Slashdot Mirror


First Ceiling Light Internet Systems Installed

An anonymous reader writes "We last heard about LVX's LED ceiling light optical communication system in December, and now news has broken that the company recently implemented the technology at several city offices in St. Cloud, Minnesota. The LVX/ceiling light system is capable of transmitting data at about three megabits per second, which is about as fast as a residential DSL line. It works by placing light-emitting diodes (LEDs) in a standard-sized light fixture. This then transmits coded binary messages to the special modems attached to computers, which also respond via light waves."

179 comments

  1. Welcome to 1994... by DarkOx · · Score: 1

    The return of the infra-red access point, even if its not infra red this time around same bad concept.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    1. Re:Welcome to 1994... by Brett+Buck · · Score: 2

      Why is this a bad idea again? It's not overly speedy but it's plenty fast enough for almost any sort of office use.

    2. Re:Welcome to 1994... by Toe,+The · · Score: 1

      Or do you mean 1984?

      Think on that one... ;)

    3. Re:Welcome to 1994... by countSudoku() · · Score: 0

      Because it's a security violation for any real enterprise. Forget Faraday, you're broadcasting, and accepting lightwave-carrier connections right through the air and the nearest window. Why not just put your servers in a parking lot with a "free" sign on it and call it a day? Mr. T laughs at this protocol; "I pity the foo who thinks this is a good idea!" -- Mr. T

      --
      This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
    4. Re:Welcome to 1994... by icebike · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The return of the infra-red access point, even if its not infra red this time around same bad concept.

      Well presuming the developers are not total idiots, lets give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they at least encourage WPA2 or something.

      In a closed room, at least you can be assured your transmissions aren't seeping thru walls as with regular WiFi.

      Even in an windowed room or public space, assuming the use of the above mentioned security, what is the difference in using light as opposed to radio waves?

      Other than the slow speed of this early version, and its line of sight restriction, what causes you to call it a "bad concept"?

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    5. Re:Welcome to 1994... by noidentity · · Score: 4, Informative

      Transmitting the data through the air, you mean like WiFi and cell phones do all the time? Too bad we don't have a way to scramble the data in a way that makes its contents inaccessible unless someone has the "key"...

    6. Re:Welcome to 1994... by icebike · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Because it's a security violation for any real enterprise. Forget Faraday, you're broadcasting, and accepting lightwave-carrier connections right through the air and the nearest window.

      So "Real enterprises" never use WiFi?

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    7. Re:Welcome to 1994... by Even+on+Slashdot+FOE · · Score: 2

      How does the light get outside without windows? Inquiring minds want to know.

    8. Re:Welcome to 1994... by noidentity · · Score: 2

      This can use much higher output power, as it's the room lighting which you want to reach all areas of the room anyway. A drawback though is that the duty cycle has to be near 100%, otherwise the room lighting would dim. That has to cut into bandwidth.

    9. Re:Welcome to 1994... by Nikker · · Score: 1

      Maybe I'm just a bit dense but why would you need a 3 or even 10mbps solution like this in a professional setting when I can get better reliability and performance off of a cat3 cable and off the shelf NICs?

      --
      A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
    10. Re:Welcome to 1994... by tftp · · Score: 1

      Why is this a bad idea again?

      1. Install one or a couple of 802.11 access point; requires one power adapter and one (or zero, if WDS is used) Ethernet cable per AP. Everyone in the office can then access the network using 802.11 adapters built into most laptops and in many desktops. Get up to 54 Mbps link speed.
      2. Rip up your ceiling and route hundreds of cables to hundreds of IR transceivers there. Buy one IR modem for each computer, connect with more wires. Test the configuration. Get a few Mbps link speed. If a wire gets damaged somewhere, rip up your ceiling again.

      So which one makes more sense? Note that high speed links are necessary because you want fast access to servers that store your large files. With 802.11a/n you can get high data rates *and* constrain the covered area to your office. Each 5 GHz AP will cover radius of 10-20 meters just fine, especially if few walls are in between. WDS is also a good option at those bit rates.

    11. Re:Welcome to 1994... by msauve · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just one more reason not to use Windows, I suppose.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    12. Re:Welcome to 1994... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well the immediately obvious problem is that it presumably requires line-of-sight.

    13. Re:Welcome to 1994... by stms · · Score: 0

      (They may not have added one) But it's pretty easy to add an encryption layer.

    14. Re:Welcome to 1994... by geekoid · · Score: 2

      No maybe about it.

      This is cheaper infrastructure, easier to set up, MORE secure the Wi-Fi and 3 mbps is fine from most office needs.

      The cat3 cable and router require an whole wired infrastructure all the way to the desk.

      This does not. I can put up a temporary area and have people on the network without worrying about hard ports address, wiring, and several other issues.

      You know, there is more to setting up an enterprise wide infrastructure then there is to your panty ass home network.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    15. Re:Welcome to 1994... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Because it's a security violation for any real enterprise. Forget Faraday, you're broadcasting, and accepting lightwave-carrier connections right through the air and the nearest window.

      I can see how it would be a problem at night, but I seriously doubt you'ld have an easy time catching it in the daytime. It would be as easy or maybe even easier to watch people log on from a distance, with binoculars or a telescope.

      I do see how it would freak an admin out, though.

    16. Re:Welcome to 1994... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yep, it's really obscure to me!

    17. Re:Welcome to 1994... by natehoy · · Score: 2

      It's true that IR was slow and cumbersome, but damn was it useful for small-file transfers, and most implementations were a LOT less cumbersome than, say, the simplest bluetooth.

      There are several possible advantages to a concept like this.

      First, light is a lot harder to intercept unless you can see it. Light cannot penetrate walls. For those applications where you are afraid of RF being intercepted by ne'er-do-wells, using light is pretty brilliant (OK, my only bad pun in this post, I promise. Maybe). All your worker drones are in soulless, windowless cubicles, so there's little to no chance of light escaping the building in readable form. A Pringles can and a few minutes with a Yagi antenna tutorial will yield someone lots of RF lovin', and shielding all that costs serious coin and it's easy to miss an exit vector for RF.

      Second, there are 11 US-licensed RF channels with plenty of crosstalk opportunity between adjacent channels. If your worker drones are down in cubes, you could install one of these in every other light fixture and reach every worker drone with their own discrete light channel with no crosstalk.

      Third, for those with some sort of sensitivity to RF (or perceived sensitivity), you're flooding them with, well, light. At much lower intensities than the light fixture is already putting out. If they're concerned about exposure to that, allow them to wear a fedora at work. Problem solved.

      Obviously the easiest, fastest, and most secure answer is to run sufficient copper to give everyone a network plug (then secure them so your wired traffic is encrypted and no random idiot can plug a sniffer into a port and start watching traffic flow, or plug a non-approved bit of hardware into the LAN and start seeing what resources they can access). But if you want reasonable-speed wireless in a computer-dense environment, light might work pretty well.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    18. Re:Welcome to 1994... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm thinking mobile computers, inventory carts, etc. without as much (?) of the broadcast reflection you get with WiFi.

    19. Re:Welcome to 1994... by natehoy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I can see how it would be a problem at night

      I'm not even sure it would necessarily be a problem at night. I'm pretty sure these things would be programmed with maybe a 45-degree cone, and the client computers would be sending their signals back from down inside Cubicle Canyon. You might be able to get some reflection off the ceiling tiles and cubicle tops, but that's going to be a very weak signal.

