1Gbps Wi-Fi Coming Soon To a Billion Devices

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

1Gbps Wi-Fi Coming Soon To a Billion Devices

Posted by Roblimo on Tuesday February 8, 2011 @02:20PM from the faster-than-a-rumor-about-a-new-wi-fi-product dept.

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."

202 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

I just cannot wait by lpaul55 · 2011-02-08 14:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
... now back to the bit mines.
1. Re:I just cannot wait by Machtyn · 2011-02-08 15:01 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
2. Re:I just cannot wait by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-08 16:32 · Score: 0
  
  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
3. Re:I just cannot wait by DigiShaman · 2011-02-08 16:35 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  Life is not for the lazy.
4. Re:I just cannot wait by Corbets · 2011-02-08 17:53 · Score: 1
  
  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.
5. Re:I just cannot wait by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-08 18:45 · Score: 0
  
  yet
6. Re:I just cannot wait by hitmark · 2011-02-08 19:33 · Score: 1
  
  Jamming trucks would be a more effective means. Jam the frequencies used by the civilian gear but leave open those for the military or similar.
  And if one is clever one can even set up the trucks so that they can triangulate, so that if one want to find a specific transmitter one can open up a local area for a short time (but keep jamming long distance links) to make the device in question send out a handshake. Then one send in the goons.
  Hell, a certain "secret" police used such triangulation to locate spies in the 1940s...
  It may not even be a truck, but a plane (awacs anyone?).
  
  --
  comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
7. Re:I just cannot wait by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-08 19:36 · Score: 0
  
  Of course your neighbours might all be more than just a little upset with you, since EMP via low-orbit nuke doesn't strike me as being all that selective. You might rapidly find your military's electronic devices also becoming trash via more conventional methods of bombardment.
8. Re:I just cannot wait by golden+age+villain · 2011-02-08 19:53 · Score: 1
  
  And I assume a very cheap and simple to deploy solution in a rioting country.
9. Re:I just cannot wait by Kokuyo · 2011-02-08 20:01 · Score: 1
  
  And how will you fill your pockets with your people's money if you've just crippled your whole infrastructure?
10. Re:I just cannot wait by hitmark · 2011-02-08 20:19 · Score: 1
  
  The plane could be at least. One of those birds (and it could be the size of a civilian jet) could potentially jam a large area from up high. Especially as it is fighting against transmitters designed to be hand held and over over a limited distance (to conserve battery power).
  
  --
  comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
11. Re:I just cannot wait by OeLeWaPpErKe · 2011-02-08 22:36 · Score: 1
  
  There's also the inconvenient fact that your EMP wave, using a 250 megaton device, *might* be capable of actually generating interference in the band for, oh, say 10 seconds. Then the devices would need another 30 seconds to reconnect, and all the (radio) effects of your bomb will be gone.
  EMP waves just don't work for shutting down isolated electronics (unless we're talking fields like the sun's magnetic field, which put 250 megaton devices to shame). For obvious reasons, any electronic device that includes a radio (esp. a 6ghz one), will be isolated against external interference. An EMP will not be able to disable an isolated device at more than a few dozen meters distance. And frankly, if you're a few dozen meters from a 250 megaton nuclear bomb, you have other things to worry about. Or, more likely, you have nothing at all to worry about anymore.
  Disabling electronics ... imho there's only one way for a dictator to disable most of his subjects electronic devices : cut power. Of course, that will have more effects than just disabling electronic devices. And in Egypt, presumably a lot of people have solar panels (at least a few small ones).
12. Re:I just cannot wait by rufty_tufty · 2011-02-08 22:50 · Score: 1
  
  It's a shame then that they didn't use UWB for this 802.11ac standard, what with it being nearly impossible to effectively Jam.
  Ho Hum maybe for the next standard...
  
  --
  "The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
13. Re:I just cannot wait by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-08 23:09 · Score: 0
  
  Shut down the power stations then. Batteries only last so long.
14. Re:I just cannot wait by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-08 23:52 · Score: 0
  
  I think you just described a Rube Goldberg device for shutting down *some* of a countries electronics.
15. Re:I just cannot wait by AC-x · 2011-02-08 23:53 · Score: 1
  
  Because people couldn't possibly organise protests or spread information without electronic communication. I hope no-one cuts the power or any form of dissent would become impossible!
16. Re:I just cannot wait by AC-x · 2011-02-08 23:56 · Score: 1
  
  Um, what about just making a few phone calls to the local power plants and telling them to shut down? I'd like to see how long everyone's adhoc network survives then, 4 hours? 8 hours?
17. Re:I just cannot wait by TheRaven64 · 2011-02-09 00:29 · Score: 1
  
  Stratellites would be a better option. High-altitude balloons blanketing a specific frequency are quite cheap and easy to produce and can fly above the range of small arms fire quite easily. If your population has access to surface to air missiles, then you probably have bigger problems than them shooting down your balloons (although you could discourage this by filling them with hydrogen and making them out of flammable material, so ones that are shot down turn into falling balls of flame and land on the rioters.
  Of course, any good dictator wouldn't resort to such inelegant techniques. They'd encourage the deployment and invest in propaganda encouraging people to distrust foreign news sources and to treat any criticism of the government as criticism of the people.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
18. Re:I just cannot wait by DrXym · 2011-02-09 01:02 · Score: 1
  
  Jamming trucks would be a more effective means. Jam the frequencies used by the civilian gear but leave open those for the military or similar.
  Trucks with detectors equipement and men in the back with large sticks would be more effective again. Drive around, find an active signal, men jump out the back and smash the kit to bits and beat the shit of anyone running it.
19. Re:I just cannot wait by rolfwind · 2011-02-09 01:59 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  Would this even work? It's been forever since I have taken network communications and I don't have much to do with it day to day. But even if every house in America gets wired up for this, isn't the time-to-live in IP limited to 255, and while measured in seconds, every hop must deprecate this by 1. Generously giving each hop 1 mile distance (internet shut down, no main routes), wouldn't the packets be lucky to go across half a state, if that?
  Of course, some other protocol may be used, but they'd have to be pretty widespread.
20. Re:I just cannot wait by datapharmer · 2011-02-09 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  I plug my battery backups into each other. They feed back and forth and can run forever. You can't shut me down!
  
