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

[crimson5pheonix]

Sooooo... wheres the 100x faster? ... The quoted speed is 1 Gbps.

1 Gbps is what they achieved with the proof of concept prototype. They've demonstrated the theoretical capability to achieve 224 Gbps.

That's the problem with this system, it has 3 channels (RGB) and every device has to share these 3 channels.

RBG is just the "channels" of the human eye. The visible light spectrum has room for 10,000 times as many channels as the Wi-Fi band.

It does, but are there that many colored LEDs in this light? Because if you're just mixing the RGB LEDs to produce all those colors, you're still dividing the cycles that light can operate at and thus limiting the speed based on the number of devices communicating with it. Not to mention you just turned your router into a seizure inducing disco ball.

 

[Pyrian]

That's the problem with this system, it has 3 channels (RGB) and every device has to share these 3 channels.

RBG is just the "channels" of the human eye. The visible light spectrum has room for 10,000 times as many channels as the Wi-Fi band.

It does, but are there that many colored LEDs in this light?

Well, you can buy a whole lot more than three right off the shelf (and no I'm not referring to mixed spectrum LED's), and there's no particular reason why you couldn't fill the spectrum given time (blues are harder than greens are harder than reds). At the end of the day - indeed, even at the beginning of the day - lack of channels will be the least of your problems.

Not to mention you just turned your router into a seizure inducing disco ball.

The cycles would be much faster than even a dimmer. You probably won't be able to see the data at all.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

That's the problem with this system, it has 3 channels (RGB) and every device has to share these 3 channels.

RBG is just the "channels" of the human eye. The visible light spectrum has room for 10,000 times as many channels as the Wi-Fi band.

It does, but are there that many colored LEDs in this light?

Well, you can buy a whole lot more than three right off the shelf (and no I'm not referring to mixed spectrum LED's), and there's no particular reason why you couldn't fill the spectrum given time (blues are harder than greens are harder than reds). At the end of the day - indeed, even at the beginning of the day - lack of channels will be the least of your problems.

So we're back to what I said at the start, you have to buy a different colored light for every device in your house. Not to mention that the article in question talked about replacing every light in your home to be effective. So now you have to have all these different colored lights everywhere? Trippy.

Not to mention you just turned your router into a seizure inducing disco ball.

The cycles would be much faster than even a dimmer. You probably won't be able to see the data at all.

That's true of making a white light, but are you trying to have your white light switch between 3 shades of red, 2 shades of blue, and up to 50 shades of grey (hurr hurr).

 

[direkiller]

So we're back to what I said at the start, you have to buy a different colored light for every device in your house. Not to mention that the article in question talked about replacing every light in your home to be effective. So now you have to have all these different colored lights everywhere? Trippy.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-34380428
From the looks of it everything closest to the same li-fi light is on the same download channel.
but it can pick out different objects.
So don't try and run too many devices directly next to eachouter.

If the real thing works the way it dose in the videos, I can see it being useful for airports, as you would only be sharing a hotpot with the people within 10sq feet of you.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

So we're back to what I said at the start, you have to buy a different colored light for every device in your house. Not to mention that the article in question talked about replacing every light in your home to be effective. So now you have to have all these different colored lights everywhere? Trippy.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-34380428
From the looks of it everything closest to the same li-fi light is on the same download channel.
but it can pick out different objects.
So don't try and run too many devices directly next to eachouter.

If the real thing works the way it dose in the videos, I can see it being useful for airports, as you would only be sharing a hotpot with the people within 10sq feet of you.

Apparently the BBC doesn't like me because it wouldn't let me watch the video. So I went to the website where all these stories are pulling the data from and the closest to information I could find on it was

Multiple users per Li-Fi AP, supported through multiple access, while retaining high bandwidth for each user

But there are pictures to help give context. Namely it looks like there's 2 or 3 users per access point, which would sync up with splitting among RGB. If I overthink it a bit, "retaining high bandwidth" is probably weasel wording for "you lose some bandwidth".

But, something they don't mention very much, it uses LED lights in standard modern light sockets so you don't have to install new infrastructure! But you have to install receivers next to every light and connect those receivers to the internet, meaning you have to install new infrastructure anyway. Not that you wouldn't have to connect the light bulbs to the internet in the first place, which means laying new infrastructure anyway.

