802.11ah Wi-Fi Standard Approved (networkworld.com) 160
alphadogg writes: A new wireless standard that extends Wi-Fi's reach down into the 900MHz band will keep the 802.11 family at the center of the developing Internet of Things, the Wi-Fi Alliance announced today. 802.11ah, combines lower power requirements with a lower frequency, which means that those signals propagate better. That offers a much larger effective range than current Wi-Fi standards, which operate on 2.4GHz and 5GHz frequencies, and lets the newer technology penetrate walls and doors more easily.
Europe (Score:2)
Re:Europe (Score:5, Informative)
That's the key question: Unless you have an available open access frequency band, this standard is just wishful thinking instead of a new product.
The current allocations in Europe (http://www.erodocdb.dk/docs/doc98/official/pdf/ERCRep025.pdf) covers all of 890-942, 942-960 and 960-1164 MHz, with usage mostly cell phone, radio-navigation and broadcasting.
Terje
Re: (Score:2)
I've been unable to find any specifics on the frequencies used. Even in the US that band is mostly allocated, with just 915MHz available for anyone to use with certain limitations. Since there are many, many devices using 915MHz already and none of them will interoperate well with wifi, I'm really interesting to know what bands they are using.
Re: (Score:1)
I've been unable to find any specifics on the frequencies used. Even in the US that band is mostly allocated, with just 915MHz available for anyone to use with certain limitations. Since there are many, many devices using 915MHz already and none of them will interoperate well with wifi, I'm really interesting to know what bands they are using.
European allocation is 863-868 MHz.
See: https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/11/11-11-1137-15-00ah-specification-framework-for-tgah.docx
Re: (Score:2)
And the Australian allocation is half of the US band: 915MHz to 928MHz as per http://www.acma.gov.au/Industr... [acma.gov.au]
(The US 900MHz ISM band is 902 to 928 MHz).
Re: (Score:2)
They plan on spattering the hell out of 915.
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably it will use the standard 900MHz ISM band. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Which is only available in Region 2 (eg Americas, Greenland and some of the eastern Pacific Islands)
Re: (Score:3)
Here's a list of what 900MHz frequencies are available in each country
http://meshplus.com/?qa_faqs=i... [meshplus.com]
Re: (Score:2)
There is public spectrum in that range in most countries. Which is why wi-fi wants it. But it's already in use by many, often because the 2.4GHz is clogged by wi-fi.
There's no realy reason for 802.11 to be in that range, there are already standards that use that range. High speed ubiquitous use by wi-fi will kill of low speed, low power usses. If a vendor wants to use that range then they can use existing standards that use that range instead of wi-fi.
Re:Europe (Score:4, Informative)
The bitrate for HaLow will (initially) be 18 Mbps max (source: Computerworld and a dozen other websites).
But the intended purpose range is IOT, and I don't see refrigerators, light switches and thermometers needing more than that.
(Insert famous "640 K should be enough for everyone" quote here).
Re: (Score:2)
Most applications are pretty polite about handling slow connections. They will test your patience; but they will also keep working. It's a lot less common for everything to be able to neatly resume where it left off when a connection is actually severed and then reestablished. Perhaps
Re: (Score:2)
They dont even need that. Z-wave lives in 900mhz land and it's 115Kbps and it is faster than all of those devices need. Unless you are trying to upload a video to play on your RGB light bulb a 16 byte command to turn on and go to EEFEFE00 is instant for 99% of all users.
Re: (Score:2)
IIRRGGBB
WW= White light
RR = Red light
GG = Green light
BB = Blue light
That setting is a bright sun yellow color. Good bulbs have White, Red Green, and Blue led's in them for decent color rendition and decent brightness to simulate a 60watt white lightbulb properly.
Re: (Score:2)
800 and 900 MHz ranges are already being used for internet of things and the like. Smart meters, street lights, low speed sensors. Stuff that uses 150Kbps even. And there are existing standards, there is no need to bring wifi over.
Re: (Score:2)
I have to agree with you 100%, and it's a pity you posted AC, since some would not have seen the remark. No, refrigerators do not need to be networked. We do not need refrigerators with 21.5" 1080p displays and camers [slashdot.org]. Heaven help us if it also has a microphone.
Regardless. 802.11ah is interesting for range, not speed. You get better distance on 900 MHz than 2.4 GHz.
Re: (Score:3)
My fridge is networked, so is my chest freezer in the basement. I have an ESP8266 in each reporting the temperatures and if it's running the compressor or not for power consumption graphing.
It allows me to get an alarm if the temps rise or if the compressor stays running and does not shut off.
Re: (Score:2)
My fridge is networked, so is my chest freezer in the basement. I have an ESP8266 in each reporting the temperatures and if it's running the compressor or not for power consumption graphing.
It allows me to get an alarm if the temps rise or if the compressor stays running and does not shut off.
But you don't need the temperature readings reported to, stored and data mined by a third party over the internet before being available to you. This IoT crap is nothing less than a data grab by the corporations. If they were truly interested in helping the customer, they'd agree on a standard for an Network of Things that report to a local server and allow us to do what we want with our data.
Firmware updates on each bulb, switch, outlet and appliance is going to be non existent after realise, and you can
Re: (Score:2)
"an ESP8266 in each reporting the temperatures"
How do you get the temperature sensing cable in the freezer without interfering with the insulation? I have a fridge/freezer with A+++ energy rating and I suspect that there is vacuum insulation in there that doesn't like me drilling holes.
Re: (Score:2)
Ethernet over AC anyone, should be good enough for a frig. I did have a 900MHz spread-spectrum phone set that had a range of about 800m after going through a brick veneered cinder block wall, so it looks like this HaLow technology will allow me to have WiFi out to the garage and barn.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's keep AC as clean as possible, please. 60Hz hum is well understood and mitigated, but anyone with speakers plugged into the wall of any kind appreciate not having sounds or harmonics induced into the speakers from AC line noise.
Re: (Score:2)
Ethernet over AC anyone, should be good enough for a frig. I did have a 900MHz spread-spectrum phone set that had a range of about 800m after going through a brick veneered cinder block wall, so it looks like this HaLow technology will allow me to have WiFi out to the garage and barn.
Or, for everyone in the neighborhood to connect to your IoT devices. The lower data rate should be fine for most IoT devices (except perhaps, ones streaming video of your home over the net), but the range being longer seems more like a bad thing than a good thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Ethernet over AC gets blocked by the pole transformer, but I would be happy if it got to my detached pole barn-garage/woodworking shop, I suspect that would be my use for the HaLo WiFi. The Router we have now just will not reach that far.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.hngn.com/articles/1... [hngn.com]
Now no-one can steal beer from your freezer unless they are on the voice recognition list... :)
Re: (Score:2)
Such as that each channel is 1/10th of what you mention?
Re: (Score:2)
If you read up the line of comments leading to this one, you will find this comment:
http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]
Each channel in the 800 Mhz band is 2 Mhz. On top of that, the data bandwidth is affected by the carrier frequency, the lower the frequency, the less data you can push through. It makes no sense to try and say that because 800 Mhz is using 20 Mhz of bandwidth just like 2.4 Ghz, it should be able to pass the same amount of data. They are at different frequency bands, so of course it is goin
semicolon except sometimes they do (Score:4, Interesting)
Strange commentary about your menses aside, there are valid applications for internet-connected refrigerators. Whether you can imagine them or not is another matter all together.
How about a refrigerator that knows its own inventory based on RFID tag scanning, and can automatically add items to your grocery shopping list when inventory is depleted? All of the parts to make this happen are there now. If you buy your food at a store that has embraced RFID. the part you may be missing is the smart fridge.
But none of it is relevant to this article; your refrigerator is going to have access to conventional WiFi when the time comes. This is much more likely about things like connecting municipal signage & traffic control devices, letting people at bus stops know how far away the bus is, etc. (or more likely smart adverts at the bus stops). Existing WiFi protocols are impractical to implement for devices that are rather spread out like this, and which don't require the kind of throughput that your mobile device or laptop would.
Re: (Score:2)
Strange commentary about your menses
This site has devolved into a cult of neckbearded luddites.
Re: (Score:2)
But keep telling me why I need this while omitting how valuable this information is to the companies trying to sell me food.
Re: (Score:3)
Fine, it can tell you when your kid leaves the fridge/freezer door open so that your food doesn't all spoil before you realize. Even adults sometimes leave the door open accidentally as sometimes things in the door hit shelves and prevent proper closing.
It can also monitor temperatures, and allow YOU to tell it what to add to your list when you are looking inside.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It depends how much the cost of one of these incidents is. I am pretty sure in one incident my parents lose at least $500 worth of food, but they have a full sized upright freezer full of food in the basement that never seemed to shut right.
For me, no it wouldn't make sense, as I only ever have around $50 worth of food in my fridge. So it all depends on usage.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like a better solution would be a motorised door that closes after 5 minutes.
What would be nice would be a way to synchronise the cooling cycles to when energy is cheap and plentiful, temperature allowing of course.
Re: (Score:2)
How about a refrigerator that knows its own inventory based on RFID tag scanning, and can automatically add items to your grocery shopping list when inventory is depleted?
God forbid I should point my phone at the package. The drawbacks of putting RFID tags in everything far outweigh the drawbacks. Ironically, the one place I want one, in my cat, there isn't one. I won't subject her to a vet visit just for my automated feeding convenience, though.
This is much more likely about things like connecting municipal signage & traffic control devices, letting people at bus stops know how far away the bus is, etc.
Too bad they don't just use wires, instead they have to crap all over the spectrum. Save wireless for stuff that's moving, or that's far away from the wiring system.
Re: (Score:2)
They make RFID tags the size and shape of a grain of rice for implanting in people, you could likely have one implanted at your next normal vet visit if you bring it along.
On humans, the common spot to put them is in the fleshy space between thumb and hand.
http://www.kr4.us/rfid-glass-c... [kr4.us]
They aren't even expensive. It looks like they are a common thing to have done as well, called microchipping your pet.
Re: (Score:2)
Missed that that one is NOT for implanting.
https://dangerousthings.com/sh... [dangerousthings.com]
Re: (Score:2)
They make RFID tags the size and shape of a grain of rice for implanting in people, you could likely have one implanted at your next normal vet visit if you bring it along.
Normal vet visit? When did vet visits become normal? Garlic in olive oil for ear mites, fleas not a problem oddly enough since we live in the sticks, regular tick checks, diet consisting mostly of vermin.
Re: (Score:3)
http://healthypets.mercola.com... [mercola.com]
The common wisdom is twice a year. If you don't care if the cat suddenly drops dead from preventable illness, then you don't have to take them unless they have issues.
Re: (Score:2)
I take my cat to the vet for the same amount of preventative care for which I take myself to the doctor. I'm not about to go into debt for a cat, though. She's not a family member, she just lives here, and eats mice. Sorry. If any member of my family actually behaved like a cat, I would disown them. Wait, I did.
Re: (Score:2)
The common wisdom is twice a year.
The common wisdom of a site recommending homeopathy. Good luck with that.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Then choose a different site. You are supposed to go to the doctor once per year, and all the med plans I have had made those visits free to encourage you to go. According to the pets site of WebMD, you should at least take them once a year for their shots:
http://pets.webmd.com/features... [webmd.com]
Is that a better source of information for you?
Re: (Score:2)
It's common to microchip your pets. It making finding the owner of a lost pet simple.
It's a requirement in places for dog registration
The only problem I have is they're not NFC compatible. I think they're mostly 125kHz RFID.
The local bus stops with electronic signs here use cellular connections. The infrastructure is there, the data is minimal, it's cheaper than installing and maintaining wires.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, thank god for this IoT. How have we all not starved to death without our appliances telling us what we need to purchase?
