Why is this allowed? It's practically false advertisement

Why is this allowed? It's practically false advertisement.

link speed != throughput.

That's why it's false advertisement. You'd expect a 150 Mbps device can put through 150 megabits per second. But in reality it's only 50 megabits per second.

It's like advertising a car with 150 mpg when in reality it's only 50 mpg.

No, you not knowing the terminology doesn't make it false advertizement. You misinterpreted the text and are disappointed it didn't mean what you first though.

Also, it's not even a product that's for sale. It's a standard.

I guess you are equally disappointed by not reaching 480 Mbit/s transfers with USB 2.0 devices.

>"THIS AWESOME TECHNOLOGY IS 150 Mbps!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
>it's not even close to 150
>"HURR DURR WHY ARE YOU EXPECTING 150 Mbps, WHAT ARE YOU, STUPID?"
kys

Sure, fa.m
Suck to be you.

>mfw i get 300+Mbps speeds on my friends 802.11n router

>buy supercar, top speed 300mph
>stuck in traffic
>mfw
False advertisement desu

Dude, the link rates are literally up to the speeds defined in the standard. There's no difference in what is advertised vs what you get. You are just measuring the wrong metric.

>HURR DURRR, car manufacturer specs 6000 RPM but I can only circle the roundabout 6 times a minute! FALSE ADVERTISING RAOOAOARGH!
This is literally how far off and lost you are.

>buy Swedish supercar, 500 kmph
>speed limit is 130 kmph everywhere in the country

> false advertisement.
> UP TO x Mbps

that's why CS will always be full of niggers that can't into CE/EE

>can't into
kys and back to >>>/plebbit/

W00t EPIC reply! Upboated +1 +1 +1

Wi-Fi vendor shill pls go

> >can't into
> kys
U W0T

>I don't know how standards work
You also believe your hard drive should read at 6Gbps because it uses SATA3, don't you?

It's okay because OP didn't say it is false advertisement, OP said it is PRACTICALLY false advertisement. You misinterpreted OP and are disappointed he didn't mean what you first thought.

Hey Shylock, if you give us pedantic shit, then you get pedantic shit back.

Not participating in your proposed circle jerk isn't automatically shilling, desu. You just made some wrong assumptions. Google is your friend.

To be fair, HDD manufacturers should display the actual read/write speeds on the box/label just like SSD manufacturers do.

If you're not a shill then you're just an useful idiot and a cuck who likes watching vendors fuck your wife and actually defends them.

You may have your pound of flesh, but not a single drop of blood, Shylock.

I'm not fucked by any vendor because I get what I pay for. You got fucked by false expectations because the only Mbit/s you know is the one from your download dialog.

Stage 1: Denial.

>the only Mbit/s you know is the one from your download dialog
And that's the only one that matters

You both are getting cucked by TCP congestion management. Everytime you get a single packet loss, your retarded TCP stack halves your transmission rate. That is an appropriate solution for twisted-pair, but is idiotic for radio.

But that's not the one from the standard, desu. The standard has nothing to do with the application layer. That's the one fucking it up for you.

You are can't use the speed limit to predict your ETA when traffic jams are the most significant slow down.

>t. i don't know the difference between bits and bytes

nice blog post OP *subscribes*

It's not a difference between bits and bytes you fucking retard

>a question is now considered blog post
current state of Sup Forums

Who are you quoting?

Even worse! I bought a 5GHz Wi-Fi but CPU-Z still says 2.9 GHz. I'm SOOO mad rite nao.

>speed between computer and router the same as between the access point and rest of internet

>listing the speed in bit rates for how much info it can go in the waves between AP and receiver are false

>he thinks wlan = internet

>american education

>2017

>buy tesla for 0-60 in 1sec
>cant use it in city

FALSE ADVERTISEMENT

Geez, 802.11-IDF out in full force this morning!

>>he thinks wlan = internet
No one said or thought that.

Then what is it smartass? Is it that you can't always be getting 100% performance out of something so instead of 1 Gbps you get 120 MBps and you're mad about that?

Ikr

Shills pls go.

>Is it that you can't always be getting 100% performance out of something
It's that you can NEVER get more than 30% of the advertised performance.

