×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

802.11ad Will Knock Your Socks Off, Says Interop Panel

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the but-magnum-will-blow-them-all-away dept.

Networking 174

alphadogg writes "While the Wi-Fi world is rightly abuzz over the rapidly approaching large-scale deployment of the new 802.11ac standard, experts at an Interop NY panel said this week that the 802.11ad standard is likely to be even more transformative. '802.11ac is an extension for pure mainstream Wi-Fi,' said Sean Coffey, Realtek's director of standards and business development. 'It's evolutionary. ... You're not going to see dramatically new use cases." By contrast, 802.11ad adds 60GHz connectivity to the previously used 2.4GHz and 5GHz frequencies, potentially providing multi-gigabit connection speeds and dramatically broadening the number of applications for which wireless can be used."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

174 comments

So what? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41564739)

And the signal range will be abysmal.

Re:So what? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41564763)

And probably be interfered with by other devices, including appliances like microwaves.

Re:So what? (4, Informative)

queazocotal (915608) | about a year and a half ago | (#41564791)

60GHz will be essentially unaffected by microwaves.
However, I note that my laptop (with 802.11g) works just fine on top of my operating microwave.

Re:So what? (3, Insightful)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#41564833)

60GHz will be essentially unaffected by microwaves.
However, I note that my laptop (with 802.11g) works just fine on top of my operating microwave

I hope for your sake that isn't all sitting on your lap while operating. You might end up like this guy [mtvnimages.com] if you keep doing that for too long.

Re:So what? (5, Informative)

sexconker (1179573) | about a year and a half ago | (#41564875)

60GHz will be essentially unaffected by microwaves.

However, I note that my laptop (with 802.11g) works just fine on top of my operating microwave

I hope for your sake that isn't all sitting on your lap while operating. You might end up like this guy [mtvnimages.com] if you keep doing that for too long.

Link contains image of a South Park character with elephantitis of the testicles, wheeling his scrotum around in a wheelbarrow.
Obviously NSFW.

Re:So what? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41565375)

If that image is NSFW then our social norms are now totally fscked up..

Wow this world puzzles me...

Re:So what? (3, Interesting)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#41565827)

60GHz will be essentially unaffected by microwaves.

However, I note that my laptop (with 802.11g) works just fine on top of my operating microwave

I hope for your sake that isn't all sitting on your lap while operating. You might end up like this guy if you keep doing that for too long.

Link contains image of a South Park character with elephantitis of the testicles, wheeling his scrotum around in a wheelbarrow.
Obviously NSFW.

What else would I post in response to someone who might have a microwave and a laptop computer sitting on top of their lap? I don't know why anyone would be surprised that the image would be NSFW.

That said, at first glance it could just be some guy pushing a wheelbarrow of ... giant cantaloupes? If you weren't looking closely - or familiar with that episode of South park - you might not know what it is.

Re:So what? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41565863)

Modern Microwaves use an oscillating magnetron to help minimize interference. There are gaps in the AC period where they aren't "transmitting."

Re:So what? (1)

mspohr (589790) | about a year and a half ago | (#41565941)

Yeah... Just try putting it in the microwave and see how well it works! (I recommend "High" for 3 minutes... or if you want extended fireworks try the "Defrost" setting)

Re:So what? (2)

jamesh (87723) | about a year and a half ago | (#41565749)

And probably be interfered with by other devices, including appliances like microwaves.

Only if you use the device inside the microwave. While the microwave is running.

While the frequency range labelled microwave goes from something like 1Ghz to 200Ghz (a bit wider than that I think), microwave ovens use frequencies around 2.4Ghz and so shouldn't interfere much with anything at 60GHz.

mesh networks (4, Interesting)

currently_awake (1248758) | about a year and a half ago | (#41566015)

With this level of bandwidth you could network a city (router to router directly, no ISP) and still get usable network speed.

How did they know? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41564779)

My socks are lined with foil, it's already a problem with microwaves..

