Slashdot Log In
Possible Big Boost in WiFi Range
Posted by
Hemos
on Mon Nov 04, 2002 11:06 AM
from the much-bigger-range dept.
from the much-bigger-range dept.
goger writes "An article in the New York Times this morning (insert obligatory note about free registration here, and don't forget the yada's) talks about a startup company in CA that says it will announce WiFi antenna technology today that can give a 2000 ft. range indoors (and up to 4 mi. outdoors). This would be awesome if they really deliver, of course (and if it doesn't require me to set up something the size of a rooftop TV antenna next to my laptop in the coffee shop...)."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Lets see some real test data (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Lets see some real test data (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it's a great idea, but obviously there's quite a bit more complexity involved so the cost is sure to be much higher and might warrant comparisons between installing a single example of this new tech vs 10 of the older wi-fi base stations to get the same result.
Parent
Re:Lets see some real test data (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Lets see some real test data (Score:2)
Depends on your application, too. If you have places to put those 10 older wi-fi base stations, then your comparisons are warranted. But if you want to (or have to) broadcast for four miles from a single point, then any cost difference is pretty much marginalized.
Re:Lets see some real test data (Score:5, Informative)
However, this antena is not a passive antenna. It's a fully active antenna, specifically a phased array antenna. Because it's an active antenna, and it's probably got quite a few DSP's in it to sort out all the antenna signals, I'll bet this antenna is going to cost signifigantly more than a plain access point. I really do think that what they're claiming is possible. It's not like it boosts the S/N ratio in the passive antenna sense. It's able to tease out and build a better signal by watching a great many tiny antennas. It's an awful lot of DSP horsepower to get that done, though.
I'll venture it'll cost about $800, which includes an integral access point. And they'll say "to get the same coverage, you'd need 8 regular access points, or 8 * $200."
Parent
Re:Lets see some real test data (Score:2)
Re:Lets see some real test data (Score:2)
But given that most of these antennas are made for cheapness / compact size I have no doubt that more efficient ones are possible.
This changes everything. (Score:2)
Planet P Weblog [planetp.cc]
http://planetp.cc/ [planetp.cc]
and in other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Too slow (Score:3, Funny)
So What Does This Mean... (Score:3, Insightful)
For people sharing their connection in an area? I mean, I think it's a good thing, but with ISPs coming down on open access points, I can see them trying to limit the area in which your WiFi connection is broadcast. Are they able to do that? IANABroadcaster, but will this come under the same restrictions possibly as HAM operators or other radio broadcasters?
Same/similar article at Wired (Score:4, Informative)
How many concurrent users, total bandwidth ? (Score:2, Insightful)
for 100m circle and 2 mile circle, then I'd give
it a thumbs down.
If this is about sending a narrow RF beam to some
point 2 miles away, then that's point to point,
good stuff but no breaktbrough to get excited about !
Re:How many concurrent users, total bandwidth ? (Score:2, Funny)
Yes it is. You could point a 2.4GHz beam to a cup of coffee 2 miles away and have it ready by the time you get there.
Re:How many concurrent users, total bandwidth ? (Score:2)
Wired has a story on this, (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.wired.com/news/wireless/0,1382,56166
Phased Array Antenna (Score:5, Informative)
Consider it a sort of software antenna, you have a series of antenna that you can bias towards a particular direction. You then listen for incoming signals and use a processor to calculate environmental multipath (RF signals bouncing off buildings, etc.) and then fire off your signal so that the main signal and multipath reflections arrive at the reciever at the same time. Instant gain.
I'm skeptical on the reported max range but they should get a good amount. If you're sitting in the middle of a parabolic dish and so is your target, sure I expect that kind of increase in range, but in the real world...
I can see the future (Score:5, Funny)
Can you ping me now? Good.
B.
how about 9 miles - already done (Score:3, Interesting)
Saying that this is all nifty keen and something new is a bit of a fib, as I'm sure there's plenty of other providers doing this as well. Heck, even Robert X. Cringeley has some long link (or had one) through to someone elses house.
