Slashdot Mirror


Samsung's Wi-Fi Upgrades Promise Speeds Up to 4.6Gbps

The Register describes an advance in wireless speed announced by Samsung, which could make possible Wi-Fi speeds of up to 4.6Gbps in any device equipped with the new technology. By using “wide-coverage beam-forming antenna” and “eliminating co-channel interference, regardless of the number of devices using the same network” Samsung says it has cracked the problem and that products using its 802.11 ab standard could go on sale next year. Early products to use the technology will include “audio visual and medical devices, as well as telecommunications equipment.” Samsung also says the technology will be “integral to developments relevant to the Samsung Smart Home and other initiatives related to the Internet of Things.”

92 comments

  1. Typo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    It seems that the 60GHz wifi is 802.11ad , not ab (Anno Domini, not Another Bad)

  2. And this being samsung... by Torp · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... their software will look like a 2000 era flash app made by a 13 year old, be even slower than that and receive absolutely no updates; if there is even a minor problem with the standard, you will have to buy a new adapter to get the fix.

    --
    I apologize for the lack of a signature.
    1. Re:And this being samsung... by MRe_nl · · Score: 2

      As a boy who was 13 in 2000 making flash apps, I resent that...

      (j/k, I'm old).

      --
      "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
    2. Re:And this being samsung... by jones_supa · · Score: 2

      ... their software will look like a 2000 era flash app made by a 13 year old, be even slower than that and receive absolutely no updates; if there is even a minor problem with the standard, you will have to buy a new adapter to get the fix.

      The background of that app is a grey gradient with lots of uneven banding. Over that there is text drawn with white MS Sans Serif font. When you change Windows DPI setting, the text becomes larger, but also horribly aliased and can't fit the window anymore. There is a button to check for updates, but you have never seen it find one. "Check update ..." "No update found !" When you restore the app from system tray you can see how it slowly paints its GUI. Then when you exit the app, it pops up a message box with the text "Error: NULL".

    3. Re:And this being samsung... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... their software will look like a 2000 era flash app made by a 13 year old, be even slower than that and receive absolutely no updates; if there is even a minor problem with the standard, you will have to buy a new adapter to get the fix.

      You are an idiot as well as the people who gave you points. Do you need updates for your 802.11 a/b/g/n wireless cards? Do you have an app called 802.11 a/b/g/n? NO, because we are talking here about hardware, not about some "innovative app" made by some hot shot teenage developers from silicon valley. Just go back to your Jobs / Apple worshiping shrine because they are the only ones who can produce innovation.

    4. Re:And this being samsung... by karnal · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well then you can stay on my lawn.

      --
      Karnal
    5. Re:And this being samsung... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever heard of a driver?

    6. Re: And this being samsung... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. Samsung fanbois are real.

    7. Re:And this being samsung... by skids · · Score: 1

      And when they do release an update, it will break something more important, and there will be no way to use the user interface to downgrade.

  3. Never buying Samsung again by cyber-vandal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How long did it take to get KitKat to the Note 2? An eternity and it's not even the latest version. The last thing I want is that same disinterest in customer service being applied to my network equipment.

    1. Re:Never buying Samsung again by Famak1994 · · Score: 1

      2 years after the release but only once they could create their own stable version of it...But why does it even matter to you? You could have installed a custom rom and got it sooner but instead you'd rather complain about something that does really improve anything. What specific features were you waiting for from kitkat on your Note 2? I thought this was a site for nerds?

    2. Re:Never buying Samsung again by cyber-vandal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      All the security fixes and no I don't want to install a custom ROM where half the hardware doesn't work. I did look into that believe me. Stupid fanbois. The state of Android updating is crap and pretending it isn't or telling me to install some random piece of software doesn't absolve the world's largest smartphone manufacturer from its incredibly poor record.

    3. Re:Never buying Samsung again by Famak1994 · · Score: 1

      Btw, it took them 5 months to roll out the kitkat update.

    4. Re:Never buying Samsung again by Famak1994 · · Score: 0

      " I did look into that believe me. Stupid fanbois. " Obviously you haven't since everyone knows you don't download an unstable rom unless you're working with others to create one...

    5. Re:Never buying Samsung again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me either. My monitor crapped out and I sent the local office tech support guys an email asking if it was repairable.

