Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MIT Scientists Develop New Wi-Fi That's 330% Faster (msn.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the speed-racer dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from MSN: Scientists at MIT claim to have created a new wireless technology that can triple Wi-Fi data speeds while also doubling the range of the signal. Dubbed MegaMIMO 2.0, the system will shortly enter commercialization and could ease the strain on our increasingly crowded wireless networks. Multiple-input-multiple-output technology, or MIMO, helps networked devices perform better by combining multiple transmitters and receivers that work simultaneously, allowing then to send and receive more than one data signal at the same time. MIT's MegaMIMO 2.0 works by allowing several routers to work in harmony, transmitting data over the same piece of spectrum. MIT claimed that during tests, MegaMIMO 2.0 was able to increase data transfer speed of four laptops connected to the same Wi-Fi network by 330 percent. Paper co-author Rahul said the technology could also be applied to mobile phone networks to solve similar congestion issues. "In today's wireless world, you can't solve spectrum crunch by throwing more transmitters at the problem, because they will all still be interfering with one another," Ezzeldin Hamed, lead author on a paper on the topic, told MIT News. "The answer is to have all those access points work with each other simultaneously to efficiently use the available spectrum."

86 comments

  1. For the percentage impaired... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    330% is 3.3 times faster.

    1. Re:For the percentage impaired... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      4.3

    2. Re:For the percentage impaired... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it?

      MegaMIMO 2.0 was able to increase data transfer speed of four laptops connected to the same Wi-Fi network by 330 percent.

      So now it is 100%, by increasing with 330% it becomes 430%, which is 4.3 times as fast.

    3. Re:For the percentage impaired... by Cigaes · · Score: 2

      Sorry, go back to high school: “increase [...] by 330 percent” means 4.3 faster.

      Rounding 3.3 to three would have been acceptable.

      People should stop using variation percentages outside the range -50% – +100%, i.e. ÷2 – ×2. They always get it wrong.

      And why does /. eats U+2212 MINUS SIGN?

    4. Re:For the percentage impaired... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "In today's wireless world, you can't solve spectrum crunch by throwing more transmitters at the problem, because they will all still be interfering with one another," Ezzeldin Hamed, lead author on a paper on the topic, told MIT News. "The answer is to have all those access points work with each other simultaneously to efficiently use the available spectrum."

      So you solve it by ... a different way of throwing more transmitters at the problem? Nice. Hey at least they're not just throwing more transmitters at the problem!

    5. Re:For the percentage impaired... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      “increase [...] by 330 percent” means 4.3 faster."

      Sorry, but "330% faster" is indeed 3.3 times faster, or 4.3 times as fast. "4.3 [times] faster" is actually 5.3 times as fast. You're off by one, and GP is correct.

    6. Re:For the percentage impaired... by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      Both versions are fine. It is 3.3 times faster or 4.3 times the original value.

      If the original velocity is 1, 4.3 would be 3.3 times faster. 1 + 3.3 * 1 = the actual velocity + another velocity which is 3.3 times the original one. Alternatively, 4.3 is 4.3 times the original value.

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    7. Re:For the percentage impaired... by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      “increase [...] by 330 percent” means 4.3 faster."

      Sorry, but "330% faster" is indeed 3.3 times faster, or 4.3 times as fast. "4.3 [times] faster" is actually 5.3 times as fast. You're off by one, and GP is correct.

      Let's try it this way: "100% faster" and "1 times faster." Do you see how your statement is provably false, now?

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    8. Re:For the percentage impaired... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. The purpose of communication is to convey information. If your information will not be accurately conveyed, consider an alternate. You can see it breakdown:
      50% faster (oh, like when I go from 10 to 15 mbits)
      100% more beef (oh, so, like, a double cheeseburger)
      150% more beef (???) - no one immediately thinks "a second beef patty which is 25% larger than the first one and the first one has been enlarged by 25% also", but people eventually get there (its certainly not less!)
      200% more soda! (well, I had 16 oz before... Now I have 32? its twice as big and 200% means twice... If they meant 3x, they probably would have lead with a word like "3x" or "triple", or something else that means 3...)

    9. Re:For the percentage impaired... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be an idiot. It's obvious that he meant you can't just throw transmitters at the problem, you have to throw transmitters that work together at the problem.

