Slashdot Mirror


800Mbps Wireless Network Made With LED Light Bulbs

Mark.JUK writes "German scientists working at Berlin's Fraunhofer Institute for Telecommunications have set a new world record for Visible Light Communication technology after they succeeded in using regular red, blue, green and white LED light bulbs as the basis for building a new 800Mbps capable ultrafast Wireless Local Area Network. Dr. Anagnostis Paraskevopoulos explained: 'With the aid of a special component, the modulator, we turn the LEDs off and on in very rapid succession and transfer the information as ones and zeros. The modulation of the light is imperceptible to the human eye. A simple photo diode on the laptop acts as a receiver. The diode catches the light, electronics decode the information and translate it into electrical impulses, meaning the language of the computer.' The solution, which could be installed on ceilings and would cover approximately 10 square meters, would be ideal for HD video streaming and inside Hospitals or Aircraft where traditional Wi-Fi is often banned. However visible light signals can easily be blocked, such as when a hand is passed in front of the transmitter."

105 of 175 comments (clear)

  1. Summary designed for idiots... by snowgirl · · Score: 3, Informative

    Seriously, does anyone here on Slashdot need their summary dumbed down that far?

    --
    WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    1. Re:Summary designed for idiots... by bloodhawk · · Score: 4, Funny

      Have you read some of the comments on stories lately? I fear it may not be simplified enough.

    2. Re:Summary designed for idiots... by houstonbofh · · Score: 1
    3. Re:Summary designed for idiots... by scorp1us · · Score: 5, Funny

      What do you mean?

      --
      Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    4. Re:Summary designed for idiots... by ZackSchil · · Score: 4, Insightful

      At least it's technically accurate and well-written in addition to being dumbed down. I'll take that over your average mystery summary, which is misleading (either in the name of sensationalism or promotion), contains several typos, and at least one meaningless buzzword.

    5. Re:Summary designed for idiots... by snowgirl · · Score: 1

      To be fair, not everyone here is an electrical engineer, and some may need a refresher of what a modulator is. The "language of the computer" part is stupid, but it is a direct quote, so I think we can excuse it.

      Who cares if it's a direct quote, it's retarded to put it on slashdot. Would you post a summary that has a quote: "and Linux is a unix-type operating system, while Windows isn't". Direct quote or not, it's stupid to include.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    6. Re:Summary designed for idiots... by JustinOpinion · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Okay. But then the question becomes: "Why is such a dumbed-down article being posted to a technology site?"

      I read TFA. It is terrible. It includes gems such as:

      ... have succeeded in developing an 800Mbps (Megabits per second) capable wireless network (WLAN - Wireless Local Area Network) by using nothing more than normal red, blue, green and white LED (Light-Emitting Diode) light bulbs. It apparently only takes "a few additional components" to turn regular LEDs ... into an affordable ultrafast wireless network.

      Emphasis is added, to emphasize how these two sentences directly contradict each other. Did the author even read what they wrote?

      More importantly, the article nowhere actually mentions what is new or different about this technology/process (or what the "additional components" might be). There is no way to discern if this is a breakthrough/innovation, or simply a standard configuration of off-the-shelf components. No indication about why tech-geeks should care. They claim a world record on data transfer, but don't provide any explanation, graphs, technical details... or, you know, evidence.

      I'm not normally the Slashdotter who complains about this site going down the tubes. As far as I'm concerned this site has always had a mix of good and bad posts, and continues to have both good and bad posts. This particular article is ... terrible.

    7. Re:Summary designed for idiots... by rbrausse · · Score: 1

      TFA is not to blame here. The official press release (German) is similar stupid.

    8. Re:Summary designed for idiots... by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      I don't know what is worse, calling LEDs 'LED diodes' or 'LED light bulbs'

      Yah, it's like saying, "I gotta go get some money from the ATM machine". Except probably more people say this than the summary's example. It reads like it was written for the average Walmart consumer.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    9. Re:Summary designed for idiots... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      800Mbps, how many libraries of congress per second is that?

    10. Re:Summary designed for idiots... by Captain+Hook · · Score: 1

      Actually the LED light bulbs isn't such a bad description, it's not directly mentioned in this article but from previous articles I've read about this technology, they are using standing LED room lighting units, those flush mounting halogen replacement bulbs.