  --
  Get a web developer
21. Re:I just cannot wait by Dan1701 · 2011-02-09 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  Actually you try a spoofing trick a certain youth cafe in London did, back in the 1960s. The cafe owner knew that the police were monitoring the payphone in the cafe, because the place was a known hang-out of youth gangs, and he didn't much like it. So he devised a cunning plan to defeat the problem. Everyone who visited the cafe was, on leaving, given 10 pence and asked to phone the cafe payphone back, to ask when and where the demonstration would be (but NOT to go). A few dozen such calls had the local law absolutely convinced of massed rioting in a local park on a certain day.
  On that day, hundreds of police turned out to quell the expected rioting and crowds, which turned out to consist of one pensioner and his equally elderly dog, out for a morning stroll.
  The phone tap was abandoned soon afterwards.
22. Re:I just cannot wait by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-09 04:29 · Score: 0
  
  Well, but the US has (and that was one of the examples given).
23. Re:I just cannot wait by tlhIngan · 2011-02-09 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  Don't think some regimes give a damn about the welfare and prosperity of their nations, because often they don't.
  Especially outgoing leaders. The economy of Egypt has stalled, badly now because of all the protests, and many industries will take awhile to recover (tourism, especially, and the looting of artifacts isn't helping), plus a few well-placed bombs on oil equipment and whoever's the next leader will have to contend with a country with zero economic output ability, no money (the government will continue to pay everyone still working until the treasury's depleted, including the military - once all the money's gone/embezzeled/ztolen, the government will collapse), and a hungry populace.
  Basically, a scorched earth policy. The only upside is if you're rich and wanted some Egyptian artifacts for your private collection.
24. Re:I just cannot wait by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-09 05:15 · Score: 0
  
  Never mind millions upon millions of citizens rising up against their tyranical dictator.
  This is the USA remember... and you just hurt them in the one place they care about. Their STUFF. I mean, now that they can't watch American Idol and Nascar since their TV is dead, they're going to want to find out WHY they missed the season finale.
25. Re:I just cannot wait by rlwhite · 2011-02-09 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  I would have my operatives embed remotely controlled overrides and off switches in the people's hardware during the design phase, so that the people can't use the devices against my wishes. I'd call it my Digital Rights Management.
26. Re:I just cannot wait by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-09 05:45 · Score: 0
  
  Fallout anyone?
27. Re:I just cannot wait by vegiVamp · 2011-02-09 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  Interesting.
  - How will you magick your military stuff to not be impacted ?
  - How will you build the wonderwall that shields your neighbours ?
  - How will you shield yourself from a suddenly very keen to remove you set of global superpowers ?
  - And, not in the least, how will you shield yourself from the hundreds of thousands to one majority of your people who suddenly decide that a madman in power is one thing, but a madman in power who nukes his own bloody country is a whole different bag of marbles ?
  No, the two main tricks for being an effective dictator, are
  - either oppress them enough to get everything you want, but not so much that they decide their children's future is well worth their lives; or
  - don't oppress them as much as just keep them as stupid as possible, preferably adding a sturdy dose of patriotism to the mix.
  The former is what a lot of middle eastern states do - Mubarak recently crossed that line, but managed to keep emergency law in effect for thirty years - while the latter is what is employed very effectively in North Korea, the US and an increasing number of "civilized" countries.
  
  --
  What a depressingly stupid machine.
28. Re:I just cannot wait by Machtyn · 2011-02-11 14:29 · Score: 1
  
  You've got a good point. I am thinking more of a crowded city of protesters that have been dispersed. There would be enough linkage to still make connection from one end of town to the other. One of those people are likely going to be able to get out of town or spread the via similar or other communications. Generally, though, communications outside of the town will be difficult anyway. Just remember how badly the phone lines, cell and tower, were in NYC on 9/11, or anywhere else were a natural or man-made disaster occurs.
  
  I think this would actually be a very interesting research project for a graduate. Figure out how to string a thousand smart phones to make a wide area ad-hoc network. With a few phones with Internet connectivity.
Bigger picture? by miruku · 2011-02-08 14:27 · Score: 1

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?

--
MilkMiruku
1. Re:Bigger picture? by Ultra64 · 2011-02-08 14:40 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Here you go
2. Re:Bigger picture? by formfeed · 2011-02-08 16:14 · Score: 1
  
  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.
3. Re:Bigger picture? by nospam007 · 2011-02-08 16:56 · Score: 1
  
  "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.'
4. Re:Bigger picture? by miruku · 2011-02-08 18:32 · Score: 1
  
  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?
  
  --
  MilkMiruku
5. Re:Bigger picture? by TheRaven64 · 2011-02-09 00:46 · Score: 1
  
  The real problem is CPU speed. Imagine a mesh network spanning an entire city. The total time for a radio signal to propagate across the city is, effectively, zero. At the speed of light, it's hard to measure the time it takes. Bandwidth isn't a problem either - if you send the signal in a straight line, that might be saturated, but you can broaden the link by diverting some connections that aren't latency-sensitive to adjacent nodes, so you have two virtual pipes running geographically parallel to each other.
  With WiFi, you've got a practical limit of about 20-50m of range between devices. Let's be really generous and say 50m. A small city may be 1km across, so that's 20 hops, closer to 30 if you don't have a direct path. 20 hops means 20 nodes that need to receive the packet, decode it, make a routing decision, and then forward it. Making the routing decision is pretty easy for a traditional network, because you have a small number of fixed routes. With a mesh network, the routing table is constantly being updated, so you're looking at something on the order of 10ms per hop. You also typically have to completely receive a packet before you can start forwarding it, so with a 54Mb/s network and a 576 byte packet size you've got an absolute minimum of about 0.1ms per hop, but that's not so bad.
  With a 10ms latency per hop, a packet going across a city is looking at taking 200-500ms, double for the round trip time. In short, ping times from here to the other side of the city would be longer with a mesh network than my current ping times to the other side of the atlantic.
  As you say, it's possible to take an idea from the mobile networks and deploy an unbrella system, where you talk directly to some large peers if you can see them, and fall back to the smaller ones to fill in the gaps in coverage.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
6. Re:Bigger picture? by DrXym · 2011-02-09 01:05 · Score: 1
  
  Just kit out the country with One Laptop Per Child laptops. All the kiddies will form the mesh for you.
7. Re:Bigger picture? by GameboyRMH · 2011-02-09 01:08 · Score: 1
  
  *Runs in for the slam dunk*
  http://www.hsmm-mesh.org/
  BOOM shaka laka laka laka
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
8. Re:Bigger picture? by Ultra64 · 2011-02-09 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  open-mesh.com uses code built from http://www.open-mesh.org/ which is an open project.
  