    10. Re:For the percentage impaired... by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but "330% faster" is indeed 3.3 times faster, or 4.3 times as fast. "4.3 [times] faster" is actually 5.3 times as fast. You're off by one, and GP is correct.

      Let's try it this way: "100% faster" and "1 times faster." Do you see how your statement is provably false, now?

      Sorry, but the AC is right. "100% faster" = "1 times faster" = "2 times as fast".

      "X times as fast" = X * original speed
      "X times faster" = original speed + (X * original speed)

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    11. Re:For the percentage impaired... by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      I appear to have had a reading comprehension malfunction, and I thought OP was stating that "330% faster = 3.3x speed" which is definitely not what he was stating. With regard to your formula, I'll admit ignorance. I did some quick research and have found nothing definitive other than people arguing on the internet. I will not press my point (we've already proven that I am not responding to what people are actually saying, much less correct) but I'm unconvinced as to the accuracy of what you're saying. Can you link to something authoritative so I can cure my ignorance?

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    12. Re:For the percentage impaired... by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      Can you link to something authoritative so I can cure my ignorance?

      Sorry, I didn't find anything definitive either. However, it follows from the normal use for ratios less than unity. The only difference is the magnitude. Taking "two times" to be equivalent to "200%", and "1/2 times" (or simply "1/2") to be equivalent to "50%":

      50% as fast (as the original) = 1/2 (times) as fast = 0.5 * original speed
      100% as fast = one times as fast = 1 * original speed
      200% as fast = two times as fast = 2 * original speed

      50% faster (than the original) = 1/2 (times) faster = (0.5 * original speed) + original speed
      100% faster = one times faster = (1 * original speed) + original speed = 2 * original speed
      200% faster = two times faster = (2 * original speed) + original speed = 3 * original speed

      The expression has two parts. The first can be either "X%" or "X times", both relative to the original amount. If the second part is "as fast" or "as much" (etc.) then this is the final result. If the second part is a relative term like "faster" or "more" then this implies addition, and the first amount, after multiplication, is the difference between the result and the original amount.

      Few would disagree with the statement that "50% faster" is equivalent to "150% as fast", and not "50% as fast", but for some reason many become confused by "200% faster" when the formula is exactly the same.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    13. Re:For the percentage impaired... by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      Your points are persuasive, but most people* would likely parse the phrases "twice as fast" and "two times faster" as meaning the same thing which throws your entire point into disarray. Percentages are obvious, "as fast/faster" appears to be a personal stylistic choice.

      *: "most people" definitely falls afoul of the "no true scotsman" fallacy, but it's not like I'm going to go out and conduct a survey on the issue.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    14. Re:For the percentage impaired... by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      This is more a matter of how the phrase should be read, as jargon, and not how the phrase will be (mis-)understood by the general public in casual conversation.

      As a writer, if you can't count on a technically-minded audience, you're (unfortunately) best served by avoiding relative multiples entirely, as well as relative percentages at or above 100%. Unlike "two times faster" or "330% faster", there is no confusion, generally speaking, about how to read "three times as fast" or "430% as fast".

      As a reader, in the absence of evidence of the author's intent to the contrary, if you encounter the phrase "X times faster" or "X% faster" I believe you should treat it as equivalent to "(X+1) times as fast" or "(X+100%) as fast".

      I understand that linguistic relativism is in vogue at the moment, and even agree with it to an extent. The point of having language is to communicate, after all, which implies that the meanings and customary use of phrases are not fixed in stone; they change depending on the speaker, audience, and context. However, by the same token, I think prescriptionism is warranted in cases like this one for the sake of preserving our ability to communicate clearly and concisely. Ambiguity serves no one, and we don't need another inconsistent way to say "X times as fast", whereas maintaining the regular structure of the language ("X00% = X times" and "X faster = original speed plus X", regardless of context) helps to reduce the reader's cognitive load, leaving more energy for the real content. While there is no inherently right or wrong way to design a tool, some tool designs are more fit for purpose than others, and the same is true for the tools of communication, i.e. languages.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    15. Re:For the percentage impaired... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Ambiguity serves no one

      Except lawyers, salesmen, my kids, lawyers, politicians, my wife, and lawyers.