The "ad" is for "ads"... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41564785)

It will blast ads right into your brain at supersonic speed.

Are we suddenly following the alphabet? (4, Funny)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#41564789)

802.11ad after 802.11ac could potentially be a sign that we will start following the alphabet for subsequent releases of 802.11 wifi standards. That on its own would be a good reason to adopt it - just to straighten out the alphabet soup that was previous wifi standards.

You tell'em! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41564847)

I for one, will NOT fall for their horseshit and marketing nonsense! Which means, no new wi-fi router for me until 802.12 comes out! They're NOT fooling me with these minor alphabet releases!

IEEE 802 (5, Insightful)

unixisc (2429386) | about a year and a half ago | (#41565951)

IEEE 802.12 is not WLAN - it's 100BaseVG [wikipedia.org] While that group may have been disbanded, IEEE 802 is their set of standards dealing w/ LANs and MANs, and then, the number after the period deals w/ different aspects of it, such as 1 for bridging, 3 for ethernet, 11 for WLAN (all the ones in b/w were used by other networking technologies, such as Token Bus, Fiber Optic TAG and so on, but are mostly currently disbanded.) IEEE 15 through 22 are the next active standards, but none having much to do w/ WLAN.

Re:Are we suddenly following the alphabet? (2)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#41564889)

To the tune of Twinkle Twinkle Little Star...

eight oh two eleven (sigh) will you 'b' or 'c' or 'g'?
Up above the router high, incompatible handshake wifi.
Then my bandwidth sucked so dry, a bigger amplifier oh and my.

eight oh two eleven (sigh) will you 'n' or 'a' 'c', god why?
Hundred dollars that's too high, to maintain compatible wifi
when my neighbor goes to buy, the next great thing to make it die

Twinkle twinkle, my wifi, how I wonder why I try...

Re:Are we suddenly following the alphabet? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41565117)

Fuck off.

Re:Are we suddenly following the alphabet? (4, Funny)

dohzer (867770) | about a year and a half ago | (#41564949)

I'm sure there's not going to be a massive amount of confusion between 802.11a and 802.11ac or 802.11ad. People are far too tech-savvy these days!

Re:Are we suddenly following the alphabet? (5, Funny)

MinutiaeMan (681498) | about a year and a half ago | (#41565097)

I hope not; I want to see them get to 802.11wtf someday soon! (And, looking at the Wikipedia list [wikipedia.org] of 802.11 standards, there are already some planned for after "ad".)

Re:Are we suddenly following the alphabet? (1)

Kell Bengal (711123) | about a year and a half ago | (#41566217)

Me, I'm planning for the high-def video streaming service that will be offered over 802.11ad - the so-called "ad-HD" format. Supports lightning-fast channel switching.

Re:Are we suddenly following the alphabet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41565807)

Umm, the 802.11 standard has always followed the alphabet for amendment? Some of them take longer than others to adopt as official, so a few of the standards got accepted as official out of order. And a couple were canceled. Just most of the letters you don't hear about because they are not dealing with new radio bands, but some other minutia.

Lord. (2)

Kid Zero (4866) | about a year and a half ago | (#41564801)

So... should I keep waiting? I haven't gone up to "N" yet, even. Now we have ac coming, and ad on the board. Yeesh.

Re:Lord. (5, Funny)

bugs2squash (1132591) | about a year and a half ago | (#41564837)

you don't have ac ? How do you charge your phone ?

Re:Lord. (5, Funny)

dohzer (867770) | about a year and a half ago | (#41564957)

DC. Everyone knows AC is for killing animals on stage and generating that relaxing hum in audio devices. DC is the way of the future.

Re:Lord. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41565269)

Wrong. AC is for making your room temperature comfortable in the summer.

Re:Lord. (1)

rossdee (243626) | about a year and a half ago | (#41565311)

You can turn the AC off now, and just open a window
assuming you're in the northern hemisphere

Here it is 34F outside right now.

