Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Networking Wireless Networking China

Huawei Successfully Tests New 802.11ax WiFi Standard At 10.53Gbps 116

Posted by timothy
from the hitting-your-data-cap-quickly dept.
Mark.JUK (1222360) writes "Chinese ICT developer Huawei has confirmed that it was able to achieve a record transmission data rate of 10.53Gbps on 5GHz frequency bands in laboratory trials of their new 802.11ax WiFi (WLAN) wireless networking standard. The testing, which was conducted at Huawei's campus in Shenzhen, used a mix of MIMO-OFDA, intelligence spectrum allocation, interference coordination and hybrid access to achieve the result and the new technology could hit the market during 2018."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Huawei Successfully Tests New 802.11ax WiFi Standard At 10.53Gbps

Comments Filter:
  • by Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) on Saturday May 31, 2014 @11:27AM (#47135811)

    Better, faster ways to access inept content.

    • by haruchai (17472) on Saturday May 31, 2014 @11:49AM (#47135911)

      Of course.
        If you had access crappy content slowly, you'd be royally pissed when it finally loads. Used to happen to me all the time on 14.4k dialup.
      At least if it loads quickly, I can write it off faster and go look for slightly less inept content.

    • by s.petry (762400)

      Indeed! I don't care what speed marks they hit, I still would not use one of their back door infested devices even if you gave me one. They got their start by sending out a flood of "workers" who stole code from other high end manufacturers. I worked at one manufacturer of large telecom devices who lost a metric ass load of data to them in a breach (estimated 1/2tb of source code and schematics). Mostly the manufacturers fault for having extremely poor security, and happened before my contract stint wit

      • by amorsen (7485)

        So you know that Huawei devices are back-doored because they are knock-offs of back-doored devices from Western manufacturers?

        I must have read that wrong somehow.

        • by s.petry (762400)

          I must have read that wrong somehow.

          Either that or you don't understand how easy it is to add additional code and circuits (containing logic) to a big ass ISP router.

          • by amorsen (7485)

            I have not claimed it is difficult. You did not correct my reading.

            • by s.petry (762400)

              Looking at routing circuits, chips, and logic it is easy to see that a device is a clone. Looking at a device as a whole package, it is also easy to detect access methods, non routed packets, etc... Small Telecom devices are about the size of 1/2 a normal rack.

              In simpler terms, you are implying that a company can not make a clone of a graphics card and install it in a device running a back door. Or perhaps you are implying that the only way to do so is by cloning complete system which had a back door alre

              • by Anonymous Coward

                Oh shut the fuck up.

                You American perverts back-door and monitor everything under the sun, but then you cry like little girls the moment there is the slightest chance someone else can do it, before there is even proof.

                Fucking cry babies.

      • came here to say this. yo dawg, I heard you like getting owned so I built faster wifi so I could own you while you surf the internet at the same speed because the wifi speed >>> your crappy internet connection anyway.
      • by russotto (537200)

        I don't know, I'm really impressed that they managed that sort of data transfer rate while also sending copies of all the data to both the NSA AND Chinese Intelligence.

        • by s.petry (762400)
          Funny, but remember where this company is from. NSA installs their back doors after manufacturers make devices. This particular company _is_ the Chinese government as all large Chines companies are. No middle man needed, and the embedding of back doors because it's done in production is not as easy to spot.
      • Re:I'm so excited (Score:4, Insightful)

        by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Sunday June 01, 2014 @07:57AM (#47140369) Homepage Journal

        Indeed! I don't care what speed marks they hit, I still would not use one of their back door infested devices even if you gave me one.

        Hey! Calm down, we're talking about Huawei here, not Cisco.

        • by bhiestand (157373)

          ... you really think China isn't doing the same with Huawei? As an added bonus, we know China will pass trade secrets to Chinese corporations.

          • by drinkypoo (153816)

            ... you really think China isn't doing the same with Huawei?

            I was aiming for insightful-funny and you know what? So far, that's precisely what I've got. And because this is slashdot, I also got a whoosh! Thanks for that.

            • by bhiestand (157373)

              Damnit. That's what I get for posting within 30 minutes of waking up.