      Plus, there's no real indication of what frequency these use, but it seems to me that it'd be pretty simple to just put up a filter for that frequency on any outside-facing windows. With RF, there's always a chance of a crack in the shielding that has to completely and utterly surround the building allowing leakage. With light, it can only exit through the windows and openings. You know where your gaps are, and can fix them a lot more easily.

      Wired is, as many have observed, faster and more secure. But if you need wireless, I could see lightwave wireless as being a pretty viable solution. Especially if you throw some WPA2/AES-level security over it, and maybe illuminate your outside-facing window surfaces with a few well-aimed LEDs sending continuous gibberish.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    20. Re:Welcome to 1994... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      So? Radio is light just a different color. I mean really you are just going to use the exact same types of solution for this as you would wifi. Encryption.
      The good thing is that since this is new you can take all the lessons learned from wifi and apply them to this tech.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    21. Re:Welcome to 1994... by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 1

      Why is this a bad idea

      Because the WiFis cause the cancers! I learned this on the internets and from the city council of San Fransisco.

      --
      I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
    22. Re:Welcome to 1994... by icebike · · Score: 1

      Third, for those with some sort of sensitivity to RF (or perceived sensitivity), you're flooding them with, well, light.

      Genius!!

      Hang some totally non functional blinking lights on the ceiling and tell all the Birkenstock whiners complaining about WiFi sensitivity that you've eliminated the problem just for them.

      Quick, does anyone have Ron Popeil's phone number?

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    23. Re:Welcome to 1994... by countSudoku() · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Not in a way that makes it a security violation. You must be new here, so let me school you before this slashvertisement gets anymore stupid...

      1) My REAL enterprise uses a fake honeypot wifi with a visible SSID.

      2) The "convenience" wifi has a hidden SSID and it is NOT connected to the internal networks, you have to VPN back in for that.

      3) My wifi capable laptop has it's wifi shutoff with a nice switch in the front and I only use the wired ethernet.

      So, go back you your closet of a data center, take all your servers and place them in the parking lot like I suggested earlier, because:

      YOU FAIL!!1!

      Nice try, but you're talking to Data Center Jesus here, not some Windows Admin ding-a-ling. No charge for your schooling today, sonny. Use more Linux and less Windows, and you might start getting a contact clue.

      --
      This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
    24. Re:Welcome to 1994... by Nikker · · Score: 1

      So this solution is somehow more secure than WIFI/RF although you don't mention how. Easier to setup but you would have to buy new adapters for each client and support them rather than the built in WIFI already present in pretty much all mobile devices. On top of it all provides less bandwidth then 802.11b. I admit I'm sold where do I sign?

      --
      A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
    25. Re:Welcome to 1994... by icebike · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, I'm new here.

      I've only been around long enough to learn two things:

      1) how to evaluate Slashdot Poster ID numbers.

      2) how to detect posers calling themselves a "data center Jesus".

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    26. Re:Welcome to 1994... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      ...or have more secure means of encapsulating data behind strong encryption. Really is a pity nobody has come up with such security measures.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    27. Re:Welcome to 1994... by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Third, for those with some sort of sensitivity to RF (or perceived sensitivity), you're flooding them with, well, light. At much lower intensities than the light fixture is already putting out. If they're concerned about exposure to that, allow them to wear a fedora at work. Problem solved.

      What about people with light sensitivities? Generally fluorescent lights aren't to bad when placed in pairs, but when you get odd numbers of light tubes and flickering, that does seem to cause trouble for some folks.

    28. Re:Welcome to 1994... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to be suggesting that the "enterprise" you work for does not know how to encrypt wireless connections. Either that, or you do not know it is a possible thing to do with wireless.

      There's simply no reason that the same techniques for encrypting wireless 802.11g/n can't also be used here. If you do not trust your wireless access point, then you run a VPN. You know what a VPN is, right?

      There was a point where I didn't "get" this optical/lighting networking either, or at least I wondered what's the point? This is actually MORE secure than radio wireless, since it's extremely difficult to keep radio signals from leaking out of your room, building, or property. To block wireless radio signals, you need a lot thicker or specially treated walls.

    29. Re:Welcome to 1994... by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      It works 99% of the time, but the first time you get direct sunlight shining directly into the receiver, you're screwed. (This does occaissionally happen to satellite and other radio receivers.)

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    30. Re:Welcome to 1994... by shadowrat · · Score: 2

      i agree, it's little different from wifi, but i don't understand why it's better than wifi? It doesn't sound cheaper to install. It's definitely not faster. It doesn't work through drywall. It doesn't sound like it's friendly to portable systems.

      the TFA says it's better because it uses visible light rather than magnetic radio waves. It doesn't give any reasons why thats better. Though i imagine visible light is less prone to certain kinds of interference, its far more prone to the interference of walls. Plus, the days of microwaves disrupting wi-fi seem to be over. Unless you have an MRI machine next to your desk, you probably have a reliable wifi signal.

      I guess it could be some kind of homeopathic new network transport. It might make all those people who are scared of wifi feel better. that may be true, but in my experience, the bands of the electromagnetic spectrum that do the most damage to me seem to be closest to visible light.

    31. Re:Welcome to 1994... by shadowrat · · Score: 1

      if you need wireless, I could see lightwave wireless as being a pretty viable solution. .

      yeah, but what's better for the bottom line? it seems really impractical to get a bunch of new light fixtures wired up when you could just bolt one box to the wall and get 30x the speed at least.

    32. Re:Welcome to 1994... by plover · · Score: 1

      Transmitting the data through the air, you mean like WiFi and cell phones do all the time? Too bad we don't have a way to scramble the data in a way that makes its contents inaccessible unless someone has the "key"...

      I assume you're suggesting they secure the data transmitted through the air scrambled with proven commercial protections like WEP, WPA-PSK, or were you thinking they might secure it with a product more widely used, like GSM?

      Last month when I read the article about their system, they claimed it was a "highly secure solution." But they did did not reveal any technical details that said "we're using protocol x with algorithm y to secure communications." So for now, we know only that they claim their system is highly secure, but they've given us no basis for that claim.

      --
      John
    33. Re:Welcome to 1994... by shadowrat · · Score: 1

      Why is this a bad idea

      Because the WiFis cause the cancers!

      Across the whole electromagnetic spectrum, it's visible light and it's immediate neighbors that seem to cause me the most measurable harm.

    34. Re:Welcome to 1994... by hitmark · · Score: 1

      "It's true that IR was slow and cumbersome"

      it does not have to be:
      http://irda.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=102

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    35. Re:Welcome to 1994... by shadowrat · · Score: 1

      you provided the best use cases i've seen for this tech, but aren't the people who whine about exposure to RF also the people who can detect the blinking of florescent lights? i think just as many people are going to complain about these lights giving them migranes and hypnotizing them.

    36. Re:Welcome to 1994... by plover · · Score: 1

      The blinking of fluorescent tubes is no faster than 120 Hz, as that's how often each zero crossing of the 60 Hz powerline frequency happens. I suspect the annoying visibly blinking fluorescent light fixtures have some flaw that makes them light up only on the half wave, at 60 Hz. 60 Hz is near, but certainly not beyond the upper limit of human perception. So yes, many people are going to be sensitive to certain fluorescent lights flickering.

      These LED systems will be blinking the lights at rates fast enough to transfer data at 3,000,000 Hz. Even with all kinds of cool encoding schemes possible, they're still probably going to have to blink those lights at speeds in excess of 10,000 Hz, and probably faster. That's at least four orders of magnitude faster than any human's known sensitivity.

      The chances are this light will be much more even and reliable than any fluorescent fixture can produce.

