Wi-Fi Gigabit Speeds Just One to Two Years Away
Qualcomm Atheros president Craig Barratt said that it will be one or two years before consumers see routers supporting 802.11ac.
Craig Barratt, president of Qualcomm Atheros, recently stated that Wi-Fi gigabit speeds within the home (via 802.11ac) is just one or two years away from becoming reality. He made this revelation during an interview at GigaOM's Mobilize conference on Tuesday as he explained how Wi-Fi technology will soon get better and faster.
As reported earlier, 802.11ac is the next step past 802.11n in the Wi-Fi ladder. It will be fully backward compatible with all previous generations of Wi-Fi, and in the 2.4 GHz spectrum, it will be identical to 802.11n. The major innovation with 802.11ac will be that in the 5 GHz band, the spec will offer "substantially" higher throughput. That said, users will see gigabit speeds using the 5 GHz band.
But as GigaOM points out, most consumers don't have a gigabit connection to the Internet. "We are driving more content around the home," Barratt said. "And actually in many countries, they already enjoy substantially larger broadband connections into the home, so optical networks are being deployed on every increasing scales. And in the next several years, we do expect much higher bandwidth connections into the home as well."
Why we need higher bandwidth connections and faster wireless speeds should be fairly obvious: we're data hogs. We like our games, our movies and our television shows streamed right to our desktops, laptops, tablets, smartphones, consoles and HDTVs. The higher the resolution, the more bandwidth we'll need to satisfy our hunger for multimedia. But much in the way software and hardware drive each other forward, the same applies to multimedia and bandwidth.
Barratt pointed out that consumers also need a strong Wi-Fi network to offload much of that data consumption from cellular networks that typically charge high prices for small allowances of data. But as he states, gigabit speeds on Wi-fi networks -- whether they're at home or at the local Starbucks -- will be one or two years away.
"A lot of work is happening in the standards group right now," he said.
Yet even if 802.11ac will be finalized within a year or two, will most households be ready? Will consumers need that kind of throughput if broadband connections are still piping internet in at up to 15 Mbps? As it stands now, even Wireless N is faster than what most broadband providers are bringing into the home.
- Facebook Revealing Project Spartan Next Week
- VIDEO: A Tour of Android Ice Cream Sandwich
- Samsung Announces 16MP Sensor For Phones, Tablets
- Amazon: Yes, We Know You'll Root Our Tablet
- Is Jerry Yang Back at the Yahoo! Helm?
- Mozilla Delays Firefox 7 Update Due to Add-on Bug
- RIM Drops PlayBook's Price (Production?) After Kindle Fire
- 7-inch Toshiba Thrive Slated for December Release
- DROID 4 In The Works, Codenamed Maserati
- Opinion: How Kindle Fire Could Validate Apple's iPad
- Apple Inventory Points to New iPhone 5, 4S and iPod
- RIM: We're Not Giving Up on PlayBook Tablet
- Smartphone Concept Features Rotating Twin Displays
- Printer Concept Ditches Ink, Uses Sunlight Instead
- Anonymous Now Has a (Rap) Theme Song
- DIY Typewriter Device Makes Your Favorite Cocktails
- Rumor: 10-Inch Kindle Fire Out by Holiday Season
- Coat Collects Rainwater, Purifies for Drinking
- Gamers Help Discover Two New Planets
Hell yeah! XBMCs streaming ISOs from my NAS all over the house and no messy wires to run. Powerline networking does the trick for now though.
Wi-Fi connection is not always used as a gateway to the Internet ...
Wi-Fi connection is not always used as a gateway to the Internet ...
Even if it comes out in a few years I see little reason to upgrade. My File Server and main PC are on gigabit eithernet, and my Wii, PS3, HTPC, and laptop are on wireless n (if applicable) which is more than fast enough for gaming and streaming HD movies. Even 3D movies can be transmitted over wireless n.
Now, if someone could deliver interference/dropout free wireless I'd be interested in that.
I wonder if this will run into the same product cost issues 802.11a couldn't overcome due to its use of the 5GHz band. The 2.4GHz band is essentially free and uncontrolled, but 5GHz is not.
KICKASS!!
Even if it comes out in a few years I see little reason to upgrade. My File Server and main PC are on gigabit eithernet, and my Wii, PS3, HTPC, and laptop are on wireless n (if applicable) which is more than fast enough for gaming and streaming HD movies. Even 3D movies can be transmitted over wireless n.Now, if someone could deliver interference/dropout free wireless I'd be interested in that.