      That aside, if it mattered I'd probably try to write it a different way - "has double the top speed", or using actual (approximate) numbers "can fly at around 750 knots instead of 380".

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  2. Depends by Cafe+Alpha · · Score: 2

    Usually I would say %330 as fast meaning 3.3 times the speed. or 1/3 the time to transmit the same data.

    Does "faster" usually mean a different thing than "as fast".

    1. Re:Depends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      There's a good reason why decent white folk get the hell out of an area once the low-life Thug-Life niggers start moving in. White Flight is a thing. No it is not an aversion to melanin. It's a desire not to get shot by a stray bullet when nigger males shoot other nigger males. FACT: Black males are about 7% of the population but commit just over 50% of all murders! Generally they murder other nigger males, because gangsta thug life yo! Yeah, can't imagine why decent folk don't want to be around that.

      In SJW America, not wanting to get shot, and avoiding getting shot by correctly recognizing who is most likely to engage in gun violence and avoiding them, is somehow racist. Too bad blacks love to be savage and violent. But that's the reality. Only a fool denies reality to fit some stupid narrative. Racism would be hating them for their genetics. Avoiding them because of their violence isn't racism, it's sensibility.

    2. Re:Depends by dbraden · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, the meanings can be different. Let's look at 100% faster: that would be the starting speed, plus another starting speed, giving you a 2x value. So 330% faster would be starting speed plus 3.3x, making it 4.3x.

      Whereas 100% "as fast" is saying the "the same speed", or 1x, and 330% "as fast" would result in 3.3x.

    3. Re:Depends by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      If X is 50% slower than Y, and Z is 100% faster than X, Z=Y

      And 50% as slow as means?

    4. Re:Depends by vux984 · · Score: 1

      And 50% as slow as means?

      As we all know:
      50% = 50 per cent = 50 per hundred = 50/100 = 1/2

      "And 1/2 as slow as X" means twice as fast as X.
      Its the inverse --> 1 / 1/2 = 2

      This glacier 1 meter per year. This other glacier is only 1/2 as slow. So it moves 2 meters per year. Twice as fast.

      Interestingly the phrase 0% as slow; seems difficult to make sense of, which makes sense since the inverse of 0/100s is a division by zero error. 1 / 0/100 = 1/0 = NaN

    5. Re:Depends by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      And that reminds of the 'two times less' and 'two times fewer' I see here all two often.

    6. Re:Depends by suutar · · Score: 1

      I can't come up with a solid meaning for "as slow". "As fast" seems straightforward; it's a comparison to a value as measured from zero. But "as slow" would seem to need to be a comparison to a value measured from a reference point above the value (like comparing to 60 with a reference value of 100) but of course then the question is "what's the reference point?" So it's not very useful, which makes it not very common, which makes it susceptible to misinterpretation, which makes it even less useful.

    7. Re:Depends by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      ... "as slow" would seem to need to be a comparison to a value measured from a reference point ...

      "slowness" = 1 / "fastness" (a.k.a. speed)

      Say that an object is moving at 5 meters per second. Its "slowness" is, equivalently, one second per five meters, or 0.2 seconds per meter. "50% faster" would be 50% * 5 m/s = 2.5 m/s faster than 5 m/s, or 7.5 m/s in total. "50% slower" would be 50% * 0.2 s/m = 0.1 s/m slower than 0.2 s/m, or 0.3 s/m in total, or 3.333... m/s.

      (Intuitively, "50% slower" means that it takes 50% more time to cover the same distance.)

      "Twice as fast" = 2 * 5 m/s = 10 m/s.
      "Half as slow" = 1/2 * 0.2 s/m = 0.1 s/m, or 10 m/s.

      "Half as fast" = 1/2 * 5 m/s = 2.5 m/s.
      "Twice as slow" = 2 * 0.2 s/m = 0.4 s/m, or 2.5 m/s.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    8. Re:Depends by Nunya666 · · Score: 1

      And that reminds of the 'two times less' and 'two times fewer' I see here all two often.

      It's not just here. It's even in advertisements. I can't figure out if idiots are designing them, and they don't know better, or if it is intentional because they are "dumbing down" to the intelligence level of today's layman.

      Either way, it's annoying.

