6 ms·

Super-fast Wi-Fi coming: 802.11ac-2013

53 points by tanglesome 13y ago

higherpurpose 13y ago
Wait - they integrated WiGig into 802.11ac? Interesting, and a better way to go than releasing a separate 802.11ad actually (even though the routers would obviously have both ac and ad, just like we see b/g/n support today).
- rektide 13y ago
  Not at all. Channel sizes in 802.11ad's 60GHz spectrum space are 2.16GHz wide, and can fit four of those channels in most countries. 802.11ac is still 80MHz channels in 2.4GHz space and now 160MHz channels in 5GHz space, and can fit two and three or four of those "big" channels". 802.11ad is definitely a major user of beamforming, relying heavily on reflectance, as it doesn't penetrate solid stuff very well. 802.11ad also has engineering work being poured into protocol adaption layers, so interconnects such as DisplayPort or PCIe can run atop it and presumably the 802.11 MAC that's supposed to be core to 802.11ad.
sp332 13y ago
A further doubling of the data rate is achieved by increasing the maximum number of spatial streams to eight. Does that mean you need 8 antennas to max out the range and bandwidth? Cool!
nawitus 13y ago
I'd be fine with a 100Mbps Wi-Fi which would be as reliable as a wired connection.
- untog 13y ago
  Speed doesn't necessarily correlate with reliability, though.
  - barrkel 13y ago
    Of course it doesn't. There's normally a direct tradeoff, with redundancy giving higher reliability at the cost of throughput. He's advocating higher reliability over higher speed.
  - phamilton 13y ago
    I think they were stating two requirements: Ideal wifi: 1) should be fast 2) should be reliable I would much rather see optimizations on #2 than #1 at this point. I agree that once speeds hit 100mbps, reliability is a much more important engineering goal to focus on.
    - pixl97 13y ago
      >reliability is a much more important engineering goal to focus on. Wireless is and can be very reliable. Just go get a FCC spectrum licence for a dedicated and unshared frequency and watch your reliability issues disappear. It's just expensive. Reliability on open spectrums is always going to be an issue, and one you should never depend fully on. There will always be old equipment running that doesn't work well with the new standards and tosses it's new found gains out the window. Unless you can convince each of your neighbors to throw away that ancient 2.4GHz phone handset and old B router. Reliability on telco wireless is a different issue. They would rather run more customers on a segment, reducing reliability, but increasing profits.
    - angersock 13y ago
      Nothing is worse than a perfectly rendered frame of a porn video which then stops due to buffering because the Wifi has flaked out. A drop in quality corresponding to lower bandwidth--delivered reliably--is acceptable. Freezing on a perfectly-detailed closeup of a stupid expression because someone came as the internet went (out) is not. Reliability >> speed.
- jotm 13y ago
  How is it unreliable?
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  What do you mean by reliable? My main snag with WiFi right now is its half-duplex nature and dropped packets. 100Mbps WLAN is horrendously worse than 100Mbps LAN for networked storage
  - georgemcbay 13y ago
    OP was a bit oddly worded but I think nawitus meant that he or she would be happy with 100Mbps wireless if it were as reliable as a wired connection, so basically exactly what you're saying. I personally ended up using power-line ethernet to replace a lot of the wireless throughout my apartment. While the wireless connection was much faster in theory (and in practice when everything was perfect) than the powerline ethernet speeds, trying to stream HD movies and such was always an exercise in frustration with the wifi no matter how good the routers and/or repeaters were on the wifi connection and how well they were set up. With the powerline ethernet adapters, OTOH, I just plugged them in and everything Just Worked, much slower peak speed, but nice and consistent and more than enough bandwidth for HD movie streaming. In any case the horrible state of US ISPs is the bottleneck for networking at home for me right now regardless of how I wire myself internally. My two options are Time Warner Cable (which cuts out between the modem and their headend for minutes multiple times a day and was never fixed despite half a dozen on-site technician visits) or AT&T DSL which has been much more reliable but is annoyingly slow for big downloads and such. I'm currently using the AT&T connection, but both options are terrible in their own way and nothing else usable is available to me. Fuck you, US ISPs.
    - tanzam75 13y ago
      > I personally ended up using power-line ethernet to replace a lot of the wireless throughout my apartment. ... With the powerline ethernet adapters, OTOH, I just plugged them in and everything Just Worked, much slower peak speed, but nice and consistent and more than enough bandwidth for HD movie streaming. Powerline networking is still a shared medium. You're sharing the available bandwidth with all of the neighboring houses on the same utility transformer. It does have the benefit that signal strength drops off with linear wiring distance. Thus, you're farther from your neighbors than you would be with Wi-Fi. However, as with 5 GHz, you're getting good results right now because powerline networking isn't too popular. But if every house were to get powerline networking, then you would start encountering interfering networks.
