Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wireless at Firewire Speeds?

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the I'll-believe-it-when-I-see-it dept.

MeCoward writes "EETimes reporting on working group that hopes to leapfrog 802.11 to create wireless 1394 links. Initially 100mbps but aiming for 400mbps." I don't expect to see this anytime soon, but it certainly makes things like wireless HDTV feasible. Sure would be cool. Of course Bluetooth is only now just catching on, so imagine how long it'll be before this becomes practical.

5 of 157 comments (clear)

  1. small range by afidel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    UWB only works if you severly limit the range (10m in the case of 802.15.3 networks). This might be fine for connecting you DVR to your TV, but it won't be usefull for connecting your DVR to the tv on the other side of the house or up a floor. This could be ultra cool for next generation MIDI though, the ability to connect all of your devices wirelessly and get both MIDI data and samples would rock. I can't imagine how much this would please all of the musicians who have had to do a road show with the spagheti nest that is MIDI setups.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    1. Re:small range by JesseL · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Like every other form of radio communication, UWB requires a trade-off between data-bandwidth and range. To say "UWB only works if you severly limit the range" is grossly misleading. Any conventional carrier based radio communication that works at these data rates is going to be of similarly short range.

      --
      "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
  2. Still Patent Encumbered? by AlabamaMike · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Will this new wireless firewire standard still suffer from the same driver patent issues that surround current firewire implementations? I can only assume so if it's based off the same basic technology. It would be nice if they (IEEE) would clean up their act in regards to royalty-based patents finding their way into standards. IMHO, of course.
    -A.M.

    --
    Pimpin' all the Karma Hoes!
  3. Re:Range, bandwidth and security... by afidel · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Encryption will almost always SAVE bandwidth because the first step to encryption is compression to eliminate repeating patterns in the input stream. It will cost you processing time (not necessarilly cpu, it can be done with an ASIC) and will slightly increase latency. Plus if I am sending next generation MIDI data or DV movies over it I really don't think I need to encrypt the signal.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  4. Re:Still too slow. by Tyler+Eaves · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Two Words: Hardware implementation.

    Hell, for most screens (But not a game, probably) a simple run length encoding scheme would get you close to, if not over 10:1

    --
    TODO: Something witty here...