802.11AD

[Donut417]

What do you guys think about this new standard? Ive read some conflicting info on it. Firstly, I stumbled across an article a few months back that suggested 60Ghz has the range thing, but has no penetration power. Now that devices are out on the market I see they say about 16-foot range on the 60Ghz band. I’m still wondering what the purpose of 60Ghz is. I mean with the fact it has no penetration power and a limited range at least on consumer grade products, what’s the point? I mean can’t 5Gzh handle 4k reasonably. 
I just don’t see many people upgrading to this standard. Which is why I question the point. Because if you reasonably can only use this in one room then for most people its not going to do a damn thing. Because how long until 60Ghz devices come out? Look how long it took AC to catch on. On top of that in like 2 years 802.11AH will be released and 900Mhz will be used. Which from my understanding this band will be used for devices like thermostats and such as its going to be able to do like 1-2 Mbps and be used for smart home devices as a result. But it has a purpose. What reasonable purpose does 802.11AD have? 
 

[Shimejii]

The point would be close range connections, IF no outside source can even connect to it that would be a interesting security feature. You have to be really close, close enough so that you have to be visible unless you use some high tech stuff!  Security is a uphill battle, this would just be another thing to concider

[Donut417]

1 minute ago, Shimejii said:

The point would be close range connections, IF no outside source can even connect to it that would be a interesting security feature. You have to be really close, close enough so that you have to be visible unless you use some high tech stuff!  Security is a uphill battle, this would just be another thing to concider

Yeah but to my knowledge it still would take a super Computer 800 years to crack AES encryption. Plus if security was a major concern most would run a cable. I can maybe see people streaming 4K video to a TV, but even then I would assume that AC should be able to handle that work load. Plus, not every one has a router in the living room and if you did, why not run a cable? 

[leadeater]

The fact that a 60GHz signal has poor penetration is a pure physics/science problem. High frequencies bounce and reflect very easily, this is why you can hear the bass from speakers/music much further away than you can the treble. Low frequencies will go through or roll around obstacles and will travel over great distances, but will suffer from noise interference and frequency shifting/phase alignment drift making the signal very different than it was at the source (extremely bad for wireless).

 

If no walls or obstacles are in the way a 60GHz signal and 5GHz of the same transmitting power will have similar ranges.

 

Quote

Great free space rate/range. Path loss offset by antenna gain and wide channel enables high speed, even in low signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) situations. 2Gbps at 100 feet is “easy.”

• One of the biggest misconceptions of 60GHz is that it is short range.
• 60 GHz does not have a range problem. In fact, in free space line-of-sight, 60GHz has the best rate/range profile of any Wi-Fi technology.
• But 60GHz does have a blockage problem. It doesn’t go through most walls or through people. Rather, it reflects. Therefore, while 60GHz has the best rate/range, it often must use this range to find a reflective path in-room to get to its target.

Source: http://www.networkworld.com/article/2172394/tech-primers/understanding-where-802-11ad-wigig-fits-into-the-gigabit-wi-fi-picture.html

 

As for practical uses in the consumer space I can think of a few, a lot a driven by storage in devices getting faster (SSD).

• High speed data transfers between computers, faster than wired 1Gb
• High speed wireless NAS for many devices
• Streaming output from Consoles/Computers to TV screens
• Very high quality wireless connections to home theater receivers without HDMI (4K and Dolby Atmos/DTS:X)

Basically anything now that requires a cable and has high data rate could be replaced by it.

 

Also remember 802.11ad doesn't rely on multiple channels to achieve high speeds unlike previous wireless standards so the current problems of wireless channel contention will be greatly reduced, each device will no longer use up to 4 channels. 802.11ad can use multiple channels of course but most devices won't need to.

 

On the enterprise side of things there's even more benefits.

• In the same area a 2.4GHz antenna takes up you can fit 32+ 60GHz antennas
• Large array of antennas allows for much more effective beam-forming giving highly directive communication between the device and AP reducing interference from many devices in the same room (great for schools)
• More bandwidth per client (more antennas + beam-forming)
• Much lower power use
• Very high speed long distance building to building connections

I haven't really been looking at wireless technology very much recently since changing jobs, your post prompted me to look, but I used to look after and deploy Aruba and Ruckus wireless networks for schools which could go past 100+ AP's and this is the first new wireless standard that actually has me excited and I can see a real positive benefit instantly, we need it now.