      That was last year, I haven't heard back from them yet, so fuck them. My three LCD displays are all Samsung (even if one doesn't work) and my LCD TV is a Samsung (it's the second, the first one didn't work when I got it home and now this one just randomly turns off).

      Don't know who to go for next....

    6. Re:Never buying Samsung again by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      CM 11 works fine on my Note 2.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    7. Re:Never buying Samsung again by Famak1994 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So you're amongst the 1% that was dealt a defective monitor? http://www.newegg.com/Product/... You know instead of sitting on your thumb and spinning you could have sent it back to Samsung for a replacement... Is this a site for techs or people pretending to be tech savvy?

    8. Re: Never buying Samsung again by GTRacer · · Score: 1

      ...And the carriers get all fussy when we root our phones so we can do exactly that. CM11 (KK 4.4.4) running very nicely on my S4.

      --
      Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
    9. Re: Never buying Samsung again by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      Wow, Samsung apologist fanbois. They really are copying Apple on everything!

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    10. Re:Never buying Samsung again by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Obviously you haven't since everyone knows you don't download an unstable rom unless you're working with others to create one...

      You must be of the school of thought that says if a project calls a release "stable" it is. Cyanogenmod actually seems to have gotten better with their M releases which actually target stability instead of proclaiming it, but it is still a fairly minimal use of the word "stable."

      In more mature projects stable means that the software was tested BEFORE it was released, in basically the same form that was actually released, and that if a bug comes up it will be fixed quickly, without the addition of new features that might cause undesired changes. When Linux 3.17.1 comes along, it will only contain backported bugfixes/etc with a very low risk of regressions, and 3.17.0 went through 6 release candidates before it was released. That certainly was not the way Cyanogenmod worked a year or two ago, though they're moving closer to something like this now (they still don't have long-term stable releases, though).

    11. Re:Never buying Samsung again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, since I'm not in America it's doubtful I'm covered. It didn't happen until 3 years after the warranty expired, either.

      As I said, Samsung have not responded to my requests for assistance.

      Also, since I never came across a peep about a replacement after months of Googling for a solution, I can't see how this is a slight upon my technical skills. It seems like more of a slight upon Samsung's publicity.

  4. Err... Wait a minute... by Noryungi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Medical devices"?? On a wifi network???!!!

    What could possibly go wrong?

    --
    The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
    1. Re:Err... Wait a minute... by Famak1994 · · Score: 1

      Well with ISPs dismantling lan line networks (which many medical and emergency services/devices rely on) what better alternative do you propose?

    2. Re:Err... Wait a minute... by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What could possibly go wrong?

      Lots of things, but you don't seriously expect medical professionals to use all wireless gear at home and then use all wired gear at work, do you? We live in this place called reality, it has called with your check. Check, one two. Is this thing on?

      With end-to-end encryption, there's really no reason to fear security on wireless networks. And indeed, we should be demanding that all medical devices implement strong encryption (IPSEC, perhaps, in this case, with a proven cipher suite) whether they are wired or not.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Err... Wait a minute... by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      There's still the reliability issue. Show that some patient won't die because of RFI and we're good.

    4. Re:Err... Wait a minute... by Daniel+Hoffmann · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the companies and engineers that work on medical devices are completely lost about security, much like when the web first came to be. It will take years for these people to get the proper know how unless they make it their top priority and hire people with expertise in the area (which probably will not happen).

    5. Re:Err... Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A doctor to another in a break room: "Every time I do my rounds with my wireless tablet, people die. #WhatsUpWithThat??"
      The other: "Did the fan of your tablet turn on, by any change? #FanDeath, you see."

    6. Re:Err... Wait a minute... by paulkoan · · Score: 2

      A stethoscope is a medical device, and entirely tolerant of network failures. Add a sensor to it and wifi, and what it records could conveniently be saved to a network. It is just an internet of things device. If the network fails, it still performs its primary function.

      Not every medical device is life critical, and obviously (or perhaps it isn't obvious), the ones that are life critical are less likely to be designed around a flakey network connectivity model.

      --
      This signature intentionally left blank
    7. Re:Err... Wait a minute... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      What could possibly go wrong?

      People could adopt this attitude, giving medical devices special consideration, the FCC could give medical devices a pass on accepting RF interference, and then respirators could start randomly failing when you walk an 802.11b device past them, while anything without the "medical exception" was already designed to reject the interference.

