802.11ah Wi-Fi Standard Approved
wi-fi.org
wi-fi.org
802.11ah: Better range, lower bandwidth
802.11ad: Better bandwidth. Doesn't go through walls.
802.11ax: Successor to 11ac expected in 2019
I really really want 802.11 ay and ax to come faster, it will truely bring us to the world of Wireless with the speed we expect from 1Gbps. Wireless Display to TV no longer be slow of choppy with quality degradation.
About AUD$100/unit.
Going to be much more expensive than the Ubnt unit.
Airport is a very crappy 5ghz ap to begin with so is the Google elcheapo-de-slink.
As I always request in these threads, I'd like someone to point me to a peer-reviewed paper that shows 5GHz being attenuated more by building materials than 2.4GHz.
The usual culprit is that people put their 5GHz networks on the old "low power channels", which nearly every router I've ever seen chooses by default. Half the power, half the signal in the next room, of course.
Choose channel 149 which is full-power.
902-928 MHz in the US (26 MHz bandwidth)
863-868 MHz in Europe (5 MHz bandwidth)
916.5-927.5 MHz in Japan (11 MHz bandwidth)
Limited bandwidth, especially in Europe, will to lead to both higher power consumption and lower real-world range.
>The PHY layer will allow devices and APs to operate over different sub-1GHz ISM bands, depending on the country regulations: 863-868 MHz in Europe, 902-928 MHz in the US, and 916.5-927.5 MHz in Japan. China, South Korea, and Singapore also have specific channels.
Reference: http://www.networkcomputing.com/wireless-infrastructure/sub-...
Plus, what would they sell you next year? To be sustainable, the company would have to be mostly a software company that people are willing to pay license or upgrade fees for increased functionality or performance. There may be a niche for that, but most people won't upgrade their router or CPE for free. At scale, I doubt that would pan out, especially with increased, upfront hardware cost.
Each new hard drive standard has required a faster motherboard to take advantage of it.
WiFi standards are backwards compatible in the sense that they work with older hardware to send at the maximum speed that those radios were capable of transmitting.
The crux of my initial comment is that it would be awesome if we could some how get around the last issue and not have to replace hardware in order to use a different frequency, which @walshemj points out is a physical impossibility, but I believe I read an article a while ago in which someone had gotten around this?
We do have Software Defined Radios, which practically allow you to tune to a much wider range of frequencies, and speak nearly any wireless protocol though.
So you've got people like me that can both get and afford gigabit but opt for 100mbps because the wireless tech isn't keeping up.
That said, at 60GHz of course bandwidth is awesome. TP-Link has a router:
http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/5/10721550/tp-link-talon-ad72...
Drywall is made of stone.
[1] http://www.jwdalton.com/papers/ieee_micro_1997_wlan.pdf
[2] https://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Do...
---
Edit for clarity. And I should also mention I'm an author on that paper.
Assuming your device can support 802.11ad, too, of course.
Well thats not nice.
Speeds will vary greatly depending on whether proprietary booster tech is in use, which in turn will depend on the combination of hardware both on the sending and receiving side.
oh and while we're on the topic of bullshit (seeing how you were so blunt to go there) - signal levels are measured in decibels, not nW. nW is a measure of power fed to the antenna. Your comment is about as plausible as someone claiming their car is 40 gallons fast.
This is arguing if your car is doing 1 to 60 miles or 1 to 100km in 4.3 seconds.
For the most part you measure transmition power in mW and received signal strength in dBm.
Then again, receiving at 60mw (+17dBm) would overdrive any of the WiFi devices I ever tested and path loss of just 3dB (assuming +20dBm transmit power) is not achievable over the air, even with a near-field antenna. Keep in mind many devices actively tamper with the RSSI value reported up through NDIS, so while it's possible for a card to report it is receiving at +17dBm, unless you have hard-wired the hirose connectors between AP and STA it's not actually the case. Nor would a receiver work very well with so little path loss in any case, it would be completely over-driven.
If you buy a cheap AC router and expect a tiny built antenna to max out the bandwidth you will be disappointed.
I get over 1Gbit real tested bandwidth between my main desktop using a decent dongle with external antennas and a high end router.
Even iscsi works well with this setup the NAS is connected on 10gig Ethernet to my router. With MU/MIMO you can also get full duplex if you set it up. The dongle is built into the motherboard and it's connected via pcie. Before that I had an asus pcie x4 wireless card which worked just as well(maybe even better).
Eh?
The guy mentioned that he switched from using the built-in antenna on his laptop to a honking external antenna and now gets 720mbit/s performance anywhere in his house. That's quite constructive. I guess the only way it could get more constructive is if he mentioned the model of hardware involved... but I expect that you'd get similar results with any AP capable of 720mbit/s transfer to a single client. If your AP is fast enough, then it's all about SNR.
