Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Idaho Companies Tout New Wireless Record

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the can-i-get-a-witness dept.

pavelvp writes "A small wireless Internet service provider in Idaho and a wireless equipment start-up claim to have set a new record for transmitting data across a wireless link this week. Microserv Computer Technologies, based in Idaho Falls, and Trango Broadband Wireless, a fixed-wireless broadband equipment maker, announced that they transmitted data over unlicensed wireless spectrum 137.2 miles." This unverified record would beat the previous record holders from the DefCon WiFi Shootout covered earlier on Slashdot.

109 of 146 comments (clear)

  1. What I want to know is... by It+doesn't+come+easy · · Score: 2, Funny

    Did the equipment include any Idaho Potato Batteries (tm)?

    --
    The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
    1. Re:What I want to know is... by mikeophile · · Score: 1

      Not sure, but I do believe they ran the tests on Spud Servers.

    2. Re:What I want to know is... by Nikitis · · Score: 1

      Ok, I have to comment, I fell victim to MicroServ's Terrany at one point until we received an alternate ISP. I want everyone to know that even at close ranges their ISP is TERRIBLE. The Internet went down 2 or 3 times a day most days. And that's at a short distance, I hate to see what it's like at a distance they are claiming. I wouldn't want to reproduce their technology with a 10 foot pole. I think it would be better for everyone to figure out how to do it on their own rather than copy their strategy. The fact that Slashdot is even covering it is really scaring me because Everyone reads this. True it puts Idaho on the map, but with the reviews it's getting on this subject even by me it's own citizen I wish it hadn't. Thanks Slashdot for ruining Idaho's Reputation even more. And I'm serious, don't support MicroServ.

  2. Been there. Done that. by Moonwick · · Score: 5, Informative

    Uhh, I'm pretty sure voyager 1 has the record for data transmission across a wireless link.

    --
    Only on slashdot can a posting be rated "Score -1, Insightful".
  3. Doesn't it have to be 802.11x? by utopianfiat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I was under the impression that the record reflected everything on the 802.11x band, not any wireless transmission.
    In this case, technically NASA would win by sending wireless info from sattelites. :/
    Maybe I'm just not RingTFA correctly.

    --
    +5, Truth
    1. Re:Doesn't it have to be 802.11x? by VaticDart · · Score: 1
      Screw satellites, try the Voyager or Pioneer spacecraft. They did, and in the case of Voyager 1 and 2, still are transmitting from beyond Pluto.

      Glanced over the article, sounds like this new startup is basically trying to sell their product.

    2. Re:Doesn't it have to be 802.11x? by utopianfiat · · Score: 1

      Glanced over the article, sounds like this new startup is basically trying to sell their product.

      Indeed, and it sounds like slashdot editors aren't doing their job.
      Guess who's setting ScuttleMonkey to foe and setting a -5 penalty...

      ScuttleMonkey (55) is all alone in the world. I wonder why.

      --
      +5, Truth
    3. Re:Doesn't it have to be 802.11x? by Sancho · · Score: 1

      It's transmission within the 2.4ghz range which makes it impressive, not just that it's a "wireless transmission".

    4. Re:Doesn't it have to be 802.11x? by pe1chl · · Score: 1

      I don't get it... what is impressive about transmitting in the 2.4 GHz range?
      This may have been a feat 4 decades ago, but today the parts to construct a transmitter operating in that range are commodity. Shown by the fact that anyone can buy a digital wireless transmission system for under 200 dollars.

    5. Re:Doesn't it have to be 802.11x? by dougmc · · Score: 1
      I don't get it... what is impressive about transmitting in the 2.4 GHz range?
      People have talked with people all the way across the world with 5 watts of power. But that's on the HF bands -- 2.4 GHz is strictly line of sight, so it's difficult to make really long connections.

      Also, the power is limited to something like 0.250 watts, though it's certainly possible to talk with somebody many thousands of miles away with only 0.250 watts -- but again, on the HF bads.

    6. Re:Doesn't it have to be 802.11x? by pe1chl · · Score: 1

      You forget that they used 2ft dish antennas. An antenna like this would have about 20dB of gain. That amplifies the 0.25 watts to 25 watts!
      And, it also amplifies the received signal by the same amount.
      When compared with an HF bands signal transmitted by a typical dipole antenna, you would have the equivalent of about 1000 watts of power, assuming a setup like shown in the picture is used at both ends.
      Of course you need line-of-sight, but the station apparently sits on a hilltop.

      When comparing HF to SHF, people often don't take this factor in the calculation. In fact, when calculating the total of achievable antenna gain within a reasonable size, path loss, and achievable transmission power using off-the-shelf technology, the 2.4 GHz band is about the optimum band for getting long range line-of-sight communication. Amateur satellites have been built that transmit only a couple of watts and are (were) easily receivable over a distance of 40000 km.

    7. Re:Doesn't it have to be 802.11x? by dougmc · · Score: 1
      about 20dB of gain. That amplifies the 0.25 watts to 25 watts!
      Not exactly.

      What it does is aim the signal very precisely, but the same amount of signal is still transmitted. A few miles away, if the antenna is pointed right at you, the signal is as strong as if there was a 25 watt transmitter with an isotropic antenna, but ultimately there's still only 0.25 watts.

      Let me make that more clear ... high gain antennas do not amplify the signal one bit. They just aim it all very precisely in one direction. And as for receiving, they still don't amplify the signal, but they do pick up signal from only that one direction, so the noise floor is much lower than it would be with a lower gain antenna -- and ultimately the noise floor is the limit in if you can receive a signal or not.

      When compared with an HF bands signal transmitted by a typical dipole antenna, you would have the equivalent of about 1000 watts of power, assuming a setup like shown in the picture is used at both ends.
      A typical dipole has a gain of 2.1 dBi -- 2.1 dB over an antenna (a hypotetical antenna) that raidates equally in all directions. Good HF antennas often do have more gain than dipoles, as they'll use Yagis or other directional antennas. 20 dBi of gain is rare, but possible with a large enough antenna.
      When comparing HF to SHF, people often don't take this factor in the calculation.
      I'm still not sure what factor you're referring to -- and I'm an extra class amateur radio operator. If you're trying to say that high gain antennas for the 2.4 GHz band are smaller than a similarly high gain antenna for an HF band, you're right. But we're very well aware of that.

