🛒
Today marks the first anniversary of Wi-Fi 7 becoming official. On January 8, 2024, the Wi-Fi Alliance introduced the Wi-Fi CERTIFIED 7 program.
However, the Wi-Fi 7 story started way before that. Since the second part of 2021, this latest wireless standard has been the talk of the town, with the first routers becoming available starting in mid-2023.
Still, Wi-Fi 7 remains confusing today. This post aims to clarify the standard in the most down-to-earth manner. I’ll also do a little recap on what has happened during Wi-Fi 7’s first meaningful year.
With that, let’s dig in.
Dong’s note: I first published this post on November 19, 2021. Since then, it’s been revised multiple times to reflect the evolving state of Wi-Fi 7. I last updated it on January 8, 2025, one year after the Wi-Fi Alliance officially certified the standard.
Wi-Fi 7: The fastest adopted Wi-Fi standard to date
The name alone is telling. It’s the 7th generation of Wi-Fi, the most common way to connect devices locally and, hence, to the Internet.
Technically, Wi-Fi 7 is the friendly name of the 802.11be standard, which is why you’ll see “BE” in the (model) name of broadcasters (routers or access points) supporting it. That’s similar to Wi-Fi 6, which is for 802.11ax; Wi-Fi 5 means 802.11ac, etc.
The new naming convention, started in 2018 with the introduction of Wi-Fi 6, is helpful. It’s much easier to remember that 7 comes after and is “more” than 6.
As you’re reading this, in early 2025, just one year after becoming official, there are now more Wi-Fi 7 broadcasters (routers, mesh systems, and access points), in terms of the models being released or announced, than Wi-Fi 6 and 6E combined per my unofficial count.
Wi-Fi 7 vs. previous standards: Backward compatible to an extent
Like all previous Wi-Fi standards, Wi-Fi 7 is backward compatible. Specifically:
- To-client backward compatibility: Existing devices can connect to a Wi-Fi 7 broadcaster at the speed of their standards. For example, a Wi-Fi 6 or Wi-Fi 6E device will connect to a Wi-Fi 7 broadcaster using an AX (5GHz) or AXE (6GHz) connection.
- To-broadcaster backward compatibility: All Wi-Fi 7 clients can connect to a broadcaster of any older standard at the speed of that standard. So, if you use a Wi-Fi 7 client with a Wi-Fi 6 router, you’ll get a Wi-Fi 6 connection.
It’s important to note, though, that generally, the to-client backward compatibility (#1 above) is limited to second-gen Wi-Fi 5 (Wave 2) and newer (Wi-Fi 6 and Wi-Fi 6E) clients. Older devices can connect to a Wi-Fi 7 broadcaster only when there’s no security involved—the Wi-Fi network (or SSID) is in an “Open” state.
Tip
The Wi-Fi CERTIFIED program by the Wi-Fi Alliance primarily helps with interoperability. Specifically, the program explicitly recognizes that a piece of certified Wi-Fi hardware has been tested to interoperate with certified devices of the same standard from other vendors. (Non-Wi-Fi-certified hardware generally works, too—it just has not yet been tested to be certified.)
This program is not mandatory and doesn’t necessarily help with backward compatibility.
That’s because this latest Wi-Fi standard requires higher security protocols. All Wi-Fi 7 routers and canned mesh systems I’ve tested required at least WPA2 for the 5GHz and/or 2.4GHz bands. (The 6GHz band always requires WPA3.) In this case, older clients supporting WPA or lesser protocols—those using the first-gen Wi-Fi 5 or earlier standard—are no longer supported in terms of security alone.
Addtionally, Wi-Fi 7 might have other requirements that some existing supported clients need to have new software drivers to work well with it. That’s often the case of, though not limited to, Apple devices.
That said, you have a lot of old devices—and there’s nothing wrong with that—there’s no need to rush to get a Wi-Fi 7 broadcaster, which might render them obsolete. You’ll be able to buy new Wi-Fi 6E and even Wi-Fi 6 hardware for many years to come.
In Wi-Fi, backward compatibility is a one-way street
During decades of Wi-Fi testing, I’ve noted that newer is not always better for the receiving end.
Specifically, Wi-Fi receivers (a.k.a. clients or devices) often work better with a Wi-Fi broadcaster (a router or an access point) of the same or older standard than one of a newer standard. The further away in generations, the worse things become.
For example, a Wi-Fi 4 client generally gets a faster connection speed from a Wi-Fi 4 router than a Wi-Fi 5 or Wi-Fi 6 router of the same tier, and it can’t even connect to a Wi-Fi 7 broadcaster.
However, the other way around is hardly an issue. You can connect a Wi-Fi 7 client to any older broadcaster, including Wi-Fi 4 or even more dated routers, at the fastest possible speed of the broadcaster’s standard.
In other words, backward compatibility is often a concern on the broadcasting end, not the receiving end.
On the other hand, if you can’t wait to get on the Wi-Fi 7 bandwagon, consider adding a Wi-Fi 6 (or even Wi-Fi 5) access point to your Wi-Fi 7-enabled network to have full backward compatibility with legacy clients. Also, as Wi-Fi 7 matures, broadcasters (especially high-end or business-grade) will have options to create virtual classic SSIDs, beyond a simple IoT SSID, with lower security requirements to support legacy clients to a greater extent.
Wi-Fi 7: Dual-band is a new thing
Wi-Fi 7 is the first standard that supports all three bands, including 2.4GHz, 5GHz, and 6GHz.
However, due to the complexity of the 6GHz band, which is regulated differently around the world (more on this below), in late 2024, hardware vendors started to offer dual-band Wi-Fi 7 hardware that doesn’t have the 6GHz band.
While these devices don’t have the same bandwidth as their tri-band counterparts, they are much simpler in terms of management and compatibility.
Wi-Fi 7: How you can enjoy it
Regardless of how many bands you want to use, to experience Wi-Fi 7, you will need new hardware on both ends of a connection.
On the broadcasting side, as mentioned above, there are many options from all known networking vendors. CES 2025 made the standard even more popular with so many new variants announced by TP-Link and Asus. (If you want to quickly pick the best one right now, one of these lists will come in handy.)
On the receiving side, on May 2, 2023, the One Plus 11 5G became the first device in the US to support Wi-Fi 7. Soon after, the Motorola Edge + was the second phone to join the club and then came the Pixel 8 Pro and others. Since then, all flagship phones and new devices have generally come with a Wi-Fi 7 built-in.
For computers that don’t have Wi-Fi or use an older Wi-Fi chip, there are many options to upgrade them to Wi-Fi 7 via internal or USB adapters. Windows users take note: You need to use Windows 11 24H2 or later to have full support for Wi-Fi 7.
Wi-Fi 7 and Ethernet: Multi-Gig is the norm
While on the wireless front, things can be complicated due to potential compatibility issues. On the wired front, one thing is clear:
The new Wi-Fi standard will not and is not meant to “replace Ethernet,” as you might have read somewhere by lazy tech “journalists” or Wi-Fi “experts” who likely repeated the nonsensical marketing languages of some networking vendor.
