[KingMachiavelli]

I'd like to understand why the WiFi spec developed so slowly from G to N and finally to AC but now it's seems like a new version is released every other year yet many of the features/extensions are poorly implemented or have nearly 0 real world improvement.

[niobe]

I would agree with that. G to N was perhaps the most critical move in Wi-Fi because it included MIMO. You can think of this as unwanted signal echoes and reflections being switched from a liability to a benefit. Heck, I _still_ run WiFi-4 networks and they perform very well. WiFi-5 was an incremental upgrade, with many experimental features that barely used in practice.

802.11 is in general a vast swag of cool tricks, and when enough ideas are thrown at a wall, many do end up sticking, but for the most part the benefits are cumulative. MIMO being one major exception.

[9x39]

I'm not a hardware guy, but my guess would be evolution of radio transceiver tech in the cell space drives improvements downstream in wifi. Better transceivers can pull quality signals from what was noise generations past, its not magic of course, but the speed transceivers can run over copper cable goes up similarly. 1Gbps was a fast cable a while ago, and now we're doing hundreds of gigabits commonly.

Another thing is that features like beamforming and higher QAM, let's say, are going to matter more in ideal scenarios where APs are in their sweet spot relative to clients, and you get to take advantage of high SNRs. Is that going to help when someone buys a Netgear Wifi 7 AP only to flip it upside down behind the couch in their apartment in an environment where 2.4 and even 5 ghz are basically gone from all their neighbors' use? Still, faster data rates mean clients get on and off the air quicker overall, saving airspace and battery if applicable. So, I think there's mainstream and highly specialized features rolling out simultaneously.

[Jach]

Speaking just on timelines (rather than actual underlying innovations or improvements), 802.11 was in 1997, next in 1999, G in 2003, then a 6 year gap to N in 2009, 4 year gap to AC in 2013, 8 year gap to wifi 6 in 2021, wifi 7 in 2024 (though apparently buyer beware), and wifi 8 expected (according to the article) in 2028. Doesn't seem too rapid? The 8 year gap is the weird one out.

I think part of it is that if there isn't a regular and practiced process for bumping standards, then gaps between revisions can grow quite large and stagnation can set in, and if there are any significant improvements it'll take longer for them to come to fruition than if there were regular revisions that are only modest most of the time. Looking at a few other things that come to mind: USB had an 8 year gap between 2 and 3 as well, PCIe had a 7 year gap between 3 and 4 (albeit while they only had a 3 year gap between the specification for 5 to 6, it still took 3 more years (2025) for the first pcie6 devices, and I still can't buy a consumer-level pcie6 motherboard, it's a separate mess), C++ had an 8 year gap between C++03 and C++11, Java had a 5 year gap between 6 and 7 (and another 3 years after 7 to get to Java 8); all of these things now have more rapid cycles.

[jburgess777]

In 2016 there were enhancements added by ‘802.11ac wave 2’ which might help explain some of the 8 year gap.

[dylan604]

Does any of it have to do with the spectrum becoming available? After 2.4GHz and 5GHz, I have no idea what else the latest/future gens of WiFi are using. As some tech like 2G is no longer in operation, that spectrum was opened up. There are other frequencies that have become available where operating the older equipment that used to operate there is a big no-no now. There was a frequency range used by old wireless microphone systems that are banned at locations.

Just taking a swing at it, but I don't play that sport so probably a big whiff

[ssl-3]

In regulatory regions where it is usable, Wifi 6 (802.11ax) added some 6GHz channels. Wifi 6e extended that to roughly the entire 6GHz band, for ~1GHz of contiguous RF bandwidth in that area alone.

The "old" cellular bands aren't generally open, at least in the States. We tend to use them for newer licensed stuff in cellular-land instead of the old licensed stuff we used to do. (Old modulation techniques die out and get replaced, but licensed RF bandwidth is still licensed RF bandwidth.)

[throw0101a]

> In regulatory regions where it is usable, Wifi 6 (802.11ax) added some 6GHz channels.

'Plain' Wifi 6 (non-E) had zero 6 GHz. If you think otherwise can you produce a citation?

Edit:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WLAN_channels

[ssl-3]

You're right. 6GHz wasn't usable as a part of standardized wifi until 6e.

I'd like to choose option C: I thought otherwise, and I was wrong in thinking that. I'd like to submit my previous comment, just above, as a citation demonstrating the incorrect thought process. ;)

[crims0n]

Surely some of that was need. When G was dominant from around 2004-2009 the theoretical maximum was 54mbps… most people were still on DSL or cable at the time, often capping out way below that.

[p_j_w]

802.11ax introduced some changes that have real world effects: subcarrier spacing was decreased by a factor of 4. Symbol length was increased by the same factor, but that means receiver sensitivity requirements are looser for the same data rate. So, for the same signal strength you can get a higher data rate. I’ve personally seen this effect on my own phones and laptops: I get consistently higher throughput on ax networks than I do on ac.

[Avamander]

It's all very proprietary and the tooling is ass, there's a lot of wasted effort creating and testing out the same stuff. Bluetooth is just as horrible for the same reasons.