  What I like about open-mesh.com is that they have 802.11n mesh units for cheap and a fairly usable dashboard to control it all.
9. Re:Bigger picture? by Ultra64 · 2011-02-09 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  That's assuming the whole mesh network is fed with only one uplink. Add a few more in various places and performance will improve.
10. Re:Bigger picture? by TheRaven64 · 2011-02-09 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  No it isn't, that's entirely my point. The latency to any uplink in a mesh network will be large, if the uplink is more than a few hops away.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
11. Re:Bigger picture? by Ultra64 · 2011-02-09 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  I build mesh networks for a living and for fun (use meraki at work, open-mesh at home) and I have not seen the horrible performance you've described.
12. Re:Bigger picture? by TheRaven64 · 2011-02-09 11:00 · Score: 1
  
  How many hops are you generally seeing? I've yet to see a mesh network with more than about a hundred nodes. Larger networks generally have to employ some kind of static routing to work around this.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
"The study predicts that Mobile devices..." by Anachragnome · 2011-02-08 14:29 · Score: 1

"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.
1. Re:"The study predicts that Mobile devices..." by Randle_Revar · 2011-02-08 15:23 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  Climate Progress - Hell and High Water
2. Re:"The study predicts that Mobile devices..." by Anachragnome · 2011-02-08 15:37 · Score: 1
  
  "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?
3. Re:"The study predicts that Mobile devices..." by dakameleon · 2011-02-08 15:46 · Score: 1
  
  Except that's wrong.
  
  --
  Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
4. Re:"The study predicts that Mobile devices..." by decoy256 · 2011-02-08 15:46 · Score: 1
  
  thereby kick-starting the Second Middle-Ages
  But at the rate technology and society progresses, it will only last 17.6 hours.
5. Re:"The study predicts that Mobile devices..." by asvravi · 2011-02-08 21:07 · Score: 1
  
  Wrong. Any device needs to be ON for a finite amount of time before a virus can infect it..
  2G -> 3G battery life drops by 15%
  Bluetooth on -> Further battery life drop of 5%
  Wifi On -> Further battery life drop of 15%
  1G Wi . . . . ... NO CARRIER
6. Re:"The study predicts that Mobile devices..." by LordNacho · 2011-02-08 22:02 · Score: 1
  
  Hey that's an interesting article. At the end, it asks this:
  
  And an even bigger question: why hasn't indentured servitude made a comeback in the modern era? Yes, I know, human rights and all that - but if it was profitable to have indentured servants in the modern world, I'm sure that Richard Scaife's think tanks would have no trouble finding justifications, and assorted Christian groups would explain why it's God's will.
  My answer: we've replaced "subsistence" with "I need a new TV, car, holiday, etc." There's a new minimum necessary living standard, called endless consumerism.
7. Re:"The study predicts that Mobile devices..." by Neil+Boekend · 2011-02-08 22:18 · Score: 1
  
  Please restrain yourself from calling it "1G WIFI". Not for the sake of the Chosen Ones who only deal with other Chosen Ones, but for the Ones who have to deal with the Luddites. They will see 3G wireless network, and think "1G WIFI" is slower. Please add the "b" (1Gb WIFI).
  
  --
  Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
8. Re:"The study predicts that Mobile devices..." by AmiMoJo · 2011-02-08 23:05 · Score: 1
  
  Consumerism enriches our lives when taken in moderation. We all want a better standard of living and there is no doubt that owning nice things you can make use of is pleasurable. It pushes science and the development of new beneficial technologies too.
  Yeah, there is the down side when people go too far with it and there do need to be strong rules and protections in place, but I reject the notion that consumerism is inherently bad.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
9. Re:"The study predicts that Mobile devices..." by LordNacho · 2011-02-08 23:28 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't say it was bad, just that it creates an alternative minimum standard. It's a wonder how dependent we are on other's need for an ever more comfortable life.
10. Re:"The study predicts that Mobile devices..." by Randle_Revar · 2011-02-09 02:07 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe I'll have to find this paper and read it, but I am not convinced yet. So far I have see a couple of guys argue against that interpretation, and a boatload argue for it (although popular does not always equal right either). And the explanation that guy gives sounds reasonable, but plenty of socioeconomic theories sound reasonable on the surface, while actually being complete nonsense.
  
  --
  Climate Progress - Hell and High Water
11. Re:"The study predicts that Mobile devices..." by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-09 02:34 · Score: 0
  
  It also introduced serfdom to Eastern Europe where it stayed till the 19th century! Thank you friendly Black Plague! :D
The bleeding obvious spin by Voyager529 · 2011-02-08 14:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

...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.
1. Re:The bleeding obvious spin by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-08 14:43 · Score: 0
  
  My University has half of their routers (according to my sniffer of the ones I've walked past) using b!
2. Re:The bleeding obvious spin by Urza9814 · 2011-02-08 15:27 · Score: 1
  
  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?
3. Re:The bleeding obvious spin by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-08 16:35 · Score: 0
  
  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.
4. Re:The bleeding obvious spin by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-08 16:39 · Score: 0
  
  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.
5. Re:The bleeding obvious spin by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-08 16:52 · Score: 0
  
  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.
6. Re:The bleeding obvious spin by afidel · 2011-02-08 17:52 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
7. Re:The bleeding obvious spin by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-08 19:04 · Score: 0
  
