Wi-Fi 8 Trades Speed For a More Reliable Experience (pcworld.com) 57
Wi-Fi 8 (also known as IEEE 802.11bn Ultra High Reliability) is expected to arrive around 2028, prioritizing an enhanced user experience over speed by optimizing interactions between devices and access points. While it retains similar bandwidth specifications as the previous standard, Wi-Fi 8 aims to improve network efficiency, reducing interference and congestion for a more reliable and adaptive connection. PCWorld's Mark Hachman reports: As of Nov. 2024, MediaTek believes that Wi-Fi 8 will look virtually identical to Wi-Fi 7 in several key areas: The maximum physical layer (PHY) rate will be the same at 2,880Mbps x 8, or 23Gbits/s. It will also use the same four frequency bands (2, 4, 5, and 6GHz) and the same 4096 QAM modulation across a maximum channel bandwidth of 320MHz. (A Wi-Fi 8 router won't get 23Gbps of bandwidth, of course. According to MediaTek, the actual peak throughput in a "clean," or laboratory, environment is just 80 percent or so of the hypothetical peak throughput, and actual, real-world results can be far less.)
Still, put simply, Wi-Fi 8 should deliver the same wireless bandwidth as Wi-Fi 7, using the same channels and the same modulation. Every Wi-Fi standard has also been backwards-compatible with its predecessors, too. What Wi-Fi 8 will do, though, is change how your client device, such as a PC or a phone, interacts with multiple access points. Think of this as an evolution of how your laptop talks to your home's networking equipment. Over time, Wi-Fi has evolved from communications between one laptop and a router, across a single channel. Channel hopping routed different clients to different bands. When Wi-Fi 6 was developed, a dedicated 6GHz channel was added, sometimes as a dedicated "backhaul" between your home's access points. Now, mesh networks are more common, giving your laptop a variety of access points, channels, and frequencies to select between. For a detailed breakdown of the upcoming advancements coming to Wi-Fi 8, including Coordinated Spatial Reuse, Coordinated Beamforming, and Dynamic Sub-Channel Operation, read the full article.
Still, put simply, Wi-Fi 8 should deliver the same wireless bandwidth as Wi-Fi 7, using the same channels and the same modulation. Every Wi-Fi standard has also been backwards-compatible with its predecessors, too. What Wi-Fi 8 will do, though, is change how your client device, such as a PC or a phone, interacts with multiple access points. Think of this as an evolution of how your laptop talks to your home's networking equipment. Over time, Wi-Fi has evolved from communications between one laptop and a router, across a single channel. Channel hopping routed different clients to different bands. When Wi-Fi 6 was developed, a dedicated 6GHz channel was added, sometimes as a dedicated "backhaul" between your home's access points. Now, mesh networks are more common, giving your laptop a variety of access points, channels, and frequencies to select between. For a detailed breakdown of the upcoming advancements coming to Wi-Fi 8, including Coordinated Spatial Reuse, Coordinated Beamforming, and Dynamic Sub-Channel Operation, read the full article.
backwards compatible (Score:5, Interesting)
Compare it to a software framework like React that has breaking changes at will. or worse, Express.js which has catastrophically bad backwards-compatibility breaks (like silently allowing a user to authenticate with the wrong password, because JS allows you to assign to a non-existent variable). Programmers don't appreciate the value of backwards compatibility when they are paid to upgrade.
Re: (Score:2)
Consider and contrast these points with another poster in the frameworks thread who said essentially that frameworks free up the programmer from tediously reinventing the wheel and allow them to focus on business logic and instead spend time pleasing their customers. Just, lol.
If you have a good framework, that's true, but a bad framework can screw you over. You should know what you are getting yourself into beforehand.
A framework without a commitment to backwards compatibility means that you will spend extra time (ie, money) to stay up to date. A framework without a good upgrade mechanism (ie, a way to recognize that breaking changes have happened. A compiler can be helpful here, but it's not perfect) means you will have security bugs randomly added to your code. That should b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No, the Wi-Fi Alliance changed the naming around the time of 802.11ac - naming the Wi-Fi name on the standard was getting awkward because it also omits all the intermediary standards and was getting unwieldy. 802.11a/b/g/n is one thing, then 802.11a/b/g/n/ac and now 802.11a/b/g/n/ac/ax is just getting more confusing. And now we're in 802.11bn, only going to cause more consumer confusion.
So they started calling them various numbers
WiFi 5 for 802.11
Re: (Score:3)
Compare it to a software framework like React that has breaking changes at will. or worse, Express.js which has catastrophically bad backwards-compatibility breaks
Meh, React and Express.js are just for practice, that's breakage with training wheels. If you can master those, you get to play Home Assistant.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think USB "kind of works but also causes some problems" and WiFi doesn't, then you don't use either.
