Forget Wi-Fi, Newly Tested Li-Fi is 100 Times Faster

Dach

New member
Apr 28, 2015
27
0
0
Zacharious-khan said:
I will admit it will be a godsend to anyone who lives in a single room basement but that seems like small target market, at least for non-commercial purposes.
That's not even the right market. For use like that ethernet cabling makes the most sense, but standard wireless is also going to be more than sufficient in most cases. You need some use where you need a lot of high speed connections but also want mobility but don't expect to block connections and have the money to add new infrastructure. About the only cases I can think of are subway trains (overhead light based network that pipes to central high powered wireless relay stations) or stadiums/conference halls. And neither of these cases vastly outperform current tech.
 

Zacharious-khan

New member
Mar 29, 2011
559
0
0
Dach said:
That's not even the right market. For use like that ethernet cabling makes the most sense, but standard wireless is also going to be more than sufficient in most cases. You need some use where you need a lot of high speed connections but also want mobility but don't expect to block connections and have the money to add new infrastructure. About the only cases I can think of are subway trains (overhead light based network that pipes to central high powered wireless relay stations) or stadiums/conference halls. And neither of these cases vastly outperform current tech.
I was going to add "and are afraid of cables because they look like snakes" but i'm trying to be a good boy on the forums right now and that seemed overly sarcastic
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,113
3,283
118
Lightknight said:
This sounds like we just need to re-engineer how current wifi setups are used. The direct line of sight is a bummer but at 100 times faster there's no reason why we can't set up relays or begin to wire our house with coax along with lighting lines. One could even have wires run to face a router just outside the door that captures the signal so that a central router could still be a hub.

But at this point, isn't running direct lines from your router just as good? I know this article says that it's 100 times faster than Wi-Fi but what about cable? Seems like it's speeds of up to 1Gbps. Which is about what we already have in cables. But they're saying that laboratory tests have shown theoretical speeds of up to 224Gbps. That would be pretty darn cool.

I'd say the biggest limiting factor here will continue to be the cable services. 100Gbps is great if you have Google Fiber or live in one of the cities that even offers 100Gbps. But if you had tech that was twice that, it wouldn't make a difference. But we have already been capable of sending 101Tbps over 100 miles (yes, Tbps) since 2011: http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-04/two-different-fiber-optic-technologes-top-100-terabit-second-speeds-fastest-ever

But for some reason we can't get 100Gbps for the average consumer.
There's a single core cable capable of moving 26 Tbps [http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-13469924] and a 12 core cable capable of moving a Petabit per second. [http://optics.org/news/4/1/29]

Those are cables you could run through your house. But we can't get them to the door :\
 

LostCrusader

Lurker in the shadows
Feb 3, 2011
498
0
0
Lost me at needing direct line of sight. Plus it sounds like it gets interference from other nearby light sources, like say a monitor.
 

Yopaz

Sarcastic overlord
Jun 3, 2009
6,092
0
0
Zacharious-khan said:
Yopaz said:
Some ISPs can throttle your connection speed (this is illegal in some countries). That has nothing to do with your wi-Fi speed and it has nothing to do with Li-Fi. The whole point of Li-Fi is to increase the wireless connection speed, which as I said got nothing to do with your ISP.

So no, I did not misunderstand anything. You did. Why do you think this article even mentioned Wi-Fi?
There's your misunderstanding, Speeding up a wireless connection like this is pointless. Because it doesn't help in any useful situation. Outside networks aren't faster, and on local networks you would need line of sight (I know you dont really but it slows down to the point you may as well be using Wi-Fi) with the receiver and if you can't move anyway just use a cord, every modern transfer protocol is faster or comparable ( cat6, HDMIv2, USB3.1, Thunderbolt). God help you if you want windows or some LED light bulbs in the same room.

I will admit it will be a godsend to anyone who lives in a single room basement but that seems like small target market, at least for non-commercial purposes.
There are several ISPs who provide 1 gbs connections over here[footnote]https://lyse.altibox.no/privat/priser[/footnote], I haven't seen routers that have been tested to form that well available for private customers so outside connections can indeed be faster. There isn't any routers that currently support speeds that high so you're wrong. If you look at large companies they also have connection speeds that far exceeds what a normal router can provide. Also you are wrong about this not mattering because the speeds you get over Wi-Fi are related to the distance between your computer and the router too.

This was not my point in the first place, nor what this article was about though. It was comparing Wi-Fi, Li-Fi and a wired connection and the different theoretical speeds you can get from each of them. You brought up throttling. Given the speeds you can get over Wi-Fi vs the speeds you can get form a wirless connection how does this fit in? Don't try to change the topic. Just explain to me that your initial statement was wrong and that ISP throttling got nothing to do with it. You want to claim Wi-Fi gives equally strong speeds and latency as wired connection? You're wrong. It's simple.