  You have apparently NEVER seen a licensed high-speed link before. 6GHz, 11GHz, 36GHz
8. Re:The bleeding obvious spin by antdude · 2011-02-08 19:05 · Score: 1
  
  Ha, I still have and use 802.11b WAP and a few wireless devices. My Internet doesn't even go that fast. :/
  
  --
  Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
9. Re:The bleeding obvious spin by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-08 19:09 · Score: 0
  
  The only thing wireless I use is my cell phone, and only for making/taking phone calls, usually doesn't travel with me. Not only does wireless seem inherently exposed, but I simply like the idea of having to go someplace tethered to, say, check my email. It feels like I'm actually leaving it behind, when I walk away from it, even if everything *is* running 24/7. The great thing about digital technology is that it can buffer the inbound flow, let me tend to it when I damn well feel like it.
10. Re:The bleeding obvious spin by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-08 21:45 · Score: 0
  
  That's because the bottleneck isn't the home router, it's the connection to the backbone.
  
  When I can get even 50Mbps downstream consistently, maybe I'll upgrade to N. Until then, I've got a more than capable home networking solution right now, and I'd rather buy myself another beer.
11. Re:The bleeding obvious spin by AmiMoJo · 2011-02-08 23:09 · Score: 1
  
  Speed isn't the problem for most people, range is. Older buildings are particularly bad. I need two access points to cover my entire house.
  I also noticed that almost everyone else in the are is on the default channel 11. As such it is barely usable, but I am fine on channel 3. Most routers have an "auto" channel selection mode but it doesn't seem to work.
  Forget speed, give us better coverage and better selection of channels.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
12. Re:The bleeding obvious spin by lingon · 2011-02-08 23:14 · Score: 1
  
  Unless he's got a WRT54GL or some other Linux-based router that can simply be reflashed with a new (sane) IPv6 capable firmware. Go open source! :)
13. Re:The bleeding obvious spin by somersault · 2011-02-08 23:14 · Score: 1
  
  now imagine what could be possible with another leap like that?
  I used to complain about dial-up when it was the only option, because I played LAN games and knew how nice things could be, how fast files could transfer, etc. Latency in online games is still worse than playing on a LAN, for obvious reasons. Bandwidth is obviously lagging behind too, but it's at a level where it's not really a pain in the ass any more.
  I think we've already explored a lot of the options for high speed networking. Any further bumps in speed are generally going to be more of the same, but with more concurrent connections and more detail. Higher quality sound/video, stereoscopic video, perhaps stuff like having avatars in online games mimic the player's facial expressions and body movement (which could really be done already I guess, I only thought of it just now though when wondering what other kind of info could be sent with more bandwidth available).. better supercomputing abilities over WAN.. that kind of thing. Of course maybe some crazy new technology or idea will come along, but generally things are just following a logical progression rather than being truly amazing. Photosynth was the last bandwidth intensive application I saw that really made me go "wow". I suppose it still isn't possible on today's net connections though, it would still be better suited for LANs.
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
14. Re:The bleeding obvious spin by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-08 23:39 · Score: 0
  
  > Because it doesn't support IPv6
  Of course it does; a quick flash with OpenWRT and we're off.
  Yes, I have done it.
15. Re:The bleeding obvious spin by drinkypoo · 2011-02-09 00:25 · Score: 1
  
  I love my trusty WRT54G v 1.1. I love it enough to know the model and make of it without looking at it. I've run DD-WRT and Tomato on it and I currently use it as a wireless bridge (a use for which the original firmware never intended).
  
  is that really true? every Linksys AP I've ever owned has had a bridge mode.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
16. Re:The bleeding obvious spin by kalqlate · 2011-02-09 11:09 · Score: 1
  
  The speed benefit of Wi-Fi is meant for device-to-device, not Internet-to-device.
The fine print. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-08 14:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.
1. Re:The fine print. by GameboyRMH · 2011-02-09 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  No-shit 100Mbps wireless? I'll take three!
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
2. Re:The fine print. by hasdikarlsam · 2011-02-09 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, I'm getting ~200Mb/s from 802.11n. It does happen.. if you're lucky, and pick the right card/AP combination.
  (Intel 4965 and DAP-2553, for the curious)
If the supplying infrastructure can do ... by jobst · 2011-02-08 14:37 · Score: 1

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).

--
to code or not to code, that is the question.
I wonder... by Mad+Merlin · 2011-02-08 14:38 · Score: 1

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.

--
Game! - Where the stick is mightier than the sword!
1. Re:I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-08 14:45 · Score: 1
  
  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.
2. Re:I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-08 14:53 · Score: 1
  
  .... until the 5GHz band becomes a cluttered mess and the same situation repeats itself.
3. Re:I wonder... by Mr.+DOS · 2011-02-08 15:03 · Score: 1
  
  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.
4. Re:I wonder... by mattventura · 2011-02-08 15:16 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
5. Re:I wonder... by treeves · 2011-02-08 15:28 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
6. Re:I wonder... by BillX · 2011-02-08 17:22 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
7. Re:I wonder... by Ralcog · 2011-02-08 17:50 · Score: 1
  
  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.
8. Re:I wonder... by tagno25 · 2011-02-08 19:07 · Score: 1
  
  802.11a does not have that problem
9. Re:I wonder... by cbeaudry · 2011-02-08 20:32 · Score: 1
  
  I beg to differ.
  I live in a 5 room appartement, and with 5ghz I can barely get any signal 30 feet way through 2 rooms.
Mostly unnecessary by gstrickler · 2011-02-08 14:39 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

--
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
1. Re:Mostly unnecessary by Kenja · 2011-02-08 14:51 · Score: 2
  
  Faster porn from Starbucks.
  
  --
  
  "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
2. Re:Mostly unnecessary by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-08 15:06 · Score: 0
  
  I'm eagerly awaiting the 14 Mhz wireless routers. Fuck 20 meters and those stuck up Generals.
3. Re:Mostly unnecessary by Mr_Plattz · 2011-02-08 15:09 · Score: 0
  
  but for 99+% of users, it's completely unnecessary.
  "640K ought to be enough for anybody.” -Bill Gates (1981)
4. Re:Mostly unnecessary by gstrickler · 2011-02-08 15:18 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  There is no evidence Gates ever said that.
  
