Topic: Li-Fi has just been tested in the real world, and it's 100 times faster than Wi-Fi
Anonymous A started this discussion 11 years ago #47,871
Source: http://www.sciencealert.com/li-fi-tested-in-the-real-world-for-the-first-time-is-100-times-faster-than-wi-fi
Date Published: 24 November 2015
It looks like Wi-Fi is about to become obsolete.
Date Published: 24 November 2015
It looks like Wi-Fi is about to become obsolete.
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later[^] [v] #626,661
That looks like a clickbait website.
Syntax joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 20 minutes later, 22 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #626,667
Not clickbait but clearly poorly researched.
Satellite to Satellite - Satellite to ground - Moon to Planet Earth
This stuff been going on for almost 2 decades using light to communicate at speeds 15 years ago that make modern Wi-Fi look ...S L O W
Satellite to Satellite - Satellite to ground - Moon to Planet Earth
This stuff been going on for almost 2 decades using light to communicate at speeds 15 years ago that make modern Wi-Fi look ...S L O W
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 12 minutes later, 35 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #626,672
I remember my dial up days
good times
good times
Syntax replied with this 11 years ago, 8 minutes later, 43 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #626,679
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 18 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #626,686
lol it only goes one way
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 14 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #626,692
Dr. Katherine Pulasky double-posted this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #626,693
squeegee joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #626,720
kinda cool, but also kinda useless without matching broadband speeds... i'm going to remain super pissed about "the state of things" until gigabit connections are standard. "they" claim to not be able to deliver higher speeds, but that's a lie. of course they have the tech to improve the entire internet experience, but what they don't have is the willingness to cut into profits to expand infrastructure. my personal opinion is that cable companies are trying to wait for post-fiber wireless networks so they can just not spend money on infrastructure, but this shit has been going on for decades and it's only just going to continue as long as cable isn't treated as a utility and doesn't have strong controls over how infrastructure is laid out. they're just going to continue claiming internet speed is like squeezing blood from a stone, and it's 100% the fault of cable that we don't already have world class internet in this country.
(Edited 35 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 6 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #626,722
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 47 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #626,736
@626,720 (squeegee)
how dare they denigrate your yeehaw experiences of riding around in a cartoon spaceship
how dare they denigrate your yeehaw experiences of riding around in a cartoon spaceship
Syntax replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #626,739
@626,720 (squeegee)
There is something to be said for not having to dig up streets to lay fiber. RF spectrum is limited and Gigabit BW requires wayyyy to much spectrum.
There is something to be said for not having to dig up streets to lay fiber. RF spectrum is limited and Gigabit BW requires wayyyy to much spectrum.
Anonymous H replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #626,743
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #626,746
@626,736 (H)
i know! can you imagine how many starships i could ride with a gigabit connection? i mean fuck, bro, a lot.
i know! can you imagine how many starships i could ride with a gigabit connection? i mean fuck, bro, a lot.
Anonymous H replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #626,751
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 16 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #626,755
@626,739 (Syntax)
so you agree with cable companies that it's impossible to improve broadband speeds and that the best option today is to throttle connections and charge exorbitant fees for very slight increases over standard 15mb connections? you know they're still calling DSL broadband right? you know it's 2015, right?
it's funny, back in the day we had to upgrade modems regularly, speeds were always improving and there was always an expectation that eventually your equipment would be obsolete. then cable companies got a hold of internet providers and suddenly my linksys modem/router pair didn't need to be upgraded. for a decade. i just replaced it because finally my cable company offered speeds it couldn't handle. it's like as soon as cable companies felt threatened by the capabilities of an internet connection they decided to buy up all the providers and make sure speeds would never get to a point that ala-carte and near instantaneous media consumption would threaten their entertainment conglomerate.
and now we read leaked memos about TW misleading consumers on data caps, the US is behind half the world in broadband speeds, prices have really never been higher for all their content, and it's alllll so cable companies can prop up their dying business model by holding back a much superior form of media delivery. the internet is killing cable and they know it, so they purposefully stall and continue to hold everyone back.
you don't agree?
so you agree with cable companies that it's impossible to improve broadband speeds and that the best option today is to throttle connections and charge exorbitant fees for very slight increases over standard 15mb connections? you know they're still calling DSL broadband right? you know it's 2015, right?