  3. With such good Wi-fi... by npslider · · Score: 0

    Except for high security environments, I wonder if we will soon see the day when wired network access is as rare as 8-track cartridges?

    1. Re:With such good Wi-fi... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wires will always remain a better transmission medium, the only reason why wired networks would go away is convenience / cost

    2. Re:With such good Wi-fi... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I won't use it use because I appreciate not being spied on.

    3. Re:With such good Wi-fi... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There will never be a wireless network that outperforms a wired network. Even if their throughput claims aren't 100% bullshit in the real world (unlike all previous wireless speed claims) you still have the fundamental problem of very limited wireless bandwidth (the technical term, not the vernacular meaning!) to work with since a wireless connection has to play nice any only use a tiny sliver of feasible frequencies to avoid interference with other wireless signals.

      Wired networks do not have the same degree of worry and can operate with a much higher bandwidth.

      An AC or 4G wireless signal can provide a high amount of throughput but only to a very limited number of clients (compared to wired networks).

    4. Re:With such good Wi-fi... by olsmeister · · Score: 2

      Those are two pretty fucking good reasons.

    5. Re:With such good Wi-fi... by sims+2 · · Score: 2

      Not any time soon.

      It's still going to be wired coming out of your cable/dsl modem or optical transceiver.

      Someday it might be done 100% cellular but not as long as they insist on having an access charge for every device you own.

      10GB of data is 10GB of data it doesn't (with current networks anyway) matter if I use it on one cell phone or 1000 IOT monitors I strapped to the trees outside to monitor their O2 production.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    6. Re:With such good Wi-fi... by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      Yeah i'm typing this from an AIO touch screen computer that's connected via wifi to the internet the router is only 10ft away but there has never been reason to run a wire no file transfers are done and the 802.11g is still faster than our 12Mbps dsl connection at that distance.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    7. Re:With such good Wi-fi... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope not, because Wifi is too insecure.

    8. Re:With such good Wi-fi... by sims+2 · · Score: 2

      I have to mention yes this was 2 years ago but I feel it's relevant).
      Someone did a ask /. on how to build a network to handle google fiber without doing any modifications to the building.

      https://ask.slashdot.org/story...

      He was planning on using a poweline adapters and wanted to know a better solution IIRC /. pretty much just said run a wire there is not any wireless solution that could handle those speeds.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    9. Re:With such good Wi-fi... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah i'm typing this from an AIO touch screen computer that's connected via wifi to the internet the router is only 10ft away but there has never been reason to run a wire no file transfers are done and the 802.11g is still faster than our 12Mbps dsl connection at that distance.

      Your connection sucks ass.

    10. Re:With such good Wi-fi... by EndlessNameless · · Score: 3, Informative

      I can run 10 Gbps on fiber over a distance of 40 km using 5 watts of power. I have zero interference and can run as many lines in parallel as I want. And this is with typical enterprise equipment---I assume the telco guys have better options.

      Call me when wireless can do that. Or not, as I'll probably be running 40 Gbps (or higher) by then.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    11. Re:With such good Wi-fi... by wile_e_wonka · · Score: 1

      wires will always remain a better transmission medium

      Depends what you mean by "better." I think you mean "faster" and/or "less risk of data loss" and/or "less risk of data interception." If you're talking about connecting your computer to a router in another room without a good way to run a wire through the floor or ceiling, I think a person might reasonably argue that wires in that case are not "better." Or if you're talking about using your phone on the train or in Walmart, I think one could reasonably argue that, even though the wifi connection is slower, less reliable, and could be hacked, it's still better than being wired.

    12. Re:With such good Wi-fi... by cr_nucleus · · Score: 2

      Even if their throughput claims aren't 100% bullshit...

      Do you mean as much bullshit or twice as much bullshit ? I'm confused...

    13. Re:With such good Wi-fi... by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      Want to run cable with minimum disruption to the building than eg http://www.skirtec.com.au/ . Skirting and architrave ducts. Simply pull off the empty solid ones and replace with hollow ones that can accommodate cables and outlets. Always, always go with wire where you can, everything will run much smoother. So you work in ceiling space, bring cable down at doorways to the floor and around the room you go. To get from floor to floor, drill a hole, use fixed floor to ceiling cupboards, with removable backs and bases, either new or existing ones. Prep in one weekend, cupboards, ducts et al and wire in the next.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    14. Re:With such good Wi-fi... by SJ · · Score: 1

      That's amazing!

