7 ms·

Wi-Fi Goes Long Range on New WiLo Standard

200 points by thebeardisred 2y ago

malfist 2y ago
I'm curious what the speed would be, kinda strange the post mentions "mentioning speed" but not what speed is maintained
- nicpottier 2y ago
  This looks to be about running LoRa like networks on WiFi hardware. Speed on LoRa is not something talked about much as it is more like SMS message passing or the like than IP networking.
  - malfist 2y ago
    Probably why it was taking about IoT use. 500 meters for a couple hundred baud connection doesn't seem too ground breaking. Off the shelf 900mhz radios can easily achieve that
    - MostlyStable 2y ago
      Yeah, the main draw seemed that you don't need a special receiver and that standard networking gear would work, but.....LoRa hardware is not very expensive or complicated.
    - brookst 2y ago
      It’s about WiFi to LoRa interop, which is nice but not world changing.
      - willcipriano 2y ago
        For smart home applications this could be big. No longer need a hub.
        mschuster91 2y ago
        Most Smart Home stuff is either Zigbee, Bluetooth or Wifi. LoRa stuff is ... hell I can't remember when I've seen that stuff outside of monitoring for remote cabins and the likes.
- calibas 2y ago
  Assuming it's the same as LoRa, up to 50 kbit/s.
est 2y ago
tl;dr exsisting Wi-Fi devices goes long range with LoRa protocols The catch: additional power consumption.
saurik 2y ago
I do not have access to the original paper, but I would want to see how this compares to 802.11ah "WiFi HaLow". (edit) OK, I got a copy from ResearchGate, and I misunderstood! I had failed to grok the part of the article where LoRa is now supported by the sx128x (as opposed to the sx126x) on 2.4GHz. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/383692369_WiLo_Long-Range_Cross-Technology_Communication_From_Wi-Fi_to_LoRa https://www.researchgate.net/publication/383692369_WiLo_Long... > In this article, we introduce a new algorithmic framework called WiLo, designed to enable directional communication from Wi-Fi to LoRa, which employs signal emulation techniques to enable off-the-shelf Wi-Fi hardware to produce a valid 2.4 GHz LoRa waveform. So, critically, and as far as I can tell this isn't in the summary article, this is purely unidirectional; and so, this isn't about being able to build a network that upgrades the range of WiFi with some tradeoffs: this is about being able to send data from existing WiFi hardware to existing LoRa hardware using a relatively minimal set of changes (though I still don't appreciate how this would practically be done to the existing hardware, and they apparently only simulated this with software-defined radio). > The core innovation of WiLo lies in the signal emulation technique used to generate a valid 2.4 GHz LoRa waveform. Through sophisticated signal processing algorithms, WiLo transforms the standard Wi-Fi signals into LoRa-like wave-forms, while ensuring compliance with the LoRa modulation specifications. This enables the LoRa hardware to decode WiFi signals without requiring any modifications to the hardware itself. The emulation of LoRa waveforms is achieved by carefully manipulating the parameters of the Wi-Fi signals, such as the modulation index, spreading factor, and BW, to closely match the characteristics of LoRa modulation. > We would like to emphasize that WiLo is directly supported among commodity devices, and the USRP-B210 devices are used only for evaluation purposes to measure low-level PHY information, which is inaccessible by commodity devices. For example, a commodity Wi-Fi card such as the Atheros AR2425 can replace USRP-B210 devices as the sender.
- NewJazz 2y ago
  I thought this was a HaLow competitor too... Thanks for checking on that.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  > So, critically, and as far as I can tell this isn't in the summary article, this is purely unidirectional; and so, this isn't about being able to build a network that upgrades the range of WiFi with some tradeoffs: this is about being able to send data from existing WiFi hardware to existing LoRa hardware using a relatively minimal set of changes (though I still don't appreciate how this would practically be done to the existing hardware, and they apparently only simulated this with software-defined radio). This leads me to believe you could flip a switch and turn entire swaths of access points into a broadcast fabric for LoRa? Wifi networks meet software defined radio a bit.
Szpadel 2y ago
