Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

60 GHz Wi-Fi Products Now Possible; 7Gbps!

By - Source: Tom's Guide US | B 30 comments

Wi-Fi and WiGi are teaming up to bring three spectrums to consumers, including 7 Gbps transfers.

Monday the Wi-Fi Alliance and the Wireless Gigabit Alliance (WiGig) jointly announced a cooperation agreement that will allow Wi-Fi equipment to access the 60 GHz frequency band, and to provide better speeds in the current 2.4 and 5 GHz bands. Devices that will support all three bandwidths will be able to achieve up to 7 Gbps although the range will most likely be limited to in-room transfers. Still, this is good news for consumers who want to stream Blu-ray movies to a living room HDTV.

"60 GHz device connectivity will be an exciting enhancement to the capabilities of today's Wi-Fi technologies," said Wi-Fi Alliance chief executive officer Edgar Figueroa. "It will expand the utility of Wi-Fi, used by hundreds of millions of people every day. From its inception, the WiGig specification was designed to work on a wide variety of devices, making it a compelling input as we begin to define our certification program for 60 GHz wireless."

In a separate announcement, WiGig said that it published its unified wireless specification for the unlicensed 60 GHz spectrum. It also launched its royalty-free Adopter Program which allow members to develop products that use the spectrum "to deliver multi-gigabit-speed wireless communication." Cisco, Hitachi, Panasonic, and Toshiba have already jumped on board, and may have tri-band products ready by the end of the year.

"With this announcement today, and with our new partnership with the Wi-Fi Alliance, we are one step closer to fulfilling our vision of a unified 60 GHz ecosystem," said Dr. Ali Sadri, WiGig Alliance president and chairman. "We welcome all companies to join with us as we continue to drive the industry forward."

Discuss
Display all 30 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 17 Hide
    Tindytim , May 10, 2010 11:13 PM
    60 Ghz is fast but rather useless. Very few applications for this make sense (like the example of streaming to a TV in the same room). At 60 Ghz the wavelength is much shorter, hell people moving around the room could block the signal.
Other Comments
  • 5 Hide
    webbwbb , May 10, 2010 11:09 PM
    This is pretty interesting though it does sound like it could have some bad problems as well. This is a semi-high frequency microwave and in the same range that is used for military electric countermeasures. It will also be very prone to interference and will perform very poorly in humid areas and at low altitudes. It would work great in a desert or on a mountain though.
  • 17 Hide
    Tindytim , May 10, 2010 11:13 PM
    60 Ghz is fast but rather useless. Very few applications for this make sense (like the example of streaming to a TV in the same room). At 60 Ghz the wavelength is much shorter, hell people moving around the room could block the signal.
  • 8 Hide
    gwwerner , May 10, 2010 11:29 PM
    With the way WiFi has lived up to its promised speeds so far, I'll believe it when I see it.
  • 8 Hide
    jhansonxi , May 10, 2010 11:55 PM
    I look forward to this becoming a finalized industry standard (in about 15 years based on 802.11n progress).
  • 6 Hide
    Zoonie , May 11, 2010 12:13 AM
    I'd like to see some long term health conduction studies on effects of radiation at this frequency. Could be interesting.
  • 5 Hide
    bogcotton , May 11, 2010 12:16 AM
    twisted politikslol, nobody could even utilize 7gb/s due to the fact that their hdd's can only read at a maximum of 300MB/s, and thats if they splurged on a SSD.


    Not everything you see on your screen is being read directly from your hard drive.

    You could write a 1kb program demanding the videocard to churn out as much information as it can, and you would end up with more than 300MB/s.
  • 5 Hide
    HibyPrime , May 11, 2010 12:48 AM
    twisted politikslol, nobody could even utilize 7gb/s due to the fact that their hdd's can only read at a maximum of 300MB/s, and thats if they splurged on a SSD.