      --
      John
    37. Re:Welcome to 1994... by Redlazer · · Score: 1
      Not having to run cables for every computer in the building is huge cost savings, both now, and in the future - those cables won't have to be ripped out and replaced with fiber in 10 years.

      Even doing a place up with WiFi requires expensive controllers, and so on - this is merely another wireless standard in the sea of wireless standards.

      Why are you so crotchety?

      It also doesn't sound like it suffers from the radio receive/transmit weakness, where a wireless device can only be listening or broadcasting at any one time.

      --
      Guns don't kill people, "with glowing hearts" kills people.
    38. Re:Welcome to 1994... by Venik · · Score: 1

      So, security-wise, how is this LED transceiver different from a regular WiFi access point? You know they both use EM waves. Just different frequencies. It should be more secure because it is more directional and short-range. And you can always close the curtains if you need privacy. And there is no interference from a hundred other WiFi systems in your office building.

    39. Re:Welcome to 1994... by rockNme2349 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      i agree, it's little different from wifi, but i don't understand why it's better than wifi? ... It doesn't work through drywall.

      I don't claim to understand this system completely, but that sounds like a feature to me. Crowded apartment building? This gives an alternative to a saturated wifi network.

      --
      Sewage Treatment Facilities - "Our duty is clear."
    40. Re:Welcome to 1994... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i agree, it's little different from wifi, but i don't understand why it's better than wifi? It doesn't sound cheaper to install. It's definitely not faster. It doesn't work through drywall. It doesn't sound like it's friendly to portable systems.

      It doesn't propagate beyond (roughly) visual range, so you don't have to worry about folks sitting in your parking lot syphoning your communications.

    41. Re:Welcome to 1994... by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      [whoosh]

    42. Re:Welcome to 1994... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      The TFA says it's better because it uses visible light rather than magnetic radio waves. It doesn't give any reasons why thats better.

      Because it doesn't require special shielding to prevent snooping from outside the room.
      Each iteration of Wifi encryption is inevitably shown to be too weak.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    43. Re:Welcome to 1994... by bdwoolman · · Score: 2

      This is a good point. You deserve an upmod. No signal interference is a good thing. And being able to limit the signal to one enclosed area instead of broadcasting to god knows where is also good. Security through obscurity.plus no interference... I like it.. An attacker would have to be in the room to have a go... provided your blinds were closed and the signal was, as has been pointed out, encrypted

      --
      "No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
    44. Re:Welcome to 1994... by shadowrat · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I can see the benefits of that. It's weird that TFA doesn't seem to spell it out. They just leave it at it's not radio.

    45. Re:Welcome to 1994... by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      The only difference between this and wifi is that someone trying to use your network needs line of sight. Just living next door isn't enough. This also means that all the rooms in your house/office don't share bandwidth, each room is essentially a private subnet/connection on your router. In a large apartment building this makes a -huge- difference. Also for plugging into the office lan through the window: just because -you- can see the lights doesn't mean the sensor in the ceiling has line of sight with you. It could have a limited field of vision that doesn't allow a connection from outside.

    46. Re:Welcome to 1994... by HereIAmJH · · Score: 1

      i agree, it's little different from wifi, but i don't understand why it's better than wifi? It doesn't sound cheaper to install. It's definitely not faster. It doesn't work through drywall.

      This is exactly why it's being researched, it doesn't work through drywall. Looking at the available wireless networks on my system right now, there are 10. And I live in your average American suburb. Ten years ago when I set up mine, it was the only one. What will there be in ten more years. But most are like mine, there is no need for anyone to access them outside the walls of their home. For the most part, there is no need to access mine outside two rooms of my home, my office and living room. And yet I broadcast to the neighborhood taking up bandwidth on one of three non overlapping channels.

      There are two ways to increase overall throughput, limit access point range or add spectrum. Consider it's use in apartment buildings. Every apartment would have the same, non-shared, wireless capacity.

      --
      Another day, another update to a Google android app.
    47. Re:Welcome to 1994... by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      Sounds very one-way, thus inappropriate for normal LAN use. On the other hand, there are quite a number of successful grocery store systems that use similar methods to change the value of smart price display tags. Although they do it by pulsing the normal fluorescent lights overnight (don't want to drive the customers mad). LED's could do the same thing faster, and would likely scale better as a result.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    48. Re:Welcome to 1994... by HereIAmJH · · Score: 1

      A drawback though is that the duty cycle has to be near 100%, otherwise the room lighting would dim. That has to cut into bandwidth.

      Use non-visible light spectrum and adjust your regular lights so that they doesn't bleed into the non-visible range. Just because it's included in the light fixture doesn't mean it has to provide your lighting.

      --
      Another day, another update to a Google android app.
    49. Re:Welcome to 1994... by Nikker · · Score: 1

      I know it's a cool new toy I'm just saying I don't see how it is much better than WIFI. It's not like you won't have wires and controllers connecting all these lights and since you are going to have to replace your lights to have this work I don't see where the cost savings are going to be. As far as having to run fiber to each desktop maybe for a room of engineers but as far as the other 95% of the employees are going even with an entire floor running thin clients 1 or 10GB Ethernet and a good switch will be able to take care of even fairly large workloads. Even if these things were able to provide fiber speeds which likely they won't they would still need LOS since they are transmitting in the visible spectrum.

      I'm not saying the technology is bad but I don't think the implementation of it in an office environment will really help anyone out.

      --
      A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
    50. Re:Welcome to 1994... by aXis100 · · Score: 1

      It's because they can reuse the channel space better than wifi.

      When you start rolling out WiFi for a building, you quickly find that three non-overlapping channels is not enough to tesselate with properly, so in the end you have large shared broadcast segments and contrained bandwidth.

      With the light fictures, they have alot of extra channels implicitly (unregulated spectrum), plus the directional nature of the light minimises overlap between stations. This alows for far greater bandwidth.

    51. Re:Welcome to 1994... by Redlazer · · Score: 1
      Won't know unless we try!

      The important thing is that it is different - what about a place that has lots of RF interference? Or you want each room to be partitioned?

      Installing WiFi properly is not cheap, and it's entirely possible this will be a competitor.

      My point about fiber is that as time changes, so do standards - fiber is overkill now, but who knows what will be transferring over the network in 10 years?

      I mean, 128k ought to be enough for everybody, amiright?

      --
      Guns don't kill people, "with glowing hearts" kills people.
    52. Re:Welcome to 1994... by Miseph · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you just answered your own question...

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    53. Re:Welcome to 1994... by aXis100 · · Score: 2

      There are encoding algorithms that guarantee 50% duty cycle, and you then overrate the lighting power. Problem solved.

    54. Re:Welcome to 1994... by aXis100 · · Score: 1

      Have you ever installed an access point infrastructure to cover more than a few users. Let me assure you, your WiFi plan would fail HARD on any sizeable installation - there is just too much overlap and too few channels to cover large areas well. Let alone halving your bandwidth straight up with WDS.

    55. Re:Welcome to 1994... by camperdave · · Score: 2

      It's a corporate environment. The use of Windows is mandatory.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    56. Re:Welcome to 1994... by camperdave · · Score: 1

      People don't rip out cable. They just run new cable.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    57. Re:Welcome to 1994... by Redlazer · · Score: 1

      Which is cheaper, and not necessarily the best way - sometimes the runs are full, sometimes new runs need to be run as well, and sometimes the old cabling sucked so much you want it out of there. What if it's CAT3? You don't need or want it around, and you'll eventually have to get rid of it. There's An Solution, and then there's The Responsible Solution.