      BTDTGTTS (1998).

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    8. Re:Err... Wait a minute... by wed128 · · Score: 1

      How does the ISP have any say about my internal network? they can pry my cat6 from my cold dead hands.

    9. Re:Err... Wait a minute... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      There's still the reliability issue. Show that some patient won't die because of RFI and we're good.

      The problem isn't the wifi devices, it's all the other shit. None of that stuff would be allowed to radiate in undesired ways if it were consumer electronics. Medical devices have sometimes even used spectrum without permission. There's no excuse for that nonsense.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  5. Distance by pahles · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How close do you have to be to the router with 60 GHz? I already have trouble with 5 GHz signals...

    --
    Sig?
    1. Re:Distance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Line of sight give or take 2-3 bounces I'd guess.
      It certainly wouldn't work very well for using your tablet in your bedroom w/ the router in the living room.

      It 'would' work pretty great for throwing away things like HDMI cables (at least for 1080p RGB 30/48, you might be able to get 4k 50Hz w/ I420 - certainly not 60Hz though) in your living room though.

      And if co-channel interference really isn't an issue, you could technically throw away limits on the number of connected video streams to a TV (eg: most have 2-4 HDMI cables, you could have as many as you wanted w/ this tech - limited by the bandwidth your hardware can handle concurrently).

    2. Re:Distance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      OSX has Bash and is/was vuberable to Shellshocked just like Linux.

    3. Re:Distance by alen · · Score: 4, Funny

      depends if your home has walls or not

    4. Re:Distance by kaiser423 · · Score: 1

      My guess is that they use that to actually minimize reception distance.

      Fun fact: 63GHz is the peak of absorption by the atmosphere. So, when the US was designing low-observable links that they didn't want eavesdropped on, they used that spectrum.

      Something similar could be happening here -- it's for devices in the room, and one way to ensure that you don't get room to room interference would be to use a frequency around 60GHz. Well, that and because it's fairly worthless to most major telecoms it's basically an open band.

    5. Re:Distance by wed128 · · Score: 1

      ios too.

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

      What does shellshock have anything to do with Samsung's new high speed WiFi?

    7. Re:Distance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      iOS has no bash shell.

      In fact, iOS has no userland to speak of except for some libraries. As part of the jailbreak process, a basic userland is installed with the Mobile Substrate.

      This is part of the reason why there has not been a single successful attack able to be mounted against an unjailbroken iPhone since the first device came out way back when.

      Android also doesn't have a bash shell. It almost always uses a busybox executable which does most of bash's functions. It also doesn't have the ShellShock bug in it. Of course, Android's biggest issue is that even though the permissions model is stronger than iOS, most stores (especially in China and other countries where Google doesn't have a presence) are of a "default allow" model. Apple is a brutal gatekeeper, and this is the main reason why malware doesn't get onto iOS devices.

    8. Re:Distance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      60Ghz is absorbed\interacts with the atmosphere so it has a fairly short range. This is really intended for PAN, short range LAN type environments.

  6. Samsung and wifi/bluetooth clashing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Ever had something streaming over bluetooth and tried to use wifi on a Samsung device?

    Ping your phone and watch the packets drop.

    Samsungs bluetooth usage basically kills wifi on all their device range, it's a driver problem and something they wont address.

    This likely won't be any different. Their wifi setup will be shit unless you turn the bluetooth off (then it all works magically well)

    Trying to get this issue through their support to devs is like tying to stick a knob of butter up a porcupines arse with a red hot knitting needle. :'-(

    1. Re:Samsung and wifi/bluetooth clashing by amorsen · · Score: 1

      Bluetooth wifi coexistence is an ugly hack. Get your wifi to 5GHz (or 60GHz...) and leave the 2.5GHz mess to crippled protocols like Bluetooth.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
  7. Prophecy by CeasedCaring · · Score: 1, Funny

    2020: Apple to be granted patent and sue Samsung over this

    1. Re:Prophecy by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      Nope Apple doesn't innovate in that space. They buy that technology. I'm sure Samsung will jack up the per unit cost if Apple ever wants to integrate or Apple will come up with another whiz-bang proprietary standard and then sue others that are "similar." Innovation by Litigation.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  8. porn so fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bring it on! Streaming porn so fast you'll have to watch it frame by frame to see anything at all. And every freeze frame is of a guy's ass.

