MIT Scientists Develop New Wi-Fi That's 330% Faster (msn.com) 86
An anonymous reader quotes a report from MSN: Scientists at MIT claim to have created a new wireless technology that can triple Wi-Fi data speeds while also doubling the range of the signal. Dubbed MegaMIMO 2.0, the system will shortly enter commercialization and could ease the strain on our increasingly crowded wireless networks. Multiple-input-multiple-output technology, or MIMO, helps networked devices perform better by combining multiple transmitters and receivers that work simultaneously, allowing then to send and receive more than one data signal at the same time. MIT's MegaMIMO 2.0 works by allowing several routers to work in harmony, transmitting data over the same piece of spectrum. MIT claimed that during tests, MegaMIMO 2.0 was able to increase data transfer speed of four laptops connected to the same Wi-Fi network by 330 percent. Paper co-author Rahul said the technology could also be applied to mobile phone networks to solve similar congestion issues. "In today's wireless world, you can't solve spectrum crunch by throwing more transmitters at the problem, because they will all still be interfering with one another," Ezzeldin Hamed, lead author on a paper on the topic, told MIT News. "The answer is to have all those access points work with each other simultaneously to efficiently use the available spectrum."
Re: (Score:1)
Depends (Score:3)
Usually I would say %330 as fast meaning 3.3 times the speed. or 1/3 the time to transmit the same data.
Does "faster" usually mean a different thing than "as fast".
Re:Depends (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, the meanings can be different. Let's look at 100% faster: that would be the starting speed, plus another starting speed, giving you a 2x value. So 330% faster would be starting speed plus 3.3x, making it 4.3x.
Whereas 100% "as fast" is saying the "the same speed", or 1x, and 330% "as fast" would result in 3.3x.
Re: (Score:2)
And 50% as slow as means?
Re: (Score:2)
And 50% as slow as means?
As we all know:
50% = 50 per cent = 50 per hundred = 50/100 = 1/2
"And 1/2 as slow as X" means twice as fast as X.
Its the inverse --> 1 / 1/2 = 2
This glacier 1 meter per year. This other glacier is only 1/2 as slow. So it moves 2 meters per year. Twice as fast.
Interestingly the phrase 0% as slow; seems difficult to make sense of, which makes sense since the inverse of 0/100s is a division by zero error. 1 / 0/100 = 1/0 = NaN
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And that reminds of the 'two times less' and 'two times fewer' I see here all two often.
It's not just here. It's even in advertisements. I can't figure out if idiots are designing them, and they don't know better, or if it is intentional because they are "dumbing down" to the intelligence level of today's layman.
Either way, it's annoying.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't come up with a solid meaning for "as slow". "As fast" seems straightforward; it's a comparison to a value as measured from zero. But "as slow" would seem to need to be a comparison to a value measured from a reference point above the value (like comparing to 60 with a reference value of 100) but of course then the question is "what's the reference point?" So it's not very useful, which makes it not very common, which makes it susceptible to misinterpretation, which makes it even less useful.
Re: (Score:2)
... "as slow" would seem to need to be a comparison to a value measured from a reference point ...
"slowness" = 1 / "fastness" (a.k.a. speed)
Say that an object is moving at 5 meters per second. Its "slowness" is, equivalently, one second per five meters, or 0.2 seconds per meter. "50% faster" would be 50% * 5 m/s = 2.5 m/s faster than 5 m/s, or 7.5 m/s in total. "50% slower" would be 50% * 0.2 s/m = 0.1 s/m slower than 0.2 s/m, or 0.3 s/m in total, or 3.333... m/s.
(Intuitively, "50% slower" means that it takes 50% more time to cover the same distance.)
"Twice as fast" = 2 * 5 m/s = 10 m/s.
"Half as slow"
330% of accountants agree. (Score:2)
Yes, the meanings can be different.
That's the sort of problem you run in to when you believe that talking about 330 in every 100 even makes sense. :ducks for cover ;)
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, go back to high school: “increase [...] by 330 percent” means 4.3 faster.