For christ's sake, open the fridge/pantry and have a look at what you need.
Re: Europe (Score:2)
The National Electric Code is going to start requiring that refrigerators have ground fault interrupt protection. Ground faults are known to fail at random. If your refrigerator had a small, battery powered Wi-Fi IoT device, you could be alerted that your fridge has lost power. Saving you both money and a giant mess. This is even more useful for a second home fridge or a fridge that is less used such as one in a basement. There are certainly other ways to alleviate the failed power fridge problem, such a
Re: (Score:2)
Should not be IOT. should be non IOT reporting to a hub that sends out your alert. that way it's 100% hacker proof and you dont need to add 4096 bit RSA encryption.
Re: (Score:2)
That is one thing I don't really get about the US grid. Why is the ground fault interrupt protection in the device? It seems more rational to implement them for the entire house at once.
Re: (Score:2)
That is great, but it uses a 2 Mhz channel, not a 20Mhz.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Are you just applying the Coase Theorem? It requires that the spectrum be regulatory property, auctionable to the highest bidder. But WiFi is successful precisely because the spectrum doesn't offer the prospect of legal exclusivity. WiFi succeeds because nobody can siphon off much of the wealth generated by each individual using the spectrum. The Coase Theorem falls apart when you try to license usage to each individual because the transaction costs are enormous, and the network effect weak; it's much more
This is just crazy (Score:1)
While I always thought the 5Ghz was a ridiculous band for Wifi. I also know that the 2.4Ghz was good but never had enough bandwidth for channels. Which meant a ceiling on speed. While adding the 900 Mhz band is just as crazy because it draws closer to even more interference from other systems using that band. The real problem is finding ways to increase speed without having to increase bandwidth. Until then, adding more spectrums of bands just adds to the complexity and confusion without much else solved.
Re: (Score:3)
If you have flexibility on frequencies you gain the best of all worlds - 900 MHz for maximum range / minimum bandwidth, up to 5 GHz for minimum range / maximum bandwidth.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly I use 5ghz in my apartment for that reasoning. I don't need a signal 100 feet away. I just want bandwidth.
Re: (Score:2)
I cant get 5ghz to work 30 feet away because I have walls. I had to install 4 separate 5ghz AP's to get full coverage of my house.
Re: (Score:2)
Or just use 2.4GHz.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. there are over 100 2.4ghz AP's that I can receive in my home. the 2.4Ghz band is so saturated that it works WORSE than 5ghz here.
I can see over 20 "linksys" named routers alone.
Re: (Score:2)
While I always thought the 5Ghz was a ridiculous band for Wifi. I also know that the 2.4Ghz was good but never had enough bandwidth for channels. Which meant a ceiling on speed. While adding the 900 Mhz band is just as crazy because it draws closer to even more interference from other systems using that band. The real problem is finding ways to increase speed without having to increase bandwidth. Until then, adding more spectrums of bands just adds to the complexity and confusion without much else solved.
Care to tell me why you feel that IoT devices are going to need to pass data at "ludicrous" speed when in reality they'll likely be sipping at the bandwidth well?
Seems we're quickly forgetting the real problem being solved here, which is more an issue of penetration and distance than bandwidth, hence the focus on 900Mhz.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody can crack your WiFi credentials, if they can't pick up the signals, even at 5GHz, a 15 element yagi, or a 8 lambda diameter parabolic reflector is pretty obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of uses of 2.4GHz migrated away from there because of immense interference from wi-fi, and many went to the 800/900MHz bands instead (which vary with each country). Things like baby monitors, cordless phones (not as common now), etc. Since the bands are public they're *already* being used for internet of things, just not with 802.11.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it interesting? It's already been done. Those bands are already used by devices, with 802.11 wi-fi being the latecomer to the show.
Will I need a thicker hat? (Score:2, Funny)
Tin foil works against 900MHz right?
