Beta
×

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!

Huawei Successfully Tests New 802.11ax WiFi Standard At 10.53Gbps

timothy posted about 4 months ago | from the hitting-your-data-cap-quickly dept.

Networking 116

Mark.JUK (1222360) writes "Chinese ICT developer Huawei has confirmed that it was able to achieve a record transmission data rate of 10.53Gbps on 5GHz frequency bands in laboratory trials of their new 802.11ax WiFi (WLAN) wireless networking standard. The testing, which was conducted at Huawei's campus in Shenzhen, used a mix of MIMO-OFDA, intelligence spectrum allocation, interference coordination and hybrid access to achieve the result and the new technology could hit the market during 2018."

cancel ×

116 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I'm so excited (5, Funny)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | about 4 months ago | (#47135811)

Better, faster ways to access inept content.

Re:I'm so excited (3, Funny)

haruchai (17472) | about 4 months ago | (#47135911)

Of course.
  If you had access crappy content slowly, you'd be royally pissed when it finally loads. Used to happen to me all the time on 14.4k dialup.
At least if it loads quickly, I can write it off faster and go look for slightly less inept content.

Uh oh ! Osama is in charge !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47138497)

Huawei is teaming up with Osama for this test !!!

"At the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.11 WLAN standard plenary meeting held from May 12-15, 2014 in Hawaii, Dr. Osama Aboul Magd from Huawei was elected as the 802.11ax WLAN standard task group chair to focus on the development of the next generation 10Gbps WiFi standard planned for a planned commercial launch in 2018

Re:I'm so excited (1)

eric_harris_76 (861235) | about 4 months ago | (#47141699)

or slightly more ept content.

Re:I'm so excited (1)

s.petry (762400) | about 4 months ago | (#47135945)

Indeed! I don't care what speed marks they hit, I still would not use one of their back door infested devices even if you gave me one. They got their start by sending out a flood of "workers" who stole code from other high end manufacturers. I worked at one manufacturer of large telecom devices who lost a metric ass load of data to them in a breach (estimated 1/2tb of source code and schematics). Mostly the manufacturers fault for having extremely poor security, and happened before my contract stint with them. I didn't renew my contract because management didn't care about security for end users either.

Yes it was proven that the code was stolen because Huawei started selling knock off devices in Asia and Europe which were reverse engineered. That also happens to be how I know they had back doors built in.

Re:I'm so excited (1)

amorsen (7485) | about 4 months ago | (#47136013)

So you know that Huawei devices are back-doored because they are knock-offs of back-doored devices from Western manufacturers?

I must have read that wrong somehow.

Re:I'm so excited (1)

s.petry (762400) | about 4 months ago | (#47136063)

I must have read that wrong somehow.

Either that or you don't understand how easy it is to add additional code and circuits (containing logic) to a big ass ISP router.

Re:I'm so excited (1)

amorsen (7485) | about 4 months ago | (#47136173)

I have not claimed it is difficult. You did not correct my reading.

Re:I'm so excited (0)

s.petry (762400) | about 4 months ago | (#47136273)

Looking at routing circuits, chips, and logic it is easy to see that a device is a clone. Looking at a device as a whole package, it is also easy to detect access methods, non routed packets, etc... Small Telecom devices are about the size of 1/2 a normal rack.

In simpler terms, you are implying that a company can not make a clone of a graphics card and install it in a device running a back door. Or perhaps you are implying that the only way to do so is by cloning complete system which had a back door already installed.

As a third possible reason for your comment, it was intended as humorous or sarcastic without any indication that it was humor or sarcasm, and continued that in a follow up post.

Re:I'm so excited (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47139461)

Oh shut the fuck up.

You American perverts back-door and monitor everything under the sun, but then you cry like little girls the moment there is the slightest chance someone else can do it, before there is even proof.

Fucking cry babies.

Re:I'm so excited (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47136905)

Ohh, like Cisco routers never had anything to do with the NSA. I'm going to stick to routers I build myself. Fuck this shit.

Re:I'm so excited (1)

Mark of the North (19760) | about 4 months ago | (#47140841)

Exactly. There are lots of decent router distributions (and not all are Linux). I haven't tried all of them, but so far my favourite is pfSense. But for the sort of hardware in wireless routers (the subject of this article) OpenWRT is more appropriate. Not having to worry as much about spying is nice.

Just be prepared for a significant wait between the release of 802.11ax hardware and OpenWRT support. Support for 802.11n took quite some time.

Re:I'm so excited (1)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about 4 months ago | (#47136025)

came here to say this. yo dawg, I heard you like getting owned so I built faster wifi so I could own you while you surf the internet at the same speed because the wifi speed >>> your crappy internet connection anyway.

