11–20 of 31 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We have 2, 6, 8gbps internet lines widely available here in NZ. Current wifi was capped out long ago
How much of that is international bandwidth?
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.
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.
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.
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…
A better comparison would be the limits for a single strand of fiber optic cable.
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…
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.
For example Ubiquiti lists their Unifi U6+ at 1.2gbit and the U6 Pro at 4.8gbit. But the speed these two products will achieve in a home or small office is exactly the same. The Pro has some more range (bigger antennas), but both will get you about 700mbit in ideal reception no interference conditions because they're based on the same WiFi 6 standard.
Edit: And they know it, both products have a 1gbit physical port that is enough to serve "4.8 gbit wifi"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How much of that is international bandwidth?
It’s fibre from the home to your provider. New Zealand's current international connectivity is provided by three under-sea fibre optic cables with a combined total throughput of 73 terabits per second.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Yes and even worse they now start to add the theoretical maximum of several streams together to get an even bigger number that makes even less sense. For example Ubiquiti lists their Unifi U6+ at 1.2gbit and the U6 Pro at 4.8gbit. But the speed these two products will achieve in a home or small office is exactly the same. The Pro has some more range (bigger antennas), but both will get you about 700mbit in ideal rece…
Most client devices won't go above 2x2 MIMO and many won't support above channel widths greater than 80MHz on 5GHz so your chance of saturating the 1Gbit uplink port is unlikely anyway.
...
IEEE: "Now introducing WiFi 6E!"
Lol
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.