zanny 13y ago
I read this stuff and just think "so the SoCs just have to be 3x as expensive and power consuming to manage double / triple the channels, while still broadcasting at a higher frequency, plus doing computations for beamforming and its ilk". Pretty much all this guarantees is that wireless n routers will stay $50, AC will stay $100 - 150, and AC-2013 will be $200+, due to complexity. Maybe in a few years n routers will spin down demand and AC will have market effects drop the price, but then I worry about spectrum limitations. We already see huge issues with n routers congesting on the 2.4 band, and making channels even wider for AC means congestion leads to even worse bandwidth and range loss.
- yaantc 13y ago
  802.11ac is the same as 11n in the 2.4 GHz band. All the new features are for the 5 GHz band, and its support is required for 11ac. At 5 GHz there's plenty of spectrum so wider channels still make sense there. But not at 2.4 GHz indeed.
mkautzm 13y ago
I honestly don't see the 2.4Ghz standards going away any time soon. Sure, 2.4Ghz is hilariously congested, buy as 5Ghz devices are sold, it will be less so and what I half expect is when people start trying to beam 5Ghz through three office walls (and fail), they'll want to know why and eventually find themselves back on a 2.4Ghz solution, simply because it's not so sensitive to solid objects.
- jseliger 13y ago
  I honestly don't see the 2.4Ghz standards going away any time soon. I don't either, which is part of the reason I've spent a couple dollars on ethernet cables that connect some of the obvious places. A year ago I wrote this comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5192451 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5192451): "Ethernet was developed in the context of the internet with its seven levels of the ISO reference model," he said. "So we had a job to do at level one and two, and we didn't burden Ethernet with all the other stuff that we knew would be above us. We didn't do security, we didn't do encryption, we didn't even do acknowledgements." Very interesting story—I wish it had been more detailed in places, but I love this middle section, about how simplicity sometimes beats complexity. It's also amazing how prevalent Ethernet still is, even when wireless is a competitor. The other day I left this comment: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5052448 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5052448 on HN, because in some circumstances running a cheap ethernet cable from a router to a desk, couch, or other work station can still be a real win, especially given how inexpensive even very long ethernet cables are from Monoprice.com. They last forever, aren't subject to the level of interference wireless is, and, in many conditions, have faster data transfer speeds. Ethernet is still great.
  - jotm 13y ago
    10Gb Ethernet would be fantastic, but the cards are still expensive. Anyway, can't beat 1GbE for low latencies and high speeds, it's still faster than an AC router, unless maybe your computer is right next to it.
  - VLM 13y ago
    HN is all about scalability at least WRT software and operations, but at the networking level, its no contest, switch and cables scales about a hundred times better than wireless, although the HN hive mind never understands that. Go ahead, do whatever you want with the laptop on the wireless, the roku won't care because its wired. Buying cables and hooking everything up that you can, is by far the cheapest, fastest, and easiest way to upgrade your wireless experience.
arbuge 13y ago
That's all great, but without a commensurate increase in broadband speeds, will real life consumers see any benefit? I'm thinking you might if you live in S Korea, but probably not the USA.
- selectodude 13y ago
  I bounce a lot of files and do a lot of screen sharing between my laptop and my AppleTV - 802.11n can get bogged down with that - and so the increased speeds would be something I could get behind. Unfortunately neither my laptop, nor my router, nor my AppleTV support it so it's a "moo" point.
rektide 13y ago
I don't suppose beamforming also self-moderates the power used to send? I have plenty of 100mW APs, and AFAIK they use that power all the time. Sure would be considerate if they'd scale down to use the appropriate amount of power required to reach each particular node.
- yaantc 13y ago
  The transmit power budget allowed by the standard is shared with the various antennas at least. Even if a given transmission uses the maximum power to maximize the modulation and coding scheme used BF will at least reduce the interference to other AP and devices, so it's still has a positive impact on interference, which is reduced.
outside1234 13y ago
Super-fast is not what we need. We need super-low-power for the next tier of internet of things battery devices - when are we getting that? :)
- angersock 13y ago
