[LINK] The Game Begins...

[Steven Clark]

On 30/06/11 22:00, Tom Koltai wrote:
> 95 Mbps NBN. cool. BUT...
>
> Quote/
> [From:http://www.techspot.com/news/44483-wigig-11-specification-publishe
> d-testing-to-begin-in-q4-2011.html]
>
> WiGig 1.1 specification published, testing to begin in Q4 2011
>
> By Emil Protalinski < , TechSpot.com
> Published: June 29, 2011, 10:40 PM EST Breaking News
> <http://www.techspot.com/tag/breaking/>  
>
> The Wireless Gigabit Alliance (WiGig <http://www.wigig.org/> ), the
> organization pushing for the worldwide adoption of 60GHz wireless
> technology, has announced the publication of its certification-ready
> multi-gigabit wireless specification. The newly completed version 1.1 of
> the specification addresses enhancements identified by member companies
> during the product development process.

Why is there so much chatter and excitement about cable *versus*
wireless? Am I missing something?

We deploy both, surely? Cable for network backbone, with wireless at the
leaves for 'untethered' devices.

I'm still bemused by the deployment of wireless networking that tries to
deliver over the absolute minimal number of nodes. I work on a
university campus from time to time where most staff have given up on
the (free) wireless network because the nodes, when you can get enough
signal, are usually crowded out with student devices. And the 3G
coverage is patchy at best due to the clutter of two storey buildings
scattered across the space.

With increasing convergence, certainly more convergent devices coming
into the consumer market, many homes are likely to have the central node
of their Internet access inside or very close to their television. Even
if many domestic 'desktops' shift into the 'home theatre', why wouldn't
that system be hooked into a landline in most urban households?

10m wireless is pretty much perfect for interiors: plunk a series- or
loop- or tree-linked array of small, low powered wifi antennas into each
room and you have the makings of high availability, low latency local
networking sharing a main link out to common infrastructure. Instead of
trying to get coverage by placing a few expensive, higher-powered,
longer-range devices around a floor, why not a larger array?

The problem of moving between cells is not insurmountable. And it may
actually *improve* security as devices and associated network logins are
trackable/traceable across the network, and since the network signal
doesn't need to penetrate walls, it can be designed *not* to do so. It's
also probably no more privacy-invasive than per-cell (meaning
per-'tower') connections.

Just thinking out aloud here.

-- 
Steven