1Gbps Wi-Fi Coming Soon To a Billion Devices

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."

Comments

I just cannot wait

[lpaul55]

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

Re:I just cannot wait

[Machtyn]

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.

The bleeding obvious spin

[Voyager529]

...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.

Mostly unnecessary

[gstrickler]

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Mostly unnecessary

[Mr. DOS]

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

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

Re:Mostly unnecessary

[gstrickler]

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

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

Re:Mostly unnecessary

[somenickname]

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Bigger picture?

[Ultra64]

Here you go

Four years

[SpeedyDX]

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

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

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

Re:I wonder...

[mattventura]

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.

Re:"The study predicts that Mobile devices..."

[Randle_Revar]

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.

Slashdot?

[Charliemopps]

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?