FCC : one-gigabit Wi-Fi soon.

[Geek-9pm]

This is posted in Other. 
Not really news. Not yet. And it is for the USA, not hte4 UK or Europe.
The full title in the  The Register is:
FCC doubles 5GHz spectrum in prep for one-gigabit Wi-Fi
Full Story

...US Federal Communications Commission have unanimously voted to loosen the rules governing the operation of Wi-Fi devices operating in the 5GHz band.

"The new rules will make 100MHz of spectrum more accessible for use in homes and congested spaces like convention centers, parks, and airports and increase the potential for more unlicensed spectrum innovation," the FCC   ...

This can mean more people in the USA can have Internet without paying high prices. A significant minority of the USA population can not ford overpriced cell phones and Internet connections.(Read: iPhone and AT&T)  Think about it. With Wallchart selling decent Android tablets for $99, and less for smartphones, the Internet will become more available for all when the new FCC thing gets going.

[camerongray]

While 1gbps WiFi will be great, how can you say that this will allow people to "have Internet without paying high prices" and something about cheap Smartphones?

The entire article is about WiFi which is totally separate from the cost of an internet connection.

[Geek-9pm]

camerongray,
Right, that was my interpretation. And I am likely wrong. Just now local news from San Francisco said that AT&T will make Cupertino  the first city to get Gigabit Wi-Fi.
Cupertno to High-Speed Internet.

AT&T hopes to offer the service to Cupertino residents as early as December, or early next year, Ken McNeeley, president of AT&T's California operations, said Tuesday. The company hopes to to roll out service to other Bay Area cities early in 2015 and to San Jose in the first half of next year, he said.
...

So yeah,  I go it wrong. It is not about humanity, it is about money. Again. 

[patio]

That has no bearing on what they are gonna charge for it whatsoever...

[camerongray]

This is about WiFi which is totally separate from connections to homes.  That link about Cupertino is talking about Gigabit fibre connections which are totally different from WiFi.  WiFi is what you would use in your own home, not as a medium of getting the internet connection to your home.

I would love Gigabit WiFi (I currently only have 150mbps WiFi and use CAT5e cable for a Gigabit connection to hardwired PCs) but this is totally separate from the FTTC VDSL connection I get from my ISP.

What do you mean it's not about humanity, it's about money?  Of course ISPs want to make money but things like high speed fibre connections are great for consumers who are requiring faster and faster connections.  I much prefer that my ISP is spending money to get high speed FTTC connections over more and more streets rather than putting that effort into providing cheaper, slow DSL services.

[Geek-9pm]

That has no bearing on what they are gonna charge for it whatsoever...

Fair.
I need to clarify one thing. The FCC proposal is NOT the same as what AT&T and Comcast are rolling out. In fact, it is a conflict. It is as if AT&T and Comcast  were mocking what the FCC wants.

FCC wants wireless.
AT&T is  going fiber.

The fiber cabinetwork the big guys want will cost untold millions of dollars to implement. Bat the FCC proposal can offer wireless to a small city  a fraction of the cost of the fiber network. Yeah,  that is what I say. The articles  cited do not address this apparent conflict.

Maybe, conjecture for sure, The big guys are reacting to the FCC by coming out with their own money-sucking plans before anybody can implement what the FCC offers to the public. Wait and see.

[patio]

Geek ...you need to understand 1 simple concept::
The FCC does NOT sell access services to the Public.

[camerongray]

FCC wants wireless.
AT&T is  going fiber.

*sigh* They are totally different things.  Noone is "mocking" anyone.

WiFi has been around for ages and is used to connect computers to an internet connection wirelessly , it was never designed as a way to connect a premises to the internet!

FCC does not "want" wireless - They are improving Wireless standards so that people can connect devices to their local networks at gigabit speeds wirelessly over short distances.  Fibre on the other hand is used to give a primary internet connection to a building - This is how connections have worked for ages.