4 miles is hardly a huge jump, even legally done by FCC guidelines (thus the 'you can have more power on point to point links' rules of the FCC)
It's all in the antennae, that's right, but been there, done that.
Re:how about 9 miles - already done (Score:2)
remember, replying to your own posts is rude.
j
Re:how about 9 miles - already done (Score:4, Informative)
This is different though, this is more like a roaming point to point connection. It monitors all of the users within the area, then establishes and monitors multiple point to point connections using a phased array antennae.
Basically they get both an omnidirectional AND directional signal (not really, but that's the effect).
Parent
Re:how about 9 miles - already done (Score:2)
If you had a 10,000 square foot facility and could put several access points (let's say 3 to 6) in a single server room with one of these antennas, you'd save a small fortune over, say, 20 to 30 access points all distributed across the actual area.
We'll see how it pans out.
Re:how about 9 miles - already done (Score:2)
The Maine setup you linked to requires line of sight between the two points. The antenna arrays described in the article do not, or at least are able to counteract not having it to a significant extent.
Getting line of sight is a large barrier to using wifi to provide broadband service in cities, so yes this is a big deal.
No Registraion Link through Google (Score:2, Informative)
What about EMFs? (Score:2)
Seems like the real thing. (Score:4, Interesting)
Another thing ofcourse is the question as to whether the range on the antennas is programmable. It's quite natural for a business organization not to want someone a few blocks away to be able to take a crack at network security
Doubt (Score:4, Interesting)
I doubt this applies to a building filled with electric interference, like a telco switch centre
or a large server centre. When I was working for Nortel Networks, we had problems
using wireless scanners inside the labs. The only solution was to put up more antennas.
This will make Mesh a real threat to landline nets (Score:2, Informative)
Anyone know if this company is owned by Pringles? (Score:2)
ttyl
Farrell
phased array (Score:5, Informative)
Company Site (Score:2, Informative)
How many users are in 4 mile radius? (Score:2)
This could be great for college campuses, assuming the price is right.
What is the optimal size of a wireless cloud? (Score:4, Interesting)
Look what happened with Starbucks infringing on a WiFi co-op [geek.com] in Portland. Other companies that wan't to share their signal over a large building and don't particularly care about interfering with the signal outside of that building are sure to implement this technology.
The laws of Physics won't change (Score:3, Insightful)
"We will change the way people think about the physics of Wi-Fi,"
Is bull.
The laws of physics as it applies to RF will not change, nor will this new "magic" antenna change the way people think about the Physics of Wi-Fi.
This is a directional antenna, the meaning of that has been explained in detail in many comments above this. Also, in the 2Ghz frequency range you won't be punching through mountains and other obstacles (like building walls) any better with this antenna than with already available designs. In other words, you won't be punching through them at all.
This is pure marketting, there are plently of directional antennas available for the 2Ghz range. Those other antennas don't change the way people think and they don't change anything we already know about RF physics. This antenna won't either. Hats off to 'em for getting all the free publicity, but there is nothing here that isn't available already.
Re:The laws of Physics won't change (Score:2)
New toy to hack? (Score:3, Funny)
The key element is the antenna -- more specifically, an electronically steered, planar-phased array of hundreds of antennas connected to a high-speed processor running Linux.
Forget DOS attacks. Elite hackers will now microwave their enemies. All you need to do is sneak a wireless card into a pen or something and turn it on in 'very' promicious mode and poof.
Merry Christmas
SD
Oh, thought they were talking about someone else.. (Score:2)
Seeing the blurb about "wireless communications" and all the posts about being microwaved by antennae, I thought they were talking about "Gaiacomm" [gaiacomm.org].
Remember the recent "Saddam Hussein's Email" stories? Remember the "unnamed" company who allegedly had sent him email and claimed to have a 'weapon of mass destruction' based on wireless technology? Found 'em... [pressbox.co.uk]
Between the wild claims and the flash-based, content free splash page with what I assume are supposed to be whale noises, I'm pretty sure they're nuts .
