Slashdot Mirror
Huawei Successfully Tests New 802.11ax WiFi Standard At 10.53Gbps
Mark.JUK (1222360) writes "Chinese ICT developer Huawei has confirmed that it was able to achieve a record transmission data rate of 10.53Gbps on 5GHz frequency bands in laboratory trials of their new 802.11ax WiFi (WLAN) wireless networking standard. The testing, which was conducted at Huawei's campus in Shenzhen, used a mix of MIMO-OFDA, intelligence spectrum allocation, interference coordination and hybrid access to achieve the result and the new technology could hit the market during 2018."
Better, faster ways to access inept content.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
When if ever will 10gigE be affordable. Is the asic design on those switches really that insane?
Granted I didn't RTFA but doesn't that contradict the Nyquist rate of the channel? Or is there something more sophisticated going on here.
laboratory setting missing real world issues with wifi that will slow it down.
So I'll be able to hit my monthly Comcast cap in 60 secs?
SUPER!!
it was probably tested at 10cm...
I call shenanigans.
never drink kool-aid from a big vat
For now, this technology is out of reach for average American. Huawei refused to bribe D.C politicians. Until we see some money flowing, new cars on driveways in Virginia suburbs we can only dream of higher WLAN speeds.
Maybe its still too early in the day and I should finish my coffee first before posting to Slashdot, but I'd be interested to know how a frequency of 5 billion per second could carry 10 billion bits of information per second. Hopefully someone could explain.
what the big deal if the router to the ISP is a measly 1.5mbps or 10mbps ? like you can download faster than your ISP can provide
The bottle neck is the up and download link to your ISP. They need to solve that problem.
Perhaps the 802.xx working group should work with the ISP to find that solution first.
Perhaps to stream the 4k or higher videos from your storage to your display device.
Information Capacity Frequency Bandwidth * log2(1+signal-to-noise ratio) "In the lab" typically means "BNC cables" which give you very high signal-to-noise ratios. And in MIMO you can potentially treat each pair of antennas a separate channel. You use fancy techniques to increase the SNR for each channel. The nice thing about the 5GHz spectrum is that the frequency band is pretty large up there, and not as much interference with other unlicensed things (phones, microwaves, other wireless communication users... though as it gets more popular that will change) as the lower bands. The not-so-nice thing about the higher frequencies is that they tend to attenuate rapidly when the signal is going through something thicker than air.
-- Erich
Slashdot reader since 1997
Hey, if this is really that fast - I wonder if it could make mesh networking a viable alternative to the current (centralized) form of internet access? After all, why should all of those OLPC recipients be the only beneficiaries of mesh network technology? It would be like TOR for internet access, making it a free, publicly available utility instead of a luxury (and for those who don't think internet access is a luxury, let's remember that there are a lot of us who lived and functioned quite well before the internet was invented).
Wardriving and free WiFi hotspots are only the first, feeble attempts to make the internet the free and open communications mechanism it needs to be, because despite my previous assertion that we did just fine before the internet it's nearly impossible to function nowadays without internet access. More and more entities require an email address, the way they used to require telephone or postal mail access.
You're joking, but there is probably a market for very fast, short-range communications. If only to connect all devices on a desk.
...or monitored mode (where all traffic is spoofed to a Chinese gov't collection site)?
Sounds like interference from a microwave oven. You need to find the frequency that this microwave operates on, and you should then avoid that channel. The good news is that it is most likely one of your immediate neighbors. So, you could ask them to check on the label or in the manual for the microwave.
If you ever had a situation where your ISP connection was faster than local routing/networking gear, then you either have some kind of fantastic high bandwidth fiber ISP connection and you've cheaped-out on the quality of your infrastructure gear (very slow equipment) or you have a normal ISP connection and you got REALLY cheap about the quality of your infrastructure gear. (which is almost impossible unless you're using ~10MB stuff from the last century) You internal network wireless/wired should always be much faster than your ISP.
Huawei is playing with the 5 GHz band which is becoming crowded, and whose availability has country-by-country exclusions. US rule were just liberalized a smidge but it still has exclusions for radar.
WIGig uses the 60 GHz band (57-64 GHz) which has a lot more space. It is not quite ready for the mass market, price-wise, but becoming possible in the $100 rage soon. It doesn't penetrate walls well but it's fine for cross-room very fast links.
http://www.thecomicstrips.com/...
Doesn't matter how fast you do that, you won't sell it to gamers just through added latency, control (how the hell are you going to game via a tablet?) and screen-size. Plus who the hell wants to buy two home computers just so they can use one of them from a distance? Look at Steam Home Streaming if you want to do this - I assure you, it has a multitude of limitations even with beefy PC's at both ends.
The thin-client problem is one that solves only a handful of the problems people have with larger systems (not home installs) and has limitations that see everyone go through "thin-client / fat client / thin client" switches endlessly.
Fact is, if you have to have two machines to game on one, you're causing yourself problems.
