backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 22 comment(s) - last by SiN.. on Jul 20 at 1:21 PM

Georgia Tech Researcher, Stephane Pinel, demonstrates high-bandwidth wireless technology  (Source: Georgia Tech)

Georgia Tech Researcher, Stephane Pinel, demonstrates high-bandwidth wireless technology  (Source: Georgia Tech)
Extremely high radio frequencies may make wires obsolete

Current wireless technology operates at around the 2.4GHz (11-54Mbps, 802.11b/g) and 5.8GHz (54Mbps, 802.11a) ranges and can support distances of up to 300m. This type of bandwidth may be enough for the average internet surfer, but for those looking to take wireless technology to the multi-gigabit level Georgia Tech may have the answer.

Research scientists at Georgia Tech's Georgia Electronic Design Center have recently been able to tap into the ultra-high radio frequency range to achieve wireless transfer rates of around 15Gbps.

They utilized the 60GHz radio frequency range -- which is unlicensed at the moment -- to be able to hit the 15Gbps at a distance of up to 1 meter. At 2 meters they have been able to achieve transfer rates of around 10Gbps, and at 5 meters - 5Gbps. Though the distances are not something to jump for joy about, a datacenter or personal network could really benefit from the multi-gigabit bandwidth.

“Our work represents a huge leap in available throughput. At 10 Gbps, you could download a DVD from a kiosk to your cell phone in five seconds, or you could quickly synchronize two laptops or two iPods," stated Stephane Pinel, one of the researchers of this project.

The transfer rates Georgia Tech scientists have been able to achieve are accurate as of late, however, within the next 2 years they plan on doubling these transfer rates with modifications to the technology.

Another detail to note is that at 60GHz, the wireless signal is easily blocked by solid objects such as walls or even the human body. This is both a pro and a con as it can be more secure in a multi-family dwelling and safe to use for humans, but the signal can be blocked during data transmission.

The IEEE is also taking a look at the 60GHz range of radio frequencies to push for a standard numbered 802.15.3C.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
huh?
By Sahrin on 7/19/2007 12:40:31 PM , Rating: 4
Pending a new application (such as mass-drive synchronization or cell phone High Definition downloading) - this technology doesn't seem very uesful.

Isn't the point of wireless networking to connect two or more devices in a cost effective and simple way with a rapid connection? Note the order of priorities here, cost effective (ie, cables won't work) and simple (ie, reliable and easy to deploy) - then speed.

As for applications in data centers - how much bandwidth are they looking to cram into the 60Ghz channel? If you can fit 20 blades in a single 3U chassis, and 10-14 3U's in a rack - how are you going to emerge from that cacophony (and this is just ONE cabinet in a datacenter of hundreds or thousands) with a clear signal?

This belongs in the "'wow, they can do that?' but what use is this to the rest of us'" file.




RE: huh?
By SeanMI on 7/19/2007 12:53:46 PM , Rating: 2
I think it would work well in the rack configuration you describe. Just have an access point in each rack, and network each access point back to your switch/router. This would greatly reduce cable clutter. Especially if you're teaming the existing wired NICs. As long as reliability within that distance is acceptable then I'm all for it.


RE: huh?
By TomZ on 7/19/2007 1:19:13 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. The only use I see for this is for ad-hoc connections like mentioned in the article - one-time moves of a lot of content from device-to-device over a short distance without having to fuss with cables. Like class 2 Bluetooth on steriods.

It's useless as a WiFi enhancement/replacement because it cannot penetrate anything, and for other short-run connections, copper and/or fiber are going to be faster, simpler, and more reliable.


RE: huh?
By danrien on 7/19/07, Rating: -1
RE: huh?
By lumbergeek on 7/19/2007 9:18:45 PM , Rating: 2
I believe that his point is clear - facinating research with little application for the common user. Of course, such research will eventually come up with something that the consumer can use, but for now his point is very valid.


RE: huh?
By SiN on 7/19/07, Rating: -1
RE: huh?
By TomZ on 7/19/2007 2:01:55 PM , Rating: 3
All of these applications are available to be developed today, using Gb or 10Gb Ethernet. Wireless only adds convenience to the picture. If there was such a potential as you describe, you'd see applications today that do the same thing using copper.

