Slashdot Mirror


802.11ad Will Knock Your Socks Off, Says Interop Panel

alphadogg writes "While the Wi-Fi world is rightly abuzz over the rapidly approaching large-scale deployment of the new 802.11ac standard, experts at an Interop NY panel said this week that the 802.11ad standard is likely to be even more transformative. '802.11ac is an extension for pure mainstream Wi-Fi,' said Sean Coffey, Realtek's director of standards and business development. 'It's evolutionary. ... You're not going to see dramatically new use cases." By contrast, 802.11ad adds 60GHz connectivity to the previously used 2.4GHz and 5GHz frequencies, potentially providing multi-gigabit connection speeds and dramatically broadening the number of applications for which wireless can be used."

20 of 174 comments (clear)

  1. So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    And the signal range will be abysmal.

    1. Re:So what? by queazocotal · · Score: 4, Informative

      60GHz will be essentially unaffected by microwaves.
      However, I note that my laptop (with 802.11g) works just fine on top of my operating microwave.

    2. Re:So what? by dinfinity · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes, apparently replacing wires is the general idea of the 802.11ad:
      http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-57326718-264/wilocity-60ghz-wireless-revolution-begins-at-ces/

      Or wireless point to point line of sight commercial connections:
      http://www.bridgewave.com/products/60ghz.cfm

    3. Re:So what? by sexconker · · Score: 5, Informative

      60GHz will be essentially unaffected by microwaves.

      However, I note that my laptop (with 802.11g) works just fine on top of my operating microwave

      I hope for your sake that isn't all sitting on your lap while operating. You might end up like this guy if you keep doing that for too long.

      Link contains image of a South Park character with elephantitis of the testicles, wheeling his scrotum around in a wheelbarrow.
      Obviously NSFW.

    4. Re:So what? by binarylarry · · Score: 4, Funny

      I thought they were giant potatoes.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    5. Re:So what? by FrankDrebin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not sure why this is modded funny. 60 GHz is license-free because oxygen is opaque at that frequency.

      --
      Anybody want a peanut?
    6. Re:So what? by houghi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Reading /. during your job: NSFW

      I would think that people nowadays are aware that links might contain content their company will not be happy about.

      If you work for a company that fires people because of this, don't use their network for private surfing.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  2. Are we suddenly following the alphabet? by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Funny

    802.11ad after 802.11ac could potentially be a sign that we will start following the alphabet for subsequent releases of 802.11 wifi standards. That on its own would be a good reason to adopt it - just to straighten out the alphabet soup that was previous wifi standards.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Are we suddenly following the alphabet? by dohzer · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm sure there's not going to be a massive amount of confusion between 802.11a and 802.11ac or 802.11ad. People are far too tech-savvy these days!

    2. Re:Are we suddenly following the alphabet? by MinutiaeMan · · Score: 5, Funny

      I hope not; I want to see them get to 802.11wtf someday soon! (And, looking at the Wikipedia list of 802.11 standards, there are already some planned for after "ad".)

  3. Means exactly dick. by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Look, the problem isn't available bandwidth, it's the fact that it's unlicensed bandwidth. Which means part 15 of the FCC rules; "device must accept any harmful interference..." Sure, right now there's only one set of devices and one standard for that frequency range, but give it time. A bug or problem will be discovered. A new protocol will need to be released. Someone will discover some new way of squeezing out just a few more drops of speed -- and it'll be incompatible. And because it's all running on the same frequency, there will be contention. Eventually, the entire situation de-evolves into the same thing that happened with CB radios: You got truckers with kilowatt-rated amplifiers and no equipment certification; There's bleed over from one channel to the next, tons of static, and people running such ridiculously overpowered and marginally functional equipment that it makes sticking your head in a microwave look downright safe compared to sitting next to some of those rigs.

    It happened with 802.11b, when we switched to g. Then n was released, and it oblitherated b and g. Then manufacturers released the "turbo" modes, which ate up even more bandwidth. And nevermind all the wireless keyboards, mice, phones, wireless gamer headsets, and home audio systems, all ALSO operating on the same frequencies, each using different encoding schemes. Pretty soon you've got hackers wiring up coax and tin cans, slapping on several watt amplifiers, raising the black flag and saying "Fuck da police!" and blasting a microwave beam 50 miles, and self-sterilizing their manhood from the near field RF...

