Li-Fi, Light-Based Networking Standard Released

[Fnord]

Summary

Today, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) has added 802.11bb as a standard for light-based wireless communications. The publishing of the standard has been welcomed by global Li-Fi businesses, as it will help speed the rollout and adoption of the data-transmission technology standard.

 

Quotes

Quote

Advantages of using light rather than radio frequencies (RF) are highlighted by Li-Fi proponents including pureLiFi, Fraunhofer HHI, and the Light Communications 802.11bb Task Group. Li-Fi is said to deliver “faster, more reliable wireless communications with unparalleled security compared to conventional technologies such as Wi-Fi and 5G.” Now that the IEEE 802.11bb Li-Fi standard has been released, it is hoped that interoperability between Li-Fi systems with the successful Wi-Fi will be fully addressed.

 

My thoughts

My initial thoughts on this were quite skeptical. The obvious downside is that it's 100% line of sight. Put your phone in your pocket and the data connection is gone. But then I looked around the pureLiFi site and did some digging. It's not meant to replace WiFi. It's more of an adjunct to WiFi. If someone like Philips could start integrating this into their smart bulbs, I can see this as completely alleviating the dead zone problem in buildings. And frankly, it's kind of cool as a concept that the light bulbs in your home could also provide high-bandwidth data.

 

Most of the pureLiFi site is dedicated to system integrators and OEMs, but this page has a more consumer-based vision:
https://www.purelifi.com/products/lifihome/

 

Sources

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/li-fi-standard-released

[Taf the Ghost]

I was expecting a Photonics post rather than a Over the Air communications standard post. Interesting.

 

There's actually a lot of business case uses for direct line of sight communications, with some home-type applications. The major thing being they wouldn't be competing with wireless spectrums. 

[Doobeedoo]

Saw this lately. Interesting indeed, really anything light-based.

[Needfuldoer]

What's old is new again!

[jagdtigger]

18 minutes ago, Needfuldoer said:

What's old is new again!

Just came here to say the same thing....

[Silverflame]

Maybe I'm missing something, but could you not eavesdrop on LiFi connections with, for example, a telephoto lens and an IR camera? In private homes, this might be less of a concern, but if you're in a glass-/window-covered sky-scraper office, will it be a concern?

[Alex Atkin UK]

7 minutes ago, Silverflame said:

Maybe I'm missing something, but could you not eavesdrop on LiFi connections with, for example, a telephoto lens and an IR camera? In private homes, this might be less of a concern, but if you're in a glass-/window-covered sky-scraper office, will it be a concern?

To a degree, but its obviously going to still be encrypted like WiFi and is going to be harder to get a clean signal due to reflections and diffusion.  There would be many rooms in businesses with no Windows at all so it would be impossible for it spill out of the building.

[Zodiark1593]

Wonder how much data can be put through a 790 THz connection?

[Avocado Diaboli]

While it sounds stupid at first glance, I kinda like the idea of a wireless transmit system that's effectively contained within your own walls and can't be intercepted by anyone outside. Would make something like home automation much more palatable if I knew my devices are only connected to things within my own 4 walls running software that I host locally with nary a chance of someone messing with it.

[da na]

So... IR found on every mid 90s-late 00s electronic device?

I'm imagining wifi routers with lasers shining into a glass chiliagon (1000 side shape) in order to disseminate the light network. 

[Beskamir]

B-but what are radiowaves and microwaves if not light?

[williamcll]

Only slightly better than high frequency WiFi since both can't pass through walls.

[HenrySalayne]

IT'S BACK. INFRARED RETURNED.

 

18 hours ago, Fnord said:

If someone like Philips could start integrating this into their smart bulbs, I can see this as completely alleviating the dead zone problem in buildings. And frankly, it's kind of cool as a concept that the light bulbs in your home could also provide high-bandwidth data.

They didn't built LiFi into a bulb, they built an AP fitting into a GU10 downlight cutout in a suspended ceiling. That's not really impressive TBH. The very same thing could be done with any WiFi AP - it just doesn't need line of sight.

[Donut417]

It's an interesting idea for sure. Looks like it can be connected to your home network via Power Line networking or POE, for people in newer homes with better electrical systems this could be a solution for dead zones. 

 

But then again, if you dont have a newer electrical system then your probably going to need to run Ethernet and at that point you could just install a WiFi AP which is probably going to be cheaper at least right now. 

