Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

1Gbps Wi-Fi Coming Soon To a Billion Devices

Roblimo posted more than 3 years ago | from the faster-than-a-rumor-about-a-new-wi-fi-product dept.

Networking 202

MojoKid writes "Not only is 1Gbps technology heading for your Wi-Fi network by next year, it will be instantly über popular. The new 802.11ac 1G Wi-Fi standard hasn't even been ratified by the IEEE yet and In-Stat predicts that by 2015, consumers will have bought nearly 1 billion devices that use it. 1G Wi-Fi, which will use radio spectrum in a range below 6GHz, will be embedded in mobile phones, e-readers and automotive infotainment systems.The study predicts that Mobile devices with embedded Wi-Fi will make up most of the market. In 2015, shipments of mobile phones with embedded Wi-Fi are projected to approach 800 million. Also, by 2015, projections are that 100% of mobile hotspot shipments will be 802.11ac-enabled."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I just cannot wait (5, Insightful)

lpaul55 (137990) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146076)

Where's the future when we need it?
I also hope the software for grid networks appears soon. This will help us develop a decentralized alternative to the big ISPs.

Re:I just cannot wait (4, Insightful)

Machtyn (759119) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146378)

Another advantage is that the government will not be able to shutdown the Internet. Egyptian citizens would have an ad hoc network that would still be able to communicate with each other. If the US government gets its kill switch, if the people can't vote the idiots out, then perhaps they'll have a way around the interference.

Re:I just cannot wait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35147052)

Another advantage is that the government will not be able to shutdown the Internet. Egyptian citizens would have an ad hoc network that would still be able to communicate with each other. If the US government gets its kill switch, if the people can't vote the idiots out, then perhaps they'll have a way around the interference.

AMEN BROTHER AMEN

Re:I just cannot wait (2)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147066)

Let's play a game of Tyrant Dictator. You know, Devil's Advocate. I'll go first.

If I was an evil tyrannical dictator, I would launch a nuke in space just above my own country. The purpose to create a powerful EMP that would short out all electronic devices (rendering them trash) except for the stuff my military uses. Only when my people become subservient again will I *think* about giving them back the opportunity to earn their electronic toys again.

What would you do?

Don't think some regimes give a damn about the welfare and prosperity of their nations, because often they don't.

Re:I just cannot wait (1)

Corbets (169101) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147462)

I think that even in your little fantasy world, you should understand that most countries don't have access to nukes, let alone space tech.

Re:I just cannot wait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35147690)

yet

Bigger picture? (1)

miruku (642921) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146108)

Might any of the existing or proposed wireless standards be anywhere close to a potential candidate for a decenteralised wifi internet to be built upon?

Re:Bigger picture? (4, Informative)

Ultra64 (318705) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146198)

Here you go [open-mesh.com]

Re:Bigger picture? (1)

miruku (642921) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147648)

Thanks, although I was after more of a somewhat open project. I mean, I know there is a lot that has been done with more common wifi equipment, but do many folk hack at that kind of level but any of the newer ideas or such?

Re:Bigger picture? (1)

formfeed (703859) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146938)

No.

The higher you go in frequency, the closer you get to line of sight.
A mesh network made up of pure consumer devices might be possible, but only if you have a sufficient device density.

I guess, the other alternative would be a mesh with some super nodes / cell towers. Kind of a mix between clearwire and an ad-hoc wireless. As long as the super-nodes would be redundant and wouldn't belong to some company but to individual neighborhoods, that would be still decentralized.

Re:Bigger picture? (1)

nospam007 (722110) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147176)

"A mesh network made up of pure consumer devices might be possible, but only if you have a sufficient device density. "

Almost 17 million people dense enough?
From WP:
'With a population of 6,758,581[6] spread over 453 square kilometers (175 sq mi), Cairo is by far the largest city in Egypt. With an additional ten million inhabitants just outside the city, Cairo resides at the centre of the largest metropolitan area in Africa and the eleventh-largest urban area in the world.'

IN THE YEAR 2000........ (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35146116)

In the Year 2000....
In the Year 2000!
Computers will finally be able to simulate human feelings. Unfortunately, the only one they choose to act on is 'horny.'

Re:IN THE YEAR 2000........ (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35147188)

And men will want women for their personalities. In other news, "breasts" will be called "personalities."