      The idea is that the same 'bulbs' you use for lighting a room are also used for networking, downside of course is that you have to leave the room lights on all day but I guess it's intended for situations where the lights are left on all the time anyway.

      http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/12/27/1911223/Using-LED-Ceiling-Lights-For-Digital-Communication

      --
      These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
    11. Re:Summary designed for idiots... by black+soap · · Score: 1

      Half the gas pumps around my town ask you to "enter PIN number" when using a debit card. At least the ATM machines don't refer to themselves that way.

    12. Re:Summary designed for idiots... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      You're reading it with IE6. Opera users get full schematics in the original German.

    13. Re:Summary designed for idiots... by lxs · · Score: 1

      Luckily, in LED lights the deadly mercury is replaced by harmless arsenic.

    14. Re:Summary designed for idiots... by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      I especially love the "LED light bulbs" part...

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    15. Re:Summary designed for idiots... by AchilleTalon · · Score: 2

      No contradiction. The first sentence emphasize the fact they are using readily available LEDs without any modification to them. Making sure the reader doesn't think they are using a new type of LEDs. The second sentence state beside the LEDs themselves, you need something to modulate the signal and link to the wired network and/or computer. The second sentence would have been sufficient to explain that entirely, but I guess they were so often asked it they were using new, special, specific purpose LEDs they decided to emphasize they weren't.

      And I suppose the redundancy LED lights is simply to emphasize this could be the office lights if they are LED based.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    16. Re:Summary designed for idiots... by mooglez · · Score: 1

      800Mbps, how many libraries of congress per second is that?

      1.6 × 10^-5

    17. Re:Summary designed for idiots... by MarkRose · · Score: 1

      ????

      --
      Be relentless!
    18. Re:Summary designed for idiots... by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Are we gonna have to add that to the "ATM machine" and "PIN number" on the redundancy levels of redundant dept?

      As for TFA it reads like something off of eHow. While I don't mind a general overview in layman's terms, especially if it is something heady like new theories of quantum physics, with TFA there is no "there" there. There is light on details and then there is "we have a thing that does some stuff" and this falls firmly in the latter. What makes it different from other light based solutions? What advantages does having multiple colors give you over plain white? A little more meat in TFA wouldn't have killed anybody ya know. This reads like something for Yahoo News not /.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    19. Re:Summary designed for idiots... by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      It's less a redundancy and more just entirely inappropriate.. LEDs are simply not light bulbs. That would be akin to me calling a candle a light bulb as well, because it's a device used to provide illumination.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    20. Re:Summary designed for idiots... by arisvega · · Score: 1

      This is not original work, it has been around for years now. As long as they do not publish any details, I will have to assume that they have ripped off RONJA, put a couple of arrays in parallel and thrive on plagiarism.

      --
      The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
  2. Signal-blocking by airconswitch · · Score: 2

    It could just as easily be seen as a security feature. Drawing the shades is easier than encasing your room in Faraday cage. And while I'm at it, since when do hospitals ban Wi-Fi? The ones I've been around (Tufts Medical Center, Children's Hospital Boston & St. Elizabeth's) have all offered it for patient and visitor use.

    1. Re:Signal-blocking by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      For that matter, next time you are on a flight see how many "hpsetup" and "Free Public WiFi" networks you see.

    2. Re:Signal-blocking by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

      It could just as easily be seen as a security feature. Drawing the shades is easier than encasing your room in Faraday cage. And while I'm at it, since when do hospitals ban Wi-Fi? The ones I've been around (Tufts Medical Center, Children's Hospital Boston & St. Elizabeth's) have all offered it for patient and visitor use.

      It probably depends on the part of the hospital you're in. In the ER areas of my local hospital there are signs forbidding the use of cell phones and other wireless devices. There aren't any such signs in the waiting room.

    3. Re:Signal-blocking by mushroommunk · · Score: 1

      Kelemvor4 is correct. I work in a hospital on server maintenance and in some areas, usually where medical equipment is used and not in patient rooms, using wifi or your phone is strictly forbidden. It interferes with the medical equipment just the same as it interferes with the landing equipment on a plane.

    4. Re:Signal-blocking by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Which is to say "possibly, and with disastrous results should it occur"

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    5. Re:Signal-blocking by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Which is to say, every day thousands of planes land just fine with wi-fi and cellular signals beaming out from dozens of electronic devices.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    6. Re:Signal-blocking by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      I'm not trying to excuse it. I'm just stating that there is some reason buried down there, however shaky it may be (eg it's not just "because we said so!")

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  3. Re:Tropical Storm Emily May Pass Florida Coast Sat by kanweg · · Score: 3, Funny

    The storm has LED some to believe that it is one bit of a self-propelled message that is transferred over thousands of miles. While working on solar energy, transfer of this information goes on during the night, preventing the thread to be derailed by Slashdot's nuclear proponents.

