Possible Big Boost in WiFi Range

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...)."

Comments

Sign me up

[John Biggabooty]

WIFI with a 2000 foot range indoors and 4 miles outdoors. I want that. Sign me up! The outdoor range could replace my current ISP.

Re:Sign me up

[Technician]

The outdoor range could replace my current ISP.


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

[krenshala]

That or they might charging for bandwidth used, which would probably earn the ISPs more money in the long run ...

Re:Sign me up

[ahfoo]

What you're saying is true if you think all ISPs are DSL and cable, but that's a rather limited view of how wirelss can work.
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

[madshot]

I think it would be easier if the FCC just opened up the power output limitations on WiFi. After all, what can you do with less than 1 Watt of power. Heck, even CB radios get 4 Watts of power (yes I know they only run in 28MHZ range).

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:Sign me up

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you could make sure that you build a secondary network using dry copper pairs (can also be called x.25 line, a data line, a pager line, or an alarm line.) Use long run Ethernet modems for the connection. This way only 1 or 2 people in the could have to have a fatpipe.

If you can build a hardwired peer to peer network as a backbone you can then use the cloud of public bandwidth for public use. Just put a fricken firewall between your wireless router and your Quicken files.

Also you could just incorporate your neighbor hood and issue stock and beat the bastards at their own game. The marntra of the modern world is LIMITED LIABILITY!!

Lets see some real test data

[draziw]

There is no magic here. In Amateur radio, and in radio, every now and then someone will announce they have a magic way to get 6db more signal with the same amount of metal, and in the same amount of space... Not gonna happen. It's RF. You can get more distance in exchange for not getting uniform coverage. The more you are willing to bias towards distance, the more of a narrow rf beam you get.

Re:Lets see some real test data

[Anonymous Coward]

Having just the article on wired.com about what I assume is the same technology... they're not claiming to squeeze more signal out of the same bit of metal or anything magical like that. They're using a computer to monitor and track the signal direction of clients and beaming the signal directly towards them. By making it more efficient in where the signals are being sent they get more distance.

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

[kableh]

I saw a company that had a product that did this at CTIA, though I don't remember the company name right off. They had an antenna that looked like an oversized hockeypuck with a cable coming out of it. From what I gathered it is a phase array setup, and they use a processor in the antenna itself to seek out and lock onto the strongest signals. All this processing is done in the antenna itself, so the enduser just sees it as a high gain antenna that points itself. Ingenious if you ask me =)

Re:Lets see some real test data

[Anonymous Coward]

Your statements are true for a passive antenna design. There's only so much effeciency you can squeeze out of a chunk of metal.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

You can bias towards distance and not narrow the beam width. Think of how FM broadcasters get increased erp and still have a circular coverage area. They design the antenna to move the rf from the non-useful areas and add it to the useful areas. Think of compressing a sphere into a donut.

By creative use of phasing and stacking of elements you can achieve almost any pattern you desire.

Re:Lets see some real test data

[Surak]

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.

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

[terrymr]

Yes and no .... if me assume that current wifi antennas represent the most efficient onmidirectornal antenna design available then yes I will agree with your point.

But given that most of these antennas are made for cheapness / compact size I have no doubt that more efficient ones are possible.

Re:Lets see some real test data

[leinhos]

From the article:

The Vivato technology, which stems from 1950's research for so-called phased-array antennas for military applications, makes it possible to electronically steer numerous radio beams from a single point. Focusing the beams increases their signal strength, and using large numbers of them greatly increases the antenna's traffic capacity.

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

[cameldrv]

You're obviously unfamiliar with what a phased-array is, so the fact that their product sounds like a cell-phone sticker to you is only a symptom of your own ignorance.

Re:Lets see some real test data

[Shanep]

I've been invloved in phased array antenna design and military RADAR since the late 80's. The above comment is NOT Score:5 Informative!

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 /. Someone posts a comment here that is absolute textbook and then some dick comes along and pisses on his parade with a completely incorrect rebuttal, which in turn gets Score:5 Informative.

Re:Lets see some real test data

[Shanep]

Think of how FM broadcasters get increased erp and still have a circular coverage area.

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

[Shanep]

BTW, something I really hate about /., is that when I see stuff like this, I feel very compelled to post, rather than moderate (even if I did have moderator points right now).

