60GHz Channel Band to Enable Super Fast 7 Gbps Wi-Fi

Status
Not open for further replies.

fenix1186

Distinguished
Jun 24, 2010
19
0
18,510
0
They are really slacking I see... 10/100/1000 Mbps... now 7000Mbps?? Slackers couldn't even get it up to 10Gbps before releasing it?
 

icepick314

Distinguished
Jul 24, 2002
705
0
18,990
1
damm...

I haven't even started looking into 802.11ac and there's 802.11ad?

now I'm not sure if i want to upgrade to 802.11ac knowing there's faster 802.11ad just right around the corner....
 

phamhlam

Distinguished
Aug 24, 2011
384
0
18,810
6
2.4 Ghz can give me 200+ feet range
5 Ghz gives me about 100+ feet range
60 Ghz ---> 8ft??
Can they start putting 10Gbps ports on routers now?
 

sync_nine

Distinguished
Nov 8, 2010
149
0
18,710
5
[citation][nom]phamhlam[/nom]2.4 Ghz can give me 200+ feet range5 Ghz gives me about 100+ feet range60 Ghz ---> 8ft??Can they start putting 10Gbps ports on routers now?[/citation]
They will just have to deploy more repeaters to amplify the signal over longer ranges.
 

chazbeaver

Honorable
Jul 24, 2012
8
0
10,510
0
Guessing this would be more used for streaming HD content/transferring a lot of data to devices that are nearby, like between computers, phones, and TVs. Not so much for setting up a large wireless network for lots of people to connect to the internet.
 

Uberragen21

Distinguished
Sep 3, 2009
285
0
18,810
11
The way I see it, this would be best employed on very close devices or within a computer tower. Rather than connect a HDD with a SATA cable, you'll just attach the drive and it'll pickup the wifi signal. Something like this could be very interesting.
 

azgard

Distinguished
Dec 20, 2002
159
0
18,680
0
The 802.11ac standard is useful as a general purpose wireless access medium, it is designed for decent range, bitrate, and multiple use support. This 802.11ad I see being useful for highly specialized situations that require high data bitrates and immunity to noise. When this come's out though that will be real interesting the applications of that kind of throughput with a P2P wireless link are awesome.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Unless you have some internal local network need for that speed what good is it? I have been so disappointed in all of the new WiFi standards so far. The 5Ghz band is flawed because of hardware clients not supporting it. Plus its throughput and signal range fall off very fast. At 30 ft my 2.4ghz is faster then my 5Ghz connection? Quality is another problem as all of these combined WiFi chips in routers and hardware are weak in either one band or both. The other gorilla in the room is that every house in my neighborhood has a WiFi router. Signal corruption is really bad at times. Wireless has always had issues and always will. On any band!
 

A Bad Day

Distinguished
Nov 25, 2011
2,256
0
19,790
2
[citation][nom]jescott418[/nom]Unless you have some internal local network need for that speed what good is it? I have been so disappointed in all of the new WiFi standards so far. The 5Ghz band is flawed because of hardware clients not supporting it. Plus its throughput and signal range fall off very fast. At 30 ft my 2.4ghz is faster then my 5Ghz connection? Quality is another problem as all of these combined WiFi chips in routers and hardware are weak in either one band or both. The other gorilla in the room is that every house in my neighborhood has a WiFi router. Signal corruption is really bad at times. Wireless has always had issues and always will. On any band![/citation]

And don't forget about the flaky routers. We have an old Treadnet G router that doesn't support encryption without being overloaded and constantly dropping connection, and a new Belkin N router that has also been dropping connections.
 

CaedenV

Splendid
[citation][nom]A Bad Day[/nom]And don't forget about the flaky routers. We have an old Treadnet G router that doesn't support encryption without being overloaded and constantly dropping connection, and a new Belkin N router that has also been dropping connections.[/citation]
why on earth would you purchase either of those units? Linksys was the King of Wireless G, and they were not expensive. ASUS seems to be the king of Wireless N, and they are also not expensive. Do a little more research next time, there is a huge range of quality out there, and very few good ones.
 

CaedenV

Splendid
I don't care about faster wireless, Wireless G/N is more than fast enough for a home network for media consumption. I want faster wired internet so that I can have a real file server to offload video editing projects to, and still be as quick as an internal drive. All I need is 4Gbps, and 10 would be awesome.
 

