Ubiquitous Multi-Gigabit Wireless Within Three Years 152
Anonymous Howard passed us a link to the Press Escape blog, and a post about the future of ultra-fast wireless connectivity. Georgia Tech researchers unveiled plans to use ultra-high frequency radio transmissions to achieve very high data transmission rates over short distances. In a few years, the article says, we'll have ubiquitous multi-gigabit wireless connectivity, with some significant advances already under their belts. "GEDC team have already achieved wireless data-transfer rates of 15 gigabits per second (Gbps) at a distance of 1 meter, 10 Gbps at 2 meters and 5 Gbps at 5 meters. 'The goal here is to maximize data throughput to make possible a host of new wireless applications for home and office connectivity,' said Prof. Joy Laskar, GEDC director and lead researcher on the project along with Stephane Pinel. Pinel is confident that Very high speed, p2p data connections could be available potentially in less than two years. The research could lead to devices such as external hard drives, laptop computers, MP-3 players, cell phones, commercial kiosks and others could transfer huge amounts of data in seconds while data centers could install racks of servers without the customary jumble of wires."
do not underestimate... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Multi-Gigabit [half duplex] FTW!...(ish)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:do not underestimate... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Transfering data is one thing, but transfering it in a way that makes it usable is another. Sure you can achieve over 10 GB/s by throwing a hard drive to your friend, but if you want to transfer "live" data that your friend needs to use, you also need to factor in the time it takes f
Microwaving your privates? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Microwaving your privates? (Score:5, Funny)
...for that matter... (Score:5, Insightful)
Somehow I don't see "whole data centers" using a data transmission method where any device can potentially intercept the data going to and coming from any other device. Might make your hosting clients a bit nervous.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you'd have to be stupid not to encrypt wireless traffic. That doesn't make it safe, though, assuming the data is actually worth obtaining.
Re: (Score:2)
SSL with a reasonable key length is essentially unbreakable unless there an exploit in the encryption software.
Some day someone may come up with a trick to defeat it, but there are lots of other encryption mechanisms that are just as secure.
Honestly, I don't get why wireless uses WEP or WPA. We've had VPNs and SSL secure enough for very valuable financial data for a long time; they are proven in the fiel
Re: (Score:2)
Good encryption means different things to different people, and it also means different things depending on the type of data being transmitted and its value to someone who wants to ge
Re: (Score:2)
In a datacenter, though, there is no reason to go with an unproven technology, especially when the alternative is to run
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Microwaving your privates? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, yeah, if standing in front of your Linksys feels like you're in a 400 degree oven, then you have a problem. Good news is, its p
I am a data center manager (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd rather deal with a network cable gone sentient and whipping around like a snake and attacking people, than go wireless at the data center.
Only an idiot thinks there's a wireless transmission that's invulnerable to being intercepted. Heck, wired communications aren't 100% secure, either, but my boss's business is about minimizing risk, and wireless networks even inside a data center is not minimizing risk.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It would suck anyway (Score:2)
Re:I am a data center manager (Score:4, Insightful)
It also won't be very useful in my home, where wires are already easy to run for the short-distance devices, and noise / distance prohibits the use in cases where I could really use and WANT high-speed wireless.
So it does sound like a neat trick, but what is a valid, viable use case for it?
I could REALLY use something much different. I want to get rid of the 20 or so wall-wart power supplies under my desk. I want one larger power supply that I can run small cables to all the devices. Why can't devices negotiate for how much voltage / current they need?
Re: (Score:2)
greater range, longer distances (Score:2)
I want something different too. I dont want higher speed, I want more range. I want one or two megabits at 30 miles
Thirty miles is an alright start but I'd like at least 100 or 200 mile range. I love hiking and photography and would like to be able to upload, transmit my photos wirelessly to a server. While it may be possible to do so with a 30 mile range that would require a lot more tower transceivers.
FalconRe: (Score:2)
Maybe for your AV stuff? No wires b/n your dvd, receiver, and tv would be nice.
Re: (Score:2)
My little cage at the colo doesn't have 5 servers. It has hundreds. I'm also sharing that datacenter with many many other companies that have cages with hundreds of servers. We deal with SAN / iSCSI, NAS, backups over networks, etc. With the noise and limited bandwidth available in a shared frequency space, I seriously doubt any type of wireless will be very useful in a datacenter - especially since everything is already connected via hard-wired connections.
