Wi-Fi Alliance introduces Wi-Fi 6
wi-fi.org
Wi-Fi Alliance introduces Wi-Fi 6
1–10 of 99 posts
Re: Wi-Fi Alliance introduces Wi-Fi 6
#2Good decision on their part. As laughable as some technical branding sometimes seems, it usually serves a decent purpose in helping people upgrade infrastructure.
Re: Wi-Fi Alliance introduces Wi-Fi 6
#3Wi-Fi Alliance is naming the not-yet-complete IEEE 802.11ax standard as Wi-Fi 6, with ac being 5, and n being 4. One can guess then a is supposed to 1, b as 2, and g as 3, but this isn't mentioned anywhere I can see.
As far as I can tell, all of these numbers are new. At least this naming is a good deal clearer than HDMI's confusing version and feature mix or USB's Speed names.
What isn't clear is how much control the Wi-Fi Alliance has over the tech industry and how their branding is used, but it looks like they might be able to compel a lot of companies to adopt this new naming. They've got standards for logos on things like your computer or phone, so we'll see if these start getting adopted by major manufacturers.
Re: Wi-Fi Alliance introduces Wi-Fi 6
#4802.11ax is 802.11n's true successor and I hope it will be adopted quickly by everyone. 802.11ac for the 5GHz band was a faux successor, in my opinion, as you couldn't use it in the same scenarios. It came with some higher performance, but with major compromises in reach for a typical home.
Wi-Fi 6/802.11ax should last for a while, so I hope the Wi-Fi Alliance starts focusing on an actual long-range standard that's more of a competitor to LTE but that works in the unlicensed spectrum and for distances of 1km or longer. Then it needs to incentivize smartphone makers or smartphone modem makers to adopt it so that everyone will have it.
This would remove the biggest obstacle towards having a real meshnet.
Re: Wi-Fi Alliance introduces Wi-Fi 6
#5This is just such a sensible change, it's amazing it took everyone this long to come up with it. Figuring out whether something is b, g, n, ac, etc. and then trying to remember which one comes next (ax) is just not going to filter down to the regular consumer like... ever.
I can definitely see perks both in "hey, that's the newer network, it's got a higher version number", and "oh, I guess I do need to buy a new Wi-Fi device, it only supports version 4", etc.
Re: Wi-Fi Alliance introduces Wi-Fi 6
#6This is just such a sensible change, it's amazing it took everyone this long to come up with it. Figuring out whether something is b, g, n, ac, etc. and then trying to remember which one comes next (ax) is just not going to filter down to the regular consumer like... ever. I can definitely see perks both in "hey, that's the newer network, it's got a higher version number", and "oh, I guess I do need to buy a new Wi-F…
At the same time, some version numbers are meaningless (because Chrome), so I'm ambivalent about the change. Still, this should make it easier for mere mortals to understand.
Re: Wi-Fi Alliance introduces Wi-Fi 6
#7This is just such a sensible change, it's amazing it took everyone this long to come up with it. Figuring out whether something is b, g, n, ac, etc. and then trying to remember which one comes next (ax) is just not going to filter down to the regular consumer like... ever. I can definitely see perks both in "hey, that's the newer network, it's got a higher version number", and "oh, I guess I do need to buy a new Wi-F…
At the same time, some version numbers are meaningless (because Chrome), so I'm ambivalent about the change. Still, this should make it easier for mere mortals to understand.
True, but Chrome also de-emphasized the version number. I don't usually remember what version I'm on, and the only place most people might see it is when they manually check for a new version. Wi-Fi 6 is going to be used a lot in branding.
Re: Wi-Fi Alliance introduces Wi-Fi 6
#8This is just such a sensible change, it's amazing it took everyone this long to come up with it. Figuring out whether something is b, g, n, ac, etc. and then trying to remember which one comes next (ax) is just not going to filter down to the regular consumer like... ever. I can definitely see perks both in "hey, that's the newer network, it's got a higher version number", and "oh, I guess I do need to buy a new Wi-F…
At the same time, some version numbers are meaningless (because Chrome), so I'm ambivalent about the change. Still, this should make it easier for mere mortals to understand.
At least there's not a new version of WiFi every 6-8 weeks.
Re: Wi-Fi Alliance introduces Wi-Fi 6
#9Wi-Fi Alliance is naming the not-yet-complete IEEE 802.11ax standard as Wi-Fi 6, with ac being 5, and n being 4. One can guess then a is supposed to 1, b as 2, and g as 3, but this isn't mentioned anywhere I can see. As far as I can tell, all of these numbers are new. At least this naming is a good deal clearer than HDMI's confusing version and feature mix or USB's Speed names. What isn't clear is how much control th…
When was the last time you saw a WiFi logo? The only time I can remember was as one of those stickers on a HP laptop in 2005.
Re: Wi-Fi Alliance introduces Wi-Fi 6
#10Wi-Fi Alliance is naming the not-yet-complete IEEE 802.11ax standard as Wi-Fi 6, with ac being 5, and n being 4. One can guess then a is supposed to 1, b as 2, and g as 3, but this isn't mentioned anywhere I can see. As far as I can tell, all of these numbers are new. At least this naming is a good deal clearer than HDMI's confusing version and feature mix or USB's Speed names. What isn't clear is how much control th…
> Wi-Fi Alliance is naming the not-yet-complete IEEE 802.11ax standard as Wi-Fi 6, with ac being 5, and n being 4. One can guess then a is supposed to 1, b as 2, and g as 3, but this isn't mentioned anywhere I can see.
Oh, I'm so happy it's a number that seems to correspond to something (as long as the next one is 7 or 8 or some integer slightly larger than 6).
I look at wifi tech so rarely that I've mostly skipped a standard once or twice, but that just means I'm confused when I look at what's being offered. 802.11n? 802.11ac? What's better? If it's not as clear cut, which one came out later and is likely to be backwards compatible with the prior one?
If it was single letter increasing without large gaps, that might have been easier, but from what I remember, b wasn't strictly better than a when they were both first out (from looking at the info now, a has a higher rate, but suffers from obstructions and other interference more).
> At least this naming is a good deal clearer than HDMI's confusing version and feature mix or USB's Speed names.
Yes. As I understand it, USB is particularly bad where there's often confusion over the connectors, cable, and protocol, especially at the USB-c level.