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.

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."

and in other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Too slow

[friendofafriend]

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

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.

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: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.

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...

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

[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).

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

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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

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.

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.

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.