Rounding 3.3 to three would have been acceptable.
People should stop using variation percentages outside the range -50% – +100%, i.e. ÷2 – ×2. They always get it wrong.
And why does /. eats U+2212 MINUS SIGN?
Re: (Score:2)
“increase [...] by 330 percent” means 4.3 faster."
Sorry, but "330% faster" is indeed 3.3 times faster, or 4.3 times as fast. "4.3 [times] faster" is actually 5.3 times as fast. You're off by one, and GP is correct.
Let's try it this way: "100% faster" and "1 times faster." Do you see how your statement is provably false, now?
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but "330% faster" is indeed 3.3 times faster, or 4.3 times as fast. "4.3 [times] faster" is actually 5.3 times as fast. You're off by one, and GP is correct.
Let's try it this way: "100% faster" and "1 times faster." Do you see how your statement is provably false, now?
Sorry, but the AC is right. "100% faster" = "1 times faster" = "2 times as fast".
"X times as fast" = X * original speed
"X times faster" = original speed + (X * original speed)
Re: (Score:2)
I appear to have had a reading comprehension malfunction, and I thought OP was stating that "330% faster = 3.3x speed" which is definitely not what he was stating. With regard to your formula, I'll admit ignorance. I did some quick research and have found nothing definitive other than people arguing on the internet. I will not press my point (we've already proven that I am not responding to what people are actually saying, much less correct) but I'm unconvinced as to the accuracy of what you're saying.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you link to something authoritative so I can cure my ignorance?
Sorry, I didn't find anything definitive either. However, it follows from the normal use for ratios less than unity. The only difference is the magnitude. Taking "two times" to be equivalent to "200%", and "1/2 times" (or simply "1/2") to be equivalent to "50%":
50% as fast (as the original) = 1/2 (times) as fast = 0.5 * original speed
100% as fast = one times as fast = 1 * original speed
200% as fast = two times as fast = 2 * original speed
50% faster (than the original) = 1/2 (times) faster = (0.5 * origina
Re: (Score:2)
Your points are persuasive, but most people* would likely parse the phrases "twice as fast" and "two times faster" as meaning the same thing which throws your entire point into disarray. Percentages are obvious, "as fast/faster" appears to be a personal stylistic choice.
*: "most people" definitely falls afoul of the "no true scotsman" fallacy, but it's not like I'm going to go out and conduct a survey on the issue.
Re: (Score:2)
This is more a matter of how the phrase should be read, as jargon, and not how the phrase will be (mis-)understood by the general public in casual conversation.
As a writer, if you can't count on a technically-minded audience, you're (unfortunately) best served by avoiding relative multiples entirely, as well as relative percentages at or above 100%. Unlike "two times faster" or "330% faster", there is no confusion, generally speaking, about how to read "three times as fast" or "430% as fast".
As a reader, in
Re: (Score:2)
Except lawyers, salesmen, my kids, lawyers, politicians, my wife, and lawyers.
That aside, if it mattered I'd probably try to write it a different way - "has double the top speed", or using actual (approximate) numbers "can fly at around 750 knots instead of 380".
With such good Wi-fi... (Score:1)
Except for high security environments, I wonder if we will soon see the day when wired network access is as rare as 8-track cartridges?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah i'm typing this from an AIO touch screen computer that's connected via wifi to the internet the router is only 10ft away but there has never been reason to run a wire no file transfers are done and the 802.11g is still faster than our 12Mbps dsl connection at that distance.
Re: (Score:2)
wires will always remain a better transmission medium
Depends what you mean by "better." I think you mean "faster" and/or "less risk of data loss" and/or "less risk of data interception." If you're talking about connecting your computer to a router in another room without a good way to run a wire through the floor or ceiling, I think a person might reasonably argue that wires in that case are not "better." Or if you're talking about using your phone on the train or in Walmart, I think one could reasonably argue that, even though the wifi connection is slowe
Re: (Score:1)
There will never be a wireless network that outperforms a wired network. Even if their throughput claims aren't 100% bullshit in the real world (unlike all previous wireless speed claims) you still have the fundamental problem of very limited wireless bandwidth (the technical term, not the vernacular meaning!) to work with since a wireless connection has to play nice any only use a tiny sliver of feasible frequencies to avoid interference with other wireless signals.
