WiFi Transfer Rate at 4.6 Gbps on 60Ghz coming in 2015

[w2xq]

Samsung projects 4x faster transfer rate over current WiFi standard.

BBC News - Samsung accelerates wi-fi speeds

Where have you gone, Speedy Gonzales?

 

[CapStar362]

6 0 GHz? do we even have a band for that?

not Six GHZ 6 dot 0 GHz but SIXTY 60 GHz .... ?

 

[mmckenna]

6 0 GHz? do we even have a band for that?

not Six GHZ 6 dot 0 GHz but SIXTY 60 GHz .... ?

Yes. We've got 80GHz point to point network radios running at work. 1gb throughput. Not WiFi, but point to point.

 

[CapStar362]

jesus christ 80GHz what do they call that??

nvm i found it:

E and W Bands topping out @ 100GHz

 

[w2xq]

Frankly, I would like to buy some Samsung shares, but -- as Barron's featured this week -- it is difficult for USA retail investors to buy. No ADRs for the American market. Samsung has certainly taken the consumer market from SONY in recent years.

If Samsung is pushing the WiFi envelope, I wonder what Cisco is up to? $CSCO shareholders could use a good bump.

 

[mancow]

jesus christ 80GHz what do they call that??

nvm i found it:

E and W Bands topping out @ 100GHz

Might as well go laser at that rate!

 

[WB4CS]

4.6 Gbps transfer rate and the average US household WAN (internet) connection is still somewhere between 15 - 30 Mbps.

Networking rule #1: Your network is only as fast as your slowest link. It doesn't matter if your internal LAN runs at 10 Gbps, if your WAN to the internet is only 30 Mbps, you'll never get more than 30 Mbps transfer rate from the internet.

Sure, a high speed LAN is good for internal file sharing, backing up to an internal backup server, or streaming media from a local device to a local device, but for web browsing and streaming media from the internet it doesn't make a bit of difference how fast your LAN is. The only caveat to that is if you have multiple (and I mean 10+) devices all using your max WAN speed, having a faster connection between your LAN to WAN (meaning, from your router to the internet modem) will help from having a bottleneck in your network, but that's about it.

I think it's great to create faster transfer speeds, but until the average home internet connection exceeds 100 Mbps, spending money on a 4.6 Gbps wireless router is a waste of money for the average home user. Or course, Best Buy employees will tell their customers that it will make their internet "go very fast." LOL

 

[CapStar362]

being i use full Gigabit on my wired and wireless and my WAN is 120/20 Comcast and shows a average of 10-11.4 Mbps throughput down and usually around 1.4-1.9 Mbps on up ... i've got all that covered.

the full Gigabit is established through a Gigabit DPC3008 Cable modem WAN > LAN Cat 6 cable to the Smoothwall box which utilizes dual Gigabit PCI Cards. one for WAN - LAN traffic, and then the second is the LAN - Switch downward into the individual 2x Dual band AP's the 16 port Managed Gigabit Switch for all the Wired parts which are: 3 rooms, the office itself with 2 PC's and a Lexmark laser network and 1 of the AP's . everything else becomes WiFi on either 2.4 or 5Ghz.

QoS is in effect for all devices in the home. Guest devices get assigned 768kb down and 128 Kb up. and every thing else is almost equally assigned.

i can top my 120/20 easily. there are at least 6 PC's, 3 Smart TV's, 3 cell phones, 2 PS3's and 3 laptops in the house. but the tight QoS rules makes it easy to prohibit that. Smoothwall does a MUCH better job than the average router for enforcing QoS rules.

i am looking into the day Google 1Gbit net comes to my area. but for now, the Comcast 120/20 is king of the area. even U-Verse cant touch it which im reading a max for U-Verse of 62Mbps, nor Charter in the next county.

 

[WB4CS]

QoS does well for a home network.

I've had good luck with separating my network into VLANs and creating Access Control Lists that only allow streaming media devices access to my media server. By separating my high traffic devices (streaming media) from my PC, I've had much better performance than I did when everything was connected to the same network.

I use a Cisco 1921 router and Cisco 2960 switch, connected together with a 1 Gbps link. Asus RT-N66U set up as a wireless access point (no routing) and connected to switch via 1 Gbps link. Wired devices (desktop and media server) connected via 100 Mbps.

Even with my media server being on 100 Mbps connection, I have no issues streaming full 1080p HD videos from the media server to the TV, while other wireless users are streaming Pandora/Netfilx, etc.

In other words, 100 Mbps is still plenty of bandwidth I'm sure someday we'll reach a point where a 1 Gbps (or even 4 Gbps) LAN will be necessary, but for now most homes just don't need that much internal bandwidth.

And yes, the network diagram is totally just for showing off. I've been going through Cisco certifications and using network simulators quite a bit here recently.

 

[CapStar362]

you know i was toying the idea of VLAN's gonna get around to it eventually.

brutal honesty here.... i LOVE with the biggest passion the plugin for Smoothwall that does a "returned favor" for any DoS/DDoS and even the new MDDoS attacks.

it will autonomously create a VLAN for your LAN> WAN traffic. and kill the original IP table. so in effect, if a DOS is detected it quietly dumps a returned DOS back to its source without interrupting your net traffic.

 

[Elfnetdesigns]

I have some 60, 80 and 100 GHz radios and antennas here that are scheduled to be installed this coming summer for a local hospital.

 

[CapStar362]

and what do they need that kind of RF for?


just curious

 

[Cameron314]

and what do they need that kind of RF for?


just curious

Millimeter wave radios like that are used for high capacity, short haul point to point links.

 

[CapStar362]

cant think of what would need "THAT" much high capacity at a hospital. most telemetry systems barely use what? 50Mb? for the rooms medical data monitoring and various systems for patient data..

 

[mmckenna]

Large file transfers, server backups, research, etc. It can add up quick.

 

[CapStar362]

most i did was Airmed... wouldn't server backups be done locally at the server's machine itself in form of Tape or the new Blu-Ray M-Disc? never heard of back-ups done OTA over any medium involving wireless, too much possibility of errors.

i can see research and MAYBE large transfers.... but to a modern Ethernet of Gigabit capability, that is like pennies to data sizes.

 

[mmckenna]

We do a lot of "off site" server backups. They'll automatically run late at night, pushing specific files out to a separate system. With a properly designed system, errors are not an issue
Most of the time the amount of data is only a fraction of the link capacity. The commercial grade radios are getting harder to find in slower speeds. We're looking at replacing a number of our links, and 480mbps is about the slowest links we are seeing. Most of the newer ones push closer to 1 gig.

 

[prcguy]

60GHz is interesting because its very limited range due to being absorbed by oxygen molecules. The military uses 60GHz for short range covert comms because the enemy can't pick it up very far away no matter how big their monitoring antenna is. Its fine for in home use but you won't see any long range stuff.

60GHz is also used between some military satellites where its not affected in space and cannot be heard down here. In my aerospace days I worked on systems at 40 and 90GHz, the waveguide is tiny but otherwise no big deal.
prcguy

 

[mmckenna]

I've often heard it referred to as the "Oxygen Band". We use it for short hops between leased buildings. We can't pull fiber between them, so a short hop high bandwidth link works well. We use them for linking back to locations where we have 10 gigabit "DecaMAN" connections or direct fiber links.

 

[CapStar362]

totally new info for me