Wireless Video Transfers 100X Faster Than WiFi

coondoggie writes "Later today IBM plans to announce microprocessor chipsets that can wirelessly transmit high-definition video at extremely high speeds. 'IBM will do this by teaming with MediaTek to launch a joint initiative to develop these ultra fast chipsets.The companies will be developing millimeter wave (mmWave) radio technology — the highest frequency portion of the radio spectrum — 60 gigahertz rather than 2.4 gigahertz — and digital chipsets that enable at least 100 times higher data rates than current Wi-Fi standards.'"

Comments

Walls

[PineGreen]

First post: does it go through the walls? It's going to be difficult at these frequencies!

Re:Walls

[Linker3000]

I understand you get a better, more penetrating, signal using MONSTER gold-plated mm wave antennae. Apparently they produce signal waves using gold ions so any streamed video has sharper definition and crisper sound.

There's a picture of one of these SupaAntennas here.

The normal selling price is $99.99/pair but I can do two for only $49.99.

Re:Walls

[evilviper]

if you want to limit your WiFi to the inside of a building and such it might limit the range to an acceptable level outside where someone passing by on the road wont be able to pick up a wireless signal.

A very bad idea. You're likely to install it in a room with a window, which it will go through with no trouble and provide a strong signal to anyone outside, while you'll still struggle to get a signal in the next room (through a wall, not a window).

Re:Walls

[RadioElectric]

Then the way to go would be to put it in one room and then knock holes in the walls for the signal to go through. Even better, if you could concentrate the signal into a smaller width of broadcast you'd need a smaller hole to fit the same signal strength through. For absoulute security and extra directional power (and thus smaller holes) you could put the signal into some kind of insulated metal rope and send it along that directly into the target device. Am I on to something here?

Article is shithouse.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Article is shithouse - light on detail beyond belief. Check out IBM's 60GHz page.

What you want to know: Practical limitation is 10M, useless through walls.

Re:Article is shithouse.

[SeekerDarksteel]

What you want to know: Practical limitation is 10M, useless through walls.

Or 82 miles with a pringles can.

Re:Article is shithouse.

[abionnnn]

Well not quite, as well as the square power-law there's also an exponential attenuation factor due to absorption by the atmosphere. It is far greater at 60GHz than at 2.4GHz.

http://www.everythingweather.com/atmospheric-radiation/absorption.shtml (60GHz ~5mm)

Hmmm

[xrayspx]

Wireless Video Transfers 100X Faster Than WiFi

Philo Farnsworth called the technology Image Dissection. I hear they get pretty bitchin' range with it too. AFAIK it now also handles HD content.

Line of sight only

[scsirob]

60GHz signals do not travel through walls or anything else. You can't set up a central transmitter in your house and watch HD movies elsewhere. This is nice technology to 'beam' signals across a street or to prevent wiring mess in an ad-hoc meeting room, but it won't be a real WiFi replacement

Re:Line of sight only

[femto]

I would modify that slightly by saying 60GHz will travel through a typical office partition (with attenuation), so it's slightly better than line of sight (ie. infrared). Bricks walls are out, you might get away with a plasterboard wall. You probably can put a 60GHz access point on the ceiling of an open plan office and get a useful signal to each desk through a combination of propagation through light partitions, reflection and directional antennas. It will save having to wire an open plan office with ethernet. I know this because I was involved in a 60GHz project, that included a propagation study, in 1995. Google for the paper "A HIGH-SPEED WIRELESS LAN", IEEE Micro, 1997.

Re:Line of sight only

[suv4x4]

60GHz signals do not travel through walls or anything else. You can't set up a central transmitter in your house and watch HD movies elsewhere. This is nice technology to 'beam' signals across a street or to prevent wiring mess in an ad-hoc meeting room, but it won't be a real WiFi replacement

Checkout my idea:

We know power lines can carry data. So, you buy little transformer-like devices that take this wireless video signal, transform it and beam the data in the power network.

Then you take another such transformer, and plug it in any socket at all in your house, or house around you even, which beams the data back to 60 GB wireless signal which hits your laptop, tv, console etc.

Achieved benefits:

1. no wires
2. works through walls
3. gigabits of bandwidth for your video and net
4. potentially getting brain cancer and dying young, but that's not important.

Well, what do you think? Can we file a patent here or what?

Re:Line of sight only

[femto]

Perhaps. As you have pointed out, MIMO relies on a "rich" multipath channel with lots of reflectors. Above 10GHz the channel starts to move towards ray propagation, reducing the amount of multipath in the channel. This might reduce the effectiveness of MIMO. I said "perhaps" because an open plan office might be a special case due to the sheer number of metallic reflectors in range. I gather some research groups are performing the relevant channel measurements, but I haven't seen the results.

Re:Why?

[jon287]

At that frequency, the signal wouldn't penetrate walls very well, would it?

At that frequency, the signal wouldn't penetrate PAPER very well. You can think of it (nearly correctly) as a very weak flashlight beam, much like a regular old TV remote. Only lots more picky about everything being just right.

Not *that* fast

[egarland]

Since Wi-Fi is generally 11-54 mbit they're only talking 1-5 gbit. The mentioned use is for video so it sounds like they are trying to connect displays to devices that generate output, i.e. replacing a monitor cable. For comparison DVI is 3.7 gbit, DVI-D 7.4. Most likely they are talking about the 1-2 gbit range since if it was in the 5gbit range they'd probably have said so instead of 100x wifi. That data rate would only be useful for low-resolution displays like HDTVs, not for general purpose computer monitor use. The devices would likely need to be close to each other due to the high frequencies. It sounds like they may be targeting removing the cable requirements home theater systems or something similar.

Personally.. I like cables for hooking up video. Wireless is buggy, snoopable, power hungry, and hard to set up (with 4 transmitters and 4 receivers, how to you configure what displays where?) Cables, while bulky and sometimes annoying have an incredibly easy UI. Plug one end here, the other end there, the things are connected. Want to change it? plug the wire in somewhere else.

Re:Cancer risk?

[fnj]

You're right that frequency and power are different. Mutations require ionizing radiation; basically alpha/beta/gamma rays, neutrons, cosmic rays, etc. Well into the ultraviolet is about the lowest frequency that can be mutationally dangerous - somewhere around 10E-8 m, or thousands of times higher frequency than millimeter wave RF.

All millimeter wave RF can do is heat objects. It can do this promptly and well below the surface. With enough power, it can kill you pretty quickly by simple heating, but that's all. With a well focused beam, your brain could be literally cooked basically before you notice it. But practically speaking there is no intensity or duration of microwaves that causes mutations.