it's funny, back in the day we had to upgrade modems regularly, speeds were always improving and there was always an expectation that eventually your equipment would be obsolete. then cable companies got a hold of internet providers and suddenly my linksys modem/router pair didn't need to be upgraded. for a decade. i just replaced it because finally my cable company offered speeds it couldn't handle. it's like as soon as cable companies felt threatened by the capabilities of an internet connection they decided to buy up all the providers and make sure speeds would never get to a point that ala-carte and near instantaneous media consumption would threaten their entertainment conglomerate.
and now we read leaked memos about TW misleading consumers on data caps, the US is behind half the world in broadband speeds, prices have really never been higher for all their content, and it's alllll so cable companies can prop up their dying business model by holding back a much superior form of media delivery. the internet is killing cable and they know it, so they purposefully stall and continue to hold everyone back.
you don't agree?
Syntax replied with this 11 years ago, 19 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #626,759
@previous (squeegee)
USA cable companies have been caught short sighted. They did not anticipate people switching from the traditional and going for only internet to obtain content. I have no expertise on the biz side of cable companies other then reading long articles now and then. So I end up as a casual observer.
I just do not see them making all that much money just providing internet and wot it wood take to compete against say the Google fiber model.
Then again I notice Google has slowed down their rollout of city wide fiber USA wise.
I do see lab versions and even a few field versions of developmental picocell/femtocell, for wifi. Currently such exists but I mean the type where every 5th household has one and it takes zillions of them for a large city. K band 20-40 GHz for the future so Gigabit wireless is possible.
> as soon as cable companies felt threatened by the capabilities of an internet connection they decided to buy up all the providers and make sure speeds would never get to a point that ala-carte and >near instantaneous media consumption would threaten their entertainment conglomerate.
Cable companies have no way to stop advanced WiFi systems as the work around.
Of course none of this WiFi of the future has any real value to those on the move on highways. There are Alpha/Beta set ups for current 4GLTE of the future systems that do deliver Gigabit download rates that will when ready fill in the blanks between the WiFi of future - I do see a lot of stuff that looked good on paper but is not so great currently in the field
USA cable companies have been caught short sighted. They did not anticipate people switching from the traditional and going for only internet to obtain content. I have no expertise on the biz side of cable companies other then reading long articles now and then. So I end up as a casual observer.
I just do not see them making all that much money just providing internet and wot it wood take to compete against say the Google fiber model.
Then again I notice Google has slowed down their rollout of city wide fiber USA wise.
I do see lab versions and even a few field versions of developmental picocell/femtocell, for wifi. Currently such exists but I mean the type where every 5th household has one and it takes zillions of them for a large city. K band 20-40 GHz for the future so Gigabit wireless is possible.
> as soon as cable companies felt threatened by the capabilities of an internet connection they decided to buy up all the providers and make sure speeds would never get to a point that ala-carte and >near instantaneous media consumption would threaten their entertainment conglomerate.
Cable companies have no way to stop advanced WiFi systems as the work around.
Of course none of this WiFi of the future has any real value to those on the move on highways. There are Alpha/Beta set ups for current 4GLTE of the future systems that do deliver Gigabit download rates that will when ready fill in the blanks between the WiFi of future - I do see a lot of stuff that looked good on paper but is not so great currently in the field
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 12 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #626,761
squeegee double-posted this 11 years ago, 14 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #626,763
@626,759 (Syntax)
> USA cable companies have been caught short sighted. They did not anticipate people switching from the traditional and going for only internet to obtain content. I have no expertise on the biz side of cable companies other then reading long articles now and then. So I end up as a casual observer.
what? they've been talking about internet killing cable since the early 2000s if not sooner. they DID anticipate people switching, it's why they bought up all the internet providers. they could see it coming.
> I just do not see them making all that much money just providing internet and wot it wood take to compete against say the Google fiber model.
why the hell not? i used to pay 120 buck for cable, now i don't. i'd gladly pay 120 bucks for internet if their primary focus was on delivering the content i'm asking for instead of trying to also be the content i'm asking for. cable companies are very comfortable with their subsidized channels and make a ton of money off of content they create and then serve up on cable. they do not want some outside entertainment pipeline that pumps in content they don't control or profit from directly. their business model is based on owning and controlling the content, the channels, and the schedule. they are not capable of stewarding internet as a utility, their business is anti exactly that kind of thing which is why they throttle speeds and refuse to improve infrastructure. why help the enemy? just keep blowing out their knees and make them crawl.