Quite contrarily, Wi-Fi 7 reinforces the relevancy and solidifies the use of multi-Gigabit wired connections widely available via the Multi-Gig Ethernet standard, turning it into the minimum requirement for any broadcasters.
Most Wi-Fi 7 broadcasters that have been released or announced support Multi-Gig with 2.5Gbps, 5Gbps, or 10Gbps port(s). Some of them no longer have the Gigabit port.
That’s a natural progression since Wi-Fi 7’s theoretical wireless speeds are too great for the good old Gigabit standard—no matter how fast a Wi-Fi broadcaster is, its wireless bandwidth is limited by its network port. It only makes sense for a Wi-Fi 7 broadcaster to embrace Multi-Gig. And that’s great. Multi-Gig is the way of the future.
Network connection: Wi-Fi vs. Wired
- Wi-Fi: Partial bandwidth and always half-duplex. Data moves in one direction at a time using a portion of a band (spectrum) called a channel. Half-duplex is like the walkie-talkie in voice communication.
- Wired (Ethernet):
- Networking cables: Full bandwidth and (generally) full-duplex. Data travels using the entire cable’s bandwidth and in both ways simultaneously. Full-duplex is similar to a phone call in voice communication.
- MoCA: Likely half-duplex, depending on the standard, but with comparable speed reliability to network cables of the same port grade.
- Powerline: Always half-duplex with very slow real-world speed, heavily susceptible to interference by plugged-in appliances.
Wi-Fi is super convenient, but it’s only relevant when operating on top of a reliable and speedy wired connection via network cables. Within an applicable distance, Wi-Fi is much better than Powerline.
So, if you have a large home and need multiple broadcasters to blanket it, the only way to get the most out of Wi-Fi 7 is to run a couple of network cables.
Connection rates aside, compared to Wi-Fi 6/6E, Wi-Fi 7 likely won’t increase the range much, and if so, only on the 6GHz band.
Let’s find out more.
Wi-Fi 7 vs. Wi-Fi 6/6E: Five essential items to potentially turn it a game-changer
In many ways, Wi-Fi 7 combines Wi-Fi 6 and Wi-Fi 6E.
The new standard uses all three bands, including 2.4GHz, 5GHz, and 6GHz, which is where it can deliver top speeds. Additionally, though, improvements are also available in the other two bands, especially the 5GHz.
As mentioned, the availability of the 6GHz band varies from one region to another due to local regulations. I’m writing from the perspective of the North American market (primarily the US and Canada), but the cabinet below will give you an idea of how this band is being adopted around the world.
How the 6GHz band is regulated around the world
The 6GHz band has a total width of 1200 MHz, ranging from 5.925 MHz to 7.125 MHz, and is divided into 59 channels of 20 MHz each. These channels are grouped to create “sub-bands,” which also vary from one region to another.
In the U.S., the FCC has designated four sub-bands across the entire 6GHz spectrum, including UNII-5, UNII-6, UNII-7, and UNII-8, for Wi-Fi use, though portions of the band may be reserved for other applications.
The E.U. Commission allows only the UNII-5 equivalent part of the frequency for Wi-Fi use, which is 480 MHz in width from 5925 MHz to 6425 MHz. Other parts of the world is somewhere in between with the UNII-5 portion adopted and the rest being considered.
Generally, Wi-Fi 6E needs a 160MHz channel to deliver the best performance, and Wi-Fi 7 requires double that, 320MHz. Due to spectrum availability and other reasons, real-world hardware tends to use narrower channels in most cases.
Overall, the use of the 6GHz frequency is complicated and is the main reason a Wi-Fi broadcaster made for one region might not work in another.
The table below shows its current adoption worldwide. The “Considering” portion is generally slated to be finalized by late 2025, though that varies from one region to another.
| Country | Status | Spectrum |
|---|---|---|
| United States | Adopted | 5925-7125 MHz (entire band including UNII5, UNII-6, UNII-7, and UNII-8) |
| Andorra | Adopted Considering | 5945-6425 MHz (UNII-5) 6425-7125 MHz (UNII-6, UNII-7, UNII-8) |
| Argentina | Adopted | 5925-7125 MHz |
| Australia | Adopted Considering | 5925-6425 MHz 6425-7125 MHz |
| Austria | Adopted Considering | 5945-6425 MHz 6425-7125 MHz |
| Bahrain | Adopted | 5925-6425 MHz |
| Belgium | Adopted Considering | 5945-6425 MHz 6425-7125 MHz |
| Brazil | Adopted | 5925-7125 MHz |
| CEPT | Adopted Considering | 5945-6425 MHz 6425-7125 MHz |
| Canada | Adopted | 5925-7125 MHz |
| Chile | Adopted | 5925-6425 MHz |
| Colombia | Adopted | 5925-7125 MHz |
| Costa Rica | Adopted | 5925-7125 MHz |
| Dominican Republic | Adopted | 5925-7125 MHz |
| Egypt | Considering | 5925-6425 MHz |
| El Salvador | Adopted | 5925-7125 MHz |
| European Union | Adopted | 5945-6425 MHz |
| Faroe Islands | Adopted Considering | 5945-6425 MHz 6425-7125 MHz |
| France | Adopted Considering | 5945-6425 MHz 6425-7125 MHz |
| Germany | Adopted Considering | 5945-6425 MHz 6425-7125 MHz |
| Gibraltar | Adopted Considering | 5945-6425 MHz 6425-7125 MHz |
| Guatemala | Adopted | 5925-7125 MHz |
| Honduras | Adopted | 5925-7125 MHz |
| Hong Kong | Adopted Considering | 5925-6425 MHz 6425-7125 MHz |
| Iceland | Adopted Considering | 5945-6425 MHz 6425-7125 MHz |
| Ireland | Adopted Considering | 5945-6425 MHz 6425-7125 MHz |
| Isle of Man | Adopted Considering | 5945-6425 MHz 6425-7125 MHz |
| Japan | Adopted Considering | 5925-6425 MHz 6425-7125 MHz |
| Jordan | Adopted | 5925-6425 MHz |
| Kenya | Adopted | 5925-6425 MHz |
| Liechtenstein | Adopted Considering | 5945-6425 MHz 6425-7125 MHz |
| Luxembourg | Adopted Considering | 5945-6425 MHz 6425-7125 MHz |
| Malaysia | Adopted | 5925-6425 MHz |
| Mauritius | Adopted | 5925-6425 MHz |
| Mexico | Adopted | 5925-6425 MHz |
| Monaco | Adopted Considering | 5945-6425 MHz 6425-7125 MHz |
| Morocco | Adopted | 5925-6425 MHz |
| Namibia | Adopted | 5925-6425 MHz |
| Netherlands | Adopted Considering | 5945-6425 MHz 6425-7125 MHz |
| New Zealand | Adopted | 5925-6425 MHz |
| Norway | Adopted Considering | 5945-6425 MHz 6425-7125 MHz |
| Oman | Considering | 5925-6425 MHz |
| Peru | Adopted | 5925-7125 MHz |
| Portugal | Adopted Considering | 5945-6425 MHz 6425-7125 MHz |
| Qatar | Adopted Considering | 5925-6425 MHz 6425-7125 MHz |
| Russian Federation | Adopted | 5925-6425 MHz |
| Saudi Arabia | Adopted | 5925-7125 MHz |
| Singapore | Adopted | 5925-6425 MHz |
| South Africa | Adopted | 5925-6425 MHz |
| South Korea | Adopted | 5925-7125 MHz |
| Spain | Adopted Considering | 5945-6425 MHz 6425-7125 MHz |
| Switzerland | Adopted Considering | 5945-6425 MHz 6425-7125 MHz |
| Thailand | Adopted | 5925-6425 MHz |
| Togo | Adopted | 5925-6425 MHz |
| Tunisia | Considering | 5925-6425 MHz |
| Turkey | Adopted | 5925-6425 MHz |
| United Arab Emirates | Adopted | 5925-6425 MHz |
| United Kingdom | Adopted Considering | 5945-6425 MHz 6425-7125 MHz |
| Vietnam | Adopted | 5925-6425 |
By default, Wi-Fi 7 shares theoretical coverage similar to existing standards that use the same frequencies, with the 2.4GHz having the most extended range, then the 5GHz, and then the 6GHz with the shortest range. However, the new standard may have a longer effective range, depending on the environment and implementation, thanks to the five new features below.