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

[bheilig]

In short, technically, there is no such thing as an "active antenna".

I think the general text book answer is that phased-array antennas with an LNA in each element is considered `active', as opposed to a `passive' system which couples, phase corrects, and combines before amplification.

Please don't yell at me if I'm wrong... :-)

By reading this post you have accepted the terms of my license agreement. Please send check or money order to...

Re:Lets see some real test data

[Shanep]

Please don't yell at me if I'm wrong... :-)

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

[Phreakiture]

Cellular phone towers already do exactly this.

Re:is this..

[k3v0]

i think so. in an amazing stroke of irony, /. is running like it has been /. 'ed for me.

Great for

[Anonymous Coward]

The war drivers

and in other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Pringles will now be selling just the cans - no chips to dispose of first.

Re:and in other news...

[Monkey]

Actually, back in February, /. had an article linking to a shoot-out some guy did of various types of "cantennas".

Although it worked well, the Pringles can wasn't the winning design.

Re:and in other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's move this discussion over to the new story posting from Tim here.

Just think...

[dallask]

In 2 years we could all be War-Couch-Surfing....

Is it just me, or is /. HELLA slow today?

Re:Just think...

[Anonymous Coward]

/. is very slow today for me. I'm in PA, on a cable modem. I used to be able to load comment pages 5 sec normally, 12 sec on a "slow" day.

Just to bring up this comment form took 45 seconds. Just prior, loading your comment took well over 30 seconds--I read another article and switched back to see it finally load.

If this is all due to some fleshing out the hardware due to the move, good, because that can be fixed, but if it's due to the new network/datacenter location, this hoovers.

Then again, I've almost stopped posting altogether. No great loss either way, but /.'s just keeps changing such that it feels like it's run by people that advocate the inane corporate bylaws and governance overkill: lameness filters (that just don't work), postings per day lockouts, 2 minute posting too fast warnings (idiotic, you post a comment, then see another comment where you want to give someone a URL, then get slapped and your form comment erased), moderation (that doesn't work--no moderator reads the old stuff and good stuff gets buried), now page loads that make me feel like I'm on a 56kbps modem using aol's forgotten sister, compuserve. Yuck.

For editors who seem to post a lot of Lessig articles and are quit to push articles about the erroring and limiting ways of MS's business and OSs (esp. the GUI), they sure don't seem to be very introspective.

Bleh.

Too slow

[friendofafriend]

The 20 microsecond delay would ruin on-line gaming. Wake me when they use faster than light protocols.

Re:Too slow

[Anonymous Coward]

Who moderated this clearly joking comment as insightful? Did somebody actually believe this guy was being serious? 20 microseconds is so short that if there's a 20 microsecond gap in something you're listening to your ear can't detect it! This post is a joke. A funny one, even.

Re:Too slow

[geekindustries]

Faster than light?!?! Could you imagine the rampant cheating! The time travel cheaters!

But seriously...a neat idea if not all that practical for most users.

So What Does This Mean...

[Zech Harvey]

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

[arc.light]

No registration needed.

The Obvious way

[Anonymous Coward]

of doing this is to make cards with a higher transmit power - the highest power that I've seen on the market in the usa is 200mw (100mw is the limit in the eu). I think the fcc will allow cards upto a watt (1000mw) maybe more.

No I didn't read the article. There is no way I'm going to register.

Re:The Obvious way

[Helter]

Yeah, but where is that 1 watt of power going to come from? That would be a great idea if it wouldn't kill your laptops battery in a half hour (random guess).

Re:The Obvious way

[FrostedWheat]

The Obvious way of doing this is to make cards with a higher transmit power

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!

Re:The Obvious way

[Anonymous Coward]

>1 watt of power ... great idea if it wouldn't kill your laptops battery in a half hour

My laptop uses about 20 watts idling with the screen on.1 watt of rf will about 5 watts of DC to create it but it usually won't be transmitting all the time.

Re:The Obvious way

[Anonymous Coward]

One watt?

(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...)

But it will keep the coffee next to your laptop warm!

FCC

[Anonymous Coward]

What do they think? These things have to accept all interference, and make none themselves. Will this 'new' product do that?

How many concurrent users, total bandwidth ?

[Asmi((Aham)(Brahma))]

At how many concurrent users, how much total bandwidth ? If those numbers remain the same
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 ?

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

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 ?

