AirFiber Laser Networks: 622mbps 92
shinar writes: "In the LA Times, AirFiber announced the July/August avaliability of a new last-mile replacement for fiber: a wireless laser system delivering up to 622 mbps. It's a short-range system, mainly viewed as a delivery system within cities. It's being tested in Dallas, Tokyo, and Madrid, and projected for first commercial release in July or August. Not huge or revolutionary-a few other companies are working on the same sort of thing-but it might be a blessing for people in high-population density areas. "
interference (Score:3)
Sounds great, but... (Score:1)
Re:Sounds great, but... (Score:1)
Re:interference (Score:1)
I want it- (Score:1)
Re:interference (Score:1)
Laser downside (Score:2)
Neat idea however.
Da
Weather? (Score:1)
"It's foggy, I can't see the Internet..."
Kaa
Re:interference (Score:1)
Network disruption (Score:1)
Old Tech? (Score:2)
Re:Sounds great, but... (Score:1)
We have a laser beam over a street here (albeit an old one; 5-10 yr old, around 1-2 Mbit/s, IIRC). Flying pigeons are no trouble (well, it bogs down NFS, that's all)... and pigeons just won't land on the nailboards laid under the laser boxes.
Overall, works well and reliably. The only problem is with heavy rain.
Cluster computing (Score:1)
Wavelength of the light used in the "LASER" (Score:1)
It would look pretty funky in fog with all these criss crossed laser "trails" in the sky. Or is it more broad band than that?
--sig starts here --
Will Dr Evil be able to use the "Laser" to destroy washington?
.sig =
http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=HVZ895
Cut the wires! (Score:2)
"Luke, I am your fahther...."
Great bandwidth! (Score:1)
--
Can it kill Darth Maul? (Score:2)
Re:Sounds great, but... (Score:2)
Any wireless system needs a heck of a lot of error-correction at the link level. It's been possible to get fairly good bandwidth out of microwave beam transmitters already for at least a decade or so, so I guess similar principles would be in effect.
Besides, isn't it just another parroty error?
Re:Weather? (Score:2)
how smart is line of sight communication? (Score:1)
Re:Sounds great, but... (Score:1)
Jeff
Upping the wattage (Score:1)
But then its not eye-friendly
But it eliminates pigeons!
Network interference (Score:5)
Initially, as the flights of pigeons would be blocking the laser's line-of-sight, the laser network will suffer: "I am sorry, sir, the packets can't get through -- there are pigeons in the way!".
Eventually I would expect the laser network to deal with this problem technologically, that is, upgrade their lasers to military power. At this point, the carrier-pigeon network will begin to suffer casualties, and notices like "Caution! Dead pigeons falling out of the sky!" will have to be posted around the laser network sites.
Later we may expect carrier pigeons to be fitted with mirror-shielded armor and the network lasers to be outfitted with tracking devices, but that's going to take some time...
"Packets? What packets? There is a pigeon shoot going on!"
Kaa
Flaming pigeons (Score:1)
He also said it was faster than 622 mbps.. somewhere along the lines of a gigabps. They have some pretty serious routers and such where he works, so they could have that kind of bandwidth outside the laser pipe, or he could be pulling my leg.
---
uh...yeah (Score:1)
But nobody can figure out why it never works, then when the techs come out to look at it that evening, it works just fine...
low latency is cool; bandwidth just increases (Score:2)
how many bits we can get from A to B these
days. Sure some of the tech might be cool
(e.g., the optical switching trickery in the
Vint Cerf interview), but what'll impress me
is when they get latency down to the point
where I can't as a human detect the difference
between the latency across the Pond and the
latency to the other nodes at my LAN party
Smog warning (Score:2)
All I wanted to know was what color laser they are using. If they use red, smoggy or foggy days would result in this very cool "Blade Runner" grid of lasers floating at rooftop level.
Serious note: This technology is only meant for large cities with high population densities. Those cities would also have the most smog. As the smog levels of a city rise, wouldn't the connection get slower and slower? Something for the folks in LA to think about before they drop money on this kind of system.
-B
Re:Laser downside (Score:2)
Security Concerns? (Score:2)
Does anyone have any insight?
