Wi-Fi 802.11ac draft due in 2011, promises 1Gbps

Just when you thought you were finally getting used to 802.11n Wi-Fi, those rascals at the IEEE are at it again, this time adding another letter to the now almost ubiquitous Wi-Fi certification symbols. This time, however, one letter simply won’t suffice. 802.11ac, slated to be the next release version of the Wi-Fi standard hopes use advanced simultaneous transmission technology to increase data rates to 1Gbps.

According to Cnet, research firm In-Stat expects a draft release of the standard sometime in 2011; the first consumer devices shipping with the increased rates will be released by the end of 2012, and In-Stat expects a billion 802.11ac enabled devices to be in production by 2015. That one billion number isn’t so hard to imagine when you consider the amount of Wi-Fi enabled cell phones, tablets, book readers, cars and even kitchen appliances are being built with Wi-Fi capability.

While the 1Gbps data rate makes the techie inside all of us salivate, that nice round ‘G’ enticing us like Pavlov’s bell, keep in mind that your DSL internet connection is very likely not operating on that kind of bandwidth, and upgrading from an 802.11n device may not provide that huge speed boost you’re dreaming of. Even on your internal network, not all Wi-Fi devices are capable of 1Gbps throughput, and many are still maxing out at 100Mbps. As the new technology starts to hit the market, consider your own network situation, and don’t pay for something that will be heavily underutilized (unless you just like having more letters in your wireless certification symbols).

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Kindle update to add real page numbers

Next Story

Daily Gaming: February 8, 2011

71 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Screw Gb, I want at least GB.. I'm sick and tired of companies using the difference between b and B to fool people into thinking they're actually innovating. Quit cutting corners and being cheap, give us some damn fast wireless already ! !

negroplasty said,
Screw Gb, I want at least GB.. I'm sick and tired of companies using the difference between b and B to fool people into thinking they're actually innovating. Quit cutting corners and being cheap, give us some damn fast wireless already ! !

There isn't even Gigabyte (GB) Ethernet yet, so I cant expect it from the new wireless standard. I hate to be that guy but, why would you need that anyways?

William said,

There isn't even Gigabyte (GB) Ethernet yet, so I cant expect it from the new wireless standard. I hate to be that guy but, why would you need that anyways?

it is in the way ===> 10Gbit lan

either this year? or next year....

not to optmistic after seeing Wireless-N before that -_-"

promise 1Gbps and would deliver a measly 300/400Mbit at best

smithy_dll said,

I don't think you understand the role of IEEE standards, and the naming convention at all.

"803-1983 - IEEE Recommended Practice for Unique Identification in Power Plants and Related Facilities - Principles and Definitions"
http://standards.ieee.org/findstds/standard/803-1983.html

Nope sure don't...
"Withdrawn Standard. Withdrawn Date: Feb 06, 2006." - http://standards.ieee.org/findstds/standard/803-1983.html
I think a withdrawn standard is one thats no longer a standard - therefor 803 is not really a 'used' standard.

I'm from India and I'd very be glad if I get 1 MbPS without network outage... So, scr*w all of you hippes :-P

The capitalists take away all our ( Indians' ) bandwidth and lease it to BPO n KPO firms so that they take away your jobs! Darn these Capitalists, they can't even give good broadband, f***in low-lives!

shra1 said,
...

At least you have a job, even if it is mine.

/consoles himself with fast torrents and no bandwidth cap until they cut my connection for non-payment.

and

+1

dotf said,

At least you have a job, even if it is mine.

/consoles himself with fast torrents and no bandwidth cap until they cut my connection for non-payment.

and

+1

LOL at the job comment. That made my day!

This will be great for file sharing, no more having to transfer to pen stick to share because it'd take 3 weeks otherwise.

Yeah wireless sucks ass for any kind of file transfer, if you want decent speeds install gigabit Ethernet. Nothing more reliable.

dave164 said,
Yeah wireless sucks ass for any kind of file transfer, if you want decent speeds install gigabit Ethernet. Nothing more reliable.

I've long had my Mac connected to my router via WiFi although they are right next to each other...
Gone LAN again some weeks ago and boy... ping loves me for that!
How could I be so blind so long?!

GS:mac

Glassed Silver said,

I've long had my Mac connected to my router via WiFi although they are right next to each other...
Gone LAN again some weeks ago and boy... ping loves me for that!
How could I be so blind so long?!

GS:mac


most people wont notice the difference in ping, or rather, latency, as you have more lag on wireless then your ping shows you

guys i am on a 100mbps line and usingh a wrt610n version 1 router but i can only hit 30mbps on wireless but on wired i can hit 90-100mbps.. any idea?

