DARPA Begins Work On 100Gbps Wireless Tech With 120-mile Range 83
MrSeb writes "DARPA has begun development of a wireless communications link that is capable of 100 gigabits per second over a range of 200 kilometers (124mi). Officially dubbed '100 Gb/s RF Backbone' (or 100G for short), the program will provide the U.S. military with networks that are around 50 times faster than its current wireless links. In essence, DARPA wants to give deployed soldiers the same kind of connectivity as a high-bandwidth, low-latency fiber-optic network. In the case of Afghanistan, for example, the U.S. might have a high-speed fiber link to Turkey — but the remaining 1,000 miles to Afghanistan most likely consists of low-bandwidth, high-latency links. It's difficult (and potentially insecure) to control UAVs or send/receive intelligence over these networks, and so the U.S. military instead builds its own wireless network using Common Data Link. CDL maxes out at around 250Mbps, so 100Gbps would be quite a speed boost. DARPA clearly states that the 100G program is for US military use — but it's hard to ignore the repercussions it might have on commercial networks, too. 100Gbps wireless backhaul links between cell towers, rather than costly and cumbersome fiber links, would make it much easier and cheaper to roll out additional mobile coverage. Likewise, 100Gbps wireless links might be the ideal way to provide backhaul links to rural communities that are still stuck with dial-up internet access. Who knows, we might even one day have 100Gbps wireless links to our ISP."
Re:Never going to happen. (Score:5, Insightful)
It should be doable, providing two conditions are allowed:
1. The equipment may be ridiculously expensive (No problem: Around half the US government's budget goes to defence).
2. It'll need to be such high (analog) bandwidth, it'll not comply with any spectrum or power regulations, anywhere (No problem: If you're invading a country, you don't need to be overly concerned with obeying local laws, and even occupiers get some leeway).
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
One half, one third... either way, that's a really big pile of money.
Re: (Score:1)
Looks like someone needs to educate this dumbshit about the difference between discretionary spending (of which defense definitely IS) and non-discretionary (as in you will break a law if you don't make that payment).
And you will forgive a foreigner for not fully understanding the intricacies at which the US government spends/wastes money. We do it better than anyone else in the world, naturally. Those socialist europeans don't waste money nearly as well as we do, and they are a bunch of socialists for go
Re:Never going to happen. (Score:5, Insightful)
1. The equipment may be ridiculously expensive (No problem: Around half the US government's budget goes to defence).
Dude, 30 years ago the idea of a hard drive with a "gigabyte" of capacity was something ridiculously expensive, taking up football-field sized buildings, and everyone thought it'd be a really dumb idea anyway; Tape would be better for storage. Now I can get 64GB of storage to fit on my index finger and it's only a fingernail's thickness. The argument of "it'll be ridiculously expensive" dies over a long enough time span.
It'll need to be such high (analog) bandwidth, it'll not comply with any spectrum or power regulations, anywhere.
Ding! We have a winner. Though, not for the exact reason you're thinking. It could in fact work, and even within certain power requirements. But it'll never get regulatory approval, and it has nothing to do with technical requirements, but the fact that (at least if we're talking about the United States) the people in charge are paid large amounts of money to maintain the status quo. Remember that price fixing scandal for digital TV when the FCC fucked up the transition so badly Congress had to intercede... three times? Yeah... what ever happened to them? Oh right... the FCC made billions, the corporations made billions... the taxpayers lost many billions, and... oh right: They were fined, uhh.. less than a penny on the dollar against their profits.
Every attempt to give the general public access to high speed digital communications for cheap has been blown out of the water faster than you can say "Republican in a bathroom stall at an airport."
Re: (Score:1)
"30 years ago the idea of a hard drive with a "gigabyte" of capacity was something ridiculously expensive, ...Now I can get 64GB of storage to fit on my index finger and it's only a fingernail's thickness. The argument of "it'll be ridiculously expensive" dies over a long enough time span."
Radio technology is not much older and much more developed than hard drive technology. There is no indication whatsoever that some near future technological advancement will make high power, high frequency technology an o
Re: (Score:3)
2. It'll need to be such high (analog) bandwidth, it'll not comply with any spectrum or power regulations, anywhere
There may be a twisted solution [physicsworld.com] to the spectrum problem, at least.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Never going to happen. (Score:5, Informative)
This is so much pie-in-the-sky bullshit I can't even believe it. I hear about this kind of thing year after year, and it never happens.
This is DARPA, a company for whom "aim at the sky" is more of a directive rather than a metaphor. Some of there other work includes flying tanks, passive radar systems, stealth ships, onion routing, and wide area interconnected computer networks. Most of it doesn't work, of course... but when it does, we get something no one else would have bothered developing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I was wondering that myself, so I googled darpa flying tank. This is what I found. [wired.com]
I think these guys are taking Avatar way too seriously.