Re:Lord. (1)

buzzsawddog (1980902) | about a year and a half ago | (#41565573)

I am in the northern hemisphere and I still need AC. Todays high was 92f... 7pm and the sun is down but its till 88f. Wont be comfortable until its nice and cold below 70f thats when the AC goes off.

Re:Lord. (4, Informative)

evilviper (135110) | about a year and a half ago | (#41564921)

If the speeds of G are good enough for you, don't bother upgrading. N gets high-speed from a lot of tricks that aren't very nice, like double-sized channels, multiple radios (which cheap receivers skimp on), etc. This was supposed to be okay because people were supposed to only enable double-wide channels on the 5Ghz band, but some devices only support the lower frequencies to begin with, and they certainly don't stop you from stomping on those 2.4ghz channels, trying to get extra speed you probably won't see, anyhow...

Even many devices sold today are G-only, from my cell phone, to my wireless PTZ surveilance cameras, etc, etc.

Re:Lord. (4, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | about a year and a half ago | (#41565157)

The problem with wireless is that the range sucks. 802.11n has a maximum speed of 600 mbps but I've never been able to get anywhere close to that. The speed is respectable if I'm standing right next to the router, but if I'm 2 floors away (router in bottom floor of 3 storey no basement house) then the speed is just atrocious. 60 GHz won't travel that far anyway. The only thing that's good for is when you're right next to the router, which means you might as well have a wired connection.

Re:Lord. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41565211)

That's a good thing for most folks. I remember when I got my first 802.11b WAP over a decade ago, it was the only one in range. Now, there's 10 or so of them in range. And, I'm not even living in an apartment. For apartment dwellers having short range, but fast connection is actually a positive thing. As with the current standards you can only have 3 channels that don't interfere with each other.

Re:Lord. (2)

zippthorne (748122) | about a year and a half ago | (#41565799)

The problem is that the range is too good I'm currently getting interference with from a dorm full of wifi routers and devices a half mile away....

Re:Lord. (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about a year and a half ago | (#41566225)

For a dorm room, a 60GHz router should be just great, since you don't have to worry much about range. But when you have a house, or worse, you're in an office building, range becomes much more important, plus the ability to penetrate many walls. No one wants an access point in every room of their house.

Means exactly dick. (4, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#41564829)

Look, the problem isn't available bandwidth, it's the fact that it's unlicensed bandwidth. Which means part 15 of the FCC rules; "device must accept any harmful interference..." Sure, right now there's only one set of devices and one standard for that frequency range, but give it time. A bug or problem will be discovered. A new protocol will need to be released. Someone will discover some new way of squeezing out just a few more drops of speed -- and it'll be incompatible. And because it's all running on the same frequency, there will be contention. Eventually, the entire situation de-evolves into the same thing that happened with CB radios: You got truckers with kilowatt-rated amplifiers and no equipment certification; There's bleed over from one channel to the next, tons of static, and people running such ridiculously overpowered and marginally functional equipment that it makes sticking your head in a microwave look downright safe compared to sitting next to some of those rigs.

It happened with 802.11b, when we switched to g. Then n was released, and it oblitherated b and g. Then manufacturers released the "turbo" modes, which ate up even more bandwidth. And nevermind all the wireless keyboards, mice, phones, wireless gamer headsets, and home audio systems, all ALSO operating on the same frequencies, each using different encoding schemes. Pretty soon you've got hackers wiring up coax and tin cans, slapping on several watt amplifiers, raising the black flag and saying "Fuck da police!" and blasting a microwave beam 50 miles, and self-sterilizing their manhood from the near field RF...

Face it guys: We need regulated airspace. We need black vans. We need licensing, and a watchdog group so if someone doesn't play nice -- it's knock, knock, and goodbye offending equipment (and possibly neighbor). And we need to mandate sunsetting of equipment periodically to maintain inter-device compatibility and spectrum integrity.