Viriix said,
guys i am on a 100mbps line and usingh a wrt610n version 1 router but i can only hit 30mbps on wireless but on wired i can hit 90-100mbps.. any idea?

It's most likely interference that is causing it (phones, microwave, barriers, other signals, etc.)

Viriix said,
guys i am on a 100mbps line and usingh a wrt610n version 1 router but i can only hit 30mbps on wireless but on wired i can hit 90-100mbps.. any idea?

or use a better wireless then 50mbit max (which with interference will probably be at your 30mbit).
the n type should do upto 150mbit if i am not mistaken

Sticks to 802.11g.. For one my router does not support above g... And hardly any of my devices do either. So this is pointless.

TechDudeGeorge said,
Sticks to 802.11g.. For one my router does not support above g... And hardly any of my devices do either. So this is pointless.

Pointless to you today. When the spec is finalized and devices ship in the next 3-5 years (mainstream availability), all of your replacement peripherals to the ones you have today will be equipped with the chip built in, and you'll be clamoring for the corresponding routing equipment.

This is a tech site, this is about tech. I for one am encouraged we're trying to push the envelope of what we can do in the wireless space. Nikola Tesla would be proud.

dotf said,

Pointless to you today. When the spec is finalized and devices ship in the next 3-5 years (mainstream availability), all of your replacement peripherals to the ones you have today will be equipped with the chip built in, and you'll be clamoring for the corresponding routing equipment.

This is a tech site, this is about tech. I for one am encouraged we're trying to push the envelope of what we can do in the wireless space. Nikola Tesla would be proud.


^this

and new chips (normally) support the old types aswell.

what's the point of this wifi upgrade if most connects out there won't come even close to that speed? unless it's used for wireless home networking / sharing files

Quick Shot said,
what's the point of this wifi upgrade if most connects out there won't come even close to that speed? unless it's used for wireless home networking / sharing files

I would think that's the more useful scenario. I can see multiple devices sharing media over a wifi connections all at once demanding a lot of bandwidth. Obviously that'll go mainstream in a few years when it's the norm. Adoption has to be a little more widespread before we see the devices. That's why they're predicting the end of 2012 for anything. It'll be 2013 and on that'll demand that much.

Wireless sucks anyway. Everytime someone uses the Microwave in this house it cuts out, and have tried all kinds of different channels.

SCRISP said,
Wireless sucks anyway. Everytime someone uses the Microwave in this house it cuts out, and have tried all kinds of different channels.

I had a similar problem until I tried a different brand of router.

briangw said,
I had a similar problem until I tried a different brand of router.

Hehe, I had a similar issue until I tried a different microwave. The one I had was dated and probably belonged under tons of concrete to stop it from radiating

SCRISP said,
Wireless sucks anyway. Everytime someone uses the Microwave in this house it cuts out, and have tried all kinds of different channels.

got my modem almost right next to my microwave... must be your router or microwave that causes that

SCRISP said,
Wireless sucks anyway. Everytime someone uses the Microwave in this house it cuts out, and have tried all kinds of different channels.
Must be using b/g.
Microwaves tend to heat foods by using the 2.4ghz range, which is the same as wireless. If you use any wireless in the 5ghz range, you won't notice the microwave use effect. Guessing Shadowzz uses 5ghz, or is just lucky enough that his microwave isn't in wifi Ghz range.

I really, really hope they won't be releasing Draft-AC products anymore. Most of those Draft things were incompatible, and it was incredibly confusing. Just finish the standards with internal tests, and release the final product.

Ambroos said,
I really, really hope they won't be releasing Draft-AC products anymore. Most of those Draft things were incompatible, and it was incredibly confusing. Just finish the standards with internal tests, and release the final product.

Yeah. N was not finalized until what, 2009?

chconline said,

Yeah. N was not finalized until what, 2009?


Last year, actually. I still can't find many products with "Final 802.11n" out yet.

g33kb0y said,
Please.... no more 2.4GHz. *sigh* Too much interference.

802.11ac is going to be anything <6Ghz. So let's hope for 5.5Ghz or 4Ghz or anything like that, to minimize any interference. Or something like 3Ghz.

Ambroos said,

802.11ac is going to be anything <6Ghz. So let's hope for 5.5Ghz or 4Ghz or anything like that, to minimize any interference. Or something like 3Ghz.

The specs said they'll use 40/80/160 MHz transmission, wide band.

"R3.1.A: The draft specification shall include support for 80 MHz PHY transmission.

