Wi-Fi 7 (802.11be) theoretical maximum data rate is up to 46 Gbps

These theoretical data rates for WiFi are getting out of hand. The numbers have become completely useless to everyone, because they have no correlation to actual network speed.<p>It&#x27;s like presenting the aggregated speed of all switch ports in an ethernet switch, without telling you how many ports there are or what the internal switching speed maximum is. &quot;Here! Buy this 44gbit switch!&quot; and then connect your equipment to find out the fastest link speed you&#x27;ll get is 1gbps.

Good throughput but it is only line of sight as that bw is in high frequency ranges.<p>2.4 ghz and 900 mhz are not &quot;old&quot; or &quot;outdated.&quot; It&#x27;s all rf spectrum. The lower frequencies are valuable for range&#x2F;penetration.<p>We should weigh research on directed rf radiation higher. We can run a lot more devices with better UX if we can avoid blasting radiation in all directions.

Recently I got 400 megabit&#x2F;second on my cheap cellphone through a friends WiFi out to the Internet. That&#x27;s more than 100 times the speed of ArcNet[1], the first networking system I worked with.<p>Sure, the maximum numbers are based on almost ideal conditions but we&#x27;ll get there soon enough. There will be further advances in technology, likely optical. I fully expect that a Terabyte&#x2F;second will seem slow in a decade or two.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;ARCNET" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;ARCNET</a>

Great - that will certainly be beneficial for everyone with 47Gbps internet lines. Could we have some innovation in the direction of coping with congested RF, please.

No doubt the routers will still feature 1 gig eth at the back though lol<p>Recently got myself a 6E and reckon that’ll be enough for a while

IEEE: &quot;WiFi should be named in numbers because the letters are confusing&quot;<p>...<p>IEEE: &quot;Now introducing WiFi 6E!&quot;<p>Lol