      --
      Guns don't kill people, "with glowing hearts" kills people.
    58. Re:Welcome to 1994... by Nikker · · Score: 1

      I can see that there will always be new technologies but how can you compare a line of fiber with over the air communication? Isn't that the reason the last guy got all in a huff? We don't need no stinkin wires! Then they say Wifi is expensive to deploy when you are going to be doing many times more work replacing light fixtures, running data cable to the fixtures and likely some sort of appliance that will bridge the internal network to this type of transmission. Fiber optical cable will always be faster than this tech so bringing it up is just well inappropriate.

      Saying 128K should be enough for everybody but giving them 32K doesn't make any sense to me but I'm sure it will work out just fine for ya good luck.

      --
      A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
    59. Re:Welcome to 1994... by tftp · · Score: 1

      At least radio has channels. IR links have only one channel, unless you want to use WDM :-) IR modems will be interfering with each other, so you still need some form of collision detection and avoidance, which further reduces the throughput. At least with microwave radios you have bandwidth to waste...

      But of course if you want to do a good job then, as many people already said, you just lay some Ethernet cables and install a switch. The whole thread is about the case when some restless souls decided to play with old technologies that are suddenly new.

    60. Re:Welcome to 1994... by Kakari · · Score: 1

      Dear $DEITY - a reasoned, thoughtful, insightful, and thought-provoking comment on /.

      I think I need to go lie down.

    61. Re:Welcome to 1994... by fractoid · · Score: 1

      i agree, it's little different from wifi, but i don't understand why it's better than wifi? It doesn't sound cheaper to install. It's definitely not faster. It doesn't work through drywall. It doesn't sound like it's friendly to portable systems.

      It is new and therefore good.

      Seriously though, I'd guess that in high-density accommodation or work areas, it'd be good to have a system that won't interfere with neighbours. It's pretty niche though. Also, during non-cloudy days at least, the signal to noise ratio is immediately obliterated the moment the signal leaves the building. (Might not be so great if you have a window near your desk though.)

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    62. Re:Welcome to 1994... by shadowrat · · Score: 1

      Lol! Thanks

    63. Re:Welcome to 1994... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your 30x speed is being shared by everyone on it, though. The lightwave nodes can grant each cubicle a roughly dsl speed connection.

      And.. if you transmit data that you don't want being picked up outside your facility, its much cheaper to close the shades than it is to build a faraday cage.

    64. Re:Welcome to 1994... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Use more Linux and less Windows, and you might start getting a contact clue."

      You're not data center Jesus, you're not even close, son.

      Come talk to me when you handle A. Live high definition video monitoring streams B. Realtime pH/TDS/PPM/EC/O2/CO2/Temp/Humidity data C. Have to seamlessly link production facilities across countries AND then monitor/adjust them.

      Easy 50TB of data per day just flying around.

      BTW, Neither Linux or Windows, nor OSX or Unix operate this system.

      Learn Assembler and maybe you'd have half an inkling.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    65. Re:Welcome to 1994... by Jello+B. · · Score: 1

      Your dumb post canceled out whatever positive effect was had by the very obvious comment you like so much

    66. Re:Welcome to 1994... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps IPSEC using a well known cypher? twice?

      There is nothing that says you can't run IPSEC on top of your wireless system, lazy people choose to leave it at WEP or WPA or WPA2.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    67. Re:Welcome to 1994... by plover · · Score: 1

      I was just trying to point out that the manufacturer's claims for "high security" were not backed up with any factual information, and that prior claims of "high security" for wireless communications by those in the industry (who should have known better) were later proven to be not-so-high and not-so-secure.

      --
      John
    68. Re:Welcome to 1994... by qmetaball · · Score: 1

      my 'real' enterprise uses LEAP based authentication with a hidden SSID, the leap login is based on your AD username and password, and it ties directly into the local network without VPN. so, clearly, while this is an exceptionally shitty method of doing things, 'real' enterprises do stupid shit, though in one instance we have here at least, there isn't a better way, or, not much of a better way. I'd go WPA, but it's not my call, and not my network, i just fix it when it breaks.

      --
      Everything is porn to somebody.
    69. Re:Welcome to 1994... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Understood. I think I have a new project for this weekend, end to end encryption over my wireless at home through my server to get to the main network. Sounds like a blast to setup and will make anyone trying to use my "unsecured" wireless completely confused. WPA2-PSK just seems like it will be eventually broken, and when that happens, I wouldn't want the neighborhood kids trying to hack my network.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    70. Re:Welcome to 1994... by plover · · Score: 1

      Neighborhood "kids"? My son built me a cantenna for Christmas. Best gift EVAR!

      As an aside, you wouldn't happen to own an access point with the SSID of quest2468, would you? Just asking, no special reason. :-)

      --
      John
    71. Re:Welcome to 1994... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      No, not me. Mine is "Where'sMyCookie" Neighborhood kids would include kids like mine who grew up with a pretty knowledgable computer user parent and encouraged them to learn computers. Whenever I do hardware work on my computer, the kids are right there helping out.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    72. Re:Welcome to 1994... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Best SSIDs I've seen:

      spastikfly (in a neighborhood populated by old folks)

      FUCKYOUGETYOUROWNINTERNET (at an indoor flea market)

      Police (oh I totally won't go on it now!)

      bugga off

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    73. Re:Welcome to 1994... by Kakari · · Score: 1

      I'm glad your irony detector is working ;) .

  2. Two-Way? by bradgoodman · · Score: 0
    Sort of like a Timex Data-Link Watch?!

    And unlike said-watch - how does one transmit data back the other direction?!

    1. Re:Two-Way? by natehoy · · Score: 3, Informative

      From the summary:

      This then transmits coded binary messages to the special modems attached to computers, which also respond via light waves."

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    2. Re:Two-Way? by arielCo · · Score: 1

      In the summary, hiding in plain sight!
      I see what they did there... >_>

      --
      This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
  3. Wait - by Even+on+Slashdot+FOE · · Score: 1

    My office's ceiling lights started flickering recently. Have they been upgraded with this system, too?

    1. Re:Wait - by rusl · · Score: 1

      And the streetlight turned off when I walked under it...

      I AM THE ANTI-INTERNET!

      --
      Stupidity is its own reward.
    2. Re:Wait - by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      That's funny, the lights in my office flicker out Morse code instructing me to kill my boss.
      Wait, maybe that's the buzzing in my fillings...

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  4. Troubleshooting this would be ... difficult. by Aussenseiter · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Sir, are there three green lights on the modem?"

    "Hang on, let me climb my ladder."

    (crashing noise is heard in background)

    1. Re:Troubleshooting this would be ... difficult. by Toe,+The · · Score: 1

      Hm. Seems something very similar to this was depicted a while ago...

    2. Re:Troubleshooting this would be ... difficult. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1
      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    3. Re:Troubleshooting this would be ... difficult. by pelrun · · Score: 1

      There... are... four... lights!

    4. Re:Troubleshooting this would be ... difficult. by Stregano · · Score: 1

      Ok, I am going to need you to go ahead and power cycle that modem for me. Oh, you don't know what that means, well unplug it, count to 30 in your head. Sir, in your head, not out loud. Ok, now plug it back in and call me back if you have any further issues. Thank you for calling

      --
      The world is how you make it
    5. Re:Troubleshooting this would be ... difficult. by rockNme2349 · · Score: 1

      "Sir, are there three green lights on the modem?"

      Yea. They're flashing.

      --
      Sewage Treatment Facilities - "Our duty is clear."
    6. Re:Troubleshooting this would be ... difficult. by Wannabe+Code+Monkey · · Score: 1

      "Sir, are there three green lights on the modem?"