[Ydfhlx]

On 7/14/2023 at 5:53 PM, Alex Atkin UK said:

There would be many rooms in businesses with no Windows at all so it would be impossible for it spill out of the building.

Are Linux or Mac safer with this Li-Fi?

 

I'll see myself out.

[RedRound2]

I understand the use cases in stadiums and all where bandwidth to serve a large crowd is required. But why would it be helpful in a typical home? Who needs that much bandwidth? Maybe for some future tech like wireless VR, but as per current trends, is it really required?

 

Also, does this mean the lights need to be constantly turned on? Does the LiFi network still work from reflected surfaces without significantly compromising the supposed advantages of much higher bandwidth? I can see this work where the handover between WiFi and LiFi should be near perfect for people to ever consider this tech.

[leadeater]

12 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

But why would it be helpful in a typical home?

Apartments and dense housing I guess would benefit quite a bit, RF noise and channel conflicts can be a big problem. LiFi makes this not be a problem at all.

[Quackers101]

Some things be nice, but see it as an extra with a lot of concerns and marketing speak.

Also data collection through AI can be a problem depending on how you want it to work or add to it now or in future. Scanning an area of light, position, personal information just like the issues that wifi sense can have. Also if AI can look into the feed, if it doesnt want to explain encrypted traffic or calling it secure enough to not need it.

Local connections could be awesome for read only? Like random ppls TV and dont need info stored, maybe?

[ImorallySourcedElectrons]

On 7/14/2023 at 5:44 PM, Silverflame said:

Maybe I'm missing something, but could you not eavesdrop on LiFi connections with, for example, a telephoto lens and an IR camera? In private homes, this might be less of a concern, but if you're in a glass-/window-covered sky-scraper office, will it be a concern?

And uhm, what prevents me from doing the same with a directional antenna? And that works through walls.

[Alex Atkin UK]

3 hours ago, ImorallySourcedElectrons said:

And uhm, what prevents me from doing the same with a directional antenna? And that works through walls.

It doesn't matter how directional your antenna is, its still subject to interference along its path and with a much smaller bandwidth that can reduce your performance.  They also still leak the signal in other directions than intended, hitting a wall being a key way its going to scatter all over the place.

[Donut417]

4 hours ago, ImorallySourcedElectrons said:

And that works through walls.

Not working thru walls equals security. If you are trying to access sensitive info, this could be used in places where running Ethernet might not be as practical. Bear in mind not all rooms have windows, which also adds to security. 

 

Also bear in mind that the WiFi spectrum is pretty well used. 2.4 Ghz is some areas is pretty much dead at this point due to the number of networks or other devices using that part of the spectrum. 5Ghz in some cases is also no good, due to the number of networks and such. So this is defiantly a solution where RF interference is ultrally bad. Yes, its not practice or useful for everyone. I mean you either have to feed a data connection via Power line or POE, if you have Ethernet already ran, your probably going to install an AP. Power line adapters dont work everywhere. 

[ImorallySourcedElectrons]

3 hours ago, Alex Atkin UK said:

It doesn't matter how directional your antenna is, its still subject to interference along its path and with a much smaller bandwidth that can reduce your performance.  They also still leak the signal in other directions than intended, hitting a wall being a key way its going to scatter all over the place.

It matters a lot, increasing gain by increasing the directionality of your antenna and limiting the bandwidth is actually the way to do this, you can hit a couple of hundred metres easily with simple CotS hardware, if you go for slightly more expensive hardware it's quite doable to get more than a kilometre out of bluetooth and WiFi. In fact, this is a quite well documented attack vector...

 

1 hour ago, Donut417 said:

Not working thru walls equals security. If you are trying to access sensitive info, this could be used in places where running Ethernet might not be as practical. Bear in mind not all rooms have windows, which also adds to security. 

 

Also bear in mind that the WiFi spectrum is pretty well used. 2.4 Ghz is some areas is pretty much dead at this point due to the number of networks or other devices using that part of the spectrum. 5Ghz in some cases is also no good, due to the number of networks and such. So this is defiantly a solution where RF interference is ultrally bad. Yes, its not practice or useful for everyone. I mean you either have to feed a data connection via Power line or POE, if you have Ethernet already ran, your probably going to install an AP. Power line adapters dont work everywhere. 

If you want security and reliable QoS, use cables. The moment you start transmitting something over the air it means a device in the same area can potentially pick up on it. Properly shielded cables require noticeable fiddling to capture the transmitted data, and it's usually detectable as well if someone bothered to implement said detection.