  --
  make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
5. Re:Mostly unnecessary by atamido · 2011-02-08 15:20 · Score: 1
  
  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.
6. Re:Mostly unnecessary by Mr.+DOS · 2011-02-08 15:27 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
7. Re:Mostly unnecessary by RajivSLK · 2011-02-08 15:35 · Score: 2
  
  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.
8. Re:Mostly unnecessary by gstrickler · 2011-02-08 15:40 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
9. Re:Mostly unnecessary by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-08 15:48 · Score: 0
  
  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.
10. Re:Mostly unnecessary by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-08 15:48 · Score: 0
  
  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
11. Re:Mostly unnecessary by BitZtream · 2011-02-08 15:53 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
12. Re:Mostly unnecessary by gstrickler · 2011-02-08 16:07 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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.
  
  --
  make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
13. Re:Mostly unnecessary by atamido · 2011-02-08 16:11 · Score: 1
  
  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.)
14. Re:Mostly unnecessary by somenickname · 2011-02-08 16:21 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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.
15. Re:Mostly unnecessary by pantherace · 2011-02-08 16:35 · Score: 1
  
  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.
16. Re:Mostly unnecessary by Belial6 · 2011-02-08 16:38 · Score: 1
  
  So, 15 years after he said something monumentally stupid, he denies saying it.
17. Re:Mostly unnecessary by jasonwc · 2011-02-08 16:43 · Score: 1
  
  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.
18. Re:Mostly unnecessary by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-08 16:49 · Score: 0
  
  > 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+.
19. Re:Mostly unnecessary by gstrickler · 2011-02-08 17:03 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
20. Re:Mostly unnecessary by modestmelody · 2011-02-08 17:08 · Score: 1
  
  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.
21. Re:Mostly unnecessary by gstrickler · 2011-02-08 17:17 · Score: 1
  
  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
  
  --
  make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
22. Re:Mostly unnecessary by gstrickler · 2011-02-08 17:26 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
23. Re:Mostly unnecessary by froggymana · 2011-02-08 17:33 · Score: 1
  
  Citation?
  
  --
  "To prevent this day from getting any worse, I'll just read ERROR as GOOD THING" 1GJU8xLuDKDxEs4KLf8fAGyptoDsqvEsBT
24. Re:Mostly unnecessary by gstrickler · 2011-02-08 18:01 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
25. Re:Mostly unnecessary by afidel · 2011-02-08 18:02 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
26. Re:Mostly unnecessary by gstrickler · 2011-02-08 18:07 · Score: 1
  
  "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.
  
  --
  make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
27. Re:Mostly unnecessary by nzap · 2011-02-08 18:29 · Score: 1
  
  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.
28. Re:Mostly unnecessary by Omestes · 2011-02-08 19:03 · Score: 1
  
  , 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.
  
  --
  A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
29. Re:Mostly unnecessary by tagno25 · 2011-02-08 19:11 · Score: 1
  
  Please note.
  Someone will find you and bring a 1.5kW radio/amp to FRY that part 15 device.
30. Re:Mostly unnecessary by gstrickler · 2011-02-08 19:21 · Score: 1
  
  600Mbps is modulation rate, not throughput. 802.11ac will not significantly improve throughput vs 802.11n. Throughput is likely to remain around 180-200Mbps for a 600Mbps modulation rate.
  
  --
  make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
31. Re:Mostly unnecessary by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-08 19:21 · Score: 0
  
  obligatory http://xkcd.com/806/
32. Re:Mostly unnecessary by gblfxt · 2011-02-08 19:54 · Score: 1
  
  for the normal joe now, this maybe true, was just a short time ago that everyone was happy with 56k dial-up! as for current real-world applications, most of them i think would be on the local network. things like booting a network OS, over-the-wireless OS installs, mass file distributions, large OS updates, re-imaging desktops, etc.
33. Re:Mostly unnecessary by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-08 23:31 · Score: 0
  
  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
  My VDSL2 internet connection delivers effective speed of ~29 Mbps down, and ~4.8 Mbps up. Where I live this is nothing special. Some providers have started rolling out 200/10 Mbps. A year from now I expect to have a higher speed than today. For WiFi networks there is a huge difference between theoretical and effective speed. I just upgraded to a true dual band N-router, which helped a lot, but for moving and/or streaming HDTV to the silent mini-PC connected to the TV it is still not fast enough. And with broadband speed increasing I can easily see it becoming the bottleneck again.
34. Re:Mostly unnecessary by drinkypoo · 2011-02-09 00:27 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  How much 802.11a is actually in use? I've never seen any. I have only ever had one NIC which would do it and cheap APs don't do it.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
35. Re:Mostly unnecessary by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-09 00:30 · Score: 0
  
  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.
  How many 11a devices are out there? Especially now that 11n is available.
  I was always under the impression that 11a was never really that popular, and that most manufacturers stuck with 11b/g in the 2.4 GHz (?) range because it wasn't worth the extra cost of a 5 GHz transmitter until recently (when both 11n appeared, and the 5GHz transmitters became cheaper).
36. Re:Mostly unnecessary by dave420 · 2011-02-09 01:23 · Score: 1
  
  So we don't have any evidence he said it, and we have evidence of him denying he said it. That, to you, is sure evidence of him saying it. Way to go, Captain Sparky!
37. Re:Mostly unnecessary by MogNuts · 2011-02-09 01:45 · Score: 1
  
  I'm with you. In my next house I will *wire* the whole thing, and make conduits just in case I need to easily upgrade past whatever comes out after cat 6. I've used wireless for a few years now (whenever N just came out). I will never do it again.
  The setup was a nightmare (half my computers would not work for unknown reasons), the range is awful (I needed to get repeaters--people forget this if you live in anything larger than a 2 bedroom), latency is atrocious (think 300ms vs. 50). And that's with N, not g/b. Wired, in comparison: the setup is painless and brainless--just plug it in. And you don't share that measly bandwidth. Every plug gets full 1000 mbs (locally anyway).
  Basically, if all you do is surf facebook, you're fine. But if you do *anything* more, like Skype/VoIP, on-line gaming, video streaming, large downloads--all which pretty much people do in this day and age--you need wired.
  I so regret ever setting up my home for wireless internet. Next time, not even buying a router with wireless built-in!
38. Re:Mostly unnecessary by GameboyRMH · 2011-02-09 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  I do that all the time, over a g/n connection that's probably in G mode all the time because there are still many G devices around.
  Of course it helps that I've set the video player to buffer a few seconds of video.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
39. Re:Mostly unnecessary by GameboyRMH · 2011-02-09 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  I was fed up with 56k dial-up from day one. Of course by the time I went on the Internet, it was full of pictures.
  I agree on the need for more bandwidth in home networks. If I had gigabit ethernet at home, I could store my VMs on my file server and do bigger backups over the network that currently rely on external hard drives. And of course you notice how slow wifi is if you're doing anything more bandwidth-intensive than streaming a video.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
40. Re:Mostly unnecessary by wildstoo · 2011-02-09 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  Not only that, but there is no context. Maybe he meant "640K ought to be enough for anybody writing DOS applications right now". In 1981 PCs didn't even *approach* 640k RAM.
  People seem to interpret this quote as "nobody will ever need more than 640K of RAM, no matter how hardware develops", which isn't actually what was said.
  I find it very hard to believe that Bill Gates, as someone who watched and developed the PC industry from its very infancy, wouldn't have noticed the rapid development in memory technology and the accompanying drop in price. It just doesn't seem possible.
41. Re:Mostly unnecessary by isj · 2011-02-09 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  I had to switch to 802.11a because the 2.4GHz spectrum where I live is mostly saturated. I can see ~25 2.4GHz networks and at 2.4GHz I could get approximately 5-10Mbps throughput. In 5GHz I can get approximately 20Mbps throughput. The AP was more expensive but in addition to dual 2.4/5GHz mode I also got other "business" goodies such as VLAN, multiple SSID, decent documentation, PoE, etc.
  I do see other 802.11a networks here (about 3) that apparently belong to the national telco.
42. Re:Mostly unnecessary by Omestes · 2011-02-09 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  I realized I said something dumb after hitting submit... Sorry about that.
  
  --
  A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
43. Re:Mostly unnecessary by gstrickler · 2011-02-09 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, a /. poster admitting to making a mistake. What's happening to the world? It happens to all of us, most are just too insecure to admit it. I wish /. would allow me to correct or at least note my typos that I find AFTER I hit submit.:)
  
  --
  make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
44. Re:Mostly unnecessary by gstrickler · 2011-02-09 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  It's not just 802.11a networks, there are a whole bunch of 5.8GHz cordless phones and other some other devices out there too. Apple's Airport base station and built-in Wi-Fi has supported and is commonly run in 5GHz a/n mode for at least 5 years, so that's a sizable number of units just from one vendor. 5GHz is not as crowded as 2.4GHz, but it is in fairly common use.
  
  --
  make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
45. Re:Mostly unnecessary by gstrickler · 2011-02-09 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  Proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Gates did not say that.
  The IBM PC introduced in August 1981 only supported 64k on the motherboard. The highest capacity add-in cards developed for the PC only allowed adding 512k of RAM as main memory, giving a 576k memory limit, and those didn't appear until 1983 or later. According to IBM, 256k was the limit on the IBM PC (model 5150). It wasn't until the Compaq Portable (128k on motherboard) announced Nov 1982 shipped in Jan 1983, and the PC/XT in March 1983 (up to 256k on motherboard) that you could even theoretically get to 640k on a PC or compatible. Nor was 640k an MS-DOS limit for computers that weren't completely PC-compatible (e.g. the TI Professional in 1983 ran MS-DOS and allowed up to 768k).
  So the 640k limit didn't exist until early 1983 when the Compaq Portable and PC/XT shipped, and even then it wasn't a hard limit as TI demonstrated. It is implausible that Bill Gates or anyone else would have made that comment 12+ months before the "640k limit" was established. Therefore, in the absence of any credible evidence that Gates said it at all, I've demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that Gates didn't say that in 1981. Since 1981 is the only date ever associated with that quote, and Gates denies having said it, it's also demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that Gates didn't make that statement at any time. So, until someone presents some hard evidence to the contrary, Gates didn't say it.
  
  --
  make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
46. Re:Mostly unnecessary by gstrickler · 2011-02-09 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  Just how many invisible networks are there? I've never seen any.
  Unless you have a 5GHz a/n compatible Wi-Fi card, you won't see them. Nor will you see the 5.8GHz phones running on those same channels, even if you have a card that supports 5GHz a/n because they don't broadcast an SSID and don't use a/n modulation.
  
  --
  make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
47. Re:Mostly unnecessary by gstrickler · 2011-02-09 11:16 · Score: 1
  
  Again, someone wastes a mod point to mod that down? Moderators, read the moderation guidelines.
  
  --
  make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
48. Re:Mostly unnecessary by badkarmadayaccount · 2011-02-09 22:07 · Score: 1
  
  Somebody reimplement token ring for WiFi, FFS.
  
  --
  I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
49. Re:Mostly unnecessary by drinkypoo · 2011-02-10 00:17 · Score: 1
  
  Unless you have a 5GHz a/n compatible Wi-Fi card
  Like I said I did in my post?
  Why don't you try reading comments before you reply to them?
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
50. Re:Mostly unnecessary by gstrickler · 2011-02-10 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, what you said is "I've only had one NIC which would do it". That's a small and statistically insignificant sample size, which is the reason I responded do your "I've never seen any" comment. The fact that you haven't seen any from your one NIC doesn't mean they're rare, and as I pointed out, there are other uses of 5.8GHz that you wouldn't see even with a compatible NIC.
  Now, lighten up and get a sense of humor. And it might not be a bad idea to take some lessons on statistics.
  