The "wild wild west" wifi is a disaster in dense urban areas. You're lucky if you can get 20 feet from the router before the signal goes to hell in some places.

Re:Means exactly dick. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41564933)

>>and self-sterilizing their manhood from the near field RF...

So... You're saying we should do nothing and the problem will sort itself out nautrally. Cool.

Re:Means exactly dick. (2)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#41565015)

So... You're saying we should do nothing and the problem will sort itself out nautrally. Cool.

Well, if you consider your neighbor irradiating your manhood to be "sorting", then yes.

Re:Means exactly dick. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41565039)

tin foil chones. duh.

Re:Means exactly dick. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41565219)

> You're lucky if you can get 20 feet from the router before the signal goes to hell in some places.

Ohai. I'm a San-Franciscan. I live in an apartment building in North Tenderloin, and can see ~15->30 802.11g APs, most of which are screaming on channel 6. I have a bog-standard 802.11g router sitting in my window, which serves my apartment very well, and can reach the bus stop, and the nearby coffee shop ~150 feet away.

> It happened with 802.11b, when we switched to g. Then n was released, and it oblitherated b and g.

What? b, g, and n all co-exist. I say this as an operator of an abgn AP that has devices from all of those flavors of 802.11 connected simultaneously.

> Eventually, the entire situation de-evolves into the same thing that happened with CB radios...

I grew up with a CB radio in our family vehicles, and had one in the van that I drove as a teenager. The situation you describe is neither the one that exists today, nor is it the one has existed for the past fifty years.

> Face it guys: We need regulated airspace. We need black vans. We need licensing...

There are many ISPs that use unlicensed microwave spectrum for long-to-medium wireless backhaul links. These guys are doing very well, and don't run into the doomsday situation that you've described. For short-haul wireless, unlicensed 802.11 works fine. But, don't be a cheapass, buy 5Ghz gear! You get better range, and 802.11n has more space to do the frequency multiplexing stuff that makes it reach 100->200mbps.

Re:Means exactly dick. (2)

CaptBubba (696284) | about a year and a half ago | (#41565231)

A good bit of trouble could have been avoided if 802.11n had been made 5GHz only. The 2.4GHz spectrum was simply too crowded already and never offered enough non-interfering channels anyway. In a dense environment the limited propagation distance of 5GHz is a GOOD THING. From my apartment I can "see" 27 APs in the 2.4GHz band, many of them running the 40MHz mode which effectively occupies the entirety of the spectrum. I can see three 5GHz APs, one of which is mine.

The problem we face now is that because 802.11n didn't mandate 5GHz everyone has that one gadget that doesn't support 5GHz so they have to use 2.4GHz. It isn't even like we can blame people for keeping around a super old obsolete device: The iPhone 4S doesn't support 5Ghz!

Re:Means exactly dick. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41565703)

So you can see them, big deal. Are they hurting your connection?

That and (2)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about a year and a half ago | (#41565263)

The higher your frequency, the worse your range/penetration. You can see the difference even with 2.4GHz vs 5GHz. In my place, I can get full signal bars in my bedroom with 2.4GHz, but only 2 or so with 5GHz, from the same router. For a more extreme example look at the Navy's Seafarer system, which operated at 78Hz, and literally penetrated the entire earth, and compare it to visible light, which is 100s of THz, and is stopped by any solid substance.

60GHz does not have very good penetration.

Re:That and (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41565391)

compare it to visible light, which is 100s of THz, and is stopped by any solid substance.

In general good points, but my glasses beg to differ on this last one.

Re:Means exactly dick. (1)

timeOday (582209) | about a year and a half ago | (#41565481)

Face it guys: We need regulated airspace. We need black vans.

Most spectrum is exactly that. Want to use some? Call your friendly local AT&T, Verizon, or Sprint.

Re:Means exactly dick. (3, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#41565557)

Most spectrum is exactly that. Want to use some? Call your friendly local AT&T, Verizon, or Sprint.

