Fiberless Optical Networks 143
Alien54 writes "According to this Forbes Magazine article, the time for Fiberless Optical Networks may have arrived. Wireless optics have been given up for dead until very recently. But now better technology and lower product costs have enabled some to solve most of the problems. AirFiber (a company mentioned in the article above) is emerging as one of the favorites in wireless optics, and seems to have a set of good answers for the inevitable "bird and fog" questions: Can a flock of birds take down a network by flying through the lasers? Can a heavy fog send your precious information into the ether?"
Ahmen Brother! (Score:1)
Re:TCP was originally designed for use in a... (Score:1)
Re:Problem of birds could be solved .... (Score:1)
Give me microwave anyday...
Re:Classic fiber channels not dead (Score:1)
Pay attention to the words.
Re:Neat Idea (Score:1)
Re:Solution to the bird problem. (Score:1)
Wouldn't this make your network a easy target for packet sniffing? All that a potential culprit need to is to point his/her own sensor skyward and they have read full access.
Similarly it would be trival for such an attacker to send their own data, issuing their own commands to machines etc...
This scenario, to me, obviates the need for encryption in such systems, increasing cost and complexity.
Having made these points, I realise that the problems apply to any unguided media (e.g. microwave links) and not just to 'open' light systems.
"Wireless Fiber"?? (Score:1)
(OT) the luxor... (Score:1)
Redundant uh!? (Score:1)
Re:When are we going to get a light computer? (Score:1)
Re:TCP was originally designed for use in a... (Score:1)
It ofcourse under wnet many changes during the years (integration with NCP, changes to accomidate the OSI model), but it had its humble origins way back when.
Read Stevens.
that's old stuff (Score:3)
So, you can tap into this sort of line (Score:1)
Re:it doesn't make senese.... (Score:2)
Actually, the article and the summary above call it Wireless Optics, not Wireless Fiber. It uses Optical technology without using Fiber Optics. It uses lasers.
The rest is the attack of the marketroids, I suppose
Bandwidth Pollution:: (Score:1)
.sig =
Re:x-rays? (Score:1)
20Gs per building (Score:1)
Although, laser tracking, laser power adjustment, and redundant paths are a good way to combat the previous problems with laser networking.
Re:Transmission of IP Datagrams on Avian Carriers (Score:1)
Zero. If it's carrying any data, it would therefore be a laden swallow. It doesn't even enter into it if it's African or European.
Re:A few facts... (Score:1)
I found an horizon calculator here [fas.org], and at a height of just 50 feet (which is what, a 5-story building?) the horizon is ~9.5 miles.
This might be an issue in a suburban office park, but even here in little Baltimore we've got plenty of buildings higher than that. In particular, the World Trade Center in the harbor (which would never be confused with ones in New York) is 423 feet tall, giving an horizon of some 27 miles.
Re:Fog not an issue (Score:1)
More info here: http://www.astroterra.com/
Vulnerable (Score:1)
cute...except that it WORKS (Score:2)
So while you're sitting there telling us that it's all vapor and research, while companies around the world are currently using AirFiber technology to provide internet service.
Homebrew it! (Score:2)
http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~clock/r0nj4/
http://www.hut.fi/Misc/Electronics/circui
http://www.geociti es.com/SiliconValley/Lakes/7156/laser.htm
http:/
http://opencollector.org/
http://www.r
http
The first link actually seems to be the best - instead of lasers, ultra-high brightness LED's are used - no great distances here, but aiming doesn't have to be as accurate, fog/rain/birds are less of a problem, the hardware interface is rather simple, and the LED's (and other parts) are cheap!
I support the EFF [eff.org] - do you?
Re:Birds and Fog (Score:2)
I don't know much about the other companies, but I know with AirFiber:
* Birds are not an issue; signals are rerouted (the network is redundant) as soon as the connection is broken, which then automatically relinks;
* Fog hasn't been a problem. Look at it this way -- if you can see a flashlight shining through the fog, you can see this laser.
* How would thunderstorms be a problem? We're not talking about RF frequenciese here!