Not a hater (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
And the signal pollution is made worse by all the entities that decided that 802.11 was a WAN protocol meant for broad urban coverage. So in my single family home neighborhood, my wireless has to compete with the city's municipal wifi network and probably a bunch of the Comcast modems with built-in wireless radios that Comcast turns on for their own benefit.
In dense urban areas its borderline unusable.
Re: (Score:2)
Add to this the inability to make devices attempt to use a slightly different range (channels) to avoid the noise due to companies making products that go and tap into every single channel range. Wireless bandwidth greed ruins the technology. If it wasn't for this the tech could have evolved to allow auto detection of the best channel to use in the selected area (such as wireless phones). This unfortunately can no longer happen because of the greed aforementioned.
I worked for D-Link and nobody other than th
Re: (Score:2)
In dense urban areas its borderline unusable.
802.11ac, being 5 GHz only, really helps in dense setups since it is so quickly absorbed by walls.
Re: (Score:2)
The worry I have is that the 2.4GHZ saturation will now migrate to 900MHz bands. That band is not empty and unused, it is currently in active use by current internet of things devices and other devices that can use lower speeds in exchange for better power usage or longer range. The IoT devices are already dotting the landscape. Remember, wi-fi is not the only radio or radio standard out there. There are classes of devices in the 900MHz bands which used to use 2.4GHz until that became oversaturated. Th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are existing standards for those bands not related to 802.11. The way 802.11 works it does best for higher bandwidth and higher power, but does not readily adapt itself to other purposes. Many existing low speed systems use meshing for instance rather than plopping access points every fifty meters. There are devices that wake up only a few times each day to transmit then go back to sleep.
The worry is that bringing 802.11 to these bands will force those devices to seek out other public bands, the sa
Re: (Score:2)
There are, unless I'm missing something, already communication protocols that IoT could use - right in that same spectrum. Isn't moving this, a separate and different protocol, into that spectrum going to screw up existing things? :/
I don't think you're missing anything. But the harm is not obvious to me. What difference does it make whether an IoT device uses this protocol or some other existing protocol; it is still using the bandwidth. Perhaps if one or the other made more efficient use of it there might be an argument. We'd need an expert to chime in and debate that. I don't think that folks are going to opt to use this over 2.4 or 5GHz to do their data dumps. Well, not unless their really patient.
erm... (Score:3)
"...lets the newer technology penetrate walls and doors more easily."
Which is good if you live in a forest but won't this increase congestion problems in densely populated areas?
Re: (Score:2)
But the added band WILL be more prone to congestion if lots of people start using it (which I think is what the grandfather poster meant.)
Already populated - thanks for trying (Score:2)
There are already a bazillion users in this band. Aside from the ISM devices, Amateur radio has an allocation in the 902-928 MHz band, and although we must accept interference from ISM devices, we can run 1500W legally and ISM devices must accept interference from us. I doubt IoT devices will play well with that kind of power.
Re: (Score:2)
IoT devices already exist in this band. Apparently they are cooperating. Who knows what the upstart newcomer of 802.11 will do though.
those signals propagate better NOT (Score:1)
I am so tired of this myth.
900 MHz signals do NOT "propagate better." They propagate in free space just the same as 2.4 GHz signals and, in the presence of scattering (e.g., small openings in otherwise shielded areas) not as well as 2.4 GHz.
What people fail to realize is that these systems typically use some variant (often a physically shortened variant) of a dipole antenna, and the 900 MHz antenna is physically larger than the 2.4 GHz antenna. It therefore has a much larger effective area [wikipedia.org] (the effective
Re:Myth? (Score:4, Interesting)
No, it's a myth. If your 2.4 GHz radio had an antenna the size of your 900 MHz radio antenna, the performance would be the same. But because the 2.4 GHz dipole is smaller, the 2.4 GHz range is less. But it has to do with the antennas used, not any propagation phenomenon.