>using wifi for anything other than tablet, tv and phone at home.

just get a cable for your workstation

120 MiBps*

You're a brainlet, OP.

sameanon, just stop

I'm getting the feeling you got some things mixed up. Your Wi-Fi access point and NIC will actually communicate at these bitrates when reception is nominal.

But then comes another 5 layers of the OSI model and there's your actual transfer speed.

My laptop doesn't have ethernet.

>instead of 1 Gbps you get 120 MBps and you're mad about that?
Are you illiterate?

Nice try.

Cute!

>Shylock

You are pathetic. Your thread crashed and burned right from the start and you cannot fix this. Just move on with your life.

Stage 2: Anger.

well, otherwise, i don't understand why the fuck he calls it false advertising then, except mad that his internet isn't actually 150 MB/s over wifi

i mean

in electronics, everything is bit aligned and it's the common accepted standard in electronics to align everything to bit according to the american JEDEC norm.

...

WHAT?!!?

I'm sorry but what laptop in the year of the lord 2017 doesn't have a fukken ethernet port?

Are you reading from your diary, OP?

>his internet isn't actually 150 MB/s over wifi
First of all it's Mbps. And second, the problem is that even though the theoretical maximum throughput is 150 Mbps, there is no way for you to achieve that, not even close. The maximum you can get is little over 50 Mbps.

My x230 with default wifi card does ~130mbps with my NAS in gigabit connected to the router my ISP gave me, which is a good one

>lying is illegal

Some of the best ones.

Ah, I forgot about those. I guess you didn't even knew it didn't have one until you tried to plug it in did you?

are fucking 15 year old or you don't understand English, i know very well it's Mb not MB, that's what I'm saying: unless he calls false advertising values in Mb/s cause they appear bigger than MB/s, I don't understand his complaint.

you can get more than 8 MB/s over wifi.

t. qualified electronics engineer.

Are you also OP? Because then the pieces of the puzzle really fall together.

>I don't understand his complaint.
Then learn to read you fucking faggot, are you stupid on purpose or something?

Mine is issued by the company I work for. I don't own my own computer. My previous job gave me a Dell.

>you can get more than 8 MB/s over wifi.
150 Mbps is 18.75 MB/s so getting 8 MB/s is still less than half the advertised speed.

His "complaint" is not getting that the bare link rate doesn't translate to a throughput with the same number.

t. fellow qualified electronics engineer

What the fug m8? I have a shitty 20€ 802.11n router and it does 500mbps at distances of about 10m and 1 concrete wall. Stop spreading lies you dipshit

Yeah, they should artificially cap the maximum speeds so normies don't have to worry about interference hurting their speed.

>theoretical wireless speeds (combined upstream and downstream)
>only tests real world downstream
and in what universe does 802.11g only provide 20mbps downstream? my wrt54gl with tomato firmware would peak at around 30mbps downstream with a little breathing room for some upstream and would do a little better than that even if it were over the local network
they say it's real world tests too, what does this entail exactly? using a shitty consumer router behind walls is a given but are they also using those useless usb wifi dongles that have issues with their chipset/drivers and with next to no antenna? I have some really gimped usb wifi dongles (pic related) for a raspberry pi and found out the hard way that even under ideal conditions the bandwidth is absolutely awful on the cheaper older models, but under the same conditions I get near theoretical performance with a proper desktop pci card with an external antenna, are the standards to blame because some manufacturers ignore them? is the router to blame when you're trying to measure performance using a gimmick device?

...so..why doesn't air behave like a cable..

>Why is this allowed? It's practically false advertisement.
theoretical data rate != throughput

>That's why it's false advertisemen
It's not, you're retarded. It clearly says "theoretical wireless speeds"

>"theoretical wireless speeds"
And you can actually reach this. Just not on the application layer.

>Just not on the application layer.
Not on the lower layers either. It is the data rate of the physical layer.

Kek

>rwby
incinerate yourself

biblimbap vs gigibibi inca nu stii care e diferenta? bab-gamias pula in mata

What? My 802.11n chink shit wifi adapter can do solid 100 mbps

proof?

>kmph
I wish we had some speed limits over 1000 here in the US. Image related to OP.