Re:A few facts... (Score:1)
You are right, of course, but there may still be other obstructions in the way. And, of course, with greater and greater distance (and higher buildings) sway is much more of a problem. I daresay with a 2-story building over 1/2 to 1 mile distance, sway is not an issue, but atop the World Trade Center the sway can be several feet.
Add to this the fact that even a laser will spread and scatter greatly after a distance as great as 27 miles. For various reasons, it's unlikely that optical wireless can be made to cover great distances any time in the immediate future.
Re:When Will it Happen (Score:1)
Several companies are already currently using AirFiber's system.
Re:Technology (Score:1)
I'm posting this over a (gasp!) 14.4Kbps modem because my cable modem service has been out for the last 18 hours. (ObIrony: the customer support line is just a recording, and the ISP's advice when your cable modem isn't working is to send e-mail to tech support.)
Meanhile the phone company keeps calling to sell us ADSL, but once the order is placed they forget all about it. (This has happened three times this year already.)
Re:Classic fiber channels not dead (Score:1)
Re:"Wireless Fiber"?? (Score:1)
Re:Weather susceptibility still a problem? (Score:1)
Re:A few facts... (Score:1)
Does anybody have figures on how much a well-focused laser will spread? I seem to recall that when you bounce it off the Moon, the area covered is measured in square miles, but I haven't looked it up.
I'm guesing that atmospheric conditions (and other buildings) represent the biggest obstacle.
Re:Transmission of IP Datagrams on Avian Carriers (Score:2)
Birds and Fog (Score:1)
Re:So now all you need... (Score:1)
Re:Classic fiber channels not dead (Score:1)
until (succeed) try { again(); }
Re:Classic fiber channels not dead (Score:1)
Problem of birds could be solved .... (Score:2)
Also it could get messy for a while what with all the headless pigeons and arms of careless windowcleaners falling about the place.
Bob.
"Wireless Fiber" (Score:1)
I now have incredibly high-tech phone misdirection and blocking devices! They're called "prisms".
Oh well. Even if it *does* work, my phone card still won't be activated, and I'll have to call the company somehow to tell them my phone service doesn't work...
I liked the paper-cups-and-string method much better. And I didn't have to rent the string! What am I doing now, leasing the air?
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
Better uses for wireless optical (Score:1)
The abandoning of wires would save hours of diagnosing faults within wire connections for network administrators, and a laser data transmitter could be physically repointed at a different reciever with ease without even having to unplug cables and reconnecting them. With so much potential for this market, why is Air Fiber focusing on the outdoor market when they could perfect this technology for indoor usage with much less cost?
This idea also reminds me of the concept, which has been purported for years, that wireless optical could become the next medium for data transfer within a computer's processors once silicon had reached it's the height of potential. Whatever happened to those projects?
MashPotato - Mobile Array of Support Helpers for Potato
Re:Bandwidth Pollution:: (Score:3)
What you are thinking of is the RF (radio) spectrum. Since it is broadcast, it is regulated, and yes it is being used up.
This, however is a point to point laser beam... (as in light... a totally different part of the EM spectrum) the only other station receiving the beam is where it is pointed.
This would be great (Score:2)
Having the ability to point a laser at some building across town, having been able to set it up in three days or less, would be flippin' awesome. Think about how great this would be for one time conferences and setting up temporary solutions. Who cares if it is not totally stable -- birds, fog, and your occasional script-kid gone cute with a big kite, trying to knock out your service.
The building at which I work does in fact have a wireless (not optical) Sonet connection, along with standard OC12s and OC48. It should be noted that the city which I work and live also is a current test bed for Sprint and their wireless broad band solutions (also not optical in nature). These are excellent and very viable solutions for a quick connection.
It should be noted that I had moderator points and *really* wanted to moderate up http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/08/20/2234
Re:Classic fiber channels not dead (Score:1)
until (succeed) try { again(); }
Re:Classic fiber channels not dead (Score:1)
until (succeed) try { again(); }
Re:Neat Idea (Score:1)
Guess I've offended the "community." Bet something whitty is coming my way. Woo hoo. Don't forget to tell your friends.
