1.5 GB/s Wireless data speeds

[kuroikenshi]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18072618


Researchers in Japan have smashed the record for wireless data transmission in the terahertz band, an uncharted part of the electro-magnetic spectrum.

The data rate is 20 times higher than the best commonly used wi-fi standard.
Despite the name, the band informally makes use of frequencies from about 300 gigahertz (300GHz or about 60 times higher than the current highest wi-fi standard) to about 3THz, 10 times higher again.

[Hornet331]

300-3000ghz... enjoy getting massive drop in signal quality/strength when someone puts a piece of paper between the receiver and transmitter... and ranges even worse then Wlan... probably not more then 20m...

[BeepBeep2]

"Terahertz wi-fi would probably only work over ranges of about 10m, but could in theory support data rates up to 100Gb/s - close to 15 times higher than the next-generation 802.11ac wi-fi standard that is under development."...

[Kallenator]

Gotta say I am not very into Networking peripherals and such, but there seems to me like there is missing development on cheap 1Gb+ cabled Networking? I would have thought fiber would have become more of a standard by now :S
I perfectly understand the cost perspective of this though, WIFI networking is much cheaper than laying down a cable inside a building, and you eliminate the need for having a lot of Switches around aswell.

[randomizer]

So it's like early Bluetooth with a uselessly small range, but with a much, much (much, much, much) higher data rate. If you really need those speeds you're not making a hands-free phone call in your car, so over such a short range I can't see why you wouldn't just use a cable. I suppose researchers need to research something.

[Hornet331]

...

10m... even worse then I thought... :D

[Lightman]

10m is fine .... in Japanese flats :D

Joking aside, this technology will find some uses for sure, just not in a same way as current WiFi.

[Bobsama]

10m forms a 20m diameter circle. That's enough for a small flat though I agree; just run a couple wires. Regardless, the question will be material penetration.

[deathman20]

Thats 65ft Dia Circle... that will be roughly 3,323 SqFt Thats good for most homes in the US if centrally located... course that probably only work on a single floor. Still that sucks figure they would of increased range or at least penetration of the signal a little more.

[MadHacker]

add a few repeaters and it would work well in a multi level large house.

[crash5s]

So it's like early Bluetooth with a uselessly small range, but with a much, much (much, much, much) higher data rate. If you really need those speeds you're not making a hands-free phone call in your car, so over such a short range I can't see why you wouldn't just use a cable. I suppose researchers need to research something.

Because your average consumer hates wires. Given a choice between wired and wireless they'll take wireless every time even if it comes with substantial downsides. My apartment building complex has comcast or verizon depending on which of the four buildings you are in. It's FIOS and the fast comcast so the speeds are very good. All they do is come in, set up the box, connect it to your TV and poof that's it. Because nobody uses wires at all. Most people are using tablets (only wireless) or laptops (a lot of newer ones ditch ethernet and all have wireless) for their computers now. And on the remote chance they were broke enough to get stuck with a desktop, those have wifi options as well. Blue tooth player, that's wireless as well, gaming consoles ditto.

Most people don't like dealing with cables, that's all there is too it. Furthermore it's more common for a lot of consumer devices to lack ethernet than it is for them to lack wifi.

Now granted it's pretty stupid to pay for FIOS speeds and configure a home media network with movies and all that over wifi, but this is what most people are doing. On the Street Fighter forums we are forever screaming at people for this. Plug the damn ethernet cable into your console if you are playing games, wifi sucks. But people just hate cables.

[deathman20]

Because your average consumer hates wires. Given a choice between wired and wireless they'll take wireless every time even if it comes with substantial downsides. My apartment building complex has comcast or verizon depending on which of the four buildings you are in. It's FIOS and the fast comcast so the speeds are very good. All they do is come in, set up the box, connect it to your TV and poof that's it. Because nobody uses wires at all. Most people are using tablets (only wireless) or laptops (a lot of newer ones ditch ethernet and all have wireless) for their computers now. And on the remote chance they were broke enough to get stuck with a desktop, those have wifi options as well. Blue tooth player, that's wireless as well, gaming consoles ditto.

