Wi-Fi Gigabit Speeds Just One to Two Years Away

[exfileme]

Qualcomm Atheros president Craig Barratt said that it will be one or two years before consumers see routers supporting 802.11ac.

Wi-Fi Gigabit Speeds Just One to Two Years Away : Read more

 

[hoof_hearted]

Hell yeah! XBMCs streaming ISOs from my NAS all over the house and no messy wires to run. Powerline networking does the trick for now though.

 

[stan_fr]

Wi-Fi connection is not always used as a gateway to the Internet ...

 

[stan_fr]

Wi-Fi connection is not always used as a gateway to the Internet ...

 

[nordlead]

Even if it comes out in a few years I see little reason to upgrade. My File Server and main PC are on gigabit eithernet, and my Wii, PS3, HTPC, and laptop are on wireless n (if applicable) which is more than fast enough for gaming and streaming HD movies. Even 3D movies can be transmitted over wireless n.

Now, if someone could deliver interference/dropout free wireless I'd be interested in that.

 

[RazberyBandit]

I wonder if this will run into the same product cost issues 802.11a couldn't overcome due to its use of the 5GHz band. The 2.4GHz band is essentially free and uncontrolled, but 5GHz is not.

 

[thrasher32]

KICKASS!!

 

[salgado18]

[citation][nom]nordlead[/nom]Even if it comes out in a few years I see little reason to upgrade. My File Server and main PC are on gigabit eithernet, and my Wii, PS3, HTPC, and laptop are on wireless n (if applicable) which is more than fast enough for gaming and streaming HD movies. Even 3D movies can be transmitted over wireless n.Now, if someone could deliver interference/dropout free wireless I'd be interested in that.[/citation]
Remember that 10 Mbps once was more than enough for the data and hardware of the time.

 

[CaedenV]

This is exciting! I have been running cable through the air ducts in the house as a temp solution until wireless finally was fast enough to be useful. Sounds to me like it is only 5 more years until it is affordable and devices really support it! cant wait!

 

[pcwlai]

This is needed if you are having lots of bandwidth hog devices and having optical fiber connecting your home and the ISP exchange with Gbps speed. Hope the price will be reasonable.

 

[dark_lord69]

Neat, but I just pay for a basic internet connection.
For me, that means it's 12Mbps.
Wireless G is 54Mbps.
I can't even max out wireless G. Infact the only service my ISP provides that is capable of speeds above 54Mbps is thier "ULTRA 60" service.
But I'm not willing to shell out the $100 a month for that service. So I think I'll be sticking with Wireless G for quite some time even when this ac service is released.

 

[burnley14]

[citation][nom]dark_lord69[/nom]Neat, but I just pay for a basic internet connection. For me, that means it's 12Mbps.Wireless G is 54Mbps.I can't even max out wireless G. Infact the only service my ISP provides that is capable of speeds above 54Mbps is thier "ULTRA 60" service.But I'm not willing to shell out the $100 a month for that service. So I think I'll be sticking with Wireless G for quite some time even when this ac service is released.[/citation]
Same here. Internet bandwidth needs to increase dramatically before this even makes a difference for the majority of people.

 

[Ethereal_Dragon]

[citation][nom]stan_fr[/nom]Wi-Fi connection is not always used as a gateway to the Internet ...[/citation]

Well said Stan. I could care less about the fact that this would be far less than needed for connection to my ISP, I have a home network I use in which traffic doesn't hit the internet. I wired my whole house, and tested all the links at 1 Gig speeds. My laptop's 802.11g is fine for internet useage, but it sucks when it comes to file transfers to my 4 TB NAS that is wired for gig speeds. Most of the average Joe's out there just connect to the internet.

 

[Guest]

Are you kidding me? 802.11g is still faster than 95% of the populations internet speed.

 

[nordlead]

[citation][nom]salgado18[/nom]Remember that 10 Mbps once was more than enough for the data and hardware of the time.[/citation]

I know that more speed is better, but more speed on wireless is currently useless for all foreseeable HTPC and gaming purposes. I also know I'm not going to upgrade my 55" TV until it breaks (hopefully over 8 years from now), so even if technology goes to 2160p (4x the pixels of 1080p) I won't be using it. Like I said, reliability is more important than speed at this point. More speed only benefits those who don't want to run wires at increased cost and decreased reliability. When wireless hits 1Gbps wired will be hitting 10Gbps at affordable prices.

The other issue is that the 5GHz band doesn't travel as far or penetrate walls nearly as well as the 2.4GHz band. So instead of placing a single wireless router you'll need multiple to get good coverage or you'll have worse dropout.

 

[tanjo]

If this rolls out, it'll be the start of the end of LAN cables.

 

[back_by_demand]

I already have CAT6 piped into every room in the house, will do me for a while.

 

[michaelahess]

54Mbps isn't, it's more like 20-22 at best. N is the same way, half or less than the advertised throughput. ac will be the same I'm sure.

I have a 1Gb cat6e network through my house. Run multiple PS3's and many many other devices, mostly cabled. Got three tablets and two sony dash's that stream netflix via the wireless. I can stream uncompressed bluray rips to multiple outputs at the same time via the cabled network. I would never try this with wireless. 5Ghz makes it slightly more stable I'm sure, but a single dropout would be enough to drive me insane.

Wireless is fine for web browsing, low res streaming, and small file transfers, that's about it. Unless you have a lot of free time on your hands.....

 

[reggieray]

LAN party without wires

 

[nebun]

what is this good for if you are throttled back because of the network usage