On 2018-07-28 12:57, James Knott wrote:

On 07/28/2018 06:49 AM, James Knott wrote:

...

...

Normally on radio higher frequency uses less energy (and reach less distance and is more directive) Actually, higher frequencies get you less distance for the same power and whether it's more directional depends entirely on the antenna.  At higher frequencies, it's easier to make directional antennas, because

On 07/27/2018 11:49 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote: they're smaller than at lower frequencies.  However, WiFi antennas are generally designed to be omni-directional, or something approaching it.

Forgot to mention, there may be less interference at 5 GHz, permitting greater range.

Well, I only need a metre or so :-) In fact, I tried to setup a bluetooth connection, but failed. I don't know how it is supposed to go, so I don't know exactly what step went wrong. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 42.3 x86_64 "Malachite" at Telcontar)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 El 2018-07-28 a las 15:02 -0400, James Knott escribió:

On 07/28/2018 07:16 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

...

Forgot to mention, there may be less interference at 5 GHz, permitting greater range. Well, I only need a metre or so :-)

In fact, I tried to setup a bluetooth connection, but failed. I don't know how it is supposed to go, so I don't know exactly what step went wrong.

For such a short distance, 5 GHz is more than good enough.  No idea about your bluetooth issues though, unless it's one of those Spain things.  ;-)

Not this time :-) I simply noticed that my new phone says that it can share internet using bluetooth about the same time that I also noticed that network manager in 15.0 says it can connect to internet using bluetooth. So I tried, and failed. I don't know what would be the normal procedure. - -- Cheers Carlos E. R. (from openSUSE 42.3 x86_64 "Malachite" (Minas Tirith)) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iF4EAREIAAYFAltdDjsACgkQja8UbcUWM1yHMAD/aSUR13ysZ7E58ygxwuda/OeH yYvrhSWK2PUxP6+WbkcA/1jmVlaSvZmAKgivqanYjkblJhG+T8U7l76/UWLf2BIo =9xLZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On 2018-07-30 14:07, Carlos E. R. wrote:

On 2018-07-28 21:02, James Knott wrote:

...

On 07/28/2018 07:16 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

...

Forgot to mention, there may be less interference at 5 GHz, permitting greater range. Well, I only need a metre or so :-)

In fact, I tried to setup a bluetooth connection, but failed. I don't know how it is supposed to go, so I don't know exactly what step went wrong.

For such a short distance, 5 GHz is more than good enough.  No idea about your bluetooth issues though, unless it's one of those Spain things.  ;-)

I just tested tethering to my phone on 5 GH, and it worked. In fact, in 15.0 the network manager thing detects automatically the band, so I do not need to change the config. :-)

It reported the bandwidth as 79 MB. Not bad if true. I did not try a download for speed.

(it reports the house connection as 150 MB, at a metre from the AP)

However, I have to find out if my tablet can connect at 5 GHz.

Well, my tablet connects, but it reports it is using the 2.4 Ghz. WiFi analyzer confirms, channel 11. The phone confirms it is serving 5 GHz. What? Linux NM doesn't report what it is using. Ah, IW config says it is using 2.4 GHz. Well, my phone lies. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 42.3 x86_64 "Malachite" at Telcontar)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 El 2018-07-30 a las 15:34 +0200, jdd@dodin.org escribió:

Le 30/07/2018 à 14:34, Carlos E. R. a écrit :

...

Well, my phone lies.

why?

It says it provides a 5 GHz AP, and it is not true, it is 2.4 GHz. - -- Cheers Carlos E. R. (from openSUSE 42.3 x86_64 "Malachite" (Minas Tirith)) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iF4EAREIAAYFAltfTzkACgkQja8UbcUWM1y8SQD/fFSph6JAi80BEWcpLTr9hsGV iXqTiu5qY4mLygcF9V8A/1LJnZM1x+6gdIOuo6N6YwN4z/abiWWLQrGShhq7LZxx =j25o -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On 07/30/2018 03:00 PM, jdd@dodin.org wrote:

...