let's assume that this takes off and it will become standard addition for our WiFi devices. Given big range of this technology, how this handle air congestion when we would have hundreds maybe thousands of devices in range? I expect low througput of this technology and for IoT that's usually fine, but when we need to share this spectrum with lot of devices we might quickly make this non operational. And this is even assuming we do not have some devices that request much more bandwidth that others. Wirh WiFi 2.4ghz we already struggle with air congestion and quick Google shows that lora have 13 + 8 channels and if I understand it correctly some of them are used explicitly for joining network (?) I think this technology is really cool only if it won't get much popularity
- neuroelectron 2y ago
  It could be silently adopted to allow longer distance for things like map apps that only need a few kilobytes for wifi triangulation.
- 486sx33 2y ago
  I live on a pretty standard density street , there are a few semi detached homes mixed in. I’d still call it light density. I have 2 x 5ghz channels, 2 x 2.4 ghz channels, and then a repeater with another 2 and 2 In the evening there is so much congestion on every available channel on either band that I can’t watch 1080p tv This long range thing sounds awful.
  - sneak 2y ago
    This means something is wrong with one or more of the stations on those bands. It’s not normal.
  - jeroenhd 2y ago
    You don't need to watch 1080p TV to report the current temperature and humidity, or to receive a command to turn on a light bulb. As for channel congestion, check if your WiFi repeater is in mesh mode or not. If not, it literally halves the throughput on your WiFi network, that seems to be already over-congested by whatever is messing with your channel settings. Based on your description of the area, if your 5GHz somehow ran out of space, something seriously weird is going on. Maybe some non-WiFi-device is using the 2.4/5.2GHz band to transmit data? I know stories of cheapo baby monitors wiping out entire neighbourhoods, for instance.
jessriedel 2y ago
The overwhelming issues with WiFi are 1. It is slow to connect, taking multiple seconds rather than a few milliseconds. (Wifi unreliability would have much less practical impact if there was rapid reconnect.) 2. The lack of a sufficiently flexible standard interface for logging in and accepting terms, leading to the terrible captive portal workaround. I cannot for the life of me understand why the standards committee cares much about various other minor improvements when these issues are still unsolved after two decades. (Similar complaints can be made about Bluetooth.)
- dataflow 2y ago
  > It is slow to connect, taking multiple seconds rather than a few milliseconds. What is the reason for this?
  - zamadatix 2y ago
    For standard Wi-Fi the biggest factors for a fresh association are: - Discovery. You have to wait to see which saved networks are broadcasting. Broadcasting more often = less efficient airspace for already attached clients. Broadcasting less often = longer delay for clients to "see" the network when they start listening. - External authentication. E.g. if you're doing RADIUS auth or MAC auth with an external database instead of a PSK exchange there is extra time in setting up this exchange and then waiting for the external authenticator to validate it. - DHCP / NDP. Wi-Fi assumes you more or less want to emulate a standard Ethernet + IP session but over this new fangled air connection. This is an additional delay for an additional exchange with the services responsible for this. Typical clients e.g. Windows will also perform extra address duplication checks slowing things further. There are some extensions in more modern Wi-Fi standards for clients that want to "sleep" for long periods, immediately do some stuff, then sleep for long periods (like IoT). Particularly TWT (target wait time). These, and more, are already found in purpose built protocols like LoRa/LoRaWAN though.
    - londons_explore 2y ago
      Discovery could take up to 100 milliseconds. All the others, if properly implemented, are speed-of-light things. Eg. RADIUS auth to an external database on the same physical site should easily be doable within 1 millisecond. It's not like that database has a multi-second queue of other users to connect first.
brcmthrowaway 2y ago
Isnt there already 802.11ah?
- altairprime 2y ago
  LoRaWAN (has no 802 spec) and Wi-Fi HaLow (802.11ah) both share a target market, but use different underlying protocols. This isn't meant to be "we have created a new standard" or "we prefer one or the other standard", this is simply "holy crap, we figured out how to make an 802.11g radio emit LoRaWAN packets?! and no one has ever written a paper about doing that before!".
