting the
    feature set for the phone and extrapolate that to other manufacturers.

    "Do we want the WiFi bandwidth to be comparable to the available
    cellular data rate? What do we envision the user relying on the
    WiFi connection for, given the existing data capability? Etc."

    But, I don't KNOW how manufacturers (designers) set these features.
    I don't see phones advertised highlighting their WiFi capabilities;
    instead, it's OS, 4G/5G, camera, screen size, battery life. And, I
    suspect if I were to canvas phone owners and ask them what THEIR phones'
    WiFi capabilities are, I would get a blank stare from most.

    [Gee, does this mean WiFi is a useless feature?]

    - 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).

    Or, unless you control the environment that the phone is operating in.
    Didn't that occur to you? Or, are you limited by your ASSUMPTIONS
    about how the phone would be used?

    I'm an engineer. Assume I can "do engineering". I asked a question
    to gather opinions as to a survey of available *equipment*. If you
    can't provide that information, that's understandable.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Brown@21:1/5 to Don Y on Tue May 21 10:58:49 2024
    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.

    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?

    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...

    --
    Martin Brown

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Y@21:1/5 to Martin Brown on Tue May 21 04:52:46 2024
    On 5/21/2024 2:58 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
    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.

    The point of saying "... each second" was to rule out the "100Mb for 10 seconds" equivalence. Note that rate also affects latency. An interface
    that can deliver at Gb rates -- even if in short bursts -- appears
    better performing (because the data can be "used sooner")

    But, you (I) still have to evaluate the horsepower available IN the phone
    as it may be doing multiple tasks, concurrently (though most seem to be prioritized by the focus)

    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.

    But, you don't see phones advertised for their WiFi capabilities.

    Laptops, by contrast, want to tout the latest WiFi standards as
    that's increasingly the only way they can talk to the outside
    world (wired enet being obsolescent on many models). So,
    you would likely be interested in that item when making
    a purchase.

    OTOH, would you even be aware of it when SELECTING a phone for
    purchase?

    This is important because it goes to the mindset of the designer/manufacturer. If they think you don't care about WiFi capabilities, then they'll put in whatever they can get away with.

    If, OTOH, they think you DO care (because you want to avoid impacting your
    data plan), then they will opt to design in more capable interfaces.

    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

    SWMBO carries a dumb "flip style" phone as it is *tiny* in folded form.
    So, when she's out hiking it takes up very little space in her pocket.

    I leave my phone in the car, when "out". The idea of CARRYING a phone
    around is anathema to me. (if I want to make a call, I can go back to the
    car and fetch it; if someone wants to call *me*, sorry!)

    [I am amazed at the Pavlovian aspect of cell phones and how quickly
    people JUMP to see who's calling, texting, etc. And, the PANIC among
    callers when the called party doesn't answer -- ON THE SECOND RING!!]

    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 *think* they are off, here. I had a 3G "Virgin" phone that I used to carry in lieu of a wristwatch (so I would know when to pick up SWMBO when we were both away from home). It was delightfully small, I could store lots of
    music on it (as a PMP). Battery would easily tolerate the 8 hours I'd be "away"... Now, it doesn't even tell the correct time (as it has no way
    of manually setting the time, whatever the last network time fix just degrades with the quality of the local oscillator).

    I don't have to worry about folks with NO wifi -- or, folks with no phone! :> But, it would be annoying to discover phones had less wireless capabilities than I had planned, after-the-fact!

    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.

    But, those 5yo phones will be headed for the tip, soon. I'd, instead,
    want a mix of 5/4/3/2/1/0-yo phones to get a better feel for the actual population.

    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!

    I dislike the touchscreens as holding them too close to your face (while perspiring) seems to end up "pushing unwanted buttons". I frequently discover that I have accidentally muted my speech because of the location of that
    button surface wrt my cheek, etc.

    All of my smart phones eventually end up with chips in their upper top edge of
    the supposedly "unbreakable" Gorilla glass...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Y@21:1/5 to John R Walliker on Tue May 21 15:26:53 2024
    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,

    So, these are "closed"/private spaces (NOT "coffee shops" open to
    public access)?

    Do you have an idea as to the mix of clients (laptops, phones,
    appliances)?

    And, how "saturated" the airspace is?

    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.

    Yes. OTOH, you can use multiple radios to move the slowpokes
    out of the way.

    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"?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Brown@21:1/5 to Don Y on Wed May 22 10:07:20 2024
    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.

    --
    Martin Brown

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Y@21:1/5 to Martin Brown on Wed May 22 03:49:08 2024
    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.

    [Yes, you can try to scale capabilities to fit different users
    but that comes at a cost. It also affects your positioning.]

    The only way to know for sure would be to disable n and see how many people scream at you.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Brown@21:1/5 to Don Y on Wed May 22 15:17:11 2024
    On 22/05/2024 11:49, Don Y wrote:
    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"?

    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.

    --
    Martin Brown

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Y@21:1/5 to Martin Brown on Wed May 22 17:02:38 2024
    On 5/22/2024 7:17 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
    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!

    Do you think the radioS are a single component/chipset? Or, components that are individually selected and thrown together? Given the high volumes
    involved (and the small spaces available). I.e., will the phone designer
    have this choice or the *radio* designer?

    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.

    Yes. But, I wonder how much of that is related to the fact that
    PCs (esp "consumer grade") are not really the subject of intense optimization/improvement, any longer?

    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.

    Yup. I have adopted the "no user serviceable parts inside" philosophy.
    It's almost essential if you want small, inexpensive and reliable.
    And, as you drive your product costs down, the notion of repair is
    almost impractical.

        "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.

    Sadly, people keep making the "non-portable" design decisions and, as
    a result, keep having to reinvent the wheel. OS designers are smart
    enough to realize the value of an HAL; but, application designers
    haven't made that realization, yet!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)