New York had similar (Score:2)
AFAIK, it never really caught on, but it may still exist. I suspect the line-of-sight is the biggest issue it faced (I might have gotten it if my apt was on the correct side of my building to see the ESB). You'd have to put up a lot of these to solve the last mile in this way. Probably this would be a better solution for getting to the last mile -- ie, mount these on cell towers and then run fiber from them to the area buildings...
More tricks and gimmicks. (Score:1)
This will happen. They did it for phone. They did it for electricity. They did it for cable TV (I remember when my rural Wisconsin village finally got hooked up in the early 90s). They will do it for broadband Internet. Why are they delaying what must be done?
Can you imagine if, in the late 70s, cable companies tried to send TV over the phone lines? Or set up neighborhood microwave/laser transceivers to get TV out to everyone? What did they do instead? They laid the frickin cable down. Now almost all Americans can get cable TV, and everyone is happy. WHY THE HELL CAN'T THEY DO THIS FOR DATA?
If there is some technical/political/intelligent reason why SOMEONE isn't out there laying down residential data infrastructure, PLEASE enlighten me, because I sure as hell don't understand it.
--
What amazing wiretap potential (Score:2)
Bingo! That's exactly the problem... (Score:4)
It's an interesting idea for people who can't use other technologies because of their location, but I doubt it'll have any wide consumer market, when there are so many other established (and more reliable) technologies.
See this related article: Science-fiction staple new entry in high-speed Net [cnet.com] (C|Net News.com [news.com], 22 Mar 00)
A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society [tecsoc.org]
Washington, D.C.
Some Ideas... (Score:2)
You have several laser guns/recievers on the same building all pointing in different directions... say within a 30-50 degree differenc of each other. Thos signals are all the same and subject to differing amounts of interference. Those signals are all picked up and rebroadcast at different angles to their destination. Adds a little bit of path redundancy.
I could also see being on the roof of a building in the middle and putting up a beam splitter and a couple mirrors and sniffing the media.....
Re:Old Tech? (Score:1)
Re:low latency is cool; bandwidth just increases (Score:1)
You can only cut it back so far before physics starts to get in the way...unless they figure out some form of FTL communication.
3*10^8 m/s...it's not just a good idea, it's the law! :-)
damned heat refraction... (Score:1)
Yeah, I've heard about this problem in every building-top laser setup I've ever heard about (one). It took them a long time to figure why it only worked at night.
Perhaps you just need a wider receiver, so it picks up the beam even it is pushed a bit off...
Laser networks old hat (Score:1)
Re:Network interference (Score:1)
"Hello and welcome to Geeks in Space, tonight....(zap)...and we'll never do *that* again! Next,
Re:low latency is cool; but impossible (Score:2)
Secure? (Score:1)
So basically someone could stick a mirror in the path and hijack my connection? No messy wire cutters or alligator clips required? I guess this would make it easier for law enforcement data-taps..
-Yikes.
-
Whacko conspiracy theory for today (Score:1)
Roof top communicaiton lazers will cause even more ground level heating of the atmosphere. Between this, low level ozone, CFC's released from refrigerants, styrofoam, methane from cows and pigs, cell phones, and microwave towers, it's no wonder we have had unprecidented heat through the 90's. It'll be weven worse in the oughts.
This has been your whacko conspiracy theory for the day. Please resume your normal paranoia.
Not an insoluble problem (Score:4)
Free-space optical transmission has distinct advantages over radio and microwave, notably a lack of licensing restrictions and extremely high transmission rates. Would you put up with 2 Mbps when you could have 100 Mbps or more? Neither would I. If I ran an ISP in an area where fog was infrequent (say, from Los Angeles down to San Diego and east to Austin TX or so) this would be a great way to roll out digital services at speeds DSL cannot even dream of, while still being able to make money off a sparsely distributed subscriber population. This will drive the demand curve which will then make it possible to get fiber all the way to the service entrance. It's not the end-all, but it's a great foot in the door.
--
Re:Wavelength of the light used in the "LASER" (Score:1)
--
No problems (Score:2)
This is digital. Which means that if the quantity of light getting through drops from 100 Foobars to 30 Foobars you are still getting full bandwidth as long as digital 1 == "more than 20 Foobars". Of course if it drops below (or too near...) that you lose.