John1969

Distinguished
Sep 6, 2011
9
0
18,510
0
[citation][nom]fenix1186[/nom]They are really slacking I see... 10/100/1000 Mbps... now 7000Mbps?? Slackers couldn't even get it up to 10Gbps before releasing it?[/citation]

apples and oranges

10/100/1000 Mbps are speeds of wired networks, 7000Mbps is wireless
 

aaron88_7

Distinguished
Oct 4, 2010
609
0
19,010
9
[citation][nom]phamhlam[/nom]Can they start putting 10Gbps ports on routers now?[/citation]
What for? No home user needs that much bandwidth for anything other than bragging rights. 1Gbps is more than most people would ever need, and I doubt even most people running their own home servers are saturating those links much at all.

Besides, the majority of people don't want to be connected by a cable, they want wireless. Adding 10Gb switch ports to a home router would just be an unnecessary expense that few would ever need or use. If you really do need that much bandwidth you're probably running a business and there are enterprise switches for that.
 

A Bad Day

Distinguished
Nov 25, 2011
2,256
0
19,790
2
[citation][nom]CaedenV[/nom]why on earth would you purchase either of those units? Linksys was the King of Wireless G, and they were not expensive. ASUS seems to be the king of Wireless N, and they are also not expensive. Do a little more research next time, there is a huge range of quality out there, and very few good ones.[/citation]

Customer reviews can be misleading.

[citation][nom]aaron88_7[/nom]What for? No home user needs that much bandwidth for anything other than bragging rights. 1Gbps is more than most people would ever need, and I doubt even most people running their own home servers are saturating those links much at all.Besides, the majority of people don't want to be connected by a cable, they want wireless. Adding 10Gb switch ports to a home router would just be an unnecessary expense that few would ever need or use. If you really do need that much bandwidth you're probably running a business and there are enterprise switches for that.[/citation]

Marketing. There are 5400 RPM HDDs that have SATA III, and they cost more than the same model that have SATA II or I.
 

razor512

Distinguished
Jun 16, 2007
2,052
7
19,815
15
instead of making a wifi standard that wont make it through a wall and probably may only do like less than 10 feet line of sightwhy not work on fixing 802.11n or 802.11ac

why is it acceptable for a company to advertise nearly 1800Mbit 802.11ac but only benchmark around 150mbit/s in a best case



and in the mean time, also bring us 2gbit or 10gbit Ethernet at an affordable price.
 

banem78

Honorable
Jul 25, 2012
2
0
10,510
0
Signals in the 57–64 GHz region are subject to a resonance of the oxygen molecule and are severely attenuated. Even over relatively short distances, rain fade is a serious problem, caused when absorption by rain reduces signal strength. In climates other than deserts absorption due to humidity also has an impact on propagation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_high_frequency

Even air is a problem for 60GHz.
 

daeros

Distinguished
Jan 29, 2009
30
1
18,535
0
[citation][nom]aaron88_7[/nom]What for? No home user needs that much bandwidth for anything other than bragging rights. 1Gbps is more than most people would ever need, and I doubt even most people running their own home servers are saturating those links much at all.[/citation]

Then you have never used a file/media server. I have a pretty tame setup as far as servers go, but I cannot wait for 10GoE comes down to the "expensive but still affordable" level. Remember, minimum read speeds for a stream on a modern disk are in the area of 70MB/s, and that gigabit ethernet is only good up to about 95MB/s... so anyone with a server that has a raid in it will saturate the link quickly.
 
The problem with wireless is not speed, it's the quality of the product,

The rate of failure is high within the 2 to 3 years (most have 1 year warranty)
Whether you buy a 50 $ wireless router / repeater / AP or 400 $ .

Greedy manufacturers need to fix that issue
 

tomfreak

Distinguished
May 18, 2011
1,334
0
19,280
0
what we want is the RANGE, not speed. Streaming HD video would only require 10-20mbps.

but the problem is still the quality of the signal!
 

A Bad Day

Distinguished
Nov 25, 2011
2,256
0
19,790
2
[citation][nom]Tomfreak[/nom]what we want is the RANGE, not speed. Streaming HD video would only require 10-20mbps.but the problem is still the quality of the signal![/citation]

*Turns on microwave*

*Laughs evilly*
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS