Wi-Fi 7 Home Mesh Routers Poised To Hit 33Gbps (arstechnica.com) 58
It's looking increasingly likely that Wi-Fi 7 will be an option next year. This week, Qualcomm joined the list of chipmakers detailing Wi-Fi 7 products they expect to be available to homes and businesses soon. From a report: The Wi-Fi Alliance, which makes Wi-Fi standards and includes Qualcomm as a member, has said that Wi-Fi 7 will offer a max throughput of "at least 30Gbps," and on Wednesday, Qualcomm said its Network Pro Series Gen 3 platform will support "up to 33Gbps." These are theoretical speeds that you likely won't reach in your home, and you'll need a premium broadband connection and Wi-Fi 7 devices, which don't exist yet. Still, the speeds represent an impressive jump from Wi-Fi 6 and 6E's 9.6Gbps.
These exaggerated claims are getting old. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: These exaggerated claims are getting old. (Score:3)
Agree. Especially as so many of those routers or access points don't even have greater than gigabit LAN ports, which they would need in order to actually achieve that throughput between a wireless device and Internet site, or between a wireless device and LAN device.
Re:These exaggerated claims are getting old. (Score:5, Informative)
I just (this week) purchased a Zyxel NWA110AX (Wifi 6). When configuring it at my desk, I got 800mb/s, which is what I actually get at wire speed. So I was really happy. Then I separated myself from it by 20 feet and a glass door, and my performance dropped to 150mb/s. Moved to a different floor in my house and it drops to 20-40. So, while I have no doubt that I may have been able to get over 1Gb/s from it when literally on top of it, it's almost useless otherwise.
I am replacing a Cisco Aironet 1140, which was giving me 30-40mb/s consistent throughout the house. So I'm at a lost on whether to keep the new AP or send it back.
Re: These exaggerated claims are getting old. (Score:2)
iperf3 should give you about 930 Mb/s on Gigabit Ethernet. A bit more if using jumbo frames. I assume the 800 Mb/s you measured was to some Internet server.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd stick with the cisco and just get a cheap moca adapter or two if you need a solid "wired" connection elsewhere in the house
e.g., https://www.amazon.com/PACK-Br... [amazon.com]
I personally just use an archer c7 with openwrt as my router and the 2.4 ghz covers the house and outdoors well + is rock solid (I've never had to reboot it and I've had it for years)
Re: (Score:3)
So I'm at a lost on whether to keep the new AP or send it back.
Why are you at a loss. It seems like a simple question to me, do you prefer consistently low speeds or the option for higher speeds in certain conditions.
Me I live in a 3 story house and get over 400mbps in every room. Consider setting up a mesh network if speed is important rather than shaking your fist at the laws of physics.
Re: (Score:2)
The only way I was able to get good WiFi access in my house was to set up a mesh system. I got the TP Deco system and I have 3 different hotspots in my 3 bedroom townhouse. I don't use the wired backhaul, because my house is old and I can't install the wiring without a lot of trouble. You'd probably be better off trying a mesh system with a bunch of nodes scattered around your house. Even without the backhaul I'm getting 220 Mbps in my basement which doesn't have an access point, but is situated below one.
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe it's time to reign-in the BS?
Do You 'Rein In' or 'Reign In' Something? [merriam-webster.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I assume the theory is that if the max got higher than the middle (usable range) did too.
Though I agree we need a better way to measure suitability for users. I think we have to start recording and sharing the results we DO get. Maybe even setting up a service to swap out hardware for a range of devices to attempt similar usage patterns across them.
Would be handy if there was a shared format for saving and applying settings across home routers. I assume the current "backup your settings" feature is a bin
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be very happy with 1gbps if it was low latency and speeds didn't fluctuate.
Re: These exaggerated claims are getting old. (Score:2)
Thank you.
I'm sick of posting this myself! I generally have a rule of dividing wifi claims by a factor of 5 or more (after dividing by 8 for bytes!) Just to get even close to real world results.
Re: (Score:2)
That's about 2.5Gb/s as I tested between two wifi devices and wifi is half duplex.