      What you seem to be missing is that anything above a certain frequency is strictly line of sight. Exactly where the difference is depends on conditions -- sometimes even VHF signals can go further thanks to ducting -- but 2.4 GHz signals are definately always line of sight, so I don't care HOW big your antennas are, or how much power you have, you can't go further than you can see.

      Of course you need line-of-sight, but the station apparently sits on a hilltop.
      Obviously to get the distances they got, they need to do more than sit on a hilltop. They need two mountains. There's two components to getting large distances with WiFi-like radios -- high gain antennas and high mounts to give you a good line of site. The mountains are going to be the ultimate limiting factor, at least until you start looking at baloons or airplanes or satellites, though in that case it'll be hard to aim the antennas well enough -- a high gain antenna has a VERY tight beam.

      Compare this to HF, where with 5 watts and a reasonable (not huge, but not tiny) antenna and good conditions, you can talk to somebody on the other side of the world. No mountains needed.

    8. Re:Doesn't it have to be 802.11x? by pe1chl · · Score: 1

      You are just nitpicking.
      In your original post you are showing ignorance about effective radiated power by talking about "just 0.25 watts", making me try to explain that issue to the layman, and then you suddenly creep out under the cover and claim you are an extra class amateur radio operator. In that case you should have known that communication over thousands of kilometers have been made on 2.4 GHz and your claim about the power being too low is totally irrelevant.

      Before turning down my calculation you should make your own math with two 2.1 dB antennas when compared with two 20 dB antennas and 0.25 W of transmitting power and you will see that with the 2.1 dB antennas you will need close to 1000 Watts of power to have the same effective signal. So what is your point?

      Line of sight has never been a topic of the discussion, it was only about range and required output power. Furthermore, I don't think you can run an 11 Mbps link or even the link speed they achieved in this case on HF bands with 5 watts.

    9. Re:Doesn't it have to be 802.11x? by dougmc · · Score: 1
      "just 0.25 watts"
      I never said "just 0.25 watts". If you're going to quote me, quote me. Don't just put stuff into quotes and pretend I said it.
      making me try to explain that issue to the layman
      Making you muddy the water further for the layman, you mean. Your post said the antenna amplified the signal which is flat out wrong. Simplifying things is fine, but you went too far. You may call it nitpicking, I call it being accurate.
      your claim about the power being too low is totally irrelevant.
      I didn't claim the power was too low.
      Before turning down my calculation you should make your own math with two 2.1 dB antennas when compared with two 20 dB antennas and 0.25 W of transmitting power and you will see that with the 2.1 dB antennas you will need close to 1000 Watts of power to have the same effective signal. So what is your point?
      I'm not even sure what your point is. A higher gain antenna has higher gain. I don't think you're claiming something different, so ... what are you claiming? What is your point? That higher gain antennas work better (when aimed properly) than low antennas? Well, duh!
      Line of sight has never been a topic of the discussion
      I've mentioned it several times, since it's critically important to the discussion about how far you can send a signal on 2.4 GHz. You really can't discuss the distances possible without mentioning line of sight. So yes, it was a topic of the discussion.

      And yes, you are correct that 2.4 GHz signals have been sent thousands of miles, by going through a satellite. I'm not aware of any amateur satellites that do 802.11*, but it's not impossible. I don't think it's really possible to do 802.11* via moon bounce, aurora bounce or meteor trail bounce though -- CW works, SSB might work under ideal conditions (but with bad distortion), but 802.11*? No way. And even the CW guys will use more than 0.250 watts to make those sorts of connections.

      Furthermore, I don't think you can run an 11 Mbps link or even the link speed they achieved in this case on HF bands with 5 watts
      Considering that a 802.11b signal is 30 MHz in size, larger than even what we usually call the entire HF band, you're probably right. I don't know much about their proprietary system, but the HF bands (especially using skip) really aren't going to work well with any sort of signal that uses many MHz of bandwidth.
    10. Re:Doesn't it have to be 802.11x? by pe1chl · · Score: 1

      You don't understand antenna gain and EIRP.
      Discussion closed.

    11. Re:Doesn't it have to be 802.11x? by dougmc · · Score: 1
      You don't understand antenna gain and EIRP. Discussion closed.
      I feel that I understand it fine. I even feel that I've explained it reasonably well, more accurately than you have anyways. I'd accept that maybe I didn't simplify antenna gain enough for the layperson, but that I don't understand the general gist of it? No.

      If you really want the discussion to be `closed', then you'll need to point out exactly where I'm wrong in a convincing manner. Citations from subject matter experts are often very helpful.

      Another option is to bore me to death or convince me that you're just a troll, so I just stop responding, but in that case the discussion isn't really `closed', just left hanging.

      At the moment, the latter option seems much more likely.

      Making up quotes and attributing them to me is not very convincing, especially in a medium where it's trivial to go back and see what I really said.

  4. Proprietary != Better by NorbMan · · Score: 5, Insightful
    From TFA:
    "What sets apart the 125-mile record set at the Defcon Wifi Shootout Contest is that it was subject to a strict verification and certification process administered by four independent judges."

    That, and the fact that the Defcon record was set using standard 802.11b radios rather than proprietary technology, and that the proprietary technology only beat Wi-Fi by 12.2 miles.

    1. Re:Proprietary != Better by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1


      And the only reason the Defcon guys didn't get 145 miles was that they couldn't reach the proper position to set up their equipment. The road ended two miles too soon and they didn't get the altitude they needed.

      This story is a marketing stunt, nothing more.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    2. Re:Proprietary != Better by darkonc · · Score: 1
      My understanding was that, for stunts like distance records and endurance, Guinness required a 10% improvement before the record was officially considered broken. If that's the case, then these people were just a little bit short of officially breaking the record.

