WiFi Performance to Improve As FCC Opens Unlicensed Frequencies

[gnasher729]

This is going to kill me. I live in a building where it seems everyone is running a wifi network, so I get the occasional collisions and lose my network and have to reboot it. Having the extra bandwidth means that I could go to a channel not being used by others, especially with ac. However, that means I would need to invest in a new time capsule since my current one only supports n. And then the airport express to extend my network. And then my to ATVs (once they make one with ac). And then my two iPhones. And my wife's Mac Air. And my iPad. And the iMac.

I think I will need a second mortgage to deal with this "good" news.

Maybe you don't need to. If your neighbours buy new equipment to use these channels then you are fine. Right now you and your neighbours can use at most three of the channels from 1 to 11. If you have 20 neighbours with WiFi networks and five of them pay out to move to a new fourth available channel, all the 20 neighbours benefit exactly the same.

 

[ks-man]

You'll need to be running routers and client devices that both support the extra frequencies. How long do you think it will take for all those firmware updates to trickle down to "commonplace", especially when most networking gear makers will prefer to make you buy a new router to get the extra functions.

"Pretty meaningless" is actually pretty accurate.

So you are saying we should stymie progress for the future b/c we might not get the full benefit today? I'm glad people like Edison, Franklin and Bell didn't share your beliefs.

 

[snowmoon]

I believe the claim the "clients are already taking advantage" referres to the fact that some of the bands they are opening in up are in the existing ranges, but now open to outdoor use. Existing 5ghz clients can use those bands if a router is advertising them.

Wide band is a joke though, it's generally only viable at laughably short distances and sucks down a huge swath of channels. If you want a high density network you are actually better off with 5 or 10 MHz channels and better router density. Even in individual deployments wide and often ends up being slower than the regular if there is already enough random 5Ghz signals around.

 

[Tiger8]

Pretty meaningless until the ISP's catch up. I'll take Google Fiber any time, please!

Care to elaborate why you think it's pretty meaningless?? I have had the pleasure of spending 4 months researching IEEE 802.11a standard (predecesor of ac) so I'm familiar with the 5 Ghz band and its advantages, and I think it's great news, but that's just me...

Let's hear your reasoning. You got me interested.

 

[D.T.]

Can you tell me what WiFi performance would have to do with ISPs?

Care to elaborate why you think it's pretty meaningless?? I have had the pleasure of spending 4 months researching IEEE 802.11a standard (predecesor of ac) so I'm familiar with the 5 Ghz band and its advantages, and I think it's great news, but that's just me...

Let's hear your reasoning. You got me interested.

Well, it’s kind of obvious what he’s suggesting: if the concern is Internet performance, the bottleneck is on the ISP side. That’s an old argument, i.e., the old “If my internet connection is only 50Mbps, why do I care if my WiFi runs at 300Mbps"

Of course, those of us - including the posters above - understand there’s benefits outside of that simple equation As has been pointed out: loosening congestion to internet access points, general network performance (especially those of us who move around lots of data, including things like backup across the network), plus the potential for integrity and range improvements, etc.

 

[dazzvazz]

LiFi > WiFi

I cannot wait for WiFi to dead and gone.

 

[proline]

So you are saying we should stymie progress for the future b/c we might not get the full benefit today? I'm glad people like Edison, Franklin and Bell didn't share your beliefs.

Correct. Even if it has obvious benefits in the near future, it should not be done because it doesn't help me with my old D-Link and 2010 MBP. This is the reasoning that MacRumors' comment board loves for whatever reason.

 

[unplugme71]

Not sure why people are focusing on ISPs for. Congestion on ISP-run hotspots isn't so much an issue (everyone on the network is on the same network). It's home networks in densely populated areas were there's trouble. Many people all running wireless networks for their own personal use, broadcasting at levels where the signal reaches far beyond their own property, and trying to use the same wireless channels for their network.

More frequency channels and less overlap between channels will help resolve the congestion more. It also would help if it was easier to adjust the output power of a transmitter so it doesn't reach out further than needed. This would allow more networks to coexist peacefully in an area and even improve network security, too.

This is why Netgear and Linksys as well as other consumer companies need to provide software and a scanning tool that measures the signal around the house. You can actually get better speeds/strength if you control the signal to just extend to the furthest area you need and not going past that.

At our office, our WiFi AP's range 100 feet - spaced out every 80-90 feet. Our software offers a heatmap of the signal strength throughout the building and we only fix the dead spots if there's a usable seating location in the area. No need to add signal to a corner of the building that no one would ever be at.

 

[2457282]

Maybe you don't need to. If your neighbours buy new equipment to use these channels then you are fine. Right now you and your neighbours can use at most three of the channels from 1 to 11. If you have 20 neighbours with WiFi networks and five of them pay out to move to a new fourth available channel, all the 20 neighbours benefit exactly the same.

We will see. I like to think that I am ahead of my neighbors, but maybe someone is on the bleeding edge ahead of me and will make it better. Thank you for the glimmer of hope.

 

[JohnArtist]

Treebeard supports WiFi

Unleash the spectrum!!!

