| ▲ | LogTrim 6 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||
The peak-speed arms race stopped being interesting to me a while ago. I don't need 20+ Gbit/s theoretical Wi-Fi. I need the connection to stay boring when I'm at the edge of coverage or the neighbours are hammering the same spectrum. The 95th-percentile latency and packet-loss targets here seem much more meaningful than another 2x headline speed increase. My only scepticism is how much of this survives real consumer hardware. Wi-Fi 6 had things like OFDMA that sounded great on paper, but support/implementation was pretty uneven. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | itopaloglu83 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||
My neighbor thinks that they can increase their 100Mbps ISP speed by having 5 or 6 access points at 2.4GHz in their 1400sq ft (~140m2) apartment. There’s so much interference that the package dropout rate is around 40% at 2.4GHz usually. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | WhyNotHugo 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Agree completely. Higher speeds are a bit pointless for most users. Unless you have an extremely fast NAS, where you need to copy (not stream) data over Wi-Fi, you're unlikely to be anywhere near the current limits. I'm using 802.11ac and see no need for higher speeds. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||