2) Beam interruptions
Yup, IP is 'best effort' delivery. You lose packets on the internet all the time (mostly due to congestion). As long as whatever is blocking moves 'soon' its all OK.
3) Pigeons
Break out the old technology. Someone patent the scarecrow quick.
Re: Call before you dig (Score:1)
The simple answer: cost.
Although in rural Wisconson (Wisconson? Is that in Saskatchewan?) I'm sure it's relatively easy to stick a shovel in the ground and not ruin 25000 people's day, but in larger centers, installing new underground infrastructure around all of the existing water mains, sewer pipes, phone and cable lines, subways, power grid access tunnels, crocodile nests, et cetera is prohibitively expensive, and horribly time-consuming.
You're right, a buried conduit is probably the most stable solution, espcially for data backbones. But for local loops, it's probably not the most cost effective.
Last-mile problem (Score:1)
Would someone please give me the executive summary of the last-mile problem? I have always assumed it has something to do with the last hop a line makes going into a residence (or whatever) and that it is a bandwidth bottleneck.
Thanks!
-Derek
Consider this ... (Score:1)
Or am I totally off base here?
dv
Sunglasses (Score:1)
I don't see why someone would implement this? (Score:1)
I just don't investing the money on this type of system.
further concerns (Score:2)
Moreover, I'm rather curious about upload vs. download speeds.
Finally, you mention L.A. as a possible city where fog might not be a problem. That's probably true, and smog probably wouldn't be a problem there these days (as it would have been a few years ago). But mightn't minor tremors (in an area which, like much of California, is prone to seismic activity) inspire a need to perpetually realign the trasmitting and receiving gear? Over long distances, even the tiniest vibration could hugely affect the angle of the beam.
Are these realistic concerns?
A. Keiper
Re: Crystal (Score:1)
/*--Why can't I find the QNX OS on any warez sites?
* (above comment useless as of 4-26-2000)
*/
Re:Old Tech? (Score:1)
unstable... (Score:1)
Any sort of precipitation, including fog and haze (it would frequently drop connection around noon during the summer) could block the signal, and gusts of wind would blow one end of the connection out of alignment for a few moments.
Granted, this was older technology, but still...
Re:New York had similar (Score:1)
Is this an urban legend?
Is the laser system an urban legend?
Re:More tricks and gimmicks. (Score:2)
Re:further concerns (Score:3)
--
Re:further concerns (Score:1)
A. Keiper
Use for satellite communication? (Score:1)
I would assume that the atmosphere would cause distortion, but even then it could be used to pass signals between satellites or from a satellite to the moon or Mars.
Most problems solveable (Score:1)
One problem that i haven't seen brought up is that of radiant heat. The tops of buildings tend to get very hot, especially during summer. The heat radiating off the tops of the buildings will likely cause problems for any wavelength as it causes refraction of the light. Locating the lasers at the edges of the buildings involved and being able to keep the beam from getting too close to the tops of buildings in between should at least help keep the effective bandwidth up.
Previous mention of crystals getting in the path actually gave me a neat idea. While it's unlikely that a crystal would remain in the path of the laser (unless placed there purposefully ), it seems possible that you would be able to effectively split the beam (and therefore bandwith) using a crystal or mirrors of some sort, though doing so would be expensive as the implementation would be specific to each site and require alot of engineering each time around. There's probably some interesting properties of non-linear optics that could be exploited, but it seems like the lasers used for this specific implementation aren't high enough intensity to do so.
Re:What amazing wiretap potential (Score:2)
Huh? This has FAR more security than any other form of wireless transport. Without compromising the endpoints, it can only be intercepted by putting a reciever in the line of sight, instead of merely being withing broadcast range. This would both be really easy to detect (wtf is that helicopter doing hovering beside my building?) and would be very difficult to do without disrupting the communication.
But for the paranoid, there's certainly no reason not to add encryption to the link.
What I know about AirFiber (Score:1)
The primary purpose behind the technology is to solve some of the problems with regular fiberoptics -- namely, the expense, and having to cable over difficult terrain. The lasers are used in conjunction with fiber.
Their primary customers are ISPs themselves; they're not setting these up for individual users as far as I know (but there's nothing to prevent you from setting up your own link if you have the cash).
A single tower contains several send/receive pairs. Each pair is capable of independent movement, up and down, and around and around, and they are capable of automatically adjusting their focus if they need to -- so if there's some shift in location, they can still find each other.