In fact, I imagine the FCC would rather wireless technologies were not somehow used to deliver connections to peoples homes as if every home had some sort of high power wireless system to go over long range, interference would be crazy (It's bad enough that I live within range of 10 different access points which are all fairly low power)

To put it simply:
Wires such as Fibre or Copper - Used to get the internet connection from the ISP to your home/business
Wireless - Used to connect devices to the internet inside your home/business

Take my connection for example - The connection comes from the ISP to the street cabinet over fibre and is then delivered into my flat over copper cable from the cabinet, I then have a router and Wireless access point to provide a wired and wireless internet connection to my devices.  At no point is wireless used to deliver a connection from my ISP to my flat (how would that even work given the range of WiFi and issues with interference).

[Geek-9pm]

This thread has the potential to become rather complicated.
First of all, we are talking about gigabit speeds. Having a gigabit connection for the Internet is a very new idea. Think about it. What services at the present time, even offer 100 Mb Internet service?
I will make a confession. The two articles I quoted are not complete explanations of what's going on here. There has been considerable research done on the use of the superhigh frequency spectrum. The results indicate that it is possible, even practical, to use the super high frequencies for a very reliable long-distance communication. This flies in the face of the consists suitable amount of engineering experience and opinion to the contrary. Much of the research was done by the military. But let's not go into that at this time.
We are talking about the use of super high frequencies for gigabit transmission to users who have unlicensed devices in their homes or their laptops. The potential is that someone could go to a public place, let's say, a national park, and through the areas of the park that are readily accessible. One could take a laptop with an appropriate wireless adapter and get Wi-Fi throughout the park.
It has always been assumed that Wi-Fi always means low-power short-range communication. That is not strictly true. The gigabit wireless thing is still in its infancy, at this point, it's difficult to see which way it's going to go. It has the potential of doing some damage to the big companies who favor the use of fiber optics instead of super high frequencies.
For now, I'm not going to introduce links to a lot of different articles on the subject. I will leave that to others who wish to read comments. The point is this: the wireless Inter gigabit technology will bring about some changes that are hard to predict at this moment. In my opinion, along with some others, this will put pressure on the big companies to improve their services for the general good. Well, at least that's what I'm hoping.
Patio, yes, the SEC does not sell access rights to the public. Exactly how unlicensed users will be able to use long-range wireless devices without paying fees has not yet been determined.

[camerongray]

You are totally missing the point here.  Do you even know what "gigabit" means?  Look at Wireless G vs Wireless N, G was 54mbps, Wireless N can go up to 600mbps depending on the equipment used.  This is exactly the same here, only difference is that this new standard will be faster than Wireless N currently is!

This thread has the potential to become rather complicated.

This thread should have been very simple, you made it complicated by guessing what you posted was actually about.

Having a gigabit connection for the Internet is a very new idea.

This has NOTHING to do with a gigabit connection to the internet!  It will give a gigabit connection to the local network, the speed of the internet connection has nothing to do with it.  For example, my internet connection gives 73mbps down, 18mbps up speeds.  My WiFi network is 150mbps connection but my connection to the internet is still only 73/18!

The article talks about Gigabit WiFi - This is WiFi that is used in homes to connect computers to a local network, this is not a technology to provide an internet connection to those homes, that is still the job of cables (either fibre or copper)!

Gigabit is referring to the transfer speed and has nothing to do with the range!  Your example about national parks and other public WiFi networks would not benefit from this technology.  Any public WiFi system will use several access points to provide connections over the area, not a single extremely powerful one!

[Geek-9pm]

Gigabit Internet over wide area Wi-Fi.
Not hear here yet. Coming soon. Maybe.
About two years earlier:

Chairman Genachowski said, “American economic history teaches a clear lesson about infrastructure. If we build it, innovation will come. The U.S. needs a critical mass of gigabit communities nationwide so that innovators can develop next-generation applications and services that will drive economic growth
and global competitiveness.”

