I wouldn’t say its “cheap af” but the equipment and connections do technically exist a the consumer level in the US now, although generally not as widespread as one would hope. US is still in many ways still has very many rural areas with small populations and slow speeds. It’s more widely available in big cities, the kind of city that minimum wage workers are being priced out of because they can’t afford to live in the city now with the cost of living. So if people are already priced out due to cost of living, that means the poorest are being pushed to rural areas with less access, which further undermines the idea that its accessible or cheap.
Eh, 2.5gbps is kind of a dumb move IMO… 10gbps equipment has existed for a really long time at this point… There’s no legit reason to have an in-between with all the 10gbps stuff coming out of production environments from enterprise.
802.11ac can already break 2.5gbps on it’s own (with 160MHz wide channel). My cellphone can get 1733/1733 (2x2 with 256-QAM lock) in the living room (same room as the access point). My access point costs ~$150 right now… so nothing super expensive. Theoretically with 160MHz wide channels on a 4x4 setup at 256-QAM you’d be looking at 3.5Gbps (less in real world for single devices obviously… but total throughput of multiple devices can tally up)
With 802.11ax adding a whole new 6ghz that’s effectively another whole ~3.5gbps that you can push there as well. So let’s just say a second 1.7gbps connection cause we know real world wont get the maximum theoretical… That’s still 3.4gbps, blowing you 2.5gbps out of the water. 802.11be is also supposed to increase the channel sizes up to 320MHz… That will be something like 4-5gbps on it’s own.
Is it fun living in 2008 still? 2.5g exists and is cheap af now.
I wouldn’t say its “cheap af” but the equipment and connections do technically exist a the consumer level in the US now, although generally not as widespread as one would hope. US is still in many ways still has very many rural areas with small populations and slow speeds. It’s more widely available in big cities, the kind of city that minimum wage workers are being priced out of because they can’t afford to live in the city now with the cost of living. So if people are already priced out due to cost of living, that means the poorest are being pushed to rural areas with less access, which further undermines the idea that its accessible or cheap.
Eh, 2.5gbps is kind of a dumb move IMO… 10gbps equipment has existed for a really long time at this point… There’s no legit reason to have an in-between with all the 10gbps stuff coming out of production environments from enterprise.
802.11ac can already break 2.5gbps on it’s own (with 160MHz wide channel). My cellphone can get 1733/1733 (2x2 with 256-QAM lock) in the living room (same room as the access point). My access point costs ~$150 right now… so nothing super expensive. Theoretically with 160MHz wide channels on a 4x4 setup at 256-QAM you’d be looking at 3.5Gbps (less in real world for single devices obviously… but total throughput of multiple devices can tally up)
With 802.11ax adding a whole new 6ghz that’s effectively another whole ~3.5gbps that you can push there as well. So let’s just say a second 1.7gbps connection cause we know real world wont get the maximum theoretical… That’s still 3.4gbps, blowing you 2.5gbps out of the water. 802.11be is also supposed to increase the channel sizes up to 320MHz… That will be something like 4-5gbps on it’s own.