"The study predicts that Mobile devices..." (1)

Anachragnome (1008495) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146120)

"The study predicts that Mobile devices with embedded Wi-Fi will make up most of the market."

And a particularly nasty virus turns into a digital "Black Plague" wiping out nearly 2/3 of the digital population, thereby kick-starting the Second Middle-Ages.

Re:"The study predicts that Mobile devices..." (3, Interesting)

Randle_Revar (229304) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146506)

Hey, the Plague did great things for Europe - the drop in population made everyone more wealthy, and also helped workers gain more power and escape from serfdom.

Re:"The study predicts that Mobile devices..." (1)

Anachragnome (1008495) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146614)

"Hey, the Plague did great things for Europe - the drop in population made everyone more wealthy, and also helped workers gain more power and escape from serfdom."

Were you referring to my fiction, or the real Black Plague?

Re:"The study predicts that Mobile devices..." (1)

dakameleon (1126377) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146696)

Except that's wrong [pkarchive.org] .

Re:"The study predicts that Mobile devices..." (1)

decoy256 (1335427) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146698)

thereby kick-starting the Second Middle-Ages

But at the rate technology and society progresses, it will only last 17.6 hours.

The bleeding obvious spin (4, Insightful)

Voyager529 (1363959) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146126)

...is that consumers will be purchasing a billion internet-connecting devices in the next five years (sarcasm)...because all the cell phones, laptops, ipads, netbooks, APs, and routers will be instantly headed for a landfill due to the fact that none of the devices we have today are fast enough for our present uses. (/sarcasm) The majority of my friends, family, and clients still have 802.11g routers, and none of them have complained about the speed.

Re:The bleeding obvious spin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35146228)

My University has half of their routers (according to my sniffer of the ones I've walked past) using b!

Four years (4, Insightful)

SpeedyDX (1014595) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146414)

Tech products go out of style, whether you like it or not.

And really, 4 years is a long, LONG time in the tech world. The iPhone and iPod touch weren't even introduced 4 years ago. The last Pentium 4 chip (Cedar Mill) was replaced by the Core 2 (Conroe) only 4 and a half years ago. The top-of-the-line nVidia video card 4 years ago, the GeForce 8800GTX, had 281M transistors. The GTX 480 has 3.2B. Netbooks? Tablets? What?

Considering how many devices each of us has, and with a 4 year time frame, I don't think buying a billion wifi enabled products is out of the question. In fact, it might even be low-balling it.

Re:Four years (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35146616)

The first iphone was introduced 4 years ago in 2007.

Re:The bleeding obvious spin (1)

Urza9814 (883915) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146536)

Yea...I haven't bought a new router in...well, when I bought it, 54mpbs 802.11g was brand new, cutting-edge stuff. I think that was 6+ years ago. I'm not planning on getting a new one any time soon. Why should I? Router already delivers almost 10x the speed of my internet connection. I don't do file transfers over the network frequently enough to care, it's compatible with EVERYTHING, and...well, if it ain't broke, why fix it?

Re:The bleeding obvious spin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35147160)

Air CRC error rates suck compared to copper. File transfers are as stable as a house of shaking cards and you have to break it up into sub-GB files and keep track of where you left off, so it doesn't matter that speeds of 150Mbps+ are achievable.

Higher freqs suck even if you're the only one using them. Refardless, it's impossible to wirelessly back up even a single-digit-denominator fraction of a 200GB HD on the first shot --different PC's, routers, Windows versions, Linux, USB antenna, built-in centrino, A,B,G or N, 2Ghz, 5Ghz and buildings with different neighborly Wifi interf. profiles.

Re:The bleeding obvious spin (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147452)

Because it doesn't support IPv6 so if you want to do anything that requires NAT today you will need to switch at some point in the next couple years.

Re:The bleeding obvious spin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35147064)

If you connect a number of devices up to your router and use it for heavy duty file transfers... say like streaming HD video or high quality audeio around to different parts around the house.. then you can use the extra bandwidth.

Just because your current needs are met doesn't mean there isn't a real problem for others.

Re:The bleeding obvious spin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35147092)

Well of course, nobody complained about dial up either when it was the only game in town and content was made to accommodate it. But look at all the changes in the content that was made available when broadband came about; downloading entire applications instantaneousness without needing to wait for physical media to arrive at your door. Movies streaming instantly to your home without going to the video store, or music purchased and listened from anywhere in the world. Complex games can be played with hundreds of thousands of others simultaneously. All these changes came about after a leap the leap in speed, now imagine what could be possible with another leap like that?