One should expect that, but almost no one uses wireless that way. If you have just a single client the most efficient method is to run a cat5 cable and get 1000mbit/s at a much lower cost than putting in expensive AC equipment, barring an expensive engineering issue of making a cable reach that place. The problem with wireless is everybody has to play nice and be able to see each other or it quickly falls to the 20% actual usable bandwidth rather quickly. Do you have neighbors with a wide bandwidth AC router and healthy streaming video habit? Don't expect to get max data transfer rates. Do you have lots of portable devices, especially cell phones that like to go into low power mode, or get set in places where they can reach the router but become hidden nodes to other clients in the network?
The bandwidth can be used for much more than just network transfers. I've personally had 2 1080P displays playing video + USB3 external hard drive transferring at max speed + Gigabit Ethernet transfers using the dock without anything skipping a beat.
Wireless ad docking + wireless charging on a laptop will be absolutely amazing.
Its a touch ironic. In my previous country it was the opposite way round - nobody could imagine a situation where the internet link could saturate the wifi. No I've got the opposite problem...
Living in a condo tower where I can see -- and have my network interfered with by -- 70 other wifi networks, I consider this to be a feature rather than a disadvantage.
The carrier frequency doesn't tell you much about the information capacity of the channel. The width of the frequency band used is key, which is why bandwidth is often (incorrectly) used as a synonym for data rate.
60GHz is the central frequency, and tells you nothing of the width of the frequency band. The ratio of the width of the frequency band to your data rate (amongst other factors, including antenna gain and processing gain) tells you your signal-to-noise ratio.
A whitepaper quotes the nominal channel bandwidth at 2.16GHz with four channels available [1].
1: http://cdn.rohde-schwarz.com/pws/dl_downloads/dl_application...
Example test below [0], admittedly the downstream results aren't the best but I've got some rather large downloads and streaming going on right now. Upstream shows the capability though.
I must admit I'd probably not upgrade anyway though. 100mbps is enough to carry a couple 4K video streams in parallel. So not going to outgrow that speed anytime soon.
I attribute it to less dropped packets, less interference, and full duplex, despite lower bandwidth.
Don't forget that Wifi needs to be properly positioned to work quickly.
You lose packets to radio interference (or collisions). And SMB in particular reacts poorly to packet loss.
You're also assuming that "good" wifi deployment is a reasonable expectation. People just buy that blue Linksys thing and put it near the jack for the modem. If you're going to run wire all over the place for access points then you might as well run wire all over the place for ethernet.
And if my properly positioned you mean "In a faraday cage with only the AP and your station", you'd be correct. The issue is real world WiFi doesn't ever work that way. There are very few places where you don't pick up at least one or two neighbors using at least some of the channel bandwidth you need. Even inside your own wireless domain you have the hidden node problem, forcing wireless domains to be broken into small cells using low power greatly increasing the costs of deployment. Add that a huge number of cheap APs and computer drivers flat out suck and the average non-professionally installed wireless user is not going to see 50% of the bandwidth they should.
Am I being spoiled thinking either of those options aren't super impressive for a whole new standard? Where's the 10x (order of magnitude) improvement? Will it take 3-5 further complete iterations of incompatible standards? :)
Those are equivalent: d=2r, so 2d=2(2r)
I very much doubt it means a doubling in the area or volume of the coverage region; seems far more likely that it means a doubling of distance.
But while this might only give twice the range with clear line of sight, lower frequencies tend to permeate obstructions better.
> Am I being spoiled thinking either of those options aren't super impressive for a whole new standard? Where's the 10x (order of magnitude) improvement?
802.11ah is not the "mainline" standard. 10x improvement is left for 802.11ax. 802.11ah is for IoT applications: low bandwidth, low power consumption, high distance.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11ah#Relay_Access_Poi...
Also, previous discussion here:
Verizon and T-Mobile have some LTE spectrum in the 700MHz range for building penetration and range so I expect to see great things at the 900MHz range for lower power devices.
Finally, wireless access points seem to be one of those things where quality varies a lot. I hated wifi for its unreliability until I bought a decent (professional/small-to-medium-business grade) AP 8 months ago. Not a single connection problem since, even with the notoriously affected Mac hardware and OSX software versions.
You should be getting muuuch faster speeds. snbforums is a good place for wifi help.
IPv6 also permits (but does not require) jumbograms that make full use of the 32-bit packet size field, but across a wireless link, having to retransmit 4 GB at a time seems like a bad plan... this only seems useful for short-distance wired connections among hosts that know they've got a quality cable between them.
900 MHz headphones seem to be readily available, and to have been readily available for years.
If your headsets did use just normal 2.4ghz radio like say a basic walkie talkie the downside is that you would've been able to hear any other transmission on that band e.g. an old baby monitor(new ones are digital too).