  Why does everybody have such a raging hard-on for the IoT these days? Especially when we know machines are routinely compromised to circumvent user freedom, why on earth would you want to help give a foothold to others in your personal space computationally?
  - IgorPartola 13y ago
    Atomic power gave rise to both the nuclear bomb and the nuclear power plant. Does one justify the other? Probably not, but it sure is nice to have a source of clean energy available. I don't think that Internet of Things is that big of a practical gain, but I do see the potential there for some pretty cool applications. Imagine if every power switch in your house could be controlled from your phone. Or if you could do inventory in a warehouse by asking each crate what its contents was. Or a farm where every tomato plant can tell you if it needs more water. The privacy issues are separate from the possibilities that the technology provides. Surely we can figure out a way to build a system that's secure. Or choose not to introduce these things into our daily lives. I think just the industrial uses are very interesting here.
    - angersock 13y ago
      Atomic tech is a red herring here--note that many are still not sold on the utility of nuclear power plants (even if those people are being silly). This is a very real, well-documented problem, and one we have at least a chance of defusing. Let us draw a difference between private and industrial IoT. IIoT (your tomato example, maybe shipping, etc.) is done for practical logistical reasons, and likely as not will end up on a private network or embedded system. There is little likelihood that a government acquiring the tomato files is going to ever truly hurt the consumer, because there is an airgap of commerce between that information and the consumer--I buy the tomato from a supermarket with cash, and the trail goes cold. PIoT, though, means that I have dozens of little spies all reporting on every aspect of my life, and that eventually that data is collected and correlated in one place--as it must, if it is to be of maximum utility. And that data, once concentrated, is something worthy of scrutiny by third parties. It suddenly makes it a lot more useful to spend a little effort to break into a management system or throw the book at a service provider, because the return is so great. Moreover, even without extracting the data, the devices required afford computational capabilities, and the only truly trustworthy computer systems that exist are those that are powered off and disassembled--anything else is suspect (for the truly paranoid). I just don't think that the personal internet of things is a good idea.
IgorPartola 13y ago
Is my understanding that higher frequencies mean less range and more interference correct? I want good coverage and uniform performance over extra bandwidth. I also want good latency over speed in lots of cases.
- yaantc 13y ago
  Higher frequency means less range (everything else being equal) but not more interference. Interference depends on how used / crowded a given piece of frequency is, and the 5 GHz band is much less crowded than 2.4 GHz: there is more spectrum there, less 5 GHz devices, and because the range is smaller the interference from neighbors is lower.
shmerl 13y ago
How is Linux support for these? I had tough luck getting even 802.11n speeds on Linux. Are there any USB WiFi cards which actually work? I got D-Link DWA-160, but it never connects on the n band, only on b/g which limits it to approx. 50 Mbit/s. (I'm using rt2800usb driver).
zurn 13y ago
Seems the article confuses the raw symbol rate with delivered L3 bandwidth (as evidenced by the testbench comment in the beginning). See eg. http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/wireless/2003/08/08/wireless_throughput.html http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/wireless/2003/08/08/wireless...
goggles99 13y ago
Does anyone really need this kind of speed in their home? A fast internet service may provide 20mbit/s so no benefit coming from the internet side. Streaming music locally does not consume much bandwidth either. Locally hosted video is the only place I could see this making much sense. This is somewhat of a niche market though. How many people rip their DVD and blu-ray disks for local hosting? Not that many. I suppose More people pirate HD MKVs, but I guess the underlying question is, does the performance difference really make a significant difference? The movie may start half a second sooner - so what? Network backup is another potentially time consuming task, but this is typically done late at night. Enterprise WiFi adoption is unlikely because this makes a company vulnerable to hacking and DOS (via interference or jamming) attacks.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
ksec 13y ago
I would be glad if I could get 1Gbps Real World Speed from behind a wall. Added with Low Latency, I could finally ditch the Cable and use WiFi instead. Then I would hope Router could work on their software and not crash every month or so. It would be great if they could restart itself every week during at night when there is Zero activity. Added with a decent implementation of USB 3.0 / 3.1, so i could use the external USB HDD as an NAS instead or buying a separate unit.