I'm running Cisco APs in the house, one per room with converged wireless on a catalyst 9300 series switch
Internet access in the bathroom is intentionally rate limited to 500kbps so people don't sit to watch films while I pee pee dance.
Re: (Score:2)
There have been multiple WiFi generations already that claim speeds above gigabit yet have almost no hope of reaching those speeds during real-world conditions. Maybe it's time to reign-in the BS?
What bullshit are you talking about? Just because you don't live in a test lab doesn't mean the claims are bullshit. The standards as designed can achieve those speeds, and you benefit from every increase when they do.
Do you think the world will be better served by advertising insanely large overlapping ranges with complex set of conditions that consumers have no hope of ever understanding? People are too dumb for that, there's a reason we distil complex matters down to a single number, and at least these n
Re: (Score:2)
You need a FAT PIPE to maximize your porn surfing, but there's something to be said for a fast internal network, too. Right now, WiFi is the bottleneck that prevents me from quality streaming in part of my house that doesn't have a wired connection. We actually use a sneakernet connection (download stuff to a thumbdrive and walk over and plug it in to the Roku) to watch movies in that room.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think he's saying that there is no wifi connection - just that it gets saturated fast with all the stuff on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Upgrading to WiFi6 would probably fix it, but this new standard would definitely fix it.
Re: (Score:2)
This is what I was thinking as well. Anyone running their own Plex/Emby/Jellyfin/Minecraft/etc servers could use this. It beats what I have been doing - running network cables throughout a two story house.
Re: (Score:2)
Speak for yourself... I'd much rather run more network cables than need to deal with wifi for everything. Some of the specific issues are having enough VLANs on wireless, still needing power for devices (rather than just using PoE), random reductions in reliability/speed, sleep modes, and extra UPSs for power connections.
I still need to add ~24 ports. I'll have to cut into drywall in the kitchen ceiling and a few other places to run these cables, so it is a more major project than the previous ~36 ports w
Re: The BS is strong with this one... (Score:1)
I'd rather have wired Ethernet or fiber too. But pretty much would have to tear down my mansion to run wiring to all 17 rooms. No contractor will even consider running the wires inside. They all said outside is the only viable path. We are talking about a 5 figure job still. And it would be butt ugly. I have passed, so far.
So, I am stuck with the 6 wirelessly bridged Unifi APs. Mainly NanoHDs running at 802.11ax VHT160. WLAN speed is very uneven - from 50 to 700 Mb/s depending on location.
Less than the 1.4
Re: (Score:3)
But pretty much would have to tear down my mansion to run wiring to all 17 rooms. No contractor will even consider running the wires inside. They all said outside is the only viable path. We are talking about a 5 figure job still. And it would be butt ugly. I have passed, so far.
I ran all my own Ethernet drops inside the house two decades ago. It's really not that hard, and doesn't cost remotely like 5 figures. They're tacking on a Fuck You premium because your house is so big. Typical contractors.
I've got 48 ports worth of patch panel bolted to the basement wall and a sound-dampening server rack on wheels parked next to it. Well worth the damn nuisance of using a fish tape for a few days.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, I got a quote that was in the 5-figure range for my house, which included heavily marked up paint and drywall repair work. Instead, I hired an electrician to do small chunks at a time. (I use zone wiring, which makes a phased approach much easier.) I have four boxes in place now with up to 24 station cables, 12 trunks, and MPT fiber to a couple. I run all the trunks myself, and as many of the station cables as I can... only because it is hard to get the electrician to come out for this type of
Re: (Score:2)
Residential installers will charge you about $1,000/single cable drop and throw in a second cable for an extra 20%, plus drywall and paint.
Meanwhile my fish tape cost me twenty bucks and 1000 feet of Cat 5e, enough for the entire house, cost $70. The 90 degree angle extender for my drill cost ten bucks, the 1" spade drill bit cost five bucks, and the drywall saw cost a dollar. The little plastic tool to push the wires into the ethernet jacks came free with the purchase of a retail jack, and a whole box of jacks, faceplates, and blanks cost around $30. Wirecutter and drill I already owned, but even adding those in is maybe another $100. Thr
Re: The BS is strong with this one... (Score:3)
No basements here in Cali in most places, including mine.
