9 ms·
Wi-Fi 7 (802.11be) theoretical maximum data rate is up to 46 Gbps
- thelastparadise 3y agoGood throughput but it is only line of sight as that bw is in high frequency ranges. 2.4 ghz and 900 mhz are not "old" or "outdated." It's all rf spectrum. The lower frequencies are valuable for range/penetration. We should weigh research on directed rf radiation higher. We can run a lot more devices with better UX if we can avoid blasting radiation in all directions.
- perryizgr8 3y agoIn fact I'd like to see a wifi standard that utilizes the entire spectrum from 900 Mhz to 6 Ghz seamlessly without me noticing. If I'm in line of sight, switch me to 6 Ghz. As I move away, go to 5 Ghz then 2.4 Ghz progressively. There are systems that try to do this today, but they are not seamless. The switchover is noticeable most of the times, and sometimes your device won't ever come back to the faster frequency. I suspect that is because the standard itself doesn't treat this behavior as a first class citizen. Manufacturers are building custom solutions.
- ksec 3y agoWhat you described is exactly what WiFi 7 tries to do. We will see if it works well, if not WiFI 8 802.11bn will likely correct it. As with each WiFI iteration do.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- zamalek 3y agoGreat - that will certainly be beneficial for everyone with 47Gbps internet lines. Could we have some innovation in the direction of coping with congested RF, please.
- killingtime74 3y agoWe have 2, 6, 8gbps internet lines widely available here in NZ. Current wifi was capped out long ago
- dzhiurgis 3y agoHow much of that is international bandwidth?
- killingtime74 3y agoI guess Australia is international? So most? Depends on how much your ISP has provisioned of course. There are some very premium ones and ones that are less so. You get what you pay for as usual
- CaptainHardcore 3y agoIt’s fibre from the home to your provider. New Zealand's current international connectivity is provided by three under-sea fibre optic cables with a combined total throughput of 73 terabits per second.
- Am4TIfIsER0ppos 3y agoWhile we're on the topic of nonsense numbers Wolfram Alpha estimates that to be 14 megabits per person
- killingtime74 3y agoOr it could be gigabits available to any person. Since it would be 14 megabits per person per second right, assuming 100% utilisation?
- Am4TIfIsER0ppos 3y agoI merely told it to divide 73 terabits by the population of New Zealand and to express that in megabits. So yeah no consideration of usage patterns: "nonsense numbers" just like the supposed 46G wifi this story is about.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- t0mas88 3y agoThese theoretical data rates for WiFi are getting out of hand. The numbers have become completely useless to everyone, because they have no correlation to actual network speed. It's like presenting the aggregated speed of all switch ports in an ethernet switch, without telling you how many ports there are or what the internal switching speed maximum is. "Here! Buy this 44gbit switch!" and then connect your equipment to find out the fastest link speed you'll get is 1gbps.
- MichaelZuo 3y agoTheoretical limits always assume an unlimited budget for the antennas. Getting to within 2/3 of this figure is quite feasible for someone with a truly unlimited budget. A better comparison would be the limits for a single strand of fiber optic cable.
- t0mas88 3y agoYes and even worse they now start to add the theoretical maximum of several streams together to get an even bigger number that makes even less sense. For example Ubiquiti lists their Unifi U6+ at 1.2gbit and the U6 Pro at 4.8gbit. But the speed these two products will achieve in a home or small office is exactly the same. The Pro has some more range (bigger antennas), but both will get you about 700mbit in ideal reception no interference conditions because they're based on the same WiFi 6 standard. Edit: And they know it, both products have a 1gbit physical port that is enough to serve "4.8 gbit wifi"
- neilalexander 3y agoThe reason the U6-Pro is listed as 4.8Gbit and the U6+ is listed as 1.2Gbit is because the 6+ only supports 2x2 MIMO on 5GHz, whereas the Pro supports 4x4 MIMO. Most client devices won't go above 2x2 MIMO and many won't support above channel widths greater than 80MHz on 5GHz so your chance of saturating the 1Gbit uplink port is unlikely anyway.
- mikewarot 3y agoRecently I got 400 megabit/second on my cheap cellphone through a friends WiFi out to the Internet. That's more than 100 times the speed of ArcNet[1], the first networking system I worked with. Sure, the maximum numbers are based on almost ideal conditions but we'll get there soon enough. There will be further advances in technology, likely optical. I fully expect that a Terabyte/second will seem slow in a decade or two. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARCNET https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARCNET
- wkat4242 3y agoIEEE: "WiFi should be named in numbers because the letters are confusing" ... IEEE: "Now introducing WiFi 6E!" Lol
- hulitu 3y agoThere were some articles about 5G and 10G in the same spirit.
- Havoc 3y agoNo doubt the routers will still feature 1 gig eth at the back though lol Recently got myself a 6E and reckon that’ll be enough for a while
- killingtime74 3y agoMany come with SFP ports for this reason now
- Havoc 3y agoOn consumer gear?
- killingtime74 3y agoWell, its consumer level price https://www.amazon.com/MikroTik-Gigabit-Ethernet-Router-RB760iGS/dp/B07F7HDRKX https://www.amazon.com/MikroTik-Gigabit-Ethernet-Router-RB76...
- Havoc 3y agoNo I mean router with wifi. Consumer gear frequently says 4+ gbps on the box as aggregate wifi speeds...but its all GbE ports at the back. Not entirely a lie but pretty damn close. The ones with 10GbE connectivity and 6E are all marketed as "gaming" and cost stupid amounts. Plus frankly are just ugly too e.g. https://www.amazon.com/ASUS-Rapture-Gaming-Router-GT-AXE16000/dp/B09Z792WWF https://www.amazon.com/ASUS-Rapture-Gaming-Router-GT-AXE1600...