Wi-Fi 7 to get final approval early next year, up to 4.8X faster than Wi-Fi 6

https://www.tomshardware.com/networking/wi-fi-7-to-get-the-final-seal-of-approval-early-next-year-delivers-48-times-faster-performance-than-wi-fi-6

by CharlesW • 3 years ago

43 51 3 years ago

tomshardware.com

callalex7• 3 years ago

The WiFi alliance seems to be singularly focused on corporate/institutional deployments of WiFi while ignoring the needs of most individual consumers. I guess that makes sense because that’s where the money is.

The top priority of individual consumers is getting better range out of single-AP setups, which WiFi hasn’t really addressed at all since its inception. I guess MU-MIMO helps in theory with that, but doesn’t seem to in practice. With the exception of nerds on HN and really rich people with huge mansions, most people plug in one wireless AP placed wherever the cable/fiber/phone line comes into the house and want WiFi to have acceptable video conferencing 3 bedrooms away.

tw043• 3 years ago

I'm not sure there's really a solution to that issue though? There are strict limits on the channels you can utilize, and the power output of radios. There's no magic bullet to pass through physical objects.

callalex7• 3 years ago

I don’t deny that what I’m asking for is challenging, but if anyone would have the power and influence to pull it off it would be the WiFi alliance. Going higher and higher in the spectrum just sucks for the end user. Something in the 1-2 ghz range that isn’t a congested disaster like 2.4ghz would be extremely helpful for most home users. I understand that spectrum is hotly contested and rife with corruption in allocation processes, but it’s insane to me that the most important and most used wireless technology (by any metric really) is relegated to crappy leftover spectrum.

londons_explore• 3 years ago

There are very much ways to improve it. With no interference, there are a whole host of ways to improve range. Things like beam forming (sending the signal only in the direction of the client).

In busy WiFi environments like cities, there are probably even bigger gains to be had - tricks like CDMA and long FEC codes to allow your message to still be received whilst others are transmitting.

cromka• 3 years ago

If they are able to increase the speed 4.8x, then instead of that they could divide that increased throughout into many more narrower channels of previous speed?

foepys• 3 years ago

Is there really a was without increasing power? The openly available frequency bands are limited quite a bit, so can the wifi alliance do anything here?

callalex7• 3 years ago

Yes, they can advocate for getting better spectrum allocated to WiFi. They would have a strong case since WiFi is by far and away the most used wireless technology it’s just that nobody is really advocating for it to politicians in any meaningful way.

potatopatch• 3 years ago

I'm not sure suburban and rural problems are as relevant as density in an apartment building. You can add APs, etc, but you can't stop collisions with neighbors.

callalex7• 3 years ago

but you can't stop collisions with neighbors

I’m not convinced this is true. Right now all equipment screams at full power all the time, but it doesn’t have to be this way. They control the spec. They could enforce self-limiting when an AP detects more than 5 other APs, for example. And currently there is a lot of neat stuff in the spec for APs to collaborate with each other when they share a backhaul, but not so much for independent APs. Sure, you will have some jerks that go out of their way to override these features but for 99.999% of people who just plug in an appliance and never touch any configuration there are wins to be had there.

SirMaster• 3 years ago

But you can't just increase strength of the AP. Isn't the issue the strength of the end device in sending a signal back to the AP?

Network comms are 2-way, it's not just a 1-way signal from the AP to your end device. It has to be able to talk back, and the signal a small battery operated device with a tiny internal antenna can send is only so good.

incahoots4• 3 years ago

Isn't the issue the strength of the end device in sending a signal back to the AP?

It absolutely is, you're correct. What most people fail to realize is nearly all mobile devices prioritize battery life first before anything else, including connectivity. On windows if you don't disable the power saving feature on your wireless NIC you're going to have drops, or straight up struggle to stay connected.

MacOS used to handle it better, but since BigSur, connectivity is about the same with Windows. I believe various Linux distros handle this better (like Kali lol)

iforgotpassword• 3 years ago

I guess MU-MIMO helps in theory with that, but doesn’t seem to in practice.

I'd really like to see some thorough testing on this. My hunch is that mimo and more importantly beam-forming is something that works under lab conditions if every wifi device in range uses chips from the same manufacturer as the AP, and even then probably still depends on moon phase. Except maybe if you buy really expensive pro gear.

If some tech outlet would get a random assortment of popular APs and then test this stuff with a dozen phones and laptops that would surely be interesting.

halJordan• 3 years ago

Iirc tings like mimo and 1024, let alone 4k, qam don't work unless all clients can use it. So people who proudly say "I havent upgraded my phone is 5 years" are also the ones holding the wifi at 802.11n speeds

supertrope3• 3 years ago

MU-MIMO was not popularly supported (iPhones never did). It requires devices to be in different directions from the AP. https://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wireless/wireless-features/w...

