Will it make my ISP give me more internets to push through that WiFi? No? Then it isn't going to change my world, sadly.
this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2024
175 points (96.8% liked)
Technology
59235 readers
3184 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
While I think most agree with you, it's important to note there is more to networking than WAN access. Streaming 4k in your home network over WiFi sounds pretty awesome for security cameras and other self-hosted medias.
Who needs 4k security camera footage streaming in their own home?
The media center is far more relevant here, but again, current speeds are pretty adequate for the majority of people.
current speeds are pretty adequate for the majority of people.
For now
People who think the cameras will stop people from breaking in and stealing their shit, or the ones that think cops will somehow catch the bad guy and get their stuff back because they had a camera.
Cameras are for insurance
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
You forget the ones who want the cops to pay for the broken door.
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
The thing you need is just a box that looks like it could be a camera. The most you can expect is that it is a minor deterrent and the footage will basically do nothing for you, so just pretend.
Mostly I end up just using one to see at a glance if, say, my wife is home (car is in the driveway) or to check out if that possum came back again last night.
But I can already do 4k streaming over my 5g wifi
Sure, though in my world none of my networking needs exceed the capabilities provided by the current WiFi generation, thus it remains unchanged. Nor will I see any benefit from it unless I conduct a thorough review and replacement of all impacted devices in my world to also accommodate WiFi 7, which I will not be doing.
I already have Ethernet runs.
As your ANAL Attorney, I advise you to take less Psyllium Fiber Optic Husk to prevent further Ethernet runs.
With the number of people renting on the rise due to house prices in many countries around the world, running cables isn't an option for everyone (and even when it is, not everyone wants to actually do it).
Having more options available for people to move large amounts of data around their home is never a bad thing.
My upload speed is 10mbit/s. It's 2024, and this is ridiculous. I pay over $80 a month for this internet in one of the largest cities in the United States. I live in a very populated part of the city, too.
I fucking hate ISP's.
Which city. If you dont mind? Curious which is so bad.
Mine was that in Sacramento, CA 2 years ago
Now it's 120 for 100 both ways out in the rural parts of CA
Yeah, it will help and it won't. If you're uploading through a typical cable internet connection, WiFi will almost never be the bottleneck. But if you're streaming 4k in a part of your house that doesn't have good coverage while other people use the same connection, it could make a difference.
I do a lot of streaming from my desktop to my TVs and I occasionally have bandwidth problems, so this could help that. And I have 300 up / 300 down fiber Internet, and in parts of my house I have problems getting anywhere close to that on WiFi. So WiFi 7 might help with those cases even if in the end your ISP is usually the bottleneck.
If you are at the edge of your Wi-Fi range I suspect this won't help as much as you think
My ISP gives 1000mb down, currently no wifi 6 device can fully utilise that unless it's practically kissing the access point. So it will improve throughput over wifi 6. If your ISP doesn't deliver more than ~50mb, you might not notice
is the range measured in inches now?
Soon, we'll be measuring it in stone throws
e.g.: I can get a moderate signal here three stone throws away from my router!
We'll have to throw those stones really hard
I was excited for 802.11ac (now Wifi 5) when it first launched and I adopted it early but I've never been sold on the need for Wifi 6 let alone 7 now.
Unlike other folk in this thread I do thankfully have a Gigabit class internet connection but I now own my own home and so have been able to do some very basic Ethernet runs which totally replaces WiFi for 90% of my usage. My Wireless AP just talks to my phone, Steam Deck and a couple smart home gubbins really.
People don’t seem to understand that this isn’t really aimed at casual web browsing. It’s basically a wireless alternative to thunderbolt.
So take all of those crazy film cameras and data storage systems that rely on thunderbolt for decent performance… now get rid of the cable.
Get rid of the cable and add heat
The problem with adding high bandwidth wifi is that it adds quite a bit of heat to a device. That's why high bandwidth wifi 6e devices and 10 gigabit Ethernet devices get quite warm. Many cameras already have a lot of heat problems because video sensors and processing already generates quite a bit of heat. Wireless always generates more heat than wired due to much higher amplification, transmit power, and demodulation requirements.