[alannon]

The fact that it comes with a gigbit ethernet port in the back of it is an indication that it's probably more than 10 (~110mbps) and less than 100 (1.1gbps)

Wired has a story on this,

[Tetravus]

They have indeed decided to forfeit width of coverage for distance, by using a self adjusting array of antennas.

http://www.wired.com/news/wireless/0,1382,56166, 00 .html

Re:Wired has a story on this,

[hey]

A nice detail is that it runs Linux!

Have no fear, my lad

[BESTouff]

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...

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.
The only little remaining problem is that you still have to plug the cord from the pcmcia card right into your ... err .. in your body, that is. Ahem.

Power

[demiurg]

Yep... and what about the power ? I think they would have to increase the power to a level when I'll be able to use your Wi-Fi antenna as a toster :)

Phased Array Antenna

[grayrest]

The tech is a phased array antenna, there was a good article about using it with 802.11 (notice there is no b) in the IEEE spectrum a while ago.

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

[Shanep]

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.

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

[thefinite]

Here's the answer for the rev. A PowerBooks. Not only would be able to share your internet connection with the whole neigborhood, but you'll also be able to get reception on your PowerBook in at least (maybe at most) the next room over!

I can see the future

[cyberbrian]

Vivato's new ad campaign:

Can you ping me now? Good.

B.

how about 9 miles - already done

[yack0]

Midcoast Internet in Maine has an active 9 mile link. It uses 802.11 (FHSS) technology, so how is all this new? They've even tested 18 and 32 miles links. link here

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

[yack0]

ok, so the inside stuff (2000 foot range) is new, but the long hop stuff is already running elsewhere.

remember, replying to your own posts is rude. ;)

j

Re:how about 9 miles - already done

[Helter]

Yeah, but those are point to point links right? Aeronet wireless bridges claim out of the box point to point bridging in excess of 25 miles. No big deal.
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

[eggboard]

It's not about distance: it's about coverage. If you run point to point over a short distance, the signal becomes highly focused. These guys are not talking about boosting distances, but rather about increasing coverage without increasing ERP inside buildings, as one example.

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

[akb]

Beyond a few hundred feet wifi requires line of sight because it is low power and the high frequencies do not penetrate solid objects easily.
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.

Re:how about 9 miles - already done

[Bob Vila's Hammer]

Who is cringly Bob 10?

Re:how about 9 miles - already done

[yack0]

Robert X. Cringely is the pseudonym of a tech writer, now associated with PBS (in the USA)

The name Robert X. Cringely has apparantly been several people over the years, but it's recently been that of a person who has done such things as make a wireless hop from a neighbor with DSL (miles away and he paid for the DSL himself - so he wasn't really stealing it).

He's also done such things as designing, building and flying his own plane in 30 days.

TEch guy with a pulpit from which to speak.

IF you really want to know more, feel free to google for 'who is the real cringely' or some such. You'll find out more about the name thing.

HTH

Re:how about 9 miles - already done

[gotih]

Basically they get both an omnidirectional AND directional signal (not really, but that's the effect).

it's more like a bunch of directional signals that move with you. all those other point to point connections require you to aim the antennas. this aims the antennas as you move.

Apostrophe's

[matt-fu]

don't forget the yada's

Please see Bob's Guide to the Apostrophe.

Size does matter.

[AUsBandit]

From the article ...The announcement on Monday, instead, will be devoted to discussing the technology, which employs an antenna shaped like a large picture frame, about three feet by four feet and about three inches thick.

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.

Re:is this..

[k-0s]

Slashdot is running slow for me this morning also, anyone have any info on why? As the user above said it's acting like it's being slashdotted itself.

No Registraion Link through Google

[tim0thy]

Google Link

What about EMFs?

[airrage]

I assume this would create an enormous EMF in the vicinity so that I would get an even bigger headache at work. How would this affect pacemakers, crt montiors, security cameras, magnetic doors, et. al? Don't point that death ray at me!

Re:What about EMFs?

[yack0]

The FCC specified maximum power of any ISM band emission is lower than that which you might find from a cheap microwave oven.

HTH

j

(and yeah, slashdot is wicked slow today)

Seems like the real thing.