It's a big fucking deal.

The fine print. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35146164)

Anyone care to guess what actual throughput will be? If 802.11n is any guide, I'm guessing roughly 10-20% of what's advertised.

If the supplying infrastructure can do ... (1)

jobst (955157) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146172)

it will be fine ... but I already see more and more that my Internet connection is much faster than the supply of data that comes towards my connection (12mbs).

I wonder... (1)

Mad Merlin (837387) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146176)

Of course, the real question is what's the real life performance of 1 Gbit wireless... Better or worse than 100 Mbit wired? I'm not hopeful based on existing implementations of a/b/g/n wireless.

Re:I wonder... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35146238)

Bit rate doesn't matter. Getting out of the 2.4GHz ISM band matters -- if you haven't tried 802.11a/n at 5 GHz yet, do so; it's in no way better than 100baseT, but it's a world better than the same bitrate in the cluttered mess at 2.4GHz.

Re:I wonder... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35146312)

.... until the 5GHz band becomes a cluttered mess and the same situation repeats itself.

Re:I wonder... (4, Informative)

mattventura (1408229) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146468)

That would take much, much longer than the 2.4GHz band. For one, the 2.4GHz band has only about 50MHz of spectrum, whereas 5.8GHz alone has about 150, and even more if you include the 5.3GHz band, which adds another 300 or so. Secondly, higher frequency waves will not get through walls and other obstructions as well, therefore severely decreasing the amount of 5GHz interference, both incoming and outgoing. See wikipedia [wikipedia.org] .

Re:I wonder... (2)

treeves (963993) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146544)

Secondly, higher frequency waves will not get through walls and other obstructions as well...

Sounds like a good reason to avoid the 5 GHz band. I like to use my laptop and phone at home in different rooms from where the router is, and already I see some signal loss when I go upstairs.

Re:I wonder... (1)

Ralcog (1523251) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147448)

Have no fear! That pesky drywall is no problem for 5GHz! The basement on the other hand.... well I guess that why they will probably leave the mixed mode in. But seriously theres definite benefits to having more varied spectrum available.

Re:I wonder... (1)

Mr. DOS (1276020) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146400)

Depending on your distance from the access point, it may very well push close to 1Gb/s in terms of sheer bandwidth. However, I think we can expect to see the same sort of latency we've had since 802.11b/g that makes Wi-Fi “feel” slower than anything wired.

Re:I wonder... (1)

BillX (307153) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147304)

Yes and yes. The article in Electronic Design has a bit more technical meat; unfortunately it as about as you suspect. Terms like "4x4 MIMO" and channel bonding come up a lot (basically, achieving the stated throughput by tying up several channels at a time / expanding the per-channel bandwidth); Shannon's Sampling Theorem still applies. It'll work great in the wilderness; your throughput in an apartment building full of other 802.11ac routers hogging 4 channels at a time is still going to suck.

Mostly unnecessary (4, Interesting)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146190)

Mostly the extra throughput will not be used. What is the real throughput anyway?

Unless you're streaming from a local server, your internet connection will be the bottleneck, and most of those can't saturate 802.11a/g. Even the highest speed FIOS & DOCCIS 3 rates can't quite saturate 802.11n.

The range will be more limited (5-6GHz doesn't propagate through walls as well as 2.4GHz). In dense environments, that's an advantage, but 802.11a/n on 5GHz already has that benefit.

A big issue with any wireless technology is latency. Higher modulation rates help that a bit, but most of the latency is in making sure it's safe for you to transmit, not in the actual transmission.

If you have a use case that needs higher throughput than 802.11n and isn't latency sensitive, then this will be a benefit, but for 99+% of users, it's completely unnecessary.

Re:Mostly unnecessary (2)

Kenja (541830) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146292)

Faster porn from Starbucks.

Re:Mostly unnecessary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35146416)

I'm eagerly awaiting the 14 Mhz wireless routers. Fuck 20 meters and those stuck up Generals.

Re:Mostly unnecessary (0)

Mr_Plattz (1589701) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146438)

but for 99+% of users, it's completely unnecessary.