    There is currently discussion whether the storm is a one (as seen from the side) or a zero (seen from top).

    Hey, I tried to keep bring it back on topic.

    Bert

  4. Upstream? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So... how does upstream work? Does every single one of the smart lights double as a receiver too?

    1. Re:Upstream? by rrossman2 · · Score: 1

      I was wondering this as well as the summary doesn't mention a transmitter in the laptop, only a receiver

    2. Re:Upstream? by ZackSchil · · Score: 1

      Usually at a much lower speed using IR.

    3. Re:Upstream? by Loether · · Score: 2

      Not sure if you are trolling but, No, LEDs are not capable of receiving data or acting as inputs. In the summary they used the example of streaming video where of course the monitor doesn't need to send and data back. The summary said they use a simple photo diode to receive. Light Emitting Diodes and Photo Diodes are 2 separate distinct things.

      --
      TODO create witty sig.
    4. Re:Upstream? by black+soap · · Score: 1

      You mean except the method shown in this instructable, http://www.instructables.com/id/LEDs-as-light-sensors/ ?

      Just because it isn't very good at it doesn't mean it can't be forced to do the job.

    5. Re:Upstream? by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Nice note, but it answers nothing. Less than nothing, you just trolled back and added nothing to the question or answer.

      Even the comment about streaming video misses the reality that to receive streaming video, you must ASK for it. As in, uplink a request. Unless we also develop prescient mindreading networks. In which case, I didn't even need to type this...

      Broadly speaking, this idea is half a network. I'm hoping they can do the other half.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    6. Re:Upstream? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      I suspect it'll be harder to do it while the LEDs are on and shining brightly ;).

      If you're thinking of using a separate bunch of LEDs as light sensors why wouldn't you use something better than LEDs for the task?

      --
    7. Re:Upstream? by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      I'd think the best bet for the return channel (assuming you didn't want to use RF) would be to use IR. By using narrow band optical filtering it should be possible to avoid too much interference from other sources and for many applications the return channel can use a relatively low data rate.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    8. Re:Upstream? by bmo · · Score: 1

      Because that's all you might have in the drawer at the time.

      Also, who needs a photodiode when you've got glass germanium diodes that you can shine light on?

      These fancy kids and their specialized devices...

      --
      BMO

  5. Re:It's not a bug, it's a feature! by houstonbofh · · Score: 3, Funny

    Eventually, someone will figure out an even more private method, like some kind of wire.

  6. I guess LED screens can do the same by cyfer2000 · · Score: 1

    Imagine my TV and my computer screen talk to each other at 800Mbps...

    --
    There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
  7. A good technology for air planes by erroneus · · Score: 1

    Most of us feel pretty strongly that WiFi on planes is not dangerous and that it should be allowed as-is. But since there are some extremely stubborn and inflexible people involved in policy making. (I don't say decision making because I don't think they are capable of making any.) But what if this "LiFi" (Did I just coin a new term? I doubt it...) were deployed on airplanes and USB transceivers were sold/lend to passengers, I think that would pretty much end the controversy and debate over in-flight WiFi.

    1. Re:A good technology for air planes by mushroommunk · · Score: 2

      Its not a matter of feeling or not. Wi-fi has been proven to interfere with emergancy landing equipment. Don't believe me? Read for yourself. http://www.zdnet.com.au/wi-fi-proven-to-interfere-with-aircraft-339311113.htm http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/03/10/354179/wi-fi-interference-with-honeywell-avionics-prompts-boeing.html

    2. Re:A good technology for air planes by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      But what if this "LiFi" (Did I just coin a new term? I doubt it...) were deployed on airplanes and USB transceivers were sold/lend to passengers, I think that would pretty much end the controversy and debate over in-flight WiFi.

      It would also cost money in new equipment, so that's a bonus as well. Anything to get the consumer to pay more, or to make him need something to spend money on.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    3. Re:A good technology for air planes by isorox · · Score: 1

      Its not a matter of feeling or not. Wi-fi has been proven to interfere with emergancy landing equipment. Don't believe me? Read for yourself. http://www.zdnet.com.au/wi-fi-proven-to-interfere-with-aircraft-339311113.htm
      http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/03/10/354179/wi-fi-interference-with-honeywell-avionics-prompts-boeing.html

      From your article:

      A senior Boeing engineer stressed to ZDNet Australia that the levels of EMI required to affect a pilot's screen exceeds the levels produced by the normal operation of normal levels of Wi-Fi use.