He meant Internet, not just  Intranet.

[BC_Programmer]

Gigabit Internet over wide area Wi-Fi.
Not hear here yet. Coming soon. Maybe.
About two years earlier:He meant Internet, not just  Intranet.

Quote comes from here. A statement issued in January 2013. It is about connection speeds for connection backbones.

It does not involve Wi-Fi. The word "Wi-Fi" nor '802.11' appears in the statement anywhere.

Gigabit wifi would mean faster routers, and a new 802.11 standard. (802.11a, 802.11b, 802.11g(54mbps, dual band 108mbps), 802.11n (300mbps, Dual-band 600mbps) and the new standard which will provide 1000mbps over Wifi.

Wifi is not used by service providers to provide internet connectivity to either homes or businesses. Wifi routers and access points are used downstream from the wire to provide wireless access to that wired broadband connection. It is a rather simple concept and I think somebody would have to be either uninformed, thick or disingenuous to misunderstand it.

[Geek-9pm]

Wifi is not used by service providers to provide internet connectivity to either homes or businesses.

It is used by ISP.  Google Digital Path.
or
Call 1-800-676-7284

For more than 10 years, DigitalPath has been delivering the full power of the Internet to families throughout California and Nevada.

Which is not new. What is new is now that can move up to Gigabit.

[camerongray]

It is used by ISP.  Google Digital Path.
or
Call 1-800-676-7284Which is not new. What is new is now that can move up to Gigabit.

According to their website they use line of sight, point-to-point microwave links, not WiFi...

[Geek-9pm]

According to their website they use line of sight, point-to-point microwave links, not WiFi...

WiFi, is a wireless technology that allows an electronic device to exchange data or connect to the internet using 2.4 GHz UHF and 5 GHz SHF bands.
I just talked to them. I used to h ave an account. They use the upper band of Wi-Fi and their SID is visible on a stock wireless router. But you have  to have a device that can do VPN, which they provide. VPN does not change the frequency used. It is still inside the Wi-Fi bands The range is over a mile. Even so, it can be used in rural areas under dial conditions. It is not a mobile service. And presently it is only 20 megabit service.

Back to topic. Gigabit Wi-Fi opens the door for Gigabit Internet.  If it comes soon, it may slow down the progress of AT&T and Comcast in some areas. IMO the FCC does intend it to be used for Internet outdoors over a wide area. To make it a mobile service, much higher power will be needed. But that is more of a legal issue , not a technical problem. 

EDIT: Also, some small cities offer wide area Wi-Fi in some parts of the town. It is called Municipal Wi-Fi and has a range way greater above  indoor service.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_wireless_network

[patio]

4-3-2-1.....

[camerongray]

WiFi, is a wireless technology that allows an electronic device to exchange data or connect to the internet using 2.4 GHz UHF and 5 GHz SHF bands.
I just talked to them. I used to h ave an account. They use the upper band of Wi-Fi and their SID is visible on a stock wireless router. But you have  to have a device that can do VPN, which they provide. VPN does not change the frequency used. It is still inside the Wi-Fi bands The range is over a mile. Even so, it can be used in rural areas under dial conditions. It is not a mobile service. And presently it is only 20 megabit service.

Okay, then either you are wrong, or their site is wrong.

Yes, Things like Municipal Wi-Fi exist, but this technology isn't remotely targeted at helping them as the primary thing.  These WiFi systems are not very common and are used in very special circumstances, the primary method of connecting homes to the internet is still via cables.  I can safely say myself that I would much rather have a physical cable connecting me to the internet over a temperamental, interference prone wireless connection.

In systems like this, the WiFi speed will come a lot later, the companies need to work out the issue of actually getting the gigabit speed internet connection to the access points in the first place, using, guess what(?), copper or fibre cable!  This is a massive undertaking.