    300MB/s = 2.4Gb/s its not that hard to imagine saturating this...
  • 2 Hide
    amnotanoobie , May 11, 2010 2:24 AM
    I'd like to know the range on this thing. Maybe we'd be lucky if we get 5 feet on the initial products.
  • 1 Hide
    warmon6 , May 11, 2010 2:29 AM


    +1 to hibyprime. It's not hard at all.
  • 0 Hide
    lauxenburg , May 11, 2010 4:51 AM
    Somehow you know this is not good for you to be standing in....
  • 3 Hide
    TheKurrgan , May 11, 2010 5:18 AM
    amnotanoobieI'd like to know the range on this thing. Maybe we'd be lucky if we get 5 feet on the initial products.

    I've used a few high frequency gbit proprietary products for 1gbit wireless. they work very well short range point to point, as far as projected range, these devices would barely communicate in the same room when faced away from each other, however this IS with the directional antenna. I gather that the range with a standard 2.5db di-pole antenna (note, this could be MUCH higher because of the shorter wavelength) would be around 25 meters (75 feet) reliably at a signal level the proxim stuff will operate @ 1gbit LOS. Add in objects and what not.. goes down to about 25 feet using omni antennas.. -- I'd say this particular technology is going to end up being a higher end bluetooth like technology for file transfers, or high speed equipment connection with out wires that are going to be in close proximity.. in environments where latency isnt a factor, if it proved out, you could add a "dongle" of some sort to the back of all servers in a rack, and have a downward facing AP at the top of each rack with a directional antenna.. thus getting rid of alot of ethernet cables in the NOC -- Something like that it could be useful on..

    For those interested, the equipment I tried with this was a proxim 6651E Gigalink series wireless bridge set. The link operates as promised @ 2800 ft, and delivers 1000baseSX speeds as promised reliably. Average latency through the link is 0.3 MS. for $19K a set though, it better damn well deliver.
  • 0 Hide
    knowom , May 11, 2010 5:38 AM
    HibyPrime300MB/s = 2.4Gb/s its not that hard to imagine saturating this...
    A ram disk could saturate it easily with a lot of room to spare so long as it meets the storage capacity requirements needed.
  • 0 Hide
    xophaser , May 11, 2010 6:17 AM
    This is already called IEEE 802.11ad. 60hz is Microwave e band. Wonder what part of the body this will fry. If transfer rate is at 7gbps, this would be fast enough for most devices for years to come. F mode is good enough for most people use today.
  • 4 Hide
    dan117 , May 11, 2010 8:16 AM
    I want range, not speed!
  • 2 Hide
    caparc , May 11, 2010 10:43 AM
    dan117I want range, not speed!

    Copy that. Unlicensed wireless with useful range is profoundly threatening to incombant ISPs, land based and wireless, and their government cronies. Whatever happened to unlicensed WIMAX? What's the status of unlicensed white space? Both promised. It seems to me one of the best things a local community could do for itself is figure out a way to provide dirt cheap or free universal wireless internet access. That's the nightmare of every ISP on the planet.
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , May 11, 2010 12:37 PM
    I agree caparc, but the community itself is the biggest hurdle to overcome. The tech is here, I've surveyed many citizens on their opinion of: would you like to pay $200 up front, and then $10 a month for internet, cable and home phone? Almost everyone said yes. The problem is the HEADS of the community. The telecoms and cablecos have community leaders in their pocket, and the leaders will pass bills to ENSURE that no community services have the opportunity to infringe on those franchises. Want to kill a great idea? Strangle it in red tape. I live in the Dayton area, and thank god that 'anti-competitive' bill has a 15 year expiration. Only a couple more years to go, hopefully we don't get f*^*ed over again.
  • -2 Hide
    bogcotton , May 11, 2010 1:00 PM
    bogcottonCan a stronger signalled version of this be sent down some form of fibre-optic cables?


    I get -11 and noone explains why?

    Wifi is light, fibre optics internally reflect light, I just want a reason why not?
Display more comments
Tom’s guide in the world
  • Germany
  • France
  • Italy
  • Ireland
  • UK
Follow Tom’s guide
Subscribe to our newsletter