53 points by tanglesome 13y ago

Wait - they integrated WiGig into 802.11ac? Interesting, and a better way to go than releasing a separate 802.11ad actually (even though the routers would obviously have both ac and ad, just like we see b/g/n support today).

rektide 13y ago
Not at all. Channel sizes in 802.11ad's 60GHz spectrum space are 2.16GHz wide, and can fit four of those channels in most countries. 802.11ac is still 80MHz channels in 2.4GHz space and now 160MHz channels in 5GHz space, and can fit two and three or four of those "big" channels". 802.11ad is definitely a major user of beamforming, relying heavily on reflectance, as it doesn't penetrate solid stuff very well. 802.11ad also has engineering work being poured into protocol adaption layers, so interconnects such as DisplayPort or PCIe can run atop it and presumably the 802.11 MAC that's supposed to be core to 802.11ad.

sp332 13y ago

A further doubling of the data rate is achieved by increasing the maximum number of spatial streams to eight. Does that mean you need 8 antennas to max out the range and bandwidth? Cool!

nawitus 13y ago

I'd be fine with a 100Mbps Wi-Fi which would be as reliable as a wired connection.

untog 13y ago
Speed doesn't necessarily correlate with reliability, though.
- barrkel 13y ago
  Of course it doesn't. There's normally a direct tradeoff, with redundancy giving higher reliability at the cost of throughput. He's advocating higher reliability over higher speed.
- phamilton 13y ago
  I think they were stating two requirements: Ideal wifi: 1) should be fast 2) should be reliable I would much rather see optimizations on #2 than #1 at this point. I agree that once speeds hit 100mbps, reliability is a much more important engineering goal to focus on.
  - pixl97 13y ago
    >reliability is a much more important engineering goal to focus on. Wireless is and can be very reliable. Just go get a FCC spectrum licence for a dedicated and unshared frequency and watch your reliability issues disappear. It's just expensive. Reliability on open spectrums is always going to be an issue, and one you should never depend fully on. There will always be old equipment running that doesn't work well with the new standards and tosses it's new found gains out the window. Unless you can convince each of your neighbors to throw away that ancient 2.4GHz phone handset and old B router. Reliability on telco wireless is a different issue. They would rather run more customers on a segment, reducing reliability, but increasing profits.
  - angersock 13y ago
    Nothing is worse than a perfectly rendered frame of a porn video which then stops due to buffering because the Wifi has flaked out. A drop in quality corresponding to lower bandwidth--delivered reliably--is acceptable. Freezing on a perfectly-detailed closeup of a stupid expression because someone came as the internet went (out) is not. Reliability >> speed.
jotm 13y ago
How is it unreliable?
sliverstorm 13y ago
What do you mean by reliable? My main snag with WiFi right now is its half-duplex nature and dropped packets. 100Mbps WLAN is horrendously worse than 100Mbps LAN for networked storage
- georgemcbay 13y ago
  OP was a bit oddly worded but I think nawitus meant that he or she would be happy with 100Mbps wireless if it were as reliable as a wired connection, so basically exactly what you're saying. I personally ended up using power-line ethernet to replace a lot of the wireless throughout my apartment. While the wireless connection was much faster in theory (and in practice when everything was perfect) than the powerline ethernet speeds, trying to stream HD movies and such was always an exercise in frustration with the wifi no matter how good the routers and/or repeaters were on the wifi connection and how well they were set up. With the powerline ethernet adapters, OTOH, I just plugged them in and everything Just Worked, much slower peak speed, but nice and consistent and more than enough bandwidth for HD movie streaming. In any case the horrible state of US ISPs is the bottleneck for networking at home for me right now regardless of how I wire myself internally. My two options are Time Warner Cable (which cuts out between the modem and their headend for minutes multiple times a day and was never fixed despite half a dozen on-site technician visits) or AT&T DSL which has been much more reliable but is annoyingly slow for big downloads and such. I'm currently using the AT&T connection, but both options are terrible in their own way and nothing else usable is available to me. Fuck you, US ISPs.
  - tanzam75 13y ago
    > I personally ended up using power-line ethernet to replace a lot of the wireless throughout my apartment. ... With the powerline ethernet adapters, OTOH, I just plugged them in and everything Just Worked, much slower peak speed, but nice and consistent and more than enough bandwidth for HD movie streaming. Powerline networking is still a shared medium. You're sharing the available bandwidth with all of the neighboring houses on the same utility transformer. It does have the benefit that signal strength drops off with linear wiring distance. Thus, you're farther from your neighbors than you would be with Wi-Fi. However, as with 5 GHz, you're getting good results right now because powerline networking isn't too popular. But if every house were to get powerline networking, then you would start encountering interfering networks.