It says it provides a 5 GHz AP, and it is not true, it is 2.4 GHz.

5Gh *AP* as server or client?

I don't see how you know this?

On my phone, I can configure the hot spot to use either 2.4 or 5 GHz.  On just connecting, you don't know, if both bands use the same SSID. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 07/31/2018 01:19 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

El 2018-07-30 a las 17:08 -0400, James Knott escribió:

...

On 07/30/2018 03:00 PM, jdd@dodin.org wrote:

...

...

It says it provides a 5 GHz AP, and it is not true, it is 2.4 GHz.

5Gh *AP* as server or client?

Server

Android phone serving as AP for other machines as clients when not at home.

...

...

I don't see how you know this?

Because it says so. Do you want a photo? See attached.

...

On my phone, I can configure the hot spot to use either 2.4 or 5 GHz. On just connecting, you don't know, if both bands use the same SSID.

On my phone I choose the hot spot to use (serve) 5 Ghz. It is either one or the other, not both bands. See photo attached.

But all the clients I tried say they see 2.4 Ghz. Thus, the Android phone serving the hot spot lies.

iwconfig on laptop when connected to the phone AP says it is using 2.4 channel 11.

Shall I attach another photo to prove it?

Legolas:~ # iwconfig wlan1 IEEE 802.11 ESSID:"Mobilis in mobile" Mode:Managed Frequency:2.422 GHz Access Point: 38:80:DF:5C:75:B5 Bit Rate=72.2 Mb/s Tx-Power=20 dBm Retry short limit:7 RTS thr:off Fragment thr:off Encryption key:off Power Management:on Link Quality=70/70 Signal level=-21 dBm Rx invalid nwid:0 Rx invalid crypt:0 Rx invalid frag:0 Tx excessive retries:0 Invalid misc:30 Missed beacon:0 eth0 no wireless extensions. lo no wireless extensions. Legolas:~ # Do you believe me now? Photo of AP point (Android, server AP) says 5 GHz. Linux laptop (client) says 2.4 Ghz. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from openSUSE 15.0 (Legolas)) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 07/30/2018 07:41 PM, David C. Rankin wrote:

I'm guessing here, but both can be true. Your phone can be offering 5GHz as a hotspot. Your laptop connects but can only negotiate a connection on the fallback 2.4GHz band. You phone isn't going to reflect the fallback speed your laptop actually connected with -- it's just going to reflect what it is offering.

With my phone, I can specify which band is used for the hot spot and a WiFi utility verifies the band selected is the one used. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 07/31/2018 05:59 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

With my phone, I can specify which band is used for the hot spot and a WiFi utility verifies the band selected is the one used. As you saw in my photo, I can also specify the band, then ignores it.

IT must really be screwed up in Spain.  ;-) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 2018-07-31 01:41, David C. Rankin wrote:

On 07/30/2018 06:29 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

Do you believe me now? Photo of AP point (Android, server AP) says 5 GHz. Linux laptop (client) says 2.4 Ghz.

I'm guessing here, but both can be true. Your phone can be offering 5GHz as a hotspot. Your laptop connects but can only negotiate a connection on the fallback 2.4GHz band. You phone isn't going to reflect the fallback speed your laptop actually connected with -- it's just going to reflect what it is offering.

The question I see is does you laptop attempt to negotiate a 5GHz connection and then fallback to 2.4 -- or does it never try in the first place?

I doubt this is logged by default, but with iwconfig, you can use the --freq option to attempt a manual connection a 5GHz and see what happens?

I just configured Network Manager on the laptop to use only 5 GHz, not automatic. It took a while, asked for the wifi password... and connected on 2.4 GHz, channel untold. 2.462 Ghz. In fact, Network Manager creates a secondary profile where the band is automatic, not 5 GHz, and connect using that profile. I edit the secondary profile to say 5 Ghz. I disconnect, connect to it again, and creates a third profile at "automatic". And always connects at 2.4 Ghz. The phone lies. It does not provide a 5 GHz connection. The software has it, but probably the hardware is not capable and uses 2.4 always. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 42.3 x86_64 "Malachite" at Telcontar)

On 2018-07-31 09:33, jdd@dodin.org wrote:

Le 31/07/2018 à 01:29, Carlos E. R. a écrit :

...