Re:I'm so excited (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47136645)

Name a router that has no backdoors.

Re:I'm so excited (1)

dougisfunny (1200171) | about 4 months ago | (#47136925)

How about the Dewalt DW616?

Re:I'm so excited (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 4 months ago | (#47138109)

Name a router that has no backdoors.

A round one?

Re:I'm so excited (1)

russotto (537200) | about 4 months ago | (#47137335)

I don't know, I'm really impressed that they managed that sort of data transfer rate while also sending copies of all the data to both the NSA AND Chinese Intelligence.

Re:I'm so excited (1)

s.petry (762400) | about 4 months ago | (#47137655)

Funny, but remember where this company is from. NSA installs their back doors after manufacturers make devices. This particular company _is_ the Chinese government as all large Chines companies are. No middle man needed, and the embedding of back doors because it's done in production is not as easy to spot.

Re:I'm so excited (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47139495)

NSA: Put this backdoor in your router.
US COMPANY: fuck you.
NSA: read this magic letter.
US COMPANY: Ok do anything you like.

Re:I'm so excited (1)

Thor Ablestar (321949) | about 4 months ago | (#47140129)

NSA: Put this backdoor in your router.
US COMPANY: fuck you.
NSA: read this magic letter.
US COMPANY: Ok do anything you like.

MYSELF: Oh, such a nice hardware! Is it supported by OpenWRT?

Re:I'm so excited (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47141023)

NSA: Put this backdoor in your router.
US COMPANY: fuck you.
NSA: read this magic letter.
US COMPANY: Ok do anything you like.

MYSELF: Oh, such a nice hardware! Is it supported by OpenWRT?

NSA: Hahaha, another sucker that thinks the bits he can see is the whole packege.

Re:I'm so excited (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47138671)

Hmmm, so they broke a record by copying somone else? how is it possible?
And what rock have you been living under that you think the US products aren't backdoored? Or intercepted by the NSA to have 'extras' inserted.
enogeb llorT

Re:I'm so excited (3, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 4 months ago | (#47140369)

Indeed! I don't care what speed marks they hit, I still would not use one of their back door infested devices even if you gave me one.

Hey! Calm down, we're talking about Huawei here, not Cisco.

Re:I'm so excited (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | about 4 months ago | (#47136149)

Better, faster ways to access inept content.

Its not the content that matters, but the bragging rights on how you access that content.

Now the real question is (2)

kungfuj35u5 (1331351) | about 4 months ago | (#47135815)

When if ever will 10gigE be affordable. Is the asic design on those switches really that insane?

Re:Now the real question is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47135905)

Nah, the PCB materials to make high-speed boards are a bit more expensive and in order to the get the chips to work reliably at those bit rates you need a good power supply.

That is to say, the local power at each pin of each high speed chip. To do that, you use very thin materials between your power and ground planes to create a distributed capacitor that has enough capacitance to be useful.

You do that with materials like 2 mils (or 0.05mm if you prefer), or half the thickness of a typical sheet of paper.

Never mind that this increases manufacturing cost because it's so fragile, but using thin materials is a patented process! You have to pay extra for using basic physics...

Re:Now the real question is (1)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about 4 months ago | (#47136033)

You do that with materials like 2 mils (or 0.05mm if you prefer), or half the thickness of a typical sheet of paper.

that's not that hard. I usually slice my paper in half anyway so I get two sheets for the price of one.

Re:Now the real question is (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 4 months ago | (#47136119)

You should put up a YouTube how-to on that.

Re:Now the real question is (2)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about 4 months ago | (#47136203)

Gin-Su, bitches!

Re:Now the real question is (1)

silas_moeckel (234313) | about 4 months ago | (#47136029)

It's affordable now, your looking at about 100 bucks a port.

Re:Now the real question is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47136363)

That's not "affordable" for 95% of the population. "Affordable" means "generally affordable", not just for the extremely affluent.

Re:Now the real question is (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about 4 months ago | (#47136899)

Let me know when it's built into a $80 home router.

Re:Now the real question is (1)

silas_moeckel (234313) | about 4 months ago | (#47136963)

For what purpose? Do you think you need more bandwidth to saturate 802.11ac? It takes a couple sata/sas attached SSD's to read/write (or a dozen conventional hard drives) at 1.25GBs. Do you think you need that sort of speeds for your laptop?

Re:Now the real question is (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about 4 months ago | (#47137151)

Thin clients are back, streaming games from your PC to your Steam box will suck for 8k resolutions. Encoding 8k in real time will be hard, expect it to be at most lightly compressed. It could use a lot of bandwidth at 120fps.

