These 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.
Theoretical 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.
Good 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2.4 ghz and 900 mhz are not "old" or "outdated."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.
In 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.
Recently 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.
Great - 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.
47Gbps in wifi terms is like living to 200 but in dog years. The real speed will probably not be much more than 1gbit which is a common fiber connection speed.
WiFi 6 with a 2023 macbook does not practically deliver 1gbit, even with zero other networks nearby and the macbook 3ft from the access point you'll get something like 700mbit. One factor is that Apple devices so far don't support 160 channel width, only up to 80. But even with a 160 channel you wouldn't make the advertised "5gbit" because that's the aggregated speed across all frequencies and streams, which cannot be combined.
What do you think happens when everyone can transmit packets an order of magnitude faster, even if they're not transmitting at the line rate of the link? Average channel utilization drops precipitously and the transmit rates improve in aggregate for everyone.
Not to mention governments are opening up 1200MHz of spectrum on the 6GHz band (Wi-Fi 6E and 7) which is helping in heavily congested areas on its own.
t0mas88|2 years ago
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|2 years ago
A better comparison would be the limits for a single strand of fiber optic cable.
thelastparadise|2 years ago
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|2 years ago
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.
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
mikewarot|2 years ago
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
zamalek|2 years ago
t0mas88|2 years ago
WiFi 6 with a 2023 macbook does not practically deliver 1gbit, even with zero other networks nearby and the macbook 3ft from the access point you'll get something like 700mbit. One factor is that Apple devices so far don't support 160 channel width, only up to 80. But even with a 160 channel you wouldn't make the advertised "5gbit" because that's the aggregated speed across all frequencies and streams, which cannot be combined.
Veliladon|2 years ago
Not to mention governments are opening up 1200MHz of spectrum on the 6GHz band (Wi-Fi 6E and 7) which is helping in heavily congested areas on its own.
killingtime74|2 years ago
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
Havoc|2 years ago
Recently got myself a 6E and reckon that’ll be enough for a while
killingtime74|2 years ago
wkat4242|2 years ago
...
IEEE: "Now introducing WiFi 6E!"
Lol
hulitu|2 years ago