Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Wireless Networking Intel Hardware

Intel Wi-Fi Provides 6 Mbps Over 100 km 77 77

MIT Technology Review describes a new Wi-Fi router from Intel capable of sending a Wi-Fi signal tens of miles with 6-Mbps performance. This is perfect for rural areas without Internet service, and for less developed countries interested in building out their Internet infrastructure but no means to lay expensive cable or fiber optics. The routers cost about $500 each, and you need two of them for a point-to-point connection. Quoting: "Intel's RCP platform rewrites the communication rules of Wi-Fi radios. Galinvosky explains that the software creates specific time slots in which each of the two radios listens and talks, so there's no extra data being sent confirming transmissions. 'We're not taking up all the bandwidth waiting for acknowledgments,' he says. Since there is an inherent trade-off between the amount of available bandwidth and the distance that a signal can travel, the more bandwidth is available, the farther a signal can travel."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Intel Wi-Fi Provides 6 Mbps Over 100 km

Comments Filter:
  • still too expensive (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Lumpy (12016) on Wednesday March 19, 2008 @08:13AM (#22793976) Homepage
    When a pair of linksys routers, 2 old and free Dish network dishes and $30.00 worth of parts can to the exact same thing.

    Even if they were available when I helped start a community wifi, we would not use them. they are too expensive. We are getting WRT54GL routers for $50.00 each, and tere is a never ending supply of free dish network dish assemblies with mounts.
  • by transporter_ii (986545) * on Wednesday March 19, 2008 @08:18AM (#22794000) Homepage
    Didn't read TFA yet, but I know this will work fine with two units, you just set one to provide sync. But if you have four units in an area, they can interfere with each other. What you can do then is add a gps unit to the AP side, sync to that, and all four units Tx/Rx at the same time. So MIT really just created a Wi-Fi Canopy system...or what WiMax will be if it is ever released.

    The biggest issue is that 2.4, with only 3 non-overlaping channels, is it almost unusable for long distance shots. I'm working in a WISP that has some 2.4 and it will make you pull your hair out. At one tower, in somewhat of a rural area, we could see 121 different SSIDs from an omni antenna a couple of hundred feet off the ground.

    At 500.00 a unit, I doubt this will see high deployment, but if all of these things don't play nice with each other, it will be yet more interference.

    And last, 2.4 could already do ten miles easy already, and much cheaper. You could build a Mikrotik AP for 600.00ish and have 20 clients at 10 miles for 200ish a client unit, if they are all line of sight. But note that you have stretched 2.4 well beyound what it was designed for, and in no time you will understand exactly why WISPs startup and fold like crazy...and the only people who made ANY money are the ones who sold you the equipment.

    Transporter_ii
  • by ruin20 (1242396) on Wednesday March 19, 2008 @09:27AM (#22794498)
    I go back to the first poster alternative about cheaper alternatives, I've seen some extremely interesting work with mesh networks, and they provide a level of redundancy not present in this system. And that's important if your going to talk Canopy or WiMax or something because now your talking about infrastructure. If you have one tower covering this kind of range imagine the amount of customers a failure effects. We can create mesh networks with existing technology and for a lot less money.
  • Re:Perfect..... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Agripa (139780) on Wednesday March 19, 2008 @05:03PM (#22799982)

    I often wondered what is stopping a mesh network from spreading. It would be basically the type which the OLPC has, except essentially a router with an antenna could be put on top of your house and connect with others of its type, from spreading.

    I have done a little work on this problem over the years and I suspect there is just a lack of all the necessary pieces for a good high performance mesh network solution. Here are some ideas off the top of my head while ignoring economic and political reasons:

    1. Current radio hardware and band allocations only support half-duplex communications. WiMax uses transmit and receive synchronization to lower the dead time and prevent collisions which helps but how do you synchronize an arbitrary number of half-duplex stations in a variable geometry environment without a significant loss of throughput?

    2. How well does IP handle a constantly changing network topology with hidden nodes? I suspect overlaying IP onto a protocol specifically designed to handle routing in an adverse wireless environment would help. Every node should maintain an extensive situational awareness of its local routing environment to provide for instant failover and redundant routing.

    3. QoS would require some type of sharing scheme that does not rely on the good intentions of every node. BitTorrent accomplishes this using Tit-for-Tat. IP accomplishes this by using flow control and assuming a largely benign network. While computationally expensive, I suspect some type of cryptography based token scheme would allow both trust metrics and something like a packet routing barter system. Notice that this automatically allows the client to assign priorities to different types of traffic while intermediate nodes can accept the client's word given enough trust.

"Ignorance is the soil in which belief in miracles grows." -- Robert G. Ingersoll

Working...