I've seen security rooms inside datacenters that had copper cloth over the windows, etc etc. What if every cage in the colo were a faraday cage? In theory, wouldn't that permit this? Or, how about UWB? Isn't UWB supposed to allow an effectively infinite number of transmitter/receiver pairs to operate together? If the whole building were shielded so that it wouldn't penetrate, it would eliminate interference issues.
I still think that fiber is more desirable. I wish it were cheaper (although it's getting c
Re: (Score:2)
When my PC converges with my PDA, I want to be able to walk up to any display and use it without hauling a cable around. Better yet: I want HD video in my glasses, connected wirelessly to my PDA PC.
I have an external hard drive for my work laptop. It would be nice to be able to connect to it wirelessly. I'd also like to be able to sync my laptop to a docking station wirelessly.
There are all kinds of nifty things you can do
Re: (Score:2)
Why can't devices negotiate for how much voltage / current they need?
They do — via the wall wart.
I wouldn't be surprised if someone proposes a standard for low-voltage DC distribution in the home. You'll wind up with dual-socket outlets, with your standard AC socket and two to four 12V sockets. Maybe use a multi-bladed plug to determine how much current the device can sink (each blade signifies 500ma, so a four-bladed plug can sink 2A). Somebody else has probably already thought this out in detail, so I'll just wait for someone to post a link to a complete spec...
Re: (Score:2)
Wallwarts are DUMB. They have a transformer and a rectifier and sometimes a couple caps / resistors, and occasionally (but rarely) a voltage regular. That's it.
USB and modern PoE systems can negotiate for current draw. That's kind of what I am talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
As I don't manage any data centers, I'd love it. Mostly because the wife has forbade me from running CAT5 through the house and I'm stuck with 802.11g connections. It's annoying to try to transfer a large file from the office upstairs to, say,
Silly Fears. (Score:2)
there's no way in the h to the e to the double hockey sticks that I'd ever enable any kind of wireless anything in our data center. ... my boss's business is about minimizing risk, and wireless networks even inside a data center is not minimizing risk.
Your network is on the internet. That and any non free software you have are bigger threats than sftp over wireless.
Re: (Score:2)
hold your breath (Score:2)
My biggest fan [slashdot.org] would have me point to a link proving the relative insecurity of non free software. I think he should simply look around.
Still holding (Score:2)
That's a nice link you have there, BTW. Everyone should click on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Or with cause, which is what happened in my case.
Re: (Score:2)
Now you try!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only an idiot thinks his copper connections aren't radiating his data on RF frequencies that can be picked up outside his building with the right gear. This tech is decades old.
The wise man encrypts all of his connections on any medium using
Re: (Score:2)
I never said it was 100% secure.
You did read this, right?
Re: (Score:2)
If you're using TLS on both I'm not sure that wired gets you any more security, though wired has plenty of other advantages, but I'm not sure the 'never wireless in the data center because of risk' rationale is necessarily t
Quit now (Score:2)
Polish up your resume and quit now.
Really, I'm not kidding.
FTFA (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:FTFA (Score:4, Insightful)
That and being able to connect a DVD player to a TV without a cable would be, in a purely geek way, quite elegant.
Re: (Score:2)
Until someone turns on a microwave.
Or you live in an apartment and your n nearest neighbors compete for bandwidth.
Or somebody nukes us and the EMP keeps you from watching American Idol.
Remote display and input (Score:4, Interesting)
I always thought it would be cool to have a pad that was nothing more than a screen and input device that you could carry around the home instead of a full-fledged laptop. You would be actually "running" your powerful desktop off basically a second screen that you could carry around with you in the house.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like this? [viewsonic.com]
It's a great idea/product, but unfortunately it bombed in the marketplace. I am writing this reply with mine. I love it! All it really is is a remote desktop slave, but I can administrate my whole network from my living room while watching a movie, lounging on the couch.
When it first came out ~2002, they were a little less than a full-featured notebook computer. I got mine in early 2004 from a company that buys pallets of discontinued tech prodcts for $400.00, (that price included AL
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At $200 it might be okay for somethings, but $400 still seems a little steep
The latest iteration of these go for about $1200.00, which is just crazy in my estimation, however the $400.00 to me is reasonable, just for the freedom of not having a smoking-hot notebook in my lap. The thing runs cold as a stone. Also I have been using it for 3 years and really nothing to wear out 'cept the battery and the stylus.
