Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: "Safe" cell phone WiFi capabilities?
Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 03:49:08 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <v2kija$151bh$1@dont-email.me>
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> <slrnv4mdf8.nch.dan@djph.net>
 <v2fhfu$7f5$2@dont-email.me> <slrnv4n0jc.nch.dan@djph.net>
 <v2g5cr$4fiq$2@dont-email.me> <v2hr8q$hmr3$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2htpi$ggbj$1@dont-email.me> <v2j73h$pvqr$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2kcka$13sih$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 12:49:15 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7efa2efa6d3cdf05f686d3c3ba5ffb73";
	logging-data="1213809"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+6Vrqd6mqscHhpAVo3kZig"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:aC+WK4A3qlFk9J3K1XYmsD0GDFs=
In-Reply-To: <v2kcka$13sih$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3543

On 5/22/2024 2:07 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 21/05/2024 23:26, Don Y wrote:
>> On 5/21/2024 3:43 AM, John R Walliker wrote:
>>> I can offer some real-world data that may be of use.  I manage
>>> WiFi access points in offices around the world.  In every case,
>>
>>> Setting a minimum connection speed of 12MHz at 2.4GHz and 24MHz
>>> at 5GHz is also useful and does not appear to cause any problems.
>>
>> But, how much *higher* than that might you be able to go without
>> folks complaining about "equipment incompatibilities"?
> 
> My instinct is that there are still a *lot* of phones out there (at least in 
> the UK) where wireless n is the fastest they support.
> Give it another 3 years or so and that will change. Do you care if some 

Do you expect "whatever is the current standard" to be the new "design in"?
Or, will there still be some manufacturing premium for that (even in cell
phone quantities!) so that something "a bit older" (at THAT time) ends up
being the new "commodity level"?

> Luddites can't use whatever it is you are making?

No; that was the point of my "1950's Philco" anecdote.

BUT (!), I don't want to restrict the market to only folks who like
gold-plating!

Think of the disappointment you feel when something you want isn't
compatible with "what you have".  E.g., why can't I run Windows
on my ______.  Or, why can't I keep using my 5 year old printer
(has marking technology advance to the point that 5 years makes
something obsolete??)   Or...

    "For 'nominal' cell phones (i.e., taking into consideration
     that not ever subscriber buys The Latest and Greatest), ..."

It's a balancing act; if you extend your support "backwards"
(in time/capabilities), then you potentially address more users.
But, you offer a product with diminished capabilities.

[Yes, you can try to scale capabilities to fit different users
but that comes at a cost.  It also affects your positioning.]

> The only way to know for sure would be to disable n and see how many people 
> scream at you.