Wireless Gigabit is coming

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
[CENTER]New Consortium Launched to Create and Promote 60 GHz Wireless [/CENTER]



The heavy hitters like Broadcom, Marvell and more are working to bring Gigabit Wireless to you



Quote:

The target specification, which is said to be available before the end of this year, will have a primary target of providing a 1 Gbps maximum data rate within a 10 meter unobstructed radius. A representative from an Alliance member company said the data rates up to 6 Gbps are possible for non battery-operated devices by using protocols that are less focused on power conservation.



This looks like a technology that is going to deliver media streaming and network storage at a good speed. More info should appear at the address below soon. I wonder how this is going to play nice with Wifi.



http://www.wirelessgigabitalliance.org/

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 17
    olternautolternaut Posts: 1,376member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    [CENTER]New Consortium Launched to Create and Promote 60 GHz Wireless [/CENTER]



    The heavy hitters like Broadcom, Marvell and more are working to bring Gigabit Wireless to you







    This looks like a technology that is going to deliver media streaming and network storage at a good speed. More info should appear at the address below soon. I wonder how this is going to play nice with Wifi.



    http://www.wirelessgigabitalliance.org/



    Wait, so what are we talking about? Is this an update to Wi-Fi or bluetooth?
  • Reply 2 of 17
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,341member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Olternaut View Post


    Wait, so what are we talking about? Is this an update to Wi-Fi or bluetooth?



    Neither it uses a 60 Ghz spectrum which is closer to Wimax technology than Wifi.
  • Reply 3 of 17
    olternautolternaut Posts: 1,376member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    Neither it uses a 60 Ghz spectrum which is closer to Wimax technology than Wifi.



    Yeah but it is only supposed to have a 10 meter range right? So while this has a greater range than bluetooth it is, relatively speaking, a short range technology right?
  • Reply 4 of 17
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,341member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Olternaut View Post


    Yeah but it is only supposed to have a 10 meter range right? So while this has a greater range than bluetooth it is, relatively speaking, a short range technology right?



    Yes ..it sounds like more of a Bluetooth competitor for creating PAN (Personal Area Networks)



    http://wireless.sys-con.com/node/812376



    Quote:

    Short-distance 60 gigahertz ( GHz ) technology could offer many benefits to bandwidth-hungry applications such as high-definition video and high-capacity data storage. The new standard would support extremely fast wireless peer-to-peer connectivity, PC connectivity and High-Definition Multimedia Interface ( HDMI ) cable replacement.



    Among the many potential 60 GHz applications are virtually wireless desktop-computer setups and data centers, wireless home DVD systems, in-store kiosks that transfer movies to handheld devices in seconds, and the potential to move gigabytes of photos or video from a camera to a PC almost instantly.



    Intel and Atheros are aboard.
  • Reply 5 of 17
    olternautolternaut Posts: 1,376member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    Yes ..it sounds like more of a Bluetooth competitor for creating PAN (Personal Area Networks)



    http://wireless.sys-con.com/node/812376







    Intel and Atheros are aboard.



    Sounds interesting then. By the way....whats the range of Wi-Fi again?
  • Reply 6 of 17
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,341member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Olternaut View Post


    Sounds interesting then. By the way....whats the range of Wi-Fi again?



    100 meters or so I believe dream case scenario.
  • Reply 7 of 17
    Or if your a bit of a wizz with the hardware and have a decent arial then Venezuelan scientists have up 279 kilometer-wide WiFi network....





    3 to 4 Km line of sight is do able with off the shelf gear...
  • Reply 8 of 17
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,501member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DJMarkyMarc View Post


    Or if your a bit of a wizz with the hardware and have a decent arial then Venezuelan scientists have up 279 kilometer-wide WiFi network....





    3 to 4 Km line of sight is do able with off the shelf gear...



    Bravo to Venezuela. In the US the FCC would shut you down.
  • Reply 9 of 17
    olternautolternaut Posts: 1,376member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


    Bravo to Venezuela. In the US the FCC would shut you down.