> Then again I notice Google has slowed down their rollout of city wide fiber USA wise.
yeah, well, cable companies are suing them every step of the way and trying to keep them out of the state entirely. google has been hit with injunctions from competitors and they are being fought aggressively. it's no wonder they're making slow progress, cable companies have thrown up as many obstacles as their lawyers can manage to argue.
> Cable companies have no way to stop advanced WiFi systems as the work around.
>
> Of course none of this WiFi of the future has any real value to those on the move on highways. There are Alpha/Beta set ups for current 4GLTE of the future systems that do deliver Gigabit download rates that will when ready fill in the blanks between the WiFi of future - I do see a lot of stuff that looked good on paper but is not so great currently in the field
yeah, it's looked good on paper for 25 years. but you know what works? fiber. roll that out and cable dies. so, guess what'll never get rolled out as long as cable companies control internet access? fast internet.
> USA cable companies have been caught short sighted. They did not anticipate people switching from the traditional and going for only internet to obtain content. I have no expertise on the biz side of cable companies other then reading long articles now and then. So I end up as a casual observer.
what? they've been talking about internet killing cable since the early 2000s if not sooner. they DID anticipate people switching, it's why they bought up all the internet providers. they could see it coming.
> I just do not see them making all that much money just providing internet and wot it wood take to compete against say the Google fiber model.
why the hell not? i used to pay 120 buck for cable, now i don't. i'd gladly pay 120 bucks for internet if their primary focus was on delivering the content i'm asking for instead of trying to also be the content i'm asking for. cable companies are very comfortable with their subsidized channels and make a ton of money off of content they create and then serve up on cable. they do not want some outside entertainment pipeline that pumps in content they don't control or profit from directly. their business model is based on owning and controlling the content, the channels, and the schedule. they are not capable of stewarding internet as a utility, their business is anti exactly that kind of thing which is why they throttle speeds and refuse to improve infrastructure. why help the enemy? just keep blowing out their knees and make them crawl.
> Then again I notice Google has slowed down their rollout of city wide fiber USA wise.
yeah, well, cable companies are suing them every step of the way and trying to keep them out of the state entirely. google has been hit with injunctions from competitors and they are being fought aggressively. it's no wonder they're making slow progress, cable companies have thrown up as many obstacles as their lawyers can manage to argue.
> Cable companies have no way to stop advanced WiFi systems as the work around.
>
> Of course none of this WiFi of the future has any real value to those on the move on highways. There are Alpha/Beta set ups for current 4GLTE of the future systems that do deliver Gigabit download rates that will when ready fill in the blanks between the WiFi of future - I do see a lot of stuff that looked good on paper but is not so great currently in the field
yeah, it's looked good on paper for 25 years. but you know what works? fiber. roll that out and cable dies. so, guess what'll never get rolled out as long as cable companies control internet access? fast internet.
Syntax replied with this 11 years ago, 19 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #626,766
@previous (squeegee)
> cable companies are very comfortable with their subsidized channels and make a ton of money off of content they create and then serve up on cable
I still keep my eyes on Comcast - more so after they acquired NBC-Universal studios - That of course was about buying content which under the new world order is no longer a valid way to go considering all the other new content providers that do not need the big studio model
Yea I wood like Fiber to household - Cable of course is fiber up to the street and copper to house as is alternative DSL Verizon n AT&T fiber to twisted pairs
Few years ago I wood not have considered RF as the delivery system to households - Now after China gave up on wire to home infrastructure, I do see zillions of dirt cheep Picocells using K band and even V band 40 to 75 GHz. I just think digging up streets is going to be passe in the near future
> cable companies are very comfortable with their subsidized channels and make a ton of money off of content they create and then serve up on cable
I still keep my eyes on Comcast - more so after they acquired NBC-Universal studios - That of course was about buying content which under the new world order is no longer a valid way to go considering all the other new content providers that do not need the big studio model
Yea I wood like Fiber to household - Cable of course is fiber up to the street and copper to house as is alternative DSL Verizon n AT&T fiber to twisted pairs
Few years ago I wood not have considered RF as the delivery system to households - Now after China gave up on wire to home infrastructure, I do see zillions of dirt cheep Picocells using K band and even V band 40 to 75 GHz. I just think digging up streets is going to be passe in the near future
Metæ joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 21 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #626,767
@626,720 (squeegee)
This. My router can handle 600 megabits. My Internet connection is 50 megabits. Not sure how 60,000 megabit routers are going to help this, especially when the 802.11n router and 50mbit Internet are already more than fast enough, frankly.
