Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Gigabit Wi-Fi On the Horizon

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the faster-pringles-cans dept.

alphadogg writes to mention that the same working group that brought you the standard for the 802.11n wireless communications is already poised to launch a gigabit Wi-Fi project. "Last year, group members formed the Very High Throughput (VHT) Study Group to explore changes to the 802.11 WLAN standard to support gigabit capacity. The study group is looking at doing so in two frequency bands, high-frequency 60GHz for relatively short ranges and under-6GHz for ranges similar to that of today's WLANs in the 5GHz band, 802.11a and 11n."

61 comments

  1. Not for US by clang_jangle · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Yeah, too bad here in the states no carrier has the infrastructure to support Gigabit internet connections. I pay for 6 Megabit and they can't even deliver that. But this will be nice for parts of Asia and Europe...

    --
    Caveat Utilitor
    1. Re:Not for US by lkypnk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, because the only thing people ever use LANs for is Internet access!

    2. Re:Not for US by Nuclear+Elephant · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but this will free up the rest of your LAN by offloading those pesky NetBIOS lookups.

    3. Re:Not for US by BlowHole666 · · Score: 1

      Funny I pay for 15 Megabit and I get 15.5 Megabit. Maybe you should switch providers.

      --
      I smoked pot once. But I DID NOT inhale. Will you hire me?
    4. Re:Not for US by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 3, Informative

      uhhh.....

      Gigabit Wireless does not mean that you will be getting your ISP to deliver it, it means that you can set your home office or enterprise up with it.

    5. Re:Not for US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lovin' that Comcastic service, huh?

      Seriously, though, this has potential for high-demand intranets. Graphics, video, and architecture in older buildings comes to mind - where running cable can cost a small fortune, especially for a startup. Second is for the expanding home server market, where people are doing graphics (home pics) and video (up to Blu-Ray and beyond) over their home networks. Again, for those of us who don't live on brand new, wired homes, getting large video data around can be quite a pain.

    6. Re:Not for US by peektwice · · Score: 1

      Dang, beat me to it. Absofreakinglutely correct though... massive LAN bandwidth doesn't do shit for me if all I'm doing is downloading torrents from somewhere in Russia or looking at pr0n.

      --
      Other than this text, there is no discernible information contained in this sig.
    7. Re:Not for US by clang_jangle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Doesn't invalidate my point. The US has fallen way behind many other nations in terms of broadband capability, and that is likely to have a negative impact on US businesses as well as consumers in many ways in the fairly near future.

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    8. Re:Not for US by clang_jangle · · Score: 1

      Sure, and all that would take would be a simple relocation of my home, my business, and my life. Happy for ya, pal, wish we could all afford to be so smug...

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    9. Re:Not for US by Fweeky · · Score: 2

      On the other hand, a single consumer HD these days can saturate even wired GigE. I remember upgrading years ago because I was sick of not having the network bandwidth to properly use even a single disk; now I can stream 110MB/s off one, and I can see in a few years I'm going to be hankering after 10GigE, the way I hankered after GigE because disks were several times faster than Fast Ethernet.

    10. Re:Not for US by Pulzar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And when it rains, sidewalks are wet. That's also a valid point, but it has nothing to do with the topic! What the hell does US broadband capability have to do with with a group working on short-range gigabit wifi?

      --
      Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
    11. Re:Not for US by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Dang, beat me to it. Absofreakinglutely correct though... massive LAN bandwidth doesn't do shit for me if all I'm doing is downloading torrents from somewhere in Russia or looking at pr0n.

      But they are useful for people who actually create things rather than just consuming what others create.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    12. Re:Not for US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I think the point is that here in the U.S. we are stuck with a megabit infrastructure, while gigabit wireless ( logically, the final component for ubiquitous gigabit networking) is nearly here.
      Maybe you'd understand it better like this: Say our roads were only rated for vehicles traveling at 35 MPH, and we weren't investing in better roads -- while cars are capable of safely traveling at high speeds in may other countries, we remain stuck with 35 MPH limits. Now, you see? It shows how far we've fallen behind, that's what it has to do with it.

