1Gbps Wi-Fi Coming Soon To a Billion Devices

MojoKid writes "Not only is 1Gbps technology heading for your Wi-Fi network by next year, it will be instantly über popular. The new 802.11ac 1G Wi-Fi standard hasn't even been ratified by the IEEE yet and In-Stat predicts that by 2015, consumers will have bought nearly 1 billion devices that use it. 1G Wi-Fi, which will use radio spectrum in a range below 6GHz, will be embedded in mobile phones, e-readers and automotive infotainment systems.The study predicts that Mobile devices with embedded Wi-Fi will make up most of the market. In 2015, shipments of mobile phones with embedded Wi-Fi are projected to approach 800 million. Also, by 2015, projections are that 100% of mobile hotspot shipments will be 802.11ac-enabled."

Re:Bigger picture?

[Ultra64]

Here you go [open-mesh.com]

Re:I wonder...

[mattventura]

That would take much, much longer than the 2.4GHz band. For one, the 2.4GHz band has only about 50MHz of spectrum, whereas 5.8GHz alone has about 150, and even more if you include the 5.3GHz band, which adds another 300 or so. Secondly, higher frequency waves will not get through walls and other obstructions as well, therefore severely decreasing the amount of 5GHz interference, both incoming and outgoing. See wikipedia [wikipedia.org].

Re:Mostly unnecessary

[gstrickler]

There is no evidence Gates ever said that.

Re:Mostly unnecessary

[Mr. DOS]

I think the biggest advantage of more throughput, at least on the AP side, is that Wi-Fi bandwidth is shared. Unlike 100Mb/s wired networking where each port on a switch gives the client 100Mb/s (full-duplex or otherwise), the 54Mb/s of bandwidth 802.11g provides is shared between all clients connected to the AP – that's why having an appropriate number of APs is so crucial for a Wi-Fi network of any size. With 802.11ac, even if clients are connecting at a lower rate of speed, that's still more bandwidth to go around.

Disclaimer: IANANG (I Am Not A Network Guy); who knows, technology may've changed (it seems to do that) and I may just be talking out of my ass.

Re:Mostly unnecessary

[gstrickler]

I am a network guy. Your statement is correct, except for the "even if clients are connecting at a lower rate of speed, that's still more bandwidth to go around" part. Technically, that's accurate, but the reality is that a single lower speed device can use so much of the time that the amount available to a high speed device is negligible. This shows up in mixed b/g/n Wi-Fi networks, mixed a/n Wi-Fi networks, and in USB connections.

Because RF bandwidth is limited, presumably these devices will share the channels used by 802.11a/n in the 5-6GHz range. Therefore, the presence of existing 802.11a devices will limit the bandwidth available (802.11n devices @ 5GHz will limit it too, but less so). If you're willing to disable all 802.11a devices and not allow them to connect to a base station, then there will be notably more bandwidth available, but that may not be practical. In either case, 802.11n running in the 5GHz band will provide most of the same benefits. You can get 50%-80% of the benefits with existing 802.11n technology, that's why I said it's mostly useless, not completely useless.