News Wi-Fi 8 will not improve transfer speeds — the new standard will, however, enhance reliability and user experience

I'm actually happy they are doing this. In my personal experience, at normal operating ranges, I haven't seem much of an improvement since 802.11 ac (maybe even really since N on the 5Ghz channels). 6Ghz ax is great for an open room at fairly close range, but that is pretty niche and at normal distances with 5Ghz it's no better in my personal testing than ac. I haven't tried WiFi 7 yet, but reviews seem to point to more of the same as ax.

Where things have been the same forever is dropped connections and issues with soft handoffs. Which it sounds like bn might address.
 
This is exactly the direction they need to go right now. Managing Wi-Fi in a 60K sq. ft warehouse is a pain. Anything to increase reliability for our workers would be wonderful. And even with over 100 employees, that warehouse averages about 90Mbps over the VPN to our HQ. No need for a gazillion gigibits 😛
 
  • Like
Reactions: usertests
Hopefully it will make through the corner performance improve a lot as to not limiting the attena or main router placement yet sustaining 1G+ bandwidth
 
It's incredible that Wi-Fi's biggest problem with bandwidth was actually supporting it in the backhaul.
We had 11ac for years doing 1gbit+ with a 1gig uplink.
Things are a bit normal now, but there's still a discrepancy, although smaller.

Enterprise will divorce from Wi-Fi mainly because Standalone Non-Public 5G is cheaper and easier to design. Interesting times.
 
It's incredible that Wi-Fi's biggest problem with bandwidth was actually supporting it in the backhaul.
We had 11ac for years doing 1gbit+ with a 1gig uplink.
Things are a bit normal now, but there's still a discrepancy, although smaller.

Enterprise will divorce from Wi-Fi mainly because Standalone Non-Public 5G is cheaper and easier to design. Interesting times.
I haven't heard this suggested before. How do you get all your laptops connected to 5g?
 
It helps the transfer speeds you see in the real world to be closer to the maximum advertised transfer speed, but it doesn't change the maximum advertised transfer speed.
I understand that. It's silly to say that it doesn't improve transfer speeds though when in fact it does. The theoretical maximum speed doesn't mean much as no one will ever hit it. This change improves speed in conditions people actually use it in. People will generally see improved speeds even though it doesn't raise the theoretical maximum.
 
I haven't heard this suggested before. How do you get all your laptops connected to 5g?
Sorry for the late response.

I should've been a bit more specific, and my "enterprise" may be misleading in this case. Shopping Centre's, Stadiums, basically large venues will see the appeal of NP-SN 5G. The cost difference is huge. In these locations, providers usually chipped in to since their "towers" would be offloaded.
 
Sorry for the late response.

I should've been a bit more specific, and my "enterprise" may be misleading in this case. Shopping Centre's, Stadiums, basically large venues will see the appeal of NP-SN 5G. The cost difference is huge. In these locations, providers usually chipped in to since their "towers" would be offloaded.
Ah, I see. Locations looking to provide access to people's phones rather than companies trying to provide access for their workers. That makes much more sense to me.