Possible Big Boost in WiFi Range 156
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...)."
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.
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."
Re:Lets see some real test data (Score:2)
1. "phased array antenna" DOES NOT EQUAL "active antenna". A phased array can receive benefits from active circuitry just the same way a simple single vertically polarized "whip" can.
2. "Your statements are true for a passive antenna design." This statement... "You can get more distance in exchange for not getting uniform coverage." is true for any particular moment in time, for EVERY antenna design, bar none. And the whole paragraph of draziw's post stands out glaringly to me, that he knows antenna design practicalities.
Antenna gain depends completely on how well the antenna is tuned for the intended frequency and the radiation/sensitivity pattern it creates.
If you want signals to travel VERY far for example, you could design an antenna that (in laymens terms) compresses it's transmitted power (as in Effective Radiated Power) to a beam, or from a receiver point of view focuses in one particular direction. What this also does, is effectively quieten/deafen the antenna to areas other than that direction intended to communicate with. Thus, his comment about loss of uniform coverage.
Now before anyone argues the virtues of active designs, they MUST consider that the circuitry added to "active antennas" (usually wide-band receiver amplification) does NOT constitute and nor should it, an antenna at all! This is merely a traditional antenna, with active radio amplification which serves to feed ANOTHER radio and APPEARS to be a very effective antenna.
In short, technically, there is no such thing as an "active antenna".
I've been designing my own WiFi massive phased array, a-la flat jet fighter RADAR arrays. I'm currently trying to figure out whether just building a good parabolic design would be easier as the many highly tuned and quite small dipoles would be hard to tune and assemble in phase well enough.
I'll venture it'll cost about $800
I'll venture you don't fully know, that which you speak. I am really starting to hate
Re:Lets see some real test data (Score:2)
I imagine this is a feeling most others share, which leads me to the logical and very sad conclusion, moderators are usually ignorant about what they moderate, plain and simple.
Which is why complete crap often gets moderated up and PhD's often get moderated down.
Re:Lets see some real test data (Score:2)
Don't worry, I won't yell and I won't say you are wrong either. Because what different people consider `active' can be very different things.
I have a chuckle when I hear people in the mountain bike world call their rear suspension systems `active'. I can't help but to think that something that is active, is something that provides certain gains that are "paid for" through external power, whereas a passive device is merely something that passes gains on through efficient designs that merely convert or transfer the power that they receive.
It's a grey area, but as far as I am concerned, a passive antenna includes no powered circuitry to enhance it's performance.
As far as I am concerned, as a purist, an antenna that includes a low noise amp, is a passive antenna with an active assistance device bolted on.
People choose to refer to these as "active antennas" to make them easier to describe, so I can't complain too much about that. As long as I know. : )
Re:Lets see some real test data (Score:1)
While the implementation of fixed beam patterns does not require DSPs to generate the phase delays required, anything that has to adapt to new environments would generally require some processing on the receiver elements. The article does not say whether or how often the antenna is configured by either a connected computer or DSP, or whether it reconfigures itself every time a new connection is made. It really is reasonable to suspect that a DSP (perhaps a Texas Instruments C54-based fixed point type) would be used to adapt the beam pattern. I'm not sure how much the price would be affected, though, considering how cheap and small some of the fixed-point DSPs are these days.
Re:Lets see some real test data (Score:2)
Re:Lets see some real test data (Score:1, Interesting)
By creative use of phasing and stacking of elements you can achieve almost any pattern you desire.
Re:Lets see some real test data (Score:2)
This is absolutely correct, but does not argue in any way the comment that this reduces the uniform coverage.
You can bias towards distance and not narrow the beam width.
If you compare the two designs you are referring to, but only look at vertical pattern at any one particular horizontal angle, you will actually find, that the virtual "beam" IS in fact narrowed vertically and thus the gain is made possible. Just because it is narrowed toward human population does not make his comments about loss of uniform coverage less true.
We should not delve too far into practicalities and at the same time move away from the technicalities, because we gain the practicalities from the technicalities.
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]
Tragedy of the commons (Score:2)
If there is an easy and cheap way to boost the range by that magnitude, this will only speed up the process, since everyone will now not only pollute the airspace of their direct neighbors but also 5 blocks away (their target are business customers offices).