So is ham radio, and a section of bandwidth used for emergency services that uses the same standards as wifi, even the same equipment, just moved the frequencies. Guess what: They all work fine, at higher power levels, because there's a central authority to regulate it.

Regulation doesn't mean private control; It means there are rules, and punishments if you violate those rules. You can regulate access to a public resource. It's done every day.

Re:Means exactly dick. (2)

timeOday (582209) | about a year and a half ago | (#41566071)

Here's a question... do you think wifi is messed up in cities because somebody is running bum devices? Or is there simply too much demand for a shared resource? 802.11 in all its varieties isn't that badly designed is it?

Re:Means exactly dick. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41565579)

The "wild wild west" wifi is a disaster in dense urban areas. You're lucky if you can get 20 feet from the router before the signal goes to hell in some places.

Preach it brother!

Stealing the neighbor's wifi is getting harder and harder. With all the high power wifi cards, high gain antennas, expensive antenna wire, etc... I'm almost ready to throw in the towel and buy internet from the cable company!

Nah, then I'd be the one getting letters for all the stuff I download....

Re:Means exactly dick. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41565625)

Only problem is who is going to pay for this regulation. Your talking about hiring more people, more equipment, etc. For a country that is broke this isnt practical.

Re:Means exactly dick. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41565773)

You really need to get a grip.

Re: wild wild west (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41566187)

I'm curious: Do you mean Escape Club or Will Smith? It makes a difference!

60GHz?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41564841)

Does that even propagate through air?

Re:60GHz?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41564899)

Inside a room, a bit. It won't go through walls, fruniture or people much.

Why arent ISPs using WiFi for last-mile? (0)

evilviper (135110) | about a year and a half ago | (#41564863)

With WiFi speeds getting so high, range being respectable, and just about everyone wanting wireless data (see: cell phones, tablets, and laptops) why aren't ISPs making extensive use of WiFi for the last mile?

Run Fiber to a telephone pole at the end of the block, hook it up to a WiFi AP, and give out the key to paying subscribers. We're already at a point where customers are expected to buy their own DSL / Cable modems, so why not WiFi? That would eliminate all the last-mile costs and maintenance issues, and 802.11n has ample bandwidth for the services your ISP might want to provide. WiFi repeaters are a simple technology as well. So why not?

There are licensed versions of 802.11a hardware, running on 3.7GHz or so, with kilometer ranges, without repeaters, so it should be easy enough. And if WiFi isn't sufficient, the cost of WiMax receivers and base stations must be sufficiently cheap to make it a viable last-mile option as well, without the exhorbitant costs of a full cellular network.

Why are we all still tied to wires?

Re:Why arent ISPs using WiFi for last-mile? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41564951)

Wifi makes it a few hundred feet at best when traveling through walls and such, so you would need approximately one of these per house unless it was in an area with a lot of houses. Even if it would travel far enough to cover several houses, I doubt one router would be able to provide full speeds to more than one or two houses.

Overall, I doubt many providers would consider something like this to save a few hundred feet of wire into a customer's house. Some rural providers do offer wireless internet for the "last mile," but houses are much more spread out for these, so running individual cables to each house would be more cost prohibitive.

Re:Why arent ISPs using WiFi for last-mile? (1)

evilviper (135110) | about a year and a half ago | (#41565347)

I love how you contradict yourself from one sentence to the next... You say WiFi only goes 100', except for rural areas where it's cheap and works exactly like I've described, huh?

And as for speed, 802.11n gives 600Mbps. Except for the higest tier of FIOS internet service, that's ample bandwidth to share between numerous subscribers, without slowing you down at all.

And it's not like I'm making this stuff up... Large hotels, apartment complexes, office buildings, indoor and outdoor venues, all have been wired up with nothing but WiFi for the last mile. I've done a couple of those installations myself, using high powered WiFi repeaters to save tons of money over physical wiring otherwise needed, and still managing high speeds for hundreds of end-users.