      Everyone knows the answer is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_eSwq1ewsU#t=3m17s

      --
      We always knew Comcast was corrupt, here's the proof: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1909890&cid=34545432
  5. It is not first by arivanov · · Score: 3, Insightful

    First was IBM Zurich 30 or so years ago with IR on the ceiling as a connection method

    Then there was the IR profile for WiFi. 802.11b at 1Mbit actually has an optical option. However as there is nobody doing it any more so there is no standards compliant kit out there.

    Otherwise it is a very cool idea for a number of applications. There are places where you just do not want radio for a variety of reasons. Light is much less likely to cause interference and is much easier to keep "contained" so it is not eavesdropped on.

    --
    Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
    http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    1. Re:It is not first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only reason I could see wanting to use light is if you are doing espionage and don't want to be detected by a spectrum analyzer. Otherwise, wired or wireless (with sufficient encryption) works just fine. Heck, they even have wireless on airplanes, now!

    2. Re:It is not first by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Or mid-range wireless communication. Stations across town but within line of sight of each other could communicate with an IR laser at 1Mbps. That would be useful for establishing a (very local) wireless mesh without ISPs.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    3. Re:It is not first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The only reason I could see wanting to use light is if you are doing espionage and don't want to be detected by a spectrum analyzer. Otherwise, wired or wireless (with sufficient encryption) works just fine. Heck, they even have wireless on airplanes, now!

      Airplanes aren't the only reason to avoid interference. Consider the US National Radio Quiet Zone, home to the National Radio Astronomy Observatory. People living in that area are largely barred from using radio equipment. This would give them the benefit of wireless without a visit from the authorities.

      Similarly, researchers at radio telescopes and radio labs everywhere could see similar benefits.

  6. Why not use RF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not just stick a regular wireless (RF) transmitter in the light fixture?

    I don't understand the point of this. Unlike RF (as far as we know), this actually could give people headaches or whatever.

    1. Re:Why not use RF? by wizardforce · · Score: 2

      Because RF can go through walls and the whole point of visible band communication is privacy.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    2. Re:Why not use RF? by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Light can go through windows.

      Better to just add 7 more feet of wire.

    3. Re:Why not use RF? by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Because RF can go through walls and the whole point of visible band communication is privacy.

      And short of a small overlap near doors, each room won't interfere with the room next door or the hallways.

      3Mbps might be slow, but then again if you're sharing an 802.11g network with a few folks who are busy anyways but elsewhere in the location, it's gonna be that slow too, or slower. Or if you're in an apartment and can see 30 accesspoints from your location...

    4. Re:Why not use RF? by wizardforce · · Score: 1

      Ethernet is just one more thing that gets in the way. Wireless connections are unobtrusive. They could even use an infrared band that doesn't travel through windows very well.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    5. Re:Why not use RF? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      So... each room is served via lights, and the ground line is used for each circuit in the building? Then you just need a switch at the fuse box that connects to the internet and/or company network....

    6. Re:Why not use RF? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      They are also unreliable and prone too all kinds of issues. Ethernet is far better for anything that will be in one location on a regular basis.

  7. BOFH vs. The Ficus tree by ArcadeX · · Score: 4, Funny

    User: My network won't work.... Tech: Move your ficus tree so it's not blocking the light again...

    --
    An I.T. motto in the hands of an idiot is a dangerous thing...
    1. Re:BOFH vs. The Ficus tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Move your ficus tree"

      That's my medical marijuana plant, you insensitive clod!

    2. Re:BOFH vs. The Ficus tree by GunSheep · · Score: 1

      Ficus tree? Hell, your whole network could be taken down by the most obvious method....dust. Who is going to keep the dust off the receivers? The users? The cleaning crew? What happens if they use a little Endust to keep the dust from building up? How well does it work with a layer of uh....crud..... like a mixture of pledge and office dust. Office remodel? Whole system is offline due to sheetrock dust.....

    3. Re:BOFH vs. The Ficus tree by HereIAmJH · · Score: 1

      Who is going to keep the dust off the receivers? The users?

      From having access points installed in a dusty warehouse ceiling, I found that the dust tends to collect on the top, with the bottom staying relatively clean. So the access points would be fine. Incorporate the transceiver in the top edge of a laptop's display and it would stay relatively clean.

      As for the users, they tend to dust themselves. I suppose if they were government workers there might be a problem.

      --
      Another day, another update to a Google android app.
  8. Health Effects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Has anyone considered the Health erffects of BINARY lightwaves on the human Brain? Analog light has been proven by experience to be safe but do we know if the digithal lightwaves will be safe?? This is kust like the POLLUTION of our ETHER with digital (electromagnetic) radiation. When will people learn that just because science can, doesnt mean that science SHOULD???

  9. In other news... by thrill12 · · Score: 2

    the newly formed company Fee@Ces inc. announced a breakthrough in encoding binary data in output stools.
    "This is great !", an employee of the Sewer City company announced proudly, "Now when I want to convey messages to my colleagues, I simply visit the bathroom and the technology takes care of the rest. And, using our technology of a series of pipes, we can even use this to work from home.".
    Fee@Ces did mention that inputting data back to users is a bit harder, as a spokesman said: "Users will need to properly operate the machinery involved to read out the processed stool messages. Failure in doing so can give unexpected results.". It was unclear at the time of writing what the 'unexpected result' meant, as the spokesman had to quickly take care of an 'accident' he had at the bathroom himself.

    --
    Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
    1. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And with that system, the excess consumption of bean burritos results in the Fee@Ces equivalent of solar flares, and your signal to noise ratio really goes to sh--. Requires a flushing of the buffers, and evacuating the area for a phew minutes.....

  10. Oblig. nerd reference. by richie2000 · · Score: 1

    There are four lights!

    --
    Money for nothing, pix for free
    1. Re:Oblig. nerd reference. by JoshRosenbaum · · Score: 1

      That was a memorable episode. Loved Picard's and the Cardassian interrogator's roles in it. Also loved the end when Picard says he actually thought there were five lights. Great two-part episode.

  11. Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My old thinkpads IRDA port was faster than 3mbit. You can't do shit with 3mbit..most broadband Internet connections are much faster than 3mbit.

    In the age of $50 APs with much better range and throughput where the hell is the market for this or more simply why should anyone care?

    1. Re:Who cares? by aXis100 · · Score: 1

      Try sticking 20 of your $50 access points in an office and see how much bandwidth per client you end up with. Alot less than 3MBit!

    2. Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try sticking 20 of your $50 access points in an office and see how much bandwidth per client you end up with. Alot less than 3MBit!

      I'll end up with 1 gigabit of bandwidth. It's called ethernet.

      Again where is the market for this? Who cares?

      Between 2ghz + 5ghz bands and MIMO/steering I'll easily see better throughput for mobile devices in most situations. Where is the market???

  12. So if I'm wearing my special glassess... by CCarrot · · Score: 1

    ...can I see the Matrix?

    --
    "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
    1. Re:So if I'm wearing my special glassess... by Kakari · · Score: 1

      Not exactly - and you certainly won't be able to unsee that donkey midget porn the guy two cubes over likes to watch during lunch.

  13. Real enterprises very cautious with WiFi. by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    So "Real enterprises" never use WiFi?

    Real enterprises treat it as a second class network, but all desktops are generally still on a wired network.

    They also generally have you use an encrypted VPN even if you're on an internal WiFi.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Real enterprises very cautious with WiFi. by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Real Enterprises know how to deal with the security issue of Wi-Fi.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Real enterprises very cautious with WiFi. by icebike · · Score: 0

      Exactly.