Gigabit WiFi at the moment is being targeted at streaming content around a local network.etc as this can actually use gigabit speeds.  If you had explained it this way then it would all have been fine rather than totally guessing the uses and intention of this technology as you have done in several different threads on this forum.

In conclusion - When you make threads, stop guessing!

[Geek-9pm]

In systems like this, the WiFi speed will come a lot later, the companies need to work out the issue of actually getting the gigabit speed internet connection to the access points in the first place, using, guess what(?), copper or fibre cable!  This is a massive undertaking.

That is true! The technology will get way ahead of the service.
The idea of 'Gigabit Internet' is being picked up on the radar. Later I might post a new story. Unless somebody else wants to.

Google Gigabit Internet.   

[camerongray]

I know that Gigabit internet is a thing along with 10 gigabit internet and every other speed of internet connection that will come in the future.  What I am saying is that Gigabit WiFi isn't really being developed primarily for gigabit internet connections which are an extremely long way off, they are built for things like streaming video and games around a home, something that current WiFi can be too slow for.

For example, all my storage is over my network, not in my PC.  If I am on my desktop with a Gigabit network connection it is lightning fast but over WiFi from my laptop it can be a bit sluggish, I would love Gigabit WiFi to solve this problem.

[BC_Programmer]

Back to topic. Gigabit Wi-Fi opens the door for Gigabit Internet. 

Ignoring the already mentioned issues with this statement that have been described at length, Why would Gigabit Wifi open the door for Gigabit Internet when the prevalence of gigabit routers and network adapters did not?

[Geek-9pm]

Why would Gigabit Wifi open the door for Gigabit Internet when the prevalence of gigabit routers and network adapters did not?

Common sense. Gigabit routers do not come with 200 feet of fiber cable. Not free installation of the fiber.
Gigabit Internet over fiber to the house is very pricy.
Gigabit Internet over Gigabit Wi-Fi will be economical. Relatively speaking.

[camerongray]

Why would Gigabit Wifi open the door for Gigabit Internet when the prevalence of gigabit routers and network adapters did not?

Exactly, and on a similar note - Fast Ethernet (100mbps) was introduced in 1995 yet 100mbps connections becoming available for consumers has only really been happening in the last few years.

Common sense. Gigabit routers do not come with 200 feet of fiber cable. Not free installation of the fiber.
Gigabit Internet over fiber to the house is very pricy.
Gigabit Internet over Gigabit Wi-Fi will be economical. Relatively speaking.

How?  Wireless access points are going to be expensive and will have to be installed relatively near the houses that they are serving, these access points will need fibre connections anyway.

My connection is fibre to the cabinet in the street which is a few hundred metres from my flat and then delivered from there through the regular phone line, for wireless, the fibre will still need laid until a fairly short distance from the property, much like FTTC needs.  To get a fast speed you don't need to have the fibre connection the entire way into the property, there are other ways of using existing cable to get the connection into people's homes.

Also notice how fast wireless speed drops off with distance, If you are talking about trying to do links between buildings at that speed, you will really struggle to maintain high enough speed.  Not to mention, interference, drop outs.etc.

Since you seem to ignore any question I ask, I feel very little point in asking this but I will anyway.  Why do you just make up stuff and post it here as fact then spend all this time trying to make people believe you whereas you could either just do research in the first place or just not post stuff that you don't understand in the first place?

[BC_Programmer]

Common sense. Gigabit routers do not come with 200 feet of fiber cable.

Will Routers supporting the new Wireless/Wifi standard come with 200 feet of fiber cable? Because any Wireless Access point- whether 100gbps or not- is going to need a wired WAN connection to the internet and will require that infrastructure just as any wired LAN solution would.

Gigabit Internet over fiber to the house is very pricy.
Gigabit Internet over Gigabit Wi-Fi will be economical. Relatively speaking.

It seems you are either not understanding the networking concepts at play or- possibly- are being purposely disingenous.