Most people don't like dealing with cables, that's all there is too it. Furthermore it's more common for a lot of consumer devices to lack ethernet than it is for them to lack wifi.

Now granted it's pretty stupid to pay for FIOS speeds and configure a home media network with movies and all that over wifi, but this is what most people are doing. On the Street Fighter forums we are forever screaming at people for this. Plug the damn ethernet cable into your console if you are playing games, wifi sucks. But people just hate cables.

If the speeds where there I'd as well get rid of cables myself and locate the modem near the cable in on the house. Have everything in a nice little spot and de-clutter my desk area. Though it HAS to have the speeds of what im getting on my wired connection or at very least close too.

[Manicdan]

10m cable is like 5$
why pay hundreds for the wifi version of that

we still have issues with really expensive routers that cannot transmit a signal through a floor or across an office. lets fix the signal problem first, then worry about speeds.

[MadHacker]

10m cable is like 5$
if your in a rental... then there is the costs of drilling holes and patching them up afterwards when you move.
for work enviroments, how much do you think it costs network guys to run wires to all the PC's?
probably more then the new fast WIFI, but thats a guess....

why pay hundreds for the wifi version of that
initially prices will be high, but as supply & demand increases, prices will drop
only new adopters pay the really high prices.

we still have issues with really expensive routers that cannot transmit a signal through a floor or across an office. lets fix the signal problem first, then worry about speeds.
get a repeater in every room of the house, or every part of the office, then the signal problem won't be an issue.
I run gigabit wired network through my house, and only reason i did this was because WIFI speeds were to slow.
if there was an option to run WIFI at acceptable speeds i would have went with that.

[Manicdan]

if your in a rental... then there is the costs of drilling holes and patching them up afterwards when you move.
for work enviroments, how much do you think it costs network guys to run wires to all the PC's?
probably more then the new fast WIFI, but thats a guess....

initially prices will be high, but as supply & demand increases, prices will drop
only new adopters pay the really high prices.

get a repeater in every room of the house, or every part of the office, then the signal problem won't be an issue.
I run gigabit wired network through my house, and only reason i did this was because WIFI speeds were to slow.
if there was an option to run WIFI at acceptable speeds i would have went with that.

your mixing things i think.
this thing is good for a very short range, like across a room. if i have the router in the center of the house and its good for UP TO 10m, then i know for a fact that it wont get any decent signal through any kind of wall, meaning you can just use a wire to go across the room and ignore this technology.


wireless N is what im talking about for the rest when i refer to the issues. at our office we had to get a really nice business class wifi to go through just 2 walls (a hallway splits our office into an H shape). but even with that really nice router that i believe was 600$, the signal sucks and were reduced to low speeds. that same wireless router cannot give a strong signal for more than 50ft in an open floor plan. it does work better than a typical 50$ router, but its still weak unless your practically under it.

this is where i think they need to fix things before they brag about speeds. real homes have walls and floors and people do not always get to choose where the center point should be.

[Sparky]

Gotta say I am not very into Networking peripherals and such, but there seems to me like there is missing development on cheap 1Gb+ cabled Networking? I would have thought fiber would have become more of a standard by now :S
I perfectly understand the cost perspective of this though, WIFI networking is much cheaper than laying down a cable inside a building, and you eliminate the need for having a lot of Switches around aswell.

The only real extra cost to using gigabit vs 100 Mbit networking is the switches. Cat5e is perfectly cable of gigabit speeds, heck even the old cat5 can do it for short distances.

Fiber isn't good for general use because it is too sensitive to dust, dirt, and scratches on the ends and kinks instantly kill it. Given that copper doesn't have the same downsides and can do gigabit speeds just fine there isn't a need for fiber for general use.