A quick refresher: Wi-Fi works via three frequency bands. Each has multiple channels to deliver traffic via streams. The cabinet below contains some brief highlights on these confusing terms.
Wi-Fi in brief: Bands vs. Channels vs. Streams
Wi-Fi uses three frequency bands: 2.4GHz, 5GHz, and 6GHz. The width of each band is measured in MHz—the wider the band, the more MHz it has.
The 6GHz band is the widest of the three, with a total width of 1200MHz, ranging from 5.925GHz to 7.125GHz. Depending on local regulations, only a portion or portions of this entire spectrum are available for Wi-Fi applications.
In real-world usage, each band is divided into multiple portions, called channels, of different widths. Depending on the Wi-Fi standards and hardware, a channel can be 20MHz, 40MHz, 80MHz, 160MHz, or 320MHz wide. The wider a channel is, the more bandwidth it has. The number of channels in each Wi-Fi band varies depending on the channel width, but there can only be so many.
The 6GHz band has enough space for three 320MHz channels or seven 160MHz channels.
Data moves in one channel of a particular band at a time, using streams, often dual-stream (2×2), three-stream (3×3), or quad-stream (4×4). The more streams, the more data can travel at a time. Thanks to the ultra-high bandwidth per stream, Wi-Fi 6 and later tend to have only 2×2 clients.
Here’s a crude analogy:
If a Wi-Fi band is a freeway, channels are lanes, and streams are vehicles (bicycles vs. cars vs. buses). On the same road, you can put multiple adjacent standard lanes (20MHz) into a larger one (40MHz, 80MHz, or higher) to accommodate oversized vehicles (higher number of streams) that carry more goods (data) per trip (connection).
A Wi-Fi connection generally occurs on a single channel (lane) of a single band (road) at a time. The actual data transmission is always that of the lowest denominator—a bicycle can carry just one person at a relatively slow speed, even when used on a super-wide lane of an open freeway.
1. The all-new 320MHz channel width
The first thing to note about Wi-Fi 7 is its new and much wider channel width, up to 320MHz, which is double that of Wi-Fi 6/6E.
This new channel width is generally available on the 6GHz band, with up to three 320MHz channels.
Details of Wi-Fi channels can be found here, but the new channel width generally means Wi-Fi 7 can double the base speed, from 1.2Gbps per stream (160MHz) to 2.4Gbps per stream (320MHz).
So, in theory, just from the width alone, a 4×4 broadcaster 6GHz Wi-Fi 7 can have up to 9.6Gbps of bandwidth, or 10Gbps when rounded up.
Wi-Fi 7 also supports twice as many partial streams, up to 16. As a result, technically, a 16-stream (16×16) Wi-Fi 7 6GHz band can deliver over 40Gbps of bandwidth, especially when considering the new QAM support below.
Like Wi-Fi 6 and 6E, initially, Wi-Fi 7 will be available as dual-stream (2×2) and quad-stream (4×4) broadcasters and dual-stream clients. In the future, the standard might have 8×8 broadcasters and single-stream or quad-stream clients.
Again, you need a compatible client to use the new 320MHz channel width. Existing clients will connect using 160MHz at best. In reality, the 160MHz will likely be the realistic sweet-spot bandwidth of Wi-Fi 7, just like the 80MHz in the case of Wi-Fi 6.
2. The 4K-QAM
QAM, short for quadrature amplitude modulation, manipulates the radio wave to pack more information in the Hertz.
Wi-Fi 6 supports 1024-QAM, which itself is already impressive. However, Wi-Fi 7 will have four times that, or 4096-QAM. Greater QAM means better performance for the same channel width.
As a result, Wi-Fi 7 will be much faster and more efficient than previous standards when working with supported clients.
Wi-F 7 vs. Wi-Fi 6/6E: The realistic real-world speeds
With the support for the wider channel width and higher QAM, Wi-Fi 7 is set to be much faster than previous standards on paper.
You might have read somewhere that Wi-Fi 7 is “up to 4.8 times faster than Wi-Fi 6,” and hardware vendors will continue to combine the theoretical bandwidth of a broadcaster’s all bands into a single colossal number, such as BE19000, BE22000, or BE33000, which is excellent for advertising.
As always, these numbers don’t mean much, and things are not that simple. In reality, a Wi-Fi connection generally happens on a single band at a time—that’s always true for Wi-Fi 6E and older clients—and is also limited by the client’s specs.
The table below summarizes what you can expect from Wi-Fi 7’s real-world organic performance compared to Wi-Fi 6E when working on the 6GHz.
| Wi-Fi 6E | Wi-Fi 7 | |
| Max Channel Bandwidth (theoretical/top-tier equipment) | 160MHz | 320MHz |
| Channel Bandwidth (widely implemented) | 80MHz | 160MHz |
| Number of Available Channels | 7x 160MHz, or 14x 80MHz channels | 3x 320MHz, or 7x 160MHz channels, or 14x 80MHz channels |
| Highest Modulation | 1024-QAM | 4096-QAM |
| Max Number of Spatial Streams (theoretical on paper / commercially implemented) | 8 / 4 | 16 / 4 |
| Max Bandwidth Per Stream (theoretical) | 1.2Gbps (at 160MHz) 600Mbps (at 80MHz) | ≈ 2.9Gbps (at 320MHz) ≈ 1.45Gbps (at 160MHz) |
| Max Band Bandwidth (theoretical on paper) | 9.6Gbps (8×8) | 46.1Gbps (16×16) |
| Commercial Max Band Bandwidth Per Band (commercially implemented) | 4.8Gbps (4×4) | 11.5Gbps (4×4) |
| Available Max Real-world Negotiated Speeds(*) | 2.4Gbps (via a 2×2 160MHz client) 1.2Gbps (via a 2×2 80MHz client) | ≈ 11.5Gbps (via a 4×4 320MHz client) ≈ 5.8Gbps (via a 2×2 320MHz client or a 4×4 160MHz client) ≈ 2.9Gbps (via a single stream 320MHz client or a 2×2 160MHz client) ≈ 1.45Gbps (via a single stream 160MHz client or a 2×2 80MHz client) |
| Available Clients (examples) | 2×2 (Intel AX210) | 2×2 (Intel BE200 / Qualcomm NCM865) |
(*) The actual negotiated speed depends on the client, Wi-Fi 7 specs, and environment. Real-world sustained rates are generally much lower than negotiated speeds, capping at about two-thirds at best. Wi-Fi 6/6E has had only 2×2 clients. Wi-Fi 7 will also use 2×2 clients primarily, but it might have 4×4 and even single-stream (1×1) clients.