"640K ought to be enough for anybody.” -Bill Gates (1981)

Re:Mostly unnecessary (2, Informative)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146482)

There is no evidence Gates ever said that.

Re:Mostly unnecessary (1)

froggymana (1896008) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147368)

Citation?

Re:Mostly unnecessary (1)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147508)

No citation possible, you can't prove someone didn't say something. You can't prove a negative, only disprove it. It's up to the claimant to give a citation showing he did say it. If you perform a google search, you'll find that Gates denies saying it, and no one to date has given evidence that he did say it. I'll leave that as an exercise for the interested reader. As much as I would like to see proof that he did make such a foolish statement, until proven that he said it, it must be considered an urban legend.

Re:Mostly unnecessary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35146720)

QUESTION: I read in a newspaper that in 1981 you said, ``640K of memory should
be enough for anybody.'' What did you mean when you said this?

GATES: I've said some stupid things and some wrong things, but not that. No
one involved in computers would ever say that a certain amount of memory is
enough for all time.

(19 January 1996), "Career Opportunities in Computing—and More". Bloomberg Business News
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.folklore.computers/msg/99ce4b0555bf35f4

Re:Mostly unnecessary (1)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147088)

So, 15 years after he said something monumentally stupid, he denies saying it.

Re:Mostly unnecessary (1)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147540)

"Apple will be out of business by 2000" (Belial6 - 1996) So, now it's 15 years later, are you denying that you said it? Where is your proof that you didn't say it? I see right there are quote attributed to you from 15 years ago.

Re:Mostly unnecessary (1)

nzap (1985014) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147626)

I agree. He definitely said that. It's not true that quotes are frequently misquoted and misattributed. We should definitely believe he said that. No evidence necessary.

Re:Mostly unnecessary (1)

atamido (1020905) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146494)

In dense environments, that's an advantage, but 802.11a/n on 5GHz already has that benefit.

A big issue with any wireless technology is latency. Higher modulation rates help that a bit, but most of the latency is in making sure it's safe for you to transmit, not in the actual transmission.

If you have a use case that needs higher throughput than 802.11n and isn't latency sensitive, then this will be a benefit, but for 99+% of users, it's completely unnecessary.

Corporate networks and venues.

I work in an office where 90% of the users have laptops that they carry around with them, and many of them don't even bother to dock them at their desk until they need power. There's a lot of users using the wireless at all times. Granted, must of the time the bandwidth requirements aren't high, but they are sometimes. And when you increase the total available bandwidth, you decrease the latency for if your used bandwidth stays the same, and that's important.

Venues are the other issue. I've seen many wireless networks in venues crumble under the sheer number of devices trying to use them. Imagine a conference room with 100 people with laptops. The presenter references some interesting YouTube video, and 20 people try to look up the video. Even if you have the backend infrastructure, your wireless network probably won't be able to provide reasonable service to everyone at that point.

Consider the Super Bowl from a couple of days ago. I've seen the internal stats for the number of devices that used the available Wi-Fi there, and how much they downloaded. It's staggering. Really, really big numbers. They managed to do it using around a thousand access points. If all of the devices had gigabit wireless, they could have provided better, faster, lower latency service, with less access points.

Re:Mostly unnecessary (1)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146646)

Agreed, those are the situations where it could make a difference. However, you can get 50%-80% of that benefit now by running 802.11a/n on 5GHz. And as long as the number of 802.11a devices running on those channels exceeds about 20%, the benefits will be limited regardless if it's running 802.11n or 802.11ac. So it is essentially pointless unless they're giving is a separate band of channels, and last I heard, there weren't any available in that 6GHz range. In theory, it'll provide benefits long term, but for the foreseeable future, 802.11n on 5GHz makes just as much sense. Drop 802.11a support on your base stations and it's got a better chance of providing benefits within the lifetime of devices that could ship in the next 2 years.

Re:Mostly unnecessary (1)

atamido (1020905) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146918)

60% (using the the maximum 600Mbps number). However that ignores the 802.11a devices out there, as well as the improvements in modulation theory that have been made in the past several years. There is also the discussion of how the frequencies react in the real world for the 5GHz, and whatever mythical range this new system uses. The 2.4 range is far better than the 5 range for wireless, except that there's so much blasted interference and legacy devices.