      How much did it cost you to lay the fibre along that 40km route again?

      Cost/Benefit... HOW DOES IT WORK???

  4. How about wired? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Can I be the only person who can't fucking stand the quality (speed, latency, instability) of Wifi / 3G / bollocks connectivity?

    If I want something with a radio, I'll build it myself, and it will transmit half way round the world with no infrastructure. Otherwise, give me delicious wires and very well maintained point to point radio connections.

    1. Re:How about wired? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      sadly most tablets like Ethernet ports for some reason

    2. Re:How about wired? by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      Na they are fixing that modern tables comming with usbc so easy to get the current dongle to get Ethernet attached. Hells they can get thunderbolt over that connector if they want to.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
  5. Not handy for the home by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 2

    Since they are talking about many devices connecting to multiple routers it's not going to do much for the average home user then. I may have a couple of devices but only the one router. They haven't found a new Wi-Fi but a method for coordinating the routers to handle the load as they say their method could be applied to cell stations too.

    1. Re:Not handy for the home by willoughby · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it sounds like the old dialup thing where you could get a special account with your ISP and use two modems.

    2. Re:Not handy for the home by b0bby · · Score: 1

      Since they are talking about many devices connecting to multiple routers it's not going to do much for the average home user then. I may have a couple of devices but only the one router.

      More and more mesh router systems are coming out - Netgear's Orbi was just announced; Ubiquiti's Amplifi, Luma and Eemo are also out there. Your next router may well have multiple base stations. I know that's something I'm thinking of, but I want to see how these all shake out for a bit first.

    3. Re:Not handy for the home by linuxguy · · Score: 1

      I already have two good routers at home. One at each corner of my house. Both purchased for less than $100 each. If the speed and range promises are even half of what is bring promised, I do not see a problem with people spending a couple of hundred bucks to pick up a dual router solution. Someone like me would not think twice about it. But yeah, businesses would be ALL OVER IT.

    4. Re:Not handy for the home by bn-7bc · · Score: 1

      Hmm 2 routers you say, so each wifi nerwork runs on a dedicated subnet and ssid or do you mean access points? I wish people (at least on slashdot) would stopp calling aps routers when they dont route (ie have ar least one active RIB)

    5. Re:Not handy for the home by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Don't they have an "upstream" network plug, and (usually) 4 "downstream" connections. So isn't that routing? (..and giving the downstream items addresses from its DHCP server?)

    6. Re:Not handy for the home by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      Since they are talking about many devices connecting to multiple routers it's not going to do much for the average home user then. I may have a couple of devices but only the one router.

      Actually:
        - If you got a second router, put it some distance away from the first, and hooked them together with a network cable, you could use two devices about as fast as you could one with one router.
        - If you had three wired routers you could use three devices close to as fast as you could use one with one router.
      And so on.

      Note that I'm not talking about using the devices with each near a particular router. I'm talking about the routers spread out around the room or the house and the devices also somewhat spread out - but differently (even just at different spots in the same room) and with no particular relation between the device and the router locations.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    7. Re:Not handy for the home by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      Also: You could relay between one device and another out of range with it about as fast as they could talk if they were in range of each other, rather than cutting that rate in half as each talks to a router and the router repeats what it heard.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    8. Re:Not handy for the home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know. I've been astonished, checking for WAPs in urban areas. It's nothing to see a half dozen or more, and that includes single family residential, ordinary bungalow housing, not high density at all.

      The problem is that all those routers are secured and under separate control. Without a coordinated control mechanism then you are correct.

  6. Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Yes, more transceivers are better than less, thank you MIT.

    1. Re:Science by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Fewer.

    2. Re:Science by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      AC could mean less.

      Half a transceiver is not as good as a whole one.

    3. Re:Science by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Lesser.

    4. Re:Science by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2

      Yes, more transceivers are better than less, thank you MIT.

      But only if they're really tightly synchronized.