Like Wi-Fi 6 and 6E, Wi-Fi 7 has been available only in 2×2 specs on the client side. That, plus the sweet-spot 160MHz channel width, means, generally, it’s safe to conservatively expect real-world rates of the mainstream Wi-Fi 7 (160MHz) to be about 20% faster than top-tier Wi-Fi 6E (160MHz) counterparts.
However, the new standard does have more bandwidth on the broadcasting side. So, it can handle more 2×2 clients simultaneously with high-speed real-world rates. And that’s always a good thing.
3. Multi-Link Operation
Multi-Link Operation, or MLO, is the most exciting and promising feature of Wi-Fi 7 that changes the norm of Wi-Fi: Up to Wi-Fi 6E, a Wi-Fi connection between two direct devices occurs in a single band at a time.
With MLO, two or more Wi-Fi bands can be combined or bonded into a single link—single SSID—similar to Link Aggregation of wired connections.
However, MLO can be complicated, and since the 6GHz band has just about 75% of the range of the 5GHz when the same broadcasting power is applied, this feature can only be significant with the help of Wi-Fi 7’s fifth and optional feature, Automated Frequency Coordination, mentioned below.
4. Flexible Channel Utilization (FCU) and Multi-RU
Flexible Channel Utilization (FCU) (a.k.a. Preamble Puncturing) and Multi-RU are two other items that help increase Wi-Fi 7’s efficiency. With FCU, Wi-Fi 7 handles interference more gracefully by slicing off the portion of a channel with interference, 20MHz at a time, and keeping the clean part usable.
In contrast, in Wi-Fi 6/6E, when there’s interference, an entire channel can be taken out of commission. FCU is the behind-the-scenes technology that increases Wi-Fi’s efficiency, similar to the case of MU-MIMO and OFDMA.
Similarly, with Wi-Fi 6/6E, each device can only send or receive frames on an assigned resource unit (RU), which significantly limits the flexibility of the spectrum resource scheduling. Wi-Fi 7 allows multiple RUs to be given to a single device and can combine RUs for increased transmission efficiency.
5. Automated Frequency Coordination
Automated Frequency Coordination (AFC) is an optional feature and deals with the 6GHz band, so it’s not Wi-Fi 7-exclusive—the band was first used with Wi-Fi 6E. It’s not required for a Wi-Fi 7 broadcaster’s general function. In fact, it wasn’t even mentioned in the initial certification by the Wi-Fi Alliance.
Due to local regulations, the 6GHz band’s availability, hence, the implementation of the AFC feature, differs around the world. For this reason, some Wi-Fi 7 broadcasters, such as the Asus RT-BE88U or the TP-Link Archer BE230, forgo this band to remain dual-band.
Still, Wi-Fi 7 makes AFC more relevant than ever. That’s because the 6GHz band has the highest bandwidth (fastest) yet the shortest range compared to the 5GHz and 2.4GHz bands when using the maximum allowed broadcasting power. Originally, AFC was intended only for outdoor applications, but when implemented, it’s significant for all applications.
Here’s how AFC works when/if available:
The feature enables a 6GHz broadcaster to check with a registered database in real-time to confirm that its operation will not negatively impact other existing registered members. Once that’s established, the broadcaster creates a dynamically exclusive environment in which its 6GHz band can operate without the constraint of regulations.
Specifically, the support for AFC means each Wi-Fi 7 broadcaster can use higher broadcasting power and more flexible antenna designs to have higher signal output.
AFC can increase the broadcasting power up to 36 dBm (from the current 30 dBm limit) or 4 watts (from 1 watt). In practice, the 6GHz will get 6 dBm more than the original non-AFC max allowed power, whichever it is, since hardware is often certified for lower than the 30 dBm threshold. The goal is to make the range of the 6GHz band comparable to that of the 5GHz band—about 25% more. When that happens, the MLO feature above will be truly powerful.
Still, even then, Wi-Fi 7’s range will remain the same as that of Wi-Fi 6, which is available only on the 5GHz band. However, AFC makes its 6GHz band better than the case of Wi-Fi 6E.
This feature requires certification, and its availability is expected to vary from one region to another. Hardware released before that is said to be capable of handling AFC, which, when applicable, can be turned on via firmware updates.
Tip
Automated Frequency Coordination (AFC) extends the Wi-Fi range of the 6GHz band to be comparable to that of the 5GHz band via special rules.
The feature is similar to checking with the local authorities for permission to close off sections of city streets for a drag race block party.
When approved, the usual traffic and parking laws no longer apply to the area, and the organizers can determine how fast traffic can flow, etc.
Hardware vendors generally prioritize compliance and compatibility over performance, so AFC is not the priority, and it will be available only in select Wi-Fi 7 broadcasters.
No matter which features of Wi-Fi 7 is in use, the table below show what you can realistically expect from it in terms of real-world speeds.