...

iwconfig on laptop when connected to the phone AP says it is using 2.4 channel 11.

just tested with my moto g5+, I could build a 5Gh AP and an other phone see it as 5Gh

I didn't notice you phone brand?

Motorola G6+ -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 42.3 x86_64 "Malachite" at Telcontar)

On 2018-08-04 19:58, jdd@dodin.org wrote:

Le 31/07/2018 à 11:47, Carlos E. R. a écrit :

...

On 2018-07-31 09:33, jdd@dodin.org wrote:

...

Le 31/07/2018 à 01:29, Carlos E. R. a écrit :

...

...

iwconfig on laptop when connected to the phone AP says it is using 2.4 channel 11.

just tested with my moto g5+, I could build a 5Gh AP and an other phone see it as 5Gh

I didn't notice you phone brand?

Motorola G6+

nice terminal.

Yep. 64 GB of internal memory, and I need that. On my previous phone, at some point it decided to ignore the memory card. Then I get an awful amount of photos and videos via whatsapp, filling up the internal memory with crap (which I eventually delete, but now it doesn't have to be every week). And now I can also have big maps offline with OsmAnd+: about 6 gigs now. I was looking for a Samsung, but could not find any at an acceptable price with that big memory. Plus, the G6 comes with Android 8, which will give me more years till Android 12 making mine too obsolete for updates. Buying now an Android 7 pulls one year out.

I find this mail some days late, sorry :-(. Did you solve your problem?

Oh, I left it stay as is. Nothing I can do about it, I suppose. I have to find out if any of my two AP can deliver 5 GHz, and try that. IF the phone doesn't connect, then it doesn't have a 5GHz chip or is broken and the system doesn't know about it.

curious I could make the 5Gh works with g4+ and g5+ and you don't with a g6+ :-(

Indeed. Must be a bug which could be reported to Motorola. But I feel lazy about it. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 42.3 x86_64 "Malachite" at Telcontar)

Le 31/07/2018 à 01:19, Carlos E. R. a écrit :

Shall I attach another photo to prove it?

not for me. Notice that I didn't challenge your words, I simply wonder how to test it myself :-( thanks, it's clear, now jdd -- http://dodin.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

* Carlos E. R. [07-30-18 08:35]:

On 2018-07-30 14:07, Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

On 2018-07-28 21:02, James Knott wrote:

...

On 07/28/2018 07:16 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

...

Forgot to mention, there may be less interference at 5 GHz, permitting greater range. Well, I only need a metre or so :-)

In fact, I tried to setup a bluetooth connection, but failed. I don't know how it is supposed to go, so I don't know exactly what step went wrong.

For such a short distance, 5 GHz is more than good enough.  No idea about your bluetooth issues though, unless it's one of those Spain things.  ;-)

I just tested tethering to my phone on 5 GH, and it worked. In fact, in 15.0 the network manager thing detects automatically the band, so I do not need to change the config. :-)

It reported the bandwidth as 79 MB. Not bad if true. I did not try a download for speed.

(it reports the house connection as 150 MB, at a metre from the AP)

However, I have to find out if my tablet can connect at 5 GHz.

Well, my tablet connects, but it reports it is using the 2.4 Ghz. WiFi analyzer confirms, channel 11.

The phone confirms it is serving 5 GHz.

What?

Linux NM doesn't report what it is using. Ah, IW config says it is using 2.4 GHz.

nmcli device wifi list nmcli device show [<ifname>] nmcli device status [<ifname>} there is also nmtui -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member facebook/ptilopteri Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://linuxcounter.net Photos: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/piwigo paka @ IRCnet freenode -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 07/28/2018 07:47 AM, jdd@dodin.org wrote:

Le 28/07/2018 à 12:49, James Knott a écrit :

...