Re:Now the real question is (1)

silas_moeckel (234313) | about 4 months ago | (#47137813)

Latency alone is a reason you do not want to compress the output stream to send over the network to decompress. Actual video 8k fits with reasonable encoding over gigabit. Uncompressed 1080p 30fps 8 bit encoding is just under gigabit speeds. I doubt your going to find any thin client that is not going to pack hardware decoding.

Re:Now the real question is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47140443)

Uncompressed 1080p 30fps 8 bit encoding is just under gigabit speeds.

1920 * 1080 * 8 * 3 * 30 => 1492992000 (1.492Gbps)

Nope. Try again.

It's trivial to compress 1.492Gbps to under 1Gbps using simple Huffman lossless compression, but it's not under gigabit speeds uncompressed.

It's also trivial to compress 1080p video to fit under 100Mbps with the H.264 profile designed for this (no B frames, 1 frame pipeline latency).

HP, Dell, and several other hardware vendors sell "datacenter workstations", which are rackmounted workstation PCs with various hardware video compression to IP interposers on the GPU outputs and IP USB bridging, or similar hardware in a plug in box called a "PC over IP" box. One PCoIP box I've reverse engineered simply uses MJPEG compression and can be had for under $99. You plug it into the DVI and USB port of a machine and you can access it remotely with the other box included in the set. I'm sure other systems use H.264, H.265 or proprietary video compression schemes. They all seem to work just fine with no discernable latency and pretty good to excellent video quality over 100Mbps.

It's a real bad idea to do the video compression in software when it takes ~20W to compress H.264 in realtime on a current Xeon (about 20% of the CPU), and people have demonstrated H.264 hardware encoders at 100mW. Current Intel desktop CPUs have H.264 hardware encoding builtin, but only in the ones featuring Intel HD graphics, and Nvidia GPUs also have hardware "accelerated" encoding, but I don't know if that means they have a tuned encoder that runs on the GPU or a special-function unit in the GPU. Nvidia also recently demoed Nvidia GRID, which seems to be a clone of VMware's GPU capable desktop virtualisation, and allows you to offload GPU rendering to datacenter nodes and partition a/several GPU(s) between multiple users (VirtualGL has been doing this on Linux for years, but like, whatever).

Re:Now the real question is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47139659)

You don't need a router to do that. There is a pretty big performance difference between a router and a switch (and with IPv6 we might not need routers).

Re:Now the real question is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47137243)

your you're

Re:Now the real question is (1)

Dan Askme (2895283) | about 4 months ago | (#47139637)

your you're

You're You are

Re:Now the real question is (1)

symbolset (646467) | about 4 months ago | (#47137065)

Google is working on 10Gbps fiber to the home, with a 3 year timeline. When asked why they should do such a crazy thing the project manager replied: "We can, so why not?"

Nyquist (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47135817)

Granted I didn't RTFA but doesn't that contradict the Nyquist rate [wikipedia.org] of the channel? Or is there something more sophisticated going on here.

Re:Nyquist (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 4 months ago | (#47136129)

Most likely there's still enough room to play with modulation.

Re:Nyquist (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | about 4 months ago | (#47136179)

I didn't see much in the article, but seeing the following PDF there appears to be multiple technologies at play. One of them being 'channel bonding':

http://www.kics.or.kr/Home/Use... [kics.or.kr]

Re:Nyquist (3, Insightful)

indeterminator (1829904) | about 4 months ago | (#47136331)

For data transmission rates, you'll want Shannon's channel capacity [wikipedia.org] , which is not contradicted:
(a) SNR is a factor of channel capacity
(b) It applies for a single channel. With MIMO you have multiple channels (not independent from each other, but with smart channel coding you get gains over SISO).

Re:Nyquist (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 4 months ago | (#47138155)

Which basically means it will have a range of three meters or something like that. ;-)

Re:Nyquist (1)

willy_me (212994) | about 4 months ago | (#47139757)

With MIMO you have multiple channels

I was under the impression that MIMO gives you multiple antenna to facilitate beam forming. Channel bandwidth requirements do not change nor does the number of channels required. MIMO still only requires 1 channel. A quick wiki search appears to agree with this impression.

Now you can also use multiple channels but this is independent of MIMO technology. Both techniques can be used together - and typically are which might explain the confusion. Either that or I am confused which is always a possibility....

Re:Nyquist (1)

skids (119237) | about 4 months ago | (#47139379)

Or is there something more sophisticated going on here.

Spatial channels. You actually transmit on the same wavelength from multiple antenna, but (oversimplification) you aim one beam at one antenna and a different beam at a different antenna.

Re:Nyquist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47140517)

No. Nyquist rate applies to binary keying.