      (( oh, yeah, the DefCon records, besides strict verification, also have strict time limits. If the DefCon team didn't have time limits, they might have been able to tramp their way up the mountain to get the 144Mi record. If these guys want to break a DefCon record, they should do it at DefCon, by DefCon rules.))

      As for why this is different than, say, Voyager: The DefCon records are supposed to be set with unamplified legal, production WIFI cards. (I'm not so sure about the production part, but they definitely have to be legal WIFI).
      If Voyager has a WIFI card installed on it, I'd definitely like to talk to the people who did the upgrade.

      --
      Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
  5. Guiness by AviLazar · · Score: 1

    And nothing gets put in this book (i probably spelled it wrong) unless it is verified by one of their reps. Since I really don't care for the guiness book of records, I would settle for an independent third-party verification.

    If they did do this - way to go. Hopefully it is a stable signal and not a flaky one.

    --

    I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    1. Re:Guiness by utopianfiat · · Score: 1

      Hoaxing a world record in wireless transfer to get free publicity on slashdot?

      Brilliant!

      --
      +5, Truth
  6. The Defcon records... by stienman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Note that Defcon has records for unamplified long distance links.

    -Adam

    1. Re:The Defcon records... by utopianfiat · · Score: 1

      Note that Defcon has records for unamplified long distance links on the 802.11x band.

      Apparently this seems to be the general first post consensus: This isn't news, this is a fucking publicity stunt.

      --
      +5, Truth
    2. Re:The Defcon records... by chod · · Score: 1

      OK, FCC still regulates the amount of power that can be transmitted within the 2.4 and 5.8GHz region. Therefore, even using a proprietary protocol, they can only transmit at the same power level as say the 802.11x protocol can.

      Add this to the fact that they only used 2-foot dishes whereas the DefCon people used 12-foot satellite dishes... sure, the DefCon wins the coolness factor of homemade surplus parts, but the MicroServ people should be given credit where it is due.

  7. I for one welcome our new wireless overlords... by LuciferBlack · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Okay it's unverified, but that's a good distance if it is indeed true. :) But it begs the question - "How are we going to secure a wireless area that large if there's issues with smaller coverages?" What is the benefit of an area that large if they select who has access to the network? Any ideas on how they'd regulate people just hopping on the signal?

    --
    I'm working on a good joke about your mom being /.'d, but it's not finished yet.
    1. Re:I for one welcome our new wireless overlords... by wankledot · · Score: 1

      When you're talking about a mtn-top to mtn-top connection, the beam width is very VERY narrow, and the only people that would have to really worry about would be someone in line-of-sight (a plane) or someone near the antenna (on the mountain.) Otherwise, there's no reason to worry about it any more than a normal network.

      --
      My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
    2. Re:I for one welcome our new wireless overlords... by qbwiz · · Score: 1

      They could use encryption, like WEP or WPA for 802.11b/g. I can't see why they would have more trouble securing the connection than the somewhat above average home user.

      --
      Ewige Blumenkraft.
  8. Competition for cable by thc69 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Maybe this sort of thing can compete with cable for rural broadband...DSL doesn't go to my house.

    Too bad somebody beat me to the potato battery joke.

    --
    Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
    1. Re:Competition for cable by GweeDo · · Score: 1

      Fear not! This is /. and this article will be duped no less than three times giving you ample oppurtunity to post a battery tater joke!

      --
      Unstable Apps: Our Android Apps Don't Suck
    2. Re:Competition for cable by pete6677 · · Score: 1

      Hell, I'd like to see it used for urban broadband. It would be nice to have an alternative to the cable monopoly and/or the phone monopoly. Not to mention, it would probably be faster. It's hard to get too excited about long-range wireless internet until some company actually starts selling service.

    3. Re:Competition for cable by doombob · · Score: 1

      This sort of thing does work for rural broadband. Right now, a couple hundred dollars in equipment gets customers hooked up to the company I work for. 512-768K up and down for $39.95 per month. Not as cheap as DSL, but as cheap as cable and definately better than satellite. Plus, people can actually use it for VPN.

  9. Apples & Oranges by gclef · · Score: 4, Insightful

    DefCon: unamplified 802.11b; 11Mbps link; judges present & claim verified.

    These guys: closed, proprietary protocol; 2.3Mbps link; no one around to verify facts.

    As far as I'm concerned, the DefCon claim holds.

    1. Re:Apples & Oranges by Drooling+Iguana · · Score: 1

      More like apples and potatoes.

      --
      ... I'm addicted to placebos
  10. Re:Been there. Done that. by nxtr · · Score: 2, Informative

    That's on a liscenced frequency, you insensitive clod!

  11. Another record by nizo · · Score: 4, Funny

    They now also hold the record for the biggest and most obnoxious ad at the top of their webpage.

    --
    I Am My Own Worst Enemy
    1. Re:Another record by JPelorat · · Score: 1

      Dear nizo,

      What ad?

      Your Pal,
      Firefox+AdBlock

      --
      Hokey statistics and ancient misconceptions are no match for a good thought in your head, kid!
  12. Re:Been there. Done that. by bedroll · · Score: 1
    You title a post "Been there. Done that." then you talk about Voyager? You really are well travelled.

    Aside from that... what spectrum did Voyager use, was it unlicensed?

    ...announced that they transmitted data over unlicensed wireless spectrum 137.2 miles

  13. Hometown by kallx · · Score: 2, Insightful

    At least one good thing came out of my hometown. Now if they can just make wireless recivers less than $600 dollars they may have something.

    1. Re:Hometown by kallx · · Score: 1

      Hey TV was invented in Rigby Idaho. I saw the billboard every time I drove by growing up.

  14. Why is he modded down? by utopianfiat · · Score: 1

    He's only being a spamming whore as much as scuttlemonkey. Do your fucking job, slashdot editors. Give us news, not advertisements.