Wired networks do not have the same degre
Re: (Score:3)
I have to mention yes this was 2 years ago but I feel it's relevant). /. on how to build a network to handle google fiber without doing any modifications to the building.
Someone did a ask
https://ask.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]
He was planning on using a poweline adapters and wanted to know a better solution IIRC /. pretty much just said run a wire there is not any wireless solution that could handle those speeds.
Re: (Score:3)
Want to run cable with minimum disruption to the building than eg http://www.skirtec.com.au/ [skirtec.com.au] . Skirting and architrave ducts. Simply pull off the empty solid ones and replace with hollow ones that can accommodate cables and outlets. Always, always go with wire where you can, everything will run much smoother. So you work in ceiling space, bring cable down at doorways to the floor and around the room you go. To get from floor to floor, drill a hole, use fixed floor to ceiling cupboards, with removable backs
Re: (Score:3)
Even if their throughput claims aren't 100% bullshit...
Do you mean as much bullshit or twice as much bullshit ? I'm confused...
Re: (Score:3)
Not any time soon.
It's still going to be wired coming out of your cable/dsl modem or optical transceiver.
Someday it might be done 100% cellular but not as long as they insist on having an access charge for every device you own.
10GB of data is 10GB of data it doesn't (with current networks anyway) matter if I use it on one cell phone or 1000 IOT monitors I strapped to the trees outside to monitor their O2 production.
Re:With such good Wi-fi... (Score:4, Informative)
I can run 10 Gbps on fiber over a distance of 40 km using 5 watts of power. I have zero interference and can run as many lines in parallel as I want. And this is with typical enterprise equipment---I assume the telco guys have better options.
Call me when wireless can do that. Or not, as I'll probably be running 40 Gbps (or higher) by then.
Re: (Score:2)
That's amazing!
How much did it cost you to lay the fibre along that 40km route again?
Cost/Benefit... HOW DOES IT WORK???
Re: (Score:1)
sadly most tablets like Ethernet ports for some reason
Re: (Score:2)
Na they are fixing that modern tables comming with usbc so easy to get the current dongle to get Ethernet attached. Hells they can get thunderbolt over that connector if they want to.
Not handy for the home (Score:3)
Since they are talking about many devices connecting to multiple routers it's not going to do much for the average home user then. I may have a couple of devices but only the one router. They haven't found a new Wi-Fi but a method for coordinating the routers to handle the load as they say their method could be applied to cell stations too.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it sounds like the old dialup thing where you could get a special account with your ISP and use two modems.
Re: (Score:2)
Since they are talking about many devices connecting to multiple routers it's not going to do much for the average home user then. I may have a couple of devices but only the one router.
More and more mesh router systems are coming out - Netgear's Orbi was just announced; Ubiquiti's Amplifi, Luma and Eemo are also out there. Your next router may well have multiple base stations. I know that's something I'm thinking of, but I want to see how these all shake out for a bit first.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't they have an "upstream" network plug, and (usually) 4 "downstream" connections. So isn't that routing? (..and giving the downstream items addresses from its DHCP server?)
Re: (Score:2)
Since they are talking about many devices connecting to multiple routers it's not going to do much for the average home user then. I may have a couple of devices but only the one router.
Actually:
- If you got a second router, put it some distance away from the first, and hooked them together with a network cable, you could use two devices about as fast as you could one with one router.
- If you had three wired routers you could use three devices close to as fast as you could use one with one r
Re: (Score:2)
Also: You could relay between one device and another out of range with it about as fast as they could talk if they were in range of each other, rather than cutting that rate in half as each talks to a router and the router repeats what it heard.