      "Boeing and Honeywell have concluded that actual EMI levels experienced during a flight where there is normal operation of a Wi-Fi system will not cause any blanking of a Phase 3 display. This is not a safety issue with currently operating 737s and 777s," a Boeing engineer said.

    4. Re:A good technology for air planes by erroneus · · Score: 1

      Wires are a trip hazard. And while I generally agree plain old ethernet would be best for many things, it's just not gonna happen. Li-Fi would not be easy to install on planes. They would have to do all kinds of things to run the light transceivers above the seats... probably replacing the useless flight attendant calling button or the "no smoking" light.

      As for working with mobile devices other than laptops? Well... I wonder if bluetooth could be used? A bluetooth dongle powered by battery might do the trick... but in that case, we're back to radio transmissions again.

    5. Re:A good technology for air planes by erroneus · · Score: 1

      I know... I saw those too -- they were posted to slashdot here before. Practially speaking, though, WiFi seems to work quite nicely on the Air-Tran flights I took over the holidays and I didn't notice anything when landing either.

    6. Re:A good technology for air planes by pz · · Score: 2

      Most of us feel pretty strongly that WiFi on planes is not dangerous and that it should be allowed as-is. But since there are some extremely stubborn and inflexible people involved in policy making.

      How many of you have done actual impact studies and considered things like out-of-spec transmitters, poorly repaired or perhaps modified wifi cards, etc?

      Anecdotes are not data, but I had one particular laptop that, when the wifi was (inadvertently) turned on, prevented any PA announcements on one particular flight. And it was a bone-stock laptop with a bone-stock wifi card. After that discovery, the laptop was quickly retired, taken apart for the limited salvage value, and replaced with a new one.

      It may well be that 200 properly functioning wifi transmitters all in close proximity of avionics will not interfere, but that presupposes that all 200 transmitters are working correctly, and for every single flight. It's easy to imagine a malfunctioning wifi card spewing power all over the spectrum, so presupposing that every card that will operate on every flight is correctly functioning is a losing supposition. My Ph.D. research included making recordings in electrically ultra-quiet environments and you would be surprised at the crap that even properly functioning equipment transmits.

      It also may well be that 200 properly functioning wifi transmitters will interfere with reception of ground signals by overloading the input amplifiers on on-board radio receivers. Given what I know about radio receivers from my EE degrees, and my research experience, I'd put reasonable odds on that happening.

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    7. Re:A good technology for air planes by erroneus · · Score: 1

      I tend to think that when you bring people with their personal crap (i.e. civilian passengers) onto a plane that does have anything that might be adversely affected by stray and random signals shielded, then someone needs to look at the company that designs and builds these flying deathtraps.

      [Car analogy] To put it another way, if talking on cell phones caused a car's systems to fail or become unreliable, I think the first thing people would claim is that it's not a problem with the phone, but a problem with the car. And despite the general stupidity of the public, they would avoid any make or model of car that had such problems in much the same way people were avoiding Toyota cars with their random acceleration issues.

    8. Re:A good technology for air planes by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Obviously retrofitting old planes is not particularly preferred. But new planes are built all the time.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    9. Re:A good technology for air planes by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      Wires are a trip hazard.

      Only if stupidly installed.

      Don't many airlines already have power and headphone sockets for passengers? I don't see why ethernet ports would be any more of a problem.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    10. Re:A good technology for air planes by adolf · · Score: 1

      My BMW came with a sticker in the upper-left corner of the windshield. Its text is verbatim:

      "Important: Installation and operation of non-BMW approved accessories such as alarms, radios, amplifiers, radar detectors, wheels, suspension components, brake dust shields, telephones (including operation of any portable cellular phone from within the vehicle without using an externally mounted antenna) or transceiver equipment (eg. C.B., walkie-talkie, ham radio or similar) may cause extensive damage to the vehicle, compromise its safety, interfere with the vehicle's electrical system or affect the validity of the BMW Limited Warranty. Refer to your owner's manual and see your authorized BMW dealer for additional information."

      (Yep, it says all that. The sticker is small. The print is smaller.)

      It was made in 1995.

      I'm not saying that it's anything other than fearmongering (as the E36 BMW has proven itself to be very receptive to all manner of electronic hacks and accessories), but that's what it says...

    11. Re:A good technology for air planes by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      No it hasn't. They used a massively strongly signal, physical adjacent, than would ever be observed in the wild - unless the sole purpose was to create interference. Which oddly enough, was the entire purpose of the test.