It will be completely disruptive indeed, but of WiFi communications. Imagine 50+ hosts on a single coax ethernet cable trying to get medium access with CSMA/CD. It just won't work anymore.
Out on the countryside it's another issue and I agree with you that in some cases this hopefully will help break up telecomm monopolies.
But I fear the first effects we'll see is Starbucks and McDo fight for the airspace on the neighboring parking lot/plaza.
and in other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:and in other news... (Score:1)
Although it worked well, the Pringles can wasn't the winning design.
Just think... (Score:1)
Is it just me, or is
Too slow (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Too slow (Score:1)
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)
The Obvious way (Score:1, Interesting)
No I didn't read the article. There is no way I'm going to register.
Re:The Obvious way (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The Obvious way (Score:1)
While that will get you more range, I believe in this case it's better to stay with the lower output. Higher power transmitters will just cause more inteference to everyone.
At 30mw, you can get good coverage of a small office or home. And if you need more range, that same 30mw can get you a few miles with the proper antennas.
I have a 100mw Linksys AP, and a 30mw Orinoco card in the laptop - I can get a signal 5 houses away. Normal users don't even need that range!
FCC (Score:1, Interesting)
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
Re:Wired has a story on this, (Score:1)
Have no fear, my lad (Score:1)
Rest assured ti won't be the case. They're working with the company who recently made the "handshaking as a Palm communication device" and will use your whole body as an antenna. ... err .. in your body, that is. Ahem.
The only little remaining problem is that you still have to plug the cord from the pcmcia card right into your
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...
Re:Phased Array Antenna (Score:2)
This is not a description of a "phased array" antenna design, this is a description of an application of a particular phased array design.
Not all phased array designs allow simple pattern changes based on phase manipulation.
Some can have none, requiring physical antenna pointing, some have simple switched 90 degree changes (forward+back/left+right vertical designs) and then others can be super advanced and highly variable of the likes of military designs with all sorts in between.
PowerBooks (Score:1)
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).
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.
Apostrophe's (Score:1, Offtopic)
Please see Bob's Guide to the Apostrophe [angryflower.com].
Size does matter. (Score:1)
I don't think most of us will be mounting a solid metal plate to our walls. Of course there is always a few extreemists. And if the price is low it may decrease the cost to enter the market as an internet provider. If that is true then I would love to see the increse in competition. If you listen carefully when it is released you just might hear your monthly internet price drop.
No Registraion Link through Google (Score:2, Informative)
What about EMFs? (Score:2)
Re:What about EMFs? (Score:1)
HTH
j
(and yeah, slashdot is wicked slow today)
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
Re:Seems like the real thing. (Score:2)
Phased array antenna's don't require any processing at all.
The application of automatic manipulation of the individual phases (in particular designs that allow it), to give dynamic patterns that change with detected requirements, is something that requires considerable processing power.
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.
Re:Doubt (Score:2)
That's OK Kelerain, I'm late on this one too.
But never fear, you have a life and a place in the World right?
People here who usually get in quick often tend to have little valuable to say, since they spend their lives refreshing
www.fractenna.com (Score:1)
Has anyone tested these yet? Lets see some numbers.
A boon for wardrivers? (Score:1)
What about something better than WEP for encryption? Hmm?
Re:A boon for wardrivers? (Score:2)
Hackers have been hacking from streets away long before this came out. Good old high gain antenna designs would allow this with searching done with antenna direction changes as opposed to antenna location changes that driving around facilitates. This new product might just make it quicker and easier to find victim networks.
Security (Score:1)
And not just give him/her the illusion that they are wireless,"free". The true freedom is given to the hackers/crackers to access their data.
Re:Security (Score:2)
If you need your wireless network security to be provided by the antenna, you have very serious security problems.
Re:Security (Score:2)
I would like to think that security considerations in antenna design should be absolutely minimal. To the point where the only consideration might be for a design on both ends that allows very high rejection of signals that don't come from the intended direction. To avoid any low tech denial of service attacks. Of course, this can be achieved with moderate effort placing transmitters within the line of sight to disrupt the link with an appropriately chosen modulation method perhaps injecting noise, at a power greater than the victim radio links. I say "moderate effort" because this is childs play compared to defeating high strength encryption and authentication methods. Hell, you could even just disrupt the link with some metallic obstacle.