      And substituting Light for Radio presents no real problems for competent security staff.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    3. Re:Real enterprises very cautious with WiFi. by ghjm · · Score: 1

      No, those are dumbass enterprises, which I agree is most of them.

      Real enterprises build out a PKI infrastructure and use client certificates to admit wireless clients to the corporate network.

    4. Re:Real enterprises very cautious with WiFi. by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Funny

      REAL enterprises use subspace transmissions.

    5. Re:Real enterprises very cautious with WiFi. by bertok · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So "Real enterprises" never use WiFi?

      Real enterprises treat it as a second class network, but all desktops are generally still on a wired network.

      They also generally have you use an encrypted VPN even if you're on an internal WiFi.

      The irony is that all but the most criminally negligent IT administrators would apply military-strength cryptography to their WiFi links, but allow data to traverse the wired connections in the clear, which means that the wireless link is substantially more secure!

      One of the biggest vulnerabilities in any large office building is the wired network. It's trivial for an attacker dressed in a suit to simply walk in, sit down at an empty desk, plug in, and start doing packet captures. Switched networks provide minimal protection, thanks to DNS cache and ARP cache poisoning attacks and the like.

      You'd be amazed at how ignorant typical IT administrators are of the risk. I've heard ridiculous things like:

      "But you need to fill out a form to get network access!"
      - Only if I follow the rules. Nothing stops me from physically connecting.

      "You need an AD account to connect to the network!"
      - They're thinking of network shares, but the exploitable vulnerabilities are at the IP network layer.

      "Your computer is not a member of the domain, it can't connect!"
      - That's largely irrelevant, once you have a user account, practically everything is accessible even from a machine that's in an untrusted workgroup.

      These aren't from rare isolated incidents either, I hear one of those three almost every time I sit down at a new customer as a consultant. System administrators live in a fantasy land of imagined security.

    6. Re:Real enterprises very cautious with WiFi. by tangelogee · · Score: 1

      REAL enterprises use subspace transmissions.

      and an ODN...

    7. Re:Real enterprises very cautious with WiFi. by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      You think all the switch ports are on? You think they will talk to just any mac address? You think the IDS will not notice your ARP poisoning?

      Sure wired networks are a risk and there are ways around what I mentioned, but you are clearly talking about the follys of Windows Operators. Please do not call those folks System administrators.

    8. Re:Real enterprises very cautious with WiFi. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Real Enterprises know how to deal with the security issue of LED networks, they close the shades.

    9. Re:Real enterprises very cautious with WiFi. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cisco has the port security option where the first N mac addresses seen on a port are memorized and any other mac addresses will cause the port to immediately shut down.

    10. Re:Real enterprises very cautious with WiFi. by Kizeh · · Score: 1

      This is why the less clueless ones of us are eagerly awaiting MacSec / 802.1AE. Also look at Cisco TrustSec for implementation plans.

    11. Re:Real enterprises very cautious with WiFi. by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      My favorite is a client that won't let me connect my laptop with a wire to their network because it would be a security violation to allow any non-company computer to connect physically to the network. They do allow me to VPN in though, so when I am at their site, I have to use my cell phone as a modem to get out to the internet so that I can VPN back into the building that I am sitting in. Apparently, they see it as being more secure to send the data out first to the internet.

    12. Re:Real enterprises very cautious with WiFi. by ocdscouter · · Score: 1

      I'm still waiting for an open-source alternative to the LCARS interface.

    13. Re:Real enterprises very cautious with WiFi. by bertok · · Score: 1

      You think all the switch ports are on?

      Do you think any network administrator will block the network port of an employee who's sick or on holidays? Or gone to a meeting for half a day?

      You think they will talk to just any mac address?

      Yes. Out of about a hundred customer sites I've been to, including many large government and financial institutions, I've only seen one that has implemented that kind of filtering.

      By the way, the MAC address of a desktop PC is conveniently printed on the back. Doesn't exactly take cryptographic wizardry to figure out. Heck, even it wasn't, I'd just connect a cross-over cable to an unused PC, and wait for it to tell me what its MAC address is.

      Repeat this ten times until it sinks in: "MAC address filtering is not security."

      You think the IDS will not notice your ARP poisoning?

      You mean the $100K piece of kit that few organisations can afford, and many who can, misconfigure or ignore? Most places I've seen that have IDS only have it for regulatory compliance reasons.

      An IDS will do exactly zero to prevent passive attacks, like a hub stealthily inserted between a desktop PC and the floor switch.

      Sure wired networks are a risk and there are ways around what I mentioned, but you are clearly talking about the follys of Windows Operators. Please do not call those folks System administrators.

      That's called the No True Scotsman Fallacy.

      Most large sites I've been to had Cisco Certified network engineers, and had purchased filthy expensive kit with more than enough technical capability to block any practical attack.

      Also, most computers on wired networks are easily capable of end-to-end encryption, even with cheap unmanaged switching.

      It's not that wired networks can't be secured, I'm saying that they usually aren't, due to ignorance, incompetence, or indifference.

    14. Re:Real enterprises very cautious with WiFi. by qmetaball · · Score: 1

      You think all the switch ports are on? You think they will talk to just any mac address? You think the IDS will not notice your ARP poisoning?

      Sure wired networks are a risk and there are ways around what I mentioned, but you are clearly talking about the follys of Windows Operators. Please do not call those folks System administrators.

      Windows/AD based networks are just as legitimate as any other, the System administrators are just as legitimate as any other, and as soon as you put aside your arrogance, you'll realize that most businesses run windows on their office machines, and AD to manage logins. That said, my place of employment is an international corporation, so, we qualify as Real Enterprise, and the switches have no down-ports, so the 'walk in, plug in, profit' method would work just fine. i'm not in charge of the network, so it's not my problem, but i still recognize the potential flaws in the system.

      --
      Everything is porn to somebody.
  14. Advantages? by dstyle5 · · Score: 2

    Given the plethora of proven connectivity options out there, I can't envision a scenario where I would chose this implementation over others. From TFA they talk about saving energy with the LED lighting system, but couldn't you by a cheaper LED lighting control system without their "value added" data transmission tech added to the cost?

    1. Re:Advantages? by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      Given the plethora of proven connectivity options out there, I can't envision a scenario where I would chose this implementation over others. From TFA they talk about saving energy with the LED lighting system, but couldn't you by a cheaper LED lighting control system without their "value added" data transmission tech added to the cost?

      Yes. However, so much of the cost of an LED system is in the LED's themselves, and so little is in the hardware that's running the driver, that adding extra functionality to the driver has marginal added cost to the overall package. Moreover, businesses and particularly government purchasing offices are *screaming* for managed light systems that they can remotely monitor and shut down per-unit. That means networking to the light, with control over whether it's on or off, is already included in such a design, so adding an ethernet port at the controller and having it send out packets is a pretty minor addition. (I work in LED driver design. I don't design them, I just test them, but the designers work down the hall, so I learn a lot about commercial lighting.)

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
  15. Oh God, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Radio is light. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation

    1. Re:Oh God, really? by Onymous+Coward · · Score: 2

      Vernacular uses "light" to mean "visible light". Please move along.

    2. Re:Oh God, really? by nschubach · · Score: 1

      But infra-red is light that's not normally visible... which makes me wonder if we had a proper capture device to convert radio to visual, could we actually see radio waves like we do with iR? If you put in a fog machine, will that let you see the edges of the broadcast wave?