The beam is pretty wide in diameter, so I don't think a single raindrop will be a problem, but I can see the link slowing down due to errors, but fog isn't that big of an issue.
When an object, such as a mirror (for snooping) or bird or person comes in front of the unit and breaks the link, it shuts off automatically and takes a photograph of what was in front of it, so that the technicians can see what it was that got in the way. So, if you were going to snoop the line, you'd better be really careful not to ever break the link. It'd be possible, sure, but not easy, and nearly impossible to be covert.
I believe the link itself uses Asynchronous Transfer Mode.
I hope you find this useful and informative. Obviously, I'm not attaching my name to this.
Re:Not an insoluble problem (Score:1)
The problem comes with a layer of fog settling on the ground. The top of the fog is often the top of the cloudline and the radiation reflection off the top of the fog blanket causes TEMPERATURE INVERSION.
Temperature inversion can bend everything in the spectrum all the way from HEAT TO GAMMA radiation. It's the phenomenon that can be seen in the apparent "waves" rising from asphalt on hot days. They are visible because the temperature inversion is bending the electromagnetic spectrum all to hell. You think shooting a laser through that wouldnt move the beam around?!?
Short RF links (15km) aren't generally affected by temperature inversion, but the precise aiming needed in a laser system is going to push the distance numbers way down. Perhaps someday someone will be able to develop an automatic aiming apparatus to correct for all sorts of spectrum bending, but that day hasn't yet arrived!
~GoRK
You don't need to be fancy to tap (DIY experiment) (Score:2)
*HOWEVER* I'd like to point out that (on a purely
technical level) tapping a technical signal is easier than you might think, because the intruder can amplify the signal at the point of interception, and therefore needs to divert only a fraction of the signal.
Even the tricky issue of 'the optical edge' (inserting the optical element without the boundary of the optical element causing a detectable interruption) is easily handled by using "edgeless" optical 'diverters' like smoke or steam
Get out your pocket pointer laser, and a phototransistor. Point the phototransistor at a point along the laser beam, and insert some of the following in the beam at that point:
Smoke/Steam/mist - if you see the beam, so will the phototransistor; no edge to temporarily interrupt the beam; even if you accidentally trigger the gadget that automatically photographs beam blocking objects, then photo won't show anything very incriminating (re: your identity)
For silly hacker/cracker movie scripts:
a transparent helium balloon (they 'light up' when the beam hits them)
a sheet of glass (monitor the edge of the sheet)
talcum powder (or powder of choice)
__________
Great. Bad Technology (Score:1)
After the conference, the organizers discovered the problem. Heat from the sun during the daytime caused convection currents to rise up from the roof of the building. This turbulent air diverted the beam and made it kle. It is also responsible for shimmering roads on a hot day and the wavy images when looking out above a hot radio."
I wonder how they address these issues. If they have not, I would never use this technology; it is expensive and unreliable. But, congratulations on the bandwidth!
what about Tracer? (Score:1)
Re:interference (Score:1)
Fog interference vs. San Francisco (Score:2)
In practice, San Jose doesn't have anywhere near as much fog problem, and a 500-meter distance could connect the PacBell/ATT POP with the AboveNet/UUNet/MFS POP, though there are bundles of OC48 fiber under the street that do the job just fine.
Lasers, Broken-window fade and Plywood fade (Score:2)
The computer system, being the fine piece of 70s mainframe gear it was, crashed hard, and the computer center folks had trouble explaining to the guy that he couldn't put that plywood there because there was an invisible laser beam going right where he was standing....
Re:New York had similar (Score:1)
It may not exist any more, but I know a few SOHO type businesses running out of apartments that used it to get bandwidth without the landlords finding out about it...
Re:Illegal? (Danger to pilot's eyes) (Score:1)
Questions.. (Score:1)
If so, optical networking would make a good alternative for remote control over mobile rcvr's as long as they could maintain LOS - no FCC control if you want to use higher-bandwidth applications (like video from the remote unit)
stealin bandwidth (Score:1)
but what about in office environments? (Score:1)
A better idea than conduits!! (Score:1)
At least it's not microwave (Score:1)
This reminds me of a story a friend of mine in Australia told me once. He managed the networks of (one of?) their university system down there. A link that they had was microwave between two campuses that were only a few miles apart.
