SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
D-Link and Redmond have put the paddles on 802.11af, charged the machine, and hit the button.
The 2013 amendment to Wi-Fi is an air interface for "white space" frequencies (from 54 MHz to 698 MHz in the USA; Europe and the UK use a more realistic 490 to 790 MHz), with a maximum per-channel 35.6 Mbps (16 channels can be bonded together to get nearly 600 Mbps).
It's primarily a point-to-point link service rather than a user-access technology, and so it doesn't interfere with TV transmissions, 802.11af uses a cognitive radio to sense other spectrum users, and a localisation database to keep track of broadcasters.
Data rate, however, isn't the main story: compared to 2.4 GHz, TV frequencies cover a lot of ground, and that's the angle D-Link and Microsoft are touting.
The standard is designed for links up to 1 km in range, the kind of reach that 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi can only manage with a cantenna.
The two want to use 802.11af for rural/regional services in underserved areas, with a phase-one pilot currently underway in the US.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday November 27 2016, @01:07AM
It's primarily a point-to-point link service rather than a user-access technology, and so it doesn't interfere with TV transmissions
Ok, so who precisely benefits from this, if not the consumer? And why does it matter who is using it, with regard to interference?
If it is in Digital TV space, and it keeps track of other users, that means it has very limited application. Because as it avoids one user, it is sure to step on another user somewhere along that 1 km in range. The only reason this works with regular wifi is due to the short range of regular wifi.
You don't need to avoid the guy two streets over when all you are interested in is 90 feet. But when you want a mile, you have to worry about a two mile diameter around each end of the link. The number of such links sounds like it could be pretty limited.
The whole thing sounds like a corporate spectrum grab to me.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday December 01 2016, @12:36AM
Only if it's an omnidirectional antenna, which may be why they say this is specifically designed for point-to-point links. In that case they can use directional antennas so you basically only need to worry about interference directly between the two points.
A lot of places have short range microwave links, often for moving data between two buildings on the same campus. If this is cheaper or more effective, that's a good market.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday December 03 2016, @12:43AM
A lot of places have short range microwave links, often for moving data between two buildings on the same campus. If this is cheaper or more effective, that's a good market.
Except microwave is licensed and channels aren't free for the taking whether they are occupied or not.
This becomes a spectrum grab the minute one of these guys figures out that they are getting stomped on by the guy near by with a bigger pringles can. Expect lawyers. Then permanent allocation demands.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday December 05 2016, @09:30PM
Why is the guy sending data to YOUR building? Because if he's sending data to his own building, there shouldn't be much interference since it seems to be directional and relatively short range. I just don't see there being enough demand for low power point-to-point wireless links to create those kinds of issues.
In fact, you can get the same range -- and orders of magnitude more -- with regular unamplified wifi. But people still manage to use Wifi just fine, there's occasional interference issues but it certainly hasn't had the kinds of problems you describe. And unlike wifi, this one isn't likely to be much use to the average home user, so you won't have entire apartment complexes packed full of the things broadcasting 24/7.