      I somehow doubt these systems use visible light or the headaches and epileptic shock rates will skyrocket from all the blinking.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    3. Re:Oh God, really? by nschubach · · Score: 2

      Consider me wrong, the article says it's visible, but it's at a refresh that human eye's cannot detect. Serves me right for not reading either article. ;)

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    4. Re:Oh God, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Radio waves are a type of electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths in the electromagnetic spectrum longer than infrared light. -wikipedia

  16. Security by ithmus · · Score: 1

    It's probably a wise precaution to install a firewall. Also known as a wall.

    --
    I'm supposed to be working right now.
    1. Re:Security by hedwards · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing that if they aren't careful sunlight is going to be a problem. On the plus side though, tinted windows would block the signal.

  17. Tunelling and Anti-crowding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Today computer-power is a plentiful resource. With network tunneling and encryption it is safe to transfer with light. I have seen my fair share of places where networks are really slow due to bad connections due to overcrowding of the wireless spectrum. Hope this tech will be cheap soon.

  18. Insecure by Avatar8 · · Score: 2

    I seem to recall when modems with lights were still in use, that a video tape of the flashing lights on the modem could be slowed down enough to read the stream of bits. Granted 3mb/s is a great deal faster than 56kb/s, but video technology is faster now, too.
    I would presume there is encryption on both ends, but I see a small IR led "bug" left on top of a computer, cube wall, file cabinet, etc. serving as a middle man pickup of the stream while it is decoded on the other end.

    1. Re:Insecure by natehoy · · Score: 2

      If you can get physical access to the facility, they're screwed anyway. Your "bug" could be RJ-45 based and cover a lot more of the network.

      I think the major point is that containing light is a lot easier than containing the current 802.11x frequency ranges. Light cannot penetrate walls. It can only penetrate air, glass, and other transparent or translucent surfaces.

      Of course, electrons on copper are even more secure, assuming your hacker doesn't have building access. Anything that emits any form of radiation can have that radiation "read". Light would be halfway between Wired and current WiFi technologies in terms of the ability to secure it.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    2. Re:Insecure by nschubach · · Score: 1

      It's not really any different than Wifi except that you will probably get a bit more security by direct firing the light. (I assume it's using encryption.)

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    3. Re:Insecure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't you need a video camera with 6 million frames per second (Nyquist frequency)? Is this more insecure than someone otherwise listening to a network?

    4. Re:Insecure by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      I seem to recall when modems with lights were still in use, that a video tape of the flashing lights on the modem could be slowed down enough to read the stream of bits. Granted 3mb/s is a great deal faster than 56kb/s, but video technology is faster now, too. I would presume there is encryption on both ends, but I see a small IR led "bug" left on top of a computer, cube wall, file cabinet, etc. serving as a middle man pickup of the stream while it is decoded on the other end.

      Doesn't have to be modems. You can recreate network traffic from reflected flashes from a network switch, although this report claims that it is, probably, restricted to 56kbps modems, not 10/100mbps ethernet cards.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    5. Re:Insecure by Big_Breaker · · Score: 1

      You would need a very special camera to catch such high-speed toggling of the LED. Normal video 24-30 frames per second. That's well below the 300 baud of even early modems and you need at least twice the switching frequency to get the data (Nyquist). At 3MB/s they would need to be encoding a lot of bits per switch to get in range of a video camera. Some specialized sensors can do 1 million frames per second but their buffers can only handle 100 frames at a time.

    6. Re:Insecure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice try, but Mr Nyquist thinks you remember wrong...

      Let's say the NTSC video camera samples at 60 frames per second. (PAL is about 50 frames per second.)

      Mr Nyquist says you can pick up 30 bits per second max.

      Divide by 10 to get 3 bytes per second...

    7. Re:Insecure by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      How is this any different from any other wireless network system out there? Encrypting the signal would work just as well with the bonus point that people don't accidentally stumble across the network and instead need to make an effort to actually physically locate and establish a line of sight to the station.

    8. Re:Insecure by aiht · · Score: 1

      I seem to recall when modems with lights were still in use, that a video tape of the flashing lights on the modem could be slowed down enough to read the stream of bits. Granted 3mb/s is a great deal faster than 56kb/s, but video technology is faster now, too.
      I would presume there is encryption on both ends, but I see a small IR led "bug" left on top of a computer, cube wall, file cabinet, etc. serving as a middle man pickup of the stream while it is decoded on the other end.

      I suspect you remember wrongly.
      Analog modems use encoding schemes such as Quadrature amplitude modulation to send multiple bits per signal. So unless the modem manufacturer deliberately flashed the 'transmit' LED on/off (say) four times per transmitted signal, you couldn't get all four bits.
      Although now I think about it more, you don't even have to go that far - there's no reason for the LEDs to display which bits are being transmitted, they're only there to show that some bits are being transmitted. Sending a stream of zeroes will still turn on the LED.

    9. Re:Insecure by adolf · · Score: 1

      I suspect that you're thinking too much*. That everyone here is, in fact.

      A modem's LEDs were commonly driven with the same logic that sent data over RS-232. Why? It was cheap, it was simple, and it worked.

      Send a string of zeros, and the LEDs will illuminate intermittently just as RS-232 will change level intermittently, due to stop bits. Sending no data results in no illumination/level changes, but that's not the same as sending binary 0s.

      If this sounds far-fetched, I strongly suggest digging out an old external modem and observing it for yourself. Try different serial baud rates, as well -- it's very plain to the trained eye what, approximately, what port speed modem is operating at in common operation and that the perceived level of illumination changes depending on the data being transferred -- even if the data rate is fixed, as in the case of a plain v.22bis 2400bps modem.

      Therefore, the flashing of the modem's TXD and RXD LEDs weren't just representative of the datastream, but they were a direct presentation of it.

      To record and recreate this stream is a task is impossible for a typical video recorder, for sure. But give a clever person a fistful of transistors and other random components, a set of appropriate optics, a red filter, a photodetector or two and a modem in a darkish room...

      (*: And what is all that verbiage you wrote about quadrature modulation? You're looking at it from the wrong end.)

    10. Re:Insecure by Dr.Ruud · · Score: 1

      But 3 millibits per second is much slower than 56 kilobits per second.

  19. Way too expensive by Alphanos · · Score: 1

    It's easy to see that any system requiring special light fixtures and modems for each PC will be far more expensive than simply setting up a wireless access point or two for each floor of a building. This wouldn't even just be a one-time cost, but would apply as part of regular maintenance - which is easier, to swap out a router, or to bring in contractors to replace all of a company's light fixtures?

    A system like this could really only be practical where conventional wireless can't be used for some reason. Perhaps in offices where security is the foremost consideration (CIA?), or a building right next to a high-powered radio broadcast tower.

    --
    Alphanos
    1. Re:Way too expensive by aXis100 · · Score: 1

      You cant run a whole floor of 50 - 100 stations with "a wireless access point or two". Even limiting the number of users per AP, you find very quickly that there is not enough non-overlapping channels nor physical seperation to tesellate properly - let alone the interference from your neighbours - resulting in very poor bandwidth per user and a poor quality of service.

  20. Interbuilding communication by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

    You could even use this for inter-building communication. Stick and transceiver on an outside wall, with the opposite building doing the same. For improved reliability increase the intensity and use a laser instead.

    As other people have mentioned the technology is not that novel, but the fact they are actually try to move the technology forward is of interest, since there are scenarios where a more limited signal transmitting solution actually has it uses. Security being one of them. Sure any device in the room could receive the signal, but as wi-fi implementations have shown there are solutions.