80 MHz channels consists of two adjacent IEEE 40 MHz channels, and do not partially overlap with each other. 160 MHz channels consists of two adjacent IEEE 80 MHz channels, and do not partially overlap with each other. 80 MHz and 160 MHz channels for the US region are shown in Figure 1. "

MikhailT said,

The specs said they'll use 40/80/160 MHz transmission, wide band.

"R3.1.A: The draft specification shall include support for 80 MHz PHY transmission.

80 MHz channels consists of two adjacent IEEE 40 MHz channels, and do not partially overlap with each other. 160 MHz channels consists of two adjacent IEEE 80 MHz channels, and do not partially overlap with each other. 80 MHz and 160 MHz channels for the US region are shown in Figure 1. "

That means the channels would be 40/80/160Mhz wide, but it doesn't mean those channels will be operating at 40/80/160Mhz. For example FM radio usually runs in 87.5Mhz-108Mhz. They would never be used for WiFi.

Seriously, WTF?

I know tech doesn't wait for anyone but could we at least get N devices out first before moving on to the next one. Most of the devices out there are still Draft 2.0 (granted not much changed since then).

This new AC however does sound good, 1Gbps speeds over WLAN would be great though. What took ya'll so long though, LTE already doing 1.2Gbps and that's WIDEband.

And yes I would benefit from it as N can't push max bandwidth still over wireless for some ISPs. Mine has 101Mbps and N routers still aren't capable of doing that.

SHoTTa35 said,
Seriously, WTF?

I know tech doesn't wait for anyone but could we at least get N devices out first before moving on to the next one. Most of the devices out there are still Draft 2.0 (granted not much changed since then).

This new AC however does sound good, 1Gbps speeds over WLAN would be great though. What took ya'll so long though, LTE already doing 1.2Gbps and that's WIDEband.

And yes I would benefit from it as N can't push max bandwidth still over wireless for some ISPs. Mine has 101Mbps and N routers still aren't capable of doing that.

Umm, no. This isn't talking about pushing devices out, it's referring to writing the next specification on paper. We need that to be done before we can start with the devices. The specification finalization can take years to be done and that's why we need to work on it now, not later.

Also, the biggest immediate benefit of 1Gbps is the local network. Wi-fi Backups, file sharing, movie streaming can all benefit from this. It's not about the internet speed.

MikhailT said,

Umm, no. This isn't talking about pushing devices out, it's referring to writing the next specification on paper. We need that to be done before we can start with the devices. The specification finalization can take years to be done and that's why we need to work on it now, not later.

Also, the biggest immediate benefit of 1Gbps is the local network. Wi-fi Backups, file sharing, movie streaming can all benefit from this. It's not about the internet speed.


if your going to do cooperate stuff on wireless, your a ****ing moron (pardon my english).
bussinesses should use wired at any time, normal computers should be wired to (especially if you do your banking and w/e on it). as wireless is easy as pie to sniff, as most routers/modems dont give you more protection then WPA, your pretty much f'ed if you got a skiddie with to much time on his hands

Shadowzz said,

if your going to do [corporate] stuff on wireless, your a ****ing moron (pardon my english).
bussinesses should use wired at any time, normal computers should be wired to (especially if you do your banking and w/e on it). as wireless is easy as pie to sniff, as most routers/modems dont give you more protection then WPA, your pretty much f'ed if you got a skiddie with to much time on his hands
Pretty much any new router is going to come with WPA2. In fact, to even put the standard "Wi-Fi" trademark onto your device, then you must implement WPA2.

There are certainly still a lot of wireless devices out there running on WPA, or even WEP (which can be cracked automatically in under a minute even if your network name is not advertised), but any new router that comes out with 802.11ac will have WPA2.

The real problem is people. And you can't stop someone from being ignorant or stupid. I can only hope that these newer routers require eliminate the possibility to use WEP, and even WPA for that matter. The other problem lies with the broadband providers that give outdated routers to their customers.

Wireless is fine, as long as you use WPA2.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi_Protected_Access[/url]

TrOjAn. said,
since my dsl is only 30mbit, not planning not to upgrade though

I guess you never had to share some files across a wireless network.

TrOjAn. said,
since my dsl is only 30mbit, not planning not to upgrade though

So I guess that means you will be upgrading??

TrOjAn. said,
since my dsl is only 30mbit, not planning not to upgrade though

"Only" 30 Mb/s? Don't take that for granted. Mine is only 1.4 Mb/s, even though I should be getting 8.