    13. Re:Not for US by clang_jangle · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      That's pretty much what I meant, but I wasn't going to bother explaining the obvious. /. is just overrun these days with stupid, fake geeks who have no foresight.

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    14. Re:Not for US by thealsir · · Score: 1

      and have to move massive amounts of files around. That's where even 100mbit LANs start looking slow. Gigabit, especially if wireless, is a huge advantage.

      That said, it'll probably get less speed on average than gigabit cabled ethernet.

      --
      Do not downmod posts "overrated" simply because you disagree with them.
    15. Re:Not for US by jimdread · · Score: 1

      Say our roads were only rated for vehicles traveling at 35 MPH, and we weren't investing in better roads -- while cars are capable of safely traveling at high speeds in may other countries, we remain stuck with 35 MPH limits. Now, you see? It shows how far we've fallen behind, that's what it has to do with it.

      Suppose it would cost a trillion dollars to upgrade your roads to allow speeds of 75mph. At the same time, somebody is working on flying cars, which will cost twice as much as those old cars with wheels that need a road. If the flying cars can go 500mph, doesn't it make sense to not waste money on roads, and just go straight to flying cars?

      I think we need more flying car analogies.

    16. Re:Not for US by Pulzar · · Score: 1

      Judging from your UID, you're one of them :). Otherwise you'd understand that short-range gigabit wireless has nothing to do with broadband speeds in US. One solves a problem of home/office LAN connection, and the other is a problem of delivering much higher bandwidths over much larger distances to whole neighbourhoods, towns, and even cities. Even if every one of us walked around with a gigabit wireless router in our pockets, we'd still have the problem of handling all that bandwidth on the next hop.

      --
      Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
  2. Nice! by Boomba · · Score: 1

    Sounds pretty awesome for streaming the future generation of high-def to the couch wirelessly.

    1. Re:Nice! by 0xygen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've always been of the mindset that my laptop has a power lead, so when I want to move things around quickly, I have no real issue plugging in a gigabit network cable from down the side of the couch.

      I guess it's good for not having to run infrastructure though - rented places, student halls, or just making the house prettier!

  3. Cool Idea But... by fm6 · · Score: 1

    Do the airwaves even have the spare bandwidth to pump through a billion bits per second? Right now, providers are fighting over parts of the spectrum with much lower bandwidth.

    1. Re:Cool Idea But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      similar to that today's WLANs in the 5GHz band, 802.11a and 11n.

      Do the airwaves even have the spare bandwidth to pump through a billion bits per second? Right now, providers are fighting over parts of the spectrum with much lower bandwidth.

      Please read TFS before you talk about TFS!

    2. Re:Cool Idea But... by KGIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Have no fear. They haven't even managed to get 802.11n ratified/completed yet. Expect this to be realistic in Q4 2048.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    3. Re:Cool Idea But... by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 1

      That is overly pessimistic, seeing as how 802.11n has been in development since 2004, and will (hopefully) be ready in 2009. So I'd say gigabit WLAN will be actual in 2013ish.

      However, by that time gigabit speeds will feel like snails pace..

  4. From the group who brought us N by 77Punker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nobody has brought us N yet. According to Wikipedia, it probably won't be ratified until November 2009. They should probably work on that first.

    1. Re:From the group who brought us N by sexconker · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Exactly what I was going to post.
      Without the shit-o-pedia bit.

    2. Re:From the group who brought us N by DigitalisAkujin · · Score: 1

      You know there's a difference between real life and ISO standards right?

      O right... it's /.

    3. Re:From the group who brought us N by 77Punker · · Score: 1

      Real life right now is using pre-release versions of standards that do not interoperate with each other properly. So at the moment, real life reflects the unfinished nature of the standard very well.

    4. Re:From the group who brought us N by Ostracus · · Score: 1

      That's the part that bothers me. I'm in the market for a wireless router but I'm not certain just how much of a minefield "N" is?

      --
      Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
    5. Re:From the group who brought us N by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IEEE standard

    6. Re:From the group who brought us N by el+americano · · Score: 1

      And you'd rather have equipment based on a ratified standard that doesn't interoperate with each other? Seriously, just having the standard doesn't mean everyone will follow it correctly. 802.11n interoperates pretty well now, and I don't expect it to be any better in 2009.

