I agree with the gp, the quote makes little sense. It seems to take a bunch of facts from the product marketing but words them in such a way that is highly tortured and just doesn't make sense. Apparently you didn't parse it correctly either: More bandwidth? Even 802.11b had greater bandwidth. 6.8 Mbps is not more bandwidth than WiFi. What the quote is most likely trying to convey is that the radio has much better positional accuracy, which you didn't seem to glean in your paraphrase.

100x accuracy seems to imply that the data transmission is 100x more accurate which is not the cae. The product has high positioning accuracy. "can move 6.8Mbps of data with an accuracy that is 100x better than WiFi or Bluetooth." is a very bizarre way of saying that to be charitable.

"It can reach 290 meters of distance with a very minimal power requirement" Very minimal? What is "very". Also in practice, the distance achieved is going to be dependent on power. So you can't get these maximum distances with minimal power. Also a bit misleading, as for non-positioning Bluetooth LE is superior.

"with a 50x faster speed compared to standard GPS latency." This is a tortured way of saying that position acquisition is 50 times faster than GPS.

In practice, the laws of physics also apply. You're not getting 290m of 6.8 Mbps through any walls with minimal power.

Links to spec sheets always welcome. Thank you! Per the article's apparent claim: 6.8mbps is not a higher bitrate than WiFi. Or even close. 802.11ax (aka WiFi 6) offers three orders of magnitude greater goodput. I don't know what is meant by "100x better accuracy" - perhaps the author is making claims about the ability to locate a device with more positional accuracy than 802.11 triangulation via RSSI? Or 802.11mc? Or 802.11az? Who knows what the author meant?