Re: (Score:1)
As someone who is currently working on a DARPA program (and having worked on another one in the past), there is a term that is commonly bandied around in academic circles... "DARPA hard". DARPA does not fund incremental research that improves something by 2X. They are always on the lookout for funding truly groundbreaking and innovative concepts and their call for proposals always have ridiculous aims. It isn't very often that a team is able to satisfy all the deliverables for a DARPA program, but even in t
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously.
Mod up.
Re: (Score:2)
This technology brought to you by DARPA.
The people who scoff at the word impossible.
Enahncing your world one crazy impossible bullshit idea at a time.
Re:can i charge you for my airspace use? (Score:4, Informative)
I don't know why I'm responding since you're AC and won't see it, but if someone else is wondering the same thing, you can hear an FM radio broadcast for a couple hundred miles in some conditions. That radio station has a 50,000 watt transmitter, but the power drops off inversely. By the time it reaches your property it's only milliwatts.
Re: (Score:3)
Since you'll be checking back ;)
An FM broadcast antenna is indeed directional, in the vertical plane. It flattens out the signal from a sphere so that most of the power is on a level plane. That's how an antenna creates gain. On the other axis it is most often omnidirectional. That 50KW is ERP (Effective Radiated Power), the transmitter is likely only putting out about 10KW.
Re:can i charge you for my airspace use? (Score:4)
An FM broadcast antenna is indeed directional, in the vertical plane. It flattens out the signal from a sphere so that most of the power is on a level plane. That's how an antenna creates gain. On the other axis it is most often omnidirectional. That 50KW is ERP (Effective Radiated Power), the transmitter is likely only putting out about 10KW.
Close but not quite. EIRP is where you start; with an idealized transmitter that radiates power equally in every direction. ERP is calculated based on the energy of the antenna's main lobe, which for an FM transmitter typically looks like a small circle and a long oval connected at the antenna. The difference in power between the EIRP model and signal strength in the main lobe of the antenna is the antenna's gain, which is where your ERP calculation comes from. A transmitter with an antenna having 6dB of gain means it can transmit at 10KW and have an equivalent signal strength (in the main lobe) to an ideal antenna radiating in all directions at 40KW.
Re: (Score:2)
GIT:
I was trying to keep it simple. It's also been a few decades since I've exercised the rights and responsibilities of my old first class ticket.
Re: (Score:2)
Only in theory :)
About as close as you'll get is a dipole [wikimedia.org] but then you still end up with more of a doughnut. [wikimedia.org]
Just about any antenna can be modeled as a dipole. For example, an AM broadcast antenna (AKA a vertical) is just a dipole where the tower is one side and the earth is the other. Actually on an AM tower there is a lot of copper strap laid out radially underground from the base of the tower and the whole tower is electrically insulated from the ground. Same thing with a mobile antenna on a car, the s
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, that first link should have been: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole_antenna [wikipedia.org] but you knew that.
Enables fleets of tele-op ground vehicles (Score:1)
With this kind of bandwidth, fleets of tele-operated ground vehicles will become reality. Today there isn't enough bandwidth today to send back video, location, and other sensor info to intelligently navigate more than a vehicle or two. This will save many lives. Bravo DARPA!
Re: (Score:2)
Today there isn't enough bandwidth today to send back video, location, and other sensor info to intelligently navigate more than a vehicle or two.
Really? You mean, nodes can't act as repeaters for one another?
What a silly notion.
Re: (Score:1)
Anyway, does anyone have any idea on what kind of tech they are planning to use?
Couple of Linksys routers with some sooper special version of dd-wrt.
the largest cantanta you have ever seen (Score:2)
they plan on buying lots and lots of pringles cans.
Re: (Score:2)
You can buy 60GHz units that are from the 1Gbps to 2Gbps transfer rates, depending on lots of different factors. There may be faster licensed units then that, but I'm guessing the price would be insane. A 100x increase in bandwidth doesn't sound impossible if you have the free air space and are willing to spend the power.
And 100Gbps is 1000 times more then 100Mbps
100M x 10 = 1G x 100.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a problem with 60GHz though - range. It's the O2 absorption frequency, so max is 1-2Km...
However there are other frequencies in that area of the spectrum which I know are being investigated/used...
Spectrum bandwidth issue? (Score:2)
I am guessing that this only works because a huge amount of radio spectrum bandwidth is allocated per user. There probably is no actual method of scaling this up for general-purpose usage. The last line of the OP seems beyond speculative.
Re: (Score:2)
To achieve that kind of bandwidth the signal is probably going to have to be very narrow and so you can achieve greater throughput using spacial distribution as well and channel distribution. Some of the higher end WiFi systems already do this kind of bandwidth improvement by using beam steering technology to logically switch between multiple clients, the same kind of technology is also used in satellite systems where the same frequencies are reused many times between the ground and transponder.
