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

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.

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?

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: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.

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.

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?

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.