"Compare it to a software framework like React that has breaking changes at will. or worse, Express.js which has catastrophically bad backwards-compatibility breaks (like silently allowing a user to authenticate with the wrong password, because JS allows you to assign to a non-existent variable). Programmers don't appreciate the value of backwards compatibility when they are paid to upgrade."
Software t
Re: (Score:2)
Software these days is built on a mile high pile of shit, hardware isn't.
Well, "shit" is subjective, but the USB protocol could be better. It works, but it lacks elegance.
Re: (Score:2)
Compare that to USB where upgrades kind of work but also cause some problems.
Do you have problems with USB, or do you have problems with devices not correctly implementing USB? I ask this because for shits and giggles I just plugged an old USB 1.1 device I coded myself back at university into my USB 3.2 USB-C port with a cheap Amazon adapter and it works just fine. As does my 15 year old printer, and every other device I own with the exception of a device which needed special drivers.
Did something change in USB-4 to break compatibility or are you using devices which implemented some
Re: (Score:2)
Ooof, just realised how old I am. 2004 was not 15 years ago. My printer is old enough to vote.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True but that's not really a backwards compatibility issue as much as it is a ... sideways compatibility issue (there's a better word for this, the fact that a standard has many optional components a subset of which may or may not be implemented).
WiFi is just wifi. There's very little additional things we try to do with it. On the flip side the fascination by trying to cram everything in one socket leads ultimately to issues we experience with USB, unless you want every USB device to cost $100 and every cab
Re: (Score:2)
WiFi is just wifi. There's very little additional things we try to do with it.
Wow that's so unimaginative. Imagine if Google managed to control the WiFi working group, we'd have advertising over wifi, with proprietary plugins that only work in Chrome. They would include an encryption layer that protects your privacy, but only from other advertisers.
Imagine if Apple managed to control the WiFi working group, we'd have to throw away our devices every 3-6 years and somehow it would incorporate a super-conducting levitator that does nothing but looks cool and replaces all buttons, but
Re: (Score:2)
The main issue with WiFi backwards compatibility is that older, slower devices slow the network down for everyone. Even just broadcasting beacons for older WiFi versions eats up precious bandwidth. One easy way to improve your WiFi is to simply disable older versions that you don't need.
I've been trying to find info on who has the patents for WiFi 8. Best I could find was this document covering WiFi 6: https://ipwatchdog.com/wp-cont... [ipwatchdog.com]
Note who is at the top of the table on page 10.
Re: (Score:2)
what about range? (Score:2)
what about range?
minimum effort joe post, as per always (Score:1)
minimum effort joe post, as per always
Re: (Score:2)
What about it? Have you figured out how to defy physics and reduce attenuation of radio waves through physical objects without increasing transmission power above what is allowed by regulatory agencies?
No?
Then get to work on it, if it's such a problem for you. Or by a second AP and mesh them and be done with it.
Re: (Score:2)
As with most version numbers, it's marketing. Version 8 *sounds* a lot more attractive of an upgrade from Version 7, than 7.1. Software guys always look for meaning in the version numbers. There is no meaning, it's just marketing.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the stupid sub naming scheme was a confusing problem and its easier to just give everything a new major version number when consumers need to know what something is capable of.
Now if only USB would do that next.
Browsing Facebook will never be the same (Score:3)
On my smartphone every image can now be in 8K @ 1600dpi or maybe even better.
Re: (Score:3)
My thought was that I could get to the bottom of my feed in 2 seconds flat. That's enough time to do devote an appropriate amount of attention to what's in that feed. Well, if I ever actually logged into facebook, it would be enough.
You know what made my Wi-Fi more reliable? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Same here. Access points show up cheap on ebay when official support ends. I like how they default to bridge mode so all my devices are on the same subnet.
Re: You know what made my Wi-Fi more reliable? (Score:2)
Details, please. I see several AP models on eBay for around $25 each, and a switch for $50. Sounds like a deal if itâ(TM)s that reliable. I presume you wire the APs so thereâ(TM)s a little elbow grease in the home - or do they backhaul wirelessly? Thank you
Re: (Score:2)
I bought the HW through them, but I don't think there's any issue with buying the stuff second-hand.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
they have a mesh model that does wireless backhaul IIRC "U6 Mesh"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think they can mesh, but I've got mine set up with wired cables and PoE, some drawn by me under the house and one sketchily installed by the previous owner through the a cupboard, then the ceiling/floor then another cupboard and ceiling and floor and finally into the attic room.
Seemed like a bad idea to not use wires when the whole point is that my house has thick walls (brick or lath and lime/horsehair plaster) which block wifi signals quite well. I've still got a deadspot even with 3 APs.
Re: (Score:2)
British house construction isn't ideal for adding extra cabling after the fact, but one option is to go outside and then back in. Like cable TV providers usually do. Get some outdoor rated CAT6.