Wi-Fi cheatsheet
| Standard (name) | Debut Year | Channel Width (in MHz) and Theoretical Speed (in Mbps) per Stream (rounded numbers) | Max Number Streams Used in Clients (Max Speed Theoretical(•) /Real-world) | Security | Bands | Status (in 2024) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 802.11b | 1999 | 20MHz/11Mbps | Single-stream or 1×1 (11Mbps/≈6Mbps) | Open WEP | 2.4GHz | Obsolete |
| 802.11a | 2000 | 20MHz/54Mbps | 1×1 (54Mbps/≈30Mbps) | Open WEP | 5GHz | Obsolete |
| 802.11g | 2003 | 20 MHz/54Mbps | 1×1 (54Mbps/≈35Mbps) | Open WEP | 2.4GHz | Obsolete |
| 802.11n (Wi-Fi 4) | 2009 | 20MHz/75Mbps 40MHz/150MBps | Quad-stream or 4×4 (600Mbps/≈400Mbps) | Open WEP WPA | 2.4GHz, 5GHz, Dual-band | Legacy |
| 802.11ac (Wi-Fi 5) | 2012 | 20MHz/108Mbps 40MHz/217Mbps 80MHz/433Mbps | 4×4 (1732Mbps/≈1000Mbps) | Open WPA WPA2 | 5GHz, Dual-band, Tri-band(••) | Common (Phasing out) |
| 802.11ad (WiGig) | 2015 | 2.16GHz/multi-Gigabit | n/a | Open WPA WPA2 | 60 GHz | Obsolete |
| 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) | 2019 | 20MHz/150Mbps 40MHz/300Mbps 80MHz/600Mbps 160MHz/1200Mbps | Dual-stream or 2×2 (2402Mbps/≈1500Mbps) | Open WPA WPA2 WPA3 | 2.4GHz 5GHz Dual-band, Tri-band(••), | Common |
| 802.11axe (Wi-Fi 6E) | 2021 | 20MHz/150Mbps 40MHz/300Mbps 80MHz/600Mbps 160MHz/1200Mbps | 2×2 (2402Mbps/≈1500Mbps) | OWE WPA3 | 6GHz, Dual-band, Tri-band, Quad-band(••) | Common |
| 802.11be (Wi-Fi 7) | 2023 | 20MHz/225Mbps 40MHz/450Mbps 80MHz/730Mbps 160MHz/1.45Gbps 320MHz/2.9Gbps | 2×2 (5800Mbps/≈3000Gbps) | OWE WPA3 | 6GHz, 5GHz, 2.4GHz, Dual-band, Tri-band, Quad-band(•••) | Common (Latest) |
| 802.11ah (Wi-Fi HaLow) | 2024 | 1MHz 2MHz 4MHz 8MHz 16MHz | (85Mbps to 150Mbps) | OWE WPA3 | 900MHz | Emerging |
(•) The absolute theoretical bandwdith of the band or speed of a connection to a single client in an ideal connection before interference, signal degradation, and hardware incompatibility are taken into account. Depending on the number of streams and channel width in use, this theoretical ceiling speed is generally lower, often by a factor of two. Discount this ceiling number by another 30% or 60% to get real-world bandwdith, then divide it by the concurrent clients to get the real-world sustained rates.
(••) The 5GHz band is split into two portions as sub-bands.
(•••) The 5GHz or 6GHz band is split into two portions as sub-bands.
The takeaway
Wi-Fi 7 is the fastest-adopted standard among all Wi-Fi revisions. The new standard combines the fragmentations in Wi-Fi 6 and Wi-Fi 6E to be the first that supports all three bands (2.4GHz, 5GHz, and 6GHz) and forms a uniform wireless approach that delivers faster speeds and more reliable connectivity.
Collectively, Wi-Fi 7 promises improvements in all aspects of Wi-Fi, including throughputs, connection quality, and range. Finally, we have a Wi-Fi connection that can sustain true multi-Gigabit speeds, fast enough to deliver multi-Gigabit Internet.
However, it’s important to keep the following in mind:
- Wi-Fi 7’s improvements apply only to supported clients, such as those with the 6GHz band.
- Wi-Fi 6 and most Wi-Fi 5 devices generally get nothing extra from the new standard other than the possibly better coverage via a stronger backhaul link of a fully wireless Wi-Fi 7 mesh system.
- Legacy clients, including some Wi-Fi 5 and all Wi-Fi 4 and older, will no longer be fully supported by Wi-Fi 7 broadcasters due to the higher security requirements (WPA2 or WPA3).
- The hardware cost of Wi-Fi 7 is by far the highest compared with the previous standards.
Though Wi-Fi 7 has materialized quickly, the use of mix-standard hardware will continue to be commonplace—it will be years before existing Wi-Fi 5 and older clients are no longer in use—and legacy clients generally see little or no improvement. Some won’t even be supported.
When it comes to getting connected, the availability of the connectivity needed is always more important than the connection method. The point is that you should buy a Wi-Fi solution that best fits your current needs and budget, even if that’s Wi-Fi 6 or 6E, which is already much faster than many homes’ needs and will also support new Wi-Fi 7 clients.
Hello,
I’m really struggling to narrow down my next purchase.
I currently have some major WiFi black spots in my house with my ISP supplied router in the UK
I’m after a Wifi7 because it is going to be the latest and greatest in the near future and I want my next purchase to hopefully last at least 5-7 years at least (I’m not one to upgrade every year and providing it doesn’t fail in that time)
Because I’m having blackspots I was looking at the following two and only having 1 of them for the whole house. {…}
Which out of the 3 would best suit me in your opinion?
All terribly expensive which is why I’d like to get it right first time and hopefully something that will serve me well for many years
Thanks
I have no opinion, Dann. It’s impossible to know without being there. Nobody but you can. You might want to start with this post. Good luck!
Interesting.
Following evolution from 2.4GHz to 5GHz to 6GHz. 2.4 was known for distance and penetrating wall and 5GHz improved speeds reduced range Where does and 6GHz sit?
A single AX88U Pro covers 1600 sq ft condo and hits 950 Mbps off 1 Gig ISP. Is wi fi 6 better than wi fi 7 in this application?
If you follow the “shortest range” link in this part of the post, you’ll get to the post where I explained that in details, Mary.
Hi Dong,
Does the ASUS XT8 support Wi-Fi 7 clients?
I understand, after reading one of your related articles, that the XT8 definitely does not support Wi-Fi 6e clients. And after reading this article, I understand that the XT8 should be able to support Wi-Fi 7 clients, correct?
Looking to buy a new laptop, but do not want to replace my XT8 2-node mesh system which serves me well.
Thank you!
It’s the other way around, Maggie. More on Wi-Fi 7 in this post.
Dong, great article. From what I understand then, is there a case to be made for buying a whole home Wifi 6 system and upgrading in a few years time when Wifi 7 client devices become more commonplace in the household? Or else buying a cheaper Wifi 6 router as a temporary arrangement till the end of the year?
We’ve just wired our home with Cat 6A ethernet wiring for wired backhaul and direct wired access for our office and lounge. At the moment, we are trying to decide between three options over an Asus AI Mesh with wired backhaul:
1. Two Asus RT-AX52 routers with wired backhaul and use for many years to come. (In the UK, the total cost is around £110)
2. Two Asus RT-AX82U routers with wired backhaul and use for many years to come. (In the UK, the total cost is around £300-400)
3. Buy a single Asus RT-AX52 router and just use pre-existing Powerline Access points for things like phones in areas it doesn’t cover wirelessly (since we have new Cat 6A Gigabit wired connections for our computers, Smart TV etc). And then consider buying a pair of the upcoming Wifi 7 ASUS ZenWiFi BT10 (possibly coming out at the end of 2024?) with wired backhaul to replace the single Wifi 6 router. (Which would cost £55 today for the RT-AX52 as a “temporary” router and an unknown cost for the BT10 when it comes out).
I ask because I see your point that technically a lot of the benefits of Wifi 7 will not necessarily be realised with older clients (Wifi 6 or Wifi 5) in a home network with wired backhaul. Though granted, the seamless roaming on phones (ours are still Wifi 6) might be an advantage. Our older iMacs will be wired (they are Wifi 5) and a MacBook laptop (wireless) is Wifi 6.
Just trying to gauge which Option out of the 3 options is best?!
Many thanks in advance and for the summary of Wifi 7!
This post on hardware replacement/upgrade will help you greatly on the matter, Sofia.