The article, on the other hand, seems to be talking about a "real" company...how dull. :-)
Oh great! (Score:2)
Wardriving from the sofa (Score:2)
Let me guess...... (Score:2)
Futurama quote... (Score:3, Funny)
Fry: Ow, my sperm!
Bender: Wow, neat. Mind if I try that again? [he does so]
Fry: Huh! Didn't hurt that time.
Part 15 FCC Rules (Score:2, Informative)
The FCC limits not only power output, but also the gain of the antennas matched with the power output. (ERP) If you have a 1W transmitter and a 12dB antenna attatched to it, your effective radiated power would be 16W, which would not fly under part 15. (I believe the maximum ERP for a part 15 device is something like 1W, and the maximum power output at the device is 100mW) That's not saying a manufacturer couldn't make a superb antenna that was fixed to a tremendous coax run, so that the coax loss was recovered by the antenna.
Basically, the point is, Uncle Sam isn't going to let anything too amazing happen with the tech until he gets some auctioned spectrum money from us. The only thing we can do is work on better reception (pre-amps / low loss coax / DSP) methods, or get a license to operate under a different part.
Not WiFi but... (Score:2, Informative)
Keep this in mind: (Score:3, Interesting)
This Sounds Not Right (Score:3, Insightful)
802.11 AP and IBSS Broadcast transmissions need to be heared by everyone. Thus they can't be beam steered.
So you might be able to communicate via an AP from further away, but you'll never get past the beacon scanning, probe, probe response stuff to get authenticated and associated in the first place.
Re:This Sounds Not Right (Score:2)
I think you're exactly right. How does a user connect to the AP if the AP can't see the user until it points the antenna in the right direction?
How does the AP know that a client is about to send a packet so that it can point the antenna in the right direction to receive it? Clients can send packets at any time. How do you point the antenna in the right direction first?
What happens to the collision rate on the network? Normally the clients and the AP use RTS and CTS packets to reserve airtime for large packets. But unless every client receives the CTS packet, that algorithm doesn't work. The end result could be dramatic increases in the collision rate.
I think this would be great tech if you could put it in the client, so that as you wondered around the client would maintain a directional link back to the AP. That, I think, could work quite well. Clients only talk to a single access point at a time, after all. But I don't think it's realistic to expect this to work worth a damn on the AP side. An access point really does need to be able to send packets to all clients at once. And it really does need to be able to receive from all clients at once. Unfortunatly, laptop makers might balk at the eight square feet required by the current design.
Re:Sign me up (Score:5, Insightful)
This could be a bad thing. If all the people in the suburbs drop their ISP's and leach on the fewer open ports they can now reach, the owners may clamp down on free access to get their bandwidth back. When it was short range, there were more points as more people would pay for bandwidth and would share with the few that could reach them. Now many users will consider dropping paid access and leaching the open ports. This may kill them just as it killed free dial-up ISP's. Sharing works only if enough users provide bandwidth to the system to prevent overloading access points. It does not work if most users drop their current ISP to leech off the generous few. The generous few will be hit with excess bandwidth demands and will have to re-think their generosity. Most ISP's already prohibit sharing the bandwidth. High usage may entice cable companies and DSL providers to start wardriving and shutting of offenders sharing bandwidth via wireless.
Parent
Re:Sign me up (Score:2)
There are plenty of ISPs offering to resell 100meg and 1GbE ethernet to smaller ISPs for extremely resasonable costs. (less than a thousand a month) The problem is still last mile distribution and this kind of tech could be useful in conjunction with mesh networks rather than having to be seen as a competing alternative as was suggested in the article. Freenets are cool, but they're hardly the beginning and end of wireless. Something like a co-op where users themselves provided the bulk of the network infrastructure and split the cost of wholesale ethernet bandwidth seems like an inevitable long-term outcome. It would seem to satisfy everyone except the telcos and cable companies. Screw them. They don't own the net and kissing their asses like they do only makes them more confident.
Re:The Obvious way (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:improved power = more radiation? (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm sure that there's a problem if you pump in enough energy to heat tissue, but short of that, is there any evidence at all that electromagnetic fields impact health? Or is this an unproven or disproven hypothesis?