I think this development is a solution looking for a problem, so to speak.


RE: huh?
By SiN on 7/19/2007 5:21:51 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, applications are available today, using Gb or 10Gb, how many people do you see going into an internet cafe, plugging in their laptops or whatnot and sync their devices? internet cafes do not allow people to hook up to their eithernet off the street for fear of what they may do.

What i'm saying is this could be used like a kiosk, parent companys deliver the content to the kiosk, people go in and get the content from the kiosk to their device, what ever the device may be. Its no more of a soloution looking for a problem, than an evolution of wireless devices. Wifi allows people to connect to the internet from the street, this stuff could do the same, but might be better suited for a content delivery for people who have little to no connection to the net at home. How do they get content for their pc? they can't go sit in an internet cafe and hook directly into the eithernet.

Another point, walking into a shop and hooking directly into their eithernet isn't feesable, if you had a device whereby it received the info, displayed it, and gave u the ability to retrieve the content while your in the store, now thats something marketable.

If you could do this in an internet cafe, it's a dead experience, go to a store, have a look around while you get the content, your actively doing something while getting something out of the experience.


RE: huh?
By TomZ on 7/19/2007 5:58:01 PM , Rating: 2
But with the use cases you cite, what is the point of having very high bandwidth? Everything you cited could be done with current-generation WiFi. Current WiFi speeds exceed the available Internet bandwidth at most hotspots already.

Also, security is no better for wireless connections compared to wired connections. If anything, wireless connections are probably more of a security problem, since someone accessing the system for ill purposes doesn't even have to be on site to plug into the network.


RE: huh?
By SiN on 7/19/2007 6:22:16 PM , Rating: 2
itwould simple allow you to put your device in a hot spot similar to a wifi's but so much faster it would appeal to people, because it wouldn't take very long to make the full transfer of data (for larger files). Ok you could do such things with wifi, ablums and such, but the average consumer will not wait around for things to complete. From a corporate point of view, it would allow transaction in a timescale acceptable by the consumer. U could do the same thing via wifi for your dvd's, but how many consumers want to be waiting that long? they just want it now.

point taken about the security of wireles, but my point is still valid that places will allow you access to wireless hotspots, not eithernet. You can't expect a consumer to walk in with a device and proactively hook it all together (eithernet) and stand by while the transfer takes place. yes eithernet speeds could be fast enough, but the cable represents a barrier.

This type of delivery will become part of distrubution channels, simply because it gives you the extra choice, incentive to buy something. Thats all the corporations want, higher penetration of goods.

And as a (tech savy) customer, you can't say that you don't find the idea of walking into such a hot spot where you could do the sort of things i say tantalising. The ease of use. The delivery. the ease of getting what you want, on the spot (almost, butunlike wifi). isn't that what made wifi tantalising and what makes wifi such a good tech? not being connected to somethng. but gettig what you want.


RE: huh?
By Sahrin on 7/20/2007 9:34:10 AM , Rating: 2
As a tech-savvy user, I would much rather have very fast remote access to my content (which requires a fast backplane and powerful clients, not a fast "last foot" connection) through the internet than having to go to a remote site, stand withint 3 meters of a kiosk (surrounded by 15 or 20 other sweaty geeks) and download all of the latest anime in under 5 minutes.

What does appeal to me is having immediate access over MAN or WAN (WiMax or faster broadband) either at home or in remote locations.

This solution does NEITHER of these things - it is a "last foot" option - but you must ask yourself, what exactly does it achieve? Basically what you're suggesting is that we replace the DVD's and VHS's at Blockbuster with a user-supplied "passport drive" which they carried with them at all times. Wouldn't it be much easier for the user to browse to the Film's or TV shows website, and click "watch" and get an instantaneous high-bit-rate stream of the show? This requires 1/1000th of the bandwidth these guys are talking about, and none of the idiosyncrasies of the 60Ghz band.