              In my defense, I do hear people seriously arguing that position.

              • by drinkypoo (153816)

                In my defense, I do hear people seriously arguing that position.

                Well, you must not be new here.

    • Better, faster ways to access inept content.

      Its not the content that matters, but the bragging rights on how you access that content.

    • An even faster way for me to hit my chintzy Suddenlink usage cap earlier in the month.

  • When if ever will 10gigE be affordable. Is the asic design on those switches really that insane?

    • It's affordable now, your looking at about 100 bucks a port.

      • by Bengie (1121981)
        Let me know when it's built into a $80 home router.
        • For what purpose? Do you think you need more bandwidth to saturate 802.11ac? It takes a couple sata/sas attached SSD's to read/write (or a dozen conventional hard drives) at 1.25GBs. Do you think you need that sort of speeds for your laptop?

          • by Bengie (1121981)
            Thin clients are back, streaming games from your PC to your Steam box will suck for 8k resolutions. Encoding 8k in real time will be hard, expect it to be at most lightly compressed. It could use a lot of bandwidth at 120fps.
            • Latency alone is a reason you do not want to compress the output stream to send over the network to decompress. Actual video 8k fits with reasonable encoding over gigabit. Uncompressed 1080p 30fps 8 bit encoding is just under gigabit speeds. I doubt your going to find any thin client that is not going to pack hardware decoding.

          • by GNious (953874)

            Thinking that if transport-layer can handle 10gb/sec/channel(?), then when the 35-or-so APs around here are using this system, perhaps I can get more than 5mb/sec on my connection to my AP?

            Sure, we don't need it if we we're completely isolated, but here's to hoping that the next version of WiFi improves on how interference from near-by APs is handled :)

            • You have 35 AP's already using 5ghz?

              • by GNious (953874)

                2.4GHz, and I'm not the owner of those APs, people in other apartments are. Not a single single 5GHz network around here, since I had to stop using my shitty Linksys-by-CISCO router.
                If I open the list of WLAN networks on my mac (the one in the menu-bar), the list occassionally happen to be long enough to actually break the UI.
                Best part is that the majority of the networks are on channel 1; local ISP is now, by default, telling anyone complaining about issues with their internet, how to change channel.

                Note:

    • by symbolset (646467) *
      Google is working on 10Gbps fiber to the home, with a 3 year timeline. When asked why they should do such a crazy thing the project manager replied: "We can, so why not?"
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Granted I didn't RTFA but doesn't that contradict the Nyquist rate [wikipedia.org] of the channel? Or is there something more sophisticated going on here.

    • Most likely there's still enough room to play with modulation.
    • I didn't see much in the article, but seeing the following PDF there appears to be multiple technologies at play. One of them being 'channel bonding':

      http://www.kics.or.kr/Home/Use... [kics.or.kr]

    • Re:Nyquist (Score:4, Insightful)

      by indeterminator (1829904) on Saturday May 31, 2014 @01:01PM (#47136331)
      For data transmission rates, you'll want Shannon's channel capacity [wikipedia.org], which is not contradicted:
      (a) SNR is a factor of channel capacity
      (b) It applies for a single channel. With MIMO you have multiple channels (not independent from each other, but with smart channel coding you get gains over SISO).
      • Which basically means it will have a range of three meters or something like that. ;-)
      • by willy_me (212994)

        With MIMO you have multiple channels

        I was under the impression that MIMO gives you multiple antenna to facilitate beam forming. Channel bandwidth requirements do not change nor does the number of channels required. MIMO still only requires 1 channel. A quick wiki search appears to agree with this impression.

        Now you can also use multiple channels but this is independent of MIMO technology. Both techniques can be used together - and typically are which might explain the confusion. Either that or I am confused which is always a possibili

    • by skids (119237)

      Or is there something more sophisticated going on here.

      Spatial channels. You actually transmit on the same wavelength from multiple antenna, but (oversimplification) you aim one beam at one antenna and a different beam at a different antenna.

  • laboratory setting missing real world issues with wifi that will slow it down.

    • by hjf (703092)

      it was probably tested at 10cm...