Remember that 10 Mbps once was more than enough for the data and hardware of the time.
This is exciting! I have been running cable through the air ducts in the house as a temp solution until wireless finally was fast enough to be useful. Sounds to me like it is only 5 more years until it is affordable and devices really support it! cant wait!
This is needed if you are having lots of bandwidth hog devices and having optical fiber connecting your home and the ISP exchange with Gbps speed. Hope the price will be reasonable.
Neat, but I just pay for a basic internet connection.
For me, that means it's 12Mbps.
Wireless G is 54Mbps.
I can't even max out wireless G. Infact the only service my ISP provides that is capable of speeds above 54Mbps is thier "ULTRA 60" service.
But I'm not willing to shell out the $100 a month for that service. So I think I'll be sticking with Wireless G for quite some time even when this ac service is released.
Neat, but I just pay for a basic internet connection. For me, that means it's 12Mbps.Wireless G is 54Mbps.I can't even max out wireless G. Infact the only service my ISP provides that is capable of speeds above 54Mbps is thier "ULTRA 60" service.But I'm not willing to shell out the $100 a month for that service. So I think I'll be sticking with Wireless G for quite some time even when this ac service is released.
Same here. Internet bandwidth needs to increase dramatically before this even makes a difference for the majority of people.
Wi-Fi connection is not always used as a gateway to the Internet ...
Well said Stan. I could care less about the fact that this would be far less than needed for connection to my ISP, I have a home network I use in which traffic doesn't hit the internet. I wired my whole house, and tested all the links at 1 Gig speeds. My laptop's 802.11g is fine for internet useage, but it sucks when it comes to file transfers to my 4 TB NAS that is wired for gig speeds. Most of the average Joe's out there just connect to the internet.
Are you kidding me? 802.11g is still faster than 95% of the populations internet speed.
Remember that 10 Mbps once was more than enough for the data and hardware of the time.
I know that more speed is better, but more speed on wireless is currently useless for all foreseeable HTPC and gaming purposes. I also know I'm not going to upgrade my 55" TV until it breaks (hopefully over 8 years from now), so even if technology goes to 2160p (4x the pixels of 1080p) I won't be using it. Like I said, reliability is more important than speed at this point. More speed only benefits those who don't want to run wires at increased cost and decreased reliability. When wireless hits 1Gbps wired will be hitting 10Gbps at affordable prices.
The other issue is that the 5GHz band doesn't travel as far or penetrate walls nearly as well as the 2.4GHz band. So instead of placing a single wireless router you'll need multiple to get good coverage or you'll have worse dropout.
If this rolls out, it'll be the start of the end of LAN cables.
I already have CAT6 piped into every room in the house, will do me for a while.
54Mbps isn't, it's more like 20-22 at best. N is the same way, half or less than the advertised throughput. ac will be the same I'm sure.
I have a 1Gb cat6e network through my house. Run multiple PS3's and many many other devices, mostly cabled. Got three tablets and two sony dash's that stream netflix via the wireless. I can stream uncompressed bluray rips to multiple outputs at the same time via the cabled network. I would never try this with wireless. 5Ghz makes it slightly more stable I'm sure, but a single dropout would be enough to drive me insane.
Wireless is fine for web browsing, low res streaming, and small file transfers, that's about it. Unless you have a lot of free time on your hands.....
LAN party without wires
what is this good for if you are throttled back because of the network usage
I can't imagine seeing this in widespread use for quite some time. I mean 802.11n has already been out for a while and yet it few people have adopted it. Even if you do have an 802.11n router the vast majority of client devices only support 802.11g or earlier. You usually have a buy an additional adapter just to use 802.11n, so most people just opt for the cheaper 802.11g routers instead.
So given the large install base of 802.11g I really can't imaging seeing 802.11ac becoming widespread for 3-4 years.
A lot of people seem to be missing the point of gigabit wifi speeds. Its not gonna make your current internet connection faster. If all you do is play videogames, browse the internet, download music, or stream netflix then there's no point for you to upgrade. Stick with current 802.11a/b/g/n - you'll just be wasting your money to upgrade your router/wifi adapters.
