Current wireless bands remain consistent due to established standards and compatibility needs.
Current wireless bands remain consistent due to established standards and compatibility needs.
This was just an unusual idea that keeps coming to mind. Why is WiFi limited to 2.4GHz and 5GHz bands, with 6GHz only appearing in WiFi6E? I’m pretty sure there’s some unlicensed space around 1.8-1.9GHz that cordless phones use, yet nobody has taken advantage of it for WiFi. In a large house with thick stone walls, coverage is weak at the edges on 2.4GHz and completely absent at 5GHz. Why isn’t there a band near 1.8GHz for better range and stability? Without the complications of legacy systems (and all those devices relying on 2.4GHz), WiFi could easily match the speeds of 2.4GHz while offering lower latency. Also, why do all peripherals stick to 2.4GHz wireless? Wouldn’t a higher frequency like 5GHz provide faster speeds and better performance for short-range gadgets? On the other hand, 60GHz WiGig could work well for nearby devices, though it’s not commonly used. I’m curious about why Bluetooth and similar short-range tech stick with 2.4GHz instead of jumping to a higher band. TL;DR: Am I being insane for thinking lower frequencies could help WiFi, and that 5GHz might suit Bluetooth better?
Lower frequencies travel farther and resist blockage better, though they usually move slower. Channel bonding tried to boost speed on the 2.4GHz band, but interference becomes an issue in crowded areas. Most devices don’t need much data, so 2.4GHz works well. Delay rarely matters for IoT devices since nearby gadgets often compensate. Higher frequencies use more power compared to lower ones when time is equal, which could affect a fast-moving mouse more than a device on 5GHz that only needs brief bursts. Hehehe! Have you ever faced strong signals from a 60GHz antenna? Some antennas still operate at that frequency only at high altitudes.
802.11AH was designed for low-bandwidth IoT applications, typically operating at 800 or 900 MHz. I'm not sure if the IEEE has finalized the details on this frequency choice. The goal is to support devices that require minimal bandwidth, usually around a few Mbps.
I favor steady, moderate speeds over erratic high-bandwidth connections that frequently disconnect. For devices like mice and controllers, bandwidth isn't essential and low latency isn't a priority. Power consumption is definitely a factor, so I'm just lucky with my mouse pad and Netgear's 802.11ad router. It wasn't something I purchased because I anticipated poor signal even with future support. Hopefully it delivers around 50-250Mb/s in real life. If 802.11AX can achieve gigabit speeds on 2.4GHz, that seems reasonable. In short, I'm not completely unrealistic—just a bit cautious due to practical constraints. Maybe the next step would be tearing down my house and starting over?
By a few Mbps they meant around 5 Mbps. When discussing this new standard they seemed focused on smart devices like thermostats and smart fridges—not high-speed needs. It won’t be suited for heavy performance tasks. You just need to lay Ethernet cables. Set up multiple access points and cover your home with Wi-Fi that way. Running cabling to things like desktops, smart TVs, or game consoles will block them from the network. This eases the strain on your router’s Wi-Fi radio and improves overall speed. I know many people roll their eyes at Americans for building out of wood. While some think it’s weak, my home was built in the 1930s and has held up well. Compared to houses built with concrete that now cost over $200K, I’m worried about what a concrete house would cost.
Consider tearing down your home and adding Ethernet instead. The 12" thick stone walls will definitely block WiFi signals and make it tough to run cables throughout the house—some spots work, others are completely impractical. I meant it literally; the walls won’t hold up well, and interior surfaces might just be gypsum board rather than solid stone. Plus, I’d rather avoid multiple access points. Instead, I’d prefer a single ASUS AX-11000 AP with a lower frequency band. That would give me enough range and ability to penetrate obstacles, especially in the remaining areas. Bandwidth won’t be a big issue—mostly streaming YouTube on my phone will be enough.
The project won't involve tearing everything down. The focus is on upgrading and getting creative. I know how tough it can be to maintain a stable WiFi signal in buildings made entirely of concrete. If you're up for a hands-on approach, it requires some effort. I experienced this with my in-laws' two-story concrete home; the result was significantly improved compared to the original setup. Now I prefer using an enterprise-style setup for home networking. Relying solely on a single wireless router isn't sufficient for today's homes. You'd also need devices that can work with antennas and specific frequency signals. An IoT solution could connect to a unified hub, though these hubs often use low-frequency or limited bandwidth standards. Your devices would then need to be compatible with them.
Ensure your rotary hammer drill and long masonry bit fit the space well—thick or dense walls won’t affect strength. Drilling holes only needs to match the Ethernet cable width, which won’t compromise stability. Wall chasing can be demanding, particularly after applying plaster and paint... if that sounds overwhelming, consider using self-adhesive wall mount cable channels (also known as cable concealer).
yeah, it's not only too much work, but too messy, but even with the cable concealers I have to get the cable to the room in the first place, and it's 2 story, so it's not as simple as going into the ceiling. Trust me we've looked at every angle already, even the kludgey way would be difficult and expensive. The thing is I'm already pretty close to making a single unit work, the ASUS AX-11000 is one BEEFY high powered unit. At this point if I could just convince all my neighbors to not use channel 1 that would probably be a low enough frequency to sort it with 2.4Ghz, but I like considering these things as a hypothetical, I find it interesting. Yeah not even worrying about much in the way of IoT devices here, Linus' recent video about his new house and Zwave using ~900Mhz already sold me on going that route if I ever dive into that, but it is also kind of what had me thinking about this again. Obviously anything at 900Mhz is too slow for non-IoT devices, but I'd thought 1.8Ghz might just cut it, I mean how many people have cordless phones anymore? I'm about ready to kill off mine and I'm pretty sure that's ~1.8Ghz