Re: (Score:2)
Spacial distribution, like "channel hopping" to avoid interference? That helps with moving transmitters/receivers, but not within a static local area. In the end, for any given area covered by a transmitter, the frequency availability will be the hard cap on the shared bandwidth for that area. If 10k people in a given coverage area all want to download large files at 100 Gbps, all the trickery in the world won't increase that cap.
Somewhere, someone must have a simple rule-of-thumb for this sucker, like how
Re: (Score:2)
No spacial distribution like using beams 1 degree wide to turn a 100Gbps per 40MHz technology into a 36,000Gbps per 40MHz technology over the area covered by a synthetic array. Of course it doesn't quite scale like that because you have to spread out what part of the 40MHz your clients use so that clients in close proximity aren't using the same frequencies at the same time, but it's fairly amazing just how much bandwidth you can fit into an area using beam steering versus using a simple monopole. Currently
Re: (Score:1)
120 mile range? (Score:4, Insightful)
How? Is it airborne or something? You are not going to get any straight line reception at that range due to curvature of the earth, even in the plains.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why, they dont need to have straight line of sight from any single drone because they plan to blot the sky out with drones so they have floating network of wireless ad-hoc access points!
Re: (Score:2)
How? Is it airborne or something? You are not going to get any straight line reception at that range due to curvature of the earth, even in the plains.
It's assumed that the antenna would be mounted on something like, I don't know, say a tower, or building...
height = more problems (Score:5, Informative)
The problem that was already addressed is the curving of earth, because it can be overcome with height. Let's sustain that increasing the altitude of your dishes will allow greater distance without the sphere's shape interfering, you still have all of the factors associated with those heights: weather, cost of getting there, service, general maintenance.
Maintenance: How easy is it to remove ice? Snow? What about the cost of maintaining the tower?
Service: What do you do when you can't communicate with the unit, and you've ruled out everything except the cable between the unit and it's nearest point of contact?
Cost: This is a broader issue than maintenance, because it allows for not owning the tower/building. Tower space is premium, building roof-tops are premium, labor to install, service, or repair is EXTRA premium. Not only do you need guys willing to climb 200+ feet, but they need to be technically capable. http://www.midweststeeplejacks.com/ [midweststeeplejacks.com] charges no less than $250/hr.
Weather: Why don't you see point-to-point connections on towers that are 200ft up on towers? Because the bandwidth requires very high frequencies, and those frequencies are very susceptible to any movement caused by wind. I've seen a gentle breeze (on the ground) turn a wireless link from -45 dbi to -60. Let's not forget rain and snow.
The only good ways to mount an antenna or dish at a height, and ensure reliability, are with a very large antenna (think something with 3 or 4 legs and covering at least 400 feet^2), or a building.
Re: (Score:1)
The problem that was already addressed is the curving of earth, because it can be overcome with height. Let's sustain that increasing the altitude of your dishes will allow greater distance without the sphere's shape interfering, you still have all of the factors associated with those heights: weather, cost of getting there, service, general maintenance.
Maintenance: How easy is it to remove ice? Snow? What about the cost of maintaining the tower?
Service: What do you do when you can't communicate with the unit, and you've ruled out everything except the cable between the unit and it's nearest point of contact?
Cost: This is a broader issue than maintenance, because it allows for not owning the tower/building. Tower space is premium, building roof-tops are premium, labor to install, service, or repair is EXTRA premium. Not only do you need guys willing to climb 200+ feet, but they need to be technically capable. http://www.midweststeeplejacks.com/ [midweststeeplejacks.com] charges no less than $250/hr.
Weather: Why don't you see point-to-point connections on towers that are 200ft up on towers? Because the bandwidth requires very high frequencies, and those frequencies are very susceptible to any movement caused by wind. I've seen a gentle breeze (on the ground) turn a wireless link from -45 dbi to -60. Let's not forget rain and snow.
The only good ways to mount an antenna or dish at a height, and ensure reliability, are with a very large antenna (think something with 3 or 4 legs and covering at least 400 feet^2), or a building.
You sound like someone who has never looked at a communication tower, much less installed and used equipment on one.
I run a WISP and have equipment dangling hundreds of feet in the air. With proper planning, amazing results can be achieved. Weather is a factor over 6Ghz but, once again, this is not a problem with proper planning.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I work for a WISP. I've done my share of climbing 60-100ft antennae to install or repair the equipment we've got up there, and I've experienced the tower sway at that low height. There are a few other locations where there are things mounted around 250 or so, but I haven't tended anything that high up on a flimsy structure. Lots of things are hanging out on top of buildings that are 120-300ft, but most of those installations have enough structure to remain pretty rigid.
