wireless 802.11ax can hit 10.5Gbps

[qwertywarrior]

TL:DR

wirless AX will hit the market in 2018

an update to the wireless AC standard will make it achieve 7 Gigabits in 2015

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Huawei has tested WiFi based on a future standard (802.11ax) that can hit 10.5Gbps -- about 10 times faster than what you typically get out of an 802.11ac connection today. The trick, the company says, is making more efficient use of the airwaves. The new technology is smarter at allocating wireless spectrum, juggling data between multiple antennas and cutting back on interference. Huawei doesn't even have to switch to ultra-high frequencies to make the magic happen; its approach works on the same 5GHz band that many WiFi networks already use.

You're still a long way from picking up a 10-gigabit router at the local electronics shop. Huawei estimates that super-fast routers might not hit the market until 2018, and that's assuming that both the 802.11ax standard and matching chipsets are ready. Don't despair at being stuck with "only" single-gigabit wireless for four years, though. An updated 802.11ac spec (802.11ac-2013) is expected to launch in 2015 with 7Gbps speeds, so you'll soon have plenty of bandwidth to spare.

 

http://www.engadget.com/2014/06/01/huawei-tests-10gbps-wifi/

 

more detailed info

http://pr.huawei.com/en/news/hw-341651-ict.htm#.U4oX9JSwIjw

[The Crazed Child]

Tell me when they've improved latency, then I'll be interested.

[Paralectic]

Tell me when they've improved latency, then I'll be interested.

Explain further?

[qwertywarrior]

Tell me when they've improved latency, then I'll be interested.

looking online on stable new wireless ac laptops

latency is about 3 ms - 4 ms around the same as intle based N wireless cards

[The Crazed Child]

Explain further?

Wi-Fi still can't compete with a wired connection with all the signal disruptions, etc that can occur with devices that run on the same band.

[Paralectic]

Wi-Fi still can't compete with a wired connection with all the signal disruptions, etc that can occur with devices that run on the same band.

I don't have any problems, I've got a good router and adapter and don't even notice a difference in terms of latency.

[The Crazed Child]

I don't have any problems, I've got a good router and adapter and don't even notice a difference in terms of latency.

Your situation might be different, my friend has a 2.4Ghz router and 2.4Ghz wireless headphones and gets a choppy connection all the time.

[JAKEBAB]

Your situation might be different, my friend has a 2.4Ghz router and 2.4Ghz wireless headphones and gets a choppy connection all the time.

your friends wireless headphones uses the internet dafuq? he must have some pretty shitty internet because i can use wireless fine for gaming and im using the shitty modem router that comes with telstra.

 

Op Where the hell do they get these wireless standards names from like wtf it makes no sense ac to ax dafuq?

[lbrwnie]

If only I could get off 5mbps speeds....

[The Crazed Child]

your friends wireless headphones uses the internet dafuq? he must have some pretty shitty internet because i can use wireless fine for gaming and im using the shitty modem router that comes with telstra.

 

Op Where the hell do they get these wireless standards names from like wtf it makes no sense ac to ax dafuq?

no, his wireless headphones (which connect to a wireless USB adapter on his PC) run on the 2.4Ghz band along with their router

[mr moose]

your friends wireless headphones uses the internet dafuq? he must have some pretty shitty internet because i can use wireless fine for gaming and im using the shitty modem router that comes with telstra.

 

Op Where the hell do they get these wireless standards names from like wtf it makes no sense ac to ax dafuq?

 

It's more about interference,  2.4Ghz devices that are being used in the same area can degrade the quality of wifi,  Anything like headphones, microwaves, cordless phones and security systems with wireless camera's can cause interference. 

[JAKEBAB]

no, his wireless headphones (which connect to a wireless USB adapter on his PC) run on the 2.4Ghz band along with their router

 

 

It's more about interference,  2.4Ghz devices that are being used in the same area can degrade the quality of wifi,  Anything like headphones, microwaves, cordless phones and security systems with wireless camera's can cause interference. 

 

I know but he was complaining about latency then said that as if he was saying the headphones were running on wifi.

 

P.S i tend to take alot of things very literal

[Nomelas]

It's more about interference,  2.4Ghz devices that are being used in the same area can degrade the quality of wifi,  Anything like headphones, microwaves, cordless phones and security systems with wireless camera's can cause interference. 