The relevant theorem is Nyquist-Hartley Theorem:

C=B log2(1+(S/N)

where C is the normalised channel capacity in bits/sec, B is the bandwidth of the channel and S and N are the signal and noise power respectively.

You can see from this that as the noise approaches zero the channel capacity approaches infinity, and that the required signal power with a given noise increases exponentially with a linear increase in channel capacity, and that with a fixed S/N, that the channel capacity increases linearly with bandwidth. Though in reality, noise increases linearly with bandwidth.

If it's not clear why more signal increases channel capacity, consider the case of ASK. As you add more symbol levels, it is required that you can differentiate one symbol (signal level) from it's adjacent symbols. This means the gap in energy between one symbol and the next must be more than the noise to be reliably detected. To add one extra bit to the constellation, the number of levels must be doubled, which requires that the peak and average power levels must be doubled. In the case going from 2ASK to 4ASK, the number of bits is doubled and so is the power, so you get the coding gain for free, which explains why 4ASK, 4PSK or 4FSK are used nearly universally in digital communication systems as the lowest level code.

Nyquist-Hartley theorem says nothing much about the quality of the nature of N, and a large amount of research and technlogy has gone into reducing N both by reducing the noise floor of radio receivers and by an increasingly comprehensive approach at separating black body noise from other sources of interference that have structure, and can therefore be attenuated algorithmically. It also only deals with individual channels, and modern high performance radio systems have multiple transmit and receive antennas and therefore multiple channels. In fact you have N*M channels to work with, if you can algorithmically derive them.

laboratory setting missing real world issues with (2)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 4 months ago | (#47135835)

laboratory setting missing real world issues with wifi that will slow it down.

Re:laboratory setting missing real world issues wi (1)

hjf (703092) | about 4 months ago | (#47135887)

it was probably tested at 10cm...

Re:laboratory setting missing real world issues wi (1)

Cley Faye (1123605) | about 4 months ago | (#47136233)

You're joking, but there is probably a market for very fast, short-range communications. If only to connect all devices on a desk.

Re:laboratory setting missing real world issues wi (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 4 months ago | (#47138169)

And this one would even be NSA- and CIA-friendly! Now I'd rather prefer fiber cables for that myself, though.

Real speed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47135859)

I bet this is test that works only in perfect conditions somewhere in a lab.
Based on how previous standards work, I'd expect 1Gb/s speeds max.
It would run 10Gb/s maybe if you put notebook right next to the AP.

Cap (4, Insightful)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 4 months ago | (#47135865)

So I'll be able to hit my monthly Comcast cap in 60 secs?

SUPER!!

Re: Cap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47138025)

No. The Comcast cap is 250GB. 10.53 Gigabits per second is 1,347.84 Megabytes per second (locally). The fastest speed made available from Comcast (that I know of) is their 505 megabits per second connection (63.125 Megabytes per second). You can only transfer 63.125MBps with their fastest, regardless of your local speed.

Re:Cap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47138439)

This would be local network client-to-client speeds. It's not your Comcast connection to the house that will suddenly jump to 10Gbps.

They have to spend their money acquiring customers through mergers and acquisitions. They don't have any left to upgrade speeds.

More bits then hertz? (1)

forty-2 (145915) | about 4 months ago | (#47135913)

I call shenanigans.

Re:More bits then hertz? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47135985)

Why?? Standards from the 50s supports multiple symbols per period?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-shift_keying

Re:More bits then hertz? (1)

forty-2 (145915) | about 4 months ago | (#47136081)

Good read, thanks!

Re:More bits then hertz? (1)

isdnip (49656) | about 4 months ago | (#47136635)

That's multiple bits per symbol, not symbols per period.
1024QAM, for instance, has 10 bits encoded in 1024 possible values of the phase and amplitude. It's one symbol though. High-speed communications uses a combination of techniques, including OFDM (parallel, lower-speed carriers) and MIMO (separate transmitters).

Re:More bits then hertz? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47140637)

The bandwidth is determined by the symbol rate.

The number of bits encoded per symbol increases datarate at the expense of S/N, it is independent to the bandwidth.

If you will recall Shannon-Hartley: C = B*log2(S/N)

you will see that information rate can be increased with either a linear increase in bandwidth *or* an exponential increase in signal power.

1024QAM at 25MSymPS has a bandwidth of 50MHz (unsurprisingly)

256QAM at 25MSymPS also has a bandwidth of 50MHz.

1024QAM encodes 10 bits with 32 times the required S/N of 2ASK. 256QAM encodes 8 bits with 16 times the required S/N of 2ASK.