[carlmenezes]

The article mentions phased array antennas. You can do some really wonderful things with phased arrays, so I don't doubt their claim. The problem is that they are usually quite expensive, take up a lot of space, AND usually require considerable processing (note that they do mention the antenna must be placed in "the corner of a large office"). It remains to be seen how these guys plan to work around those obstacles.
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.

[Shanep]

The problem is that they are usually quite expensive, take up a lot of space, AND usually require considerable processing

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

[Cheese Cracker]

WiFi antenna technology today that can give a 2000 ft. range indoors...

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

[Kelerain]

I'm comming here late, but one of the cool benifits of phased arrays is noise cancelation. The signals recieved are directional in the same way that the signal sent is directional. And that means that noise from other directions cancels quite a bit. Thats how the thing can not only SEND singals 7 KM outdoors, but also recieve those releativly weak PCcard signals that far as well.

Re:Doubt

[Shanep]

I'm comming here late, but

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 /. in the hopes that they can say something vaguely disguised as interesting, informative or insightful to get moderated up before real people with real knowledge who only get to check /. once a day (because they're actually interested in the stories) take their points.

new and improved antennas

[pcp_ip]

Now with faster and larger tumors.

Re:new and improved antennas

[Anonymous Coward]

Flamer...

Directional = less tumors.

Anyway its 2.4Ghz so you portable phone and babymonitor and bla bla bla etc. will all do the same thing.

www.fractenna.com

[F34nor]

www.fractenna.com

Has anyone tested these yet? Lets see some numbers.

A boon for wardrivers?

[rlangis]

Oh, so now wardrivers can be 2-3 streets away to hack into the network instead of right next to the house? Wonderful.

What about something better than WEP for encryption? Hmm?

Re:A boon for wardrivers?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's fools like you that mistake the idea behind wardriving.

Wardriving does not equal network hacking.

Re:A boon for wardrivers?

[rlangis]

Give me a f*ing break, coward.

My AP is wide open for use with the Personal Telco Project. My point is that people who *want* to hack into people's WiFi networks will now be able to do so from a LONG distance, rather than needing to be within a few hundred yards.

Didja also note the WEP reference? If there was better encryption for wireless communication, there wouldn't be an issue.

Before we work on extending the range of 802.11b, why don't we see about making it more SECURE?!?

Next time, let's uncheck that nice little 'Post Anonymously' button, hmmm? Luser.

Re:A boon for wardrivers?

[PopeFelix]

WPA? Hello? Hello? That's the whole point of WPA - better encryption than WEP. Of course, you could use some sort of 802.1x solution, and not worry about it.

Re:A boon for wardrivers?

[Shanep]

Oh, so now wardrivers can be 2-3 streets away to hack into the network instead of right next to the house? Wonderful.

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

[Itsik]

What about security/encryption? I wouldn't get too excited everytime a company comes out with some wireless gadget without documented proof that they actualy made it secure for the user to use.
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

[Anonymous Coward]

What about security/encryption?

This is an antenna. Antennas do not address security/encryption concerns, generally. It is a bit unfair to even ask them to adress those concerns.

If you want security, it's actually pretty easy, though. I mainly just run ssh everywhere anyway. No problems there, for the most part. And for the one or two other things that I do that are sensitive, I run IPsec. I don't really need encryption on my typical web surfing, because there are all manner of other people who can sniff it.

And I have no particular issue with sharing my b/w with interlopers, in fact I think that it is fair play because I share their bandwidth...

Re:Security

[Shanep]

I wouldn't get too excited everytime a company comes out with some wireless gadget without documented proof that they actualy made it secure for the user to use.

If you need your wireless network security to be provided by the antenna, you have very serious security problems.

Re:Security

[Itsik]

With all due respect you and I both know that there is more to it than just an antenna.

Re:Security

[Shanep]

there is more to it than just an antenna.

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

[Itsik]

You raised some very good points. That I failed to see beforehand.
Thanks

Re:Security

[Shanep]

You raised some very good points. That I failed to see beforehand.

You actually prompted me to think of antenna design from a DoS point of view.

Wake up and smell the metric

[Anonymous Coward]

What's with America?!
OK, I can understand how Joe 6-Pack can't cope
with metric but you'd think the "nerds" at Slashdot
would love it.