      Simple fact is, there exists no credible proof WIFI has EVER interfered with an aircraft.

  8. Nothing new or groundbreaking here by SonicBurst · · Score: 1

    Old modems with external LEDs (as well as other network equipment with TX/RX LEDs) were susceptible to data leakage just by reading the LED modulations. This is just faster. http://www.alge.no/ebooks/Optical_tempest.pdf

    --

    Geek used to be a four letter word. Now it's a six-figure one.
    1. Re:Nothing new or groundbreaking here by Irick · · Score: 1

      All great innovations begin as a hack, then are further polished and improved. Discounting a novel use of a previously known phenomena is pretty closed minded.

    2. Re:Nothing new or groundbreaking here by SonicBurst · · Score: 1

      I wasn't discounting it, just saying it's nothing new, not to mention it's nowhere near novel. Visible light communication was pioneered in the 1880s! http://bemri.org/visible-light-communication.html

      --

      Geek used to be a four letter word. Now it's a six-figure one.
    3. Re:Nothing new or groundbreaking here by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

      Build a better mouse trap and someone on Slashdot will beat a path to your door ... just to tell you that people used to make mouse traps before and that it's therefore old tech.

  9. If only we had this Modulation tech 50+yrs ago! by uncledrax · · Score: 4, Funny

    'With the aid of a special component, the modulator, we turn the LEDs off and on in very rapid succession and transfer the information as ones and zeros.

    I bet they had something to read the modulator signals on the other side.. an Anti-Modulator perhaps?
    They could come up with some cool acronym for this system.. MOAMO ? noo.. i'm sure there's something better..

    --
    ----- The internet has given everyone the ability to have their voice heard equally as loud.. even if they shouldn't be
    1. Re:If only we had this Modulation tech 50+yrs ago! by rickb928 · · Score: 1, Funny

      It's a DE-modulator.

      Remember, the old MODEM acronym? Modulator/DEModulator?

      My old ham radio days still haunt me. I know too much analog shit that still works.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    2. Re:If only we had this Modulation tech 50+yrs ago! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ah, radio... the delightful wooshing sound when you're not tuned in...

    3. Re:If only we had this Modulation tech 50+yrs ago! by nd · · Score: 1

      *whoosh*

    4. Re:If only we had this Modulation tech 50+yrs ago! by whit3 · · Score: 1

      > I'm looking forward to commercially available transmitters and receivers with at least 100mbps.

      Oh, those are old news, in PCI or PCIe form, with fiber
      optic connections, as an Ethernet variant.

      >Point-to-point links for mesh networking

      Not with THIS scheme; the description is clearly
      of one-way communication (light source :== data source).
      It's also an easily snooped scheme, so wouldn't be practical
      in a security-conscious environment.

    5. Re:If only we had this Modulation tech 50+yrs ago! by GuldKalle · · Score: 2

      Wow, you are good at remembering words. By the way, what's that sound when something passes really close by your ear? Swosh? Wiih?

      --
      What?
    6. Re:If only we had this Modulation tech 50+yrs ago! by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      I wasn't trying to be clever, I was trying to be informative. I've met too many people who have no idea what modem' means.

      More remarkable than that, however, is the long line of ACs creaming at the opportunity to call me out as dense.

      Is it really that important? Really? Wow.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    7. Re:If only we had this Modulation tech 50+yrs ago! by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      "It's also an easily snooped scheme, so wouldn't be practical
      in a security-conscious environment."

      Well, if that's true, the Internet already isn't secure at the network layer, and..

      Nevermind.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    8. Re:If only we had this Modulation tech 50+yrs ago! by BillX · · Score: 1

      To be fair, RONJA was delivering these 10MBps/1.4km links on Radio Shack grade LEDs at least a decade ago, and has "cheap and readily available bog-standard parts" as one of its design goals (last I looked, admittedly a while ago, they were using parts like the LM339 comparator literally scavenged from old floppy disk drives), not the latest and greatest single-source NDA'ed part.

      (That said, I'd be very interested in actual technical details about the analog frontend that lets 'em pull off 800MB/s using commodity LEDs and photodiodes. The biggest challenge in RONJA is a PIN photodiode, even with tricks, is limited in speed by its parasitic capacitance, and this scales with sensor area (light gathering capability). So I agree that pulling these rates from an unfocused source is actually somewhat interesting, even if TFA is written for 4-year-olds.)

