And even weak 6ghz is better that 5ghz until the very outer reaches of signal.
I’m not doubting you, but I’m confused how this can be. My understanding is generally ss the wavelength of the radio wave shrinks, signal through medium attenuation increases. What is it about 6GHz over 5GHz that provides that island of stability you’re describing?
The increase in frequency reduces signal penetration. Things like walls become major sources of signal attenuation. In open office plans, with no obstructive walls, no problem. In a house or apartment where you’re separated by multiple walls (and the materials/thickness those walls are made of) that can add up to significant signal loss.
I haven’t personally tried any 6GHz wifi technologies. Have you used it in any places where you’re separated by obstructions from the access point?
WiFi 6e and 7 are legitimate competitors to standard 1gig Ethernet.
In isolation, perhaps. Now cram 25 neighbors in high density housing in range with one another all using the same spectrum and see if that performance still is sustainable.
so we can actually see what our friends do all day
Friend: “So you get paid to spend the day periodically typing on your computers, surrounded by lots of large monitors, and several times a day you have video calls with people where you use so much jargon that the conversation is almost entirely divorced from the English language? You just finished an hour long meeting where I overheard every word from both sides of the conversation, and I have no idea what the hell either of you were talking about.”
Me: “yes, that about sums it up”
Ah gotcha, so you’re saying 6GHz is better than 5GHz because of higher information density irrespective of lower signal penetration. That makes sense. Thanks for taking the time to explain that point. I appreciate it.