Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
WiFi 7 is going to get > 30Gbps total throughput.
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 jitter
 
What's the point of these? No WiFi can transport this kind of data. And who needs this for workstation-at-home work?

I currently have 1gbps fiber and as a computational scientist who is working from home and using some of the largest computers in the world… I can saturate it when pulling down results (can be TB in size - but I usually don’t download anything over a few tens of GB and remotely process the bigger ones) or pushing up models. I could certainly use more at times…

I have friends that do visual FX for movies… they can easily saturate their pipes pushing and pulling 4k+ video.

With the proliferation of people working from home these kinds of large pipes will continue to be important.

Edit: as far as Wi-Fi… I have ethernet through my whole house and have plugs everywhere I need them to be…
 
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.

This is getting better though. I live in a small town in Idaho (60k people)… and we have multiple choices for fiber and one option for 1gbps cable.
 
That 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
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 fiber
 
  • Like
Reactions: jz0309 and friedmud
What's the point of these? No WiFi can transport this kind of data. And who needs this for workstation-at-home work?

One of the big advantages of fiber from either AT&T or Verizon's FiOS is it's symmetrical. So if you pay for a 500mbit speed connection, for example? You get 500mbits/second for your UPLOAD as well as your DOWNLOAD speed. Current limitations in the standards used by cable providers for broadband limit them to only offering you maybe 20-40mbits/second as the upload speed, even on a "gigabit" plan.

But also? The people I know paying for these multi-gig speed connections are hosting servers of some sort at home. For example, you might have Plex set up to stream your video/movie/music collection, and perhaps you invited your relatives or family members no longer living at home to be able to use it. If you want that to work well even when several people are trying to use it at once, and you want some bandwidth left to do things yourself without noticing they're all streaming from you? This is the solution.
 
I just wish they could do something about my supposed 25 Mbps speed that are really in the low teens. With that gripe out if the way. I hope they have enough takers to keep deployments moving forward.
 
My 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
Holy cow, how were you even able to post this? jk
You should be able to use your own equipment on any service and avoid the fees.
 
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 fiber
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 150/150
 
I have symmetric gigabit. If you're shooting 4k60 on the iPhone with iCloud Photos on, it'll happily saturate the upload.

It's also freaking amazing for Xbox & Steam updates. The App Store's CDN isn't fast enough to take advantage of it, but I'm have my iMac handling Content Caching for that.

Without WiFi 6, but with a good network of APs, I get 500Mbps up or down with my Apple devices anywhere in the house.
 
  • Like
Reactions: friedmud
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

Odd. I have the same plan in Chicago and its $100/mo. You sure that's not a promo?
 
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.
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.

And many of the deficiencies are in major cities. I'm in a dense Chicago lakefront neighborhood, and AT&T long ago gave up serving the neighborhood; they max out at 1.5 megabits. It's Comcast xfinity, with horrible billing policies and extremely variable service and outages galore, or else T-Mobile home wireless with the latency issues that come with trying to multiplex 4G and 5G channels. Them's your options. Google Fiber is finally sniffing around the area and we're looking into getting them into our building and it can't come quickly enough as far as I'm concerned. This latest AT&T thing? A gimmick until they simply provide service, any service, to, you know, their service area.

Northern Scandinavia is more sparsely populated than most parts of the US and you know what? It has great internet service, landline or wireless.

This excuse of America's land area? It's surrender-ism. Pure and simple.
 
Shocking! I'm definitely signing up for this. However the plan seems kinda expensive :(
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.
 
Does anyone have issues with their routing on the backbone ? Currently have spectrum cable and att fiber 300.

Even with multiple users we don’t need 300mbit and will switch back full time to spectrum which I have on a slower speed by choice but somehow spectrum‘s routing appears more efficient (to YouTube, other streaming services etc.) that we prefer cable over fiber. I get that fiber is point to point and technically the better option but in real world application with docsis 3.1 things aren’t all that bad with cable. Quite the opposite for us.

As tech guy I like having a ubiquti router on a cable modem than using a isp provided router but that’s secondary in picking providers.
 
Great for them. Maybe I’ll check them out when they stop targeting me with ads to switch to their fiber, then tell me when I put in my address, that they’ll be happy to provide me with a connection that tops out at a whopping 18Mbps (then they want me to also get their tv, which they recommend a 24Mbps connection or higher). ?‍♂️?‍♂️?‍♂️

By the way, out here in CA, in the highly populated east bay, so not anywhere rural or anything like that. ?‍♂️?‍♂️?‍♂️
 
Using 1 gig fiber from Sonic here in San Francisco and quite happy with the reliability, performance, and $40/month price. Sonic is significantly cheaper than ATT so will not be switching.

1 gig fiber is more than enough for 99% (closer to 100%) of homes. Paying for anything beyond that is akin to throwing your money away.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: oldMacGenius
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.