Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Dan Purgert Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design Subject: Re: "Safe" cell phone WiFi capabilities? Date: Mon, 20 May 2024 11:37:12 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 63 Message-ID: References: Injection-Date: Mon, 20 May 2024 13:37:12 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b004ff933cbbe5d37a325e03bf5d1512"; logging-data="4171720"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX185YileR0TZOoKCxsntH8V0dLceBoaZr8s=" User-Agent: slrn/1.0.3 (Linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:QYsSAe4A7vQnIoxScHZZvIPec2o= Bytes: 3565 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