4 ms·
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 po
by 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 agoNothing 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.