Re: (Score:2)
Fewer.
Re: (Score:2)
AC could mean less.
Half a transceiver is not as good as a whole one.
Re: (Score:2)
Lesser.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, more transceivers are better than less, thank you MIT.
But only if they're really tightly synchronized.
MIT got them to be tightly synchronized despite being in different boxes in different rooms, rather than all being in the same box, WITHOUT a lot of extra, extra-special, extra-fancy, extra-cost, hardware. This can be built with a bit more off the shelf stuff (maybe the SAME amount of the same off the shelf stuff but with a bit better firmware) and easily folded into the next generation's chips.
Re: (Score:1)
They already did this. It is called MIMO. You can add more streams. It just costs more and requires more PA, LNA, Switches, Connectors, Antennas. The guy who really defined what MIMO is showed mathematically that you can just keep adding channels. There is lots of multipath around you and it can all be used to your advantage if you are a wizard.
Re: (Score:2)
They already did this. It is called MIMO.
We all understand that.
What you're missing is that:
- MIMO works better, over longer distances, when the antennas are more separated. The more the separation, the greater the distance, for a given accuracy of phase.
- But it also requires the radios to be synchronized to within a tiny fraction of a single cycle, so the patterns add up correctly. At 2.5 GHz an entire cycle is one quarter part per BILLION and MIMO reqires more than an order of magnitude
Re: (Score:2)
At 2.5 GHz an entire cycle is one quarter part per BILLION
Make that 2/5 part per billion.
Re: (Score:2)
... and "one cycle per second of error".
I.e. if your clocks are good for one part per million you have a tiny fraction of a millisecond before your pattern comes apart.
Their trick is to resynchronize at the start of every packet, to a reference transmitted by one of the transmitters, so they can get the packet squirted out (or received) while the pattern still holds together, rather than trying to keep the radios in sync constantly despite not being able to wire them together.
Re: (Score:2)
It's dead simple to synchronize wireless gear on completely different networks, if you so choose. The gear just needs to support it.
GPS input to produce accurate timing, and configurable RF parameters. Polling so that the AP can tell what client to transmit when.
Sure, banging it into 802.11 is a bitch, but even it's been done; take a look at Cambium's ePMP products.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Rather than concentrate on speed, they need to concentrate on co-existence. In many places the number of wifi APs screaming over multiple channels causes severe performance problems.
It's particuarly bad in urban environments where walls make the "hidden transmitter" problem much worse. Essentially you have two APs screaming as loud as they can, but too far apart to hear each other. Someone in the middle who can hear both can't make out what either is saying, or what the other person in the room is saying at
Re: (Score:2)
Link to the paper (Score:5, Informative)
Here are direct links to the paper's download page [mit.edu] and the paper itself. [mit.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks.
(Unfortunately, membership paywall... B-b )
Science article: the real numbers are at the origi (Score:2)
Both Owen Hughes' ibtimes article and the summary say "triple" the speed, which. should be four times the speed.
Three times faster is technically correct, but seems asinine when allowing this kind of English should allow you to say "one time faster" for twice as fast ("my new car can go one time faster than my old car").
Re: (Score:2)
http://news.mit.edu/2016/solving-network-congestion-megamimo-0823 [mit.edu]
Anything like pcell? (Score:1)
Is this anything like the pcell thing that Steve Perlman has been working on?
FCC requirements? (Score:1)
Do current FCC regulations allow for this type of coordinated approach between multiple transmitters? Maybe this is a solution for licensed operation only?
Not very different from newer LTE implementations. (Score:1)
New cellular network designs now have a simple RF portion at the tower without baseband, connected by fiber to a datacenter which operates a unified baseband, effectively turning every tower into one part of a giant phased array radar, turning beams to the right user, and doing things like predictive handoffs and forced handoffs to farther cells that are less loaded. That regional level of awareness only works on regional networks that can have full control of private frequencies in that area though (FCC ba
Latency (Score:2)