As someone who's just ripped out a thin-client install in a school (where it was slow, un-updateable, had lots of limitations, etc. and where it's actually been cheaper all along just to put "real" machines into the rooms) I assure you that it's something we would all like the idea of until we tried to use it.
Not that I can't find a use case for faster Wifi. But, as you point out, 99% of people won't need it until it becomes almost obsolete.
Hey, if this is really that fast - I wonder if it could make mesh networking a viable alternative to the current (centralized) form of internet access? After all, why should all of those OLPC recipients be the only beneficiaries of mesh network technology?
Yes. And no. At least, there's no technical reason why not. 5 GHz is attenuated by most residential structural materials by only 1 dB more than 2.4 GHz and there are no microwave ovens and very few cordless phones to contend with in that spectrum. Range and throughput for non-line-of-sight is better than for 802.11a and 802.11b. People in fancy houses would probably want a roof-mounted antennae—red brick attenuates 5 GHz 10.1dB more than 2.4 GHz. Of course, if everybody had an antennae in their attic, everybody would benefit. And therein lies the rub.
The throughput is possible, the range is there, the compatibility with suburban realities is there, the mesh-compatible spanning tree algorithms are there, but the public will to buy a product that incorporates mesh networking is very nearly nonexistent. It spells doom for a product that depends on the network effect to have zero network effect.
The problem is connectivity to the rest of the internet.
Suppose we assume that a given neighborhood has nothing but ancient DSL1 available hardwired. Suppose we further assume that the majority of people in the neighborhood want something better. Suppose we get really generous and assume this device that enables mesh networking is affordable to a presumably somewhat lower income neighborhood (because the cable and phone companies only ignore low income neighborhoods). So all these neighbors buy the device and successfully cover the entire region. Congratulations, they can now talk... to each other.
Somebody, somewhere, has to connect their device to "the other networks," which we call the Internet, and it had better be a very high bandwidth connection because an entire neighborhood is going to funnel through it. 10 Gbit would be ideal. No individual can pay for that, so everybody in the neighborhood has to chip in every month and oh look, you just created an ISP. Or not, because nobody is going to actually take that last step to provide the required organization and get that connection established. Leastwise, not in most places.
Meanwhile the adjacent, probably more affluent neighborhood didn't even look up from their lattés—they already have acceptable hardwired connections and inaction is always easier than action and there's very little incentive for them to enable their own mesh. They already have tens of megabits and 10 gigabits shared out 100 ways is... what they already have, but they'd have to actually do something and once again inaction wins.
Device manufacturers have already followed this line of reasoning from beginning to end and won't even bother to take the first step of manufacturing and affordably pricing a device that can do off-the-shelf mesh networking.
This is why we can't have nice things.
I guess this is the same kind of problem which prevents the "WiFi umbrella" concept from taking hold. If not the same, similar.
(Incidentally - really great explanation. Again, thanks.)
And this one would even be NSA- and CIA-friendly! Now I'd rather prefer fiber cables for that myself, though.
Ezekiel 23:20
what the big deal if the router to the ISP is a measly 1.5mbps or 10mbps ? like you can download faster than your ISP can provide
There is a world beyond your shitty little home or small buisness "broadband" connection.
While theoretical maximum speeds make good headlines the real purpose of advances in wireless communications is not so much supporting higher speeds to a single user as supporting more users of a given speed in a given area.
The bottle neck is the up and download link to your ISP. They need to solve that problem.
Other working groups in the IEEE and otherwise have been working on both getting more out of existing infrastructure and producing standards for new infrastructure.
Unfortunately slow home/small buisness broadband speeds are mostly an economic and/or regulatory problem. We have tapped out what conventional phone lines to the phone exchange can can deliver given their attenuation and noise/interference characteristics and while cable TV cables can carry much more data than phone lines they are fundamentally broadcast networks so available bandwidth per user is limited. To significantly improve from the current point in areas with conventional copper ADSL requires some or all of the infrastructure to be replaced with fiber.
New last mile infrastructure providers face large hurdles both economic and regulatory and existing monopoly/duopoly providers often see little gain in doing a large scale forklift upgrade of their infrastructure when only a minority will pay significantly more for the higher speeds and when the technology is still improving (so the more they delay the upgrade the better the system they will get in the end).
Don't get me wrong, I understand your frustration but it's not really something that the IEEE working groups can solve.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
TFA makes no mention of any kind of Quality of Service support. It's still 802.11, so I guess there wouldn't be (since it's not 802.11e). Given that the 802.11 MAC efficiency tops out at around PHY = 100 Mbps and doesn't really increase thereafter because of collisions (or overheads from preventing collisions), it's probably time we looked for MAC efficiency over PHY rates, as supported in 802.16. But hey, PHY rates let you put a BIGGER NUMBER on the box which means we can SELL FASTER INTERNETS.
I knew I needed to stop reading Slashdot and finish my PhD when I started to miss articles by Bennett Haselton.
Weren't Intel working on this? Some kind of 60GHz wireless dock, if I recall an old /. article.