I agree that proper plann
Re: (Score:1)
However, I suspect the "120 mile" figure is probably what they figure the equipment would support GIVEN line of sight as a base assumption. In practice, dealing with topography and whatnot, you're prob
Re: (Score:2)
I had already heard of airborne wireless base stations being deployed for the U.S. military (possibly reported here a few years back?), so this actually doesn't sound as crazy as you think. As I recall, they have some blimps or zeppelins geared up to do this sort of thing. If not, however, who says you need line of sight? I mostly stick to software, so I'm about as far from an expert as you can get when it comes to radios, but even I know that AM radios can be picked up at these distances, particularly at n
Re: (Score:2)
I mostly stick to software, so I'm about as far from an expert as you can get when it comes to radios, but even I know that AM radios can be picked up at these distances
It depends on the frequencies. Short wave and AM radio can be heard around the world because the waves bounce off the stratosphere. The term for this is ":atmospheric skip". Other frequencies, such as TV and FM radio, are limited to line of sight, with the earth's curvature being the limiting factor -- the waves don't skip, they keep going i
Re:120 mile range? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That says something far more interesting than any of the rest.
If this idea actually works on a drone, that means it's both lower power and physically compact. No giant dishes, no enormous power budgets. That makes it far more likely that it would be useful in a consumer context.
Something tower-based with typical military power requirements wouldn't nearly as interesting. Sure, it could work, but...
"What was that sizzling sound?"
"Line noise."
"Why is there a dead bird lying on the ground outside?"
"Like I s
Re: (Score:2)
Um...you dont need Line of Sight. It helps, but its not required.
HAM operators have been talking around the globe for years.
I pick up radio stations (AM and FM) from Atlanta in Macon, and from Tulsa in OKC regularly, and I'm definitely over the horizon in both cases, no matter how tall those broadcast antenna are.
The key part of the transmitter is power, and it's the easiest way to extend the range.
But the reciever matters too: the key step in a radio is the quality and design of the circuitry. My KIA car r
And the next step is obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
And if you manage high-bandwidth 125-mi range, the next step is obvious - a constellation of LEO (200-500mi altitude) satellites serving as a nearly-untouchable* backbone for the theater-WAN.
*ok not for peer-level opponents, but I'm pretty certain that a peer-level conflict
a) will not be based on UAVs for long (my biggest concern about UAV-dependence of our forces), and
b) will be over one way or another pretty fast if it's not going to turn SO nasty that any conventional force tech will be nearly irrelevant anyway (the not-so-comforting corollary that would invalidate my concerns above)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, the next step is for the FCC to ban it under some vague and previously unknown test protocol as causing inteference to devices receiving the signal at -108dB. See also: Every attempt made to bring faster wifi to the masses so far.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're talking about the Clearwire 2.4GHz trial, that was correctly halted when it was proven that 80+% of the commercial GPS receivers in the test area were effectively jammed. It shouldn't necessarily be the case that licensed users are responsible for negligible interference on adjacent bands, but the Clearwire trial was provisional on them being able to show that they could leverage those bands without affecting critical national infrastructure and they failed. That the failure was due to the failing
Jamming? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, yes, and yes.
One possible solution would be using a directional antenna. A tight beam to the "WAP". Also Jammers have a short life time. Jammers tend to put out a lot of RF. Even missiles like the AIM-120 have a home on jammer mode. If this seems like an issue then the HARM AGM-88 will be updated to home on those jammers. The US also now has a lot of old AIM-7 SARA missiles that could also be updated to be an anti jammer missile. What it comes down to is do you want a fast network that may more may no
ISPs (Score:2)
There, fixed that for ya.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have the right ISP and are willing to pay the money, you could have 4x that today.
http://www.ubnt.com/airfiber [ubnt.com]
Re: (Score:1)
It's difficult (and potentially insecure) to control UAVs or send/receive intelligence over these networks,
With this new development I'm sure terrorists with $100 worth of radioshack gear will love taking control of our drones at ludicrous speeds. Since the US are too fucking dumb to turn on authentication on their drone links
it's not the authentication that's the problem ... it's that they're choosing to use telnet and/or the r-tools for it.
I think that this is a good idea, BUT.... (Score:2)
PROPOSERS’ DAY CONFERENCE FOR 100 Gb/s RF BA (Score:4, Insightful)
This is actually a DARPA help wanted ad. And from description of the project sounds like a good job opportunity for some slashdoters.
here is the ad:
http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Releases/2012/12/14.aspx [darpa.mil]
and here is the proposers' day conference:
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=e21984e31d49c3780966a53983daa4f6&tab=core&tabmode=list&= [fbo.gov]
uh huh (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Future Cities and Aerial Connectivity (Score:1)
https://gautiertalksideas.wordpress.com/2012/09/23/economic-revitalization-of-an-advanced-civilization [wordpress.com]