But srsly this li-fi thing is bullshit. I'd have to get a router for every room in the house. Okay maybe in 10 years they'll be built-in to light fixtures and electrical outlets no big deal, right? But then I still have to make sure I don't cover the li-fi optical receptor and I definitely cant take my tablet under the blankets at night. Gotta maintain a direct line of sight.
I think Ill just stick with Wi-Fi thanks and you can keep the 100x speed boost.
This. My router can handle 600 megabits. My Internet connection is 50 megabits. Not sure how 60,000 megabit routers are going to help this, especially when the 802.11n router and 50mbit Internet are already more than fast enough, frankly.
But srsly this li-fi thing is bullshit. I'd have to get a router for every room in the house. Okay maybe in 10 years they'll be built-in to light fixtures and electrical outlets no big deal, right? But then I still have to make sure I don't cover the li-fi optical receptor and I definitely cant take my tablet under the blankets at night. Gotta maintain a direct line of sight.
I think Ill just stick with Wi-Fi thanks and you can keep the 100x speed boost.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #626,768
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 46 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #626,773
@626,767 (Metæ)
when 4k is the standard resolution for tv (few years away really) then 50mbit won't be nearly enough. hell, i can't hardly even get streamed video in 1080p, everything is 720 or lower. and if you want 1080p you either have to buffer or wait for the download. it's feeling more and more like the old dial-up days the more bandwidth we need, especially since more and more everyday stuff is delivered via the internet. 50mbit internet is sufficient. for now. but even now i'm struggling to get high quality video in a timely manner. even though this should not be a problem for 1080p streaming anymore, it is because that exact thing (convenient high quality content delivery) is the exclusive domain of cable. honestly i think even if i had google fiber i'd still struggle because ISPs allow for preferred premium traffic even though they absolutely have the throughput to treat all traffic equally (as evidenced by the recent TW data cap leaks where they admit caps aren't about alleviating congestion at all. it's about price gouging.)
it's just fucked that cable companies control so much when there are pretty clear conflicts of interest because now the internet has been classified as a utility.
when 4k is the standard resolution for tv (few years away really) then 50mbit won't be nearly enough. hell, i can't hardly even get streamed video in 1080p, everything is 720 or lower. and if you want 1080p you either have to buffer or wait for the download. it's feeling more and more like the old dial-up days the more bandwidth we need, especially since more and more everyday stuff is delivered via the internet. 50mbit internet is sufficient. for now. but even now i'm struggling to get high quality video in a timely manner. even though this should not be a problem for 1080p streaming anymore, it is because that exact thing (convenient high quality content delivery) is the exclusive domain of cable. honestly i think even if i had google fiber i'd still struggle because ISPs allow for preferred premium traffic even though they absolutely have the throughput to treat all traffic equally (as evidenced by the recent TW data cap leaks where they admit caps aren't about alleviating congestion at all. it's about price gouging.)
it's just fucked that cable companies control so much when there are pretty clear conflicts of interest because now the internet has been classified as a utility.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #626,782
Illegible gibberish.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 26 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #626,786
Anonymous H replied with this 11 years ago, 4 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #626,811
itt: people reasearch a few mins on google then spout out an an opinion like they were bright enough to think of it/
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 11 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #626,901
@626,736 (H)
hey, you know? i just realized that you would have had to have watched my you tube video to have made such a relevant reply. thanks for the view, bud. if you liked the video please hit subscribe!
hey, you know? i just realized that you would have had to have watched my you tube video to have made such a relevant reply. thanks for the view, bud. if you liked the video please hit subscribe!