Bond the whole 2.4 GHz band!

[azazel1024]

Oh cost is certainly one of the reasons. Space and power are others though. The thing is, you've got two things going on, active, a dual stream radio chain is likely to take more power. However, you also are able to chew through data faster and drive to a low power mode, which can save power in the long run.

It is a very mixed thing. Constant use "services" like streaming tend to use more power overall the more radio chains you have. And considering how much else goes in to a handheld than the Wifi radio, it can easily get lost in the noise of all of the other possible power users in a system.

 

[TonyH]

ironically the only phone I have that has 2 streams has my best battery life. I always thought the reasons they mostly one stream is simply to save money, as well as planned obsolescence.

e.g. the ps4 has a single stream 2.4ghz wifi, that doesnt need it for space and power reasons. It likely was done for cost reasons and also I expect there will be a future ps4 with 5ghz AC support.

Power consumption depends on the design of chip. Higher density small die chips are more efficient on energy.

 

[remixedcat]

One thing tho QCA wants to have thier 160mhz cake and eat it too and I'm like

 

[azazel1024]

Only issue with 160MHz operation, other than complexity/cost, is that most/all of the DFS channels are not actually used by products in the US. IIRC, if you COULD utilize all of DFS (and you can in a lot of parts of the US and even near airports, weather stations and military bases, a lot of the DFS is usable) there is something like 350-380MHz available in the 5.2-5.9GHz band. Since DFS is rarely implemented, there is generally only 160 or sometimes 180MHz available (some routers implement channel 165, some do not. Channel 165 is ISM not UNII).

 

[stevech]

DFS' regulations are not practical! Especially dynamic frequency selection at recurring intervals.
Especially for point to point links.
But hey, safety is more important than streaming YouTube.

 

[RMerlin]

Someone needs to make a tablet with a Desktop CPU, and GPU. Imagine if you could get a tablet with a core i7 4790K (overclocked), as well as 2 GTX 970's in SLI (overclocked to 1.5GHz each).

You could get the convenience of the tablet form factor while in bed, but the performance of a desktop. On top of that, the tablet will keep you warm.

And the constant smell of freshly fried bacon, as you are slowly cooking your legs with it.

 

[remixedcat]

or your balls

 

[azazel1024]

DFS' regulations are not practical! Especially dynamic frequency selection at recurring intervals.
Especially for point to point links.
But hey, safety is more important than streaming YouTube.

Well, sure it is more important than streaming YouTube. For P2P, I'd never touch DFS. That doesn't mean you can't have smart enough logic that moves to non-DFS and then if a DFS scan shows that the channels are free, taking up residence on them again.

Most of the time, the DFS channels are either going to be busy often enough that those channels are never available, or else they are unused and you can camp on the channel. Rarely are all or even most of the DFS channels in use, even in congested radar areas. A rescan isn't that overhead intensive.

 

[azazel1024]

Though, what I like about DFS the most would be IOT usage. Sure, you have lower range than 2.4GHz, but the antenna size can be smaller for the same gain, or higher gain with the same size antenna. The later would cover the difference in free space losses and a base station can have a pretty modest antenna and then you have higher gain. You don't often need high bit rates, so you can use low modulation to get increased range. You can use mesh to work with other IOT to greatly increase range.

Then if you are on DFS, you are not interfering with, or being interfered by, regular WiFi operation. I'd imagine odds are excellent that pretty much no matter where you are, there will be at least ONE DFS channel available for operation. It also reduces interference on the IOT "network" from other wifi networks that are not yours, because of the reduced range. Inside your house, in a business, etc. the IOT network can work together through mesh.

 

[stevech]

lots of point to point in 5.4GHz unlicensed.
I was recently involved in a point to multipoint IP video multi-camera system - wireless was FCC's White Space. Very interesting. I wonder if this will become popular. Redline, for one, has product for this. I've used Redline for several large projects.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_spaces_(radio)

 

[remixedcat]

DFS would work best for things like thermostats or smart locks or the like. Good idea.

 

[stevech]

Thermostats, etc. have low channel utilization - very low. So no need for DFS for them.

 

[sfx2000]

It depends, currently, the 2.4GHz band performance is getting worst. It is nearly impossible to achieve 256QAM, especially when your WiFi environment looks like this (mine): http://i.imgur.com/Rbmk0IP.jpg

With routers being so reluctant to use higher modulations, why not just use more channels when they are unable to use higher modulations. e.g., if the router can't use 256QAM, then why not use all available channels at 64 QAM in order to get some more speed out of the 2.4GHz band?

TurboQAM (QAM256) was never intended to be deployed into 2.4GHz - mainly due to noise and signal propagation...

It's really about putting more streams into the channel that's already there - and even then, one does eventually run into a noise wall...

With some of my clients, I'm pretty happy to get 3*3/HT20, which is 217Mbps, which ain't bad for 2.4GHz... and there, they're pretty solid - I've got an 11ac adapter that can do Turbo, but only 2 streams, it it generally falls back to N144 as a result...

I've been away for a couple of weeks - family emergency - but at a location where the AP (and I manage that AP) can do TurboQAM at 40MHz in 2.4GHz... e.g. VHT40 mode...

So, with a heavy load of clients on that AP (over 60!, big family social event), I tinkered about a bit - Wide/Narrow - Mixed B/G/N vs. "Auto" which enabled VHT20/VHT40 mode....

Guess what worked...

B/G/N Mixed with 20Mhz channels offered the best range/bandwidth solution... with VHT20/40 disabled... 5GHz, pretty much let things fly there with VHT80 mode (auto) - no guest network active, no media prioritization, no filesharing or VPN - just acting as a AP/Router...

Should note that this was in a suburban environment... probably done a bit more with things, but I was basically on a laptop and tablet, and most of my "tools" were at home. My intent at the time was to "just keep things up", so not so much time taken to study a heavily loaded home network...

AP in use - Linksys WRT1900acV1 - current Firmware. I knew it was a beast, and that social event with 60 plus users pretty much proved that point. I was pretty impressed that it took the load - it got a bit flaky/odd the next day, so power cycled it and it was fine - I suppose one thing I could have done there was reduce the DHCP lease time to help out with the client load - but that was about it.