Wi-Fi 7 Multi Link Operation (MLO) discussion

[L&LD]

That's not what I said, I meant adding channels from those bands to Channel 100.

Still impossible. Or, I'm not understanding what you're saying. Or, you're not understanding how this works.

 

[glens]

Well, /I/ follow the thought pattern.

The router's sensitivity/noise rejection must also match though to be a true range increase.

See? Now that's the kind of stuff we were alluding to the other "unfun" day.

 

[L&LD]

What's hard to understand here? If the router's RF is improved on both send and receive, true range/throughput increases are possible.

 

[Qbcd]

Still impossible. Or, I'm not understanding what you're saying. Or, you're not understanding how this works.

I think you're not understanding how English works. Jk

 

[L&LD]

I have no doubt that I don't know how English works.

That isn't the concern here.

You seem to think 'adding channels' from one band to another is within the realm of possibilities. Not so.

 

[glens]

But it actually is /effectively/ what's happening. Not making those channels /available/ in another band, rather the client and router communicating the same data simultaneously over both, and to whatever extent becoming limited by whichever's the lesser.

 

[L&LD]

Hardly.

It will be 'limited' to whichever's the greater. Why would they implement something to make things worse?

 

[Qbcd]

I have no doubt that I don't know how English works.

That isn't the concern here.

You seem to think 'adding channels' from one band to another is within the realm of possibilities. Not so.

We seem to have entered some weird semantic cul-de-sac, so let's just drop it. I think it's clear from what I've written, adding channels together = carrier aggregation = MLO, it's a rather simple concept. Maybe you thought I meant something else, it doesn't really matter as that wasn't the point of my post anyway.

I hope they give you the choice to select which bands/channels to aggregate rather than just having it turned on or off, that would be make it significantly more useful imo.

 

[L&LD]

No, your posts haven't made anything clearer. What you're stating is not how things work. But, let's drop it, sure.

 

[L&LD]

Your words are wrong. Yes.

Multi-link isn't adding 'channels' together. It aggregates connections.

The 'channels' still stay/belong to their respective links, independently.

 

[Qbcd]

Your words are wrong. Yes.

Multi-link isn't adding 'channels' together. It aggregates connections.

The 'channels' still stay/belong to their respective links, independently.

Thanks, I will add this one to my list of funny semantic arguments.

 

[L&LD]

Sure, lol, don't learn.

Tech requires exact terms, otherwise, it's just a magic box that aggregates 'channels'.

 

[Qbcd]

Nah sorry but this is like saying "it's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop"

This is from wikipedia and documentation on carrier aggregation:

From wikipedia:
"In wireless communication, carrier aggregation is a technique used to increase the data rate per user, whereby multiple frequency blocks (called component carriers) are assigned to the same user."
From 3GPP on LTE-A:
"Each aggregated carrier is referred to as a component carrier, CC. The component carrier can have a bandwidth of 1.4, 3, 5, 10, 15 or 20 MHz and a maximum of five component carriers can be aggregated, hence the maximum aggregated bandwidth is 100 MHz."

Spoiler alert, these frequency blocks/component carriers are otherwise known as channels. You can use your terminology too of course depending on context - it's semantics and everyone knows what you mean. That's why I was confused by your reaction, I don't even know how what I said could be misunderstood. Anyway I'm sorry, I know I should have dropped this a while ago, but I hate being attacked on semantics.

 

[L&LD]

Sorry, you're still wrong.

WiFi 7 isn't 'carrier aggregation'.

Use the proper terms for the field being discussed.

This isn't semantics; exact terms matter.

 

[L&LD]

And what makes you feel you're right?

 

[L&LD]

You’re both wrong for continuing to argue.

No arguments here. It's called a discussion.

 

[Qbcd]

WiFi 7 isn't 'carrier aggregation'.

Well he keeps replying with non-sequiturs/incorrect quotes while continuing to argue semantics, which triggers me because 1) it's ironic and 2) I actually do have OCD about being precise with my words. MLO and carrier aggregation are highly related technologies (as are 802.11ax/be and LTE-A/NR), and at the level we're arguing about channel vs. connection (which in this context is analogous to bread vs. food), they are identical.

Ok I'm done this time, I promise. I won't open this thread for a couple of weeks as to not get tempted to reply to the next thing.

 

[L&LD]

What's ironic is that you fail to realize you're wrong, even when pointed out in the simplest terms possible.

Continue believing in your folly.

I'll continue being accurate.

Don't try to change 'the context'. Change your terminology to the correct use when talking about WiFi 7.

Saying WiFi 7 and cellular aggregation is similar is like saying that a round rock is an early bicycle.

Learn new things.

WiFi 7 is something new. With its own set of unique features and properties.

Comparing it to cellular is showing your ignorance. Even if there are many shared technologies between them, on the surface.

What you are claiming is not possible, as I stated originally before.

 

[glens]

Kids, quit your bickering. You're BOTH right, just not arguing the exact same things.

MLO exists in Wifi 6 today with Intel's 4[01?]1 M.2 card, if I'm not mistaken.

 

[L&LD]

I'm not a kid, and I'm not bickering. I've been discussing the same thing since the start with Qbcd. Don't assume you know what I'm talking about.

Proper terminology is essential if we're to understand new tech. Learn it once, learn it right.

MLO isn't supported in the Intel 411 m.2 network card. At least, it's called "Intel® Double Connect Technology" from back then. Not the same thing, even if it superficially looks like MLO. Btw, this card was introduced in Q4 2021. A very long way off from the still uncertified WiFi 7 status of today.

Intel® Wi-Fi 6E AX411 (Gig+) - Product Specifications | Intel

Intel® Wi-Fi 6E AX411 (Gig+) quick reference with specifications, features, and technologies.

www.intel.com