InterviewSolution
Saved Bookmarks
InterviewSolution
| 1. |
Solve : One-gigabit Wi-Fi coming soon.? |
|
Answer» How soon? Not soon enough. According to the FCC, the relaxation of the rules for Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (U-NII) devices will allow for "accelerated growth and expansion of new Wi-Fi technology" that will operate at speeds of one gigabit per second "or more." The new rules are for the 5.150-5.250GHz band, not the more popular 2.4 GHz band.I might move to America then. We can only dream of those sorts of speeds. That sort of thing would never happen in Australia Thanks to our Liberal Government and their FraudBand ideas. Australias communication Minister With "fibre to the node" and copper wire to the dwelling, we will be lucky to be able to use Skype with any success.That makes a lot of sense. ::)Australia has one of the lowest population densities in the world and they want to tie that real estate together with copper wire. Reference: http://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/populations/ctydensityl.htm For comparison, the population density for Canada is like , abut 3 people for a square kilometer. In the USA it is near 30 people /km2. The best way to serve rural areas is with VHF or UHF links. Under used TV assignments can be used in any rural area far form major r cites. Both Australia and Canada haves lots of large rural territory. One reason for using gigabit witless would be to allow the used of HDTV broadcasting over a small local rural area. This would let a very small village to have as much TV service as people in the big cites. Commercial interests freer they would loos control of the spectrum if private citizens could build small broadcast stations without government control. Chances are in the USA sure they will make it available, but your probably still stuck with serious bottlenecking, sucking bandwidth through a copper coffee stirrer when other parts of the world are getting bandwidth through fiber fire hoses. I have had some people ask me why when they upgraded from Wireless -G to Wireless -N router they are not getting any faster internet connection. And I explain to them that sure you have Wireless -N and locally a bunch of bandwidth if you have devices SHARED locally for file transfer etc, but your ISP speed is a constant that is set by the ISP. For a while I was actually still using a Wireless -B access point until it died. B still had plenty of bandwidth in comparison to my internet connection so there was no bottleneck by using B. So I should see complaints from people in the future who buy into the Gigabit wireless and then complain as to why their internet speed stayed the same. I can see that coming from a mile away...LOL The USA is very late on the Fiber Direct to home setup, and they are stretching the life of copper coax cable and DSL and dial-up copper pair. Some cities are lucky to be part of the Fiber Metro Net, but a good guess would be that more than 90% of the USA population is not on a direct fiber connection from their homes. Where I live in New Hampshire I am lucky that I live about 13 miles from a small city and there is Cable Broadband and DSL, but drive about another 10 miles or so away and chances are your only options are Satellite or Dial-up. My wife and I are going to be buying a better larger home in the near future and having DSL as a minimum is a requirement as for I couldnt imagine ever going back to dial-up and satellite isnt much better. Quote Australia has one of the lowest population densities in the world and they want to tie that real estate together with copper wire Another INSTANT classic...I barely use wi-fi. Only time would be when im downloading or loading a extremely large website from my iphone. Great then! The usage of the bandwidth will expand because its there to be expanded into. There was a time I heard a computer instructor say we will never need more the 28k of memory... what in the world would you do with it? The same concept applies to bandwidth.Quote There was a time I heard a computer instructor say we will never need more the 28k of memory... what in the world would you do with it? Interesting that that predates the more commonly known 640k memory STATEMENT. Back when I had my TRS-80 with 16k RAM, ""more RAM was gladly accepted""" because of the limitations of the size of the programs even when using the FLOPPY drive or cassette tape to try to reduce the size of all the info in memory at the same time. Back when I had only 16k or RAM I probably would have thought that 640k would be plenty, but the TRS-80's maxed out on I think it was 64k for the model 4 which is one tenth of the 640k and my TRS-80 model 1 was 16k after a memory expansion module that looked like a boom box on its side that also gave floppy drive support and a parallel PORT for 9-pin dot matrix printer. |
|