So 1024QAM is 25% more spectrally efficient than 256QAM, at the expense of being half as S/N efficient as 256QAM. Since spectrum is a fixed quantity (without going into poorly propagating 10+GHz regiems), and huge progress is being made reducing noise by synthetic channel forming using MIMO, it makes sense to trade S/N efficiency for spectral efficiency. It wouldn't make sense if they were using a single antenna as continuing to double the power for smaller and smaller gains in spectral efficiency is madness, but they are making huge gains in receiver side noise rejection using MIMO and other rejection techniques (not everything turns out to be noise if you look hard enough at it).

One of the less often understood advantages of MIMO, is that you can identify other transmissions on the same frequency allocation, detect and regenerate the signal and null it. It's not simply a matter of everything that isn't my signal is noise when you have 2 (or more) ears. While you can naively just simulate a higher gain antenna in software, there are lots of tricks that perform much better than that.

Huawei is a Big NO in USA (1)

Greg666NYC (3665779) | about 4 months ago | (#47135957)

For now, this technology is out of reach for average American. Huawei refused to bribe D.C politicians. Until we see some money flowing, new cars on driveways in Virginia suburbs we can only dream of higher WLAN speeds.

Re:Huawei is a Big NO in USA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47136131)

There are plenty of concerns that Huawei lets their government (China) install backdoors inside equipment to snoop....yes, just like the NSA intercepting Cisco/etc gear.

I'm good with current speeds, thanks.

Re:Huawei is a Big NO in USA (1)

symbolset (646467) | about 4 months ago | (#47137089)

They can license the radio modulation technologies to others for implementation.

Re:Huawei is a Big NO in USA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47141059)

So Americans can screw over the Chinese like they did the Australians with the original wifi.

Huh? (1)

suso (153703) | about 4 months ago | (#47135989)

Maybe its still too early in the day and I should finish my coffee first before posting to Slashdot, but I'd be interested to know how a frequency of 5 billion per second could carry 10 billion bits of information per second. Hopefully someone could explain.

Re:Huh? (1)

djhack (515503) | about 4 months ago | (#47136019)

Probably using [UWB](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-wideband) and the full band between 3.1 and 10 ghz at very low power.

Re:Huh? (5, Informative)

amorsen (7485) | about 4 months ago | (#47136061)

Nothing limits you to one bit-per-second per baud. 9600 bps modems were, IIRC, 2400 baud with 4 bits per Hz. (Higher than that it got a bit shady because they started optimizing for being encoded in a digital phone line).

VDSL2 goes up to 32768-QAM, which is 15 bits per symbol. I do not know whether any actual phone lines exist with a sufficient signal-to-noise-ratio to make that coding useful.

Re:Huh? (1)

suso (153703) | about 4 months ago | (#47136117)

Thanks, looks like several Slashdotters will be learning something new today.

Re:Huh? (1)

TeknoHog (164938) | about 4 months ago | (#47140035)

I wonder how much marketing jargon has contributed to these misunderstandings. Using terms such as "bandwidth" and "broadband" when referring to data rate will not make information theory any easier.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47140689)

Not phone lines, but I know of plenty of cases where VDSL2 is used for "FTTH", where the fiber actually terminates in the building basement and the VDSL2 carries the "fiber" the last 30-50m through the building.

Often over Cat5e cable, so I can't for the life of me figure out why they don't just use GigE, but they use VDSL2, and I'm sure if Cat5e can carry flawless balanced analog audio over 50m and GigE over 100m at 250MHz (125Mbaud), that it can carry 32768-QAM.

I assume VDSL2 still uses DMT. The reality is most noise isn't, so if you have support for some very large constellation, you will usually find some sweetspots over the entire physical channel bandwidth that supports such a large constellation size. Since the purpose of DSL is to operate over random quality channels, it makes sense to support huge constellations, even if it is rare to find a channel that can make use of it. If you don't, then you're just throwing potential bits away.

Re:Huh? (1)

ledow (319597) | about 4 months ago | (#47137477)

You just make sure there's more than one bit of information per "cycle" in the signal.

That's achieved by various methods, many clever and mathematical, some as simple as changing the phase of the signal (imagine a perfect sine wave at 5Hz - now suddenly change it to a bit further through the wave, you get a spike, a tangent, a visible change, but you're still on 5Hz) - the same way you can have AM (amplitude modulation) on a certain frequency, and FM (frequency modulation) over the top of it, this is called PM (phase modulation). When you join all these techniques together, get into MIMO, add all sorts of clever coding theory, you can get as much as you like from the signal - the only limit is how accurate you are sending and receiving.

Modems used this. Your car stereo uses some of it. Your mobile phone uses it. And wireless access points basically would be awful without it (equivalent to "radio modems", which can be pretty atrocious in their speeds for consumer-level tech).