Actually, higher frequencies get you less distance for the same power

(...)

having a second frequency gives an other set of channels, important if the place is filled with wifi networks

Quite so, there are only 3 "clear" channels on 2.4 GHz, but many on 5.  Also, with 802.11n on 2.4 GHz, using the double width channel is discouraged, if there are other users nearby, as it occupies 2 of those 3 clear channels. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 07/28/2018 10:58 PM, David C. Rankin wrote:

I don't know if there is more than a 'general' answer to the question.

The general answer is higher frequencies have less range for the same power, all else being equal.  However, there are other considerations, such as the antenna configuration on the different bands, interference, which is usually lower at 5 GHz and more.  Bottom line, there is no absolute answer, but given he was looking at a 5 M distance, either band should work fine.  It's also difficult for a user to tell how much power is used, as WiFi uses only a tiny fraction of what the computer would.  Cell phones, with a hot spot, would also use more power for the cell network than WiFi.  On cell networks, there is a mechanism where transmit power level is adjusted to optimize reception, but there isn't a similar mechanism for WiFi. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 07/29/2018 08:24 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

On my cell phone the manufacturer said that wifi used more power than cell. In fact, there is a setting to conserve power by switching from wifi to cell in standby.

I'm not certain I understand that.  While shutting off WiFi would certainly save power, phones need more power available, as they may need to connect over far greater distances.  While WiFi is expected to be used over dozens of metres, cell network may have to operate over several kilometres.  For example, while the original GSM spec said 35 Km, it was later possible to extend that to 120 Km, though that may require more power than most phones are capable of.  As I mentioned, cell phone power is controlled to obtain optimum signal, while reducing interference, but that's not possible with WiFi.  So there could perhaps be some circumstances where the cell phone transmitter could be throttled back to be using less power than WiFi. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timing_advance As for my phone, I leave WiFi on all the time, as I rely on WiFi calling to get a usable cell phone at home.  My condo seems to be in a poor signal area, with a cell phone usable at one end and often not usable at the other. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

* Carlos E. R. [07-29-18 10:25]: [...]

No WiFI calling here... I mean, I have not even heard of that capability.

Although I heard of people doing VoIp with the WiFi, of course. I could do it, but my provider keeps secret the configuration of the fibre phone, which is of course using VoIp, with a conversion to POTS on the customer premises.

Not only they keep secret the configuration, but they change it when hackers discover and publish it.

we have wifi calling as it is more reliable where the cell signal is weak. it also saves us on traffic as cell traffic is measured and charged based on the about of traffic, and wifi trafic is not or is a considerably larger allotment. -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member facebook/ptilopteri Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://linuxcounter.net Photos: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/piwigo paka @ IRCnet freenode -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

Отправлено с iPhone

29 июля 2018 г., в 17:34, James Knott написал(а):

WiFi is available on many phones here. It uses the same protocol as VoLTE (Voice over LTE), but connects via WiFi. If the phone also has VoLTE enabled, it can transition seamlessly between WiFi and the cell network.

WiFi calling has absolutely nothing to do with VoLTE. The whole point of WiFi calling is to allow connection to *any phone* without any need to have data services on other end. It connects to your mobile operator over internet which then forwards call over voice network. Actually WiFi calling is the most interesting exactly when you want to reach someone on normal (e.g. PSTN) phone, as otherwise there are enough applications you can use to communicate over internet directly. WiFi calling is charged here according to home rate, making it attractive in roaming. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

Отправлено с iPhone

29 июля 2018 г., в 19:41, James Knott написал(а):

Of course it can reach any phone, just like cell phones. While VoLTE doesn't necessarily rely on a data plan, as calls are billed differently, it's still uses "data".

Sigh. The whole point of WiFi calling is that it does not use any mobile data at all. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 2018-07-29 20:10, James Knott wrote:

On 07/29/2018 01:18 PM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:

...

Sigh. The whole point of WiFi calling is that it does not use any mobile data at all.