      --
      Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. -Groucho Marx
    7. Re:From the group who brought us N by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      When 802.11n gets finalized, we'll all be using it to play DN4E over IPv6 from our flying cars.

      "From the people that brought you Pipe Dream Stuck in Committee comes..."

    8. Re:From the group who brought us N by tabrnaker · · Score: 1

      Well, i'm certainly enjoying the nice transfers i'm getting from my belkin router to my tx25xx tablet. Now i just wish my internet connection was as fast.

  5. Same group as N? by HaeMaker · · Score: 2, Funny

    Then we should see it by about 2040.

  6. Hah. by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    "60GHz and under-6GHz for ranges similar to that of today's WLANs in the 5GHz band, 802.11a and 11n."

    There, fixed that for ya.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  7. Let me be the first to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1.21 Gigabits!

  8. Time for my aluminum hat! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    With all these radio waves floating around my house (cellular, wi-fi, microwave, wireless USB, wireless HDMI, etc) the tumor in my head will have a new friend!

  9. Re:Bill lives... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And with this new technology you will be able to view it much faster!

  10. What's The Point??? by Skeetskeetskeet · · Score: 0, Informative

    You're only as fast as your fastest connection, so if you have a gigabit wireless inside your house you will transmit within your home network at gigabit speeds, which is great if you're doing wireless media from one device to another like for an entertainment center accessing a movie collection through wireless. The caveat is once you go outside the home network you're at the mercy of the provider, whether it be DSL, cable, or otherwise, so you can gigabit all day long within your home, once you get outside you're pretty much pounding sand.

    --
    Yeah, my karma sucks....but so do the mods.
    1. Re:What's The Point??? by Chyeld · · Score: 1

      In my dream home, my highest bandwidth consumption will be internal, not external.

      However, even if I never get my dream home. Mesh networks can help ensure you never 'leave' your home network. And the faster wireless gets, the more incentive there is to actually work on creating them.

    2. Re:What's The Point??? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Funny

      In my dream home, my highest bandwidth consumption will be internal, not external.

      That's nice. In my dream home I'm aiming for the ' two 19-year-old, bikini-clad "adjunct group members" ' mentioned above.

      Keep your wireless ...

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  11. More capacity? last thing we need by Ren.Tamek · · Score: 1
    The major pitfalls of wireless at the moment are:
    • unreliable
    • high latency
    • low range
    • low capacity

    In roughly that order. Anyone wanna tackle those problems first?

    --
    "If you want a vision of the future, Winston, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever." - George Orwell, 1984
    1. Re:More capacity? last thing we need by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      High latency? Ping time to a machine on my WLAN is 1.2ms. Ping time to the machine one hop away on my ISP's network is 12ms. What are you doing which requires less than 1ms latency on a LAN?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:More capacity? last thing we need by Aetuneo · · Score: 1

      It seems to be fairly reliable to me - whenever I'm in a situation where a wifi network is unreliable, it's either because I'm too far away or the router itself is having issues. Latency is low, as far as I can tell basically the same as pinging another computer by way of a hub. The range is an issue, but it's one which will be difficult to deal with, although there are already ways to do so - for example, you can sacrifice latency for range by using repeaters. As for it being low capacity - which I take to mean low bandwidth - this is what they're trying to fix.

      --
      Everything is subjective.
    3. Re:More capacity? last thing we need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, gamers for one. half all the ping times of all the hops and add them up, now double that number. Anything you can do to reduce that final number is a help. Since you only control you LAN dropping that 1.2ms down helps a little.

  12. Gigabit wifi ? Can't wait. by drsmithy · · Score: 1

    Actual speeds might even be competitive with a 100Mb LAN.

  13. Fix current wifi and wimax first! by neutrino38 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Before going gigabit, we await a few fixes

    - we should have a true full duplex communication with radio resource allocation. We need this for VoIP
    - we should have better network density (more user per network)
    - we should have better way to avoid interference between neighbouring networks.
    - in case of wimax, high latency has been reported when network becomes really used and bad behaviour inside buildings.
    - next gen wireless network should also be optimised to avoid battery drain.
    - For network pairing, please copy GAP/DECT technology and remove this network key usability nonsense.
    - Innovate by making wireless roaming easy.