Re:Huh? (1)

petermgreen (876956) | about 4 months ago | (#47138321)

When you join all these techniques together, get into MIMO, add all sorts of clever coding theory, you can get as much as you like from the signal - the only limit is how accurate you are sending and receiving.

Noise and interference limit how many bits you can have per symbol on a channel and the lack of independence in the channels limits the gains from MIMO*. There are still gains to be had but you get into diminishing returns in terms of bandwidth delivered to a given location (bandwidth delivered to many different locations is another matter, there are major gains to be had from cross-cell mimo in cellular systems but also major implementation difficulties).

* MIMO relies on some clever maths to create inddependent channels out of non-independent channels but that math has the side affect of amplifying the noice.

Re:Huh? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47140125)

Channels in the 5Gz band are wider than a single frequency. So you can transmit on multiple frequencies in parallel within your band.

Even within a band you can encode bits at both the high and low points of the carrier wave, which gives you two bits per Hz. You could divide the wave up further to get even more.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47140133)

*Even within a single frequency

blah !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47135991)

what the big deal if the router to the ISP is a measly 1.5mbps or 10mbps ? like you can download faster than your ISP can provide
The bottle neck is the up and download link to your ISP. They need to solve that problem.

Perhaps the 802.xx working group should work with the ISP to find that solution first.

Re:blah !! (1)

bobstreo (1320787) | about 4 months ago | (#47136053)

what the big deal if the router to the ISP is a measly 1.5mbps or 10mbps ? like you can download faster than your ISP can provide
The bottle neck is the up and download link to your ISP. They need to solve that problem.

Perhaps the 802.xx working group should work with the ISP to find that solution first.

Perhaps to stream the 4k or higher videos from your storage to your display device.

Re:blah !! (1)

petermgreen (876956) | about 4 months ago | (#47138395)

what the big deal if the router to the ISP is a measly 1.5mbps or 10mbps ? like you can download faster than your ISP can provide

There is a world beyond your shitty little home or small buisness "broadband" connection.

While theoretical maximum speeds make good headlines the real purpose of advances in wireless communications is not so much supporting higher speeds to a single user as supporting more users of a given speed in a given area.

The bottle neck is the up and download link to your ISP. They need to solve that problem.

Other working groups in the IEEE and otherwise have been working on both getting more out of existing infrastructure and producing standards for new infrastructure.

Unfortunately slow home/small buisness broadband speeds are mostly an economic and/or regulatory problem. We have tapped out what conventional phone lines to the phone exchange can can deliver given their attenuation and noise/interference characteristics and while cable TV cables can carry much more data than phone lines they are fundamentally broadcast networks so available bandwidth per user is limited. To significantly improve from the current point in areas with conventional copper ADSL requires some or all of the infrastructure to be replaced with fiber.

New last mile infrastructure providers face large hurdles both economic and regulatory and existing monopoly/duopoly providers often see little gain in doing a large scale forklift upgrade of their infrastructure when only a minority will pay significantly more for the higher speeds and when the technology is still improving (so the more they delay the upgrade the better the system they will get in the end).

Don't get me wrong, I understand your frustration but it's not really something that the IEEE working groups can solve.

Re:blah !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47140137)

There is a world beyond your shitty little home or small buisness "broadband" connection.

Exactly. LANs could make very good use of this. I can also see it being the basis of other technologies - eg it'll be very good for streaming UHDTV signals in a mobile film studio (think sporting event coverage) without having to spend a long time laying wires and then be restricted to where they lie.

Not really interested in faster wifi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47136011)

to be honest 802.11G was plenty fast & N is overkill for my purposes.

What i want in a new 802.11xyz is the ability to play nice with the 2 dozen or so other wifi hotspots in my neighborhood. The channels are a crowded mess & somebody over there in that apartment building knocks me off every morning around 9 and then again at noon.

Re: Not really interested in faster wifi (1)

markus (2264) | about 4 months ago | (#47136297)

Sounds like interference from a microwave oven. You need to find the frequency that this microwave operates on, and you should then avoid that channel. The good news is that it is most likely one of your immediate neighbors. So, you could ask them to check on the label or in the manual for the microwave.

"Intelligence spectrum allocation"? Not for me! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47136073)

Very revealing lapsus. :)

mod Down (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47136105)

JOS i do, because

Shannon (2)

Erich (151) | about 4 months ago | (#47136151)

Information Capacity Frequency Bandwidth * log2(1+signal-to-noise ratio) "In the lab" typically means "BNC cables" which give you very high signal-to-noise ratios. And in MIMO you can potentially treat each pair of antennas a separate channel. You use fancy techniques to increase the SNR for each channel. The nice thing about the 5GHz spectrum is that the frequency band is pretty large up there, and not as much interference with other unlicensed things (phones, microwaves, other wireless communication users... though as it gets more popular that will change) as the lower bands. The not-so-nice thing about the higher frequencies is that they tend to attenuate rapidly when the signal is going through something thicker than air.