londons_explore 2y ago
I just want speed to degrade gracefully down to 1 kbps or even 100bps. Ie I should be able to be 1 mile from my house, but still be imessaging over my home wifi. Physics lets me do that with no additional transmit power (shannon's channel capacity formula, combined with signal power dropping off as a function of distance squared). If suitable modulation was chosen (ie. some kind of CDMA), then a setup which can give 100 Mbit at 100 yards should be able to do 322 kbits at 1 mile, and 3kbps at 10 miles!
- abracadaniel 2y ago
  That’s my dream network. A long range, low bandwidth, decentralized network. Mesh would be cool, but even just being able to exchange with neighbors at the scale of 1-10mi would be amazing.
  - sneak 2y ago
    It would be illegal (at least in the usa); you’re not allowed to share your home internet, or function as a public utility. There are huge regulatory moats around everything that costs $20-500/mo recurring and is incurred by large percentages of the population. Internet access is a huge one.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      Well that would explain the sad estate of government sanctioned Wifi. They were bought out, as usual, from people who just want an extra buck instead of properly serving the public's needs.
    - wilted-iris 2y ago
      Citation? There are a few large public meshes in the US. I'm unaware of anything that makes them illegal to run.
    - BenjiWiebe 2y ago
      I know it's usually against the ToS to share your home WiFi, but this is the first I've ever heard that it's illegal.
sneak 2y ago
Isn’t LoRa patented and proprietary?
- altairprime 2y ago
  https://www.cs.wustl.edu/~jain/cse574-16/ftp/j_14ahl4.pdf https://www.cs.wustl.edu/~jain/cse574-16/ftp/j_14ahl4.pdf is a good overview of the technical differences between WiFi HaLow (802.11ah) and LoRaWAN. The specs are open: https://resources.lora-alliance.org/technical-specifications https://resources.lora-alliance.org/technical-specifications The Lora Alliance publishes their patent policy here: https://lora-alliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/LA-IPR-Policy.pdf https://lora-alliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/LA-IPR-... I encourage reviewing "7.4 LoRaWAN 1.0 Copyright License to Implementers", which appears responsive to your question.
  - sneak 2y ago
    That’s just a copyright license for the specification documents. A patent license is a horse of a different color. 7.4 explicitly denies that it serves as a patent license: > This license shall not be deemed to grant any right under any patent, patent applications or similar intellectual property right. Just because the specs are open it does not permit you to manufacture or sell the devices without a patent license.
    - altairprime 2y ago
      Makes sense, thanks for the interpretation.
dzhiurgis 2y ago
Baffles me Starlink terminals don't ship with lora and halow. Maybe too soon, but obvious improvement for remote farms, etc.
Eric_WVGG 2y ago
My god, who came up with this name?? “Wi-Lo” sounds like “LOW range”
- malfist 2y ago
  And if you google it, google assumes you're searching for willow
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
lloydatkinson 2y ago
> smart cities Still at it, huh?
Tor3 2y ago
Did I understand the article correctly in that they simply managed to reach 500 meters with wi-fi? If so, I don't see what they have actually achieved. In the early days of 802.11b I regularly connected my wifi-enabled (via dongle) Palm PDA to open networks that were sometimes hundreds of meters away, and the airport free wifi I could use from 1.5km away (at least - it could be longer, it's just that the place I frequented was that far away). The usable distance started to shrink drastically as the airways got more crowded, and as soon as you could see tens of networks at the time then suddenly the cafeteria network was only usable from inside whereas before you could use it a couple hundred meters away, across the large square. Of course, if it's about managing that in a crowded network space.. but the article was extremely short on details.
- altairprime 2y ago
  No. They reached 500 meters with LoRaWAN (no 802 spec), using an 802.11g (WiFi 3) radio.
rajnathani 2y ago
This is not a part of any of the official upcoming Wi-Fi standards/specs, unlike how the title of the article makes it seem.