    Face it guys: We need regulated airspace. We need black vans. We need licensing, and a watchdog group so if someone doesn't play nice -- it's knock, knock, and goodbye offending equipment (and possibly neighbor). And we need to mandate sunsetting of equipment periodically to maintain inter-device compatibility and spectrum integrity.

    The "wild wild west" wifi is a disaster in dense urban areas. You're lucky if you can get 20 feet from the router before the signal goes to hell in some places.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Means exactly dick. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > You're lucky if you can get 20 feet from the router before the signal goes to hell in some places.

      Ohai. I'm a San-Franciscan. I live in an apartment building in North Tenderloin, and can see ~15->30 802.11g APs, most of which are screaming on channel 6. I have a bog-standard 802.11g router sitting in my window, which serves my apartment very well, and can reach the bus stop, and the nearby coffee shop ~150 feet away.

      > It happened with 802.11b, when we switched to g. Then n was released, and it oblitherated b and g.

      What? b, g, and n all co-exist. I say this as an operator of an abgn AP that has devices from all of those flavors of 802.11 connected simultaneously.

      > Eventually, the entire situation de-evolves into the same thing that happened with CB radios...

      I grew up with a CB radio in our family vehicles, and had one in the van that I drove as a teenager. The situation you describe is neither the one that exists today, nor is it the one has existed for the past fifty years.

      > Face it guys: We need regulated airspace. We need black vans. We need licensing...

      There are many ISPs that use unlicensed microwave spectrum for long-to-medium wireless backhaul links. These guys are doing very well, and don't run into the doomsday situation that you've described. For short-haul wireless, unlicensed 802.11 works fine. But, don't be a cheapass, buy 5Ghz gear! You get better range, and 802.11n has more space to do the frequency multiplexing stuff that makes it reach 100->200mbps.

  4. Re:Lord. by bugs2squash · · Score: 5, Funny

    you don't have ac ? How do you charge your phone ?

    --
    Nullius in verba
  5. Re:Lord. by evilviper · · Score: 4, Informative

    If the speeds of G are good enough for you, don't bother upgrading. N gets high-speed from a lot of tricks that aren't very nice, like double-sized channels, multiple radios (which cheap receivers skimp on), etc. This was supposed to be okay because people were supposed to only enable double-wide channels on the 5Ghz band, but some devices only support the lower frequencies to begin with, and they certainly don't stop you from stomping on those 2.4ghz channels, trying to get extra speed you probably won't see, anyhow...

    Even many devices sold today are G-only, from my cell phone, to my wireless PTZ surveilance cameras, etc, etc.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  6. Re:Lord. by dohzer · · Score: 5, Funny

    DC. Everyone knows AC is for killing animals on stage and generating that relaxing hum in audio devices. DC is the way of the future.

  7. Re:Lord. by CastrTroy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem with wireless is that the range sucks. 802.11n has a maximum speed of 600 mbps but I've never been able to get anywhere close to that. The speed is respectable if I'm standing right next to the router, but if I'm 2 floors away (router in bottom floor of 3 storey no basement house) then the speed is just atrocious. 60 GHz won't travel that far anyway. The only thing that's good for is when you're right next to the router, which means you might as well have a wired connection.

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  8. Re:That and by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    compare it to visible light, which is 100s of THz, and is stopped by any solid substance.

    In general good points, but my glasses beg to differ on this last one.

  9. IEEE 802 by unixisc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    IEEE 802.12 is not WLAN - it's 100BaseVG While that group may have been disbanded, IEEE 802 is their set of standards dealing w/ LANs and MANs, and then, the number after the period deals w/ different aspects of it, such as 1 for bridging, 3 for ethernet, 11 for WLAN (all the ones in b/w were used by other networking technologies, such as Token Bus, Fiber Optic TAG and so on, but are mostly currently disbanded.) IEEE 15 through 22 are the next active standards, but none having much to do w/ WLAN.

  10. mesh networks by currently_awake · · Score: 4, Interesting

    With this level of bandwidth you could network a city (router to router directly, no ISP) and still get usable network speed.

  11. Re:That's actually the point by SeaFox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't know why the consumer market would be excited for it, though. The main use of WiFi is networking of devices in separate room/floors of a house without having to go to the expense of running actual Cat5 all around. According to Wikipedia these waves would be line-of-sight only. And if everything's in the same room unless it's a portable device my feeling is I might as well just use ethernet and get a more reliable, lower latency connection instead.