 

[Zacharious-khan]

I dont want to say completely worthless but Just wiring your devices would be faster in your own house, cheaper too. And long range, Wifi bandwidth is not the issue it's ISP throttling. I guess its neat though...

OK, I am curious, how exactly can the ISP control your router?

They don't? Although there is a good chance your router is on loan from your ISP. The control comes in when you make requests outside your local network. All of that traffic goes through servers owned by your ISP

 

[direkiller]

But, something they don't mention very much, it uses LED lights in standard modern light sockets so you don't have to install new infrastructure! But you have to install receivers next to every light and connect those receivers to the internet, meaning you have to install new infrastructure anyway. Not that you wouldn't have to connect the light bulbs to the internet in the first place, which means laying new infrastructure anyway.

Well yea, I think marketing is the only people that expect that.

Still as a supplement to Wifi in airports(there are just too many drawbacks to be a total replacement). I could see apple footing the bill on a few major airports just to up charge another $100 for a new feature.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

But, something they don't mention very much, it uses LED lights in standard modern light sockets so you don't have to install new infrastructure! But you have to install receivers next to every light and connect those receivers to the internet, meaning you have to install new infrastructure anyway. Not that you wouldn't have to connect the light bulbs to the internet in the first place, which means laying new infrastructure anyway.

Well yea, I think marketing is the only people that expect that.

Still as a supplement to Wifi in airports(there are just too many drawbacks to be a total replacement). I could see apple footing the bill on a few major airports just to up charge another $100 for a new feature.

Yeah there are admittedly a couple of niche applications for it. Keep in mind that you need a goofy adapter for your laptop to work with it.

 

[Yopaz]

I dont want to say completely worthless but Just wiring your devices would be faster in your own house, cheaper too. And long range, Wifi bandwidth is not the issue it's ISP throttling. I guess its neat though...

OK, I am curious, how exactly can the ISP control your router?

They don't? Although there is a good chance your router is on loan from your ISP. The control comes in when you make requests outside your local network. All of that traffic goes through servers owned by your ISP

Whenever the transfer speed of a router is tested the local network is used. This is completely independent of your ISP and can often be much higher than what you are paying for or even what your ISP can even offer. This can even be tested in a household without an internet connection.

Also your ISP have no reason to throttle your connection after it has reached you. Your ISP throttles it before it reaches you if they have interest in it. Why would they even care if the computer you have connected by cable had a faster connection than the computer connected by Wi-fi? It makes no difference.

Wi-fi is not the same as your internet connection.

 

[Strazdas]

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


Li-fi utilizes a light source, such as an LED bulb, to deliver speeds of up to 1 Gbps.

So which is it, is it faster or is it higher bandwitch. in first sentence you say its faster, in another you talk about bandwitch. its probably the latter, because being 100 times faster than wifi would require it to be faster than the speed of light, which is unlikely given that it is, in fact, light.

While wi-fi is perfect for general internet browsing, for games and downloads it's just not fast or reliable enough.

no, it is not. Wi-fi is a compromise of quality versus portability for internet use. Even the escapists browsers far better on a cable than wi-fi.

Modern wifi routers and protocols support up to 300mbps transfer bandwidth. It is, indeed, "fast enough" to download things. Bandwitch is not the issue with wi-fi, latency is.

Li-fi uses a light source, such as an LED bulb, along with a photo detector on the other end.

Congratulations, you have just invented fiber optics, a technology most of the world already uses.

As well as having the advantage of turning every light in your house into a hotspot, li-fi does not interfere with other radio signals, so could be utilized on aircraft and in other places where interference is an issue.

Being able to turn every light in a regular house into a hotspot would require a complere rewiring of the houses electrical systems, so no, its not going to happen. Also wifi interference on a plane is a myth perpetrated by flight companies so we would buy expensive sattelite phone services. it is not true and never was true. wifi is even enabled in some modern flights nowadays. the frequences are way too different to have any interference here.

However, despite the lightning fast speeds, it does have a few drawbacks, namely, unlike wi-fi it cannot travel through walls, so you need a clear line of vision from the light source to your machine. Similarly, it doesn't really work outside, due to interference from the sun.

Wi-fi cannot travel through walls either. well, it could, but no home user has emitters strong enough for that. rather it bounces of surfaces and travels AROUND walls instead. something that would be much harder to do with light (though light does bounce, it leaves a lot of energy in every hit).