A standard router, as used in your typical household, has wired connections. You connect cat5 or compatible cables to the LAN ports, and connect the computers; simple enough. They have one WAN connection. Depending on the router, you might connect different jacks. Often it's another Ethernet connection. a Cable-connected system, for example, would have the Cable coax going into a Cable Modem, and from that Cable Modem a Wired connection goes to the router.

Routers also, of course, support wireless connections. You can imagine them simply as "invisible" extra LAN connections that are wireless. However, this only eliminates the connection from that computer to the router. The router and it's wired upstream connections still exist.

The idea is there is no "gigabit internet over wifi" the phrase is rather nonsensical in the same sense that saying that removing a school zone would allow you to drive faster on a highway several miles away. Gigabit wifi will increase the speed of wireless connections between an access point and a computer. Access Points are not "ISP Nodes" of any form; instead they are just routers or router/modems connected, via cables, to the ISPs selected backbone. (DSL/ADSL uses Phone jacks, Cable uses Coaxial cables, etc).

Thus I fail to understand the reasoning that Gigabit wifi would in any way encourage improvements to the networking backbone where the advancement to gigabit ethernet connections didn't. It will not eliminate the expense of having to lay down high-speed cable backbones- Wifi does not comprise any part of the networking infrastructure until after the service has been delivered to the ISP customer, and well it shouldn't the advertised transfer speeds are a ideal maximum and generally is not entirely suitable beyond the size of your typical household.

[Geek-9pm]

It will not eliminate the expense of having to lay down high-speed cable backbones- Wifi does not comprise any part of the networking infrastructure until after the service has been delivered to the ISP customer, and well it shouldn't the advertised transfer speeds are a ideal maximum and generally is not entirely suitable beyond the size of your typical household.

You are mistaken.
First of all, I am not an enemy of fiber optic. The point is that a wireless system can either supplement or replace a fiber system.  Really, fibber is better. Cost of the manpower to deploy it is a big issue here in California. And some other places.

An yes, I do a lot of research on this.  Broadband wifeless systems with not one strand of fiber do exist.  Neither in the drop wire , the feeder or the backbone.  They don't need wire. Well, wire for power, of course.
The FCC will approve of Wii-Fi stations with a range of 5000 meters. If it such might  do a gigabit for every customer at that range has yet to be determined.
Keep asking questions.

[camerongray]

An yes, I do a lot of research on this.  Broadband wifeless systems with not one strand of fiber do exist.  Neither in the drop wire , the feeder or the backbone.  They don't need wire. Well, wire for power, of course.

Where do you define the "broadband" connection to start then?  It's not like ISPs have their datacenter and transmit entirely wirelessly from there.

Yes, in theory you could have a wireless system but this is totally not what this announcement was meant to say, it is talking about WiFi for home use where gigabit speeds benefit stuff like streaming.

Cost of the manpower to deploy it is a big issue here in California. And some other places.

How on earth is wireless easier to deploy?  You need masts, you need access points, you need power and cable to these access points.  At least here, it is fairly common to use existing channels in the street or even sewers to run the fibre cable, they do not need to dig up the entire street to be able to install it in a lot of cases.

And please, cite all your stuff like you have totally failed to do in your Secure Boot thread rather than just stating your incorrect theories as fact.

[Geek-9pm]

Apparently the link I gave at first is bad.  My bad. 
Here is is again.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/04/01/fcc_doubles_5ghz_bandwidth_in_prep_for_move_to_1gb_wifi/
FCC doubles 5GHz spectrum in prep for one-gigabit Wi-Fi
That site has a links to this:

Washington, D.C. – The Federal Communications Commission today provided for accelerated growth
and expansion of new Wi-Fi technology that can offer faster speeds of one gigabit per second or more,
increase overall capacity, and reduce congestion at Wi-Fi hot spots. The new rules will make 100 MHz of spectrum more accessible for use in homes and congested spaces like convention centers, parks, and airports and increase the potential for more unlicensed spectrum innovation.
The Commission adopted a Report and Order modifying the rules governing the operation of Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (U-NII) devices operating in the 5 GHz band. By its action the Commission significantly increased the utility of the 100 megahertz of spectrum, and streamlined existing
rules and equipment authorization procedures for devices throughout the 5 GHz band. U-NII devices play an important role in meeting public demand for wireless broadband service. Currently U-NII devices operate in 555 megahertz of spectrum in the 5 GHz band, and are used for Wi-Fi and other high-speed wireless connections. These devices support a variety of applications including Wi-Fi hot
spots and wireless home local area networks to connect smart phones, tablets and laptops to the Internet, broadband service to rural areas offered by Wireless Internet Service Providers and off-loading of traffic from commercial cellular wireless networks. The rules adopted today remove the current restriction on indoor-only use and increase the permissible power which will provide more robust access in the 5.150-5.250 GHz band. This in turn will allow U-NII devices to better integrate with other unlicensed portions of the 5 GHz band to offer faster speeds and reduce congestion at crowded Wi-Fi hot spots such as airports and convention centers.
The Commission also modified certain technical rules to improve protection for incumbent systems by equiring manufacturers to secure their devices against illegal modification which could cause interference to incumbent users in the band.
Action by the Commission March 31, 2014 by First Report and Order (FCC 14-30). Chairman Wheeler,
Commissioners, Clyburn, Rosenworcel, Pai, and O’Rielly with Chairman Wheeler, Commissioners
Clyburn, Rosenworcel, Pai and O’Rielly issuing statements.
For further information, contact Mark Settle (202-418-2470); [email protected]

I am sorry if that caused confession. My remarks were based on what the FCC said., opt something  I dreamed.
 Does anybody want to know about my dreams? Much more interesting.

[camerongray]

My remarks were based on what the FCC said., opt something  I dreamed.

Then why not quote something from the FCC that states that this will somehow improve the growth of gigabit internet connections... 

[Geek-9pm]

"The new rules will make 100MHz of spectrum more accessible for use in homes and congested spaces like convention centers, parks, and airports and increase the potential for more unlicensed spectrum innovation," the FCC said in its Monday announcement.

Specifically, "the rules adopted today remove the current restriction on indoor-only use and increase the permissible power which will provide more robust access in the 5.150-5.250GHz band," the FCC said.

[camerongray]

Err.... that doesn't say anything about allowing people to somehow get gigabit internet connections, it is talking about how having more spectrum available to use can allow for more devices operating at the same time without interference.

Tip - When you are citing something as evidence, at least check that what you are citing does actually back up your claim...

[BC_Programmer]

The new rules will make 100MHz of spectrum more accessible for use in homes and congested spaces like convention centers, parks, and airports and increase the potential for more unlicensed spectrum innovation,

What this is saying is that the revisions to the rules by the FCC will make 100Mhz more of the electromagnetic spectrum available for home-devices. the FCC controls the use of Radio waves by devices in the United States, with various devices having classifications. It also controls rules regarding electronic devices interfering with such signals. "unlicensed spectrum innovation" means extending standards by using parts of the available spectrum. For example, Early "Dual band" routers used a band of the spectrum that was not used by their underlying 802.11 technology to increase transfer speeds.

the FCC said in its Monday announcement.

What this is saying is that the FCC announced this on a Monday. Monday is the Second Day of the week in most countries. It is named after  the old english name which translates to "moon day". Under ISO 8601 it is the first day of the week.

the rules adopted today remove the current restriction on indoor-only use and increase the permissible power which will provide more robust access in the 5.150-5.250GHz band

What this is saying that the existing restrictions on the use of the wireless spectrum for indoor use being used as well as the changes to interference limitations to allow transmissions to use more power will allow devices in the home to use more bandwidth of the electromagnetic spectrum. Interestingly, despite the title of the originally linked article (which is actually a dead link), nothing in the actual announcement mentions either Wifi or Internet connectivity. So it's possible you have been the victim of the chosen headline.

