Europe to decide if 6 GHz is shared between Wi-Fi and cellular networks

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Scope and terminology (EU vs “Europe” / “America”)

  • Long subthread on journalists using “Europe” when they mean “EU.”
  • Some see this as harmless metonymy, similar to calling the US “America”; others argue it obscures real political/legal differences (EU vs EEA, Schengen, EFTA, UK, Switzerland, Norway).
  • A few note that in radio matters ITU and other non‑EU frameworks also matter, adding another layer of complexity.

Telecom security and legacy networks (SS7, 2G/3G)

  • Separate thread complains regulators should condition spectrum decisions on fixing SS7 vulnerabilities.
  • Participants explain SS7 predates mobile, was never designed for security, and still underpins much inter‑carrier signaling, even for IP‑based services.
  • Debate over whether shutting down 2G/3G would help: some countries already did, others keep them for legacy embedded devices and rural coverage; some argue these networks are being killed off anyway.

Global 6 GHz policy directions

  • US: currently opened the whole 6 GHz band for unlicensed very‑low‑power devices (Wi‑Fi 6E/7/8), but some fear political efforts to claw this back in favor of licensed cellular.
  • UK: regulator exploring hybrid/shared use of upper 6 GHz.
  • China: reportedly reserved all 6 GHz for cellular/vehicular use.
  • India: major telcos lobbying to reserve all 6 GHz for mobile; critics say this would hurt unlicensed innovation in a country where wired broadband is still limited.

6 GHz: Wi‑Fi vs cellular – technical arguments

  • One camp: 6 GHz is ideal for indoor Wi‑Fi because poor wall penetration localizes interference; 5 GHz is congested and heavily constrained by DFS; 2.4 GHz often unusable in cities. 6 GHz offers far more contiguous spectrum and more wide channels.
  • Others: 6 GHz may be more valuable for dense urban cellular (stadiums, airports, high‑density cities) where additional mid‑band capacity is critical, especially in countries with low fixed‑line penetration.
  • Some propose a split: lower 6 GHz for Wi‑Fi, upper 6 GHz for cellular; others insist retroactively taking Wi‑Fi spectrum for telcos would just reward rent‑seeking.

Congestion, housing density, and wiring

  • Many anecdotes of unusable 2.4/5 GHz in apartments vs. “game‑changing” 6E where it’s available; others report the opposite (fine Wi‑Fi, poor 4G/5G).
  • Technical discussion that congestion is driven by device density, bad AP defaults (over‑wide channels, too much power), and legacy devices blasting at max power.
  • Some argue that the deeper solution is more Ethernet in buildings and wiring fixed devices, leaving Wi‑Fi for truly mobile clients. Others push back that mandatory wiring raises housing costs, though supporters say the incremental cost is small relative to a new build.

Economics, incentives, and “greed”

  • Strong suspicion that mobile operators want 6 GHz mainly to monetize a public resource that already underpins cheap Wi‑Fi.
  • Counter‑argument: in poorer countries, licensed cellular might deliver capacity to many more people than home Wi‑Fi tied to rare fixed lines.
  • Broader concern that both mobile carriers and ISPs have incentives to favor proprietary, metered access over unlicensed, shared spectrum.