      --
      Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
  10. Why not just use ethernet? by kiwix · · Score: 1

    Sure, this new technology is kinda cool, but it will require putting some equipment in the ceiling, and getting some network cable up there. Wouldn't it be simpler, cheaper, and more efficient to just put Ethernet plugs in the room?

    1. Re:Why not just use ethernet? by sandytaru · · Score: 1

      Think of older buildings being retrofitted - if they have solid cement walls, or plaster and lathe or something crazy, running ethernet through them might be difficult. Ceiling access would be much easier in that case.

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    2. Re:Why not just use ethernet? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      there are plenty of fast and cheap solutions to hanging wires on walls or entire raceway for large bundle.

    3. Re:Why not just use ethernet? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Here are some uses I can think of.
      It may not be cheaper. Think of anyplace that you already use wifi.
      How about in a home. Maybe as a replacement for DVI? Just put your laptop near your external monitor or TV and send video to it.
      As a solution for wifi saturation. There are locations where you have a lot of wifi points and they can interfere with each other. This should be blocked by walls so it will provide a local wireless internet. Think of an office complex where each room could have it's own optical wifi point and not interfere with the office next to it.
      It could also be a cheaper then wifi to implement. Of course it is LOS only but then you can bet bounce off of the walls and ceiling so that shadows are not as big of deal.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    4. Re:Why not just use ethernet? by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      sure, but a lot of people just aren't tall enough to plug their laptops in with your solution. :-)

    5. Re:Why not just use ethernet? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      A ceiling mount probably isn't needed. You could probably substitute a mirror, with the transmitter somewhere else in the room. Given the summary, I don't think this is point-to-point, but rather broadcast within a small volume. And the signaling system probably *would* be Ethernet, just not over cable.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    6. Re:Why not just use ethernet? by fnj · · Score: 1

      That damned plaster-and-lathe construction. Would that be wood lathes embedded in the plaster, or is it metal lathes?

  11. Visible light spectrum maybe not the best choice? by grimmjeeper · · Score: 1

    It's great that they have achieved this speed with such simple technology. However, I wonder how useful this technology will really be. If you set your laptop down next to the TV, I wonder what kind of interference you'll get from the rapid fluctuations in light. I know the average techy type here is a troll living in the basement but what about the unwashed masses trying to use this in rooms above ground with the shades open? I wonder how much interference will all that light introduce, especially if you have lots of shiny bits in the window. I suppose they could really crank up the "LED (Light-Emitting Diode) light bulbs" to improve signal to noise ratio. But is that a practical solution? How about the really non-techy types wanting to use their wireless devices outside? How does it work when exposed to direct sunlight? If it doesn't, then what's the alternative? Traditional radio based wireless? We already have that.

    I'm sure this is a great achievement but I'm just not sure if it's going to be practical for daily use for the average person. Though it may contribute to something that's useful. Perhaps as a semi-secure wireless network for higher security areas that are already closed off to the outside world. Maybe it would be good for dedicated areas that don't have the general purpose demands of the average consumer device. Maybe this will be integrated into some greater new technology further down the road. I know. We could use dedicated digital light transmissions to control the consumer devices in our homes. Oh. Wait...

  12. This is so 2010... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    Did you read it here?

    If so, apparently, we are the only two.

    And still, a year later, no significant discussion of the uplink. Not much if a WiFi replacement if it's one-way, is it?

    Honestly, /. is drifting into the mediocraty. One more upgrade, and slashcode/CSS/javascript will make it entirely useless for all but the browser snobs.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    1. Re:This is so 2010... by badboy_tw2002 · · Score: 1

      Just curious: what is a browser snob and what abilities do they have past the normal reader?

    2. Re:This is so 2010... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Browser Snobs take specific pleasure in using Opera, Firefox, Safari, or Chrome. Sometimes more than one.

      They consider us Luddites who continue using Internet Explorer to be less intelligent, slow, or jsut plain oblivious to the problems of IE, and the great opportunities of using another, more enlightened, browser.

      This leaves me in a quandry. I have to use IE at work, both because it is specified as our only browser, and because some of my internal sites (and quite a few external ones) are most compatible with IE. And I have to support the users of these sites that we deal with.

      Mind you, I know IE has its flaws. Chrome isnot ready for my everyday use. Opera I have never tried other than on a phone. Firefox my wife uses at home, and I also use on more than one machine, interchangeably with IE. Safari on Windows is pointless, and I don't have an Apple computer, again, I pretty much work in Windows, so I stick with it at home to simplify my life.

      Browser Snobs have no abilities past a normal reader. They do, however, often think they do.