For people outside the USA:

2000 Feet = 610 Meters
4 Miles = 6.4 Kilometers

This will make Mesh a real threat to landline nets

[nuzoo]

This, if it's for real, will make mesh topologies a real threat to the existing landline-based ISPs. Effective inter-node range has always been the biggest barrier to the potential acceptance of mesh systems. With this kind of range, only a few people in a community would need to run mesh routers in order to provide access to the whole community.

Anyone know if this company is owned by Pringles?

[farrellj]

I am suprised that Pringles hasn't picked upon the free publicity like Jolt did...

ttyl
Farrell

phased array

[zejackal]

Nothing new here. All it is is a phased array. By definition a phased array is directive, meaning it only covers a portion of the spherical space around the antenna. The reason this is good, is because directivity means gain. So yes, this new antenna will increase range, but only in a given direction. There are antenna schemes for 802.11b that get 10's of miles in range by using very directive antennas. There have been some articles on slashdot about this. The only interesting thing here is that the directivity is achieved by a phased array so it should be stearable. They may scan the 3 dimensional space (but this will cut availabitlity and thus bandwidth at any point). Or they may be able to stear multiple beams to point at areas with a concentration of devices. They may even be able to do it on the fly as demand changes, but there is no big breakthrough here. This technology is older than I am and probably older than most of you too.

Re:phased array

[taniwha]

I suspect it's smarter than that .... I bet the access point spends time figuring out where each client is in the 3-space and tracks it - then directs the antenna at it when transmitting or receiving .... they probably use the idle times lookming for new clients

Re:phased array

[zejackal]

I don't think so. If you figure that most users will be in the same plane as the antenna arrays, then you don't need to cover as much of the sphere as if you assumed a three dimensional population of your space. Also if you look at the distance gains they talk about, they're not huge, so by definition the directivity isn't huge. My guess is that they have a handfull of beams that they can stear to cover most of they're immediate surroundings. Each beam would probably encompass several users, and as the constellation of users changes over time, the beams could, at a low update rate, track the user population.

One interesting thing is that, given enough elements in the arrays, they could sharpen or broaden the beamwidths as demand required it. For example if you had 10 users up close and one far away, you could broaden one beam and serve the 10 close users, and then narrow up another beam and direct it to the distant user. Alot of possibilities here. Again, very interesting, but not ground breaking.

Re:phased array

[Shanep]

This technology is older than I am and probably older than most of you too. : )

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. ; )

Re:phased array

[zejackal]

Exactly. I find, especially in the arena of communications and RF (my fields), that the things making the news are laughably old-hat most of the time. That said, the ways in which these basic technologies are commercialized are often, as in this case, quite nifty.

Company Site

[BShive]

I'm suprised the posting didn't link to the company website. The tech info doesn't really offer a whole lot in the way of useful information though. Anyone know a place with better details? (/. seems slow for me this morning too)

Yawn...

[Anonymous Coward]

So what's new?

www.symbol.com
www.cisco.com

Already have long range WiFi products.

improved power = more radiation?

[DuckWing]

I'm curious if the power boost needed to accomplish this task must sure boost the amout of Rad's your body is injesting by being around such equipment. That can't be good. I don't particularly want to die that way. Can anyone say MICROWAVE? I knew you could.

Re:improved power = more radiation?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't worry about it. The power levels are so low when compared to the residual radiation you get from a Mocrowave oven, there should be no concern. Power levels of cell phones are about the same.

Re:improved power = more radiation?

[occamboy]

There seems to be a common belief that folks become ill from radiated electrical power. However, I've never seen any published studies that show this. I seem to recall one study that showed a slight increase in childhood leukemia in folks that live under powerlines, but that this was later disproven in a larger study.

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?

[REDNOROCK]

Dude, if you're so worried just take some Rad-X.. Dont forget the Rad-Away

Re:improved power = more radiation?

[Shanep]

I've never seen any published studies that show this.

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?

[Anonymous Custard]

This this is going to have to be hooked up to some serious hardware if it will connect 3.14159*(4miles)^2 worth of users.

This could be great for college campuses, assuming the price is right.

What is the optimal size of a wireless cloud?

[crush]

I'm not sure whether or not increased WiFi ranges are a good thing. This could mean that companies (who are what's being targetted according to the article) will be able to compete for bandwidth over a greater range than ordinary individuals.

Look what happened with Starbucks infringing on a WiFi co-op 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

[Control-Z]

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

[Maditude]

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.