...So basically, the internet is being sent on beams of light now?
Now, to see a sudden rise in the interest of solar power

internet has been sent on beams of light for over 3 decades now. we call it fiber optics. most of the world use this for wired internet.

Hell, WI-FI is more energy efficient. WI-FI uses approximately ~6W while light bulbs use ~6-60W dependent of the type of bulb you use.

the bulbs mentioned here are LED lights. these use very low energy emissions. for example a LED bulb i use that has an equivalence luminescence to a 40W heat lam takes only 2W of energy. it gets a bit higher once you go for high luminescence bulbs, but that is not needed for this invention.

I would argue it'd be great for covert ops depending on the reliability of signaling over long distances.

id think that flashing a clear light would be the last thing you want to be doing when you are trying to be hidden.

Keep in mind that this is new tech, meaning it won't really be field/consumer-level usage quite yet.

its not. the concept was created and discarded decades ago. current solutions are far superior. this is just a "lets see if we can" experiment.

 

[Abomination]

I would argue it'd be great for covert ops depending on the reliability of signaling over long distances.

id think that flashing a clear light would be the last thing you want to be doing when you are trying to be hidden.

That's why you put a tube around it and point it where you want the signal to go.

Turn its limitation into a practical function.

But then again there are probably better methods of conveying information, maybe not as fast and with as much bandwidth but still more practical.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

Keep in mind that this is new tech, meaning it won't really be field/consumer-level usage quite yet.

its not. the concept was created and discarded decades ago. current solutions are far superior. this is just a "lets see if we can" experiment.

The info i have on development is that it started in 2010 (LiFi) whereas VLC was created by none other than Alexander Graham Bell. Nothing I've seen has indicated it was created and discarded, considering this tech is using IEEE 802.11 standards (which only have been available since 1997, 2 decades ago minus a year and change)... So I'm not sure you're correct on that.
My point is that what they're doing is still in a testing phase, not nearly a phase where its even viable as a wi-fi alternative and people getting hopes up or getting ready to bash it have no dog in the fight as its still newer and untested beyond the last 5 years of development (again all sources I have read).

 

[Strazdas]

I would argue it'd be great for covert ops depending on the reliability of signaling over long distances.

id think that flashing a clear light would be the last thing you want to be doing when you are trying to be hidden.

That's why you put a tube around it and point it where you want the signal to go.

Turn its limitation into a practical function.

But then again there are probably better methods of conveying information, maybe not as fast and with as much bandwidth but still more practical.

and then just pray noone is in the same direction?

and you dont have to be directly in the line of sight. LEDs usually have a spread of 22 degrees (scroll down to Beam Spread) [http://www.thelightingdivision.com/led_faq.html]. even utilizing a tube will only help so much.

Also the smaller you make the spread the better aim of the beam is required.

Keep in mind that this is new tech, meaning it won't really be field/consumer-level usage quite yet.

its not. the concept was created and discarded decades ago. current solutions are far superior. this is just a "lets see if we can" experiment.

The info i have on development is that it started in 2010 (LiFi) whereas VLC was created by none other than Alexander Graham Bell. Nothing I've seen has indicated it was created and discarded, considering this tech is using IEEE 802.11 standards (which only have been available since 1997, 2 decades ago minus a year and change)... So I'm not sure you're correct on that.
My point is that what they're doing is still in a testing phase, not nearly a phase where its even viable as a wi-fi alternative and people getting hopes up or getting ready to bash it have no dog in the fight as its still newer and untested beyond the last 5 years of development (again all sources I have read).

I didnt mean this specific invention but rather the "Transfer information by light" concept. It was in fact quite popular before middle ages where they used chain-fires to warn of incoming raiders/barbarians. as we found better ways to communicate over long distances this concept was discarded as inferior. It still is and nothing this shows has proved otherwise. In fact the requirements for this makes it as limited as cable connection to begin with, without the benefit of stability the cable connection brings.

Its like someone built a table with 3 legs and it stood around in a lab without falling over and now your claiming its a new tech that simply hasn't reached its potential when in fact its very old thing that was discarded as unstable long ago. Yes, there are situations where this would work, but we have better alternatives.

 

[Zacharious-khan]

Whenever the transfer speed of a router is tested the local network is used. This is completely independent of your ISP and can often be much higher than what you are paying for or even what your ISP can even offer. This can even be tested in a household without an internet connection.