And finally, with this new specification that have the ability to enforce compliance to the full specification for this new frequency range. There are a lot of benefits for the 802.11n backwards compatibility capabilities, but they come with serious drawbacks. Ensuring all devices took advantage of all features of this more advanced specification should allow for far greater efficiencies than what is currently possible. (All this assumes that there really is a new frequency range that works well for the purposes of short range digital communications.)

Re:Mostly unnecessary (1)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147270)

My point exactly.

BTW, I've seen nothing to suggest that this would get a new RF range, given that all frequencies below 6Ghz are already allocated, it's extremely unlikely that this would get a new range, it will almost certainly share the 5-5.8GHz range used by 802.11a/n, cordless phones, etc. So, you have the issue of having to share the range with any nearby 5GHz devices. From what I have seen, it will need up to 160MHz (8 x 20MHz channels) to achieve those speeds. In most of the world, including the US, there aren't eight 20MHz channels available for use in the 5GHz band. The reality is that there are 4 consecutive 20MHz bands, so you might be able to get 600Mbps, which you can already get using 802.11n

Re:Mostly unnecessary (1)

Omestes (471991) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147748)

, so you might be able to get 600Mbps, which you can already get using 802.11n

Which would be an improvement over 802.11n, since I've never seen anything close to 600Mbps on my network. I live in a modern house, with tons of drywall (not brick), and my computer is around 50-60' from the router, with relative LOS (only one other network straddling 50% my band); transfering from this computer to one hardwired to the router I'm impressed when I get to half that.

Re:Mostly unnecessary (4, Informative)

Mr. DOS (1276020) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146540)

I think the biggest advantage of more throughput, at least on the AP side, is that Wi-Fi bandwidth is shared. Unlike 100Mb/s wired networking where each port on a switch gives the client 100Mb/s (full-duplex or otherwise), the 54Mb/s of bandwidth 802.11g provides is shared between all clients connected to the AP – that's why having an appropriate number of APs is so crucial for a Wi-Fi network of any size. With 802.11ac, even if clients are connecting at a lower rate of speed, that's still more bandwidth to go around.

Disclaimer: IANANG (I Am Not A Network Guy); who knows, technology may've changed (it seems to do that) and I may just be talking out of my ass.

Re:Mostly unnecessary (5, Informative)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146892)

I am a network guy. Your statement is correct, except for the "even if clients are connecting at a lower rate of speed, that's still more bandwidth to go around" part. Technically, that's accurate, but the reality is that a single lower speed device can use so much of the time that the amount available to a high speed device is negligible. This shows up in mixed b/g/n Wi-Fi networks, mixed a/n Wi-Fi networks, and in USB connections.

Because RF bandwidth is limited, presumably these devices will share the channels used by 802.11a/n in the 5-6GHz range. Therefore, the presence of existing 802.11a devices will limit the bandwidth available (802.11n devices @ 5GHz will limit it too, but less so). If you're willing to disable all 802.11a devices and not allow them to connect to a base station, then there will be notably more bandwidth available, but that may not be practical. In either case, 802.11n running in the 5GHz band will provide most of the same benefits. You can get 50%-80% of the benefits with existing 802.11n technology, that's why I said it's mostly useless, not completely useless.

Re:Mostly unnecessary (1)

pantherace (165052) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147072)

802.11a fixed devices/networks are fairly rare (802.11a clients are fairly common, as part of abgn cards, but I've seen a number of seemingly bgn only cards. (They might be capable of a and not well documented, or they might be limited to the 2.4GHz band, either way, they strike me as dodgy so I don't have first hand experience with them.)

If you want an adhoc for transferring, I would usually suggest A if both are capable of it.

Re:Mostly unnecessary (2)

RajivSLK (398494) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146600)

Mostly the extra throughput will not be used. What is the real throughput anyway?

I have a feeling it will be very well used. When everybody's TV comes with 802.11ac and so does their laptop, dvr, raid box, smart phone, security cameras etc you can bet there will be a lot of video streaming around everywhere.

You will be able to touch a button and have the output from your iPad display on your 50" tv.

Re:Mostly unnecessary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35146718)

Unless you're streaming from a local server, your internet connection will be the bottleneck, and most of those can't saturate 802.11a/g

Good point. And since internet connections will never get any faster this will always be true.

Re:Mostly unnecessary (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146766)

and most of those can't saturate 802.11a/g. Even the highest speed FIOS & DOCCIS 3 rates can't quite saturate 802.11n.