Re: (Score:2)
British house construction isn't ideal for adding extra cabling after the fact, but one option is to go outside and then back in. Like cable TV providers usually do. Get some outdoor rated CAT6.
Fortunately, mine's not too bad. It's an older house (1914), so for anything on the ground floor, I can crawl under the house from the old coal cellar or poke a very long stick with a hook on the end. Up to the other floors is another matter of course. What's weird is there is a cavity where the pipes go, but I've no
Re: (Score:2)
If it wasn't so incredibly disruptive I'd have mine re-wired and all the walls re-skimmed, with conduit and both copper ethernet and fibre put in everywhere... But it's the kind of thing where most electricians refuse point blank if the house isn't empty and about to be fully renovated.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah it's messy chasing stuff in walls. Basically you go in with an angle grinder and diamond disc and cut a channel which spews nasty dust everywhere. You can do small chases with an oscillating multi-tool and a diamond blade. Much less dust, but much slower.
Alternatively, if you are lucky, you can make a small hold and pull stuff into the gap between lath and plaster walls. A few rooms in my house have wires done like that. You generally need to go through the floor in the room above or attic to retrieve
Re: (Score:2)
Ubiquiti APs do support AP-to-AP connectivity. I have four in my house because it's a "challenging wireless environment" (foil-backed insulation everywhere) - three of them are wired and powered via PoE, but the fourth in the garage didn't have a CAT6 line, so I have it forwarding to one of the other APs.
We never have "WiFi issues".
Re: (Score:2)
Same, been quite happy with Ubiquiti gear (UDMP and 2 APs). I did have one AP die but otherwise they've been rock solid.
Re: (Score:3)
Google Wifi mesh network did it for me. I used to buy a new router about every year, because they just wouldn't provide the coverage I needed. Some of those were hundreds of dollars. But ever since I bought a three-node mesh, I've never had any trouble.
Too expensive (Score:2, Funny)
But with 20% tariff on everything, nobody can afford new hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
I know right! People were so upset about inflation, that they voted for tariffs.
Re: Too expensive (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Some people do, sure.
A lot of people this time around tried to vote with their brains, but the input to their brains wasn't valid - propaganda networks feeding them absolute bullshit 24/7 for 4 years. And now they're shocked at the personnel moves being made and wondering what the hell they've done before he can even take office.
I'd say "I told you so" but I'm pretty sure I'd have to get in a very long line.
Re: (Score:2)
And now they're shocked at the personnel moves being made and wondering what the hell they've done before he can even take office.
Nope, when you join team stupid you wave your maga flag and cheer cause your winning. Thoughts like validation and proof are your enemy, go team stupid. Winning is what we got and some of us will just ride it out. You know he's a game show host by profession.
4 frequency bands? (Score:2)
It will also use the same four frequency bands (2, 4, 5, and 6GHz) and the same 4096 QAM modulation across a maximum channel bandwidth of 320MHz.
Thank you, AI. Let's see how long this new "truth" hangs around.
Best I can figure, "2.4, 5, and 6GHz" somehow got translated to "2, 4, 5, and 6GHz." Please correct me if 4GHz is a band used internationally that I'm not familiar with, but everything I'm seeing says there are only three bands, the lowest of is known as 2.4GHz, not 2GHz, and there is no 4GHz spectrum allocated for WiFi.
The 4-band models out there generally have two 5GHz radios, one of which is dedicated to the backhaul/mesh network.
Re: (Score:3)
There is no 4Ghz band in use in any 802.11 wireless networking spec. You are correct that something mangled a period into a comma-and-space. Here are the frequency bands in use by 802.11 specs:
802.11ah: 860 / 900 Mhz unlicensed band (this is flooded with shitty old cordless phones and such in most places, so it infrequently used if you can't control the RF environment) It also doesn't have any global standardization on frequencies or channels
802.11b/g/n/ax: 2412 - 2484 Mhz, divided into 20Mhz channels
802
Re: (Score:1)
Actually a smart move. (Score:2)
Reason: at 1 gigabit per second transfer rate, it's already way overkill for Internet access, given that most web server farm providers can only push out so much data even on "fat pipes." I'd rather they improve Wi-Fi technology for more reliable data connections instead at home or in the office.
Re: (Score:2)
Wireless networks aren't solely for internet data transfers. My partner is always bitching about how long Time Capsule needs to run on her Macbook and how long it takes to move finalized video projects off it, but she also refuses to plug the goddamned thing in with a cable even though she hasn't unplugged the fucking thing from AC in like two and a half years and there's an $200 SFP+ to Thunderbolt adapter literally inches away from the wall wart.
I might be a little salty about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like the problem isn't with the network, but rather with the person who refuses to use proper tooling for the task.