200 points by thebeardisred 2y ago

I'm curious what the speed would be, kinda strange the post mentions "mentioning speed" but not what speed is maintained

nicpottier 2y ago
This looks to be about running LoRa like networks on WiFi hardware. Speed on LoRa is not something talked about much as it is more like SMS message passing or the like than IP networking.
- malfist 2y ago
  Probably why it was taking about IoT use. 500 meters for a couple hundred baud connection doesn't seem too ground breaking. Off the shelf 900mhz radios can easily achieve that
  - MostlyStable 2y ago
    Yeah, the main draw seemed that you don't need a special receiver and that standard networking gear would work, but.....LoRa hardware is not very expensive or complicated.
  - brookst 2y ago
    It’s about WiFi to LoRa interop, which is nice but not world changing.
    - willcipriano 2y ago
      For smart home applications this could be big. No longer need a hub.
      - mschuster91 2y ago
        Most Smart Home stuff is either Zigbee, Bluetooth or Wifi. LoRa stuff is ... hell I can't remember when I've seen that stuff outside of monitoring for remote cabins and the likes.
calibas 2y ago
Assuming it's the same as LoRa, up to 50 kbit/s.

est 2y ago

tl;dr exsisting Wi-Fi devices goes long range with LoRa protocols The catch: additional power consumption.

saurik 2y ago

I do not have access to the original paper, but I would want to see how this compares to 802.11ah "WiFi HaLow". (edit) OK, I got a copy from ResearchGate, and I misunderstood! I had failed to grok the part of the article where LoRa is now supported by the sx128x (as opposed to the sx126x) on 2.4GHz. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/383692369_WiLo_Long-Range_Cross-Technology_Communication_From_Wi-Fi_to_LoRa https://www.researchgate.net/publication/383692369_WiLo_Long... > In this article, we introduce a new algorithmic framework called WiLo, designed to enable directional communication from Wi-Fi to LoRa, which employs signal emulation techniques to enable off-the-shelf Wi-Fi hardware to produce a valid 2.4 GHz LoRa waveform. So, critically, and as far as I can tell this isn't in the summary article, this is purely unidirectional; and so, this isn't about being able to build a network that upgrades the range of WiFi with some tradeoffs: this is about being able to send data from existing WiFi hardware to existing LoRa hardware using a relatively minimal set of changes (though I still don't appreciate how this would practically be done to the existing hardware, and they apparently only simulated this with software-defined radio). > The core innovation of WiLo lies in the signal emulation technique used to generate a valid 2.4 GHz LoRa waveform. Through sophisticated signal processing algorithms, WiLo transforms the standard Wi-Fi signals into LoRa-like wave-forms, while ensuring compliance with the LoRa modulation specifications. This enables the LoRa hardware to decode WiFi signals without requiring any modifications to the hardware itself. The emulation of LoRa waveforms is achieved by carefully manipulating the parameters of the Wi-Fi signals, such as the modulation index, spreading factor, and BW, to closely match the characteristics of LoRa modulation. > We would like to emphasize that WiLo is directly supported among commodity devices, and the USRP-B210 devices are used only for evaluation purposes to measure low-level PHY information, which is inaccessible by commodity devices. For example, a commodity Wi-Fi card such as the Atheros AR2425 can replace USRP-B210 devices as the sender.

NewJazz 2y ago
I thought this was a HaLow competitor too... Thanks for checking on that.
toomuchtodo 2y ago
> So, critically, and as far as I can tell this isn't in the summary article, this is purely unidirectional; and so, this isn't about being able to build a network that upgrades the range of WiFi with some tradeoffs: this is about being able to send data from existing WiFi hardware to existing LoRa hardware using a relatively minimal set of changes (though I still don't appreciate how this would practically be done to the existing hardware, and they apparently only simulated this with software-defined radio). This leads me to believe you could flip a switch and turn entire swaths of access points into a broadcast fabric for LoRa? Wifi networks meet software defined radio a bit.