[Geek-9pm]

Yes, I did include a quote about Monday. Sorry, I did not mean to annoy the Moon or its lovers. The quotes was part of an article about a FCC announcement.

Presently I am having trouble with my DSL service. Perhaps AT&T is spying on me. I owe them a lot of money and have to ignore the bill collectors. Maybe that is why I am having trouble with dead links.
Here is what I get:

...
The site could be temporarily unavailable or too busy. Try again in a few moments.
If you are unable to load any pages, check your computer's network connection.

So bear with me. I have refe3rnces for what I said. Just hard to find the exact thing that you want it to say. Oh, here is one you will like:

...the two technologies do not have to be competitive but can be complimentary...

The link is not needed,  it supports your argument, so it is not needed. My response the the quote above is that the two technologies are competitive.  Unless some effort is made to stop it. AT&T can go either way if they want to. They might even use opposing technologies in different markets.

Somebody said you have to have fiber somewhere. Yes, that is true. But how close to your house does it have to be? The closer it is, the more it costs to deploy. Would  you say 100 meters? Maybe 300 meters? How about up to 5000 meters.

Presently DSL is limited to about 1500 meters. Any sideband access point that can exceed that will have a possible impact on both DSL and voice telephone for new installations.
BTW: AT&T is now offering a wireless home phone service even in areas where there is already local copper wire service. You see, AT&T is now separate fro the Bell system. It has been for some time.  Such could be upgraded to hiking-speed broadband.  But they are not using 803.11 services for that. But they  could. Others do. I did speak to the local Digital Path company today and they do offer Internet and Voice Over for $85 a month. Too much for me, so I declined. Bu I fear AT&T is watching me!

EDIT:  Recent link with some information about Gigabit  Wi-Fi.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2138000/fcc-clears-the-way-for-faster-wifi.html
 Globalstar had raised interference concerns about new Wi-Fi devices operating in the spectrum, but general counsel Barbee Ponder said last month that the company did not object as long as its services could be protected.

“This change will have real impact, because we are doubling the unlicensed bandwidth in the 5 GHz band overnight,” Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel said.

[leolako21]

I hope there will be like this very soon. I will spend my money to avail this one just to make sure of my internet is not slowing down.

[Geek-9pm]

I hope there will be like this very soon. I will spend my money to avail this one just to make sure of my internet is not slowing down.

Let me clarify some things. A Gigabit Internet will not solve the current issues most of use are having. I never intended to give ghat impression. A gigabit network connection is seldom, if ever, needed by the average person.

The present Wi-Fi devices most people have have a max of 54 mega bits per second, Some can do twice that speed. But no Internet Service Provider y offers that kind of speed. (Exception is Satellite, which is too rich for most of us **.)

Now why did the FCC announce  better Wi-Fi? Well, to make it easier for people  to get connections in large outdoor areas with mobile devices. More bandwidth and more power makes the 5 GHz band a better choice for new computers and routers. The 5 GHz band has been under used when compared to the crowded 2.4 GHz band.

Wait. There is more. AY&T said they would bring Gigabit Internet to all of  part of Silicon Valley, the city of Cupertino. They say they will use fiber optic.

First the FCC, then AT&T make promises. Coincidence? I don't think so, and that is not an isolated opinion.  Think about it. What is the fuss about something few people really need? It is not a fix for the present slow performance of the Internet.

It was not my intent to endorse  a premature  proclamation. It will take a long time for the Internet to speed up. Time will tell if AT&T can really do  what people expect.

** Hugues claims they can do 50 Mbps download.

 

[camerongray]

What you posted was not related to the speed of global internet connections, it was about the speed of WiFi networks which is totally different, if it has just been left at "WiFi is soon going to be available at Gigabit speeds" and possibly expanded to "This will mean that WiFi connections will be able to handle streaming media better" that would have been fine but you took it down the line of "Gigabit WiFi will allow internet connections to consumers to reach Gigabit speeds."

