Enterprise and education wouldn't have a great time running 80MHz let alone 160MHz channels unless and until Wi-Fi spectrum is expanded enough to support minimum 7 non-overlapping channels for buildings with 3 or more floors.
Receive sensitivity and noise is also worse the wider the channel used if you want to consistently achieve the denser 1024QAM and 256QAM constellations.
It's one thing if you try it in an isolated classroom say in a portacabin versus large buildings to support.
Consumer routers defaulting to stupidly wide channels so they can put ACxxxx on the box already harm the experience in residential settings, as they seem to lack the basic intelligence for considerate use of the shared spectrum e.g.
"I have detected x unique neighbouring APs of y signal range so the default setup will be z. You can still change this if you know what you are doing!".
Even if the UK proposals such as this Ofcom consulation
for equipment operating on the original channels 36-64 I would probably stick with 40MHz, then utilise the wider channels on the newly available frequency ranges, as that would tend to self-select modern or high-end client devices that were most able to take advantage.
However with the trend towards portable devices I really want to see less single antenna/spatial-stream designs or that theoretical capacity will rapidly evaporate once you have more than one client connected, or indeed any appreciable multicast traffic.
This is why I disregard idealised single-simultaneous-client throughput in the same way as marketing puffery.
prlzx on Zen: FTTC (VDSL) at ~40Mbps / 10Mbps
with IP4/6 (no v6? - not true Internet)
Edited by prlzx (Fri 23-Apr-21 13:25:51)