      And /. has managed to update the code to the point that it doesn't work well AT ALL with my Android browser, is slower than molasses in January on my other machines, and is just plain whack in places. It can only be because the Browser Snobs are working just fine, thank you, and those of us lingering with IE neither deserve nor will appreciate our plight - that we should change our browser so that /. performs better on our challenged machines.

      But I'm not bitter.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  13. Re:It's not a bug, it's a feature! by DemonGenius · · Score: 1

    Eventually, someone will figure out an even more private method, like some kind of wire.

    Surely you're not talking about fibre optics, since we already know those can be tapped. There is always at least one weak point in any data transmission medium. Anyone persistent enough will get whatever information they want from anyone they want.

  14. Great for radio astronomy by sockonafish · · Score: 1

    This would be perfect to deploy in the National Radio Quiet Zone. As it is right now no one can have wireless in their home within thirty miles of the GBT.

    1. Re:Great for radio astronomy by ragefan · · Score: 1

      I don't believe this stills holds true, or if so, it is not enforced. I know for a fact there are many wifi networks within 30 miles of Green Bank and quite a few (if not the vast majority) did not get clearance to have them.

  15. Re:Lights off? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    If we did that, we wouldn't need this fancy super-fast LED network. Our bandwidth usage would drop 95%.

  16. LED's as photo-detectors by Ozoner · · Score: 2

    LED's are frequently used as photo-detectors. They aren't wildly efficient, but they do work.

    www.parallax.com/Portals/0/.../LEDLightEmitterandDetector7-31-07.pdf

    It makes the optics so much simpler if you can use just one device for TX and RX.

    1. Re:LED's as photo-detectors by illu · · Score: 1

      www.parallax.com/Portals/0/Downloads/docs/prod/robo/LEDLightEmitterandDetector7-31-07.pdf

  17. Re:It's not a bug, it's a feature! by rich_hudds · · Score: 1

    You'd probably want to encase it in plastic

  18. Movies by RivenAleem · · Score: 2

    How do I watch a movie in the dark then?

    1. Re:Movies by w_dragon · · Score: 2

      Just do what we do with any annoying lights on our electronics, put some electrical tape over it. Now you can watch your movies in complete darkness!

  19. I built something like this... by pongo000 · · Score: 1

    ...using a "real" light bulb in 80's. Breadboarded my own special "modulator" device in fact. Of course, since I didn't have a fancy laptop then, I had to wire up a demodulator as well. Stuffed everything into two cigar boxes. You could even hear the filament "ring" when you tapped the box. Very cool!

    Damn, I should have filed a patent on it...

  20. A new form of hacking? by Gripp · · Score: 1

    so, when i start blocking access to the internet, via my hand, will get charged as a terrorist?

  21. Re:Repost by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    I remember a long time a ago. About a hack where someone was able to sniff a network with a security camera pointing on some 10Mbs hubs. Because the LED lights were blinking with the binary data on the traffic.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  22. Broadcast by hey · · Score: 1

    A cool use of this might be broadcast. Everyone at a concert could receive a HD stream showing an alternate view.
    (I see there is currently a 10 m limit)

  23. Correction by argStyopa · · Score: 2

    "However visible light signals can easily be blocked, such as when a hand is passed in front of the transmitter."*

    *depending on the power of the light, and the translucence of the object. Visible light signals cannot be easily blocked, for example, if they are emitted by say an 80-million candlepower searchlight. For example, this would not be stopped by a hand, nor eyelids. Such might prove to complicate use on-board an airplane in other ways, however.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:Correction by sunderland56 · · Score: 2

      Radio signals can also be blocked by a hand. Just ask any iPhone4 user.

    2. Re:Correction by demonbug · · Score: 1

      Radio signals can also be blocked by a hand. Just ask any iPhone4 user.

      I was going to say that in the case of the iPhone the radio signals are being blocked by a prick, but in interest of my karma I won't.

      Oops.

    3. Re:Correction by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      With multiple directional receivers you could also do multipath decoding of indirect reflections.

    4. Re:Correction by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      A perfect cross thread argument against internet anonymity.

      Someone posts a comment CLEARLY not intended to be serious.

      And someone else responds (hiding behind AC), being a douchebag.

      Thanks!

      --
      -Styopa
  24. One Way? by cadeon · · Score: 1

    Seems to me that this is a one-way digital broadcast. There's no mention about how the receiver talks back to the ... ceiling. As such, it's not really a network, is it?