zanny 13y ago

I read this stuff and just think "so the SoCs just have to be 3x as expensive and power consuming to manage double / triple the channels, while still broadcasting at a higher frequency, plus doing computations for beamforming and its ilk". Pretty much all this guarantees is that wireless n routers will stay $50, AC will stay $100 - 150, and AC-2013 will be $200+, due to complexity. Maybe in a few years n routers will spin down demand and AC will have market effects drop the price, but then I worry about spectrum limitations. We already see huge issues with n routers congesting on the 2.4 band, and making channels even wider for AC means congestion leads to even worse bandwidth and range loss.

yaantc 13y ago
802.11ac is the same as 11n in the 2.4 GHz band. All the new features are for the 5 GHz band, and its support is required for 11ac. At 5 GHz there's plenty of spectrum so wider channels still make sense there. But not at 2.4 GHz indeed.

mkautzm 13y ago

I honestly don't see the 2.4Ghz standards going away any time soon. Sure, 2.4Ghz is hilariously congested, buy as 5Ghz devices are sold, it will be less so and what I half expect is when people start trying to beam 5Ghz through three office walls (and fail), they'll want to know why and eventually find themselves back on a 2.4Ghz solution, simply because it's not so sensitive to solid objects.

jseliger 13y ago
I honestly don't see the 2.4Ghz standards going away any time soon. I don't either, which is part of the reason I've spent a couple dollars on ethernet cables that connect some of the obvious places. A year ago I wrote this comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5192451 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5192451): "Ethernet was developed in the context of the internet with its seven levels of the ISO reference model," he said. "So we had a job to do at level one and two, and we didn't burden Ethernet with all the other stuff that we knew would be above us. We didn't do security, we didn't do encryption, we didn't even do acknowledgements." Very interesting story—I wish it had been more detailed in places, but I love this middle section, about how simplicity sometimes beats complexity. It's also amazing how prevalent Ethernet still is, even when wireless is a competitor. The other day I left this comment: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5052448 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5052448 on HN, because in some circumstances running a cheap ethernet cable from a router to a desk, couch, or other work station can still be a real win, especially given how inexpensive even very long ethernet cables are from Monoprice.com. They last forever, aren't subject to the level of interference wireless is, and, in many conditions, have faster data transfer speeds. Ethernet is still great.
- jotm 13y ago
  10Gb Ethernet would be fantastic, but the cards are still expensive. Anyway, can't beat 1GbE for low latencies and high speeds, it's still faster than an AC router, unless maybe your computer is right next to it.
- VLM 13y ago
  HN is all about scalability at least WRT software and operations, but at the networking level, its no contest, switch and cables scales about a hundred times better than wireless, although the HN hive mind never understands that. Go ahead, do whatever you want with the laptop on the wireless, the roku won't care because its wired. Buying cables and hooking everything up that you can, is by far the cheapest, fastest, and easiest way to upgrade your wireless experience.

arbuge 13y ago

That's all great, but without a commensurate increase in broadband speeds, will real life consumers see any benefit? I'm thinking you might if you live in S Korea, but probably not the USA.

selectodude 13y ago
I bounce a lot of files and do a lot of screen sharing between my laptop and my AppleTV - 802.11n can get bogged down with that - and so the increased speeds would be something I could get behind. Unfortunately neither my laptop, nor my router, nor my AppleTV support it so it's a "moo" point.

rektide 13y ago

I don't suppose beamforming also self-moderates the power used to send? I have plenty of 100mW APs, and AFAIK they use that power all the time. Sure would be considerate if they'd scale down to use the appropriate amount of power required to reach each particular node.

yaantc 13y ago
The transmit power budget allowed by the standard is shared with the various antennas at least. Even if a given transmission uses the maximum power to maximize the modulation and coding scheme used BF will at least reduce the interference to other AP and devices, so it's still has a positive impact on interference, which is reduced.