Yes, now it does with the current tech. I'm sure you'll agree we can make more efficient devices in the future and they will support the same standard as your router
Have it as a little pack detached from the camera?
And the external wireless data transfer pack can be connected to the camera by a long thin piece of metal. Maybe we could call it a "cord". And why stop there, it could be disconnected from the camera when you're not transferring data.
Having a pack in your pocket is far better than being tethered to an object with a cord that you can trip on and obstruct your movement. Come on dude, do I really need to explain this? I think you're being purposefully obtuse for some reason. Do you want to have discussions here or make bluntly snarky remarks that don't really make sense? Is that really the culture you want to propagate on lemmy?
From the article:
The bad news is that the 6 GHz wireless spectrum uses shorter wavelengths. Short wavelengths are great for fast data transfers at close range, So, they're great for connecting to your Wi-Fi 7-enabled HDTV a few feet away from your router
With a range that short, you're not going to be doing much roaming around. It obviously has some use cases, but unless you need to be streaming data it doesn't make a lot of sense.
The example we are discussing in this thread is transferring data off of a high res/high performance camera. For many situations this can be done after filming is completed, in which case a cord still makes a lot more sense. Hence my joke.
For live broadcasting it could be useful, but the range still seems quite limiting.
People are also missing that this extra bandwidth will help with mesh systems.
Not everyone is savvy enough, or has the ability to run Ethernet to every access point. The additional bandwidth here will help people who need better Wi-Fi, but are only going to buy an easy off the shelf solution
Eh. Even streaming media from a local server isn't really going to improve with this over current standards, at least not for me. I'm honestly not sure there's much need for it.
Really, I think we need to make better use of what we already have first, it feels like the more capacity and speed we get, the sloppier we get with anything resembling efficiency for any component. We're not getting better results for it, if anything it seems to be a net negative, everything seemed to run faster and better ten years ago with a fraction of the capabilities
This will be great for wireless PCVR, where bandwidth is a significant limiting factor even with WiFi 6
I mean, I'm not saying it doesn't have its uses, just... I dunno, for most use cases it just feels like solving a bloat issue by raising the capacity, which just leads to more bloat.
I'm not sure PCVR has enough useless or unoptimized overhead for my complaint to apply to it, but for most things, I think it's past time to stop throwing more resources at it and address the underlying problem.
Agile development.
(I'm kidding, but only a little bit honestly)
we definitely need to rethink agile and bring back good QA and requirements documentation. But yes with VR specifically, at the resolutions and framerates it requires, video signals must undergo costly and lossy compression to be transmitted wirelessly between PC and HMD, even with wifi 6 (though wifi 6 is much better than previous generations)
This is intended to be a wireless alternative to Thunderbolt. You’re probably not going to care about this unless you’re moving 4K RAW projects around on the reg.
Unfortunately routers with wan speeds above gigabit remain expensive. I would assume that will be the case until faster than gigabit internet reaches mainstream worldwide which will be a very long wait...
Can I get proper Linux drivers and kernel support for the Wi-Fi 7 card that came with my motherboard, please? Pretty please? I would really like to have Bluetooth and Wi-Fi would be a bonus. Stupid ath12k.
I can see companies trying to make wireless screens a thing again
Is it reliable enough for that? I suppose if you're streaming something, it's not a big deal because the display can buffer the video to avoid dropping frames when there's dropped packets. But interactive tasks would suffer from the latency involved in buffering. Bandwidth would need to be high enough to be able to compensate for dropped packets. Though I believe that as bandwidth increases, so do dropped wireless packets.
If it's one frame dropped per hour you won't notice. If it's one per minute it's going to be pretty annoying.
I pinged my router for an hour, I had only a few late packets and it's in another room behind a wall. If you ping the router in the same room, there should be no packet later than single milliseconds even with WiFi 5. You just don't have the bandwidth to support a high refresh rate uncompressed... yet