DOCSIS 1.x can easily saturate a/g multiple times over with a stream up to 40mb/s even if there is only a WAP and one wifi node, forget it with multiple wifi hosts doing transfers.

DOCSIS3 can bond up to 4 channels together to carry 160mb/s in theory, again, completely and utterly saturating n with a single wifi node.

Yes, I said in theory, and you'll never see speeds that high in the wild, but you'll also never get the theoretical full speed out of your wireless router either, well except maybe in Antartica or something where you have the only 5ghz device for 3000 miles around you ... as long as no one turns on a microwave.

Re:Mostly unnecessary (1)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147218)

Yes, DOCSIS 1.x can theoretically saturate a/g Wi-Fi, but what I said was most internet connections can't saturate a/g. Few people have over 20Mb/s service even when they have a DOCSIS cable modem connection

3x3 n can go to 450Mb/s with ~150Mb/s throughput in reality. Like I said, current FIOS and DOCSIS 3 speeds can't quite saturate 802.11n because nobody really gets more than 100Mb/s and typically don't get more than 50Mb/s

5GHz is not sensitive to microwave ovens. MW inverters run near 2.45GHz, a frequency that allows them to excite water molecules to heat foods.

Re:Mostly unnecessary (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147512)

Smallnetbuilder says the best open air 3x3 they have seen is 135Mbps and move more than a few feet from the router and you are well under 100Mbps, not that many people in NA have faster internet connections than that but around the world they not uncommon.

Re:Mostly unnecessary (4, Interesting)

somenickname (1270442) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146974)

Mostly the extra throughput will not be used. What is the real throughput anyway?

Unless you're streaming from a local server, your internet connection will be the bottleneck, and most of those can't saturate 802.11a/g. Even the highest speed FIOS & DOCCIS 3 rates can't quite saturate 802.11n.

I'm not so sure. I think this technology might not be useful for the opposite reason.

I've got a 100Mbit/15Mbit DOCCIS 3 line connected to a Linksys E3000 that sits about 10 feet from where I usually use my laptop (5Ghz N) and it's like Internet Nirvana. It's well matched and good hardware with bandwidth that is surprisingly delivered as advertised. However, it's only delivered as advertised because of diligence on my part. Twice now (NEVER reboot your DOCCIS 3 modem), I've been mysteriously bumped down to a 30mbit/5mbit connection. I've called to complain both times and, to my ISPs credit, both times when I've said, "Look, I'm an engineer. I've properly tested the line and it's 30/5", they've immediately put me through to a proper network engineer who, while obviously annoyed, did things like put a large file on a server that was 1-ish hops away and said, "FTP that over and see what you get". I was stunned. And the problems were resolved.

Having said that, most people I know have ISP issued routers and wouldn't even know how to test their connection speed to the router or the internet in general. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that half of them have upgraded to connection speeds that not a single computer in their house can actually achieve over wireless because they are using shitty ISP issued D-Link wireless-g routers that they tuck away in the place least conducive to actually getting a good wireless connection. The ISPs know this and certainly aren't going to start issuing 1Gbit wireless routers that will allow people to actually take advantage of the speeds they are paying for with every device in their house.

Re:Mostly unnecessary (1)

jasonwc (939262) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147102)

I can only get 40 Mbit (5 MB/sec) on my 802.11n wireless router. However, I routinely get my rated speed of 50 Mbit/sec (6.2 MB/sec) down from my DOCSIS 3.0 connection, which peaks of 8 MB/sec. Of course, such connections are a rarity. Nonetheless, Gigabit ethernet is cheap and is far more reliable than wireless. Wireless connections just can't maintain multiple, high-throughput connections while wired ethernet can.

Also, I can easily get local transfers over my gigabit LAN that surpass 100 MB/sec. Unlike 802.11n, Gigabit doesn't have 50%+ overhead. I don't see wireless competing with wired ethernet anytime soon. Anyway, by the time Gigabit wireless is available, 10 Gbit Ethernet will be mainstream.

Re:Mostly unnecessary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35147140)

> Unless you're streaming from a local server, your internet connection will be the bottleneck, and most of those can't saturate 802.11a/g. Even the highest speed FIOS & DOCCIS 3 rates can't quite saturate 802.11n.

