Fixed networks are harder to mess with....
... the more traffic I can keep in a cable, the better.
Veteran US antenna team Ethertronics has brought out what it describes as an active antenna system that can offer beam steering for Wi-Fi. The system sits in either the client end of Wi-Fi to stimulate the return path or in an Access Point and will work with any Wi-Fi chip architecture and boost performance by between 15 per …
This post has been deleted by its author
... the more traffic I can keep in a cable, the better.
I feel the same way, but, I have constant battles with the manglement types who want mobility (often that means not having to plug an Ethernet cable into the conference room switch).
One of these days, one of them will completely piss me off, and I will break into his laptop and royally fuck it up just to prove the point
They just cannot understand that wireless is another way of saying RADIO.
Fucking IDIOTS!!!
Something smells fishy here. How can 20Mbps difference in speed from 70-90Mbps be the difference between rolling wireless out or not for all these providers. That is only a theoretical speed, each house is different? As I'm sure we all know here, there is plenty of other issues with wireless than simply the bandwidth.
The thought that they can increase the bandwidth by 20Mbps and you'll have no more wireless problems, it's just... what, no words can describe that thought process that this article is trying to convey.
Hey any improvement to the technology is great, don't get me wrong, but lets not go over the top on what this means.
“In those high quality video applications our smart antenna system is the difference between the 70Mbps real world Wi-Fi performance in 90 per cent of a household and achieving the high 90Mbps
Not the words "real world" and 90% of a household.
Granted this is most likely US houses that are made of cardboard and sticks.
"When an AP wants to speak to three remote TVs at once that means each one can get 30Mbps per device" The device that sits in the same place all the time, connected to the wall by a cable, or two cables?
And while I'm at it, how is the ability to get 90Mbps going to kill off standard fixed cable 1000Mbps?
The device that sits in the same place all the time, connected to the wall by a cable, or two cables?
And how many of those cables attached to the three TVs mentioned are gigabit ethernet?
Wired is undoubtedly, and will always be, faster and more secure than wireless but very few people have ethernet cabling throughout their house. Through constant, small improvements (such as this) wireless will eventually become fast enough for the vast majority of uses and at a hugely cheaper price than running new cables through all your walls.
The ability to stream three UHD video streams seems like a reasonable benchmark for now.
very few people have ethernet cabling throughout their house
Before broadcast TV was launched, very few people had coaxial distribution networks throughout their house. Now everyone does. Gee, I wonder how that happened.
Most (well thought out) new builds have ethernet plumbed in like they do telephone and aerials. Annoyingly, the people who put up my place thought I would want a phone socket in my master bedroom rather than a data socket, unlike every other room in the flat.
@Lost all faith
"That's right because everyone in the world has Cat5e / 6 installed into every room in their house."
In general, I agree. Ask most UK house builders about networking a new build house and, at best, you'll get a "no" and often you'll get a blank expression and "duuuhhh".
However, its not uncommon to find TV/Satellite antenna coming in at the same place as phone/(internet), so a router to TV cable connection is both easy and convenient. In a different context (and there are split opinions on this), homeplug solutions offer another easy alternative.
It seems that a landline of some sort is needed somewhere in the arrangement.
Wouldn't it be nicer to dispense with wires altogether (and at the same time say: bye bye BT (and not buy buy BT?)?)?
Imagine the cost savings there, no holes in the ground, very few wires in the ground?
(Just in case it works I'll get a few IPs on tin foil hats)
The technology is excellent, it will help a lot in poor reception areas and improve battery life by reducing the RF power compared to using an omni-directional antenna.
Two thoughts:
1. So my router WiFi can support 3 30Mbps UHD video streams, but my ISP connection is only 5Mbps!
2. It will be useful in mobile phones, improving connectivity even if you are "holding it wrong"!
What does the speed of your internal network have to do with the speed of your external connection?
I was wondering, did you forget the <sarcasm> tag???
The other alternative is that you have a limited experience with networking, and you have failed to realize that if one is streaming video from an external connection, if it has less throughput than your internal network, it WILL be a limiting factor.
On the one hand I do not know how we would cope without WiFi, but sometimes I wonder if we are all being Microwaved albeit on a low setting.
With dramatic increases in diagnosis of everything from Cancer to Autism and ADHD, then the increase in Paedos and gender variances, one has to wonder if there are links or is it just what we are dumping into the sea and landfill (water table).
Either way, I like as much as possible on a cable where I can protect it from hackers and get a decent speed without nuking my environment