Re:Shannon (2)

Erich (151) | about 4 months ago | (#47136153)

Aw, crap. That should read: Information capacity < frequency bandwidth * log2(1+SNR)

Re:Shannon (1)

poptix (78287) | about 4 months ago | (#47136931)

The not-so-nice thing about the higher frequencies is that they tend to attenuate rapidly when the signal is going through something thicker than air.

Not necessarily a bad thing, since it means that you can have your strong local signals but don't pollute the spectrum in an entire neighborhood. We would have all been a lot better off if baby monitors, cordless phones, etc had all started in the mid GHz range.

Re:Shannon (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | about 4 months ago | (#47139071)

Having multiple connection points for things like MPTCP, to "complicate your traffic", is a good thing though.

Great. My WiFi will be much faster than my ISP. (1)

mmell (832646) | about 4 months ago | (#47136197)

Not that it isn't already - and not that it takes away one bit from the significance of this new technology - but I'd really love to see someone fix that "last mile" of my internet connection.

Hey, if this is really that fast - I wonder if it could make mesh networking a viable alternative to the current (centralized) form of internet access? After all, why should all of those OLPC recipients be the only beneficiaries of mesh network technology? It would be like TOR for internet access, making it a free, publicly available utility instead of a luxury (and for those who don't think internet access is a luxury, let's remember that there are a lot of us who lived and functioned quite well before the internet was invented).

Wardriving and free WiFi hotspots are only the first, feeble attempts to make the internet the free and open communications mechanism it needs to be, because despite my previous assertion that we did just fine before the internet it's nearly impossible to function nowadays without internet access. More and more entities require an email address, the way they used to require telephone or postal mail access.

Re:Great. My WiFi will be much faster than my ISP. (1)

Glasswire (302197) | about 4 months ago | (#47136349)

If you ever had a situation where your ISP connection was faster than local routing/networking gear, then you either have some kind of fantastic high bandwidth fiber ISP connection and you've cheaped-out on the quality of your infrastructure gear (very slow equipment) or you have a normal ISP connection and you got REALLY cheap about the quality of your infrastructure gear. (which is almost impossible unless you're using ~10MB stuff from the last century) You internal network wireless/wired should always be much faster than your ISP.

Re:Great. My WiFi will be much faster than my ISP. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47136929)

But I spent a lot of money on my token-net devices!!!

Re:Great. My WiFi will be much faster than my ISP. (2)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | about 4 months ago | (#47137203)

Hey, if this is really that fast - I wonder if it could make mesh networking a viable alternative to the current (centralized) form of internet access? After all, why should all of those OLPC recipients be the only beneficiaries of mesh network technology?

Yes. And no. At least, there's no technical reason why not. 5 GHz is attenuated by most residential structural materials by only 1 dB [ko4bb.com] more than 2.4 GHz and there are no microwave ovens and very few cordless phones to contend with in that spectrum. Range and throughput for non-line-of-sight is better than for 802.11a and 802.11b. People in fancy houses would probably want a roof-mounted antennae—red brick attenuates 5 GHz 10.1dB more than 2.4 GHz. Of course, if everybody had an antennae in their attic, everybody would benefit. And therein lies the rub.

The throughput is possible, the range is there, the compatibility with suburban realities is there, the mesh-compatible spanning tree algorithms are there, but the public will to buy a product that incorporates mesh networking is very nearly nonexistent. It spells doom for a product that depends on the network effect to have zero network effect.

The problem is connectivity to the rest of the internet.

Suppose we assume that a given neighborhood has nothing but ancient DSL1 available hardwired. Suppose we further assume that the majority of people in the neighborhood want something better. Suppose we get really generous and assume this device that enables mesh networking is affordable to a presumably somewhat lower income neighborhood (because the cable and phone companies only ignore low income neighborhoods). So all these neighbors buy the device and successfully cover the entire region. Congratulations, they can now talk... to each other.

Somebody, somewhere, has to connect their device to "the other networks," which we call the Internet, and it had better be a very high bandwidth connection because an entire neighborhood is going to funnel through it. 10 Gbit would be ideal. No individual can pay for that, so everybody in the neighborhood has to chip in every month and oh look, you just created an ISP. Or not, because nobody is going to actually take that last step to provide the required organization and get that connection established. Leastwise, not in most places.