Yeah right. I have 5GHz 802.11n router, "600" Mbps (HAH!), and my 200Mbps DOCSIS 3 internet connection more than saturates it. Wireless speeds are at most 80 Mbit/s, wired speed exceeds 160 Mbit/s+.

Re:Mostly unnecessary (1)

modestmelody (1220424) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147234)

Try streaming HD video from your computer across the house right now, smoothly.

Yeah, people use their wireless home networks for more than sharing an internet pipe.

Re:Mostly unnecessary (1)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147330)

This won't help any more than using 802.11n in the 5GHz band. Same range limitations, and in reality, no more throughput because of limited channel availability. When they allocate more RF, they can address the throughput issue, but that's not gonna happen below 6GHz and higher frequencies will have even shorter range and less ability to penetrate walls.

ya right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35146212)

because all those G speed networks instantly got upgrade to N speed networks when the N standard was ratified... not.
For reliable gigabit use cat5e. for gigabit which is affected by microwave ovens, garage door openers, G and N wifi routers and cordless phone systems use 802.11ac.
for everything else, use usb.

hardly any devices can cope with 100 meg links today. my cellphone can barely transfer files at 1 meg. most laptops have problems transferring data at gigabit speeds.

1 gigabit? Upload? (1)

thecross (1313393) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146250)

Will there really be mobile devices that can upload data at 1 gigabit? That would consume an absurd amount of battery power. I seriously doubt that that "marketing" bandwidth spec will be even remotely symmetric.

Re:1 gigabit? Upload? (1)

catmistake (814204) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146364)

That's the way they'll sell it, but unlikely the "awesome" speeds the new standard promises will only be from laptops. Sure, you'll connect from your phone easily to the new network... but any tests will show you're getting slower speeds to li'l mobile devices. I know that most all phones that claimed 802.11g did actually connect to g networks, but only worked with 1mbps 802.11b speeds. Anyone test their 802.11n phones beyond confirming they got on the network? My bet is that in reality, the speeds aren't even approaching 802.11g yet. This could be due to the tiny hw can't actually handle the throughput, idk.

A billion times a billion. Wow (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35146254)

That's a lot of tweets....

The full story? (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146294)

Behind a paywall [in-stat.com] !

But we get to see a funny (I guess) picture...

Re:The full story? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35146382)

For the low price of $3,995 you can have your bits or buy a new ride [ebay.com] .

Cordless phone (1)

Byrel (1991884) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146306)

Just as consumers start moving towards 5.8 GHz wireless phones, we get interference there too. Maybe, if these market^H^H^H^H^H^H predictions are right, we can all move back to 2.4 GHz in a few years. :)

Hopefully this speeds the US in DECT 6.0 adoption. While that security is not bulletproof either, it certainly beats 5.8GHz

What about wired LANs? (1)

hoggoth (414195) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146324)

Great. Now how about higher speeds for my LAN? 1 gigabit is too slow for what I need (I know it's fine for most) and 10 gigabit is cost prohibitive. It's cheaper to set up a LAN using Infiniband than 10 gigabit Ethernet.

What sort of LAN? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35146402)

Obviously, you could bond some gigabit channels for throughput, but if you're hoping to reduce latency I have doubts that commodity LAN tech will ever substitute for specialty interconnects. They're going to keep increasing buffering as the signaling rates go up, unless there is some photonics revolution that puts us back to bit-stream switching.

Re:What about wired LANs? (1)

atamido (1020905) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146618)

A reasonable alternative to 10Gbps over Cat6e is direct attached SFP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_Gigabit_Ethernet#SFP.2B_Direct_Attach [wikipedia.org]

You find a 10 gig switch with SFP ports and a few 10 gig SFP cards for your computers, and connect them using cables that have SFP connectors on the end. You limit your distance versus other methods, but it's perfect if you just need to hook a few systems together that are in the same room or two.

Re:What about wired LANs? (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147572)

DA even with active cables has a max length of 10m making it unsuitable for anything but top of rack usage. 10Gbase-T will probably become more prevalent when Intel builds it into their SandyBridge-EP chipset this fall, and heck they already dropped the price per server port to a quarter of what it was a few months ago with their new adapters.

And.... (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146326)

... most of those devices will run well only with ipv4. Anyway, they will be sold like pancakes, after all, what you want is more speed, not reaching anywhere.