      • You're joking, but there is probably a market for very fast, short-range communications. If only to connect all devices on a desk.
        • And this one would even be NSA- and CIA-friendly! Now I'd rather prefer fiber cables for that myself, though.
        • by GNious (953874)

          Weren't Intel working on this? Some kind of 60GHz wireless dock, if I recall an old /. article.

  • Cap (Score:5, Insightful)

    by the eric conspiracy (20178) on Saturday May 31, 2014 @11:37AM (#47135865)

    So I'll be able to hit my monthly Comcast cap in 60 secs?

    SUPER!!

  • I call shenanigans.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Why?? Standards from the 50s supports multiple symbols per period?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-shift_keying

      • by forty-2 (145915)

        Good read, thanks!

      • by isdnip (49656)

        That's multiple bits per symbol, not symbols per period.
        1024QAM, for instance, has 10 bits encoded in 1024 possible values of the phase and amplitude. It's one symbol though. High-speed communications uses a combination of techniques, including OFDM (parallel, lower-speed carriers) and MIMO (separate transmitters).

  • For now, this technology is out of reach for average American. Huawei refused to bribe D.C politicians. Until we see some money flowing, new cars on driveways in Virginia suburbs we can only dream of higher WLAN speeds.
  • by suso (153703) *

    Maybe its still too early in the day and I should finish my coffee first before posting to Slashdot, but I'd be interested to know how a frequency of 5 billion per second could carry 10 billion bits of information per second. Hopefully someone could explain.

    • Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)

      by amorsen (7485) <benny+slashdot@amorsen.dk> on Saturday May 31, 2014 @12:17PM (#47136061)

      Nothing limits you to one bit-per-second per baud. 9600 bps modems were, IIRC, 2400 baud with 4 bits per Hz. (Higher than that it got a bit shady because they started optimizing for being encoded in a digital phone line).

      VDSL2 goes up to 32768-QAM, which is 15 bits per symbol. I do not know whether any actual phone lines exist with a sufficient signal-to-noise-ratio to make that coding useful.

      • by suso (153703) *

        Thanks, looks like several Slashdotters will be learning something new today.

      • by TeknoHog (164938)
        I wonder how much marketing jargon has contributed to these misunderstandings. Using terms such as "bandwidth" and "broadband" when referring to data rate will not make information theory any easier.
    • by ledow (319597)

      You just make sure there's more than one bit of information per "cycle" in the signal.

      That's achieved by various methods, many clever and mathematical, some as simple as changing the phase of the signal (imagine a perfect sine wave at 5Hz - now suddenly change it to a bit further through the wave, you get a spike, a tangent, a visible change, but you're still on 5Hz) - the same way you can have AM (amplitude modulation) on a certain frequency, and FM (frequency modulation) over the top of it, this is called

      • When you join all these techniques together, get into MIMO, add all sorts of clever coding theory, you can get as much as you like from the signal - the only limit is how accurate you are sending and receiving.

        Noise and interference limit how many bits you can have per symbol on a channel and the lack of independence in the channels limits the gains from MIMO*. There are still gains to be had but you get into diminishing returns in terms of bandwidth delivered to a given location (bandwidth delivered to many different locations is another matter, there are major gains to be had from cross-cell mimo in cellular systems but also major implementation difficulties).

        * MIMO relies on some clever maths to create inddepe

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Channels in the 5Gz band are wider than a single frequency. So you can transmit on multiple frequencies in parallel within your band.

      Even within a band you can encode bits at both the high and low points of the carrier wave, which gives you two bits per Hz. You could divide the wave up further to get even more.

  • by Erich (151) on Saturday May 31, 2014 @12:32PM (#47136151) Homepage Journal
    Information Capacity Frequency Bandwidth * log2(1+signal-to-noise ratio) "In the lab" typically means "BNC cables" which give you very high signal-to-noise ratios. And in MIMO you can potentially treat each pair of antennas a separate channel. You use fancy techniques to increase the SNR for each channel. The nice thing about the 5GHz spectrum is that the frequency band is pretty large up there, and not as much interference with other unlicensed things (phones, microwaves, other wireless communication users... though as it gets more popular that will change) as the lower bands. The not-so-nice thing about the higher frequencies is that they tend to attenuate rapidly when the signal is going through something thicker than air.
    • by Erich (151)
      Aw, crap. That should read: Information capacity < frequency bandwidth * log2(1+SNR)
    • by poptix (78287)

      The not-so-nice thing about the higher frequencies is that they tend to attenuate rapidly when the signal is going through something thicker than air.