Since I am not a video/gamer the video quality is OK for what I use it for. The active matrix is neat, (use your fingernail as a stylus) and at 600 X 800 is just about righ
Great! (Score:2)
Not for the data center (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, two out of the three you just mentioned (and I guess conceivably even the wires too) are subject to failing. So just because having a physical connection makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside (and rightly so with the current state of wireless
Re: (Score:2)
It is closed mindedness like this that can keep good tech from even having a chance. You really don't have to defend your stance from what is currently available, but to say that nothing will ever be good enough to replace those good old fashioned, tried and tested wires is simply ludicrous.
Wireless technologies cannot, ever, provide as much bandwidth as a wired (copper/fiber/whatever) connection can, simply because wires allow for a higher signal to noise ratio. Additionally, wireless is a shared medium, equivalent to using a hub instead of a switch/router.
ubiqutous, multi gigabit pornography (Score:3, Funny)
2 ways to increase thruput (Score:5, Informative)
The alternative to this is to increase bandwidth, say use 2.1ghz through 2.6ghz for 1 signal. The obviously downsides to this are you can't run many concurrent streams.
All in all wireless data transfer has a very real ceiling on the amount of data that can be transferred, lower frequency means longer range and ability to go through obstacles, at the cost of reduced data-carrying capacity. I guess the point of this post is to point out that there is only so far we can go with wireless data transfer. I don't think it will be able to keep up (over the long run) with the increasing size of traffic to be a viable alternative to cables when it comes to things like comptuer networking. Anyone have any thoughts on this?
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps the next generation of wireless will include UWB/CDMA based transmission.
Re: (Score:2)
2.45 GHZ, modulate power (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
right but center frequency (roughly the same as carrier frequency) affects availible bandwidth for a few reasons.
1: the obvious limit, there is no such thing as 1mhz of bandwidth centered on 100khz.
2: antenna capabilities, you couldn't easilly (if at all) design an antenna to go from 10khz to 1.01mhz but you could easilly design one to go from 10mhz to 11mhz.
3: spectrum crowding, its pretty crowded arround the few ghz spectrum, the only way to g
Re: (Score:2)
bandwidth: availible channel bandwidth measured in hz
bitrate: number of bits that can be transmitted
qam: quadrature amplitude modulation
symbol: a voltage level encoding one or more bits/
Channel capacity is measured in bits/second, not Hz. I can transmit 1Mb/s using a 100kHz channel
You probablly can. with appropriate modulation schemes (such as qam) you can get 2 symbols per Hz. That means you need to cram 5 bits per symbol. That means 32 level encoding. That is feasible.
OTOH if you wa
Re:2 ways to increase thruput (Score:4, Informative)
There are actually four:
Changing the carrier frequency has no effect, except that there's more room for higher-bandwidth signals at higher frequencies. 2.400-2.422GHz seems like a smaller chunk than 400-422MHz, but it can carry the same data.
The formula for how many bits you can send and receive error-free is the Shannon-Hartley theorem [wikipedia.org], and spectral efficiency is typically stated as a percentage of the theoretical.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One way to do this is to use an array of smaller antennas, and change through software how signals are timed through each. Say I have two dipoles 30cm (1 nanosecond) apart. If I transmit something at exactly the same time from both, the receiving antenna broadside to the two transmitting antennas will see a 3db boost. If I delay
Now tin foil hat actual function performing! (Score:1)
Interesting technology (Score:4, Insightful)
But if only it were so simple. Of course now the problem we have is with security. Never mind TEMPEST [wikipedia.org]. If you had a big enough antenna and you could decrypt (it IS encrypted...heavily...right?) the datastream emanating from this technology from a distance - you could see the display, keystrokes, data transfers, everything. Obviously, strong encryption is very important - But the overhead from strong encryption will reduce the theoretical bandwidth because of the extra baggage on the packets, and increase costs significantly because of the very specialized ASICs that will likely be required to encrypt a stream at that speed. And they'd have to be standard across all devices. AND an exploit had better not be discovered in the algorithm. Then there's the issue of the 60GHz band. A frequency that high is very unforgiving of obstructions, even at the short ranges we're talking about. If you have a metal desk, forget it. And what about jamming from computers in close proximity? What about from a "l33t hax0r" with some time on his hands and an inclination to make trouble?
