The triangle of compromise
SpeedPower
Bandwidth
RangeYou cant have all 3. Just like manufacturing
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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrature_amplitude_modulation
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.
Sorry ment power, bandwidth, range
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
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.
yeah but this wifi you can only use in one room …
I’d shell out for a multi router array that would give me these insane speeds if my ISP would offer me those speeds. A router in every room isn’t an impossibility if what you get out of it makes it worth it
I would use this for streaming games from a wired PC to a device that’s wireless. Not having to run a wire is magical.
i imagine a use-case for vr headsets
I mean, no kidding. Þere are any number is use cases for getting rid of wires. Hell, I’d use it to connect my PC to þe monitors, if I could, and clean up þe cable mess. But streaming from þe home media server to a TV? No brainer. Also, even if þe single-room comment is accurate, daisy chain. Þe only real show stopper would be if it were line-of-sight.
also don’t need 15 GBps (120gbps) for every day use, so some of that bandwidth can be sacrificed for better range. ultra high speed hdmi is 48gbps.
Wireless 4k 120hz streaming from my PC to TV would be pretty sweet. I can run a cable if i really wanted… but this would be easier. It’s still more than that, but getting that would be sweet.
Yeah I wonder if they can use the same configuration to improve bandwidth at frequencies that penetrate walls, people and things better
and cant be standing between the device and router…
It’s definitely a niche product. Most people don’t even need gig speeds.
I don’t think this is a product yet … more like a technical solution for building a power efficient modulation at high frequency. Gigabit speeds are great but the band they are sitting in is mostly useless unless you have line of sight.
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
Tried to fact check this but I can’t find evidence that 5g can be blocked by paper. Looks like it’s in 24-28ghz and while it can be blocked with materials the density matters. So maybe like a few books thick of paper but not one sheet?
Was being hyperbolic m8. The human body will block mmwave
Well the spectrum between 900MHz and 1.2GHz is pretty heavily utilised, I assume there’s be some pretty angry licence holders around the planet who’d be pretty pissed off if every man and his dog was interfering with their existing traffic, not to mention the interference you’d get on your own signals.
I would probably add “transmit power” in there somewhere, but I guess if you’re assuming regulatory limits then it’s not a big variable.
yeah, I was thinking of the manufacturing triangle, Speed, Cost, Quality, when I was thinking up of what it would be for wifi lol
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?
For phones / portables, assuming it doesn’t draw more power, it would mean shorter download times, which means less battery usage.
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.
Big data needs that, so it can spy you better.
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.
Yeah - that covers about 1/100000 users
I’m pretty sure anyone using an HDMI cable could appreciate having no cables except power.
On the flip side, if you still need a power cable anyway, it’s usually way cheaper to bundle the media (and optionally control/network) signals into the same cable than using wireless. (Sidenote: Honestly it’s kinda weird to me that we haven’t seen hardly any of this in consumer spaces. The newer USB-C revisions could easily supply power, display, audio, and network to the average TV over one cable.)
Now, with true wireless power (I’m thinking of this video in particular), that proposition can change dramatically.
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.
In the US we’ll do anything but build fiber with the billions we tossed at the telecom industry.
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.
Yup. That’s why we gave them all that money years ago to do it. It was cheaper then too.
Everything, no, to move data quicker, no
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.