A place I worked at had irregular drop-outs on the inter office microwave which was puzzling. The techs got up onto the roof and saw off in the distance some construction work being done with a crane which was occasionally blocking the line of sight as it moved about. : )
Any radio link should be considered insecure as far as eavesdropping and interception goes, if it does not employ encryption and authentication. But this has nothing to do with antenna design.
An antenna "system" that dynamically configures itself for multiple beams could maybe be coaxed into using up all it's beams into one area, as a denial of service attack. But I think guarding against such a thing could be trivial. All that would be needed is some consistency checking that assures that no channels of the same frequency overlap in the radiation pattern, which could effectively limit a DoS.
Re:Security (Score:2)
You actually prompted me to think of antenna design from a DoS point of view.
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)
Re:phased array (Score:1)
Re:phased array (Score:2)
I have an old FORTRAN text book that has a programming case study about FORTRAN code running on old VAXen being used in RADAR and communications surveillance for the USAF.
The picture in the case study depicts (what is obvious to me as an ex RADAR tech), a few groups of typical RADAR frequency phased arrays.
Back then (late 80's) the technologies I witnessed were amazing, and I have a little chuckle when I see whittled down versions of these various technologies in domestic equipment 20 years later. ; )
Company Site (Score:2, Informative)
improved power = more radiation? (Score:1)
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?
Re:improved power = more radiation? (Score:2)
Agreed wholeheartedly occamboy. There have been absolutely tons of studies showing overwhelming evidence that ionizing radiation causes cancers and yet tons of studies that failed to show any evidence that non-ionizing radiation (microwaves, mobile phones, WiFi, etc) even slightly highten cancer incidents.
I take that as pretty overwhelming evidence that there is little to no risk with these devices.
Besides that, more effective use of effective radiated power can only serve to reduce overall radiated power.
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.
4 miles isn't very remarkable (Score:1)
I'm posting this on a 30+ mile wireless link. 802.11 has more range than many people think, given line of sight and good antennas.
Re:4 miles isn't very remarkable (Score:2)
Are your techs routing your PABX lines through it also? You can get about 18 (uncompressed) 64k voice lines across that.
The PABX could most likely be set up to first try to route internal calls (and maybe least cost routed external calls) through that link with telco lines as the fail-over to save some money.
Compress those voice channels and get much more.
I worked for a place that had a set up like this at a backup site that housed system developers and entire backup production systems. Pick up a phone and call an extension at the remote site and the call would go through the microwave without the user ever knowing the difference. If the microwave was saturated including the reserved bandwidth for the PABX, then telco lines would be used (a rarity), also without the phone user ever noticing a thing.
I know of an airline company in Sydney that installed a microwave link between the city office and Sydney airport. They routed their internal inter-office calls through it and in the first year, the money they saved from reduced telco bills actually payed for the system and then some.
Mention it to your boss if it isn't being done, its a very worthwhile exercise.
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
Nothing new (Score:1, Informative)
Also there is a lot of omnidirectional antennas avalaible. But as always:
a) longer range is alwyas at the expense of angular
coverage (unless there is an amplifier) - it is
a law of physics - conservation of energy
b) stronger antennas may violate FCC regulations
Kubus
Re:Nothing new (Score:2)
No, this is not new, it's old by military standards, but pretty nifty to see on the domestic market and a really neat application of technology.
Better link (Score:1)
Wow (Score:1)
Announcing the announcment! It's gotta be impressive!
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)
Re:Let me guess...... (Score:2)
This is not some silly snake-oil sticker. This is the commercial application of an old technology that has been waiting for one side of it's technology to catch up (although military, etc have used it for many years).
Computing power meets manipulated phased arrays!
PS, they do work, extremely well. So well in fact, that some people will see their claims as snake-oil!
Look into the REAL technology before passing it by.
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:This Sounds Not Right (Score:2)
The best thing I can come up with is that the client has to be very close when first authenticating, and as you move futher away the directional antenneas 'follow' you up to 4 miles.
Of course, this doesn't really make for a good solution. Is everyone going to have to walk into the server room with the antennea every morning to authenticate and make sure the laptop stays on all day (oh, you rebooted. You better drive back to the central antenna).
I'd be curious as to how they propose to handle this.
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.