    Fix this first. Otherwise, at this rate, big telco and 3G technology will rule.

    1. Re:Fix current wifi and wimax first! by runlevelfour · · Score: 1

      Amen brother, unfortunately the common mentality is speed > quality. Rather than refine and improve what we currently have there seems to be a burning need to increase speed first, maybe fix a few things and then push the speed envelope again. I am all for faster transfer rates but I would like to see some refinements in what we are currently using first.

    2. Re:Fix current wifi and wimax first! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take your statement and look at it in terms of hardware/software and you may see why things are the way they are.

    3. Re:Fix current wifi and wimax first! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > neighbouring
      > optimised

      Oh....I understand now.
      You are are overseas.....

      Don't worry...our upgrades will reach you soon.

    4. Re:Fix current wifi and wimax first! by natx808 · · Score: 1

      most of your fixes are here already - visit http://www.xirrus.com/

      - voip is already being done successfully over wi-fi. there's plenty of non overlapping channels and multiple phones can run off a single xirrus AP

      - very high user density - 20k users supported at interop

      - rf management built in

      - plays nice with other wireless networks

      - 1/4 the power usage of other wi-fi solutions

      - fast roaming built in between radios and accses points

      wimax is irrelavent. wimax is used for long haul point to point typically. don't expect consumer wimax for wireless lan to become a reality.

  14. should be able to vaporize birds by entr0pic · · Score: 0

    Bad week to be a pigeon...

  15. Yay, but... by Pugwash69 · · Score: 1

    Excellent. Whenever I need to shift large files (1GB+) between my laptop and network storage I usually have to disappear to a switch and wire myself in. As long as it doesn't have interference with neighbours I'm sorted.

    --
    Pro Coffee Drinker
  16. news? by hurfy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "At a meeting this week in Hawaii, the study group has been finalizing a proposal calling for creation of a new, as yet unnamed task group to carry forward the work of crafting a standard."

    No tech yet, no people yet, no name yet but it's coming soon trust us......

  17. who needs 1 GB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd settle for a 1MB connection that is reliable from my wife's office to my office next door with the door open.

    I am using wireless N on Linksys's most high-end business router (according to the expert monkeys at future shop) and I still ended up running a fucking cat 5e cable through the house cos the connection keeps dropping. WIFI - my arse!

    Nick

  18. Note the location.... by thatseattleguy · · Score: 4, Funny
    TFA says,

    At a meeting this week in Hawaii, the study group has been finalizing a proposal calling for creation of a new, as yet unnamed task group to carry forward the work of crafting a standard.

    Not quoted was a later section, which went on to say:

    "Study group members recommended several more meetings to work on gritty details of the task force proposal, beginning with further "working sessions" to be held in Tahiti, St. Tropez, Rio de Janeiro, and a luxury cruise ship in the Carribean. 'Our work is never truly done', sighed one group member, clearly still feeling the effects of the previous night's 'Bacardi and Bimbos' breakout group. 'We'll keep at it as long as it takes, just like we did with 802.11n', promised another, as two 19-year-old, bikini-clad "adjunct group members" massaged coconut oil into his back."

  19. Only on the horizon? by mfnickster · · Score: 1

    On the horizon doesn't do me any damn good. I need it to be much closer than that!

    --
    "Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
  20. Not to be a cynical bastard but..... by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

    I'm assuming if they claim it's gigabit then surely it's exactly 500mbit a second in real world use, right?
    Just like 802.11g is almost exactly half what it claims.

  21. Vapor by Nodamnnicknamesavial · · Score: 0

    Considering how long it took them just to finalize .11n, I'll believe it when I see Duke Nukem shipping.

    --
    I have spoken'eth.
  22. pfrrhhrr.. i tells ya by hamsjael · · Score: 1

    When all the encryption, bandwith sharing, distance and walls/other objects have been taken into account it will run a flaking 2 Mbps. Just like any other wireless connection