Wi-Fi Gigabit Speeds Just One to Two Years Away

[jprahman]

I can't imagine seeing this in widespread use for quite some time. I mean 802.11n has already been out for a while and yet it few people have adopted it. Even if you do have an 802.11n router the vast majority of client devices only support 802.11g or earlier. You usually have a buy an additional adapter just to use 802.11n, so most people just opt for the cheaper 802.11g routers instead.

So given the large install base of 802.11g I really can't imaging seeing 802.11ac becoming widespread for 3-4 years.

 

[khaydin]

A lot of people seem to be missing the point of gigabit wifi speeds. Its not gonna make your current internet connection faster. If all you do is play videogames, browse the internet, download music, or stream netflix then there's no point for you to upgrade. Stick with current 802.11a/b/g/n - you'll just be wasting your money to upgrade your router/wifi adapters.

If you copy large files between computers in your home or stream hd movies (bluray source) regularly then this is for you as it will cut down on the file copy time and hopefully make streamed hd content less choppy.

 

[mcvf]

This is interesting and everything, but I always thought it will be cool if they make devices using new approach (longer wavelengths) where the distance between spots could be in kilometers. That would be a real breakthrough and really useful technology.

 

[warmon6]

As a data hog on my home network, (playing games from a central drive, Very large file transfers between computers, ect) I'll welcome wireless ac. It would beat having to transfer files from computer to computer via usb 2.0. (heck in theory, wireless ac is faster than usb 2.0.)

 

[warmon6]

[citation][nom]mcvf[/nom]This is interesting and everything, but I always thought it will be cool if they make devices using new approach (longer wavelengths) where the distance between spots could be in kilometers. That would be a real breakthrough and really useful technology.[/citation]

There already is such stuff, although it's main purpose is meant for government, very large businesses, and other groups as such.

http/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Wi-Fi

 

[wiyosaya]

I have gigabit wired ethernet in my home, and the wired network extends to my home theater. I have been thinking about putting in 450n or 600n wireless, however, so far, I am only considering that for low-volume data. I'm considering n mainly because that is current technology. I'm not sure that I will wait for this "ac" revision simply because I already have a wired network that is at this speed.

I would much rather see 100 Mbps internet come to my home at a price that is the same as what I am paying for 10 Mbps internet, but with the greedy ISPs in the US, I doubt that will happen anytime soon. High-speed internet in my area is a monopoly of Time Warner.

 

[johnsmithhatesVLC]

My laptop I bought this year doesn't even support 802.11n let alone this new standard.

 

[soccerdocks]

One thing that is also important to note is that it often doesn't matter if you have a 100 mb internet connection. On campus I usually have a connection speed of 80-110 megabits wired. However, most websites that I access don't let me run at that speed.

Even steam never lets me download games above a 30-40 mb rate. The only times when I have been able to fully saturate the connection are: Downloading patches for WoW, and streaming HD Youtube videos. The servers that are hosting the internet sites also need to greatly increase their bandwidth available before these upgrades in WiFi make an appreciable difference for anything other than LAN uses.

 

[livebriand]

What can I realistically expect? With most wireless connections, you get less than half the theoretical maximum bandwidth.

 

[beayn]

Can't stand wireless myself. Too prone to interference and disconnects. Speeds are far too slow as well. Advertising 54mbit and only getting about 10mbit on a good day is the norm for wireless.

 

[dizzy_davidh]

[citation][nom]beayn[/nom]Can't stand wireless myself. Too prone to interference and disconnects. Speeds are far too slow as well. Advertising 54mbit and only getting about 10mbit on a good day is the norm for wireless.[/citation]

What you are saying is correct on the most part but it is also true that most people don't survey for the best channel to use, position their wireless kit for optimal coverage or have realistic expectations of what to expect from their wireless setup.

All too often people put their router in a location that physically can't transmit to where their client devices (on\at an external wall as that is where the cable enters the house for example)are due to exceeding the optimal signal range or due to impedance caused by having to travel through walls, floors, ceilings etc. and often when they do get a wireless client to connect they are connected to kit that suffers from signal clashes with because of other competing wireless devices nearly or just simply general electrical devices that all interfere with the signal and lower the resulting connection speed.

I personally suffered from this quite badly (concrete walls\floors, badly positioned 'crappy' ISP provided router and default wireless channel selection) but I managed to fix it all by replacing the router with decent Draytek model, using it's inbuilt survey system to find an uncontested channel and neatly position it in the middle of my house (horizontally and vertically) with a decent set of high gain antenna and now top-end wireless speeds are easily achievable.

One other thing worth mentioning is that device compatibility is still a big issue regardless of the 802.x standards having been adopted or not as I found that certain makes and manufacturers of kit don't play well together (Cisco client devices used to kill Netgear Router's connection speeds for example).

 

[dizzy_davidh]

[citation][nom]tanjo[/nom]If this rolls out, it'll be the start of the end of LAN cables.[/citation]
It' simple really in that the faster the frequency the shorter the wavelength is which allow more data to be transmitted in a given period of time. The consequence is then though that with a shorter wavelength the signal is less penetrative through physical matter, has a much higher chance of being corrupted by interference and subsequently provides a less stable connection often resulting in data re-transmission.

Some people don't realise that even though they are connected at a high-speed their actual data throughput isn't very good due to the amount of dropped\bad packets. To know for sure you are getting a good connection you have to do some real-world transfer tests and not just assume that for example because you are connected at 54mbps with 802.11n certified devices that you are actually transmitting 54mbits of usable data per second and not 45mbits of good data accompanied by a whole lot of re-transmissions due to bad data being sent\received.

 

[eddieroolz]

Gigabit WiFi is great to have, if not very useful for many people still. Eventually, I hope internet speeds will rise to challenge the ability of Gigabits.

 

[adimw]

gigabit ethernet FTW

 

[slyck]

[citation][nom]tanjo[/nom]If this rolls out, it'll be the start of the end of LAN cables.[/citation]

You'll have to pry ethernet from my lifeless hands. Wireless can't touch wired concerning speed, reliability, and security.

 

[gaborbarla]

I have walls in my house and my wireless N signal/speed is slower than my old 802.11g.
We need to come up with Neutrino wireless networks or something.