yes under kab conditions in a fareday cage with refferebce hw running optimised sw, i wonder what the troughout will be in a noisy urban aniviroment possebly with a hall between the ap and the hser device with aos and device radios built on a budget ( wich will be the case for ost home equipment). My tottaly un educated quess would be <10% of the advertised troughput, if not<5 which poypts it way below 1oGbps etherenet( wich might be reaching home users soon.) so on less you need 1gbps+un yout tablet, or you landlord disallows running cables wiered still might have a keg up on wifi esp since a 10Gbps erhernet run delivers a fixed and predicrablespid eith minnimal jitterWiFi 7 is going to get > 30Gbps total throughput.
What's the point of these? No WiFi can transport this kind of data. And who needs this for workstation-at-home work?
I run fiber in my house and have a 10gb network. I work with alrge data sets at work and this makes it much more manageable to do my workWhat's the point of these? No WiFi can transport this kind of data. And who needs this for workstation-at-home work?
And we (in Canada) have the same issue that the US does when it comes to high speed broadband. There are wide swaths of land in US and Canada which are for the sake of simplicity unpopulated. If you limited the conversation to only populated centers with a specific high population density the number still suck. Fibre to the hope should be a given right. The only way that it will ever happen is with infrastructure that is built en mass and then leased by everyone.
Lesser of two evils where I am at. AT&T, Sonic which in my area uses AT&T lines so AT&T still gets my money, or Comcast. Comcast is just as bad in every way and are limited to 40mb up with a data cap for higher cost. I am happy with AT&T fiberThat is FAST and EXPENSIVE…
I do not get ATT where I live, and if I did, I would not subscribe to them. I’ve sworn to myself that I will never ever give ATT a cent of my own money, they sucked back then, and they still suck… so do most internet and cell providers in the US… but I’ve drawn my line with them
What's the point of these? No WiFi can transport this kind of data. And who needs this for workstation-at-home work?
Because some people have more than one machine at their house. I have at least 4 PC/Macs, PS4s, Nintendo Switches and such downloading stuff at the same time.What's the point of these? No WiFi can transport this kind of data. And who needs this for workstation-at-home work?
Holy cow, how were you even able to post this? jkMy current AT&T U-verse Internet plan:
View attachment 1948798
With my current plan I own the wireless gateway. If I upgrade to a blazingly fast 1.5 or 3.0 Mbps plan, then I also have to pay equipment rental fees ($10/month, not included in the prices shown below):
View attachment 1948799
Well, my experience was with wireless… luckily where I live I have a choice for landline: frontier (formerly VZ fios) or Cox, well I got fios but it is pricey, like $80 for 150/150Lesser of two evils where I am at. AT&T, Sonic which in my area uses AT&T lines so AT&T still gets my money, or Comcast. Comcast is just as bad in every way and are limited to 40mb up with a data cap for higher cost. I am happy with AT&T fiber
interesting how speed and price options change depending on location. We have had ATT Gigabit for almost 2 years now, it's been extremely reliable, and I feel it's very competitively priced compared to Xfinity/Comcast where I live. I've gotten over 500 up and down on my iPhone, up to around 750 on a hard line. It's $70 with taxes and includes HBO Max. I live in the West Palm Beach, Florida market.
View attachment 1948964
It is indeed total BS. The northeastern US is like England or Holland for population density; the midwest and mid-south and Pacific Coast like France or Spain. It's not as though we're asking for multi-gigabit fiber to hit every farmstead in eastern Wyoming, though paradoxically folks like that are now getting very solid wireless service in many cases.People say that the US is a lot larger than European countries, so we can't upgrade our infrastructure. I call BS. Sure, it'll take a lot more resources, but how many millions, if not billions, in profits do the internet & wireless companies bring in every year? They could at least upgrade SOME of the country.
Until we have a proper privacy law in this country that's a risk with any ISP.Does this include free NSA monitoring of all traffic as revealed by Snowden?
I have 1Gigb internet for about $50 a month and I get about 800 mb normally. Wireless service in the US sucks.I pay $150 a month for cellular internet, which gets me anywhere from 3-40 mbit down, if I'm having a good day.
I have AT&T fiber running through my front yard but they'll still only sell me their crappy overpriced DSL. Competition is great, but AT&T is only going to deploy this in areas where there is competition. Where they don't have to compete, they just won't deploy this.Shocking! I'm definitely signing up for this. However the plan seems kinda expensive![]()
Ah yes, Europe, the totally uniform area with identical prices and internet availability.What a difference.
In Europe, I pay $12 per month for 10 Gbps.
Wish that was available for us.No thanks. I’m happy with my 375 mbps symmetric for $30/mo.