Yup, never use 2.4 GHz unless you absolutely have to. Microwaves also operate on the 2.4 GHz band and actually at a massive capacity. GG internet when you're running a microwave

[Scheer]

I've never had issues with latency over Wifi unless using my headset like below, but that is only on N, still waiting for my AC router to ship... Pinging the router is always <1ms.

 

I know but he was complaining about latency then said that as if he was saying the headphones were running on wifi.

 

P.S i tend to take alot of things very literal

 

He said headphones were running on the 2.4Ghz band... which Wifi (and a crap load of other devices) run on as well.

 

I can't use my Corsair 2000's near a computer running 2.4Ghz Wifi or any Logitech unifying receiver devices. The mouse freaks out, keyboards sometimes don't register presses, and the internet randomly drops out and F5 becomes your best friend. Its fun to use it to mess with people though...

 

 

Op Where the hell do they get these wireless standards names from like wtf it makes no sense ac to ax dafuq?

 

Its serialized, started with a,b,c,etc. then they made it to z and started over with aa, ab, ac, etc.

 

Obviously, not every one is released. AFAIK only a, b, g, n, ac, and now ax.

[colonel_mortis]

Its serialized, started with a,b,c,etc. then they made it to z and started over with aa, ab, ac, etc.

 

Obviously, not every one is released. AFAIK only a, b, g, n, ac, and now ax.

Yeah but they haven't gone through 22 iterations since ac to reach ax. I can understand them missing out some letters, but effectively the entire alphabet... they just like messing OCD people up.

[Guest Generallee]

So it hits 10.5Gbps ? Too bad it still hits walls

[Scheer]

Yeah but they haven't gone through 22 iterations since ac to reach ax. I can understand them missing out some letters, but effectively the entire alphabet... they just like messing OCD people up.

 

How do you know they didn't go thru 22 iterations? If there were 10 different divisions working on the next upgrade, and they each had two concepts...

Or maybe there were concepts from p to as and they settled on ac being the one they wanted, so they started with at.

 

Went from:

 

a to b: 1

b to g: 5

g to n: 7

n to ac: 14

ac to ax: 22

 

Doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

 

EDIT: Forgot b to g.

[LAwLz]

Tell me when they've improved latency, then I'll be interested.

Sadly that will most likely never happen, unless there is some breakthrough like the quantum entanglement/teleportation they recently tested with a qubit.

Multipathing, collisions and other interference will always exist, and it adds delays.

 

 

your friends wireless headphones uses the internet dafuq? he must have some pretty shitty internet because i can use wireless fine for gaming and im using the shitty modem router that comes with telstra.

 

Op Where the hell do they get these wireless standards names from like wtf it makes no sense ac to ax dafuq?

His friend has wireless headphones that uses the 2.4GHz band, one of the few unlicensed bands available. If you have multiple things on the same band, you will get interference which can lead to packet loss, which adds delays.

It varies from location to location how good/bad it is.

 

The names are perfectly fine. Each 802.11 (802 means it is a LAN and/or MAN standard) (.11 means it is relayed to wireless) gets its own set of letters going from a to z.

The reason why there appears to be gaps is because consumers are not exposed to all the different standards. For example you might ask what happened with the standards between 802.11b and 802.11g, right? Well, 802.11c is a standard for how wireless bridges handles things, and 802.11d is a standard for roaming between countries, which is why it won't show up on most spec sheets.

In other cases, we get standards that are kind of rebranded. 802.11i is a very very important standard which most people use (or at least should use). 802.11i is what the WiFi Alliance used to create WPA2.

Then we got a bunch of kind of obscure standards like 802.11s which is for mesh networking.

 

Anyway, the point is that the standards follows a normal order, but consumers see gaps because they are mostly exposed to the big WiFi standards which are related to speed and range (like 802.11n or 802.11ac), and not stuff like 802.11ae which is how management frames can be prioritized.

 

Here are some of their standards they worked on or are working on: Official IEEE 802.11 Working Group Project Timelines - 2014-06-02

[colonel_mortis]

How do you know they didn't go thru 22 iterations? If there were 10 different divisions working on the next upgrade, and they each had two concepts...