Oh yeah. I believe the sympatico internet is available only in Toronto right now, but it will be great for cottage country.
Even the samurai
have teddy bears,
and even the teddy bears
Re:TCP was originally designed for use in a... (Score:1)
I confess I thought perhaps you were recalling Ethernet's influence from AlohaNet and the collision detection / avoidance needed in a broadcast network.
Re:Solution to the bird problem. (Score:1)
"When I'm cleaning windows
Bob.
Re:Classic fiber channels not dead (Score:3)
Its misery like this that will help push people to find new high bandwidth solutions.
matt
Re:Solution to the bird problem. (Score:1)
I'm not being sarcastic, either ... I think that lasers could be dangerous. Even those laser pointing pens that kids love playing with can cause retina damage.
Conversely: (Score:1)
Can a network take down a flock of birds that are flying through the lasers?
Now that would be cool.
if.... (Score:3)
const double NORMAL_POWER=500.0*ONE_MILLIWATT
if (flockOfBirdsDetected()) {
setLaserOutputPower( MAX_POWER);
wait(1);
collectCookedDinner();
setLaserOutputPower( NORMAL_POWER);
}
Re:Solution to the bird problem. (Score:1)
I can see how this would interfere with RFC 1149 [rfc-editor.org]and RFC 2549 [rfc-editor.org] based networks. "War of the networks"? "Imminent death of the net predicted, film at 11"? It would take care of dinner nicely, though. Pass the cranberry sauce, please?
Stefan.
It takes a lot of brains to enjoy satire, humor and wit-
Re: little 'real' info on company site (Score:1)
Solution to the bird problem. (Score:5)
Well, if you increase the power of the lasers, you could then only need to pose this question:
Can a network take down a flock of birds flying through the lasers?
Problem solved.
Re:Smoke and Mirrors (Score:1)
Optical Networking is ALREADY here. All the major network backbones run over fiber optics, hell even most cable companies have a hybrid fiber/coax network.
Also, the leader HAS emerged, it is Nortel, they sell $10+ billion/year of optical networking gear.
Re:Classic fiber channels not dead (Score:2)
Firing lasers off through the sky is only a temporary solution. You will always get higher transfer rates using an actual fiber becuase it is such a better transmission medium. However, it is quite expensive to run fiber all over the place right now, as prices go down it will become more feasible and things like this will die off.
Re:Birds and Fog (Score:1)
frequency of beam (Score:2)
http://www.airfiber.com/products/faq/Html/helps
As for saftey if meets IEC Class 1 requirments.
The FAQ seems very comprehensive.
This is only the half of it (Score:2)
Wireless networks have several advantages over traditional land lines, especially in areas of rapid expansion. For one, the right of way issues are greatly reduced. It is a severe pain in the ass just filling out the forms to try to drag a cable across town, or across the state, or across several states. And it's not cheap either. The expense of actually laying the cable is also quite substantial. However, with wireless networks, you only need to setup a few base stations and boom, you've got a network.
Pretty soon, everyone and their mother (literally!) will be wanting / needing broadband access, and right now a lot of people (and businesses!) just don't live where it's possible to get broadband any time soon. DSL is great, but the limited range means a lot of people are left out, and the limited speeds makes it unsuitable for a lot of uses. The best hope for most locations is a cable modem or getting their own line laid, cable connections are not particularly suited for high bandwidth serving or businesses, and paying for your own line to be laid is just murderous. On the other hand, if someone could just install a wireless connection with T1 -> OC1 (or faster) speeds with little delay they would make a lot of people very happy.
Additionally, wireless networks are well suited to developing countries. There are lots of places on this Earth that lack even basic telephone service. By bringing wireless networks to these places, they can not only get phone service at much less the cost than they would be able to through more traditional setups, but they can actually get not too shabby connections to the wonderful world wide internet. In fact, many countries are deploying wireless telephone networks for precisely these reasons.
Re:Classic fiber channels not dead (Score:2)
True, that does suck, and it's still pretty expensive.
Now, think about how long it would take to run it wireless. Just point and shoot.