Details! I want details! (ie, how'd you set it up, what kind of bandwidth & latency do you get, what's the surrounding terrain like, how does it hold up in the rain/snow/wind).

Re:4 miles isn't very remarkable

[Control-Z]

I'm not an antenna guy so I don't know much about the setup. I just like the connection! I know the link goes from a tower on a mountain ~35 miles away to 100 foot tower at our site. There are 3 foot dish (with vanes, not solid) antennas on both towers. The antennas were around $800 each. Origonally the antenna polarization was vertical, but we got some interference from cell towers or something. They switched it to horizontal polariztion and now we get a good 1.2Mbit+ connection at our site in the middle of nowhere.

Re:4 miles isn't very remarkable

[markov_chain]

Yes, but your 30+ mile wireless link does not have a stearable antenna that automatically follows you around as you move; not to mention that it allows only one endpoint.

Seriously, the phased array approach mentioned in the article sounds damn cool.

Re:4 miles isn't very remarkable

[Shanep]

They switched it to horizontal polariztion and now we get a good 1.2Mbit+ connection at our site in the middle of nowhere.

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.

perfect for neighborhood internet business

[Anonymous Coward]

I can sell bandwith to my next door neighbors with this.

Re:perfect for neighborhood internet business

[Anonymous Coward]

Dumbass. Give it away for free. Create a distributed peer to perr wireless internet and kill you cell phone.

www.personaltelco.net/index.cgi/PersonalTelco

www.pdxwireless.org/

2000ft indoors is optomistic

[Anonymous Coward]

2000ft (2/5 of a mile) seems unlikly to me.

IIRC radio signals in free space drop 6dB every the distance travelled doubles. Assuming a normal range of 0.25mi, 4mi outdoors is about 24dB gain. Similar to a 6ft helical or a small dish.

Going through one wall reduces the signal by 20-30dB. 2000ft through buildings is likly to go through lots of walls.

One watt VHF walkie talkies often don't work 2000ft through reinforced concrete buildings. Security guard systems often use repeaters these days.

Another question, presumably the claimed range is with a vivato antenna at both ends? I assume it gives a gain on recieve as well as on transmitt like normal passive antennas.

The laws of Physics won't change

[RealBeanDip]

This quote from the article;

"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

[cameldrv]

Please do tell me where I can buy a dynamically steerable multi-beam phased array antenna for my wireless network. There's a huge difference between a directional antenna, and one that tracks multiple wireless cards as they move with directional beams.

New toy to hack?

[stinkydog]

Imagine finding a root hole in these after they install a couple hundred in your area. Using a computer-controlled antenna array you aim 40 or 50 of them at your coffee cup, warm brew all day.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

This is nothing new - there is a lot of antennas which extend the coverage already on the market. A friend of friend of mine got 27km link with parabolic ones.
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

[Kelerain]

Correct on both counts. The phassed array creates a 'virtual anteanna' by overlaping the signals of many simultanious annenate into a very thin beam. Think pencil width almost. So its as strong as the FCC allows, but its both omni directional in that it can point in any direciton it chooses, and directional in that its actuall beam is specicially directed towards nearly a single point in space, so it is also high power. Phassed arrays are really nifty.

Re:Nothing new

[Shanep]

But most importantly, having hundreds of phased antennas allows multiple separate beams in addition to dynamic changes to (not just the direction but) the overall radiation pattern.

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

[retro128]

Here's a better link from Wired, it has more technical meat and explains better why this technology is newsworthy.

yikes...

[zonker]

this is exactly my thought. for people who live in houses that are close to others, or in apartment complexes say, they have a bit of (poor) security provided by WEP and a bit of (imaginary) security by the very nature of the low power antenna provided by linksys, d-like, etc. however when you start cranking that power up you're worries are going to crank up too. in the ask slashdot question a few days ago about replacing wep wireless security there weren't any good conclusive answers about what joe and jane sixpack can do to set up a relatively secure wireless network w/o being network or security engineers. i can install locks on my door and have a reasonable assurance of privacy, but i can't get something analogous for my network...

Wow

[FrostedWheat]

... a startup company in CA that says it will announce WiFi antenna technology today...

Announcing the announcment! It's gotta be impressive!

Oh, thought they were talking about someone else..

[Dr.Dubious DDQ]

Seeing the blurb about "wireless communications" and all the posts about being microwaved by antennae, I thought they were talking about "Gaiacomm".