Also I am not sure why you seem to think I consider Li-Fi a good idea. Considering I mentioned in my first post that I keep my computer placed underneath and most people I know do the same I find it very impractical. I can quote thepart from my post where I did this in order to show you exactly how ridiculous you are being, but you already tried to wiggle out of your whole discussion about throttling having anything to do with Wi-Fi so I am not expecting you to actually give in.

I have also mentioned several times that it's not really connection speed, but connection latency which is the problem with the wireless connections of today. You don't seem to understand the difference and you've made no effort to understand anything so far so I will just be are wrong and too proud to admit it so you'll rather ridicule yourself by refusing to admit it. A wise man accept that he can be wrong.
 

Veylon

New member
Aug 15, 2008
1,626
0
0
We already had this twenty years ago.

It was called IrDA (Ir is for Infared) and had all the problems being theorized with Li-Fi before finally being superceded by Wi-Fi and Bluetooth. I don't expect this new thing to be used outside of a handful of niches not least because Wi-Fi can already handle most sane needs for data speed.
 

FalloutJack

Bah weep grah nah neep ninny bom
Nov 20, 2008
15,489
0
0
This is interesting... Unfortunately, I have light-sensitivity. Could be a problem.
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,473
0
0
Veylon said:
We already had this twenty years ago.

It was called IrDA (Ir is for Infared) and had all the problems being theorized with Li-Fi before finally being superceded by Wi-Fi and Bluetooth. I don't expect this new thing to be used outside of a handful of niches not least because Wi-Fi can already handle most sane needs for data speed.
^Bah. Ninja'd.
I remember IR communicators; they're nothing new.
Even the old Game Boy Color had an IR communicator on it, but it was so crap that very few games used it.

Given what I've learned about the EM spectrum and IR, I don't think changing the emitter to visible light is going to help much. Li-Fi's requirement for direct LOS alone will kill most of its practical deployment vs Wi-Fi.
 

Zacharious-khan

New member
Mar 29, 2011
559
0
0
Yopaz said:
There are several ISPs who provide 1 gbs connections over here https://lyse.altibox.no/privat/priser, I haven't seen routers that have been tested to form that well available for private customers so outside connections can indeed be faster. There isn't any routers that currently support speeds that high so you're wrong. If you look at large companies they also have connection speeds that far exceeds what a normal router can provide. Also you are wrong about this not mattering because the speeds you get over Wi-Fi are related to the distance between your computer and the router too.

This was not my point in the first place, nor what this article was about though. It was comparing Wi-Fi, Li-Fi and a wired connection and the different theoretical speeds you can get from each of them. You brought up throttling. Given the speeds you can get over Wi-Fi vs the speeds you can get form a wirless connection how does this fit in? Don't try to change the topic. Just explain to me that your initial statement was wrong and that ISP throttling got nothing to do with it. You want to claim Wi-Fi gives equally strong speeds and latency as wired connection? You're wrong. It's simple.

Also I am not sure why you seem to think I consider Li-Fi a good idea. Considering I mentioned in my first post that I keep my computer placed underneath and most people I know do the same I find it very impractical. I can quote thepart from my post where I did this in order to show you exactly how ridiculous you are being, but you already tried to wiggle out of your whole discussion about throttling having anything to do with Wi-Fi so I am not expecting you to actually give in.

I have also mentioned several times that it's not really connection speed, but connection latency which is the problem with the wireless connections of today. You don't seem to understand the difference and you've made no effort to understand anything so far so I will just be are wrong and too proud to admit it so you'll rather ridicule yourself by refusing to admit it. A wise man accept that he can be wrong.
Ok finals over. back to rancorous arguing.

Here's what i'd like you to do because I'm pretty sure you've completely misconstrued everything that I've said up to this point. Or at least that's what your statements are making me think, Since I can't even tell if your statements are even addressing anything I've said ever. Explain what you think this argument is about.

From the beginning I've simply been saying that Li-fi is pointless because it doesn't provide sufficient increased utility compared to Wifi and wired connections to justify installation. This is because Li-fi requires line of sight and no interference. The two counter arguments to that would be faster connection between devices in house and better throughput to outside networks. However I find both of those to be pointless since Wires are already much much faster without the downsides and outside traffic would not be sped up since it is limited (throttled) by your ISP. Now maybe you have a T1 line I don't know but for anyone who doesn't Li-fi wont make sense for a couple of years.