Easier said than done. You'd need to calibrate the transmitting device to probably the nearest thousandth of a degree in each direction to be able to hit your receiver about, say, 1 mile away. (very crude, out-of-my-arse calculations.)
The other issue is what might be in the way of the signal -- around Pittsburgh, for example, the terrain is rather hilly. It'd be hard to set up a link between downtown (even on top of the USX tower, ~850 feet high) and Greentree, only a mile or so away, as Mount Washington tends to get in the way. Not to mention what random building might pop up in between your two stations.
Bringing something like cable or DSL into new areas would be quicker and cheaper. The labor costs for laying the line is much higher then a more expensive wireless system.
True, in maybe the Midwest where there are no tall hills. Around here, we're stuck with the classic guided media, expensive as it might be.
Re:Smoke and Mirrors (Score:1)
I'll be wary of optical networking for a good while until several leaders truly come out ahead of the pack.
Then Cisco will buy them and we'll all be back to the start.
Long long ago... (Score:1)
It would make for a nifty way for a few houses to share a broadband connection, too, if the cost is a problem.
Re:Navy radar and mess deck food (Score:1)
old radar used to be (still is?) microwave, so I've heard similar stories of foxes/cats coming to feed on the birds microwaved near commercial airports.
However, given that the mast probably was metal, it probably would have been a bad idea to microwave it. (visions of tesla coil lightning bolts arcing from the mast...)
I always thought big carriers should supplement their food by fishing. Does anyone know if they did this in the bad old days of sailing ships and salted meat?
Re:Solution to the bird problem. (Score:1)
Johan
Re:Problem of birds could be solved .... (Score:1)
OTOH, this may finally cure the pidgeon problem that most major cities seem to have.
--
Great! Now I can finally... (Score:1)
Glaring Technical Error (Score:4)
"And, with asynchronous transfer mode technology (ATM), the lasers have become intelligent enough to track the laser beams between the two optical transceivers, so they never get off target."
How the heck is ATM going to keep the lasers on target? I think the author confused this with ATM signallig setting up SVC's on the fly to provide reliable data transfer through the network in the case of a link going down.
OT: re: there [sic] solution sounds tenable but (Score:1)
Come spend a spring in New Orleans or London. We get fog that, literally, limits all visibility to less than 2 meters. That means it's very hard to make out your hand held at arm length. Very scary stuff.
Weather susceptibility still a problem? (Score:5)
Bit rate is proportional to bandwidth times the logarithm of the signal-to-noise ratio. To maximize bandwidth, you go up to higher and higher transmission frequencies. To maximize signal to noise ratio, you step up the transmission power. But in a wireless laser network, both of these steps have their disadvantages.
The first problem is essentially that the higher frequencies (e.g. infrared, which is on the order of microns, as opposed to microwave, which is on the order of centimeters) are more susceptible to various scattering phenomena. The most frequently mentioned is, of course, fog, dust, smog, etc. These scatterers are far to small to have any significant effect on, for example, cellular communications (transmitted signal has a wavelength of tens of centimeters, not microns), but they are excellent scatterers in smaller wavelengths. In addition, the atmosphere itself scatters visible light more and more effectively as you go to higher and higher frequencies, reaching a maximum somewhere in the ultraviolet. This is due to the electronic properties of diatomic nitrogen and oxygen and cannot be avoided. (As a side note, it is also why the sky is blue and sunsets are red). So, one cannot step around the fog problem by going to even higher frequencies. I believe, but am not certain, that fiberless lasers still operate in the IR.
The second problem, of course, is that stepping up the power output of the transmitter is expensive. A tenfold increase in bandwidth requires a thousandfold increase in signal to noise ratio. To see why this is so, imagine that with a given signal to noise ratio, you can resolve 16 signal strengths with a bit error rate of less than, say, 10^-8. This means that you can transmit 4 bits of information per symbol. To get twice as many bits per symbol, or double the bit rate, you need to be able to resolve 256 signal strengths - i.e. square your signal to noise ratio. To get 12 (three times as many) bits per symbol, you need to cube your S/N, and so on. Essentially, you have to double your S/N for each additional bit per symbol you wish to be able to resolve at a certain bit error rate. Hence the need for enormously increased power to achieve relatively modest increases in bandwidth.