      MIT got them to be tightly synchronized despite being in different boxes in different rooms, rather than all being in the same box, WITHOUT a lot of extra, extra-special, extra-fancy, extra-cost, hardware. This can be built with a bit more off the shelf stuff (maybe the SAME amount of the same off the shelf stuff but with a bit better firmware) and easily folded into the next generation's chips.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    5. Re:Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They already did this. It is called MIMO. You can add more streams. It just costs more and requires more PA, LNA, Switches, Connectors, Antennas. The guy who really defined what MIMO is showed mathematically that you can just keep adding channels. There is lots of multipath around you and it can all be used to your advantage if you are a wizard.

    6. Re:Science by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      They already did this. It is called MIMO.

      We all understand that.

      What you're missing is that:
        - MIMO works better, over longer distances, when the antennas are more separated. The more the separation, the greater the distance, for a given accuracy of phase.
        - But it also requires the radios to be synchronized to within a tiny fraction of a single cycle, so the patterns add up correctly. At 2.5 GHz an entire cycle is one quarter part per BILLION and MIMO reqires more than an order of magnitude better accuracy than that.

      When the radios are all in one box, that's easy: You drive them from the same oscillators, and watch your wiring and components.

      When they're in different boxes, separated by hundreds of feet or by miles, it's a whole different can of worms. VERY fancy equipment to generate VERY stable signals, extra stuff to estimate their drift (which varies from moment to moment), and it's still a massive pain. You don't get that kind of synchronization between boxes, even in a house, when they're connected by inexpensive commodity cabling.

      What these guys did is tweak the protocol to add a tiny synchronizing burst from the designated master transmitter just before each packet. Combined with estimates of the moment-by-moment ongoing drift (computed from reception of the synchronizing bursts from previous packets) they were able to get current commodity-quality hardware to stay adequately synchronized to hold the pattern together for at least the duration of the packet. (I'm betting they can do the same sort of thing with the receivers, too, working off the sync burst from the master transmitter.)

      The result is being able to do MIMO with radio/antenna assemblies in different, disconnected, well-separated, boxes, using only packet-quality interconnects and doing synchronization via a small bit of air bandwidth.

      That got MIMO over a major hump, in equipment cost, antenna separation, and utility.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    7. Re:Science by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      At 2.5 GHz an entire cycle is one quarter part per BILLION

      Make that 2/5 part per billion.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    8. Re:Science by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      ... and "one cycle per second of error".

      I.e. if your clocks are good for one part per million you have a tiny fraction of a millisecond before your pattern comes apart.

      Their trick is to resynchronize at the start of every packet, to a reference transmitted by one of the transmitters, so they can get the packet squirted out (or received) while the pattern still holds together, rather than trying to keep the radios in sync constantly despite not being able to wire them together.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    9. Re:Science by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      It's dead simple to synchronize wireless gear on completely different networks, if you so choose. The gear just needs to support it.

      GPS input to produce accurate timing, and configurable RF parameters. Polling so that the AP can tell what client to transmit when.

      Sure, banging it into 802.11 is a bitch, but even it's been done; take a look at Cambium's ePMP products.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  7. Oh MIT won't you solve some real problems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    If you're so smart and liberal, go end lack of basic human needs or war and stop dicking about with easy stuff like tweaking algorithms to make Wifi faster.

    Fuck, it must be so easy to sit in an academic bubble being regarded as the creme de la creme while actually you're doing very little for humanity.

    1. Re:Oh MIT won't you solve some real problems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Mod parent (-1, Delicate nerds must be isolated from real world).

    2. Re:Oh MIT won't you solve some real problems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Those are political problems, not science problems. We already produce enough food to provide a basic healthy diet to every human on Earth.

      And in case you appreciate the change the internet has wrought, you'll recall it started off as an academic side project that garnered military investment when it showed promise.

    3. Re:Oh MIT won't you solve some real problems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Humans are machines - political problems are science problems. Just remember to take account of humanity, the most valuable aspect of the machinery.

      I can appreciate that the Internet has brought little positive change to the worst off, and distracted the middle classes. It's primarily an entertainment medium, whatever we like to pretend.

    4. Re:Oh MIT won't you solve some real problems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck, it must be so easy to sit in an academic bubble being regarded as the creme de la creme while actually you're doing very little for humanity.

      Doing stuff humanity --> MIT OpenCourseWare

  8. Wi-Fi speed is not my problem by reboot246 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    My Wi-Fi is already capable of speeds much faster than what I get from my isp. I could see the need for faster Wi-Fi if I transferred tons of files from one room to another, but I don't have that need.