Regarding AFC… Actually, that has been available in the US and Canada for awhile… I believe Canada approved it in December of 2022, and the FCC was early 2023 if I remember correctly. AFC only applies for what is referred to as Standard Power (SP) devices, which typically would be an outdoor AP. They must have the ability to contact an AFC database provider, at least once a day, to determine what frequencies/channels they can use, and the maximum PSD levels for that frequency/channel.
Indoor devices do not have an AFC constraint.
The Wi-Fi Alliance has an AFC Test Harness which is used (and directed by the FCC) to certify the AFC functionality.
That’s good to know. Thanks for the input, Bill.
Great technical article and well written!!!
👍
What happens if you check the WiFi 7 card’s properties; does it give you available speeds and does it include 2.4Gbps+?
Alternatively, what if you use terminal to start the hotspot and/or use terminal to connect to the hotspot using a desired transmit speed of 2.4Gbps+.
As mentioned, that’s about to change and the adapter can connect at Wi-Fi 7 speeds with some routers already, like the Asus RT-BE96U.
Hi Dong
This is a older post but I have a question about WiFi7.
Like said on the MLO, it will use few bands together to increase the bandwidth and capacity. I’m thinking if older gen phone can benefit from WiFi7 Tri-band Mesh network. Certainly, MLO won’t work on non-WiFi7 client like older phones and such. However, the Mesh Network is built by multiple WiFi7 Router and Satellites. If my understanding of the MLO is correct, the Mesh Network will start to use the MLO and communicate between them using MLO. In return, that should be improvement on the overall network performance over just normal Tri-Band or Quad-Band WiFi 6E Mesh network? Even the phone or ipad or tablet are just normal WiFi6 or 6E, the overall performance such as latency and throughput suppose to improve?
Read the post, Barry, starting from the top. Make sure you pay attention!
Hi there again, I like and appreciate your works, so I did read the post, and re-read the post as recommended. I understand you mentioned about those, but I think I need little help to clarify it in my head.
1. You did mention “Wi-Fi 6 and most Wi-Fi 5 devices generally get nothing extra from the new standard other than the possibly better coverage via a stronger backhaul link of a fully wireless Wi-Fi 7 mesh system”, so to my understanding, the backhaul between the Mesh units will still get improvement.
2. You also mentioned: “MLO only works with Wi-Fi 7 clients” So does this only applies to “Client” side? Like between Client and Broadcasters . Or will older client using the channel cause the Broadcaster to function differently?
From just reading your post, My first understanding is certainly: broadcasters will keep using MLO between them regardless. The broadcasters with older type will use the old method to connect between them “Only”. So the performance of WiFi7 Mesh with MLO will perform better than WiFi6E Mesh due to backhaul improvement. (Because older method only allow 1 dedicated for backhaul.) This also mean, a lower end or entry level Wifi7 may perform better than “Higher” end WiFi6E ? (If both using 2.5G port with same internet speed)
Apologize that my brain is looping awkwardly and bricked. Can’t clarify the answer myself, especially I was just reading some about Quad Band Mesh (Yeah, the split style you said in other posts).
1. You read it right. Still that remains to be seen when AFC and MLO are available. You seem to ignore the word “possibly”. It’s NOT a done deal.
2. The receiver has to support MLO to work and only receivers that support Wi-Fi 7 can have MLO. It’s plain English. You need Wi-Fi 7 clients, other than those I mentioned, none of exiting clients are Wi-Fi 7 clients.
Wi-Fi 7 mesh is only better when/if MLO AND AFC are available. Else, when without the 320MHz, it’s pretty much the same as Wi-Fi 6/6E. But even then, the wireless range is limited — it can only go so far and depends greatly on the environment — and you’d want to use wired backhauling anyway. In that case, there’s no difference for Wi-Fi 6E and older clients.
My advice is do NOT look for stuff that validates what you want to believe, you’ll be able to understand things much better. It seems to me that you just want me to say that Wi-Fi 7 is “better”, the quick answer is that depends. And like all Wi-Fi standards, the benefits require BOTH ends of a connection. Even then, it’s nuanced. Give the post another read with an open mind, as though you wanted to learn something instead of validate the possible nonsense you had consumed elsewhere.
Thanks for clarification.
Nah, I asked the question because I got confused and like to seek correct answer from knowledgeable pro. Not seeking an answer to meet what I have in mind. again, thanks!!
👍
As mentioned, there’s still a lot of unknown and I intend to update the post at least once more. It’s hard enough to wade through the nonsense vendors want you to believe, just like the case with previous standards.
Um, I think Mr Barry asked in the case of two WiFi 7 broadcasters, WiFi 7 backhaul, if there is an improvement even while waiting for MLO/AFC. I would have to say yes there is, because QAM (Quad Amplature Modulation) is increased from 1024 to 4098. The theoretical maximum increases about 20% from my reading which means from 9.6 Gbps to 11.52 Gbps. There should be some real world improvement from this…
Hi Jesse,
Thanks!!! I was all confused and messed up while trying to ask the questions. Dong and you definitely helped me to clear my mind and help me on what I asked. Big Thanks!!
If it helps any the set up instructions for Deco BE series (I read the one for BE85 or BE95), shows this:
You set up 1. 2.4 GHz SSID, 2. 5 GHz SSID, 3. 6 GHz SSID, *6 GHz-2 SSID* 4 MLO SSID.
*BE95 only*
The question to Mr Dong who has gotten a hold of these units is: Step 4 set up of MLO SSID, is it there, or not yet?
Awesome article as usual !! Thank you for sharing with us such deep details and your opinion about this new standard.
Regards
👍
@Dong Ngo: “Here are the Wi-Fi setting pages of the One Plus 11 5G. Note how it has the new “Dual Wi-Fi acceleration.”
I am unsure if the One Plus 11 5G’s implementation of the new “Dual Wi-Fi acceleration.” on the UI is actually MLO or their old existing Dual Wi-fi feature.
OnePlus (+Oppo), Realme and Vivo phones have had “Dual Wi-Fi acceleration.” since 2021? And they have allowed you to concurrently connect to 2.4ghz + 5ghz networks (even with different SSIDs).
The dual Wi-fi clients in these phones can operate independently, and can even offer wi-fi repeater modes under a SSID of your choice. (i.e. Wi-fi to Wi-fi hotspot instead of Mobile Data –> Wi-fi hotspot).
That’s been the case with most Wi-Fi adapters for years, Bennett, and, on the latest phone, might not have anything to do with Wi-Fi 7. Using two bands connecting to two destinations simultaneously is like having two independent network adapters — there’s no situation where you can use them to increase the speed, unless you can use them with Link Aggregation (bonding).
Using two network adapters connecting to two separate destinations is nothing new, that’s just how things normally works. Using them to connect to the same source, generally means only one will be in affect at a time, unless you can bond them into a single link. The bonding of Wi-Fi bands is what Wi-Fi 7 likely will offers via MLO.
Don’t get carried away by the marketing nonsense. 🤫
Great article! Thanks! I’ve got a 24 port 10 GbE switch (Unifi USW-EnterpriseXG-24). However, it doesn’t support PoE+, so I’m looking to add another switch that supports PoE+. I’m currently using Wi-Fi 5, and looking to upgrade to Wi-Fi 6 or 6E. One candidate is the Unifi USW-Enterprise-24-PoE, which supports Poe+ and has 12 x 1GbE ports and 12 x 2.5 GbE ports. There’s really not much choice for switches with 10 GbE ports that also support PoE+.
