1Gbps Optical Wireless Network Might Replace Wi-Fi

Mark.JUK writes "Pennsylvania State University has developed a new method of indoor Optical Wireless network that does not require a line-of-sight and runs at speeds of 1Gbps+. The system uses a high-powered laser diode — a device that converts electricity into light — as the optical transmitter and an avalanche photo diode — a device that converts light to electricity — as the receiver. The light bounces off the walls and is picked up by the receiver. Traditional radio frequency systems (Wi-Fi , WiMAX etc.) do not require line of sight transmission, but can pass through some substances and so present a security problem. Light, in a room without windows, will not escape the room, improving security."

Or, you could just use cables

[ClosedSource]

This is only going to work in the small area that the laser can get to, so cables might be a better solution.

Headaches...

[venkateshkumar99]

If the LASER is anywhere in the visual spectrum, the whole house could become a perpetual disco ;)

security

[wizardforce]

How many homes don't have windows? Of those homes, how often is it that there is a need to connect with a computer inside a closed room? Any system that can connect to a computer inside a closed room can also be connected to from outside the house. Any system that can't be connected to from outside the house also can not connect to a system with the door shut. The number of times the signal can bounce off walls would significantly affect the range of the system. So while a direct path between floors of a house may be 10 meters, the path through the house from the top floor going around everything that is opaque to the system might be 50-60 meters and quite possibly out of range.

Wrong on one count

[dreamchaser]

The other point is that for most applications, it's simply unnecessary to improve over the speed of modern wireless.

Uh huh, and 640K should be enough for anyone, and there's no reason to go to broadband when a regular old analog modem is sufficient for most applications, and...well you probably get my point by now.

Re:Wrong on one count

[Darkness404]

...And does anyone ever get internet connections even -close- to the 54 MB/Sec of wireless G? If you are streaming media throughout a home its nice, but most people don't use their wi-fi for that, they use it for internet where the primary bottleneck is the internet service, not the wireless router.

unlikely to get anywhere

[v1]

users won't tolerate very intermittent connections, and won't tolerate having to aim their system at all. I remember using irda brirefly, and it was very touchy.

Wifi is generally omnidirectional. light doesn't work that way - you can get a very strong signal 20 feet from it, or a nonexistent signal six inches away, if you're in a bad spot. And this effect occurs in both directions, and has different deadzones. So not only are you having a problem receiving, you're also having a differnt problem sending, requiring a great deal more adjustment to get communications going. Having to solve two positional problems simultaneously effectively quadruples the difficulty of the task.

It's also going to be a great deal more environmentally sensitive. You can drop a bar or two if someone sets their laptop bag down beside your laptop and clouds direct line between you and the access point. Imagine how much worse that can get with light, and at a greater distance - you won't just lose a bar or two, you're almost certain to get completely disconnected. A couple chatting as they walk down the hall ten feet from you could ground you for several seconds, giving you absolutely no hint of what caused it.

No, this technology's not going anywhere. Sure it works, but it's nowhere near as reliable as the public will demand. Look how badly people flip out now over an occasional dropped call.

windowless rooms

[johnrpenner]

great - so now millions of drones will have to sit in windowless rooms so the network wont leak out... and the air and the trees and the birds cant leak in... dismal existence... borg colony bleah! :-P

Re:Or, you could just use cables

[hedwards]

It depends what you're wanting it for. This has tremendous potential in areas like NY City and Tokyo where there's enough population density that traditional wireless is hard to do. Even here in a relatively sparsely populated part of Seattle, there's something like 8 access points in use at most times. The added security would be a bonus, just pull down black out curtains when you want to block it completely rather than mostly.

But you still get the mobility to move around the room. I suppose in the future you could even get a mesh set up as well for going room to room.

what about the return data?

[CFD339]

      If I ignore the encoding issues and assume some mix of frequency and amplitude shifts or whatever to get that kind of bandwidth, I can go along with the idea that a well placed optical transmitter could bounce light around the room enough to do this -- but what about the return signal from the workstation or device? That would hardly be placed in an optimal location.

      Further, consider that wireless is most useful for mobile and transient devices -- laptops, sure; but what about cell phones, pda's, sensors, and all manner of other wireless things. These are frequently -- even usually -- not placed in direct visual sight.

      Frankly, I see this technology as potentially useful in long distance settings between stationary platforms (particularly in space) but not so much for day to day campus or home-office use.