    First give me faster internet speed; then maybe I'll need faster Wi-Fi.

    1. Re:Wi-Fi speed is not my problem by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Rather than concentrate on speed, they need to concentrate on co-existence. In many places the number of wifi APs screaming over multiple channels causes severe performance problems.

      It's particuarly bad in urban environments where walls make the "hidden transmitter" problem much worse. Essentially you have two APs screaming as loud as they can, but too far apart to hear each other. Someone in the middle who can hear both can't make out what either is saying, or what the other person in the room is saying at normal volume.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Wi-Fi speed is not my problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but how constant is you downstream use? you could pull information at a constant rate to local storage then move it within your own network at whatever high rate of speed you desire

    3. Re:Wi-Fi speed is not my problem by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Or just build in synchronization and polling. GPS chips to get timing are dirt cheap. And even if they're not, just make sure that any of the APs in the network that ARE getting good gps timing are broadcasting NTP internally. For local Wi-Fi, that will be more than sufficient.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  9. 330% faster... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At causing BRAIN TUMORS!!!

    1. Re: 330% faster... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The WIFI becomes so fast I can watch a full hour porn movie in just 18 mins and cram more into those extra 42 mins!

      How awesome is that?

  10. Link to the paper by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here are direct links to the paper's download page and the paper itself.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:Link to the paper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was their work from four years ago, not the work mentioned in the article. Here's the paper:

      http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2934905

    2. Re:Link to the paper by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      Thanks.

      (Unfortunately, membership paywall... B-b )

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  11. Science article: the real numbers are at the origi by blibbo · · Score: 2

    The numbers are easier to understand here:http://news.mit.edu/2016/solving-network-congestion-megamimo-0823

    Both Owen Hughes' ibtimes article and the summary say "triple" the speed, which. should be four times the speed.

    Three times faster is technically correct, but seems asinine when allowing this kind of English should allow you to say "one time faster" for twice as fast ("my new car can go one time faster than my old car").

  12. Re:Science article: the real numbers are at the or by blibbo · · Score: 2

    **original source (posting to slashdot on mobile - aargh)

    http://news.mit.edu/2016/solving-network-congestion-megamimo-0823

  13. Anything like pcell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Is this anything like the pcell thing that Steve Perlman has been working on?

  14. FCC requirements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Do current FCC regulations allow for this type of coordinated approach between multiple transmitters? Maybe this is a solution for licensed operation only?

  15. Not very different from newer LTE implementations. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    New cellular network designs now have a simple RF portion at the tower without baseband, connected by fiber to a datacenter which operates a unified baseband, effectively turning every tower into one part of a giant phased array radar, turning beams to the right user, and doing things like predictive handoffs and forced handoffs to farther cells that are less loaded. That regional level of awareness only works on regional networks that can have full control of private frequencies in that area though (FCC band fiat).

    That this kind of high level network awareness can be pushed into wifi AP's will be nice for corporate and small mesh private networks, but as long as there is overlap between multiple private networks, this is harder to pull off at the suggested maximum performance levels if those other private networks are unaware/uncooperative.

  16. Faster than by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what?

  17. 330% of accountants agree. by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

    Yes, the meanings can be different.

    That's the sort of problem you run in to when you believe that talking about 330 in every 100 even makes sense. :ducks for cover ;)

    --
    Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
  18. Latency by behrooz0az · · Score: 1

    How deos it affect latency? does that become 3.3 times more? will this introduce jitter?

    --
    Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion. -- Spazmania (174582)
  19. 330% != 3x ... what is the actual speedup? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The linked summary article and this Slashdot summary seem confused about the actual speed gain here. First, a "330% gain" is 4.3x the original speed, not "triple". However in the actual paper the best summary I see is in Figure 13:

    "For all nodes in our testbed, JMB deivers a throughput gain between 1.65-2x, with a median gain of 1.8x across SNR".

    So, at most about a doubling of speed, and more like a 65-100% range of increased speed.

  20. "Great minds think alike" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: That's exactly what came to mind for myself also - "shotgunning" modems as it was called.

    APK

    P.S.=> It does sound similar enough & yes, that did work so this probably does also... apk