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...

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. :-)

This changes everything.

[cosmosis]

Increasing wi-fi range of this magnitude changes everything. It now makes wi-fi directly competitive with existing "auctioned" spectrum, and enables the creatipm of a bottom-up, P2P, ad-hoc wirless mesh-network that requires no centralized server, provider or carrier. The combination of long-range wi-fi and mesh-network software is totally disruptive to the entire communications economy. I personally see this as a very good thing, as it means that promise of the "internet" of decentralized and anonymous communications is finally dawning.

Planet P Weblog

http://planetp.cc/

Oh great!

[YrWrstNtmr]

Now the neighborhood WiFi clueless fools can be unsecure over a wider area!

Wardriving from the sofa

[Digital_Quartz]

I'll be able to wardrive without leaving my own home! :)

Long Range WiFi already available

[Ossifrage]

WaveRider Communications has been selling 802.11 based units with ranges up to 15 km (with outdoor antennas) for several years. The 900 MHz ISM band units work non-line-of-sight (i.e. through trees and walls) for 3-4 km.

FYI - I work for WaveRider.

Re:Long Range WiFi already available

[Shanep]

WaveRider Communications [waverider.com] has been selling 802.11 based units with ranges up to 15 km (with outdoor antennas) for several years.

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.

Let me guess......

[King_TJ]

Attach this sticker to the back of your wifi unit, and instantly, you can as much as double your reception? Yeah, yeah -- they tried to sell me that for my cellphone too. Doesn't work. :)

Re:Let me guess......

[Shanep]

Yeah, yeah -- they tried to sell me that for my cellphone too. Doesn't work. :)

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...

[Chicane-UK]

I dunno... sounds cool, but I can't help but think of the 'F-Ray' bit on a Futurama episode :

Fry: Ow, my sperm!
Bender: Wow, neat. Mind if I try that again? [he does so]
Fry: Huh! Didn't hurt that time.

PcWorld has an short article

[ProtoStar]

See bottom 1/3:
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,10 6611,0 0.asp

How is this news?

[Uhh_Duh]

I don't understand how this is news for a number of reasons:

1> The math behind antenna design theory leaves little room for innovation. Two things determine how far your single is going to go a)the output power and b) the efficiency of your antenna. I don't see where this antenna design is any more efficient than many that are already on the market.. which leads me to..

2> There are already products on the market that can push WiFi signals well over 4 miles. Check out Motorola Canopy for their solution (it's geared more towards commercial enterprises, but for $2500 for an AP and two subscriber units, you can start a long-range WISP on pocket-change). Then there's companies like YDI, Wireless Central, and Tranzeo Wireless all selling long-range 802.11 products for cheap.

They might as well be putting out a press release saying they've invented a circular device that they're calling a "wheel".

Re:How is this news?

[Shanep]

1> The math behind antenna design theory leaves little room for innovation.

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...

How does roaming user transmit back?

[markd89]

I see how the directional antenna on the base station can transmit to the roaming laptop that is far away. But, the roaming laptop has a standard internal omnidirectional antenna, how does it transmit back? When doing 802.11b over long distances, the directional antenna is needed on BOTH sides.

Re:How does roaming user transmit back?

[Shanep]

I see how the directional antenna on the base station can transmit to the roaming laptop that is far away. But, the roaming laptop has a standard internal omnidirectional antenna, how does it transmit back?

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.

LOS and connection

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate registrations, so I read the Wired article (mentioned above) instead.

First, there is no mention that this does or does not take care of line of sight issues. 7km outdoors is nice, but if you're on the other side of the peak of a hill, it still seems you're screwed. (That's my problem--I've got access to a wireless ISP to one location but to the other location, I can't see that ISP or reflect the signal over the hilltop. Can't bounce light off of clouds, since there is an airport close by--FAA rules prohibit this if I recall.)

Second, the article mentions it uses a gigabit connection. Umm...why? I didn't think there was any WiFi protocal that broke 100mbit/sec. I suppose compatibility might be a reason, must most hubs/switches with gigabit are backwards compatible with fast ethernet. So why the gigabit connection? Or did the marketing department step in?

Re:LOS and connection

[Shanep]

Second, the article mentions it uses a gigabit connection. Umm...why?

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.