outside1234 13y ago

Super-fast is not what we need. We need super-low-power for the next tier of internet of things battery devices - when are we getting that? :)

angersock 13y ago
Why does everybody have such a raging hard-on for the IoT these days? Especially when we know machines are routinely compromised to circumvent user freedom, why on earth would you want to help give a foothold to others in your personal space computationally?
- IgorPartola 13y ago
  Atomic power gave rise to both the nuclear bomb and the nuclear power plant. Does one justify the other? Probably not, but it sure is nice to have a source of clean energy available. I don't think that Internet of Things is that big of a practical gain, but I do see the potential there for some pretty cool applications. Imagine if every power switch in your house could be controlled from your phone. Or if you could do inventory in a warehouse by asking each crate what its contents was. Or a farm where every tomato plant can tell you if it needs more water. The privacy issues are separate from the possibilities that the technology provides. Surely we can figure out a way to build a system that's secure. Or choose not to introduce these things into our daily lives. I think just the industrial uses are very interesting here.
  - angersock 13y ago
    Atomic tech is a red herring here--note that many are still not sold on the utility of nuclear power plants (even if those people are being silly). This is a very real, well-documented problem, and one we have at least a chance of defusing. Let us draw a difference between private and industrial IoT. IIoT (your tomato example, maybe shipping, etc.) is done for practical logistical reasons, and likely as not will end up on a private network or embedded system. There is little likelihood that a government acquiring the tomato files is going to ever truly hurt the consumer, because there is an airgap of commerce between that information and the consumer--I buy the tomato from a supermarket with cash, and the trail goes cold. PIoT, though, means that I have dozens of little spies all reporting on every aspect of my life, and that eventually that data is collected and correlated in one place--as it must, if it is to be of maximum utility. And that data, once concentrated, is something worthy of scrutiny by third parties. It suddenly makes it a lot more useful to spend a little effort to break into a management system or throw the book at a service provider, because the return is so great. Moreover, even without extracting the data, the devices required afford computational capabilities, and the only truly trustworthy computer systems that exist are those that are powered off and disassembled--anything else is suspect (for the truly paranoid). I just don't think that the personal internet of things is a good idea.

IgorPartola 13y ago

Is my understanding that higher frequencies mean less range and more interference correct? I want good coverage and uniform performance over extra bandwidth. I also want good latency over speed in lots of cases.

yaantc 13y ago
Higher frequency means less range (everything else being equal) but not more interference. Interference depends on how used / crowded a given piece of frequency is, and the 5 GHz band is much less crowded than 2.4 GHz: there is more spectrum there, less 5 GHz devices, and because the range is smaller the interference from neighbors is lower.

shmerl 13y ago

How is Linux support for these? I had tough luck getting even 802.11n speeds on Linux. Are there any USB WiFi cards which actually work? I got D-Link DWA-160, but it never connects on the n band, only on b/g which limits it to approx. 50 Mbit/s. (I'm using rt2800usb driver).

zurn 13y ago

Seems the article confuses the raw symbol rate with delivered L3 bandwidth (as evidenced by the testbench comment in the beginning). See eg. http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/wireless/2003/08/08/wireless_throughput.html http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/wireless/2003/08/08/wireless...

goggles99 13y ago

Does anyone really need this kind of speed in their home? A fast internet service may provide 20mbit/s so no benefit coming from the internet side. Streaming music locally does not consume much bandwidth either. Locally hosted video is the only place I could see this making much sense. This is somewhat of a niche market though. How many people rip their DVD and blu-ray disks for local hosting? Not that many. I suppose More people pirate HD MKVs, but I guess the underlying question is, does the performance difference really make a significant difference? The movie may start half a second sooner - so what? Network backup is another potentially time consuming task, but this is typically done late at night. Enterprise WiFi adoption is unlikely because this makes a company vulnerable to hacking and DOS (via interference or jamming) attacks.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

ksec 13y ago

I would be glad if I could get 1Gbps Real World Speed from behind a wall. Added with Low Latency, I could finally ditch the Cable and use WiFi instead. Then I would hope Router could work on their software and not crash every month or so. It would be great if they could restart itself every week during at night when there is Zero activity. Added with a decent implementation of USB 3.0 / 3.1, so i could use the external USB HDD as an NAS instead or buying a separate unit.