Cabled networking is always going to be more consistent and more reliable than wireless. Installation may cost more, but in a corporate environment the long term matters more. Oh, and if you have VOIP phones you don't really want to use them over a wifi connection :p:

[MadHacker]

your mixing things i think.
this thing is good for a very short range, like across a room. if i have the router in the center of the house and its good for UP TO 10m, then i know for a fact that it wont get any decent signal through any kind of wall, meaning you can just use a wire to go across the room and ignore this technology.


wireless N is what im talking about for the rest when i refer to the issues. at our office we had to get a really nice business class wifi to go through just 2 walls (a hallway splits our office into an H shape). but even with that really nice router that i believe was 600$, the signal sucks and were reduced to low speeds. that same wireless router cannot give a strong signal for more than 50ft in an open floor plan. it does work better than a typical 50$ router, but its still weak unless your practically under it.

this is where i think they need to fix things before they brag about speeds. real homes have walls and floors and people do not always get to choose where the center point should be.
if you have 1 wireless router on one side of the 2 walls, and a repeater on the other side then that would fix your problems.
Using a point to point antena could also increase signal from router to repeater.
alternatively run a single wire from one side of the H to the other.
what u have to realize is that the router & repeater would have to be in a straight line between the walls to minimize the wall thickness.
a wall that is 6" thick can have a signal go through easily when the signal is traveling at 90deg through the wall.
at at 45Deg angle the signal is going through the wall would result in having to go through a 12" wall. (my math sucks so 12" is just a guesstimate)
so someone at the far end of the office could have the eqivilant of a 12 foot thick wall to receive the signal.

to increase the singal strength for the machine in my sons room i use a 8 dBi Antenna, this improve the signal some, but Wifi is still slow copying a 4GB file.

[BeepBeep2]

10m cable is like 5$
why pay hundreds for the wifi version of that

we still have issues with really expensive routers that cannot transmit a signal through a floor or across an office. lets fix the signal problem first, then worry about speeds.
Where do you find a 10m 10 GB/s+ cable for $5?

[STEvil]

if you have 1 wireless router on one side of the 2 walls, and a repeater on the other side then that would fix your problems.
Using a point to point antena could also increase signal from router to repeater.
alternatively run a single wire from one side of the H to the other.
what u have to realize is that the router & repeater would have to be in a straight line between the walls to minimize the wall thickness.
a wall that is 6" thick can have a signal go through easily when the signal is traveling at 90deg through the wall.
at at 45Deg angle the signal is going through the wall would result in having to go through a 12" wall. (my math sucks so 12" is just a guesstimate)
so someone at the far end of the office could have the eqivilant of a 12 foot thick wall to receive the signal.

to increase the singal strength for the machine in my sons room i use a 8 dBi Antenna, this improve the signal some, but Wifi is still slow copying a 4GB file.

A/B/G/N/etc, sure, but not this frequency range.

[Sparky]

Where do you find a 10m 10 GB/s+ cable for $5?

We're talking gigabit (Gb), not gigabyte (GB) here :p: cat5e is perfectly capable of gigabit.

But even if we were talking about 10 gigabit speeds, 10m of cat6 is still going to be a heck of a lot cheaper than this wifi equipment, and this wifi doesn't do 10 Gb/s anyway.

[Hornet331]

Where do you find a 10m 10 GB/s+ cable for $5?

I can get 100M for cat7 for 50€... :D
And for short distances even cat6 is enough with you can get for 25€/100M

Cheapest 10m double shielded Cat6 premade is ~3€...

But considering its also possible to do 10GBase-T over Cat5e (up to 45m) you don't even need to switch cables, just switches/routers and thats the real expensive part... switches with 10Gbase-T are like 2,5K€ +...

[MadHacker]

the only downside of 10GBase-T is that it the NIC card costs $500+

[[XC] Synthetickiller]

the only downside of 10GBase-T is that it the NIC card costs $500+

That's the main issue. I wanted to do 10Gbit Ethernet when I wired my home. This was the cost issue. The cabling cost was ok, but $500+ for the NIC itself hurts.

Why hasn't this technology become affordable? 1Gbit seems old, all things considered. There's 40Gbit exists now. :shrug:

[MadHacker]

Almost every PC in my house has dual NICs so i'm thinking of going network teaming so get 2Gbit connections. downside is i need a new switch to support it.
primarly i just was a faster connection to my server...
if i new more about networking i'd install a cheep network 1Gbit card for internet comunication and the rest of the house and then just connect the 2 onboard NICs directly to my server.
I just don't know how to prioritize the communication so that server comunication would go through the teamed connection instead of the cheap add on card i would use.