Part 15 FCC Rules

[kc0dby]

The problem here, is that the FCC intentionally limits the usefulness of Part 15 devices. Sure, you can build yourself a gigantic super-duper gain antenna and a kW amplifier for your signal, but it won't be legal. Did you ever wonder why you don't see access points or PCMCIA cards with convenient BNC or N-type connectors on them? That's because they can't get type approval to sell them if they are 'easily modifyable' by the consumer.

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...

[focuss]

Navini makes a phased-array wireless solution that is supposedly being tested by NTelos, a regional ISP here in Charlottesville VA. I saw some preliminary documents for the trial: one that showed the coverage area, a roughly circular area with two "pie" slices taken out of it -- essentially shadows cast by mountains near the antenna location. The other document was a map giving signal strength throughought the coverage area produced by a program called "antenna explorer" or something like that. The coverage area was still considerably larger than the DSL coverage area from the same provider. I have not met anyone who is actially on the service. The trial documents indicated that they would add more coverage areas if the trial went well.

Keep this in mind:

[mindstrm]

To stay within FCC regulations, there are rules about the effective radiated power from an antenna on this stuff. IT's not safe to say that you can just throw any antenna you like on it, and it's okay; if you exceed certain gain levels, you are outside the rules. This differs from country to country of course; I know that you can get more effective power at distance out of 2.4Ghz ISM in the US than you can in canada, for instance.

The most amazing part of this....

[lucifuge31337]

The most amazing part of this will not be if they can actually produce an antenna that comes close to what they are claming, but of they can actually say in business long enough to do it.

Re:The most amazing part of this....

[Shanep]

The most amazing part of this will not be if they can actually produce an antenna that comes close to what they are claming

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.

Read the web page...

[cleanroom]

Everyone's complaining that this is old news..Wrong. The benefit of this antenna is that can effectively direct a virtual "dish" on a packet-by-packet basis. All of the other directional antennas on the market work on one direction at a time, and are stationary. This one can send and recieve using a steered-beam. This means the multiple users can be mobile and still get the extended range.

This Sounds Not Right

[TechyImmigrant]

802.11 Unicast transmissions could be beam steered to improve range.

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

[BeBoxer]

If I had mod points, I'd mod this up. But since I don't, I'll just post.

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

[interstellar_donkey]

That's the first thing that came to mind when I read this.

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:This Sounds Not Right

[Anonymous Coward]

"need to be heared by"

fucking moron.

Security Issues

[fearincontrol]

I think this will exacerbate the problem of wireless network insecurity. Though a well-designed network is relatively secure, 99.9% of the networks I know of have weak wireless security. A four mile range access point will definately hurt more than it helps; even with the relatively short range they are now security is a major risk. I'll be interested to see if wireless security becomes a bigger issue if this technology becomes mainstream.

Phased Array to Laptop but what about other = ?

[ibi]

I can see how they can use a phased array to get the signal *to* a remote user, but how does the signal travel back from the user's standard 802.11 card?

Does this mean that you need a custom mini phased array on the client side too?

(I suppose that big phased array might be really good at picking up weak signals ... is that it?. Hmmm.)

Re:Phased Array to Laptop but what about other = ?

[Shanep]

(I suppose that big phased array might be really good at picking up weak signals ... is that it?. Hmmm.)

Yes. Gain works for transmitting and receiving.

2000 ft. range indoors

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally something that will work in my house!

Tragedy of the commons

[osolemirnix]

Indeed it changes everything, but not for the better. In some urban areas WiFi is already close to unusable due to the number of participants, or at least the effective bandwidth per participant slows down to a crawl.
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.

Re:Tragedy of the commons

[mocktor]

This isn't necessarily the case - signals here are directional. Many tiny antennas are automatically configured to transmit in whatever pattern gives the best connectivity to the client with as little power wasted on other directions as possible. In fact this ought to help avert the tragedy of the commons we're seeing right now, not exacerbate it.

Last Post!

[alpg]

A manager went to his programmers and told them: "As regards to your
work hours: you are going to have to come in at nine in the morning and leave
at five in the afternoon." At this, all of them became angry and several
resigned on the spot.
So the manager said: "All right, in that case you may set your own
working hours, as long as you finish your projects on schedule." The
programmers, now satisfied, began to come in a noon and work to the wee
hours of the morning.
-- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"

- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...