DenverMeanwhile most don't have decent 100Mbps internet access, and in many places there are restrictions on the maximum volume of data per month... this 2867576gbps advertisement is very pretty on paper. There is not even infrastructure for everyone to have access to such speeds. period.

Chrispy_I mean that's great on paper but the very very best of the best Wi-Fi 6 router/adapter pairings on the market managed about 2Gbit in uncongested RF space at a miniscule 10-feet distance with line of sight to the router.

So that's 2Gbit out of the claimed 9.6Gbit of Wi-Fi 6 and only when you're close enough to use a fucking $2 cable anyway.

Call me a pessimist if you want, the tests dont lie and I'd be surprised if Wi-Fi 7, Quad-band, 16-stream typical speeds are much faster than gigabit ethernet when used in a real-world situation of "a couple of rooms away through some drywall fighting the other ten WiFi networks of my neighbours.

thegnomeOh that's honestly pretty bad. I got basically gigabit (900 mbit, but you know) on an AX200 with a cheap 160mhz capable router. I really expected more from those super expensive high end devices running on near zero RF with more than just 2x2 MU-MIMO. Like 5-10 gigabit range.

Anyways, I hope any WiFi 7 routers aren't either unbuyable or too expensive (see 6E routers) for regular people, and along with that fit some multigig ethernet. What's the point of having 114534 gigabit WiFi when you can't even run internet or any meaningful lan device higher than gigabit (knowing most high end stuff only have 2.5gbe on WAN). With internet speeds rising (2Gigabit available) there should really be capable routers on the market, not having to rely on aggregation to get those speeds. Most mid-range mobo's have 2.5gbe on them, I hope they start actually getting used for more than just a NAS.

DeathtoGnomesit seems liked last month that wifi6 started making the rounds.

MusselsThis is great, i can use this with my 50Mb internet

goodeedididPeople say they don't even have 100-Mbps, but that isn't the point. I think the application of those wireless WIFI 7 speeds are meant for things like NAS devices with multiple high speed clients such as Lightroom servers and storage of large video files for videography work without having to have anything attached to your editing machines.

XajelWhile I like faster WiFi, I'll be more happy with a WiFi that has better penetration for both drywall and blockwall, and can handle >3 walls with ease while keeping decent speeds.

Nowadays they're promoting faster speeds that can only work in the same room, and as soon as you move to the next room speed will dip to the seventh Earth.

And all these new solutions cost a lot, spending $200+ on a single AP is hilarious when you need more than one to get good coverage.

I hope the next WiFi standard will focus more on penetration while maintaining speed, they're focusing so much on the 5GHz bands and the new 6GHz. We want more speed in the 2.4GHz bands and accelerate the 900MHz adoptions with much faster speeds, not just for IoT, but for consumer devices as well. I mean when we're in a hard to reach spot in our property we just need things that works, no need for gigabit, a stable 100-200mb is enough for most people.

Chrispy_Penetration is more important than speed. Mobile networks go down to 800MHz and they'll work in an elevator surrounded by three feet of concrete as you are in a sealed steel box.

Honestly, if we could get close to Wi-Fi 4 (802.11n 600Mbps) theoretical speeds with reliable latency and enough penetration that a single access point could serve your typical residential property, I think 99.x% of the population would be very happy with it.

5GHz and presumably 6GHz is useless the minute you leave the room, which is why mega-expensive mesh networks are needed with so many access points.

Chrispy_It's worse than that - all of these tests that show WiFi6 (and Wifi5) to be only a fraction of their stated speed in the real world also use 5GHz and 5GHz is shit at penetrating walls. Performance absolutely plummets off a cliff the minute you move to a different room because 5GHz is both short range and troubled by simple things like doorways.

So, unless you're in the same room as your fancy new WiFi 7 router you might be better off using 2.4GHz, which gets nowhere near the same bandwidth as multi-channel 5GHz.

I don't really care, even good wifi is worthless compared to a 2.5GbE USB adapter and I can suffer the inconvenience of having to plug in if it turns a 3-hour job into a 10-minute job.

TheLostSwedeThe upside of the shorter range of 5 and 6 GHz signals, is that you're not going to have massive interference from your neighbours like you do on the 2.4 GHz band, since most people don't have the faintest clue about how to configure their WiFi channels to cause as little interference as possible.

windwhirlIt hardly matters if you have neighbors below, above and around you (nearly every apartment ever) . There aren't enough, well separated channels in those cases. Though the lack of penetration from 5 GHz wifi could make up for that? Since it would have a harder time penetrating walls, you'd get less interference?? You'd need mesh, though, and maybe some time to configure the appropriate signal power so that it doesn't try to constantly connect to an AP that is within range but too far to be stable and fast enough.

MusselsThis is great, i can use this with my 50Mb internet

DenverMeanwhile most don't have decent 100Mbps internet access, and in many places there are restrictions on the maximum volume of data per month... this 2867576gbps advertisement is very pretty on paper. There is not even infrastructure for everyone to have access to such speeds. period.

AthloniteSince when did the NBN get that good

MusselsAn election is coming so news leaked out that we're due to get FTTP... maybe. Eventually.

MusselsAn election is coming so news leaked out that we're due to get FTTP... maybe. Eventually.