MIMO is very useful. It literally multiplies link rate. https://www.wiisfi.com/#MIMO

Beamforming has marginal benefit and is real. Up close your device already has max speed. Far away beamforming won’t help much. It’s in the between that helps, and mostly in the downlink direction as beamforming requires the transmitter have more antennas and DSP resources (aka the access point that’s not running on battery and does not have to be miniaturized like a smartphone). But the uplink direction is usually the range limiting factor. There’s Maximal Ratio Combining for the uplink direction but it again is not universally supported in APs.

unusualmonkey• 3 years ago

If you truly believe this, please try to use 803.11a for daily needs.

I personally appreciate faster speeds, lower latency, better support for multiple devices, less contention, better support for wifi mesh etc.

Heck, I'm far more frustrated at wifi in 'corporate deployments' e.g. At a conference or hotel than I am with WiFi at home, so benefits there still improve my experience.

nly• 3 years ago

I got over that using WiFi enabled power line adapters.

divbzero• 3 years ago

I’ve noticed that Wi-Fi 7 routers are already out for sale:

[1] https://www.tomshardware.com/news/asus-wifi-7-gaming-routers

[2] https://www.tomshardware.com/news/netgears-orbi-970-wi-fi-7-...

[3] https://www.tomshardware.com/news/linksys-mesh-wifi-7-router...

[4] https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amazon-eero-max-7-wi-fi...

Is it typical for products to be released before the standard is finalized?

krger• 3 years ago

X2 and K56Flex were two competing standards for 56Kbps dialup connections that predated the eventual V.90 standard.

I think there was a lot of "pre-802.11n" hardware sold before that standard was ratified as well.

6th• 3 years ago

We shot a 802.11b 215m across houses and a park to save getting a second internet using WDS around 2003 to 2005. That was a full 20 years ago - yikes!

We used Linksys WRT54G's started with for some reason I think it was .a, then .b then .g's. We started with Sveasoft's firmware, when that ended and started charging shifted onto DD-WRT.

We used a 24db gain directional dish grid antenna on one end a a slightly less powerful but plenty capable custom built wave-guide (we got from a guy that had access to expensive telco. calibration kit), think it was 10to15, maybe even 20?

We'd shoot our weekly DB backups across the park! I created batches using robocopy for network re-startable copies as it took a lot longer than onsite w/cable. It was better than what we had as but we couldn't lay our own cables down the street over the park and viaduct! An additional link at the other site w/ongoing of 100 p.m. would have drained us beyond our weekly burn.

So much easier to mount 2 antennas direct LOS, job done!

I do remember the orange tree with a net would drop the link entirely when it rained =) - damned neighborhood Faraday orange tree. Setup a fruit tree shaker for when it's in the rain people! Some, at least 2x, people in the 2000's were very slightly inconvenienced.

Salgat• 3 years ago

The hardware requirements for WiFi 7 were largely determined several years ago. At this point any further changes are almost certain to be software controlled.

lazycouchpotato2• 3 years ago

Apparently. Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra has Wi-Fi 7 support [1]. Apple's AirPort Extreme (6th gen) came out in June 2023 and supported draft 802.11ac (Wi-Fi 5), while the standard itself seemed to have been finalized in late 2023 [3].

[1] https://www.theverge.com/23902812/wi-fi-7-explained

[2] https://youtu.be/C8rTYj_jC4A?feature=shared&t=65

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11ac-2013

vGPU3• 3 years ago

You meant 2013 not 2023.

vaxman• 3 years ago

use caution...

The initial WiFi 6e routers were trash and some of the models you listed implement surveillance capitalism schemes. Also concerned some of those manufacturers have such poor production control, it is trivial for Chinese malware to be added prior to shipment.

danjoredd• 3 years ago

Dang, I'm still using Wifi 5 at home

myrandomcomment• 3 years ago

So at home I have 3 Ubiquity APs. My house is long and the APs are setup X-X-X on the center line of the house (for the most part). 2.4Ghz is used only for IoT. 5/6Ghz is used for everything else. My house sit on a large lot. I can still see ~50+ other networks around me. The worse part is that there are 2.4Ghz networks that are set to 40 wide channels and 5Ghz networks set to 160 wide channels. People have zero idea what they are doing, and the defaults from the manufactures are junk. Every AP around me is screaming as loud as they can because people seem to think turning up the power makes it all work better.

The only think I want from the the next version of Wifi would be some sort of technology where all the APs in the area can agree on what they see and optimize so they stop stepping on each other.

In my case through careful site surveys and planning, I have a pretty stable network even managing to have useful 40 wide 5Mhz channels. The radios are all tuned to use the least amount of power possible. One thing also to share, if you plan on using Matter/Thread be aware that some of the channel will overlap with your 2.4Ghz networks. If you are using Apple kit for your border router its is locked to channel 25 which will have overlap with your 2.4Ghz channel 11. My Thread network became very stable when I switched my 2.4Ghz to use only channels 1/6.

Wi-Fi 7 to get final approval early next year, up to 4.8X faster than Wi-Fi 6

Related Stories