And what are we downloading? Is the cloud dead? Why do i need 15gbps on my phone? Is it made for consoles and their relentless 120gb patches?
Wifi 15 gigabytes per second — Researchers demo invention
Submitted 2 weeks ago by heyWhatsay@slrpnk.net to technology@lemmy.world
Comments
Oisteink@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
undefined@lemmy.hogru.ch 2 weeks ago
In the US we’ll do anything but build fiber with the billions we tossed at the telecom industry.
BluescreenOfDeath@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Putting fiber in the ground is expensive. I work for an ISP, and we estimate fiber overbuild costs at $15/ft. So a mile of underground fiber costs about $79,200.
heyWhatsay@slrpnk.net 2 weeks ago
One example I’ve read, was to remotely drive autonomous vehicles, and feed back all data collected from cameras and sensors. I’m not a fan of it being used this way, but it would mostly serve that kind of purpose.
cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de 2 weeks ago
For home use, all I can think of is wireless video. 15 GB/s is faster than the fastest DisplayPort or HDMI versions. It could handle any resolution and refresh rate currently in use without any compression. That would be useful for VR headsets since they need low latency.
Oisteink@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Yeah - that covers about 1/100000 users
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
Big data needs that, so it can spy you better.
FauxLiving@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Everything, no, to move data quicker, no
msage@programming.dev 2 weeks ago
VR headset streaming video from PC without cables.
n3m37h@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
1.5gb/s is way more than enough for the average person. Hell, 200Mb/s is more than enough. That would only be 10 min.
DSN9@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
The distribution of all human knowledge, untampered.
potatogamer@ttrpg.network 2 weeks ago
More bandwidth available for users means more people can do more things on the internet and at a higher quality.
If cell phone speeds are high enough, then we should be able to transition from wired internet which is not available to a lot of people to only using cell networks.
NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
For phones / portables, assuming it doesn’t draw more power, it would mean shorter download times, which means less battery usage.
Peruvian_Skies@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
“Assuming it doesn’t draw more power” has got to be the proboem here, right? I don’t know much about wireless technology but from a purely physical stabdpoint, faster signals means higher frequencies, which means higher energies, which means more draw from the battery. Yes, shorter active time means less draw, but it’s like that swiss cheese joke:
Swiss cheese has holes. More cheese = more holes More holes = less cheese Therefore, More cheese = less cheese.
kalleboo@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Laptops have all but taken over from desktops for everything but AAA gaming. New houses are still built with zero Ethernet because “the internet is Wi-Fi right?”
People are using their laptops to edit video off of a NAS, MacBooks can run 100 GB LLMs. Heck even non-AAA games are many gigabytes.
eleijeep@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
Paper: https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10584545
40GHz bandwidth LOL
lornosaj@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I genuinely want to understand why is that funny? Is it unachievable for consumer electronics or…?
eleijeep@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
Well it’s a couple of things.
First off, a wireless transmission speed of 120Gbps sounds really impressive but remember from the Shannon-Hartley theorem that the maximum channel capacity is just a function of bandwidth and SNR. This means that you can get an arbitrarily high transmission speed by increasing bandwidth to an obscene amount and/or by increasing SNR (by transmitting at an obscenely high transmission power).
In the paper they say that the transmit power was 15 dBm which is a normal transmit power for WiFi, so it’s the 40GHz bandwidth that’s doing the heavy lifting in allowing that data rate.
The second thing is that WiFi 6 (for example) uses 1.2 GHz of bandwidth in the 6GHz range, divided into seven non-overlapping 160MHz channels. WiFi 5 uses about nine 80MHz channels in the 5GHz range, and so on. So if you want to use the technology demonstrated in the paper for WiFi (as the headline of the article is suggesting) then you’d need a bunch of 40GHz channels in the higher ~200-300 GHz range which would be in the very high microwave range, bordering on far infra-red!
If you want to imagine how useful that would be, just think about how useful your infra-red TV remote is. You would only be able to do line-of-sight point-to-point links at that frequency.
IR point-to-point links already exist, and the silicon they invented for this paper is impressive, but the hype around it being a possible future WiFi standard doesn’t really hold up to basic inspection.
Canadian_Cabinet@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
Until I can get internet options faster than 50Mbps in my area I don’t understand why we’re trying to get higher and higher upper limits on speed
Fizz@lemmy.nz 2 weeks ago
WiFi is getting so good but i kinda dont want it to. I like wiring up the computers in my house but now its like WiFi is good enough it doesnt provide any advantages.
n3m37h@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
The triangle of compromise
Speed
Bandwidth
Range
You cant have all 3. Just like manufacturing
felixwhynot@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
To be fair most wifi is used within homes or businesses these days so I would simply sacrifice range — as long as the minimum range is reasonable
ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 2 weeks ago
The issue will be less about “range” and more about being able to go through a wall. Higher frequency makes for shorter radio waves that are closer together. The more this is done, the less it can go through solid objects and still be decipherable.
It’s like a sound wave. That big low frequency bass sound can shake your walls while playing from in your neighbors house. You can’t make out or hear a single word being sung, though. Frequency is too high to make it through to you.
This tech can be nicely used for wireless VR and maybe a couple other things that need to move data at super low latency at a local level, but beyond that, it will be kind of useless for anything over the next decade.
n3m37h@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
5G mm wave can be blocked by paper ffs, range doesnt matter if a leaf can block the line of sight. Idk why we can use the low bandwidth long range 900-1200mhz and just use an array of atenna send out multiple channels to increase bandwidth. I’d prefer range over bandwidth I wont utilize
frongt@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
Speed and bandwidth are the same thing. Power is the other side of that triangle.
But that ignores encoding, and other tricks like signal shaping, frequency multiplexing, and all kinds of fun stuff. Wireless data transmission is complicated. For example: en.wikipedia.org/…/Quadrature_amplitude_modulatio…
BassTurd@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Speed and bandwidth correlate but aren’t the same. Bandwidth is the amount of data that can pass through a medium and speed is the transmission rate. If you have a gig connection and one device, you can get close to gig speeds. If you have the same gig connection with 1000 devices saturating the medium, you aren’t likely to get gig speeds.
n3m37h@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
Sorry ment power, bandwidth, range