So, with these constraints in mind, it will be interesting to see what optimum is achieved by TeraBeam et al, and how resilient their systems turn out to be.
Dave Bailey
How does static cause signal degredation in light? (Score:1)
Re:Solution to the bird problem. (Score:1)
What about fog? (Score:3)
Ibag
"Me fail english? That's unpossible!" --Ralph
Reminds me of the "ArcLight" (Score:4)
Arcnet was a token-ring based network with a broadcast topology. Cut the connection between two parts and it immediately reconfigures into two nets. Plug it back in and it reconfigures into a single net.
Ran on 8080-based terminals.
To get between buildings they used a gadget with an infrared laser diode (which had just come out) and a photodiode - each behind a lens about 6 inches in diameter. The device looked somewat like a weatherproof half-height-full-width monitor case with a little bit of a lightshade and the screen replaced by a couple of big glass eyes.
In a city where most buildings weren't skyscrapers (so a little defocussing could deal with building sway and clear-air turbulence without too much energy loss and interference acceptance), clouds and fog were rare, and at a time when high-speed data lines were 300 baud, it was great. A LAN that spanned multiple buildings. If the fog rolled in the network partitioned until it went away (no data between the head office and the branch for a couple hours, but the nets WITHIN the buildings were still up. Birds were handled by retransmissions that were part of the normal protocol.
Something similar would be easy with IP these days: Run a low speed (56k, T1, whatever) between the buildings AND put up the high-speed link. On foggy days your bandwidth drops but your connection is still there. IP also understands flakey connections and rerouting around them, and TCP understands using retransmission to make a reliable connection over unreliable links.
Wow. (Score:3)
I don't see how this is any different than normal problems. Ther are using a wireless PHI.. fine.
The only point the article has made is that the price of optical open-air laser networking gear has come way down, so now it is feasible to build meshed networks with it, and hence, overcome some of the inherent problems with it.
And if the equipment used to cost $150,000.. how much do you think the monthly rental for that DS3 cost anyway? Not cheap. It will quickly dwarf the cost of equipment.
Of course, when we talk about canned networks for corporations (which *IS* a big deal these days), this gets more interesting.
Re:Classic fiber channels not dead (Score:1)
Re:Classic fiber channels not dead (Score:1)
Now, think about how long it would take to run it wireless. Just point and shoot.
Bringing something like cable or DSL into new areas would be quicker and cheaper. The labor costs for laying the line is much higher then a more expensive wireless system.
until (succeed) try { again(); }
Transmission of IP Datagrams on Avian Carriers (Score:3)
Maybe they could adapt RFC 1149 - A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams on Avian Carriers [isi.edu] and, instead of seeing the birds as a potential problem, use them as carriers. Sure, a device would have to print the scrolls of paper, and attach it to the birds. It would probably decrease bandwidth, as the mentioned RFC mentions: "Avian carriers can provide high delay, low throughput, and low altitude service.". It's worth a good read.
To deal with this, they could also use RFC 2549 - IP over Avian Carriers with Quality of Service [isi.edu] .
Re:How is this different from wireless/packet radi (Score:2)
Two small problems with that:
1. Your Linux server had better be in a reinforced building strong enough to withstand a nuclear blast.
2. Even if it was in such a building, the radiation from the nuclear blast would interfere with the wireless communication.
In the interests of keeping this post on-topic, this is different from wireless/packet radio in that light and radio waves are two very different things. Light waves are on a *much* higher frequency, and as such aren't as prone to interference from man-made radiation (such as the nuclear blasts that sips brought up). But, the tradeoff is of course that there are line-of-sight issues.
=================================
Re:Neat Idea (Score:1)
But you had plenty of time to post and waste everyone else's time.
Re:Solution to the bird problem. (Score:1)
Going on means going far
TCP was originally designed for use in a... (Score:1)
Problems with signal degradation have already been solved. In fact, the U.S. military has been using wireless data communications for years. The speed isn't all there, but the basic problems have already been solved.