Place has neither a crawl space (slab construction) nor an attic to run wires. Only way would be to open hundreds of linear ft of linear dry wall, which means a hole every couple of ft. People who looked at the place said there might not be viable indoor paths in some cases.
Electricians around here don't even patch the drywall holes, much less paint or texture them. None were willing to recommend anyone for those jobs. A general contractor is really
Re: (Score:2)
That is my problem as well. I ran a wire outside my house to upstairs and then have network cables visible in the hallways.
We have those old pocket doors which means there isn't even a crack in the doorspaces to run the cords through.
Re: (Score:2)
We also have a dozen pocket doors. They are only in closets and bathrooms, though. I wouldn't need to run wires to any closet. And the half bathroom which only has a single pocket door entrance doesn't need Ethernet.
Where are you running your wires on the walls ? Along baseboards ? Did you manage to make it look clean ?
Re: (Score:2)
I run them through the ceiling. It definitely does not look clean.
My long term plan is to run them through the outside of the house using the old cable lines so I don't have to drill new holes. Most of the rooms have those. It is how I ran the one to my bedroom upstairs.
I was thinking each room has a switch so one cord in and then one back out so that I keep the cables outside to a minium. It will still look cleaner then what I have as the house is 40 years old and has cables from the cable company, ATT
Re: The BS is strong with this one... (Score:2)
If you have cable lines in most rooms, why not use Moca? That will go up to 2.5 Gbps. The adapters are not free, though, and consume power.
Re: (Score:2)
Place has neither a crawl space (slab construction) nor an attic to run wires.
Sounds ridiculously unmaintainable. I have both, have used both.
Electricians around here don't even patch the drywall holes, much less paint or texture them.
I got good at drywall, too. I've even replaced corner bead that got bashed by a mover. If I didn't tell you which one, you'd never know by looking. Paint texture though.... another unmaintainable thing. That crap was invented by painters for the benefit of painters, to convert a dirt simple job into an obnoxious one.
I bought the place as a foreclosure during the financial crisis. Even though I own it outright, I'm not loaded.
That's called buying beyond your means. You reel it back to within your means by learning the building trades. I've been do
Re: (Score:2)
1/3 the roof has 40 solar panels on it. Not easy to run wires there without removing them. That roof area covers one large part of the house which is the "3rd" floor - it is a 2.5 story house, a bit hard to describe. But basically it prevents running wires to the huge master bedroom and bathroom from that side. I have wireless APs in each of these rooms, and would really like to have them wired. But I think wiring would have to run along the outside walls and along one of the balconies. Currently, these APs
Re: (Score:2)
If you have coax to each room, MoCA is now 2.5Gbps [amazon.com], faster than regular ethernet. But it doesn't play well with cable TV on the same cable, so you'll have to make a choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes but it's either that or live with Wi-Fi or run CAT5e/6a.
Wi-Fi works well as a mesh with wired access points, but that requires wires again, plus each point is powered. So many compromises...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most people overlook the fact that they need a FAT PIPE to take advantage of all that speed off their home network
Home media servers say hi
Buy for need and not want. (Score:2)
Re: Buy for need and not want. (Score:2)
Or you realize that it doesnâ(TM)t matter. Buy what you need now and then use it for as long as you can stand.
Re: Still waiting (Score:4, Interesting)
In my home in the hills, spectrum isn't the bottleneck. 100% of the legal 5 Ghz spectrum is clear. I have some 802.11ac APs on VHT160 channel 50, others on VHT160 channel 114, effectively utilizing all possible 5 Ghz channels. There is no interference. Wifi 6E wirh 6 GHz would help me only if the 5 and 6 GHZ radios could be combined to achieve faster throughput, when using APs as bridges, but I'm not aware of any AP that supports that.
Performance with 802 11ac is still sub-gigabit, though. Topping out at about 700 Mbps with mobile device inches from the AP. Goes down to 50 Mb/s at longer distances. This is with 6 APs. 2 of them wired, the rest wirelessly bridged.
