CERTIFIED ac Begins. 802.11n Fading Fast?

[sfx2000]

To be clear, no one is "sunsetting" N. The graph is an analyst projection. Reality will be different.

agreed -- 802.11n will be around for a long time, as it currently is the end of development for 2.4Ghz.

sfx

 

[stevech]

WiFi 60GHz... try #2. Try #1 was "Wireless USB". A flop. It was just to be a 3 ft. range cable replacement.
I think this has its place, but it needs to be user-transparent and have 10m range or so. For home theater.

 

[remixedcat]

How many phones right now have .ac chipsets?

 

[sm00thpapa]

How can we get AC speeds with an AC wireless adapter if you only have 2.0 USB ports that max out at 480 Mbps? You would have to have 3.0 USB ports to benefit the AC speed.

 

[thiggins]

How can we get AC speeds with an AC wireless adapter if you only have 2.0 USB ports that max out at 480 Mbps? You would have to have 3.0 USB ports to benefit the AC speed.

For single stream radios, there will be a throughput boost even with USB 2.0. You may not get maximum available throughput. But you will get more than N.

 

[RMerlin]

How can we get AC speeds with an AC wireless adapter if you only have 2.0 USB ports that max out at 480 Mbps? You would have to have 3.0 USB ports to benefit the AC speed.

The link speed is higher than the actual data throughput. A 866 Mbits 802.11ac link over wifi won't transfer data anywhere close to 480 Mbits, so you shouldn't see a big performance hit from USB 2.0 (assuming all the decoding and decrypting is done by the USB stick and not by the OS).

 

[stevech]

It seems that the vast majority of products are marketed based on an ideal-signal-condition raw bit rate (burst) on WiFi/802.11 speeds.
They lack the honesty to instead, or at least have a disclaimer, that due to the nature of 802.11 and protocol overhead, and shared-use of the spectrum, a more typical ideal-signal speed is 50% or so of the raw bit rate.

Consumers shouldn't have to learn enough about wireless to sort the B.S. from fact. In the credit card industry, deceptive marketing on interest rates was so bad that laws were passed requiring simple language. Of course, the economic impact of misleading WiFi products is far less important.
The pinnacle of deceptive tech marketing is found at AT&T Wireless.

 

[sfx2000]

WiFi 60GHz... try #2. Try #1 was "Wireless USB". A flop. It was just to be a 3 ft. range cable replacement.
I think this has its place, but it needs to be user-transparent and have 10m range or so. For home theater.

WirelessUSB was actually a UWB play - which is very interesting stuff, but out of scope of this thread. UWB was mostly planned for the 3.1-10.6 GHz in the US, and <6 GHz for the rest of the world.

It's a great story - I had some involvement with integration of UWB back in my R&D days (2005-2008) - it basically failed due to political issues in the SDO's and commercial forums (think 802.11 and WiFi Alliance for example).

Funny thing with UWB - they had to move it way up band - even at the –41.3dBm/MHz levels, it was punching way further than anyone could imagine at lower frequencies (buildings away for usable signal)- co-channel interference and noise floor became the technical limiting factor... there were a couple of companies here in San Diego that were pioneers in UWB, and actually shipped working silicon and software stacks.



sfx