@gabotril sure; but my n wireless is fast enough in my opinion for some gigabytes. I have some minutes of time, dont need it in a few seconds
@tmorris no, i say i will not upgrade
@meph yes, only 30mbit thats pretty low if you ask me; belgium is the 18th economy in the world (source destandaard.be) and we are at the european average of internet speed (source speedtest.net) so yes I think it can be pumped up.
We currently have a duopoly from two ISP's in our country and thats why the prices are like 40€ for 30mbit (remember this is when you buy for one year minimum, otherwise it is 1/4 more expensive) because of too little competition. Also, unlimted internet is not available at our country (there are exceptions, but like 150€/month). Anyway, that's not really related to this topic.

Meph said,

"Only" 30 Mb/s? Don't take that for granted. Mine is only 1.4 Mb/s, even though I should be getting 8.

30mbit rated internet != 30Mb/s.

i.e. my 50mbit internet gets ~6Mb/s download.

TrOjAn. said,
We currently have a duopoly from two ISP's in our country and thats why the prices are like 40€ for 30mbit (remember this is when you buy for one year minimum, otherwise it is 1/4 more expensive) because of too little competition.

Check the offers available in the mighty USA....... We are so behind..........

dave164 said,

30mbit rated internet != 30Mb/s.

i.e. my 50mbit internet gets ~6Mb/s download.

Actually if you want to get technical:
30Mbit = 30Mb
30Mbit != 30MB
30Mbit = 3.75MB

Note the big B Vs. the little b.

Edited by ermax, Feb 8 2011, 6:06pm :

dave164 said,

30mbit rated internet != 30Mb/s.

i.e. my 50mbit internet gets ~6Mb/s download.

You are confused as well. MB=Megabyte Mb=Megabit.

TrOjAn. said,
since my dsl is only 30mbit, not planning not to upgrade though

Is that mb (millibit or 1/1000 of a bit), or Mb (Megabit or 1 million bits)?

dave164 said,

30mbit rated internet != 30Mb/s.

i.e. my 50mbit internet gets ~6Mb/s download.

Just to clarify - Your saying that your connection to the net is 50mbps, yet you can only download at 6mbps & not 6Mbps right? - cause if you're getting 6Mbps then your getting your full speed

Fritzly said,

Check the offers available in the mighty USA....... We are so behind..........


Behind? Hope there was a sarcasm tag. Check my Country, dominican Republic...

I get a 2.0 Mbits connection (~250 kb/s) for 80 US$.

RangerLG said,

Is that mb (millibit or 1/1000 of a bit), or Mb (Megabit or 1 million bits)?

You're substituting the wrong word. Shame this hasn't been made clearer yet, it's megabit (Mb) vs megabyte (MB) it's the difference between bytes and bits there are 8 bits in one byte. Mega = 1,000,000 now you're either talking bits or bytes one will be 1/8th the other. For instance, I have a 30Mbit DSL so that's 3.75MBit in the most ideal situation. Other factors will also cause your DSL speed to vary.

Minooch said,

Just to clarify - Your saying that your connection to the net is 50mbps, yet you can only download at 6mbps & not 6Mbps right? - cause if you're getting 6Mbps then your getting your full speed

It should be 6MBps for a 50Mbps service.

TrOjAn. said,
since my dsl is only 30mbit, not planning not to upgrade though

Well you may think of upgrading just to get ipv6. Plus the thing is in 2 to 5 years when this is slated for release who knows where isp's will end up. By then we may have a one gig or 100 gig connection. and a 100 tera hard drive to just download the internet.

William said,

You're substituting the wrong word. Shame this hasn't been made clearer yet, it's megabit (Mb) vs megabyte (MB) it's the difference between bytes and bits there are 8 bits in one byte. Mega = 1,000,000 now you're either talking bits or bytes one will be 1/8th the other. For instance, I have a 30Mbit DSL so that's 3.75MBit in the most ideal situation. Other factors will also cause your DSL speed to vary.


try not to be smart, mega is when talking in bytes, is 1024*1024, not 1,000,000 as you stated.

Shadowzz said,

try not to be smart, mega is when talking in bytes, is 1024*1024, not 1,000,000 as you stated.

It's pretty standard in both network and hard drive storage capacities to refer to Mega as 1,000 * 1,000 (1,000,000 Bytes, or 1 MB) rather than the correct 1,024 * 1,024 (1,048,576 Bytes, or 1 MB). In fact, it's even common--although not as common--to think of network bytes as effectively requiring 10 bits due to overhead and resending.

I believe Apple even displays file sizes using the invalid value because a lot of their users frankly don't understand the real value.