I hope Wifi 7 will provide faster throughput. I'll certainly try it when it's out. But I won't be the guinea pig.
No, you won't need a broadband connection (Score:4, Informative)
Or any Internet connection at all. You can use WiFi on your WLAN / LAN without connecting to any Internet site. I use it for backups of wired systems in my house between rooms that don't have Ethernet or fiber wiring to connect. The real world throughput achieved is still sub-gigabit.
If you wanted your wireless devices to communicate with Internet servers at such high speed, you would likely need a fiber connection, which technically isn't broadband.
In either case, you would need device manufacturers to be honest with their specs. They could start by providing >1 Gbps LAN ports on any AP they advertise of being capable of supporting >1 Gbps speeds. They have advertised such high rates with both 802.11ac and 802.11ax for about a decade. In practice, the claims are bogus, and the the actual real world Wifi throughput falls below 1 Gbps in the vast majority of cases. For example, the S22 Ultra I'm typing this on achieves about 700 Mbps in iperf3, even inches from my Unifi NanoHD AP at VHT160, with a Wifi radio PHY connection rate or 1733 Mbps. Same limit with a Unifi U6-Lite on HE80 and 1200 Mbps PHY rate.
Re: (Score:1)
Low digit UID: Check.
Assumption that people know that their computer can do something without internet access: Check.
PSA: Although most on this site would know that a computer is more than a door to BookFace and YouTube, the general public, especially in the US, does not. If they open Chrome and see a dinosaur, "the computer's broken." They would never assume that the stuff they do on any site is something the equipment in front of them is capable of on it's own.
Re: No, you won't need a broadband connection (Score:2)
I was mainly responding to TFA, whose author doesn't seem to understand that one doesn't need Internet to benefit from faster WiFi 7 speeds. Perhaps the slashdot crowd didn't need this clarification.
Peak to median rate (Score:2)
Each new WiFi generation increases the theoretical peak vs realistic median speed. Speed improvements are only obtained under ideal conditions (the peak case), otherwise the result is similar to previous generations.
The peak speed can be only obtained at a very close distance, with Line-of-sight, without any interference from other traffic (which is more and more difficult, since we are aggregating more and more channels), and using the maximum number of antennas in each device to maximize the number of spa
Multiple frequencies and LOTS of users at once too (Score:2)
"Other expected benefits of Wi-Fi 7 include multi-link operation, enabling the simultaneous use of multiple frequency bands. Qualcomm also pointed to 10Gbps enterprise access points and up to 500 users per channel."
From the article...
Finally! (Score:2)
"These are theoretical speeds that you likely won't reach in your home, and you'll need a premium broadband connection and Wi-Fi 7 devices, which don't exist yet. Still, the speeds represent an impressive jump from Wi-Fi 6 and 6E's 9.6Gbps."
We'll be able to download movies in 5 seconds and watch them in 3.
What's not to like?
No new bands (Score:3)
What I liked about later Wi-Fi 6 was the FCC opening up frequencies in 6ghz (indoors). I can see how this would at least eventually be a useful upgrade for some to avoid crowded 2.4 and 5 ghz bands.
While 4k constellations are an impressive feat do I care? So you get a couple of extra bits out of each symbol is it worth a 6 db hit to sensitivity plus whatever the losses are for a monstrous 320 MHz wide channel?
Unless you have APs everywhere I suspect you won't see much if any real world benefit. Then again not much of an end user of WiFi myself.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you have APs everywhere I suspect you won't see much if any real world benefit.
Right now absolutely every internet service provider here is offering modems featuring smart mesh networks. Sure 4k constellations aren't relevant but yeah it's very much getting to the stage where people have some form of access point, repeater, or mesh endpoint in every room.
This is great! (Score:2)
I'll just replace my current mesh network and then hook up the new Wifi 7 stuff to my Frontier network drop...
Oh, wait.
Nevermind.
don't need (Score:2)
I don't need my router to be faster. I need it to be more reliable. Good luck with that.