Or maybe there were concepts from p to as and they settled on ac being the one they wanted, so they started with at.

 

Went from:

 

a to b: 1

b to n: 12

n to ac: 14

ac to ax: 22

 

Doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

Well I don't mean it like it's impossible, but surely from 2011 (according to wikipedia, that is when they started developing the AC standard) to 2014 they can't have made 22 revisions/different wireless communication specifications. Perhaps they did, but that is a hell of a lot of different specifications.

EDIT: Actually, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/802.11 suggests that at least some of the intermediaries exist so perhaps they just got standards-happy.

Edited June 2, 2014 by colonel_mortis

[AlexGoesHigh]

and i'm still using a N router with 10/100 ports -__- also if that new 7 Gbps ac upgrade hits next year, they better have 10Gbps ports on those routers

[colonel_mortis]

What I really want to know now is how 7Gb/s can be transmitted over a 5GHz wireless connection. Even if you eliminate all interference and overhead, you are surely still limited by the fact that the micro/radio waves carrying the signal can only be high or low 5 billion times per second, and yet this standard claims to be able to transmit 7 billion bits (highs or lows) per second. Sounds like magic to me (compression is cheating).

[Scheer]

What I really want to know now is how 7Gb/s can be transmitted over a 5GHz wireless connection. Even if you eliminate all interference and overhead, you are surely still limited by the fact that the micro/radio waves carrying the signal can only be high or low 5 billion times per second, and yet this standard claims to be able to transmit 7 billion bits (highs or lows) per second. Sounds like magic to me (compression is cheating).

 

The 5ghz band is a range of frequencies that has 22 channels in it that are 40mhz wide, we can already shoot 1gbps over a channel, so really we could do 22gbps right now just by using all channels simultaneously, although I'm sure it wouldn't really reach that speed due to interference. Plus the FCC is possibly increasing the 5ghz band allowing for more channels.

 

Most likely what they are doing is using a higher modulation scheme, 512-QAM prehaps? Modulation is how they "inject" data into the frequency wave.

[Joe4evr]

What I really want to know now is how 7Gb/s can be transmitted over a 5GHz wireless connection. Even if you eliminate all interference and overhead, you are surely still limited by the fact that the micro/radio waves carrying the signal can only be high or low 5 billion times per second, and yet this standard claims to be able to transmit 7 billion bits (highs or lows) per second. Sounds like magic to me (compression is cheating).

5GHz is simply the carrier wave, the data is modulated onto that wave for transmission and demodulated when receiving. The frequency of the carrier wave has no relation to the amount of data that can be put on it.

[LAwLz]

What I really want to know now is how 7Gb/s can be transmitted over a 5GHz wireless connection. Even if you eliminate all interference and overhead, you are surely still limited by the fact that the micro/radio waves carrying the signal can only be high or low 5 billion times per second, and yet this standard claims to be able to transmit 7 billion bits (highs or lows) per second. Sounds like magic to me (compression is cheating).

You could in theory send 10.5 Terabit (and even more) with a single wave if there was no interference.

All you need is a super precise modulation and antennas. 802.11ac goes up to 256-QAM. Higher number = more information transmitted with each wave.

Here is an example of 16-QAM:

Each wave can have one out of 16 different positions, and each position represent 4 bits of data. With 256-QAM, each wave can have one out of 256 different positions, and can therefore transmit 8 bits of data.

If we had no interference whatsoever, we could build super sensitive antennas which could have ridiculously many phases, and we could therefore sent huge amounts of data with a single wave. Sadly, there is a ton of interference in the real world so it's not that easy to do (more positions = higher risk of error if we get interference).

 

 

There are a bunch of other ways of sending more info as well. More spatial streams, shorter guard intervals, wider channels, etc.

Oh and it's really complicated so there is probably some small amount of black magic involved.

[Hyp0xia]

Every time a story like this gets posted, it seems like people jump at the chance to remind us all of the superiority of a wired connection. We get it, alright? Wired connections are faster and more reliable, but that doesn't change the fact that wired connections are not practical for all situations, especially when it comes to mobile use, so stop being élitist and enjoy your wired connections in silence like I do.