Re: (Score:2)
If you had a big enough antenna and you could decrypt (it IS encrypted...heavily...right?) the datastream emanating from this technology from a distance - you could see the display, keystrokes, data transfers, everything. Obviously, strong encryption is very important - But the overhead from strong encryption will reduce the theoretical bandwidth because of the extra baggage on the packets, and increase costs significantly because of the very specialized ASICs that will likely be required to encrypt a stream at that speed.
The real problem here therefore is one of cost. You can have as much bandwidth as you can pay for (because this is the kind of problem that responds well to parallelism. The penalty for that parallelism need not be all that significant. You can have no encryption cheaply, but uh, yeah. Next.
I don't suppose anyone out there knows of any properties of physics that would allow for linked "random" number generating systems that were consistent? :)
Re: (Score:2)
No, the problem you will then have is power. Everything still needs power. Keyboard, monitor, mouse etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Bull (Score:2)
I think the summary went off the deep end.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
i suppose that you could always combine one of these [hyperlinktech.com] with one of these [hyperlinktech.com] and use the combo to cook burritos...
mmmm, burritos!
Why this is partially a crock (Score:2)
Therefore, with all due respect
Humbug (Score:1)
How about using the wired bandwidth first? (Score:2)
Marketing lies as usual (Score:2)
I hope these ethically ch
Useless (Score:2)
High-speed wireless could be useful for 'last mile' connections
iPhone loads webpage in less than a day? (Score:2)
Why not get a Government grant to research it? (Score:2)
Re:Call me a luddite, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, and 99% of all CO2 on the earth is natural (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Call me a luddite, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
As opposed to all that radiation saturating the biosphere not of our own making? You do realise that light is radiation right? Also, in case you're worried about all the terrible WiFi access points, your average 60 watt bulb puts off far more energy (radiation) than any WiFi AP in use. Now, admittedly, not all radiation has the same effect on everything (such as UV), but the key thing with EM radiation like light and radio waves is the total power and the distance from the source. Remember, power dissipates with the square of the distance, so if you're anything but sitting on top of the transmitter, and even then if it's relatively low power, you've got more to worry about standing outside on a sunny day. The fact that they're talking about such short distances with this tech leads me to believe this will probably be a very low power device, much the same as bluetooth and RFID are.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
we understand electromagnetic radiation in grea
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Call me a luddite, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
When a chemical bond is formed (say, in DNA), a certain amount of energy is released. To break that bond (and cause cancer), you need to put that energy back. The catch is, because of quantum mechanics, the energy can't be accumulated. You can't pile in more and more photons until it finally snaps; you have to get one big photon to come in and snap it. When you state the frequency of a photon source (e.g. 60 GHz), that indicates the energy of each individual photon (0.00024 eV). Typical bonds in DNA are on the order of hundreds of eV. It's physically impossible for this to cause cancer.
Even if you put your cat in a microwave oven, it won't get cancer (though it will die a pretty horrible death).
The danger with electromagnetic waves is heat and depth. UHF electromagnetic waves have far less energy per photon than visible light (~2.5 eV), but they have much greater depth penetration. They go deeper before they collide with your molecules, so they deposit heat deeper into your flesh than visible light or UV radiation. This is why putting your cat in a microwave is very bad; it essentially gets "cooked from the inside out". But the energy outputted by wireless devices is barely enough to cause even measurable changes in the temperature of human flesh. How much heat can you apply to a glass of water with a 1.5 V AA battery? Not much. Now spread that out spherically in a 100 meter radius. Almost zero.
Even then, biological organisms are very good at regulating their temperature; humans live across a wide variety of climates all across Earth, and yet still manage to balance their internal temperature.
Hence, UHF communications are not dangerous.
Re: (Score:2)
I have this weird feeling that pervasive, high frequency radio needed to make wireless work is going to wind up with some unforseen bad side effect, the same way every other technology that we used too much had.
Even if for no reason other than having security of communications, it would be preferable if data were communicated via fiberoptic cable. Bonus points for creating optical transceivers that don't broadcast their signals all over the RF spectrum as a side-effect of operation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The data is not with you. Test after test has dispelled the general myth that all pervasive radiation regardless of characteristics must be bad. If you have something more than general hand-wringing and whining about our fallible nature then please post it.
Re:metric? (Score:4, Informative)
Posted anon cuz you ain't worth the karma.
A long way to go (Score:1)
dialup anyone?