    --
    +5, Truth
    1. Re:Why is he modded down? by utopianfiat · · Score: 1

      (coughs) iirc verizon is one of those bastard fuck-their-customers companies, in my experience.
      You could probably get the same service and price from cingular, too. Possibly better quality since newer cingular phones support Edge GSM.

      --
      +5, Truth
    2. Re:Why is he modded down? by FragHARD · · Score: 1

      Form verizons' ad > CDMA secure ??? HAHAHAHAHAHAH all you got to do is pickup from ebay or any other;-) auction place two bits of equipment for about $100 and CDMA isn't secure anymore than CB radio is ;). If you want secure you better use you own crypting on sender side.

      --
      FragHARD or don't frag at all
  15. Re:Been there. Done that. by NorbMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It could be argued that there is no current body with the authority to license spectrum outside of Earth.

    Unless the FCC claims the whole of our solar system in it's domain.

  16. It's not so much of a record by Recovering+Hater · · Score: 1

    as it is a free advertisement/coming out party for some product they are testing and hoping to bring to market. Nothing to see here, move along.

    --
    My humor is probably your flamebait
  17. Laser WiFi? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Interesting

    All these long-distance radio records are being set with antennas attenuating all the signal into a (directional) narrow cylinder, rather than an (omnidirectional) sphere. What kind of performance could we get if we used a "radio laser", of coherent light in the 2.4GHz band, collimated into a long needle? Could we get transcontinental beams? Is it especially hard to make lasers in that band, and to modulate them for the WiFi signal? Is there a lot of latency, as the light bounces around in its resonant cavity before emerging coherent and pumped up to useable power? Couldn't we just modulate the "raw" laser as it was leaving the cavity?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Laser WiFi? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Could we get transcontinental beams?

      The earth is not flat.
    2. Re:Laser WiFi? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      In short: No.

      Light would be scattered and attenuated even faster than the radio signal by everything from dust to water vapor. and things like Earth tides would throw off your alignment continously. the amount of power and focusing needed would be astronomical to carry a signal that far.

      lasers work great when you can waveguide them in a controlled medium (ie fiber optics) but then we're back to being wired.

    3. Re:Laser WiFi? by forand · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Who is moding this interesting? Come on people, as someone in replied already THE EARTH IS NOT FLAT. You can go about 12 miles before the curvature of the earth stops you from having line of sight. "Lasers", as you say, using radio frequencies are traditionally called Masers but operate at higher frequencies than radio(Microwave), it is very difficult if not impossible to create a radio frequency coherent source since the size of the emitting region needs to be rather large and completly uniform on a very small scale.

    4. Re:Laser WiFi? by daVinci1980 · · Score: 1
      Could we get transcontinental beams?


      In 1491, we totally could. But that f'n Columbus guy went and messed everything up.
      --
      I currently have no clever signature witicism to add here.
    5. Re:Laser WiFi? by wowbagger · · Score: 1

      First of all: the term you are looking for is MASER - Microwave Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation. Masers were actually developed before lasers.

      Second of all - the difference between a high gain (and thus very directional) antenna and a maser is nil - in both cases you have a narrow beam with a small beam spread (angle of divergence). No laser, no maser, no signal source of any type has an angle of divergence of zero - they ALL spread. This "long needle" of RF from a maser is no different than a good RF amp into a good antenna system - they will be the same width (due to diffraction limits) and have the same divergence angle.

      Third of all - in order to make a maser work, you need a material which has an energy state transition corresponding to your desired frequency and that you can create a metastable population inversion in. Now, what that means is that if you want to make a 2.6 GHz maser, you have to find some material which has 2 energy states that are separated by the energy of a 2.6 GHz photon, and in which you can pump a significant portion of the material into the higher energy state and have it stay there until it is hit by a 2.6 GHz photon to stimulate the emission of radiation.

      Fourth of all, creating such a maser, and having it be at all tunable in frequency (in other words, you have to be able to tune the energy states of the material) is not easy. There are some tricks, like free electron (l|m)asers, that can do this, but they are VERY complicated.

      Fifth of all, (l|m)asers are very inefficient at converting input energy into output energy - you have to throw a LOT of watts in to get a watt out. Normal RF circuits are a great deal more efficient (better than 70% for a class C amplifier) than a maser.

      Overall, it is a LOT easier to get the same beamwidth with a good antenna system than with a maser.

      --
      www.eFax.com are spammers
    6. Re:Laser WiFi? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Well, we've already got ~200mi beams without lasers. How far with lasers?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    7. Re:Laser WiFi? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      People have been making masers since the early 1950s, even before lasers. WiFi is in the 2.4GHz and 5GHz subbands of the microwave band. So your criticism, while slightly interesting, is false.

      It is true that the earth is curved. So what? So we bounce a WiFi laser off a satellite, and back down to the ground. 2.4GHz is also absorbed by atmospheric water, but we can choose other bands. So what? Isn't that an interesting problem? What passes for interesting to you? You always reply to uninteresting posts?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    8. Re:Laser WiFi? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      That's pretty interesting detail. If the hard part is modulating the maser frequency, why bother at the maser? Why not have the maser merely shine steadily on a deflector (like a rotating MEMS mirror)which can modulate its beam into off/on states in the direction of the target? And how efficient does it have to be? We're using semiconductor lasers on little DC batteries to run CD players and all sorts of other equipment, as well as fairly low voltage semiconductor lasers lighting fiberoptics hundreds and thousands of miles.

      Is visible light somehow given more advantages by lasing than are microwaves? Because your descriptions of the shortcomings of lasers seem to indicate that they're not necessary at any frequency, and generally more trouble than they're worth. But modern laser products seem to indicate differently.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    9. Re:Laser WiFi? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Fuck you, Anonymous retard Coward - I'm not getting on the short bus with you retards. Say something sensible sometime, and I'll bother waving as you bump by.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    10. Re:Laser WiFi? by wowbagger · · Score: 1

      I never said that LASERS were not useful. MASERS - i.e. devices operating at microwave frequencies - were what I was talking about.

      And I never even said that masers were never useful - just not useful for what you are talking about.

