[MedAzizBenSalem]

This is such a great write-up it highlights a truth that’s been hiding in plain sight for years: we’ve optimized Wi-Fi for headline speeds, not human experience. Emphasis on throughput reminds one of the "megapixel wars" of early digital photography a simple, clear-cut figure that completely misrepresents actual quality. Responsiveness and reliability are the actual measures that control day to day satisfaction, but they are harder to define and won't neatly go on a store shelf. What is fascinating here is that speed tests themselves actively degrade the network performance. It's like taking your pulse by first dashing a lap in sprinting mode. Whether we'll see more router makers or ISPs start offering "responsiveness scores" instead of speed numbers once the consumer pays attention to latency and airtime contention remains to be seen. At any rate, this post nails the broader cultural problem in networking: the industry still chases awe inspiring numbers instead of better experiences.

[vlan0]

How do you think speeds effect airtime utilization/optimization? And how does this change with lower PHY rates?

[immibis]

Not linearly. The data may take twice as long to transmit at half the rate, but there's overhead which doesn't change. If you can use half the channel width and transmit at half the rate, you halve the Hz-seconds used for preambles and stuff, while keeping the Hz-seconds used for data the same.

[ieie3366]

AI slop