  9. eliminating co-channel interference? by danknight48 · · Score: 0

    By using “wide-coverage beam-forming antenna” and “eliminating co-channel interference

    More like:
    By using “High Radiation” and “eliminating Human interference by destroying the brain cells"

    1. Re:eliminating co-channel interference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citation?

      Most studies I've read on this topic in recent years have concluded 60Ghz isn't really dangerous (and in fact has beneficial properties in some circumstances, go figure).

      The main area of concern is with interfering frequencies (eg: 50ish and 120-ish Ghz) that cause unexpected side-effects (membrane issues), and I'd say this certainly requires more thorough investigation personally (I'd prefer my insides don't start to leak fluids, causing unexpected death) while I watch TV.

      http://www.cemmedic.hu/uploads/dokument/Millimeter-wave%20Scientific%20honlap.pdf

  10. Sounds like Samsung by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It will only connect to wifi with high speeds if you use Samsung's App, which entirely duplicates the native internet connecting ability of the native app.

  11. Always divide by 2, if not significantly more. by AbRASiON · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wifi specs are just bullshit, always have been.
    54mbit wifi
    theoretical maximum 6.75MB/s
    theoretical maximum, allowing for the standard /10 instead of /8 overhead rule: 5.4MB/s
    actual maximum attained speeds, over years and years of multiple networks/ cards / laptops / routers /location. 2.9 / 3.0MB/s

    It's only gotten worse for me, the higher the spec goes.
    If they claim 4.6Gbps I'd probably believe it might do 20 -> 40MB/s, actual, genuine, sustained transfers. Maybe.

    1. Re:Always divide by 2, if not significantly more. by loosescrews · · Score: 1

      I have gotten over 5.4MB/s Internet throughput with 802.11g with an Intel wifi card and sitting right under a Cisco AP. I also routinely get over 120MB/s network thoughput over gigabit lan using Intel NICs. It is all about using the right hardware and the right drivers and making sure that everything is configured properly.

    2. Re:Always divide by 2, if not significantly more. by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      It's not just the maximum speed you need to account for but also the cochannel interference, dropped packets and retransmits. You can't maintain high bit rates while other devices are using the same wireless channel at the same time. the degradation you have experienced is probably due to your having more devices on your wireless LAN and your neighbors installing wireless LANs on the same radio frequencies.

    3. Re:Always divide by 2, if not significantly more. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I have been hitting 30-45MB sustained rates with my ASUS ac66u router and an intel two antenna AC client chipset. My old router on the same setup was at best 6-10MB. The ASUS was the top of the charts when I bought it 2 years ago. Now its top 10. I can regularly stream 2 bluray streams at the same time. As the router has more than one antenna (3 actually).

      Look into your router and pick one that has good numbers. Firmware and settings can also have a huge impact on what happens. I got an extra 5MB just by messing with the settings in the stock firmware. Picking good channels is just as important (as much as 15MB change in rates). Even if you have no neighbors using it. Some propagate better thru your walls than others. Or you have an old piece of equipment radiating something. Also keep in mind what the ports out the back can do. As that can affect what is going on as well. Off the back of the router with a direct connection thru cat6 I can hit 120MB. The old router could manage maybe 20 and it was a 'gigabit' router...

      Multipathing is just starting to gain some traction. Unfortunately most client equipment has 1 antenna which limits you to 150mbs in pretty much all cases.

      http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/lanwan/router-charts/view

    4. Re:Always divide by 2, if not significantly more. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the old 'theoretical max throughput' advertising going on here. Physics doesn't lie. Marketing, however....

    5. Re:Always divide by 2, if not significantly more. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For wireless I generally estimate overhead at around 50% (not the 8-10% of wired networks). Wireless has a lot more traffic, headers, and preambles to keep the connection active and functional, throw in the protections and other collision avoidance technologies results in more slowdowns.

    6. Re:Always divide by 2, if not significantly more. by Ben+Hutchings · · Score: 1

      Also, wifi is half-duplex (no separate uplink and downlink frequencies) so any traffic in the other direction (like ACKs) reduces available bandwidth.

  12. Disinformation by Famak1994 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Bullshit much? I own a Samsung smart tv which consistently receives updates and have never had to buy an adapter to anything . What exactly are you pissing and moaning about?