If you copy large files between computers in your home or stream hd movies (bluray source) regularly then this is for you as it will cut down on the file copy time and hopefully make streamed hd content less choppy.
This is interesting and everything, but I always thought it will be cool if they make devices using new approach (longer wavelengths) where the distance between spots could be in kilometers. That would be a real breakthrough and really useful technology.
As a data hog on my home network, (playing games from a central drive, Very large file transfers between computers, ect) I'll welcome wireless ac. It would beat having to transfer files from computer to computer via usb 2.0. (heck in theory, wireless ac is faster than usb 2.0.)
This is interesting and everything, but I always thought it will be cool if they make devices using new approach (longer wavelengths) where the distance between spots could be in kilometers. That would be a real breakthrough and really useful technology.
There already is such stuff, although it's main purpose is meant for government, very large businesses, and other groups as such.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Wi-Fi
I have gigabit wired ethernet in my home, and the wired network extends to my home theater. I have been thinking about putting in 450n or 600n wireless, however, so far, I am only considering that for low-volume data. I'm considering n mainly because that is current technology. I'm not sure that I will wait for this "ac" revision simply because I already have a wired network that is at this speed.
I would much rather see 100 Mbps internet come to my home at a price that is the same as what I am paying for 10 Mbps internet, but with the greedy ISPs in the US, I doubt that will happen anytime soon. High-speed internet in my area is a monopoly of Time Warner.
My laptop I bought this year doesn't even support 802.11n let alone this new standard.
One thing that is also important to note is that it often doesn't matter if you have a 100 mb internet connection. On campus I usually have a connection speed of 80-110 megabits wired. However, most websites that I access don't let me run at that speed.
Even steam never lets me download games above a 30-40 mb rate. The only times when I have been able to fully saturate the connection are: Downloading patches for WoW, and streaming HD Youtube videos. The servers that are hosting the internet sites also need to greatly increase their bandwidth available before these upgrades in WiFi make an appreciable difference for anything other than LAN uses.
What can I realistically expect? With most wireless connections, you get less than half the theoretical maximum bandwidth.
Can't stand wireless myself. Too prone to interference and disconnects. Speeds are far too slow as well. Advertising 54mbit and only getting about 10mbit on a good day is the norm for wireless.
Can't stand wireless myself. Too prone to interference and disconnects. Speeds are far too slow as well. Advertising 54mbit and only getting about 10mbit on a good day is the norm for wireless.
What you are saying is correct on the most part but it is also true that most people don't survey for the best channel to use, position their wireless kit for optimal coverage or have realistic expectations of what to expect from their wireless setup.
All too often people put their router in a location that physically can't transmit to where their client devices (on\at an external wall as that is where the cable enters the house for example)are due to exceeding the optimal signal range or due to impedance caused by having to travel through walls, floors, ceilings etc. and often when they do get a wireless client to connect they are connected to kit that suffers from signal clashes with because of other competing wireless devices nearly or just simply general electrical devices that all interfere with the signal and lower the resulting connection speed.
I personally suffered from this quite badly (concrete walls\floors, badly positioned 'crappy' ISP provided router and default wireless channel selection) but I managed to fix it all by replacing the router with decent Draytek model, using it's inbuilt survey system to find an uncontested channel and neatly position it in the middle of my house (horizontally and vertically) with a decent set of high gain antenna and now top-end wireless speeds are easily achievable.
One other thing worth mentioning is that device compatibility is still a big issue regardless of the 802.x standards having been adopted or not as I found that certain makes and manufacturers of kit don't play well together (Cisco client devices used to kill Netgear Router's connection speeds for example).
If this rolls out, it'll be the start of the end of LAN cables.
It' simple really in that the faster the frequency the shorter the wavelength is which allow more data to be transmitted in a given period of time. The consequence is then though that with a shorter wavelength the signal is less penetrative through physical matter, has a much higher chance of being corrupted by interference and subsequently provides a less stable connection often resulting in data re-transmission.
Some people don't realise that even though they are connected at a high-speed their actual data throughput isn't very good due to the amount of dropped\bad packets. To know for sure you are getting a good connection you have to do some real-world transfer tests and not just assume that for example because you are connected at 54mbps with 802.11n certified devices that you are actually transmitting 54mbits of usable data per second and not 45mbits of good data accompanied by a whole lot of re-transmissions due to bad data being sent\received.