      And I never said that modulating a maser was not possible - I said that *tuning* a maser - i.e. changing the frequency, say from 802.11 channel 1 to 802.11 channel 10 - was difficult.

      And a laser diode, like the .5 milliwatt laser in your CD player, is a far cry, in terms of beam power, frequency, and total input power, from a maser running several watts - which is what a maser used for RF communications would have to be.

      BTW: The lasers used in telecomms, over the tens to hundreds (NOT thousands) of kilometers of fiber, run about 10 watts of output power, with about a hundred watts of input power - not a low power at all. They are used not because of beam collimation, but because of their narrowness of bandwidth and their ability to be switched at very high frequencies - the actual divergence angle on these devices is rather large.

      Lastly, you are confusing "voltage" with "power" - they are not the same. Your 100 watt CPU is drawing the bulk of its power from a 1.8 volt (or less) power supply - at many tens of amps of current.

      --
      www.eFax.com are spammers
    11. Re:Laser WiFi? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying you said those things you've now denied. I merely am trying to understand some of the distinctions you've implied, but haven't made clear - like why masers have such differences in power efficiency.

      As for power, I didn't confuse it with voltage. I merely referred to the low-voltage fiber/comm lasers in contrast both to the high voltage (therefore high power at the same current) available to them in their wired chassis, and the (low voltage, low power) battery lasers. The point being that we're using low power lasers for real, long distance telecom. Now, 100W might be a lot for a laser. But it's only as much power consumption as the desk lighting of the operator. And AM radio stations operate at up to 1000W output power; they therefore consume more than that consumed by a 10W output fiber/comm laser.

      As for "tuning", the laser doesn't need to be tuned dynamically. The transmitter can be 17 different lasers, each pretuned to a different frequency WiFi channel, and selectively powered for output - or multiple outputs. If this antenna really can do much better than noncoherent RF, then it might be worth the extra cost and complexity.

      I respect your knowledge of laser engineering. That's why I'm learning from you. I do think that there might be a way to get the benefits of a "WiFi laser", by reengineering WiFi antennas to use them. But that's not just swapping in a maser instead of the RF antenna. It requires more engineering, and thinking outside the box. Unless the box really turns out to be opaque in this frequency.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    12. Re:Laser WiFi? by wowbagger · · Score: 1

      OK, let's be clear what we are talking about.

      A LASER is a device operating in either the infrared band, or the visible band - say wavelengths shorter than 11 um.

      A MASER is a device operating at microwave frequencies - roughly 1GHz to 1 THz.

      First of all - for ANY EM radiation - RF, light, X-rays, you name it - the shorter the wavelength, the smaller a focusing setup you will need for a give divergence angle. That is why you can focus light with a very small (to us) lens and get a good collimation, but it takes a BIG dish to focus 460 MHz RF that the radio astronomers use. Double the frequency, halve the wavelength, half the size of the antenna needed.

      Now, if you are talking about using a laser for WiFi - first, you have a LOT of absorption in the atmosphere. You have scattering. You have rain. You have safety issues. You have the fact that with a narrow divergence angle, the slightest movement of the laser will place the beam off the receiver. You have the fact (as others have noted) that the earth is round, so unless you have a great deal of height the horizon is too close to be worth worrying about.

      OK, now on to masers and RF. Let me further split the field into above 10GHz, and below 10GHz.

      Above 10GHz (3 cm wavelength), signals "act like light" - they get blocked by small things in the beam. They go in straight lines (remember the bit about the earth being curved?). Also, as the frequency goes up, the absorption of the atmosphere goes up - so either your power goes up, or your signal level goes down.

      At these frequencies, a maser can generate a "long needle" of signal - but then you have the problem of alignment, and of things blocking the beam, and of atmospheric attenuation. You can also get the same level of collimation using a small (30 cm) dish. You also don't have to worry about pumping a maser and losing 80%-90% of your input power. There simply is no advantage to using a maser over using a Gunn diode and a dish.

      OK, now to the 1GHz to 5GHz range. In this range, the signals "act like radio" - they are large enough that the signal will diffract around small objects in the beam. There is less atmospheric attenuation. The beam width will be wider, which while it costs you gain makes aiming much easier. To an extent, you get "knife-edge" diffraction over the horizon, extending your range somewhat.

      Now, you could build a maser for a fixed frequency carrier in these frequency ranges. But again, WHY? Instead of wasting 80% to 90% of the energy, you can run a simple amplifier and get at least 50% of the input energy into the beam. A simple vacuum tube amp will do nicely for the lower range, and for the higher ranges a magnetron or traveling wave tube amplifier will do the job much easier than a maser. Again, the collimation of a maser can be matched by a dish of a couple of feet diamater - and a maser for these frequencies isn't going to be much smaller.

      The simple fact it there is no advantage to using a maser for this job - it's like saying "but why not use an air powered nailer to staple these papers together?" The air nailer may be great at nailing boards together, but it sucks as a stapler.

      There are places masers are useful - generating very narrow bandwidth signals for timing purposes, acting as very high gain very narrowband amplifiers for deep space telemetry. But as a means of generating a carrier for a wideband signal like 802.11 they just aren't the right tool for the job. I don't expect my Grand Marquis to be good on the lake, and I don't expect my toaster oven to heat my house.

      --
      www.eFax.com are spammers
    13. Re:Laser WiFi? by Thundersnatch · · Score: 1

      Can you say Free Space Optics?

  18. Wait a minute by JHromadka · · Score: 3, Funny

    I thought it was a well-known fact that Idaho does not exist.

    --
    "The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved." -- John Ashcroft
    1. Re:Wait a minute by utopianfiat · · Score: 1

      I beg to differ[maps.google.com, btw]

      --
      +5, Truth
    2. Re:Wait a minute by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      So who do I believe, if this article is hosted at a uidaho site? Surely if it is not a state, then there can be no state university? Oh jeez i feel a headache coming...

    3. Re:Wait a minute by Mik3D · · Score: 1

      Having spent considerable time in the area indicated in your "map" I cannot confirm the existence of the white dotted line or the enormous lettering.

