I've never been a fan of netgear, and I'm getting a little skeptical of the increasing transfer rates of wifi. Such speed will probably mean shorter range, and if not, then much more power consuming. High speed is useless if you have to re-download the packets due to corruption. The thing many people don't realize about wifi is the actual bandwidth is divided for every person connected. While 1Gbp/s is definitely fast enough for the average high-speed internet connection divided among a family or a coffee shop, I think it'd make more sense for routers to have multiple emitters operating at slower speeds, so that way each user gets the true bandwidth they're connected to. This of course would be more power consuming for the router and would be a serious interference problem if you're in an apartment building, but, for a building with several users, this would offer better speed with less power consumption for the users themselves.

I've never been a fan of netgear, and I'm getting a little skeptical of the increasing transfer rates of wifi. Such speed will probably mean shorter range, and if not, then much more power consuming. High speed is useless if you have to re-download the packets due to corruption. The thing many people don't realize about wifi is the actual bandwidth is divided for every person connected. While 1Gbp/s is definitely fast enough for the average high-speed internet connection divided among a family or a coffee shop, I think it'd make more sense for routers to have multiple emitters operating at slower speeds, so that way each user gets the true bandwidth they're connected to. This of course would be more power consuming for the router and would be a serious interference problem if you're in an apartment building, but, for a building with several users, this would offer better speed with less power consumption for the users themselves.

Beamforming allows for a more consistent transfer rate to multiple clients because the router's radio is focusing exactly on the client that is requesting the signal. With beamforming, I think there still is a limit for how many can connect to the router to provide stable streams, but its better than the doughnut dome that normal radio's put out. Downside is some implementations don't work well without a clear line of sight. On the speed side of things, 802.11AC allows for higher modulation and channel widths than with Wireless-N. Up to 160mhz channel width and up to 256-QAM (same as used in cable modem frequencies). Problem is, is that the channel width being at least twice longer than Wireless-N widths (at least 80mhz for wireless AC) and we soon face the whole 40 mhz width in a 2.4ghz spectrum dilemna again. Even though it can only be done in 5 ghz, even the 5ghz channels are going to be used it quickly. The range is still roughly the same as N ever was, but the link rate you get at that same distance is higher than that of wireless N. There's still lots of room for wireless speed increases, but we would need to incorporate the technologies like DOCSIS 3.1 is providing for higher speed (4K QAM using OFDM at 20-50khz widths).

Netgear has introduced the NETGEAR DOCSIS 3.0 AC1900 Voice and Data Cable Gateway (C7000B). The C7000B offers cable broadband service providers the fastest gateway available with WiFi speeds up to 190... NETGEAR Launches new Advanced Cable Modem - does 1 Gbps

that is nice to bad residential people dont even have access to such speeds

that is nice to bad residential people dont even have access to such speeds

I do 🙂

I do 🙂

one of the lucky few. then cause most dont

but they are testing it, after they do... gogo. In barcelona there r a few streets which have it, at quite good price IMO. Not that it worths so much... 20mbps is more than enough in my opinion for 99% ppl

not in the states, EU/Asia is more along as far those kind speeds go I currently pay 109$ for 100mbit + Phone line, and i sure there people out there they pay hell of alot more for lot less speed. 1gbps is great and I Would love it but know the prices for just 100mbit makes me cringe at what they might charge for 1gbps. Hell there are people out there that pay 29.99 for 3mbit which even more of rip off ( points at Verizon dsl in the states) which was customer of for 10+ years before my bill for 1 house number 1 dsl number + the actual dsl service was toping out at 110$ a month. Which why i droped verizon for Optimum if i gona pay that kind money i better have speed to go with it.

I can already hear Comcast smiling. They'll be like, "oh you want 1Gb/s? Starting price of $999/month, then we raise it to $4,500 after one year."

I can already hear Comcast smiling. They'll be like, "oh you want 1Gb/s? Starting price of $999/month, then we raise it to $4,500 after one year."

yep yet japan pays what 50$ us if that for 500mbps or so the rumors go I will jump for joy when 1gbps is available and dont cause a few limbs which i dont see happen any time soon atlest not in the states

In Spain, the biggest cable company "Ono" gives you 200/15 Mbps for 60 €/month (taxes included) if you have a PS4, if not, it only gives you 100/10 Mbps (yep, makes no sense at all). The small cable companies have better offers. As for FTTH, Jazztel FTTH gives you 200/200 Mbps for 58 €/month and Adamo FTTH gives you 1.000/200 Mbps for 45 €/month. Unlike Comcast, none have bandwidth caps or P2P throttling.

yep yet japan pays what 50$ us if that for 500mbps or so the rumors go I will jump for joy when 1gbps is available and dont cause a few limbs which i dont see happen any time soon atlest not in the states

I will jump for joy when comcast goes bankrupt.

Here's the thing... you seemed happy to pay $140 per month when you should have been paying half of that.

I pay 30-50 pound for 100/20. 30 pound mostly since i don't ever use the landline for my calls. It's not superfast but i'm totally happy with it. 10+mb/s doesn't seem much but games like BF4 Premium finish in less than an hour and that's 50+gb's. This isn't a retail Router. This Netgear is for ISP's to give out for free.