Meanwhile the adjacent, probably more affluent neighborhood didn't even look up from their lattés—they already have acceptable hardwired connections and inaction is always easier than action and there's very little incentive for them to enable their own mesh. They already have tens of megabits and 10 gigabits shared out 100 ways is... what they already have, but they'd have to actually do something and once again inaction wins.

Device manufacturers have already followed this line of reasoning from beginning to end and won't even bother to take the first step of manufacturing and affordably pricing a device that can do off-the-shelf mesh networking.

This is why we can't have nice things.

Re:Great. My WiFi will be much faster than my ISP. (1)

mmell (832646) | about 4 months ago | (#47137263)

Got it. Thanks.

I guess this is the same kind of problem which prevents the "WiFi umbrella" concept from taking hold. If not the same, similar.

(Incidentally - really great explanation. Again, thanks.)

It that throuoghput in native mode... (1)

Glasswire (302197) | about 4 months ago | (#47136283)

...or monitored mode (where all traffic is spoofed to a Chinese gov't collection site)?
 

WiGig will be here faster (1)

isdnip (49656) | about 4 months ago | (#47136669)

Huawei is playing with the 5 GHz band which is becoming crowded, and whose availability has country-by-country exclusions. US rule were just liberalized a smidge but it still has exclusions for radar.

WIGig uses the 60 GHz band (57-64 GHz) which has a lot more space. It is not quite ready for the mass market, price-wise, but becoming possible in the $100 rage soon. It doesn't penetrate walls well but it's fine for cross-room very fast links.

Re:WiGig will be here faster (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 4 months ago | (#47141713)

That's great, except that most homes happen to have walls. It's like putting railroad tracks down to fix the problem of poor efficiency of rubber tired vehicles, only to find that the majority of cars don't have steel wheels, but rubber tires. But for those folks who have steel wheels, it's gonna be awesome!

Cloud computing makes more sense now (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47136843)

At first I thought that I had absolutely no use for this, because in my house Wifi is not the bottleneck. I have a file server to which I need fast access, and that's why it's on gig ethernet. Our laptops stream everything effortlessly on 802.11n bandwidth. None of this is a problem. So what good is faster wireless?

I think the answer is that it can bring us back to the age of dumb terminals, which is a good thing, because now the terminals will look like impossibly sleek tablets. They will have all the computing power of a 32 core server with Crossfire graphics that is whirring away in the basement, because that's the thing that will actually do the domestic processing. It will basically tell my dumb tablet screen how to update its pixels. The screen just needs to receive that data stream very fast and with low latency, and transmit my inputs to the server, and ... that's it. In 2018, factories in China will be able to make beautiful 17" 4Kp tablets for $100. They will be so cheap because they will have no guts at all, apart from fast wifi and a battery. And yet, they will be able to play Crysis 4 at 4K and 120Hz, because a proper computing appliance somewhere out of earshot will be doing all the crunching. And yeah, that sounds pretty good to me!

Re:Cloud computing makes more sense now (2)

ledow (319597) | about 4 months ago | (#47137025)

Doesn't matter how fast you do that, you won't sell it to gamers just through added latency, control (how the hell are you going to game via a tablet?) and screen-size. Plus who the hell wants to buy two home computers just so they can use one of them from a distance? Look at Steam Home Streaming if you want to do this - I assure you, it has a multitude of limitations even with beefy PC's at both ends.

The thin-client problem is one that solves only a handful of the problems people have with larger systems (not home installs) and has limitations that see everyone go through "thin-client / fat client / thin client" switches endlessly.

Fact is, if you have to have two machines to game on one, you're causing yourself problems.

As someone who's just ripped out a thin-client install in a school (where it was slow, un-updateable, had lots of limitations, etc. and where it's actually been cheaper all along just to put "real" machines into the rooms) I assure you that it's something we would all like the idea of until we tried to use it.

Not that I can't find a use case for faster Wifi. But, as you point out, 99% of people won't need it until it becomes almost obsolete.

Pimp My Router (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47138597)

Yo dawg, I just put a router in your router! Now you can surf the net super fast and make your friends jealous.

No QoS (1)

UberVegeta (3450067) | about 4 months ago | (#47140391)

TFA makes no mention of any kind of Quality of Service support. It's still 802.11, so I guess there wouldn't be (since it's not 802.11e). Given that the 802.11 MAC efficiency tops out at around PHY = 100 Mbps and doesn't really increase thereafter because of collisions (or overheads from preventing collisions), it's probably time we looked for MAC efficiency over PHY rates, as supported in 802.16. But hey, PHY rates let you put a BIGGER NUMBER on the box which means we can SELL FASTER INTERNETS.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>