      Obviously Google is a willing conspirator!

      -Go Vandals!

  19. Re:Been there. Done that. by Guitarzan · · Score: 1

    Ya, they probably do claim that.

  20. Not sure what's more impressive... by PhatboySlim · · Score: 3, Funny
    I don't know whether to be more impressed by the fact they broke the wireless record...

    ... or by the fact there is a technology company in Idaho.

    --
    Be sure to remember the Programmers Prayer
    1. Re:Not sure what's more impressive... by blueturffan · · Score: 1
      ... or by the fact there is a technology company in Idaho.

      I know you were being funny, but I assume you've heard of these guys... http://www.micron.com/

      ...Maybe these guys... http://www.hp.com/

      But don't take my word for it: http://www.entrepreneur.com/Magazines/Copy_of_MA_S egArticle/0,4453,308612,00.html

    2. Re:Not sure what's more impressive... by fredmosby · · Score: 1

      The first nuclear power plant was built near Idaho Falls. Experimental Breeder Reactor 1.

  21. What is the praticality of all these records? by TheOtherAgentM · · Score: 1

    Forgive my ignorance, but when I drive up from Southern California to Northern California, there is still nothing to do in the car. Have any of these wireless networks been implemented for anything other than records? I would love to see huge areas blanketed with wireless.

  22. Re:Been there. Done that. by bedroll · · Score: 1
    It could be argued that there is no current body with the authority to license spectrum outside of Earth.

    It could be argued just as effectively that, since that distance was not of our world, what Voyager did doesn't qualify for a world record.

    Unless the FCC claims the whole of our solar system in it's domain.

    That wouldn't surprise me.

  23. Licensefree AND legal? by Transcendor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    AFAIK if you want (in Germany at least) to use one of the several freely available radio frequency bands,you'll have to stay in tight barriers when it comes to a)output power b) signal "precisity" (do not spread into other bands AND DO NOT INTERFERE with electronic equipment) and c) antenna gain.
    so - 200dB antenna just would be illegal. There's nothing with license-free since you in fact would violate laws and void your permission to use the bands.
    Maybe that's unimportant since all that record has in common with previous records in Wifi-distance are frequency.
    --be smart today. emit a bit. and get bitten!.

    1. Re:Licensefree AND legal? by dougmc · · Score: 1
      The US has similar laws.

      Ham radio operators can use high gain antennas, but then you're using a licensed band (though the licensed 2.4 GHz band does overlap with the unlicended band.)

      Really, if these people used the unlicensed band, and did not go under the ham radio rules, they probably violated the law. I don't know how upset the FCC would be about a 0.250 watt transmission that doesn't actually interfere with anything (I assume that's how much power they used) even if the ERP was much higher, but we shall see.

      As for a 200 dB antenna, well, I'd like to see that. I suspect it would be larger than the size of the Earth for the 2.4 GHz band :)

    2. Re:Licensefree AND legal? by rcw-home · · Score: 1
      As for a 200 dB antenna, well, I'd like to see that. I suspect it would be larger than the size of the Earth for the 2.4 GHz band :)

      You're right!

      A google search says the formula for theoretical dish gain is 20*log(7.4*FreqInGhz*DiameterInMeters). That matches some more google searching that says Arecibo (305 meters diameter) in Puerto Rico does about 70dB at those frequencies.

      Solving for diameter in meters results in 563000000 meters, which is roughly the size of the moon's orbit.

  24. What I want to know is... by Fuzzball963 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I have to say having experienced Microservs broadband links I'm not impressed. The mileage of the connection is impressive however their service routinely sucks. Dropped coonnections, low uptime, high prices for slow speeds.They have good latency when it actually works properly though :). Qwest DSL or CableOne has Microserv beat all hollow. Even the local Teton Wireless internet kicks their ass. But Teton wireless does have some pretty impressive speeds for a long range wireless link (I've seen it get as high as 5Mbps down and 2Mbps up).

    --
    "The boy is dangerous, they all sense it, why can't you?"
  25. Re:Been there. Done that. by grozzie2 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Licensing is just a silly artifact of local regulatory requirements. Yes, voyager was unlicensed, nobody on earth has the jurasdiction to claim ownership of the spectrum out where it is. On the recieving end, no license is required to recieve the signal, and even if it was, there's plenty of places on this planet where nobody has jurasdiction to regulate such things. It's trivial to put an hf link on a couple of boats, set em half way around the world from each other, in the open ocean, and claim 'unlicensed', and actually get reliable communications. Since they are on the high seas, there is no regulatory body with jurasdiction, and they can use whatever spectrum they want, however they want.

    This whole business of 'records' for wireless transmissions is just so silly, a game of 'mine is bigger than yours'. Until these folks are actually communicating with stuff that's farther from this planet than geostationary orbit, then, there's already plenty of folks communicating without wires, over distances far greater than 137 miles, as part of normal everyday operations, so common in fact, nobody thinks twice about it. For one off custom setups, well, there's a couple of little robots traversing around mars that do it daily. For highly specialized 'record breaking' stuff, look out to cassini and beyond.

  26. Re:Guinness by bedroll · · Score: 1

    It's spelled like the beer, cause those are the people that started it. They did it to try and curb bar fights over useless statistics.

  27. Omni to Directional by Himring · · Score: 1

    I wonder what the limit might be for an omni-directional to a directional antennae setup. Or, between two omnis....

    --
    "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    1. Re:Omni to Directional by Transcendor · · Score: 1

      well, over a distance of about 140 miles, a antenna with a directional opening more than 4 wouldn't make any sense.
      therefore, if you imagine the radiated field in 2d, if you open your spot 1, you'll radiate at tan(1) * 140 miles more space. so you'll lose a fourth of intensity- as you can see, theres a proportionality between intensity and opening anchor. so, with 360, you'd only get 1/90th of the power you could have. Not a good idea.
      variable multi-antenna-sets are the way to go, anyways. A stack of different antennas combined with a logic to aggregate the right ones to get maximal antenna gain for a certain target- implemented in consumer wifi-devices since beginning 2005.
      --iradiating the night. Get bitten!