HA! As soon as I read this, I instantly pictured (heard) this in the voice of Treebeard from the Two Towers when he exclaims "Release the River!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1x7M48o6V7Q

 

[Tiger8]

Well, it’s kind of obvious what he’s suggesting: if the concern is Internet performance, the bottleneck is on the ISP side. That’s an old argument, i.e., the old “If my internet connection is only 50Mbps, why do I care if my WiFi runs at 300Mbps"

Of course, those of us - including the posters above - understand there’s benefits outside of that simple equation As has been pointed out: loosening congestion to internet access points, general network performance (especially those of us who move around lots of data, including things like backup across the network), plus the potential for integrity and range improvements, etc.

True, but even for the home user less congestion means higher speed. To me it's a car and highway analogy; the article is saying that a highway is going to add more lanes, what the poster is suggesting is that this is useless since the speed limit is only 60 Mph, and wont' get you home faster.

But the truth is, more lanes = less traffic, meaning that you are very likely to breeze through at a consistnet 60 Mph rather than having to slow down (or come to stand still) due to traffic.

 

[alent1234]

This is why Netgear and Linksys as well as other consumer companies need to provide software and a scanning tool that measures the signal around the house. You can actually get better speeds/strength if you control the signal to just extend to the furthest area you need and not going past that.

At our office, our WiFi AP's range 100 feet - spaced out every 80-90 feet. Our software offers a heatmap of the signal strength throughout the building and we only fix the dead spots if there's a usable seating location in the area. No need to add signal to a corner of the building that no one would ever be at.

just look at the networks your computer can pick up. i get 40 where i live in NYC
it's so bad i use ethernet on my xbox and apple tv. they sit next to my router and i used to get disconnects even from a few feet away

wifi is always disconnecting. people blame comcast or time warner but it's almost always them using wifi in a dense area

 

[dauby88]

This news, plus the fact that you can use a USB hard drive with Time Machine on Apple's 802.11ac Airport Extreme, makes me really want to buy one now. I'm in the market for a new router anyway.

 

[mingoglia]

We can tell the power and professional users by those that are thinking this is "meaningless" because it means they won't be able to surf faster. :roll eyes: I think this is amazing news for professional users who use local resources and private clouds. It will also help "surfing" for those that have more than the basic home Internet connection.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

Just like w/ real traffic -- build bigger roads or allow for more channels and it soon fills up beyond capacity. So, not putting out to much hope here for real improvement.

 

[kdavison007]

Sure would of been nice if the FCC would of opened up more than 100Mhz of channel space. That's really only one more channel when bonding 802.11ac at 80mhz. For dense environments we really need more like 500mhz of space.

 

[vpndev]

partly

I do not believe that any of the current iOS devices are capable of using the new 802.11ac WiFi standard. So you'll need to up grade your iOS device to take advantage of that.

Current iPhone 5s does not support "ac" but only "a/b/g/n". And "n" is supported for both 2.4 and 5 GHz bands ("a" is already 5 GHz IIRC).

It would be interesting to know if the expansion of the available band is something that can be accommodated with a software change or if it's determined by the hardware. I think that's a different issue from support for "ac".

 

[jumpinjohn]

Pretty meaningless until the ISP's catch up. I'll take Google Fiber any time, please!

Analogous statements:

Pretty meaningless gains in auto technology. I'll take the Jetson's hovercrafts that run on air anytime!:roll eyes:

or

Stupid people buying shoes. I'm ready to explore Mars.

 

[AppleWarMachine]

Faster, Faster, Faster

 

[Chupa Chupa]

LiFi > WiFi

I cannot wait for WiFi to dead and gone.

Ah, but so many more WiFi generations to come to keep stringing consumers along and forcing upgrades of otherwise working products. I'm afraid we'll be dead and gone before WiFi is.

 

[John.B]

so, is this only to ac routers, because mixed messages..

In one sentence, it says "Consumers are already taking advantage.." which would mean N, since most people would't have AC yet, while in another sentence it noted that "its in the 5Ghz range" which would imply AC, since thy never explicit said N at all. My guess it's only to new equipment.

Huh? My (previous generation, flat) AirPort Extreme supports 802.11n on 5 GHz.

 

[TrentS]

Tesla Coil!

So you are saying we should stymie progress for the future b/c we might not get the full benefit today? I'm glad people like Edison, Franklin and Bell didn't share your beliefs.

Come on now... Let's not forget Nicola Tesla!

 

[arkmannj]

Is this something that Apple (and other manufacturers) could unlock with a firmware update? (using more channels, etc...) or is there more to it than that?

I'm especially interested in knowing this for the 802.11n Airports/Timecapsules.

 

[gnasher729]

Is this something that Apple (and other manufacturers) could unlock with a firmware update? (using more channels, etc...) or is there more to it than that?

I'm especially interested in knowing this for the 802.11n Airports/Timecapsules.

The number of channels that your router can legally use is different from country to country, so I would expect that these devices have hardware that can use any channel that is legal to use somewhere in the world, with channels turned off according to your local laws. So we might be lucky and get at least a few more channels.

 

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

just look at the networks your computer can pick up. i get 40 where i live in NYC
it's so bad i use ethernet on my xbox and apple tv. they sit next to my router and i used to get disconnects even from a few feet away

wifi is always disconnecting. people blame comcast or time warner but it's almost always them using wifi in a dense area

40 - ouch! 12-14 networks is plenty to really mess things up. On the other hand, using copper ethernet to non-mobile devices such as xbox and atv whenever you can makes sense anyway.