Re:Sign me up (Score:1)
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:Sign me up (Score:1)
The onlything I would worry about is interferance, i.e. your neighbors DHCP server answers before your DHCP server and now you are on their network. But I guess that is what Encryption is for :)
Re:is this.. (Score:1)
Re:Long Range WiFi already available (Score:2)
And can this WaveRider unit have a radiation pattern that suddenly changes from 98% at 0 degrees, to 49% 0 degrees and 49% 37 degrees at a moving target which it tracks without any physical antenna movement?
There is the magic and there is the cost. Though it's not really magic, just looks like it, especially when it can be a lot more than just 2 targets.
Re:How is this news? (Score:2)
Well, except for the fact that the best antenna designers DON'T UNDERSTAND the complete math behind antenna design theories!
Last time I checked (9 years ago), the formulas for the Yagi directional antenna designs were approximate to the point of requiring trial and error manual tweaking to get best performance, due to the fact that the exact formulas have yet to be found. We have something really close, but we didn't know it all. It was commonly believed however, that the US Navy did in fact know the exact formula, but are keeping it secret.
I don't see where this antenna design is any more efficient than many that are already on the market..
This design dynamically manipulates the phasing of the hundreds of antenna's that comprise the phased array, so that multiple beams can be made, independently directed and track targets without any physical antenna movement.
See the difference in this antenna now? It's not a new concept, but certainly a new concept for WiFi.
2> There are already products on the market that can push WiFi signals well over 4 miles.
Whoa! Now back up a second there cowboy, did you say FOUR MILES! WHOA!
4 miles is nuttin'. I've seen 30km and heard reports of 30 miles.
They might as well be putting out a press release saying they've invented a circular device that they're calling a "wheel".
In the past, I've been guilty of not reading the article. Guess what...
Re:How does roaming user transmit back? (Score:2)
Good question, here's the answer: Antenna gain works for the transmitted signal AND the received sensitivity.
Meaning that the directional antenna is not only able to get the transmitted signal to go a long way through a higher effective radiated power by focusing the power in one direction, but it is also able to boost the signal it receives through higher sensitivity through also the same focusing in that same direction. These go hand in hand.
This is in stark contrast to merely using a higher output transmitter in only one radio, which can have the effect of elimination of duplex operation.
When doing 802.11b over long distances, the directional antenna is needed on BOTH sides.
No, wait a sec, keep your mind open. This is not the case. Directional antenna's on both ends will allow greater distances and bandwidth, but if the combined antenna gains, transmitter power, receiver sensitivity, transmission line losses (radio to antenna cabling) and atmospheric conditions allow communications over a certain distance, then the actual antenna radiation pattern (omni vs directional, assuming directional pattern is used to the fullest potential for the claimed gain) will be of no consequence. From strictly an antenna design point of view, the gain is what matters for a given distance to be feasible, not the pattern. But it just so happens that an antenna that provides a narrow beam also can provide a high gain, but that's not to say that this is always a requirement.
An omni direction antenna, being used for point to point is merely wasting the majority of it's output power and not receiving as much remote signal as it could if it were directional. This does not mean it will not work.
Case in point, cell phones: Base stations use directional antennas pointing in different directions (I usually see towers pointing in what looks like 3 separate directions with vertically stacked phased arrays), yet your phone uses an omni directional antenna simply because you the user, can not be expected to point it accurately each time and for the duration of a phone call. Yet, the system works well, because the directional antennas at the base stations make up for the inefficient omni design of your phone with their own high gains in both transmitted power and received signal.
Although years ago there was a Motorola analog mobile phone which actually had an automatically tracking phased array (just two verticals) which the phone would manipulate to track the current base station so as to allow the best reception. I believe this phone never made it to market because one of the techs testing the phone got a cancer near his temple on the side he used the phone and thus the phone got bad publicity.
Re:The most amazing part of this.... (Score:2)
Phased arrays that use manipulated phases to manipulate radiation pattern are not new. They're actually pretty old. I wouldn't be amazed to see them do it.
Using them for domestic use is new though and I'm glad to see it coming.
Re:LOS and connection (Score:2)
Because having an antenna design/phase manipulation system such as this sharing it's entire range with just 11Mbit/sec would be a complete waste of the system itself.
They must be using multiple channels to better use the bandwidth capabilities of this antenna.
Re:Phased Array to Laptop but what about other = ? (Score:2)
Yes. Gain works for transmitting and receiving.