Szpadel 2y ago

let's assume that this takes off and it will become standard addition for our WiFi devices. Given big range of this technology, how this handle air congestion when we would have hundreds maybe thousands of devices in range? I expect low througput of this technology and for IoT that's usually fine, but when we need to share this spectrum with lot of devices we might quickly make this non operational. And this is even assuming we do not have some devices that request much more bandwidth that others. Wirh WiFi 2.4ghz we already struggle with air congestion and quick Google shows that lora have 13 + 8 channels and if I understand it correctly some of them are used explicitly for joining network (?) I think this technology is really cool only if it won't get much popularity

neuroelectron 2y ago
It could be silently adopted to allow longer distance for things like map apps that only need a few kilobytes for wifi triangulation.
486sx33 2y ago
I live on a pretty standard density street , there are a few semi detached homes mixed in. I’d still call it light density. I have 2 x 5ghz channels, 2 x 2.4 ghz channels, and then a repeater with another 2 and 2 In the evening there is so much congestion on every available channel on either band that I can’t watch 1080p tv This long range thing sounds awful.
- sneak 2y ago
  This means something is wrong with one or more of the stations on those bands. It’s not normal.
- jeroenhd 2y ago
  You don't need to watch 1080p TV to report the current temperature and humidity, or to receive a command to turn on a light bulb. As for channel congestion, check if your WiFi repeater is in mesh mode or not. If not, it literally halves the throughput on your WiFi network, that seems to be already over-congested by whatever is messing with your channel settings. Based on your description of the area, if your 5GHz somehow ran out of space, something seriously weird is going on. Maybe some non-WiFi-device is using the 2.4/5.2GHz band to transmit data? I know stories of cheapo baby monitors wiping out entire neighbourhoods, for instance.

jessriedel 2y ago

The overwhelming issues with WiFi are 1. It is slow to connect, taking multiple seconds rather than a few milliseconds. (Wifi unreliability would have much less practical impact if there was rapid reconnect.) 2. The lack of a sufficiently flexible standard interface for logging in and accepting terms, leading to the terrible captive portal workaround. I cannot for the life of me understand why the standards committee cares much about various other minor improvements when these issues are still unsolved after two decades. (Similar complaints can be made about Bluetooth.)

dataflow 2y ago
> It is slow to connect, taking multiple seconds rather than a few milliseconds. What is the reason for this?
- zamadatix 2y ago
  For standard Wi-Fi the biggest factors for a fresh association are: - Discovery. You have to wait to see which saved networks are broadcasting. Broadcasting more often = less efficient airspace for already attached clients. Broadcasting less often = longer delay for clients to "see" the network when they start listening. - External authentication. E.g. if you're doing RADIUS auth or MAC auth with an external database instead of a PSK exchange there is extra time in setting up this exchange and then waiting for the external authenticator to validate it. - DHCP / NDP. Wi-Fi assumes you more or less want to emulate a standard Ethernet + IP session but over this new fangled air connection. This is an additional delay for an additional exchange with the services responsible for this. Typical clients e.g. Windows will also perform extra address duplication checks slowing things further. There are some extensions in more modern Wi-Fi standards for clients that want to "sleep" for long periods, immediately do some stuff, then sleep for long periods (like IoT). Particularly TWT (target wait time). These, and more, are already found in purpose built protocols like LoRa/LoRaWAN though.
  - londons_explore 2y ago
    Discovery could take up to 100 milliseconds. All the others, if properly implemented, are speed-of-light things. Eg. RADIUS auth to an external database on the same physical site should easily be doable within 1 millisecond. It's not like that database has a multi-second queue of other users to connect first.

brcmthrowaway 2y ago

Isnt there already 802.11ah?

altairprime 2y ago
LoRaWAN (has no 802 spec) and Wi-Fi HaLow (802.11ah) both share a target market, but use different underlying protocols. This isn't meant to be "we have created a new standard" or "we prefer one or the other standard", this is simply "holy crap, we figured out how to make an 802.11g radio emit LoRaWAN packets?! and no one has ever written a paper about doing that before!".