  28. It's all a function of altitude. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Far greater distances are possible, it is only a matter of getting the antennas high enough. This latest shot is done form a 9,000+ mountain to a 8,000+ mountain.

    If you could place a Wifi satelite in orbit, you'ld be able to run an even longer link. It's not a matter of power, it is a matter of Line of Sight(LoS) and the freznel zone. If the shot was straight up, the distance would be incredible.

  29. What Kind Of Record Is Involved Here? by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "The equipment used was not based on standard 802.11 wireless technology, but instead was based on proprietary radio technology from Trango."

    This would seem to be irrelevant to the Defcon record which was unamplified standard 802.11.

    It's comparing apples and oranges, isn't it?

    I suppose you can say it's a new "wireless" record, but then what about the Navy's ULF submarine communication methods? Aren't they "wireless"? And they go a lot further than 100 miles.

    This seems like an advertising stunt to me.

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  30. Re:Publicity Stunt! by arbitraryaardvark · · Score: 2, Funny

    A good article about
    some weird, gang-style rivalry coming from a falling out between the founders     might be quite slashdotworthy. Got one?

  31. Re:Propriatary by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1


    The problem is, at what point does "wireless" mean anything at all?

    The standard is 802.11. That's what the Defcon and other teams are working on. That's what people care about - extending off the shelf wireless systems.

    Holding up another proprietary system as "wireless" - even it technically is - just to claim a record sounds like a marketing stunt to me.

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  32. Now, if only...... by netruner · · Score: 1

    they could get my wireless broadband to work over a 1/4 mile distance with a couple of trees in the way.

    --



    DISCLAIMER: This post was not checked for speling and grammar- if you complain- you're a whiner
    1. Re:Now, if only...... by pe1chl · · Score: 1

      Connect a decent antenna. Bundling of the radio energy is the key to covering very long distances with very small transmitted power. And it also works on the receiving end, so you can start doing this at one end and see if it helps.
      A moderately directive antenna will amplify the signal by 50 times at this frequency, and is commercially available for $100 or so.

  33. Microserv Wireless Blows Hard by fsterman · · Score: 1

    Wow, Idaho made it to /., too bad it's Microserv. Their signal strength will grind to halt wildly, clear or cloudy. I service two hotels networks in the area. I kept getting calls the network ground to a halt, every time its confirmed the problem is on their end. Wireless ISP's are for those who cannot get DSL or cable, and definitely not for critical operations. Most DSL companies can get the higher 3-6 megabit cable to centralized areas. Whatever Microserv is claiming they can deliver is like the early PS2 benchmarks. On a clear day, line of sight, with not other neighbors hogging traffic, and no electromagnetic interference.

    Sidenote, while traveling tell people you are from Idaho. It's either, "What country is that?" or the conversation will lead too potatoes. Even though everyone out does us on potatoes as a cash crop. Our river rafting kicks ass though...

    --
    Is there anything better than clicking through Microsoft ads on Slashdot?
  34. Correction: Not a Startup by njfuzzy · · Score: 1

    I work with the wireless industry (as part of a job in networking software), and I have to point out an error in the summary. Trango is not a "start-up". They have been around selling nice radios for years.

    --
    My Photography - http://ian-x.com
    The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
  35. Best world record in 2,3 Ghz band by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    The best record in 2,3 Ghz is 1560 km
    or 16475 km if use the moon

    http://www.ham.se/vhf/dxrecord/dxrec.htm#F

    You only need more erp, bigger disk, more power, or slower speed to improbe S/N

  36. Bragging rights by MycroftMkIV · · Score: 1

    Those Idahoans! Always bragging about how "mine is longer than yours".

    Mike
    Hayden Lake, Idaho

  37. Re:Guinness by adamplas · · Score: 1

    From what I recall, it seemed to work in the local taverns. Of course, it really doesn't matter who wins an argument as long as a round of Guinness is to be shared. Long live ireland (and it's wonderful beers)

  38. Re:Been there. Done that. by cashman73 · · Score: 2, Funny
    Unless the FCC claims the whole of our solar system in it's domain.

    Mod parent DOWN! Let's not give George W. Bush any ideas!!!!

  39. Re:Been there. Done that. by gardyloo · · Score: 1

    It could be argued that there is no current body with the authority to license spectrum outside of Earth.

          Next, on 60 Minutes, why stars really appear to die.... and Andy Rooney!

  40. Submission ain't exactly fair use by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1
    Note that the only difference between pavelvp's article summary and the first two paragraphs of the actual article are that he removed the words "on Tuesday" from the the last sentence. Basically, if you read the summary, then you've been tricked into reading 1/3 of the article itself. That's a cruel prank to play on the Slashdot crowd.

    I guess it's small potatoes in the scheme of things, though.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  41. Potatoes? No tech?? by rh9shrike · · Score: 1

    Idaho has 53 nuclear reactors that have been operating before you were in diapers! http://www.inl.gov/ Several projects are still classified. If you're curious, check out the advanced test reactor, one of three at the Reactor Testing Complex.

    1. Re:Potatoes? No tech?? by rh9shrike · · Score: 1

      which one? most of them are navy reactors! if you're alluding to the sl-1 accident- that was an army reactor and the entire report can be found by a google search or by using the search button on the above website. try "proving the principal" Interesting reading- a lot of theorizing has gone out about why the operator removed the control rod.

  42. Re:Been there. Done that. by Hobbes897 · · Score: 1
    Since they are on the high seas, there is no regulatory body with jurasdiction, and they can use whatever spectrum they want, however they want.
    This is true. However, there is also no regulatory body to protect them. The 200 mile international limit includes the provision that ships can exercise flag state jurisdiction in cases of piracy or slavery outside their waters; one could pay a country with a navy to protect oneself.
    --
    Normality is now: overrated.
  43. Enough of these crappy stories! by __aailob1448 · · Score: 1


    If there was ONE cliche story I'd like permanently removed from slashdot, it'd be these "XXX beats previous wireless record by X meters" stories that seem to pop up every 2 minutes.