Resonant dipole antennas are constant-gain antennas, meaning that their gain is constant with frequency, while their effective area varies inversely with frequency squared. There are also constant-aperture antennas, in which their effective area is constant with frequency, while their gain varies. A parabolic dish antenna is an example of the latter; its gain varies with the frequency squared. If you take two parabolic dish antennas, fit them with 900 MHz feeds, and then take the same dishes and fit them with 2.4 GHz feeds, you'll find that the 2.4 GHz antennas have (much) higher gain and the resulting system, much greater range than the 900 MHz configuration.
It's also possible to set up a link with a constant-gain antenna (e.g., a dipole) on one end and a constant-aperture antenna (e.g., a parabolic dish) on the other. In this case the two effects cancel out, and the user does not see a difference in range between the two frequencies.
You'll find, if you actually do this experiment, that it does work this way -- regardless of whether the path goes through a forest, a house, or both. It's physics, period.
Re: (Score:2)
I design antennas and wireless links for a living, sir. Yes, I have done this. Since 1984.
Of course 900 MHz has better range, if one is using dipole antennas. The point is, the apparent difference in range is due to the antennas used, not some intrisic property of the propagation medium. (It's also likely that the 5 GHz transmitter has lower output power, and the 5 GHz receiver a higher noise figure, than the 900 MHz versions, making the 5 GHz range even less, but I'll ignore those factors for now.)
Give
Re: Myth? (Score:3)
What about the effect of diffraction around obstacles?
900Mhz has a wavelength of 30cm, compared to 5cm for 5Ghz, so I'd expect them to diffract around typical household corners differently...
Re: (Score:2)
They do, and you'll find that shorter wavelengths get through smaller openings that longer wavelengths cannot. It's a complicated field to model, and one can find cases where either is superior, but shorter wavelengths do have advantages in a scattering environment.
It's also due to the scale of the obstacles. (Score:3)
Of course 900 MHz has better range, if one is using dipole antennas. The point is, the apparent difference in range is due to the antennas used, not some intrisic property of the propagation medium.
Not just the antennas, but the medium as well - because the medium is not vacuum or free air - it includes obstacles.
(Free air, below the ionosphere, DOES selectively attenuate SOME frequencies, but all those we're talking about are in a "window" of transparency, so that's not the issue.)
A tree screws up 5G but n
Re: (Score:2)
To be sure, but the relevant scale is the wavelength, which is about 5.5 cm at 5.5 GHz, and 33 cm at 900 MHz. There's nothing magic about those lengths -- a forest, or a building, is just as likely to have structures of either length, or any other length, or neither length. Certainly one can create frequency-selective surfaces that pass one band of frequencies and reject others. The statement to which I objected was that it was always true that 900 MHz signals travel farther than 5 GHz signals, due to so
Re: (Score:2)
> Antennas are sized and shaped for the specific frequency the radio will be feeding into it. Changing the antenna size to something incompatible can destroy the radio, the radio wave, or both.
Sorry,, but this is completely wrong.
If you just changed to a different frequency dipole, then yes.
But that isn't what was suggested. You can change to a larger antenna which DOS work on the same band, eg a phased array, a yagi, capacitive loaded dipole, or in his example, a dish. The antenna must still be resonant
Re: (Score:3)
Congratulations! (Score:2)
Congratulations! You hit my other favorite myth, that there is something special about water at 2.4 GHz. There isn't. [mike-willis.com] Water vapor in the atmosphere has less than 0.001 dB/km (yes, kilometer) specific attenuation at 2.4 GHz. The first significant resonance for water isn't until 22.3 GHz, and even then it is less than 0.2 dB/km. It's a myth!
Water had nothing to do with the creation of the 2.4 GHz ISM band, or the placing of microwave ovens at that frequency. Amateurs do moonbounce communication in the 2
Re: (Score:2)
Yet another IoT wireless standard (Score:4, Informative)
Lets see I already have on IoT radio in the ISM band, another in the 2,.4ghz, one at 345mhz, some sensors running a send only at 433mhz, and yet another that can run in 433/868/915MHz then add in 802..11ac in 2.4 and 5ghz. I realy do not think I need more bandwidth for my IoT gear. I need a standard for the end devices and a home controller aka things that should be designed to last for decades vs thing that should be regularly updated. The only real good thing I see from this is your average consumer gateway will have a radio that connects to our IoT devices and the encryption is stronger than what we have seen so far.
