Not quite, but perhaps in a few years. It's had a pretty good run. I still think I'm going to CAT6 the house.

I'm not that knowledgable on the topic, but I'll be curious to see what happens in city settings. A friend living in a Manhattan highrise purposely wired her apartment because she figured everyone around her would eventually go wireless and impact transmission.

Of course, an organized effort by the building to go wireless would fix that.

Your best bet would be to wire the house with fibre.

Wired connections are always going to be faster than wireless ones ( excluding something that really changes the game, like finding some new physical law ), and the way technology is advancing, especially now, every ounce of bandwidth you have available can be useful.

In other words; today it's youtube, tomorrow it might be streaming hi-def video which takes a GIGE connection and the day after that it might downloading some high def 3d scene that requires more bandwidth in a second than exist on standard hdds today for some immersive technology

In addition to Cat 6, pull a small, artificial fiber string along with the Cat 6. It will make upgrading to Cat 7, fiber or room temp supeconducting cable easier in a few years.

...and in addition to bandwidth, there's still the matter of security of wired over any form of Wi-Fi, for the sufficently *paranoid.

(*Which doesn't mean they AREN'T really out to get you.)

Yeah, go ahead and run the wire. You can always use it to pull the quantum waveguides or subspace U-channel or as a nanobot jogging path.

Is it just me, or are more and more arrogant tech-salespeople putting out a "non-advertisement" that goes something like this: "We know you may not like the limitations, but you just need to adjust your expectations and get on board"

Dude, since when did we ever hear this sort of language from businessmen before? Everytime I hear it, I hope for a competitor to come stomp their ass.

Color me dubious. Wireless at home is one thing. Wireless in the office is another. It ain't easy, it's not cheap and it takes expertise to make it all happen.

I have no doubt that wireless will penetrate to the degree the analyst thinks it will. But not very soon. He's minimizing (or the reporter is) how difficult and expensive it all is.

Or maybe it's just me - my employer is doing well but we don't spend a lot on frills. An RF project that Business wanted was scaled back when we ran the numbers and showed them how much it would cost to give the people walk-around bar code scanners. Wal-Mart we ain't; we scaled it back to RF scanners attached to PCs.

You can't tell users that application or service they use at their desk is unavailable wirelessly."

Sure you can. When they ask 'why' you pull out a spreadsheet and show them how much it would cost.

My experience has been that the majority of people are eager to jump onto wireless technologies. The problem is the marketing behind wireless generally obscures the fact that wireless networks tend to be unstable. People tend to assume that he wireless is just as well as wired. Problem is you can't control outside of interference with the reception. Or, the random tendencies of people to roam in and out of areas and potentially overload an AP. There certainly is a great deal of convenience with the wireless experience; however, I don't believe it will approach the level of robustness that a wired connection can offer.