  25. Re:Visible light spectrum maybe not the best choic by nschubach · · Score: 1

    Actually, my first thought was... (and this is a real stretch of imagination): What if alien life came to visit us and they could see the light that we could not. They'd walk into the room and be inundated with bright flashes of light and noise that we would not see. Could you imagine your reaction to that?

    --
    Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
  26. Re:Visible light spectrum maybe not the best choic by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

    My reaction would be to send a probe that doesn't react to that. But maybe that extremely advanced alien species ins't all that smart.

  27. Think of the possibilities! by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    Who cares if it is a broadcast only system; think of the possibilities of this being applied in areas outside of sending video in an airplane (what a waste- just run the wires.) Its not new but it is faster than before.

    IR light wouldn't be seen. add another LED and receiver and increase bandwidth (or lower it and just use IR.. in which case this isn't that new.)

    Think how cheap it would be to embed additional information into displays! the closed captioning could be embedded along with other information; like URLs or products etc. an LED based display would be able to send such information and it would not impact image quality (although the data rate would be down since you'd not be able to control the colors without giving it away) Aim your smart phone or other device at a display and get additional information transmitted! without networking crap! Similar to the 2D barcodes but with more information and possibly hidden. an IR transmitter on a TV could do something similar cheaply on existing TVs which lack the LEDs in their displays.

    Street lamps could contain location information... well just an idea; maybe it gives somebody else another better idea.

    It could provide a cheap way to communicate to devices within a house; I've been hoping IR would do this for a long time... and we'd have some standards in place (like for TV remotes) but industry has continued to ignore IR technology except for laptops which have toyed with an alternative use.

    Store lights and displays could send signals to devices; disneyland will probably figure out something for this...

    Mostly its a cost and power issue; then it might find some niches-- wifi is embedded into so much stuff now...

    1. Re:Think of the possibilities! by cadeon · · Score: 1

      Who cares if it is a broadcast only system;

      I care. "Broadcast" is a very different with very different meanings "Network." Yes, an 800mbps light-based digital broadcast system is incredibly useful, but it's not being represented properly.

      If we don't use the right terms and describe new technology properly, who will?

    2. Re:Think of the possibilities! by bussdriver · · Score: 1

      Not reporters. Not marketing people. Not politicians. Not bloggers...

      They are always messing the language up to the masses; while the experts end up with their own jargon even if they are attempting to not create a dialect of their own.

      Point is understood; but this is a "discovery" (ok more like enhancement) of a data link layer technology and that level of tech is usually just 1 direction. It can be used within a network; duplicate it for going the other direction and then either figure out how to do full duplex or just do half.

        It could be a network if one brushes over the bidirectional details; but likely you are right in that the author is misunderstanding what a computer network actually is. The return path can be limited bandwidth and use a whole different style connection (like sat internet with phone upload.) I often do not think about such things and just take it for granted on such details because its trivial to think of any kind of return path makes it network capable.

  28. already done by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    This is an old technology (although easily destroyed by clouds, smoke, hands in the air, and any other intercepting body), but for sos purposes, there have been talks about using this as a default means of comm for boats out at sea in distress , so as not to use too much energy trying to send out an sos, but at the same time, keep it going long enough someone could pick it up passing by....

  29. Issues by jklovanc · · Score: 1

    1. Covers 10 square meters which is effectively a circle of radius of 1.6 meters. That is not very far at all.
    2. One way communication. There would have to be a transmitter and receiver at both ends pointed at each other.
    3. Line of sight only. What happens when someone stands between the receiver and transmitter? No signal.
    4. Crosstalk; How well does this system work when there are several transmitters in the room? What about incandescent lights or florescent lights? If one wanted to have full coverage for a room a transmitter would be needed every 2.25 meters. That is a lot of transmitters.
    5. Range; There is no mention of range. Considering that light power drops off at a rate relative to the square of the distance that might not be very far.

    From the description it is a short range, easily interrupted broadcast device. There is a much simpler, more reliable, less expensive two way solution already in existence; CAT 5 cable.

  30. Re:It's not a bug, it's a feature! by houstonbofh · · Score: 1
  31. Non visible.... by DrYak · · Score: 1

    And to avoid inconveniencing the passenger, we could even use some non-visible spectrum... Hum... what could we use ?

    Ultra-violet light ? No... too problematic (reacts with object and produce visible light, etc.)
    Maybe some lower frequency / longer wavelength ?

    Once we solve this part, I'm sute we could use the technologies on PDAs, Phones... even to control home electronic devices from a distance.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]