5 ms·

That's what 802.11ad is for, which can transmit over 60GHz (which limits it to basically one room, as it's quite readily attenuated by even air). That said, at

That's what 802.11ad is for, which can transmit over 60GHz (which limits it to basically one room, as it's quite readily attenuated by even air). 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-ad7200-router-ces-2016 http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/5/10721550/tp-link-talon-ad72...

nuand 11y ago
60GHz also limits you to direct line of sight. 60GHz propagates similar to a spotlight.
- Havoc 11y ago
  How "direct" are we talking? I'm sitting 4 meters away from my router - but with a thin prefab wall in between.
  - foobarian 11y ago
    At 60GHz it's almost more appropriate to compare to a laser pointer. The wall will probably be a problem.
    - Havoc 11y ago
      A quick google suggests I might still be fine. Its advertised as "in the same room" so it will probably punch through a thin non-stone wall.
      - cbr 11y ago
        > non-stone wall Drywall is made of stone.
        archimedespi 11y ago
        Drywall impedes RF signals much less than stone.
      - jrockway 11y ago
        A sheet of paper will block the signal, so it probably won't go through that wall.
    - nuand 11y ago
      The laser analogy is definitely accurate given today's technology. I just don't think they'll be able to productize something that has that high of an antenna gain. I'm really hoping and thinking that we'll see some smart antenna advances.
  - nuand 11y ago
    It will depend on the material, but I don't think 802.11ad can even penetrate through sheetrock. Honestly it may even be so bad that a sneeze could knock your connection out for a few seconds.
  - femto 11y ago
    You'll get about 10 metres in an office with cubicles with chest high partitions. Page 6 of the paper "A High Speed Wireless LAN" by Skellern, Lee and others in the Jan/Feb 1997 edition of IEEE Micro has a diagram showing coverage for OFDM in a typical office at a centre frequency of 40GHz. 60GHz will be worse than this, as oxygen in the air absorbs 60GHz quite stongly [2]. I'm not sure how the power transmitted by 802.11ad compares to the above measurements, but the measuremensts in the paper were taken with 60GHz WiFi in mind, so they should be representative. [1] http://www.jwdalton.com/papers/ieee_micro_1997_wlan.pdf http://www.jwdalton.com/papers/ieee_micro_1997_wlan.pdf [2] https://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet70/oet70a.pdf https://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Do... --- Edit for clarity. And I should also mention I'm an author on that paper.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
FireBeyond 11y ago
At that router - LOL. "7gbps wireless throughput". Great. "1gbps ethernet port"... err? Assuming your device can support 802.11ad, too, of course.
- Havoc 11y ago
  Thats actually OK. Advertised wifi speeds usually manage 20% of that in real life so sounds about right.
  - Mo3 11y ago
    Bullshit, your device is at fault and not the protocol. I bought a 802.11ac dongle with external 10dbi gain antennas and have been enjoying extreme speeds and connection strenght throughout the house, not to mention to the routers of 30 of my neighbours.. And that's only 5GHz. For comparison, at my desk three walls away I used to get about 40-50nW signal level off my built-in adapter and antenna in my Lenovo laptop. With the new setup - 60mW... The router sends at 100mW. We're talking pushing 90MB/s+ constantly no matter where in the house with absolutely no connection drops.
    - daveguy 11y ago
      Can you tell us what model router and dongles you are using?
    - Havoc 11y ago
      >Bullshit 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.
      - dogma1138 11y ago
        Transmission power in milliwatts (mW) is directly convertible to decibel-milliwatt (dBm). 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.
Havoc 11y ago
I must admit this is the first I hear of ad standard so I'm a little concerned that by the time I've got the tech in hand my internet options are already at the next level. (I should add that its all relative - 100mbps is just fine for my needs to be honest & will be for a long time) 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...
cperciva 11y ago
60GHz (which limits it to basically one room, as it's quite readily attenuated by even air). 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.
- ycmbntrthrwaway 11y ago
  This kind of problem should be solved by transmission power control. Power is capped by standard to avoid reaching nash equilibrium. Also, Wi-Fi has various OBSS coexistence mechanisms to detect overlapping networks and cooperate with them to reduce power simultaneously for mutual advantage.
  - vive-la-liberte 11y ago
    Have any security researchers investigated the possibility of abusing these coexistence mechanisms for malicious purposes? Could be worth checking out, I think.
    - simoncion 11y ago
      I would expect that the only "malicious" purpose achievable is a DoS through service degradation. Can you think of something else?
      - Arnt 11y ago
        Here's an interesting attack: Suppose there are three non-overlapping channels and 70 APs, most/all of which try to pick the least congested channel. Can you persuade 67 of the 70 APs that a particular channel is very congested and best avoided, while leaving that channel uncongested and usable for the few remaining APs? Can you do so without client cooperation from the three favoured APs?
    - keeperofdakeys 11y ago
      This has been used by establishments that offer paid wifi services to block portable wifi hotspots, http://qz.com/482304/the-fcc-is-cracking-down-on-companies-that-block-personal-wifi-hotspots-at-convention-centers/ http://qz.com/482304/the-fcc-is-cracking-down-on-companies-t...
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
KMag 11y ago
> That said, at 60GHz of course bandwidth is awesome. 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.
- revelation 11y ago
  That's right of course, though there is certainly a strong correlation between carrier frequency and width of frequency band. 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/application_notes/1ma220/1MA220_1e_WLAN_11ad_WP.pdf http://cdn.rohde-schwarz.com/pws/dl_downloads/dl_application...

nuand 11y ago

60GHz also limits you to direct line of sight. 60GHz propagates similar to a spotlight.