What I’m wondering about is: will 2.5 GbE be sufficient to use for Ethernet backhaul with Wi-Fi 7? Or, I guess I can also just worry about it in the distant future when Wi-Fi 7 becomes more ubiquitous…. I suppose I can always add a PoE+ injector to use with my existing non-Poe+ 10 GbE ports…. Or get access points that are just plugged in to use with non-Poe+ 10 GbE ports…
It’s fast enough, but of course 10Gbps is always better. I use this Zyxel XS1930-12HP, but you can also use injector with a regular 10Gbps switch.
Great article. I am left with a question though.
Wifi 7 being ‘backwards compatible’ , does that mean that a wifi 7 SSID can connect to a current wifi 5 device (say a doorbell) and operate as normal (ie not faster but connected as if it was a wifi 5 radio)
I like to keep my SSID’s separate so I am wondering if a CURRENT wifi 5 device I own would connect to a wifi 7 SSID if I use the same name.
Yes, on 5GHz band, which is the only band of Wi-Fi 5 — make sure you don’t use WPA3 for the SSID since many Wi-Fi 5 clients only support WPA2 and lower. You can see specific examples of how SSIDs work in a Wi-Fi 7 broadcaster in these reviews.
What is the maximum speed of wifi 4 ❔2.4GHZ wifi speed on a capable device❔
150Mbps, Alvin. More here.
are there any infos about wifi 7E ?
Not that I know of.
I don’t understand how can AFC be added after they release. As of now, FCC requires GPS for standard power. GPS doesn’t work indoor and also the devices released doesn’t contain GPS chip.
Given that IEEE 802.11be is still in draft status- what are the risks of buying a Wifi 7 router now and having it be unable to meet final Wifi 7 certification even with firmware updates. I am annoyed that if that risk exists vendors such as Asus, Netgear and TP-Link are not making it clear in their marketing literature. If there is no risk- or that simply firmware updates will be required in the future- then perhaps vendors are fine in not highlighting Wifi 7’s draft status- though they still could mention it in their marketing literature.
That was the case with previous Wi-Fi revisions, too, Lowell. You can always wait. There’s no rush in getting Wi-Fi 7, as mentioned.
I have looked at WiFi 7 bradcom SOC architecture, the main soc supports only 1 multi gig port, and other ports need their own soc.
two questions:
1. Do we expect simplified WiFi 7 designs with reduced chipsets which reduces cost?
2. what’s the reason for fan/huge heatsinks? can we also expect to get rid of these?
1. I don’t know, Kevin.
2. Wi-Fi 7 generally requires more power, especially for its AFC feature — more here.
Greetings, Are 2023 manufactured Products TVs, REQUIRED by FCC or any communication Laws stating they must have wifi 5ghz 802.11ac ?? Please provide kinks or details
Thanks
I have no idea. I’d recommend that you ask FCC or consult a law office on the matter, Kris.
I love this. What I dont love is that I just purchased a gte-ax16000 that is essentially totally obsolete now. And I wasted 600+ dollars.
No, it’s not. You’ll have some great fun with it before you can actually make use of Wi-Fi 7, and then it’ll be great for many years more.
I wonder what the impact will be on the human body with WiFi 7?
I have seen conflicting reports out there but reputable sources say, don’t have a router too close to your head in bedroom (or where spend majority of your time).
That’s an interesting question, David, and I get it quite often. But in a way, it’s the wrong question. I can’t pretend I know more than those “reputable sources,” but you can find my quick answer on the matter, and others, in this post.
There is an absolute abundance of pseudo scientific garbage on effects of wifi on the body.
One example is a research article on sciencedirect (which I’m not going to share the link to the “fake news”), basically it says WiFi 4 causes a whole range of “damage”, backed by numerous studies, one of which claims wifi damages teste function – on the basis of approx 5 lab mice tested . . . . .
Its reassuring to hear your experience and opinion based on reality.
Still though, I might wait a couple months for 320MHz out in the field before making a purchase 🙂
Indeed, David. As I mentioned in the post, you’ll find *anything* online. If you’re willing to give away your attention, something will be made up to take over your time. The key is don’t look to validate what you already believe or want to believe. It’s hard, but keeping an open mind is the key.
I belive in the UK there will be only one 320Mhz channel available and I am sure most routers when launched will default to this on 6 Ghz, conflicting with other neighbours, shame there isn’t anything in the new standard to combat this.
You’ll get a few 160MHz channels, Neil, better than 80MHz which is the mainstay of Wi-Fi 6. 🙂
I got my wife pregnant after installing a router in our bedroom.
But for peace of mind, keep it 10ft away if you’re too paranoid.
What happened all that time BEFORE you installed the router? 😜
Actually, any product that has intentional and unintentional radiation must also be certified for RF Exposure limits. In theory, those limits are there for that vary reason, and will have different limits based on the intended use of the product… For example, a cell phone would have lower limits as it would be used near or against the body. An AP, by definition, would not be near or against the body, thus would have higher limits.
If 6 GHz is so terrible in terms of range for Wi-Fi 6E, I am not sure how it can be magically better for Wi-Fi 7. Physics is physics.
Good point, Kenny. I think Wi-Fi 7 will lump all the bands together and automatically deliver the best performance possible for the distance, environment, and a particular client’s standard. That’s the idea anyway.
For here in the United States Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) is regulated by the FCC:
“For exposure to RF energy from wireless devices, the allowable FCC SAR limit is 1.6 watts per kilogram (W/kg), as averaged over one gram of tissue.”
From:
https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/wireless_devices_and_health_concerns.pdf
There’s a Physics formula on Energy (E) and Frequency (v) that I had to look up just now: E=hv. h is Plank’s Constant so energy is directly proportional to frequency (per article for 6 GHz and below, 1.6 W/kg). Since 6 GHz range is above this we would need to find out FCCs limit on those to get a sense of how weak/or strong it is. Assuming 1.6 W/kg and 6 GHz is roughly 20% higher than 5 GHz, 1 is 20% of 5, then we could roughly estimate the range of 6 GHz would be 80% that of 5 GHz….
I’d say 75% is more like it in reality. 🙂
Dong, what a good read. At least something to look forward to. I learn so much reading your articles and the comments and questions of others.
Mahalo Taz
👍
Hello Dong, I have read many of your articles and have transitioned from neophyte to dangerous level knowledge.
Currently I have 1Gbps service from Xfinity. Using their gateway in bridge mode ( proud that I was recently able to activate it via their app and switch it to bridge mode via their website).
The router is an Orbi RBR50 with one satelite connected wireless. Only change ever made was SSID, PW and auto firmware updates. Very stable, never drops out. Bought it several years back when they first came out.
5000 +/- sf home, system covers the whole place including Ring doorbell and floodlight cameras. All TV’s are livestream and zero latency. Not a gamer. Not a heavy user.