    1. Re:Disinformation by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 1

      >from ca. 2008

      I think I see where you went wrong. That was pretty early to get a "smart" tv. Nowadays, Samsung is known as the one with fast menus. I'm very happy with my 55" 2012 Samsung.

    2. Re:Disinformation by skids · · Score: 1

      Similar experience. There were updates for my SmartTV but only for bullsit. Similar to how Sony only ever updates to PS Store and never fixes anything important that is broken.

    3. Re:Disinformation by Famak1994 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I have a 2013 model so perhaps it was a little inflammatory of me to call bullshit on the others...meh.

      But I must say that HBOGO streams better on my tv than both my cable box and my computer.

      Why it does?

      I haven't a clue...

    4. Re:Disinformation by Famak1994 · · Score: 1

      All of the bells and whistles that come with smart tvs you'll want to disable first and foremost as they tend to slow everything down. If you have an option to enable 'gamemode' go ahead and turn that on followed by reading up on how to calibrate your display. The only settings that really matter is backlight, contrast, and brightness.

  13. Laugh by koan · · Score: 1

    Great for the rest of the World but here in 'Murica certain ISP's lobby to have the term broadband regulated to the lower speed rather than have to upgrade their networks.

    Not surprising when you see who runs Comcast.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  14. The Medical of Things. by geekmux · · Score: 2

    "...Early products to use the technology will include 'audio visual and medical devices'..."

    Uh, I'm sorry. Any company mentioning medical devices and the Internet of Things in the same sentence brings the death knell in my mind.

    Whatever pathetic security model they're thinking of shoveling into this device at the last minute before trying to ride the next billion-dollar revenue wave won't be enough.

    Keep your damn Internet of Things away from medical devices until you learn to implement at least common sense security. This ain't the next iPod killer, someone's life is at stake.

    While you're drooling over the projected revenue numbers, you might want to listen to your lawyers during the risk analysis part of the presentation...

  15. wow, this site has really gone to shit by drinkypoo · · Score: 1, Troll

    Can't write in my journal, have to wait five minutes between posts. You're trying to kill off, Slashdot, right? So that DICE can just write off their acquisition or something?

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:wow, this site has really gone to shit by wiredlogic · · Score: 2

      I don't get the point of the aggressive post rate limiting. It really gets annoying when you try to post as AC and someone else in your IP range has locked you out with their own earlier post. It's sad that in the past year I have been able to get first post on articles that have been up for 10+ minutes on multiple occasions. The user base has receded significantly but they persist in these silly policies that inhibit the active users.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
  16. Oh goody by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Now my wireless devices can talk to my router at 4.8Gbps so that they can talk over my Comcast connection at 2Mbps.

  17. Samsung's success network products by korialstrasz · · Score: 1

    This is a wisely move of Samsung, because current network users needs broandband connection and this products will satisfy most of internet users.

  18. Always divide by 2, if not significantly more. by negativeduck · · Score: 1

    you have to remember most specs have also relied on over lapping and shared channel maps. So the more networks your device can see the more impact you will suffer. At the same time the "RECEIVER" is the bigger problem, the transmitter only has limited capabilities to try and get the packets to you, it's upto the receiver to be able to decode it and put it back together. You also have to remember that in almost every case of "marketed" and or "consumer spec" the throughput is measured and tested with UDP traffic. As this becomes a calculation of raw packets per second at a specific size without scaling and takes alot of the "logic" behind cleaning up the flow out of the equation. UDP based streams are more likely in most cases to receive at a rate closer to the theory.

  19. No after purchase support by sjbe · · Score: 1

    How long did it take to get KitKat to the Note 2?

    Not to start an Apple vs Samsung flame war, this is one of the big reasons I've been a little gun shy about certain Android devices, particularly from certain makers. Way too often they get old modified versions of Android and see few if any updates ever. It's very much like the bad old days with my old Nokia smartphones that would never get improved or updated in any meaningful way. If you wanted a fix to a problem you had to buy a new device.

    Of course Apple has it's problems too - big version updates often make using older hardware... challenging and slow. I'm becoming increasingly convinced they slow old hardware on purpose to (ahem) encourage people to update to the newest shiny. But at least to their credit you do get some updates to work with and they usually work unless you device is (relatively speaking) fairly old.