  --
  make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
51. Re:Mostly unnecessary by hicksw · 2011-02-11 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  Unless you're streaming from a server on a nearby unsecured network
  FTFY
ya right. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-08 14:41 · Score: 0

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? by thecross · 2011-02-08 14:46 · Score: 1

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.
1. Re:1 gigabit? Upload? by catmistake · 2011-02-08 14:59 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  The Admin and the Engineer
The full story? by countertrolling · 2011-02-08 14:51 · Score: 1

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

--
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
1. Re:The full story? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-08 15:01 · Score: 0
  
  For the low price of $3,995 you can have your bits or buy a new ride.
Cordless phone by Byrel · 2011-02-08 14:52 · Score: 1

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? by hoggoth · 2011-02-08 14:55 · Score: 1

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.

--
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
1. Re:What about wired LANs? by atamido · 2011-02-08 15:37 · Score: 1
  
  A reasonable alternative to 10Gbps over Cat6e is direct attached SFP.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_Gigabit_Ethernet#SFP.2B_Direct_Attach
  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.
2. Re:What about wired LANs? by afidel · 2011-02-08 18:15 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
3. Re:What about wired LANs? by atamido · 2011-02-09 00:49 · Score: 1
  
  10m is certainly long enough for systems in the same room. From system to switch to system it's 20m, which is 65ft. Less than half that distance between my desktop and server in the office. It's not going to make it to my HTPC in the living room, but gigabit is far more than I need there already. (I'm assuming the OP is talking about a home LAN, which isn't specified at all anywhere.) But yeah, in a corporate environment it isn't terribly useful unless your desktops share a wall with the datacenter.
4. Re:What about wired LANs? by hoggoth · 2011-02-09 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  OP here. It's for my office, but it is specifically for several workstations and a Solaris ZFS file server that are all in the same room. 10m will work there.
  
  --
  - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
And.... by gmuslera · 2011-02-08 14:55 · Score: 1

... 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. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-08 14:58 · Score: 0

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?"
1. Re:I see a marketing failure. by treeves · 2011-02-08 15:30 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
What sort of LAN? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-08 15:03 · Score: 0

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.
Four years by SpeedyDX · 2011-02-08 15:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Four years by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-08 15:37 · Score: 0
  
  The first iphone was introduced 4 years ago in 2007.
2. Re:Four years by Plasmoid2000ad · 2011-02-08 21:50 · Score: 1
  
  8800GTX is probably a bad example. 1 year ago it was still in the top range, as Nvidia perfected the business process of releasing the same damn card under a new name again and again.
3. Re:Four years by massysett · 2011-02-09 01:39 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  4 years also isn't all that long.
  I have a brand new motherboard that has an RS-232 serial port and a parallel port on the back panel. Even more surprising, I considered this a feature because I just bought a brand new device that hooks up via a serial port.
  My keyboard still has Scroll Lock and SysRq. I think Scroll Lock might do something in Excel. I never had any idea what SysRq is for.
  I still use Windows XP at work and it's the only Windows I have at home. My laptop is about a year old and that's what it shipped with.
  Some things in tech do move fast, but other things move surprisingly slowly. I won't be surprised if today's wireless network speeds are considered adequate for years to come.
  
  --
  Penny - plain text accounting
4. Re:Four years by Renevith · 2011-02-09 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  The iPhone and iPod touch weren't even introduced 4 years ago.
  Actually, "the first iPhone was introduced on January 9, 2007." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/iPhone)
  This has been your regularly scheduled Slashdot pedantry. You may now return to your discussion.
so... by Charliemopps · 2011-02-08 15:34 · Score: 0

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?
1. Re:so... by espiesp · 2011-02-08 16:19 · Score: 1
  
  Cracking your network is limited to CPU cycles on the computer doing the cracking, not the network speed.
Slashdot? by Charliemopps · 2011-02-08 15:37 · Score: 3, Funny

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?
1. Re:Slashdot? by Yez70 · 2011-02-08 17:02 · Score: 1
  
  Yep
2. Re:Slashdot? by afidel · 2011-02-08 18:16 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
VPN by davvr6 · 2011-02-08 15:45 · Score: 1

Think video air tunes and iPad VPN
I'm confused. by HamSammy · 2011-02-08 15:47 · Score: 1

instantly über popular? ...I thought this was a news site.
Useless by currently_awake · 2011-02-08 15:48 · Score: 1

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).
1. Re:Useless by Tim+C · 2011-02-09 00:38 · Score: 1
  
  I take it you don't stream stuff across your own network, or copy large files to/from a NAS, etc.
  
  --
  It's official. Most of you are morons.
Who cares?? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-08 15:51 · Score: 0

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???
1. Re:Who cares?? by espiesp · 2011-02-08 16:22 · Score: 1
  
  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 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-08 15:54 · Score: 0

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? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-08 16:57 · Score: 0

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. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-08 17:06 · Score: 0

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... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-08 17:19 · Score: 0

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 by macemoneta · 2011-02-08 17:19 · Score: 1

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.

--
Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.
1. Re:ipv6 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-08 18:07 · Score: 0
  
  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.
2. Re:ipv6 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-08 20:58 · Score: 0
  
  My thoughts.
  There's a reason ipv4 is used, because a mixed ipv4 ipv6 firewall isn't readily available, while I sympathize with the love of the new powers of ipv6, there are reason's with everyone's monetary system, to be careful, and not to muck around with our existing infrastructure, lest the lights go out on all of us. How many of us can deal with embedded netbsd? (After all you want your router firewall using low watts with this green bullshit / monetary system terrorists)
  Why put mobile devices on ipv4? (Only exception I can think of is for local public media. I mean like either hard core hand held HD/SD wireless camera as opposed to these phones. e.g. it was meant to broadcast as opposed to be used as a communications device. I can see where you wouldn't want the (mission statement failed) FCC (who doesn't or does) have the authority, so what about You, how would You manage the spectrum? Kill off hardware, or Analyze the spectrum, and make moves which don't hurt?
  Please don't put these frickin mobile devices on ipv4 anymore.
  Analyze the existing spectrum, and move things which don't hurt around. An idiot could make the first changes, but I hope for an engineer and math guy who ain't greedy, corrupt, or breaking his/her oath does first.
3. Re:ipv6 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-08 23:59 · Score: 0
  