RE: huh?
By SiN on 7/20/2007 1:21:41 PM , Rating: 2
Do you know how many people are left out in the dark if you go by what you say? There are a lot of potential customers left out of the "full" internet experience, i for one am.

I think a survay is in order, and i think it coud supprise you. broad band penetration is not thaty high in america, same goes for china, and the EU is the same with respects to many of its members

Yes your correct, it could be done in blockbuster. I'm also expecting similar service products in virgin mega stores / hmv etc (I'm in europe).

I'm guessing (as the article indicates decent sppeds @5 meters) up to 5 meters radius, 10 meter diameter. wire your store up right and you could cover the entire shop floor and outside. i guarentee you'll see this type of service launched in some form. the article hints at it in one respect, but it is capable of a far wider user base. Its not hard to see it happening, you just dont see the point because it doesn't benifit you. Cinemas already get their movies sent to them via internet. why not apply it to stores in a similar fasion?

If these were installed in arrays in a food store, you could have purchased a load of content by the time your done with the shopping.

Plus, i might add, the tech is work in progress so the transfer speeds and radius is not final.

Gott think outside the box.


RE: huh?
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 7/20/2007 7:40:56 AM , Rating: 2
Isn't the point of wireless networking to connect two or more devices in a cost effective and simple way with a rapid connection? Note the order of priorities here, cost effective (ie, cables won't work) and simple (ie, reliable and easy to deploy) - then speed.

I wanted to find out how you thought this would be cheaper than a cable? These cards will probably be in the $300+ range when introduced. Okay, the cable is slower, but tons cheaper. A Cat6 cross-over cable and two nics wouldn't cost more than $100.


RE: huh?
By Sahrin on 7/20/2007 9:26:48 AM , Rating: 2
This is my point - it isn't cost effective. Of course dropping all the UTP networking cable from a server cabinet is great - but at what cost? As you said, a $300 card for EVERY SERVER (imagine the blade scenario of 280 servers (at least) in a blade cabinet) in the rack, PLUS a router. This does not seem at all cost-effective, which is a necessity of wireless (save money by not having to perform expensive cable runs between the two connected locations).


Popcorn anyone?
By Dfere on 7/19/2007 1:27:52 PM , Rating: 2
So you just put your popcorn between to ipods you are going to sync and voila?

Seriously, what are the energy and radation specs on this?




RE: Popcorn anyone?
By TomZ on 7/19/2007 1:49:24 PM , Rating: 2
There's that word again - radiation - like non-ionizing radiation is somehow harmful.

Also, high transmit rates don't necessarily require a lot of RF power. More RF power would be useful for longer range.


RE: Popcorn anyone?
By A5 on 7/19/2007 1:52:34 PM , Rating: 5
From TFA:
quote:
Even when sitting on a user’s desk, Pinel stresses, a multi-gigabit wireless system would present no health concerns. For one thing, the transmitted power is extremely low, in the vicinity of 10 milliwatts or less. For another, the 60 GHz frequency is stopped by human skin and cannot penetrate the body.


Blocked by air
By Shadowself on 7/19/2007 3:07:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Another detail to note is that at 60GHz, the wireless signal is easily blocked by solid objects such as walls or even the human body. This is both a pro and a con as it can be more secure in a multi-family dwelling and safe to use for humans, but the signal can be blocked during data transmission.


In reality the 60 GHz band is very near the peak absorption lines for the oxygen in the atmosphere. Add in the significant losses due to rain/water vapor absorption and you can easily get greater than 20 dB loss (a factor of 100 degradation in signal) for just a kilometer distance. Unless you use very high power you're not going to get much more than 50 - 100 meters with these frequencies. At the powers people want to see out of consumer electronic devices you'll be lucky to see a range of even 25 meters -- and that's without any blockage by any solid matter at all.




RE: Blocked by air
By danrien on 7/19/2007 8:24:07 PM , Rating: 2
sounds perfect for using in a home entertainment center, where you could get rid of all those cords.


RE: Blocked by air
By TomZ on 7/19/2007 8:29:42 PM , Rating: 2
You just have to remember to not place any equipment on a shelf, since that will block the wireless link.