  20. Agreed on the state of Android by zerofoo · · Score: 0

    That's why every other year, when I run an Android device I only run a Nexus device. Pure Android on hardware that works, with frequent updates. Nexus devices are as good as Android gets. I made the mistake of running a Motorola Razr - what a cluster that was.

    1. Re: Agreed on the state of Android by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a Galaxy Nexus owner I have to disagree. Google dropped upgrades for the device immediately before Jellybean came out. Zero major OS upgrades for it.

      Also a horrible device in general.

    2. Re: Agreed on the state of Android by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      That must be the non-GSM Galaxy Nexus. I'll agree that they damaged their reputation on this one, but this is why they haven't done a non-GSM Nexus since.

      The GSM Galaxy Nexus received updated for 1.5 years from initial release, which is what they all basically get. I still would like to see longer support, and there is a chance that the Nexus 4 will get the L release.

    3. Re: Agreed on the state of Android by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      That was because Ti stopped competing in the phone market. Google picked Ti for the GNex CPU and that ended up being a problem. Yes I had one and it was a pretty good phone until then. Sprint sucked but the Gnex was okay. I am now waiting for the Nexus 6 and I have moved to T-Mobile.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  21. The Samsung clowns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you going to fix the latest cock-up with your smart TVs, or are you going to take the heavy handed route in an attempt to force everybody to buy newer models? I just know that my next smart TV will most definitely NOT be Samsung.

    1. Re: The Samsung clowns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your tv is so "smart" shouldn't it be able to fix the "cock up" itself? Guess it's just not smart enough. ;P

    2. Re: The Samsung clowns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a cock-up in their servers.

  22. I'd rather have longer range by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    Give me a wifi router that whose signal can penetrate the walls and floors of your average 10-story building.

    1. Re:I'd rather have longer range by amorsen · · Score: 1

      Do you have lots of 10-story buildings with less than 10 wifi users? That seems like a very small market.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    2. Re:I'd rather have longer range by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

      The goal is obstacle penetration.

    3. Re:I'd rather have longer range by Holi · · Score: 1

      Not at 60ghz it's not.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    4. Re:I'd rather have longer range by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Screw that noise. The TV broadcasters need to give up their white space.

    5. Re:I'd rather have longer range by amorsen · · Score: 1

      You do not want obstacle penetration, unless you have that 10-story building with less than 10 wifi users. Obstacle penetration is just a nice word for interference these days. 2.5GHz is TOO good at obstacle penetration; in many places you can reach dozens of access points at 2.5GHz and the result is that none of them get decent performance.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    6. Re:I'd rather have longer range by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

      Needing lots of access points is bad engineering. Take, for example, the Sands Convention Center in Las Vegas. When they wanted to have coverage throughout the building, one vendor quoted 1500 access points. Fifteen hundred. That's godawful. Think of the power requirements alone. But that's for a permanent installation. Let's say you wanted to set up a temporary, secure, wireless network in a few minutes for something like an active shooter scenario in a school so that SWAT teams could use it to transmit body-worn camera video back to incident command. You don't have the luxury of time to plan optimum placement or the ability to set up dozens of hotspots. This is where building penetration is essential.

  23. The Register??? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    Almost every tech site on the planet has that story and you pick the National Enquirer styled tech site?

    Tsk, tsk. The submitter should be ashamed. The Register has shown itself to be completely untrustworthy.

  24. Now there are 15 standards. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/927/

  25. wrong focus by hurfy · · Score: 1

    I am a little more concerned with why they think my frig is gonna need 4.6Gbps :O

  26. Just 802.11ad by Custard · · Score: 1

    According to the fine press release, this is 802.11ad, a standard published in 2012 and which had been under formal development since 2007.

    802.11ad is not intended as a LAN protocol; think of it as a wireless 10 meter cable. The short range is actually a benefit; short range means that your neighbors won't be conflicting with your system.

    The press release is just puffery rewritten by someone who doesn't know the technology. âoeWide-coverage beam-forming antennaâ should have given it away. Beam forming narrows (and lengthens) the area covered. (Sortof.. Too long, didn't write.) Nothing to see here.

  27. Can't wait.. by faedle · · Score: 1

    .. to use that on my "broadband" connection at home that's 3 Mb/s down and 384k up.

  28. Mm sizzling flesh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just don't get too close to the antennas.

  29. Watch for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Samsung has a marvelous smart watch for us, too. /sarcasm