More new WiFi standards?? (802.11ac, Broadcom "5G")

[VirtualLarry]

I saw this posted in another thread here on AT.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5293/broadcom-announces-family-of-80211ac-chipsets-5g-wifi-brand

Looks like new standards and chipsets for WiFi by Broadcom? More megabits? More incompatibilities? More stuff to upgrade?

Edit: Wikipedia link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11ac

Look good on paper, we'll have to see how well they work in practice, and how compatible and how bad they are affected by interference.

If I can truely get a 1Gbit+ wireless link (shown on the chart on WP with 2ant AP and 2ant STA), then I'll be really happy. I can finally stream multiple HD streams from my NAS (12MB/sec), or my upcoming server (60-80MB/sec).

Edit: Only problem is, I would want DD-WRT support, or at least factory firmware support for multi-AP WDS modes, WITH WPA/WPA2 encryption. Current Netgear WNR2000v1 units do support repeating, but only with WEP or NO encryption, which is totally unacceptable in this day and age.

http://www.techradar.com/news/networking/wi-fi/802-11ac-what-you-need-to-know-1059194

Apparently, Buffalo has already demonstrated this new tech.

Here's hoping for a Buffalo 802.11ac router/AP that supports 1.3Gbit streams, and DD-WRT from the factory!

 

[IGemini]

I'll just say it: 11n is a flop. I mean 2.4GHz N is an okay speed bump from 11g assuming your air traffic isn't already congested in that frequency, but the 5GHz band simply hasn't sunk in. Even though there may be "enough" routers that support 5GHz, I have a hard time counting on one hand the number of adapters that do the same--and even then 2-3 of those adapters will outstrip the cost of the router. Forget incompatibilities, the hardware just isn't there. It's also ridiculously prone to wireless interference on the lower band and physical interference in the upper. The standard was in development for a decade, in circulation for half of that and it still hasn't hit full-stride while still coming up short in high-bandwidth performance. It's time for the next generation.

Whether 11ac will succeed where 11n failed, time will tell.

 

[theevilsharpie]

It's hard to call 802.11n a flop when practically all modern wireless equipment supports it.

 

[Modelworks]

I don't see it being an answer because it doesn't address what the problem is with the current standards, not enough frequencies in high density areas. I have one of the redpine signals modules but I didn't do anything with it till about 2 days ago. It is going to take me some time to get it up and running with a controller chip and work out all the spi command stuff. I have it loading the firmware and starting up but that is as far as I got.

The answer I think is using lower frequencies not higher ones so that penetration isn't so much an issue. There is an abundance of space in the unused tv channels for every city and I think the future will be the new trials that are going on in Wilmington, NC right now for using that spectrum. For example in wilmington only 500-700Mhz is being used for tv stations, the rest of the spectrum 210-450 and 704-884 are free to use for the new wireless . That is 400Mhz of bandwidth without doing any bit compression or manipulation, way more than that if you use systems used in 2.4Ghz . The main issue is that at these frequencies the signal carries a long way, a router with the same power output we have now for 2.4ghz at 210Mhz would carry for over a mile easily, through trees, buildings, etc. It is going to be VERY easy to abuse, someone who now adds an external antenna to their router might annoy the house next door. If that same person does that with a 210Mhz unit they are going to annoy everyone for miles.

 

[spidey07]

It's hard to call 802.11n a flop when practically all modern wireless equipment supports it.

Really. In business it's all about 5 Ghz high performance N. It's the 2.4 Ghz band that's the flop - too crowded, too noisy. I don't know where's he's coming from. 802.11n is huge in terms of deployment and wide spread adoption.

 

[blackangst1]

I don't see it being an answer because it doesn't address what the problem is with the current standards, not enough frequencies in high density areas.

THIS.

 

[IGemini]

Yeah, my greater point was throwing so much behind congested 2.4 that's already swamped with other wireless devices like bluetooth, telephones, 11g etc. 5GHz just doesn't have a lot of supporting consumer hardware. Was trying to not catch a fever last night, wasn't as coherent as I liked to be.

 

[VirtualLarry]

The main issue is that at these frequencies the signal carries a long way, a router with the same power output we have now for 2.4ghz at 210Mhz would carry for over a mile easily, through trees, buildings, etc. It is going to be VERY easy to abuse, someone who now adds an external antenna to their router might annoy the house next door. If that same person does that with a 210Mhz unit they are going to annoy everyone for miles.

This would actually be ideal for a metro-area mesh network-type setup. Imagine a parallel "internet", that couldn't be shut down by the feds, because it is controlled by users.

 

[spidey07]

This would actually be ideal for a metro-area mesh network-type setup. Imagine a parallel "internet", that couldn't be shut down by the feds, because it is controlled by users.

It's a terrible idea. The bandwidth/capacity would be terrible. There's a reason higher frequencies are used for higher speed.

 

[mammador]

For enterprises, maybe. But for home users, 600Mb is way more than enough bandwidth. How many ISPs actually sell 600 Megabits per second of bandwidth? Maybe to enterprises, that's it.

 

[Modelworks]

This would actually be ideal for a metro-area mesh network-type setup. Imagine a parallel "internet", that couldn't be shut down by the feds, because it is controlled by users.

The limit is 10Mbps on each channel with a possible 84 channels . Each channel uses 6Mhz of space and you are not allowed to divide that 6Mhz space up for multiple devices, you have to use another 6Mhz space. That doesn't mean devices cannot use the same channels , just that you cannot assign 2Mhz of a channel for one device and 4Mhz for another, you have to take the whole 6Mhz or nothing when using a channel so the width of channels is not variable.

The one advantage this tech has is the frequency used has a very high SNR meaning loss of packets is rare so the throughput is very consistent. It doesn't change like 2.4Ghz where your download starts at 54Mbps and fluctuates down to 10Mbps and then back up because something blocked the path or a microwave was turned on. Consider the length of the wave at 210Mhz is almost 4ft, 2.4Ghz is less than 1ft that is a lot of obstacles it can penetrate.