    Nobody fucking cares. It's a total waste of my fucking time and this shit only belongs in the crappy blog of whatever unoriginal loser just beat the "record".

    Clear?

  44. But did they do it legally? by n6kuy · · Score: 1

    The more antenna gain you use on these part 15 devices, the less power you are allowed to use.

    Did they reduce power as required?
    I'll bet not.

    --
    If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
  45. You bet Voyager was licensed by wsanders · · Score: 1

    At least the ground stations. Of all the spectrum out there the space communications bands are heavily gaurded - you don't want your new billion-dollar sat sent crashing to earth because of some yahoo's CB.

    From: http://pds-rings.seti.org/voyager/datasets/rss/vg1 sinst.html

                The spacecraft radio system was constructed around a redundant
                pair of transponders. Each transponder was equipped with an
                S-band receiver (2115 MHz nominal frequency) and transmitters
                at both S-band (2295 MHz nominal) and X-band (8415 MHz nominal).
                Compared with S-band, X-band is less sensitive to plasma effects
                by a factor of about 10; use of both frequencies coherently on
                the 'downlink' allowed estimation of plasma content along the
                radio path. Use of X-band also significantly improved the
                quality of radio tracking data for gravity investigations.

    --
    Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
  46. Utterly useless by Vellmont · · Score: 1

    For the 99% of the population that doesn't want to transmit data between two mountains, this is useless. You need those two mountains to get past the distance limitations imposed by the curvature of the earth.

    --
    AccountKiller
  47. Apples != Oranges by ka9dgx · · Score: 1
    • Different power levels: They are obviously using more power than the unamplified WiFi gear, otherwise they'd need bigger recieve dishes
    • They aren't using 802.11, so it's apples vs oranges
    • They didn't have to have one end at (near?) DefCon in Las Vegas, so they have far different terrain.
    Maybe I'm just cynical, but what's the big deal? If you want to talk distance records, my personal opinion is that the record to beat is about 250,000 miles, with full NTSC video. It was set way back in 1969, with a very large audience in attendance. That was a giant leap for mankind!

    --Mike--

  48. Wait a minute by Fuzzball963 · · Score: 1

    Don't feel bad. When my mom announced we were moving here 7 years ago from NY, I had to go grab a map too :).

    --
    "The boy is dangerous, they all sense it, why can't you?"
  49. And what does this prove? Nothing. by wsanders · · Score: 1

    Who cares about using point to point wireless in the unlicensed bands? Licenses for moderate power for point to point data links are easy to get and the equipment is cheap.

    Now a record I'd like to see - use your access point to establish a record for the most number of stations distributed over a wide area. That's useful.

    Sprint used to have a service in the SF Bay Area back before DSL caught on. It was $50/mo, 10Mb, licensed spectrum in the S-band, used a pizza box sized antenna on a tripod on your root, and you had to be line of sight to one of two mountaintops in the area. They stopped accepting new subscribers about 2000 but I heard somewhere the system was still up.

    --
    Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
  50. Re:Been there. Done that. by grozzie2 · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Well, maybe you need to feel 'protected'. When I go sailing, I kind of enjoy the freedom of being 500 miles offshore, and slave to nobody's rules. There's also a significant number of islands one can sail up to, which have similar circumstances. You can toss the anchor, row the dingy ashore, and experience what real 'freedom' is all about.

    Then again, you could choose to live your life scared to death that 'pirates' may take over your little boat world, and go hide under uncle sam's skirt to prevent it.

  51. Why is this a post again? by Matilda+the+Hun · · Score: 1

    We're posting unverified news now? I mean, it's not like this is anything new, but even the article says it's only "claimed" that they did this. What's the point? Hey, look at me! I beat their record be three billion kajiggabits! Proof? I don't need to show proof, I just claimed it! Seriously, people. Next thing, we'll be getting posts about UFOs, crop circles, and intelligent decesion-making from Bush.

    --
    Tluin natha Linux xxizzuss uriu olt bwael mon'tun.
    1. Re:Why is this a post again? by One+Childish+N00b · · Score: 1

      Next thing, we'll be getting posts about UFOs, crop circles, and intelligent decesion-making from Bush.

      Dude, why did you have to go and Bush-bash? It's off-topic, has no place outside of the Politics section and will, sadly, get you modded up to +5, Funny.

      Your post was funny, but can people please stop with the insistance on anti-Bush daftness in every single damn story? Not singlng you out, this is a chronic problem. It has to stop. If you've read this far and aren't already reaching for the -1, Troll mod, I'm a Libertarian who was as mad as the best of you when Bush won a second term, I just think those that oppose his could present themselves better than through childish sniping in completely unrelated topics of conversation.

      There, now you can mod me.

      --
      Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
  52. Thats truly amazing! by techguy4004 · · Score: 1

    Seems that they accomplished something that was five times slower than the Defcon guys. They also did it without using wifi equiment. That is truly impressive. Keep up the good work.

  53. Re:Been there. Done that. by syousef · · Score: 1

    Well if you're US registered, they still have a hold of you in International Waters.

    http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/io/ma ritime.html

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  54. Re:Been there. Done that. by syousef · · Score: 1

    You're talking rubbish. If your boat is US registered they certainly can and do regulate your use of spectrum in International Waters.

    http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/io/ma ritime.html

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  55. Re:Been there. Done that. by Hobbes897 · · Score: 1

    Then I suppose the boat would have to be registered somewhere else for this to work.

    --
    Normality is now: overrated.
  56. Just wait a few years by yusing · · Score: 1

    Hey, wait a minute. I just remembered. I sent morse code to Vega in 1960 by flashlight.

    The return should be back in 5 years ... then there goes all your dumb records.

    --

    "You must try to forget all you have learned. You must begin to dream." -- Sherwood Anderson

  57. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN by hawkbug · · Score: 1

    Atleast I have the balls to post with my account, and not hide like you because you can't back up what you say.