Also your ISP have no reason to throttle your connection after it has reached you. Your ISP throttles it before it reaches you if they have interest in it. Why would they even care if the computer you have connected by cable had a faster connection than the computer connected by Wi-fi? It makes no difference.

Wi-fi is not the same as your internet connection.

I think you're misunderstanding. Locally speed is dependent exclusively on routers because the traffic doesn't need to go anywhere that's difficult to go to. We're talking about outside local networks and how an increase in Wi-fi speed has no effect on, say streaming Netflix, because it goes through ISP's.

 

[Yopaz]

Whenever the transfer speed of a router is tested the local network is used. This is completely independent of your ISP and can often be much higher than what you are paying for or even what your ISP can even offer. This can even be tested in a household without an internet connection.

Also your ISP have no reason to throttle your connection after it has reached you. Your ISP throttles it before it reaches you if they have interest in it. Why would they even care if the computer you have connected by cable had a faster connection than the computer connected by Wi-fi? It makes no difference.

Wi-fi is not the same as your internet connection.

I think you're misunderstanding. Locally speed is dependent exclusively on routers because the traffic doesn't need to go anywhere that's difficult to go to. We're talking about outside local networks and how an increase in Wi-fi speed has no effect on, say streaming Netflix, because it goes through ISP's.

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?

 

[Smooth Operator]

It has been a long time running tech, but the line of sight problem is always the one that puts practicality out of reach.
Unless of course you invest in a very intricate infrastructure which will cover almost every visible corner of the working space, still this can never be as idiot proof as wi-fi.

And the next generation of communications satellites will use this principle to not only match fiber optics but surpass them at cross continent connections since light is faster through air/vacuum. But again the nasty visibility bugbear keeps development slow, with any kind of cloudy sky you start loosing connections to ground.
So a support relay system needs to go in place hovering just above the cloud layer for those cases, but then the support has to use radio communication which slows things down again.
Or you build an incredibly tall relay tower which would reach beyond the clouds, however it would need to be 4miles high, which is not exactly within the range of our standard building materials.

 

[Dach]

Sooooo... wheres the 100x faster?

The fastest I have seen so far with the best router has been 465 Mbs at a distance of 2.5 metres which isn't what I'd call close to 1 gbps, it's what I would call almost half, but I would say that's enough anyway. What router have you seen perform this well? It's latency, not speed which concerns the gamer and the latency is also acceptable these days unless you're playing at a professional level in which case you'd be using wired anyway.

Current consumer wireless routers typically max out at 600 Mb/s, though usually the speed isn't very important as outside connections don't exceed this. More importantly, this new tech is expensive and not extremely useful for home applications, as the mobility and number of simultaneous connections are being underutilized. Ultra-wideband wireless (currently in testing for 5G mobile connections) seems likely to be the better candidate for future wireless tech. Its max bandwidth is less (224 vs 100 Gb/s) but it doesn't have the number of shortcomings that LiFi brings.

 

[Yopaz]

Sooooo... wheres the 100x faster?

The fastest I have seen so far with the best router has been 465 Mbs at a distance of 2.5 metres which isn't what I'd call close to 1 gbps, it's what I would call almost half, but I would say that's enough anyway. What router have you seen perform this well? It's latency, not speed which concerns the gamer and the latency is also acceptable these days unless you're playing at a professional level in which case you'd be using wired anyway.

Current consumer wireless routers typically max out at 600 Mb/s, though usually the speed isn't very important as outside connections don't exceed this. More importantly, this new tech is expensive and not extremely useful for home applications, as the mobility and number of simultaneous connections are being underutilized. Ultra-wideband wireless (currently in testing for 5G mobile connections) seems likely to be the better candidate for future wireless tech. Its max bandwidth is less (224 vs 100 Gb/s) but it doesn't have the number of shortcomings that LiFi brings.

I checked it up and I can see I was mistaken, I just found one performing at 740 mb/s. It's still not fast enough to provide the fastest speeds available here, but that's really good.

Mobile connections aren't really that good for all kinds of purposes as they are right now though. It's not that their speed is inadequate, it's the latency that's too high. So while I got 33 mb/s speed and was able to download things incredibly fast I could not play games. I am eager to see what 5G offers, but for professional gaming that split second delay you get from a good Wi-Fi is still a tad too high and that you get from 4G is far too high. I do agree with you that speed is not the issue though.

 

[Zacharious-khan]

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.

 

[Lightknight]

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.