The whole point of WiFi calling is to be able to use WiFi/Internet to connect to the cell network.  Some carriers use this to provide public service beyond their cell networks.  Others, to provide a better local connection for those in a poor signal area, such as mine.  Either way, calls travel over the VoLTE network, other than that short WiFi hop.  As I said, I can start a call on one network and seamlessly transition to the other.  That is possible because VoLTE and WiFi calling use exactly the same protocol.  Both travel over IP and it does not matter at all which network is used.  You could not tell, during a call, without looking at the phone, whether or not WiFi calling is used.

Please bear in mind, I *USE* WiFi calling in the manner I described.  I have the same phone number either way.  I have verified WiFi calling is encrypted in IPSec, just like VoLTE.  I have also done work for 2 Canadian cell carriers at the network level.  One thing I can say, with absolute certainty, based on that work experience, is when you're on a cell call, that call is travelling over Ethernet to the carrier, unless you're on one of the older sections of the network that only support 2G calls.  Data and VoLTE use IP over that Ethernet.  With cell sites, that Ethernet would be over fibre or short haul microwave and not copper cables.

Also I have never said it uses "mobile data" in the context of data plans where you pay for so much data.  If you were using a separate VoIP app, that data would be used.  It is not with VoLTE, as that is considered part of your voice, not data, package.  In the past, with the first digital cell phones, such as GSM, voice was converted to digital and carried in TDM time slots and FDM channels.  With UMTS, the exact same digital representation of the voice call was placed in packets and carried that way.  We then advanced through 4G etc., with everything, voice, data, video, whatever, carried in IP packets.  VoLTE calls, while IP, are billed according to your voice package and and other VoIP apps, such as Skype, Hangouts, etc., are billed under your data package.  Those other packages may use standard SIP/RTP or proprietary methods, but they're still considered data.  They also have their own phone numbers, independent of your actual cell phone number.  Again, VoLTE uses the same phone number, regardless of whether cell or WiFi connection is used.  VoLTE uses an industry standard method of VoIP/IPSec/UDP/IP which means it is able to transparently use either the cell network or WiFi for the last hop to the phone. VoLTE is simply a progression in the way cell phone calls have been handled since GSM etc. was introduced.

If you were to call my cell number, your call would travel over the cell network all the way or possibly WiFi for the last hop and you couldn't tell the difference.  I could wander back and forth between the two networks and again you couldn't tell, thanks to the seamless transition.  The same can't be said for those other VoIP apps. Crossing between networks would likely result in a dropped call.

BTW, because it is VoIP, VoLTE supports other CODECs, including a higher bandwidth one called HD Voice or similar. The basic phone UMTS uses the standard GSM CODEC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wideband_audio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-division_multiplexing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency-division_multiplexing

There is also CDMA, which uses code division multiplexing, but it's fading fast. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CdmaOne

Interesting. No such thing here though, AFAIK. Confirmed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_over_LTE#Deployment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LTE_networks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LTE_networks#Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LTE_networks_in_Europe Only one minor provider uses it. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 42.3 x86_64 "Malachite" at Telcontar)

On 2018-07-29 20:42, James Knott wrote:

Must be one of those Spanish things.  ;-)

I knew! I knew you were going to say it! :-))))

On 07/29/2018 02:28 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

Interesting.

No such thing here though, AFAIK.

Confirmed here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_over_LTE#Deployment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LTE_networks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LTE_networks#Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LTE_networks_in_Europe

Only one minor provider uses it.

-- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 42.3 x86_64 "Malachite" at Telcontar)

On 07/29/2018 12:14 PM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:

WiFi calling has absolutely nothing to do with VoLTE. The whole point of WiFi calling is to allow connection to *any phone* without any need to have data services on other end.

Here's what my cell carrier says about WiFi calling: https://www.rogers.com/customer/support/article/wi-fi-calling-everything-you... And VoLTE: https://www.rogers.com/customer/support/article/volte While this article says: "Make and receive voice and video calls to and from other Rogers customers with VoLTE — in clear, natural-sounding audio", Canadian cell companies have worked to ensure VoLTE is compatible between networks. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org