The present Wi-Fi devices most people have have a max of 54 mega bits per second

I'd say most WiFi devices now are Wireless N and have been for quite some time, this can do at least 150mbps.

But no Internet Service Provider y offers that kind of speed. (Exception is Satellite, which is too rich for most of us **.)

Maybe where you are you cannot get connections that fast, but in other places (such as in the UK where 150mbps is common and fairly affordable) connections over 54mbps are very common, and cheap.  Satellite is not an exception, it is built for connections in remote areas, not for performance, the latency on Satellite connections makes it almost unusable for a lot of tasks and very uncomfortable for most.

I'm in the UK and pay £20/mo for my FTTC/vDSL connection:

It may not be affordable where you are, but in other places it is, Wireless G would not be suitable for this at all.

It is not a fix for the present slow performance of the Internet.

What slow performance of the internet?  The internet isn't a physical thing that has a set speed, your transfer can go as fast as the connection between you and the server, most servers now are on at least 100mbps connections.  On my current ~80mbps connection and even on my previous 100mbps connection I could easily get almost my maximum speed from a lot of servers.

[Geek-9pm]

Your  point  is well made.
Many parts of the world have much better ISP service.
Here in the USA real  high-speed Internet is not as greedily available.
My conne3ction is, by measurement, about 6Mb s over DSL. Yest serveral times a day I get timeouts and broken connections. Speed has less meaning g if you have to stoop and made repairs. My DSL modem eventually corrects the problem. So the rated speed is misleading at best.

Of interest,  Australia has 100 Mbps service is many big metropolitan areas. It is by fiber. Reports for some users say it is dater than  what the Global network delivers. Some say it is by a factor of ten. That sacks.

Now about Gigabit Internet. The term has been used by the big companies in there advertising to encourage people  to open up the path for fiver optical distribution in reside4ntial neighbor hoods. Politicians and others hacve given the compoanies to dig up the streests or string cables or share tunnels so the fibber network can be installed. Not far from where I live they tore up a secdtio9n of land to install fiver. That was some  time ago. There still is no fiber service anywhere is the suburb. Of course I do not live in Cupertino.

AT&T had made a big announcement that they would put fiber in Cupertino. To date, nobody there is claiming the present service is good enough. Think about it. Who needs Gigabit Internet service?  Most movies are now streamed, not downloaded. 

So why did AT&T make a big thing about Gigabit Internet to the home? IMHO it is just an attem
 to get people to pay for the investment the company has made. Yest the fiber system has already paid for itself with non-internet services.

As you stated,  the Wi-Fi with gigabit can be used for devices in the home that do not support a physical Ethernet cable.

Here is something also of interest.
Comcast opens WiFi network to all after Northern California quake

I am not sure what this means. It would seem that Co9mcast can use Wi-Fi outside a the house. No, not gigabit. But Wi-Fi outside of a house or biding.

For the record, microwaves are not limited to line of sight. That is a myth. The limitations are the regulations.

[Geek-9pm]

This might be news. But it has the taste of WAR.
(Maybe WAR is a new acronym for Wi-Fi Against my Rival.)
Google is going to give away free Wi-Fi. Possibly t o stifle AT&T and anybody else from the Gigabit turf.

Here is the story:
In the fiber wars, Google may be adding Wi-Fi to its gigabit cities

If it is standard Wi-Fi, one  could get about 50 Mbps in from the Internet while sitting on park bench in the uptown area. That would kill the prospect of DSL service in some ares. DSL falters at about 20Mbps. Or less.
Recent FCC rule changes allows more power to be used by a Wi-Fi in an outdoor area.

To be continued...   

[Geek-9pm]

Recent news about Super Fast Wi=Fi
Microsoft brings super-fast WiFi to Seattle Center using TV 'white space'

The title says it all. Not soon, not t next month. Now.


Click on the link above and find the video at the end of the page.