Re:Why arent ISPs using WiFi for last-mile? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41565759)

I love how you contradict yourself from one sentence to the next... You say WiFi only goes 100', except for rural areas where it's cheap and works exactly like I've described, huh?

Except there was no contradiction. You have a reading comprehension problem. The "wireless internet" they referred to is not 802.11 Wi-Fi but mobile broadband as the last mile. Mobile CDNs are also used.

Re:Why arent ISPs using WiFi for last-mile? (1)

dbIII (701233) | about a year and a half ago | (#41566029)

I've seen over 20km on even 802.11a. With the right antennas and a good line of sight the stuff carries for long distances. I've got a very strong signal between two cheap parabolic antennas 250m apart, originally on g but now on n.

Re:Why arent ISPs using WiFi for last-mile? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41565777)

I love how you contradict yourself from one sentence to the next... You say WiFi only goes 100', except for rural areas where it's cheap and works exactly like I've described, huh?

Different AC here, but I am wondering if you're being deliberately obtuse.

My parents live in a rural area and have a WiFi-based ISP. This required them to install an antenna at the tip of a 20' outdoor pole and run wire back into the house. Further, they had to obtain unobstructed LoS to the top of a water tower ~10 miles away, which required convincing a neighbor to allow them to fell a tree on his property.

The link drops several times a day in nice weather, requiring the various network hardware to be power cycles.

In an urban environment these issues would be compounded. As you pointed out, various urban locations can be covered by WiFi; however, this takes careful planning and a lot of hardware. 2.4 GHz just doesn't have much penetration: it's an inescapable consequence of its high frequency. Naturally, 5 GHz is even worse.

60 GHz? Haha, I will be happy if it can penetrate much more than drywall.

Re:Why arent ISPs using WiFi for last-mile? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41566227)

Which for urban areas is a great thing. It means that you install one per room and you don't have to worry about interference from the apartment next door. Plus you get to make user of the much higher speeds involved.

Personally, I switched to a lower power Openmeche AP a couple years back, and have found it to be great, I definitely noticed my connection droppoing out a lot less often than with the previous hardware.

They could with 802.16m (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41565075)

Except everyone feels butthurt that 802.16e as WiMax 1 was such a letdown because it doesn't have the 4 mile range 100Mb speeds of WiMax 2

Re:Why arent ISPs using WiFi for last-mile? (2)

Carnildo (712617) | about a year and a half ago | (#41565147)

With WiFi speeds getting so high, range being respectable, and just about everyone wanting wireless data (see: cell phones, tablets, and laptops) why aren't ISPs making extensive use of WiFi for the last mile?

WiFi is a "last-inch" technology, not a "last-mile" technology. The high speeds you can get from consumer gear assume that there's little to no contention for the radio spectrum involved; if you're feeding an entire city block off a single access point, you've got several dozen people contending for that same chunk of bandwidth. If all of them decide to watch YouTube or whatever at the same time, that theoretical 600-megabit data rate drops down to maybe 5 half-duplex megabits per customer, as the weaknesses of a shared-medium network kick in.

You can work around the contention problem by increasing the number of base stations. If you've got one access point per house, each device talks to the nearest base station and has a stronger signal that keeps more distant devices from interfering, but you're back where you started, needing to run a wire to each house.

Re:Why arent ISPs using WiFi for last-mile? (3, Insightful)

evilviper (135110) | about a year and a half ago | (#41565313)

If an entire city block was streaming video at the same time, you'd have HUGE problems, anyhow, because that cable and DSL service is shared, and heavily over-subscribed.

Besides, 5mbit is fast than what I'm getting at best right now. Wifi driving the price down allowing them to invest in more performance could only help.

And you're setting up a straw man, implying you have no choice between a single wifi channel per block, and an AP at every home.

Re:Why arent ISPs using WiFi for last-mile? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41565165)

Most ISPs are already invested in competing infrastructures.