      Not necessarily a bad thing, since it means that you can have your strong local signals but don't pollute the spectrum in an entire neighborhood. We would have all been a lot better off if baby monitors, cordless phones, etc had all started in the mid GHz range.

      • by sgt scrub (869860)

        Having multiple connection points for things like MPTCP, to "complicate your traffic", is a good thing though.

  • Not that it isn't already - and not that it takes away one bit from the significance of this new technology - but I'd really love to see someone fix that "last mile" of my internet connection.

    Hey, if this is really that fast - I wonder if it could make mesh networking a viable alternative to the current (centralized) form of internet access? After all, why should all of those OLPC recipients be the only beneficiaries of mesh network technology? It would be like TOR for internet access, making it a free,

    • by Glasswire (302197)

      If you ever had a situation where your ISP connection was faster than local routing/networking gear, then you either have some kind of fantastic high bandwidth fiber ISP connection and you've cheaped-out on the quality of your infrastructure gear (very slow equipment) or you have a normal ISP connection and you got REALLY cheap about the quality of your infrastructure gear. (which is almost impossible unless you're using ~10MB stuff from the last century) You internal network wireless/wired should always

    • Hey, if this is really that fast - I wonder if it could make mesh networking a viable alternative to the current (centralized) form of internet access? After all, why should all of those OLPC recipients be the only beneficiaries of mesh network technology?

      Yes. And no. At least, there's no technical reason why not. 5 GHz is attenuated by most residential structural materials by only 1 dB [ko4bb.com] more than 2.4 GHz and there are no microwave ovens and very few cordless phones to contend with in that spectrum. Range and throughput for non-line-of-sight is better than for 802.11a and 802.11b. People in fancy houses would probably want a roof-mounted antennae—red brick attenuates 5 GHz 10.1dB more than 2.4 GHz. Of course, if everybody had an antennae in their

      • by mmell (832646)
        Got it. Thanks.

        I guess this is the same kind of problem which prevents the "WiFi umbrella" concept from taking hold. If not the same, similar.

        (Incidentally - really great explanation. Again, thanks.)

  • ...or monitored mode (where all traffic is spoofed to a Chinese gov't collection site)?
     

  • Huawei is playing with the 5 GHz band which is becoming crowded, and whose availability has country-by-country exclusions. US rule were just liberalized a smidge but it still has exclusions for radar.

    WIGig uses the 60 GHz band (57-64 GHz) which has a lot more space. It is not quite ready for the mass market, price-wise, but becoming possible in the $100 rage soon. It doesn't penetrate walls well but it's fine for cross-room very fast links.

    • That's great, except that most homes happen to have walls. It's like putting railroad tracks down to fix the problem of poor efficiency of rubber tired vehicles, only to find that the majority of cars don't have steel wheels, but rubber tires. But for those folks who have steel wheels, it's gonna be awesome!

    • by vandamme (1893204)

      I'd rather have across-town links, because I don't need to stream stuff around my house that fast. I need to get it from the internet.

  • TFA makes no mention of any kind of Quality of Service support. It's still 802.11, so I guess there wouldn't be (since it's not 802.11e). Given that the 802.11 MAC efficiency tops out at around PHY = 100 Mbps and doesn't really increase thereafter because of collisions (or overheads from preventing collisions), it's probably time we looked for MAC efficiency over PHY rates, as supported in 802.16. But hey, PHY rates let you put a BIGGER NUMBER on the box which means we can SELL FASTER INTERNETS.

"Regardless of the legal speed limit, your Buick must be operated at speeds faster than 85 MPH (140kph)." -- 1987 Buick Grand National owners manual.

Working...