Havoc 11y ago
How "direct" are we talking? I'm sitting 4 meters away from my router - but with a thin prefab wall in between.
- foobarian 11y ago
  At 60GHz it's almost more appropriate to compare to a laser pointer. The wall will probably be a problem.
  - Havoc 11y ago
    A quick google suggests I might still be fine. Its advertised as "in the same room" so it will probably punch through a thin non-stone wall.
    - cbr 11y ago
      > non-stone wall Drywall is made of stone.
      - archimedespi 11y ago
        Drywall impedes RF signals much less than stone.
    - jrockway 11y ago
      A sheet of paper will block the signal, so it probably won't go through that wall.
  - nuand 11y ago
    The laser analogy is definitely accurate given today's technology. I just don't think they'll be able to productize something that has that high of an antenna gain. I'm really hoping and thinking that we'll see some smart antenna advances.
- nuand 11y ago
  It will depend on the material, but I don't think 802.11ad can even penetrate through sheetrock. Honestly it may even be so bad that a sneeze could knock your connection out for a few seconds.
- femto 11y ago
  You'll get about 10 metres in an office with cubicles with chest high partitions. Page 6 of the paper "A High Speed Wireless LAN" by Skellern, Lee and others in the Jan/Feb 1997 edition of IEEE Micro has a diagram showing coverage for OFDM in a typical office at a centre frequency of 40GHz. 60GHz will be worse than this, as oxygen in the air absorbs 60GHz quite stongly [2]. I'm not sure how the power transmitted by 802.11ad compares to the above measurements, but the measuremensts in the paper were taken with 60GHz WiFi in mind, so they should be representative. [1] http://www.jwdalton.com/papers/ieee_micro_1997_wlan.pdf http://www.jwdalton.com/papers/ieee_micro_1997_wlan.pdf [2] https://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet70/oet70a.pdf https://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Do... --- Edit for clarity. And I should also mention I'm an author on that paper.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

FireBeyond 11y ago

At that router - LOL. "7gbps wireless throughput". Great. "1gbps ethernet port"... err? Assuming your device can support 802.11ad, too, of course.

Havoc 11y ago
Thats actually OK. Advertised wifi speeds usually manage 20% of that in real life so sounds about right.
- Mo3 11y ago
  Bullshit, your device is at fault and not the protocol. I bought a 802.11ac dongle with external 10dbi gain antennas and have been enjoying extreme speeds and connection strenght throughout the house, not to mention to the routers of 30 of my neighbours.. And that's only 5GHz. For comparison, at my desk three walls away I used to get about 40-50nW signal level off my built-in adapter and antenna in my Lenovo laptop. With the new setup - 60mW... The router sends at 100mW. We're talking pushing 90MB/s+ constantly no matter where in the house with absolutely no connection drops.
  - daveguy 11y ago
    Can you tell us what model router and dongles you are using?
  - Havoc 11y ago
    >Bullshit 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.
    - dogma1138 11y ago
      Transmission power in milliwatts (mW) is directly convertible to decibel-milliwatt (dBm). 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.

Havoc 11y ago

I must admit this is the first I hear of ad standard so I'm a little concerned that by the time I've got the tech in hand my internet options are already at the next level. (I should add that its all relative - 100mbps is just fine for my needs to be honest & will be for a long time) 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...

cperciva 11y ago

60GHz (which limits it to basically one room, as it's quite readily attenuated by even air). 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.

ycmbntrthrwaway 11y ago
This kind of problem should be solved by transmission power control. Power is capped by standard to avoid reaching nash equilibrium. Also, Wi-Fi has various OBSS coexistence mechanisms to detect overlapping networks and cooperate with them to reduce power simultaneously for mutual advantage.
- vive-la-liberte 11y ago
  Have any security researchers investigated the possibility of abusing these coexistence mechanisms for malicious purposes? Could be worth checking out, I think.
  - simoncion 11y ago
    I would expect that the only "malicious" purpose achievable is a DoS through service degradation. Can you think of something else?
    - Arnt 11y ago
      Here's an interesting attack: Suppose there are three non-overlapping channels and 70 APs, most/all of which try to pick the least congested channel. Can you persuade 67 of the 70 APs that a particular channel is very congested and best avoided, while leaving that channel uncongested and usable for the few remaining APs? Can you do so without client cooperation from the three favoured APs?
  - keeperofdakeys 11y ago
    This has been used by establishments that offer paid wifi services to block portable wifi hotspots, http://qz.com/482304/the-fcc-is-cracking-down-on-companies-that-block-personal-wifi-hotspots-at-convention-centers/ http://qz.com/482304/the-fcc-is-cracking-down-on-companies-t...

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

KMag 11y ago

> That said, at 60GHz of course bandwidth is awesome. 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.

revelation 11y ago
That's right of course, though there is certainly a strong correlation between carrier frequency and width of frequency band. 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/application_notes/1ma220/1MA220_1e_WLAN_11ad_WP.pdf http://cdn.rohde-schwarz.com/pws/dl_downloads/dl_application...