When testing speed with my Samsung S10, download is normally in the 350 Mbps, every now and then it is in the mid 500’s. Upload is normally in high 30’s to low 40’s Mbps.
Based on my reading of your content, and limited understanding, I am considering the Asus ET12 with wired backhaul. One router with one satellite. Running one Cat 7 wire from office to location where satellite will be. To be done per your post on this subject.
Aside from Asus marvelous app, parental control and safety improvement; would you consider this a wise upgrade? What improvement speed wise can I expect?
BTW, congratulations on the way you explain things, allowing a beginner like me to understand and remain engaged. Kudos!
Best,
Luis
That’d be a great upgrade, Luis. Go for it! Here’s the review of the ET12. I’d recommend getting a modem with a Multi-Gig port, too — more here. You’ll likely end up with 1.2Gbps or even faster Internet.
Thank you for the fast reply Dong.
Regarding the modem (I had already read the article previously), the link in the article for the Motorola in Amazon also shows a 2.5Gbps option (your article mentions it is not milti Gig, perhaps a timing thing), get the 2.5 Gbps Motorola or the Arris shown in the article?
Best,
Luis
The Motorola I mentioned is not Multi-Gig, so go with the ARRIS S33 or the Netgear CM2000. But you can get any modem that has a 2.5Gbps (or faster) port.
Correct Dong, the other Motorola that appears on the link to Amazon is the MB8611 which is the 2.5 Gbps. The one on your article is in fact the MB8600 and it is 1Gbps.
Went by Xfinity and they tell me that my rental fee for the gateway is $25/mth; after further questioning they told me that using my own modem switches the “free” unlimited usage plan to a 1Tb plan, and to upgrade to unlimited it would be $30/mth. A little deceiving!
Buying the Arris.
Best,
Luis
Ended up going with the Motorola MB8611.
Xfinity app did not work for some reason, 2 hours later, and three calls; the third rep was able to activate the modem in short order.
Apparently they allow beginners to man the phones!
No noticeable speed increase over the Xfinity gateway in bridge mode.
Now all that is left is to run the cable for the backhaul of the ET12 and replace the Orbi.
You have to use a Milti-Gig device for the testing. More on testing here.
OK. Been doing all testing with an app on my S10.
Will load app on wife’s S22.
Will that work?
Any particular app you recomend?
Read the post I linked earlier, Luis.
Right Dong,
All answers on the article you linked. Thanks!
However, a little to complicated for me.
My Surface PC has an USB C, but it is not a thunderbolt.
I will have to trust that the MB8611 has all the speed needed for when I upgrade the RBR50 to the ET12.
Thank you very much, most helpful. I am certain I would have NOT attempted these upgrades if it was not for your posts.
Best,
Luis
👍
Great read.
I must just add that besides for mobile devices, tablets & pcs there is a lack of clients for wifi 6. Its impossible to find wifi 6 iot devices.
Yes, M. I think we’re moving a bit too fast on the broadcasting side, and the receiving end has been playing catchup.
##MLO allows combining two Wi-Fi bands, 5GHz and 6Ghz##
it wont include also the 2.4GHz band?
We don’t know yet, but probably not since the band can’t handle channel width higher than 40MHz.
2.4 GHz + 5 GHz + 6 GHz tri-band MLO is definitely coming; Broadcom’s just-launched 2nd Gen Wi-Fi AP platforms include 2.4 GHz, too, in the MLO mix.
E.g,. the new Broadcom BCM47722 (used in access points / Wi-Fi routers) allows tri-band MLO.
The first-generation, draft (aka alpha-beta) Wi-Fi 7 hardware is, well, draft hardware. Unfortunately, that’s all current Wi-Fi 7 hardware can aspire to be.
However, the *client* side is still not there yet, as far as I see, for tri-band MLO.
how fast can a capable device UPLOAD on wifi 6E❔ if the conditions are good❔ factors involved ❔
Here’s the post on Wi-Fi 6E, Alvin. But this post also mentioned the theoretical speed of each standard. That’s the speed of both upload and download.
cannot wait for wi-fi 7 to be standardized. plus excited for wi-fi 8 and beyond
https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.10442 IEEE 802.11bn
This link mentions that wi-fi 8 will be called 802.11bn🤔
That seems about right, Alvin. Still too early, though.
{…}
Theoretical speed is 100gbps but real world speed is different🤔
Have to wait until wifi alliance approved for this next gen wireless standard
Yeap, and in the meantime, refrain from posting links to different sites, please. It’s a form of spamming.
It seems like Wi-Fi 6E is going the way of WiGig where there was a lot of hype around it but few products and adoption. Apple has yet to go beyond 2×2 Wi-Fi 6 and didn’t add Wi-Fi 6E to any 2021 devices. I hope Wi-Fi 7 will be more widely adopted.
Wi-Fi 7 is basically Wi-Fi 6E on steroids, Nathan. And 6e is very different from 802.11ad.
I kind of have the sensation that some brands are not pushing 6E because 6E is so near (in time) to 7 that it might not be worth it.
Also 6E is the only standard that will slow down WiFi 7’s performance on the 6 GHz band.
Apple is behind in everything, Nathan. It barely supports Wi-Fi 6 now. And when it supports 6E, Tim Cook is gonna act like Apple invented it. 🙂
You might be right about 6E, but don’t use Apple as the barometer for anything other than Apple itself.
My new Mac Mini has wifi-6E, and I don’t recall hearing trumpets blaring when I opened the box. Personally, I could care less about 6GHz., but then I don’t have any devices currently that can profit from 320MHz. bandwidth. A couple can connect at 160MHz. channel width, but nothing that I have goes fast enough to really take advantage of the extra bandwidth. Not a Luddite, but I don’t go after ultra-high bandwidth here. Don’t even get 5G cellular in our sleepy little burg, and that’s fine, too.
That’s the right attitude, Roger. 🙂
you don’t have any devices that can do 320MHz because there are none currently. When they are, I will want one (not necessarily need). Pretty much every car can travel at greater than the speed limit, but people still want to be able to do more, just in case 🙂
Thanks Dong. I will continue to use my 2 x RT-AX88Us in mesh mode and skip overpriced Wifi 6e generation. My RT-AX88Us will surely last a couple of more years.
Good call!
Curious about standardized mesh integration in WiFi 7. Because right now it’s quite a jungle.
Thanks for the article. Great as usual.
I think it would make sense to skip 6E altogether and upgrade to Wi Fi 7 in 2-3 years.
I have a smartphone which supports WiFi 6E and have a friend who has a 6E router.The range of the 6 Ghz band is impracticable small and there is very little difference in speeds between 6 Ghz and 5 Ghz bands at least as measured on my Asus Zenfone 8 phone.
WiFi 6 otoh is a legit very significant upgrade from Wi Fi 5 and investing in a good WiFi 6 router(AX 90) and switching my clients to WiFi 6 almost magically eliminated all interference problems on all bands even super crowded 2.4 Ghz.
That’s a good call if your current router is working.
Great article. Does make me wonder if it’s better to skip wifi 6e all together 🤔
Wi-Fi 7 is basically an improved version of Wi-Fi 6e.
Great article, interesting read