I see a marketing failure. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35146356)

Consumers will take one look at the box, see "1G," and think "my current phone has 4 of those Gs, why would I want to downgrade?"

Re:I see a marketing failure. (1)

treeves (963993) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146560)

and if you throw it hard at a brick or concrete wall, you could get it up to 100G's for a fraction of a second, before it's destroyed.

so... (0)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146590)

Won't this just make cracking your wireless network that much quicker? I'm still using 100mb WIRED networking hardware and can't cap it out streaming 1080p video. Why on earth would I want gigabit wireless traffic?

Re:so... (1)

espiesp (1251084) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146960)

Cracking your network is limited to CPU cycles on the computer doing the cracking, not the network speed.

Slashdot? (3, Funny)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146612)

If I have a 1gig wireless connection, will it still take a full 10 seconds after I click "Submit" for Slashdot to accept my post?

Re:Slashdot? (1)

Yez70 (924200) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147216)

Yep

Re:Slashdot? (2)

afidel (530433) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147578)

That's only the first post in x amount of time while it does the open relay check that keeps a lot of spammers out.

VPN (1)

davvr6 (823826) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146692)

Think video air tunes and iPad VPN

I'm confused. (1)

HamSammy (1716116) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146710)

instantly über popular? ...I thought this was a news site.

Useless (1)

currently_awake (1248758) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146716)

Unless you live in Korea or Western Europe the speed won't matter. Do you really think Shaw/Bell/Tellus etc will -ever- let you see a Gb/sec internet connection? And as for a private network, well that's what government lobbyists are for (stopping).

Who cares?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35146742)

Since the fastest "standard consumer internet service" I've seen is only 50mbps (comcast) and most wifi hotspots are only running like 5 or 10... what do I care if the wifi is running 1gig???

Re:Who cares?? (1)

espiesp (1251084) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146978)

Would be nice for home network users that move a lot of data around between a NAS box or a HTPC and a laptop... Sure beats a cable when you're sitting on the couch.

Collisions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35146776)

If it didn't improve end to end throughput much, it would still reduce collisions in the local wifi area. The effect would be similar to higher speeds on Ethernet.

What about my flying car? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35147182)

A long time ago "they" predicted we'd all commute to work in our flying cars, but that hasn't happened.

quote originated on Slashdot over 11 years ago. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35147230)

When discussing a topic on Conventional Memory availability, it was discerned that CP/M upon it's incorporation since being bought to roll into MS-DOS, was limited to 640K. I believe the phrase the original Slashdot post was implying to explain Bill Gates' choice on this was "summary quote" meaning: Bill Gates implied that 640K was enough to run anything on 286 processors under MS Windows 2.0 and it wasn't until Windows 3 in "386-enhanced mode" and more RAM addressing that they could play around with the slightly slower larger amounts of RAM. I know this quote originated on Slashdot, because I was trolling Slashdot as early as 1998 and VA Linux was selling rackmount Alpha hardware.
> There is no evidence Gates ever said that.

>>"640K ought to be enough for anybody.â -Bill Gates (1981)

Sorry to be a boner killer... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35147286)

1Gb = 128MB/sec, but most netbooks and other devices do not have I/O that can go that fast so you're bottleneck is really the I/O (hard disk)

ipv6 (1)

macemoneta (154740) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147288)

The speed is meaningless for most, but it's something that will help get people purchasing new equipment. They need some incentive; almost none of the consumer-grade routers currently in use are ipv6 capable.

Re:ipv6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35147542)

What.
 
What the hell are they waiting for?! It's not like IPv6 is "future tech." Hell, every week we get an "IPv4 is doomed!" article over here.

Too little too late (1)

Dishwasha (125561) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147312)

Why the heck would I buy 1G wireless in the future when I can buy 3G and even 4G wireless right now? They'll probably be up to at least 5G by then.

Re:Too little too late (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35147592)

lol okay ozzy... it think we all know you are either an idiot or troll bait

What will the bandwidth be used for? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35147672)

Is this a tech blog? Are you kidding me? Bandwidth always gets filled with new and interesting content and services. Now you may argue you do not need to see your child in HD video on your mobile phone while you are traveling, but it sure is nice!

Meh... 5-6ghz? (1)

jriskin (132491) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147708)

I haven't looked, but isn't there anything 2ghz? Really all those high frequencies suck for wall penetration...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?