It would greatly increase all the last-mile costs and maintenance issues.

In any given area a significant portion of customers can not receive WiFi due to their physical location.

Re:Why arent ISPs using WiFi for last-mile? (1)

gman003 (1693318) | about a year and a half ago | (#41565295)

Because getting Wifi to work over a full mile is pretty close to impossible. Hell, just within a building can be difficult.

I'm currently posting this over an unsecured Wifi network, because no ISP will return my calls about buying my own connection (probably because the apartment has contracted for "free" internet for everyone starting in a few weeks). It's within the same building, seemingly even on the same floor, and yet it's dodgy enough that I can't even watch Youtube videos most of the time, and my bandwidth is frequently displayed in kilobits per second.

Getting it to work throughout a neighborhood isn't going to happen, unless you can jack up the power to some absurd level. Or maybe outlaw microwaves (my connection is basically dead around 6:00PM when everyone nukes their supper.

Re:Why arent ISPs using WiFi for last-mile? (1)

evilviper (135110) | about a year and a half ago | (#41565693)

A mile is pushing it, but a $50 AP running DD-WRT can be configured as a wireless repeater. I've used high-power Buffalo units to do exactly that.

Microwaves only pose problems with a weak signal and ground-level receivers... Put the antenna on your roof, and you'll be able to use your microwave all you want.

Re:Why arent ISPs using WiFi for last-mile? (1)

Belial6 (794905) | about a year and a half ago | (#41565981)

In a building you must go through walls. If WiFi was used for last mile, it wouldn't need to go through walls. Trees maybe, but the antenna would be on the outside of the house, so no walls.

Re:Why arent ISPs using WiFi for last-mile? (2)

Hidyman (225308) | about a year and a half ago | (#41565491)

I used to work for a WISP (Wireless ISP).
They used 2.4 and 5GHz as well as the new 3.65GHz band (very narrow for now).
We often shot 13+ miles with off the shelf equipment.
Go look at ubnt.com, they have some cool TDMP stuff called AirMax.

Re:Why arent ISPs using WiFi for last-mile? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41565497)

My ISP is wireless [monkeybrains.net]. There is a POE powered antenna/bridge on my roof that points to an AP not too far away.

Re:Why arent ISPs using WiFi for last-mile? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41565757)

Because you can't put 10,000 people on a couple wifi routers, dufus.

wtf we need range not more speed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41564903)

Wifi faster than the WAN backing it is wasted. Even slower than the WAN is desirable if there's a trade-off in speed vs. range. I'd be happy to have 10 kilobit wifi that works reliably over a few miles instead of this 60 ghz stuff that only works over distances where I could easily use wired ethernet. Or 1 megabit/sec that covers an office complex would also be good.

Re:wtf we need range not more speed (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about a year and a half ago | (#41565187)

Or maybe just wifi that does not stop working everytime someone microwaves a burrito.

Name one! (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a year and a half ago | (#41564919)

Name one application that needs multi-gigabit connection speeds on the client? Name one purely theoretical application that needs that kind of bandwidth? (Don't just propose insanely high res video, that's easy.)

Re:Name one! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41564963)

One point is plural. "Clients".
Wifi is shared bandwidth, the more clients you put on one AP, the more bandwidth used.

Re:Name one! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41564975)

Wireless computer monitors.

