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 <dan@djph.net>
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: <slrnv4mdf8.nch.dan@djph.net>
References: <v26sfc$222ek$1@dont-email.me> <slrnv4ekt6.nch.dan@djph.net>
 <v280o0$2994u$2@dont-email.me> <slrnv4mbdg.nch.dan@djph.net>
 <v2fbr4$3usaf$2@dont-email.me>
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