    BTW in Europe I have seen stores using the fluorescent lighting with data modulated into them to update price tags on the shelves.

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    1. Re:Interbuilding communication by BillX · · Score: 1

      Your mention of inter-building communication reminded me of RONJA, a somewhat older (and open source!) free-space optics design. In this case, the transmitter and receiver LEDs are placed in a length of pipe behind a magnifying glass, and pointed at each other up to a mile or so away. Theirs does 10Mbps though :-)

      --
      Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
  21. Won't somebody think of the neon light worriers? by fantomas · · Score: 1

    But what about the people who say that fluorescent tube lights flicker at a frequency that gives them headaches etc? Oh boy there will be office workers complain these lights give them migraines, cancer, the lot.

    Plus the occasional crazy telling us that the lights were speaking to him....

  22. Epilepsy? by Khopesh · · Score: 1

    Is there any risk of epilepsy? I'm guessing there isn't (since it's way too fast), but the right combination of bits might be able to do it, though probably only if intentionally rigged. The point is that this technology makes that possible, perhaps also untraceable.

    --
    Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
  23. Simple. by snspdaarf · · Score: 1

    Just don't tell them about it. They'll be fine.

    --
    Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
  24. Didn't we already come up with this 15 years ago? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think it used to be called IRDA.

    I think I remember it also sucked. Hard.

  25. Re:Won't somebody think of the neon light worriers by LWATCDR · · Score: 2

    Well if it is transmiting 3mbs then it must be modulated at no less then 6 mhz. Nobody can see a 6 mhz flicker so it should be a none issue.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  26. Messages... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They keep sending messages to my brain. How can I make them stop...

  27. Stay out of my optical cortex! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't know about you people, but I'm going to have to start lining my hats with aluminum foil again. The voices... the voices....

    1. Re:Stay out of my optical cortex! by aiht · · Score: 1

      Don't know about you people, but I'm going to have to start lining my hats with aluminum foil again. The voices... the voices....

      Now you don't need to worry about the foil - you can just wear a normal hat!

  28. MOD +1 TERRIFYING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and stuff

  29. Re:Won't somebody think of the neon light worriers by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

    It should be but the loonies will claim it hurts them somehow. These are the same folks that claim Wifi gives them cancer or whatever.

  30. Magnetic Radio Waves by Catskul · · Score: 4, Informative

    "It is better than traditional wireless communication since systems such as WI-FI, 3G Networks and Bluetooth all require magnetic radio waves."

    Oh, so that's the difference between light and other parts of the EM spectrum. Here I always thought it was just wave length...

    I'm glad that science reporter was there to help educate the public. >:/

    --

    Im not here now... Im out KILLING pepperoni
    1. Re:Magnetic Radio Waves by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Well, those of us who understand science and engineering understand that there are applications where radio waves can cause interference with other things. So yeah, that difference is important.

      But keep pluggin' away kid, soon you'll learn these things too.

  31. I don't think so. by SkOink · · Score: 1

    I could be mistaken here, but I think that's probably an urban legend. Even assuming that you were using a 300-baud modem that could show a nibble at a time on 4 parallel LEDs and that the LEDs were updated on every single bit, that would still be a potential flicker rate of 75Hz. That would be impossible to catch on any consumer-grade camera, although some specialized equipment could capture it. At 14.4kbps, it would be completely impossible with any video equipment that I'm aware of. At 56kbps forget about it.

    Depending on directionality, one could certainly plant an IR bug if desired. However, that's not any different than wifi now.

    --
    ---- I'll take you in a Hunt deathmatch any day.
  32. Re:Won't somebody think of the neon light worriers by TD-Linux · · Score: 1

    There's some truth to the fluorescent light complainers... old magnetic ballasts run the light at 60Hz, which can create noticeable flickering (you can see it easier if you look with the side of your vision).
    Modern electronic ballasts run at very high (30khz+) frequencies and so don't have this problem.

  33. sigh... I only wish by ritzer · · Score: 1

    I thought I had 3mbps DSL but it was losing sync three times per day. I opened a support call and they derated my line to 1.5mpbs so that now it only goes down three times in a week!!! Now in canada they get to charge me extra for heavy down loading -- if only the piece of crap line works long enough for that. 3 mbps DSL? What planet?

    1. Re:sigh... I only wish by Tacvek · · Score: 1

      DSL speeds available vary drastically depending on exactly how far you are from the DSLAM, and also on the quality of the old copper lines, and can also depend on if the company took the time to remove old bridge taps from the line.

      DSL gets a bad name from those far from the DSLAM, who have crappy lines, or have giant bridge taps causing echos on the line.

      I mean I'm connected through a residential DSL service and I have 32.2 Mbps. Of course I'm also an AT&T U-Verse subscriber, so my DSLAM is only about 1,300 feet away from my modem, and AT&T checks the line quality, and replaces the lines if needed for U-verse, which does not occur for most traditional DSL service.

      My parents have at least 6 Mbps on their standard residential ADSL line.

      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
  34. Grand Mal Bittorrent by sharkey · · Score: 1

    And you thought Pikachu was hard on epileptics.

    --

    --
    "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  35. hypnotizing? by incy_webb · · Score: 1

    Now wait for the first instance of a hacker hypnotizing an entire office to act like chickens, via the light fitting internet system...

  36. Data security offered by using LEDS by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

    If one looks at technology, the transmitted information below light frequencies allows for using off-the-shelf devices to tune into a network and snoop or even interpose oneself as a man-in-the-middle to capture lots of confidential data. By using modulated Leds, wireless frequency radiation is gone, to where a single cable can bring the signal to the overhead light fixture, and where, using light modulation, no signal inadvertently leaves the room. So, unless the toilet light fixture is wired, you will not be able to bring your laptop there to work while you are busy on the throne.

    --
    Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
  37. desktops? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "real enterprise" uses desktops?

    I would have thought people would all use laptops, so you could hold all sorts of important meetings where you say "enterprise" and "paradigm" a lot.

    And since being efficient is the key to "real enterprise" you wouldn't issue both a laptop AND a desktop to an employee.

    generally you plug your laptop dock into wired, but when you're on the move in a big campus of your "real enterprise" company email and file servers access is vital. I think I could make the argument from that alone that wireless is your primary network in "real enterprise" business.

  38. Photosensitive Seisure Warning by Bensam123 · · Score: 1

    Have these been tested for it?

    If my lights are doing the mambo constantly, especially bright lights, thats almost a guaranteed nasty headache after awhile.

    1. Re:Photosensitive Seisure Warning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably way too fast for it. 5-20Hz is the seizure range I think. 60Hz and less gives me a headache, especially if beating against a display of a similar frequency. But 1MB+ data speeds should be far beyond perception/interference for a human. Protocol headers along should keep it flickering fast enough regardless of data packet.

  39. Why are all my employees crazy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As if fluorescent lights didn't flicker enough. It's more noticeable than everyone likes to think. As far as security goes, just point a tiny mirror or something at a 45 angle towards a window, and use something to capture it from your nice warm office across the street, much classier than sitting in your nasty van sniffing wifi packets.

  40. Re:foooorrrst pooostt by hvm2hvm · · Score: 1

    9696... inb4 shitstorm

    --
    ics
  41. Now to move city services to the "cloud"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And when people come in and ask how to access the new websites employees can point up above their heads.

  42. Re:Won't somebody think of the neon light worriers by petermgreen · · Score: 1

    old magnetic ballasts run the light at 60Hz
    If things are working properly (e.g. nothing in the system is having a diode like affect) they should flicker at 120Hz* which is out of most but not all peoples limit of perception.

    --
    note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register