Re:Name one! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41565021)

Well, it *could* be used say in a library or other floor area at a university (depending on the range you can get). Currently, we have Cat 5e but mostly Cat 6 ran all over the place, and to each PC on each floor. Some of the plates are hideous, but it's the limits of what you can do in an older building with wide open floor spaces. Replacing those with a setup that could work at a gig or more would be fantastic. We manage the machines via IBM Tivoli System Manager (BigFix), which we use to remotely reimage the machines, push updates, etc, etc. You can absolutely tell the difference between a network running at 100Mbps and 1000Mbps when doing this. If this setup allows multiple clients to each run at high speeds, that would be fantastic. No more wires in the floors, over the floors, to be kicked where they plug in and end up broken, etc. The downside is, if the units only connect at 1Gbps, well, that's really going to be a limiting factor. Who cares if the wireless links are multi-gig or supports multiple Gig links if the uplink is limited to a Gig (unless you're doing a lot of wireless client to another wireless client). Now if they did a 10Gbps or higher uplink, that would match up say with our network layout fine as each switch in the closet has a 10Gbps uplink

Re:Name one! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41565025)

NAS.

Re:Name one! (1)

godrik (1287354) | about a year and a half ago | (#41565121)

if latency is low: remote high definition desktop would be one of them.

many applications are hindered by bandwidth, stuff are computed on the server side because the data are too big to be transfered to the client.

Re:Name one! (1)

rasmusbr (2186518) | about a year and a half ago | (#41565203)

A wireless replacement for HDMI cables. The alternative would be to compress the video signal and transmit it as say a 50Mb/s signal, but that would add latency and reduce image quality.

I can also imagine using it for data transmission in science and industry in situations where the radio interference and the requirement of line of sight isn't a problem. Suppose that you have a camera (or some other sensor) that monitors a delicate process in a place where you don't want to run cables for whatever reason.

Re:Name one! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41565235)

And we will never need more than 64kb of memory

Re:Name one! (1)

stfvon007 (632997) | about a year and a half ago | (#41565283)

Star trek's transporters would need a lot of bandwidth....

Re:Name one! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41565643)

Star Treks "Transporters" use subspace domains as bandwidth zones, with nearly unlimited domains, there was no conflict in that universe.

Re:Name one! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41565285)

MythTV Client.

I wish my WI-FI was fas enough for it. sigh.... Still tied to a wire when I watch TV.
And don't tell me to buy some new fangled device. The newest computer I have is 5 years old. Sucks being poor.
But of course I wont be able to afford any new fangled WI-FI device ether. Sorry... let me just crawl back into my poverty.

Re:Name one! (1)

amoeba1911 (978485) | about a year and a half ago | (#41565517)

Name one application that needs multi-gigabit connection speeds on the client? Name one purely theoretical application that needs that kind of bandwidth? (Don't just propose insanely high res video, that's easy.)

This is a very shortsighted statement. There are no applications that need multi-gigabit connection speeds because there are no multi-gigabit connections. Name a single computer program that requires more than a gigabyte of ram... (pretend it's 1989 and most computers have 2MB at most)

Re:Name one! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41565691)

Keep in mind they are future proofing the standard. Your looking at over 2-3 years before you see any commercial routers.

Re:Name one! (1)

dbIII (701233) | about a year and a half ago | (#41566039)

Name a single computer program that requires more than a gigabyte of ram... (pretend it's 1989 and most computers have 2MB at most)

Seismic data processing. Finite element analysis. Why not just throw in the entire feild of numerical computing? There are a lot of people that would have used a gigabyte of RAM in 1989 if they could have got it. People were effectively doing that back then with disk or tape as the scratch memory.

Re:Name one! (1)

dbIII (701233) | about a year and a half ago | (#41566065)

I probably attached this to the wrong post, since it also applies just as much to your example you were making about memory to HornWumpus's post about bandwidth. We can use that bandwidth now in numerical computing (and data aquisition) now and people could have just as happily used the bandwidth in 1989 if they could have got it.
It's really amazing that he could be so short sighted on a day when the example of the SKA project is also on the Slashdot front page. Shame on you HornWumpus!

People have not even switched to N yet (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about a year and a half ago | (#41565179)

Mostly because for most use cases it is identical, or close enough.

So, meh.

Re:People have not even switched to N yet (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41565499)

I agree. We should stop innovating since certain technology hasn't be adapted fast enough for wisnoskij.
 
Fuck, you Slashfags bitch up a storm.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...