One night there was a big lightning storm. There wasn't a lighting rod on the roof of the building, but there were these big microwave sending and receiving dishes. Lightning hit one of the sending dishes, was channeled through it (not damaging the sender, strangely), turned into a pencil thin beam of electricity arcing across the sky, and slagged the receiver dish at the other campus. This turned into one of the more unusual causes for a network outage that my friend had ever experienced.
Needles to say, the university bought lighting rods for the roofs.
Re:low latency is cool; but impossible (Score:1)
Re:Wavelength of the light used in the "LASER" (Score:1)
There's an article with some more detail in EE Times this week. Important numbers are the $20,000 cost (installed) per node, and that it is physically 1 by 3 feet.
http://www.eet.com/story/OEG20000424S0020
LSA have a 155Mpbs System (Score:1)
Re:Wavelength of the light used in the "LASER" (Score:1)
Re:No problems (Score:1)
I hope that's Mbps ... (-; (Score:1)
Re:Bingo! That's exactly the problem... (Score:1)
Re:Laser downside (Score:1)
Oh my God! (Score:1)
yOU CAN SEE THE"SCATTER" 0000 (Score:1)
laser, they scatter it, decreasing its range.
[The sun can't be seen during the day
but sunlight can.]
This kid has a laser on the other side of town
which can be seen if its raining. The beam can't
be seen but there is sort of a greenish haze about where
it would be striking a cloud. Even if it were day & raining
if the sig was modulated it could be recieved quite well.
[It must be remembered that a receiver doesn't
pick up the light but the CHANGES in the intensity
; eg. if the background is 1000 candles the
can't be seen but it's sig passes thru a capacitor real nice.
It isn't even neccesary to use expensive equiptment.
A $0.59 neon diode used to do hot leg tests on A C
lines has a response time [dLum - dV] & sufficient power
to transmit an HdTv sig across town.90% of the time.
A browser page ought be no problem.If One neon bulb
won't do it try a dozen or a hundred mounted on a
reflective plate.
Investing in a theatrical laser, the possibility of
punching through a sig in the stratosphere to Europe
or S A becomes possible.
Investing in 2 polar mounted motor driven
laser/detectors & some computer storage it shouldn't
be too difficult to set up an unregulated, international.
node for less than $5000 bouncing sigs off sattelites..
^ ^ ^ ^ ^
One of the more remarkable aspects
of dental caries is that the
trauma to the cheek tissue is
signifigantly greater than
the turgor elaborated about the
damaged roots in many patients.
Sounds like radiation damage
caused by a MICROWAVE LASER
INFRA RED-BAD NEWS 0000 (Score:1)
by air. The more power you push
into the beam the more that is absorbed.
As the air heats in front of the beam,
optical effects occur [heat refraction]
that makes the beam actually begin to coil.
The beam starts skittering about like
a runaway fire hose.
A fresnal lens would probably diffract
not focus [he guesses quickly.]
I believe that a cheap unregulated
private lightnet should be built around
using SCATTER techniques. One doesn't
need line of sight in order to pass
euitable commication signals. Just as one
can see the flicker of a fire on the
other side of a mountain it isn't
necessary to have tight contact with
the sig source.
It isn't even necessary
to use hi tech components.Why use a laser
when a neon bulb might do for pushing a
signal cross town. Here I'm thinking in
terms of a couple of dozen computer
buffs linking up together to swap
downloads on a 'good day' for $40
a copy.
What is needed is a font end
for the browser of your choice which
would pick up a megabyte of data
in a burst. The front would then
do a parity check with a byte
for each k of data & make a request
for only those blocks that failed.
With regard to that damn bird
if scatter techniques are used
there would be a drop in the sig
strength,[or even increase] but
would have no material affect on
the data.
data= f'(d(sig) +- bird)=f'(d(sig)))
^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Just as laser surgery can
improve your sight
a MICROWAVE LASER can
blur it
622 millibits per second? (Score:1)
--
"This isn't the post you're looking for. Move along."
Re:Bingo! That's exactly the problem... (Score:1)
Re:Great. Bad Technology (Score:1)
Re:Flaming pigeons (Score:1)
Re:interference (Score:1)