Well isn't that great (Score:3)
So basically these devices will never be sold in my country (Finland), since the 900Mhz band is reserved and used for LTE by 3 different carriers here.
Wrong problem (Score:2)
Additionally consider what marketing people do to wifi standards. I foresee a new line of wireless routers claiming ridiculous ranges with higher price tags. Average consumer says higher price tag = better, and buys it for their apartment. Consumer is angry that 3 other people in his entire apartment complex bought it too or have the previously mentioned cordless phones and their internet stinks again. It's fine
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some of these IoT devices are already in wide use. Today. Smart meters for example, one per house. Maybe two to three per house in the future with water and gas as well, plus various sensors scattered for other uses. No one really called these IoT until recently.
In this house we follow the laws of physics.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But meter reading is already done today, without any help from 802.11ah. 802.11ah does not bring anything new to the table.
Re: (Score:2)
Really?
I've got a dual-band router and it covers the whole house to the same extent on both bands.
So much so that neighbours keep asking me why I have two SSIDs with "2" and "5" in the names and what happened to "1", "3" and "4".
Maybe you're just buying cheap junk? I've no doubt there is a difference but not so much to abandon one for another. In work, I deploy site-wide wireless over a school and the 5GHz bands covers just as much as the 2.4Ghz but are much quieter (and hence get more authorised traffic
Re: (Score:2)
In work, I deploy site-wide wireless over a school and the 5GHz bands covers just as much as the 2.4Ghz but are much quieter (and hence get more authorised traffic because devices prefer them).
Makes me cry a bit.
Re: (Score:2)
See my other posts about house-construction the other day.
And my workplace is the same.
Solid brick walls, double-walls for exterior, single solid brick for interior, in a 1930's house.
At work, a 28 acre site with 400-year-old buildings with... stone walls. 1960's, 70's, 80's, 90's extensions with... brick walls.
P.S. throughput identical. Circa 500 iPads on the school site (plus smartphones and whatever have you), 30 WAPs, no problems with propagation.except where we deliberately haven't bothered to provi
Re: (Score:2)
I only have 2 devices, sometimes three, in the house. 5GHz works great and the band is nearly empty, 2.4GHz is saturated. I don't need to have a link that goes 100 feet, or even 25 feet. I just need to go down one floor to the TV where signal should be good, and to my phone where signal can be crappy and slow. So 5GHz does work and does what it's advertised to do, it just doesn't work in some situations where you need range.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't worry, the 900MHz is not going to improve on throughput, rather on coverage.
For most of us it's actually more interesting with the 5GHz band due to more space/bandwidth. Realize that the WiFi band on 5GHz is over 600MHz wide while the 900MHz is 274MHz. Lower frequency band also means that the throughput may be lower while the covered area per access point can be larger.
Spread spectrum, especially OFDM, is power hungry. (Score:2)
Wouldn't spread spectrum on all devices solve alot of congestion?
Some. But then it would turn things into a shouting match as the noise floor rises.
The issue with IoT, though, is power. The devices, including their batteries, are necessarily small in many applications, yet must last for years. So the devices are extremely low power, low LEAKAGE, and spend most of their time asleep.
Spread spectrum requires additional crunch, which requires power, to scatter the data on the Tx end, gather and sort it out o
Re: (Score:2)
I just upgraded to AC you bastards
What were you on before that, 12V batteries?
Re: (Score:2)
Why can you use existing 900MHz radio standards that have been in operation for a long time now?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, nothing sounded exciting on paper. There are already many standards using those bands, many devices using that bands, etc. 802.11ah is just another newcomer to add to the mix is all.