    How would they know? If I could do that then the hell with cell phone bills. I would be using my ipod touch (with a little mic) for making voip calls and accessing the internet wherever I was. And all I would be paying for is my home internet bill.
  • Reply 10 of 17
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,369member
    Really I can't see huge consummer acceptance of this as it wouldn't replace WiFi nor BlueTooth. Ten meters really isn't much and at 60 GHz you need to be concerned about the optical effects.



    The problem is this sort of signal isn't going to travel through walls. It will pretty much travel in a straight line from the transmitter with dead spots behind any obstruction. People should take a hint from AT&T with all the problems they had with their HF 3G installations. It is no surprise that they had to switch to a lower band to up the quality of service.



    As to PAN or BlueTooth replacement, not on my body!!! Sorry you won't see me putting a microwave transmitter in my ear. Not that I don't use BlueTooth just that I'm not willng to take chances on something where the final word has yet to be writen.



    Dave
  • Reply 11 of 17
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,501member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Olternaut View Post


    How would they know? If I could do that then the hell with cell phone bills. I would be using my ipod touch (with a little mic) for making voip calls and accessing the internet wherever I was. And all I would be paying for is my home internet bill.



    How would they know? You're serious?
  • Reply 12 of 17
    splinemodelsplinemodel Posts: 7,311member
    Ultra wideband (UWB) has been talked about for years. It does work, and the range is indeed short. The wider the band, the less efficient the antenna and the lower the SNR. Long range, very high rate wireless will have to wait for some landmark technological advances. The obvious one coming to mind is a faster-than-light carrier.
  • Reply 13 of 17
    mr. memr. me Posts: 3,221member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post


    ... The obvious one coming to mind is a faster-than-light carrier.



    The problem with that is that no one has get built a tachyon generator that is smaller than a refrigerator.
  • Reply 14 of 17
    aplnubaplnub Posts: 2,605member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    Really I can't see huge consummer acceptance of this as it wouldn't replace WiFi nor BlueTooth. Ten meters really isn't much and at 60 GHz you need to be concerned about the optical effects.



    The problem is this sort of signal isn't going to travel through walls. It will pretty much travel in a straight line from the transmitter with dead spots behind any obstruction. People should take a hint from AT&T with all the problems they had with their HF 3G installations. It is no surprise that they had to switch to a lower band to up the quality of service.



    As to PAN or BlueTooth replacement, not on my body!!! Sorry you won't see me putting a microwave transmitter in my ear. Not that I don't use BlueTooth just that I'm not willng to take chances on something where the final word has yet to be writen.



    Dave



    I so agree with you and so does my Amateur Radio License on the blue-tooth in the ear. AT&T has restrictions on exposure and people would be shocked to know how small the exposure limits are.
  • Reply 15 of 17
    aplnubaplnub Posts: 2,605member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


    How would they know? You're serious?



    You should google up wifi and direct tv dish and see what you get. It is amazing how far people can broadcast 0.5 watt and still get the internet. Of course, they are high up shooting down with no obstructions.
  • Reply 16 of 17
    olternautolternaut Posts: 1,376member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


    How would they know? You're serious?



    Pretend I don't know what seems to be obvious. Walk me through how they would find out?
  • Reply 17 of 17
    splinemodelsplinemodel Posts: 7,311member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    As to PAN or BlueTooth replacement, not on my body!!! Sorry you won't see me putting a microwave transmitter in my ear. Not that I don't use BlueTooth just that I'm not willng to take chances on something where the final word has yet to be writen. e



    Naive. Assuming that all of the energy of a maximum-spec bluetooth transmission (1mW) could be channeled onto a single gram of water, it would still take over an hour to raise the temperature more than one degree centigrade. It would be more accurate to assume that in this max-spec case something on the order of 0.1 uW is being exerted on 1 to 2 kg of brain tissue, making each mL of water subject to about 0.1 nW of bluetooth radiation.



    Radar systems can often be ten million times more powerful than bluetooth (10,000W). So working on a radar system might do some damage, as might ducking inside an 1000W microwave. Microwaves also have the benefit of a very focused radiator, wheras bluetooth antennas are omnidirectional.



    You'll have better luck cooking a turkey ... or even a single lima bean ... by putting it out in the sun than by covering it in bluetooth radiation.
Sign In or Register to comment.