londons_explore 2y ago

I just want speed to degrade gracefully down to 1 kbps or even 100bps. Ie I should be able to be 1 mile from my house, but still be imessaging over my home wifi. Physics lets me do that with no additional transmit power (shannon's channel capacity formula, combined with signal power dropping off as a function of distance squared). If suitable modulation was chosen (ie. some kind of CDMA), then a setup which can give 100 Mbit at 100 yards should be able to do 322 kbits at 1 mile, and 3kbps at 10 miles!

abracadaniel 2y ago
That’s my dream network. A long range, low bandwidth, decentralized network. Mesh would be cool, but even just being able to exchange with neighbors at the scale of 1-10mi would be amazing.
- sneak 2y ago
  It would be illegal (at least in the usa); you’re not allowed to share your home internet, or function as a public utility. There are huge regulatory moats around everything that costs $20-500/mo recurring and is incurred by large percentages of the population. Internet access is a huge one.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    Well that would explain the sad estate of government sanctioned Wifi. They were bought out, as usual, from people who just want an extra buck instead of properly serving the public's needs.
  - wilted-iris 2y ago
    Citation? There are a few large public meshes in the US. I'm unaware of anything that makes them illegal to run.
  - BenjiWiebe 2y ago
    I know it's usually against the ToS to share your home WiFi, but this is the first I've ever heard that it's illegal.

sneak 2y ago

Isn’t LoRa patented and proprietary?

altairprime 2y ago
https://www.cs.wustl.edu/~jain/cse574-16/ftp/j_14ahl4.pdf https://www.cs.wustl.edu/~jain/cse574-16/ftp/j_14ahl4.pdf is a good overview of the technical differences between WiFi HaLow (802.11ah) and LoRaWAN. The specs are open: https://resources.lora-alliance.org/technical-specifications https://resources.lora-alliance.org/technical-specifications The Lora Alliance publishes their patent policy here: https://lora-alliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/LA-IPR-Policy.pdf https://lora-alliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/LA-IPR-... I encourage reviewing "7.4 LoRaWAN 1.0 Copyright License to Implementers", which appears responsive to your question.
- sneak 2y ago
  That’s just a copyright license for the specification documents. A patent license is a horse of a different color. 7.4 explicitly denies that it serves as a patent license: > This license shall not be deemed to grant any right under any patent, patent applications or similar intellectual property right. Just because the specs are open it does not permit you to manufacture or sell the devices without a patent license.
  - altairprime 2y ago
    Makes sense, thanks for the interpretation.

dzhiurgis 2y ago

Baffles me Starlink terminals don't ship with lora and halow. Maybe too soon, but obvious improvement for remote farms, etc.

Eric_WVGG 2y ago

My god, who came up with this name?? “Wi-Lo” sounds like “LOW range”

malfist 2y ago
And if you google it, google assumes you're searching for willow
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

lloydatkinson 2y ago

> smart cities Still at it, huh?

Tor3 2y ago

Did I understand the article correctly in that they simply managed to reach 500 meters with wi-fi? If so, I don't see what they have actually achieved. In the early days of 802.11b I regularly connected my wifi-enabled (via dongle) Palm PDA to open networks that were sometimes hundreds of meters away, and the airport free wifi I could use from 1.5km away (at least - it could be longer, it's just that the place I frequented was that far away). The usable distance started to shrink drastically as the airways got more crowded, and as soon as you could see tens of networks at the time then suddenly the cafeteria network was only usable from inside whereas before you could use it a couple hundred meters away, across the large square. Of course, if it's about managing that in a crowded network space.. but the article was extremely short on details.

altairprime 2y ago
No. They reached 500 meters with LoRaWAN (no 802 spec), using an 802.11g (WiFi 3) radio.

rajnathani 2y ago

This is not a part of any of the official upcoming Wi-Fi standards/specs, unlike how the title of the article makes it seem.