Re:Shannon's delight (Score:2)
there are other bird and fog questions (Score:1)
Re:Solution to the bird problem. (Score:1)
I wonder (Score:1)
Re:What about fog? (Score:1)
In the article it spefically states that they can automatically increase the power of the laser in the case of fog. More laser power apparently cuts through the fog.
Re:Transmission of IP Datagrams on Avian Carriers (Score:1)
What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is.
Re:Neat Idea (Score:1)
Even the samurai
have teddy bears,
and even the teddy bears
Lookout! (Score:1)
Re:Solution to the bird problem. (Score:2)
Hey you might be on to something here.
Get an optical wireless network, fly swatter, security system and anti-missle defence system all in one!
Re:What about fog? (Score:5)
Smoke and Mirrors (Score:2)
Optical Networking is the term to be talking if you are a Venture Capitalist these days. VCs are just pumping more and more money into any company that has optical networking in its business description. And, just as dot-coms had their flops, so will optical networking.
Optical Networking stocks are also flying through the roof, just as dot-coms did a year or two ago.
I'll be wary of optical networking for a good while until several leaders truly come out ahead of the pack.
Security? (Score:2)
One of the advantadges to fiber is that it is incredibly difficult to tap, and the tap can be easily detected. Is the same true of wireless optical? And is tapping even relevant? I would assume that in the case of the Internet, you've got Carnivore tapping you, but otherwise fiber lines can pretty much be assumed secure. In the case of private networks, anyone with the budget for wireless optical could probably come up with a good encryption scheme. But is there anything I've missed here in the tapping issue?
Why "wireless fiber" (Score:3)
- "Fiber" to mean very fast data sent via light (in something called "fibers" or "fiber optics" or something like that...)
- "Wireless" to mean signals sent between two stations without any hardware spanning the distance. (Just install a box at each end and maybe an antennaish thing on the roof.)
So "wireless fiber" produces the idea of sending high-speed data via light between two sites with gadgets on the roof without anything but open space in between them.
Even if the words don't really make sense when you look at them closely.
Navy radar and mess deck food (Score:3)
--
Substitute many short links for one long link (Score:2)
Sort of like if long distance phone calls are out, you call Aunt Martha who calls cousin Bob and so on, each being a bit closer, until the final local call goes thru.
I did something similar once, when home to work was not a local flat rate call. A friend in between, who was a local call to each place, installed an extra phone and set it up to call forward.
--
Re:So now all you need... (Score:2)
Fog is a feature! (Score:3)
Next quarter, analysts forecast the public release of eClouds which will allow for a wide area network with a range of approximately 7 miles.
Kevin Fox
it doesn't make senese.... (Score:2)
OK, I must just be dumb or out of it, or something along that line. But, why do they call it wireless fiber? It doesn't make sense, a fiber is a solid object, a "wire" if you will. Wireless would imply that the "wire" does not exist. Why not just come up with a fun buzzword that actually makes sense?!?
Shannon's delight (Score:4)
Capacity is proportional to the logarithm of (1+signal to noise ratio). A small but significant difference. The result is that for a given power budget it is always better to use as much bandwidth as possible unless you are limited by arbitrary constraints such as the FCC's dumb frequency management practices.
There's no need to go to higher optical frequencies to increase capacity. The carrier frequency of a 1.3 micron infrared laser is 230 terahertz. It's easy to see that a few hundreds of megabits per seconds barely scratch the theoretical capacity.
You've got so much bandwidth in optical that more than one bit per symbol makes absolutely no sense. In fact, you want LESS than one information bit per symbol by using forward error correction codes.
The right frequency to choose is in the atmospheric window wavelengths - those least absorbed by water vapor.
In fog conditions the cumulative attenuation per meter is so high that even a hundredfold increase in laser power will not make a significant increase in the effective range. You are stuck with a few hundreds of meters. Deal with it. AirFiber's architecture looks like the right way to do it. Even if you ignore the bird problem, with a relay every few hundreds of meters the end-to-end reliability drops exponentially with the number of hops the signal has to go through. A mesh architecture can cover long distances while still maintaining adequate availability.
----
AirFiber uses 780nm wavelength. (Score:2)
----