Slashdot Mirror
MIT Scientists Develop New Wi-Fi That's 330% Faster (msn.com)
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."
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".
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?
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.
sadly most tablets like Ethernet ports for some reason
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).
Those are two pretty fucking good reasons.
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!
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!
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.
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.
I have to mention yes this was 2 years ago but I feel it's relevant). /. on how to build a network to handle google fiber without doing any modifications to the building.
Someone did a ask
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!
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.
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.
Fewer.
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
Even if their throughput claims aren't 100% bullshit...
Do you mean as much bullshit or twice as much bullshit ? I'm confused...
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").
**original source (posting to slashdot on mobile - aargh)
http://news.mit.edu/2016/solving-network-congestion-megamimo-0823
Is this anything like the pcell thing that Steve Perlman has been working on?
AC could mean less.
Half a transceiver is not as good as a whole one.
Lesser.
Do current FCC regulations allow for this type of coordinated approach between multiple transmitters? Maybe this is a solution for licensed operation only?
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
“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?
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)
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
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
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
... 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
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.
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?
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
That's amazing!
How much did it cost you to lay the fibre along that 40km route again?
Cost/Benefit... HOW DOES IT WORK???
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?
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
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."