 

I think that the main advantage of this system is that its effective area is quite controllable if deployed correctly, which means you could get a whole office hooked up "wirelessly" without having shitty performance.

[Alex Atkin UK]

5 hours ago, ImorallySourcedElectrons said:

It matters a lot, increasing gain by increasing the directionality of your antenna and limiting the bandwidth is actually the way to do this, you can hit a couple of hundred metres easily with simple CotS hardware, if you go for slightly more expensive hardware it's quite doable to get more than a kilometre out of bluetooth and WiFi. In fact, this is a quite well documented attack vector...

I'm well aware how far it can go but it doesn't stop it being subject to crosstalk or leaking in other directions.  Also you usually HAVE to turn the power down, or the gain will push you past the legal power limit.

 

A friend of mine used to pickup free WiFi from miles away using a 14dB gain yagi antenna, as he lived in a tower block with direct line of sight to a schools IT building.  I used to beam my WiFi across the road using the same antenna.  Both those things became useless as WiFi got more popular as interference killed the signal quality.

Now don't get me wrong, I also then switched to an Ubiquiti Litebeam which achieves 5Ghz across the road far better than 2.4Ghz ever did, due to matching directional dishes at both sides.  But ironically I pick it up the other end by bouncing it off a wall through a window.   It becomes quite a bit less directional if there are any objects inbetween (there's also a tree trunk well within the fresnel zone).

Point is, light should be far more directional than radio and has more bandwidth, as presumably it doesn't need to be licensed as its within the visible light range.

 

I do wonder though how much testing has been done to see if its causes headaches as the pulsing not being visible, doesn't necessarily mean its not messing with your brain.

[ImorallySourcedElectrons]

12 hours ago, Alex Atkin UK said:

I'm well aware how far it can go but it doesn't stop it being subject to crosstalk or leaking in other directions.  Also you usually HAVE to turn the power down, or the gain will push you past the legal power limit.

 

A friend of mine used to pickup free WiFi from miles away using a 14dB gain yagi antenna, as he lived in a tower block with direct line of sight to a schools IT building.  I used to beam my WiFi across the road using the same antenna.  Both those things became useless as WiFi got more popular as interference killed the signal quality.

Now don't get me wrong, I also then switched to an Ubiquiti Litebeam which achieves 5Ghz across the road far better than 2.4Ghz ever did, due to matching directional dishes at both sides.  But ironically I pick it up the other end by bouncing it off a wall through a window.   It becomes quite a bit less directional if there are any objects inbetween (there's also a tree trunk well within the fresnel zone).

Point is, light should be far more directional than radio and has more bandwidth, as presumably it doesn't need to be licensed as its within the visible light range.

 

I do wonder though how much testing has been done to see if its causes headaches as the pulsing not being visible, doesn't necessarily mean its not messing with your brain.

What are you talking about? Snooping on someone's communication doesn't require you to transmit, and even if it did, you wouldn't exactly care about emissions limits if you're already doing something illegal. The odds of being busted when you do that in the ISM bands are quite slim if you're not pointing at the local weather radar and if there are no other buildings in between. And I really don't see crosstalk being an issue here unless if you use a particularly crappy antenna, and there are plenty of ways to suppress the side-beams.

[Alex Atkin UK]

3 hours ago, ImorallySourcedElectrons said:

What are you talking about? Snooping on someone's communication doesn't require you to transmit, and even if it did, you wouldn't exactly care about emissions limits if you're already doing something illegal. The odds of being busted when you do that in the ISM bands are quite slim if you're not pointing at the local weather radar and if there are no other buildings in between. And I really don't see crosstalk being an issue here unless if you use a particularly crappy antenna, and there are plenty of ways to suppress the side-beams.

Apologies, I got who was posting mixed up while replying and thought you were arguing directional was more secure when clearly you are pointing out how its not.  Also backed up by my own post about how far I have personally seen bog-standard WiFi travel.

 

So basically were in agreement, LiFi probably is somewhat more secure as its going to scramble more easily over distance and would require line of sight to a Window.  It would also require much more expensive equipment to eavesdrop on I suspect.

Ultimately any wireless technology is less secure than physical cabling.  But once you go down the snooping rabbit hole there are so many ways, even just snooping the RFI given off by a computer in the right scenario.  But lets be honest, the most likely option will always be compromising a device in the building so you can use whatever method you want then - or THE most common way, compromising the cloud service the business is using.