  People who actually buy routers aren't the bottleneck in IPv6 adoption. They'll probably install OpenWRT on it anyway.
  It is ISPs such as BT Retail and TalkTalk, each with 4.5 million customers in the UK, who are the problem.
  BT this week announced their latest "Home Hub 3" router for their customers. When asked whether it supports IPv6 they replied "yes, through IPv4 tunneling". THERE is your problem.
Too little too late by Dishwasha · 2011-02-08 17:23 · Score: 1

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.
1. Re:Too little too late by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-08 18:20 · Score: 0
  
  lol okay ozzy... it think we all know you are either an idiot or troll bait
2. Re:Too little too late by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-08 20:39 · Score: 0
  
  You are confused by clever marketing. We are talking about 1 gigabit. 3G and 4G are shorthand for "3rd generation" and "4th generation", which as far as I can tell are simply brands not a measure or metric of speed.
3. Re:Too little too late by diskofish · 2011-02-09 00:10 · Score: 1
  
  you are confused by joke.
What will the bandwidth be used for? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-08 18:38 · Score: 0

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? by jriskin · 2011-02-08 18:53 · Score: 1

I haven't looked, but isn't there anything 2ghz? Really all those high frequencies suck for wall penetration...
i will be expecting 1Gbps Wi-Fi, so exciting! by lisa.crockett · 2011-02-08 19:12 · Score: 1

i will be expecting 1Gbps Wi-Fi, so exciting!
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2011-02-08 19:43 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Wireless HD TVs by coofercat · 2011-02-08 21:25 · Score: 1

I'm not really sure this is as important as TFA suggests. However, it could potentially open up HD TV streaming. As far as I know, that's not possible on 54Mbps wireless (even if you have it entirely to yourself), so a bandwidth increase would make it possible.
Truthfully though, my phone (for example) isn't bottlenecked by the wifi speed, it's bottlenecked by it's own ability to put things on the screen and request the next thing it needs. I doubt it'll need 1Gbps for a good few years. In many ways, neither does my laptop, because 90% of what it downloads comes from the Internet (which is a whopping 10Mbps), not the local NAS server I have. However, backups would sure go quicker with a faster wifi connection.
So I say 'meh' to this - nice to have, but hardly the impetus to throw away all my devices and buy new ones. That said, I'll be the local PC shoppe will be touting the 1Gbps machines as "better" than the 54Mbps ones, even though the specs under the bonnet probably aren't much different.
Assuming /. upgrade their connection to the.. by kjethoe · 2011-02-08 21:39 · Score: 1

..same standards - No. You will have to wait quite a bit longer. The upside is that as slashdot will no longer be able to funnel an unmanageable overload of traffic toward any specific other site on the web. Both it and the receiving site having the same 1gbps capacity in any one case, we will all become accustomed to reading the articles while waiting for the permanently slashdotted slashdot contrary to how it's been until now.. Or did I get this all wrong?
Idiotic name by krenaud · 2011-02-09 01:24 · Score: 1

What a lousy name. How are the customers supposed to know what the difference between 802.11a, 802.11ac etc is? Can't they use a better name like GigaWiFi?
It will be just as insecure as the other WIFI by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-09 01:55 · Score: 0

The fact is, that there is no secured wifi. This will be the same. In addition, I will also predict that China will take this standard, modify it, and require that they be given the keys to the box, and that be the only one sold in China. Worse, China will simply ignore the patents and continue to push it as being in CHina only, knowing that it will be exported.
1G? My phone has 3G! by noidentity · 2011-02-09 02:42 · Score: 1

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.

So what, my phone has 3G, and soon they'll have 4G. 1G is old news. (admit it, you know there will be people thinking this)
Yeah, right by fnj · 2011-02-09 03:49 · Score: 1

At first the concept of gigabit wireless made me laugh, knowing that 99% of the devices could not possibly process one billion bytes per second, no matter what the hardware bandwidth was. Then, remembering that I never got more than 10% of theoretical throughput on a GOOD day over 802.11b, g, and draft n, I realized this is a Good Thing after all. Maybe we will get 50-100 actual megabits over this so-called gigabit link, and that would be a vast improvement over what we have had to date.
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2011-02-09 03:50 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm still on G by TheSHAD0W · 2011-02-09 04:07 · Score: 1

Wireless-N is nice and all, but I'm still using G and my WRT-54GL, and don't feel a need to upgrade to N. My hardware should be expiring right when AC goes into general distribution. Maybe that's the reason for the prediction, that a lot of people are happy (for now) with G and N isn't that big of a step up.
Indentured servitude by currently_awake · 2011-02-09 04:44 · Score: 1

You obviously haven't seen a recent cellphone contract.
mostly useless, not completely useless. by DarthVain · 2011-02-09 04:57 · Score: 1

I must be having one of those days, but for whatever reason I find that statement hilarious. Perhaps because it describes so many things.
"Why no, its not completely useless, only mostly useless... proceed."
They'll just switch by ThatsNotPudding · 2011-02-09 06:30 · Score: 1

to EMP bombs instead. Good luck with that warranty claim.
Usage cap by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-09 06:43 · Score: 0

Great, I can blow my usage cap in less than 30 seconds, and then get throttled back to 56k.
Yay! Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-09 09:20 · Score: 0

Yes, High speed internet over your phone. It will cost $150 a month. Because they can.
The speed of the connection is irrelevant if the current louts still hold the purse strings.
And in 2016 ..... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-09 15:58 · Score: 0

The 802.11ac standard Revision 1 will finally be ratified, leaving 2/3 of the issued devices only compatible with the manufacturers own devices, and customers locked into an inferior non-compliant system which interferes with all others. And I have to replace all my fancy 2.4Ghz antenna's .... they're now at least 2x too long :p
802.11ac? by jarlsberg71 · 2011-02-10 01:38 · Score: 1

Am I the only one who thought Anonymous Cowards got their own wireless spec?

--
E8B8B