60GHz Wi-Fi gets FCC approval

[midian182]

What just happened? While there’s plenty of buzz over the speeds 5G will bring, Wi-Fi isn’t being left behind. Chip giant Qualcomm has partnered with testing and certification service company Sporton International to push the FCC to approve 60GHz Wi-Fi based on the 802.11ay protocol.

Back in October, Qualcomm became the first vendor to build chipsets for 802.11ay, which uses the 60GHz band for more than four times the bandwidth of the prior standard and a longer transmission range. It offers increased capacity, minimal latency, and is faster than the 2.4GHz and 5GHz bands, bringing up to 10Gbps speeds.

October also saw the Wi-Fi alliance simplify the technology's naming system. 802.11n became Wi-Fi 4, 802.11ac is now Wi-Fi 5, and the 802.11ax standard is labeled as Wi-Fi 6. 802.11ay didn’t get a new name.

We’ve already seen 60GHz Wi-Fi in the 802.11ad protocol, which can reach up to 5Gbps within line of sight transmissions, though it’s not exactly popular and remains expensive.

While applications requiring short-range wireless communications such as VR headsets could be the main use of 60GHz Wi-Fi, it’s also targeted at improving high-resolution streaming and IoT devices. Additionally, Facebook has joined forces with Qualcomm to use 60GHz technology in Terragraph: a new wireless system for deploying high-speed internet to dense urban areas.

DigiTimes revealed the partnership between Qualcomm and Sporton, writing that the Taiwan-based company expects "rising demand for analyzing and testing related IC materials and components supporting a wide range of 5G and AIoT [Artificial Intelligence of Things] applications starting the second half of 2019."

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/80896-60ghz-wi-fi-gets-fcc-approval.html

 

[fktech]

In the real world 60 = 6!!! But cost 10X more.

 

[Danster1616]

Good by slow internet and hello more Cancer!!

 

[Theinsanegamer]

So super fast assuming you are right next to the router (why not just use an ethernet cable you spaz) and still avoiding the convenient "ISPs are too slow to saturate 802.11N" problem.

And 60X the price. No thanks.

 

[SYNCHRONIC1]

Good by slow internet and hello more Cancer!!

Yep, and infertility, amongst all manner of other physiological damage from this ultra high frequency radiation. Absolutely disgraceful what they are doing in an obvious depopulation attempt.

 

[SYNCHRONIC1]

This is disgusting. 60ghz is such a high frequency that the health affects on all living organisms is guaranteed to be catastrophic.

The ill-effects on cellular life, physiological/biology processes and more has been widely understood by the thousands of studies conducted decades ago, 2,500 or so compiled in the since declassified documents by the US Navy in 1972.

Cancer, infertility, and a host of other hugely damaging effects are going to skyrocket exponentially if this sort of murderous behaviour is not curbed..

 

[O805782765]

Good by slow internet and hello more Cancer!!

Yep, and infertility, amongst all manner of other physiological damage from this ultra high frequency radiation. Absolutely disgraceful what they are doing in an obvious depopulation attempt.

It's non-ionizing radiation. It is literally impossible for it to cause any damage except for burns and we're talking about less than 500 mW EIRP of power at the antenna. The amount of pathloss between the antenna and any person is always going to be substantial especially at 60 GHz.

Ionization occurs when you are able to break molecular bonds between strands of DNA. This is not possible at WiFi, cellular or 60 GHz frequencies.

People need to get up to times to what technology has advanced to. These aren't 30W-200W massive HF radio stations bouncing signals off the ionosphere anymore. Look at the SAR limits from the FCC, you'd have to grip onto one of the 60 GHz antennas and hold your hand there for 30 minutes to even be above the normal limit. You're exposed to significantly more ionizing radiation by flying on an airplane than you are by 802.11ad/ay.

 

[O805782765]

So super fast assuming you are right next to the router (why not just use an ethernet cable you spaz) and still avoiding the convenient "ISPs are too slow to saturate 802.11N" problem.

And 60X the price. No thanks.

It's likely being pushed for things like VR, which does have issues with cabling, and P2P connections between a 802.11ay AP say at the street to a receiver to each house. The last mile of ISP wiring is extremely expensive, which is why there are last mile ISPs (Cox, Time Warner, Comcast etc.) and then you have the general network ISPs like Layer 3 which run all of the MPLS circuits and soforth out there.

 

[O805782765]

In the real world 60 = 6!!! But cost 10X more.

Where does it say it's 10X the cost? 802.11ad is built into every snapdragon from qualcomm these days on your phone, albeit normally not going to a front end radio, but the baseband is there. A 60 Ghz RF frontend isn't expensive, many FEMs out there for all sorts of suppliers exist, and the antenna itself is a wash and is extremely small in terms of form factor.

An 802.11ad/ay SoC with an integrated baseband and radio front end with a PCI-E connection to a computer is likely going to be no different in cost than a 802.11ax/ac/abgn PCI-E SoC that you'd find in a laptop.

 

[SYNCHRONIC1]

It's non-ionizing radiation. It is literally impossible for it to cause any damage except for burns and we're talking about less than 500 mW EIRP of power at the antenna. The amount of pathloss between the antenna and any person is always going to be substantial especially at 60 GHz.

Ionization occurs when you are able to break molecular bonds between strands of DNA. This is not possible at WiFi, cellular or 60 GHz frequencies.

People need to get up to times to what technology has advanced to. These aren't 30W-200W massive HF radio stations bouncing signals off the ionosphere anymore. Look at the SAR limits from the FCC, you'd have to grip onto one of the 60 GHz antennas and hold your hand there for 30 minutes to even be above the normal limit. You're exposed to significantly more ionizing radiation by flying on an airplane than you are by 802.11ad/ay.

Non-Ionizing radiation is perfectly capable of causing huge damage to all living-organisms, just look at the 1972 de-classified US Navy document "BIBLIOGRAPHY OF REPORTED BIOLOGICAL PHENOMENA ('EFFECTS') AND CLINICAL MANIFESTATIONS ATTRIBUTED TO MICROWAVE AND RADIO-FREQUENCY RADIATION)" which deals with far lower frequency and intensity waves than what we are faced with on a daily-basis today, let alone 60ghz.... let alone considering the future plans to have "5G satellites (6-100ghz) firing down WIFI from space at 5 million watts over the entire planet from the likes of Elon Musk and other corporate puppets helping to eradicate a large % of the human-race.

http://www.justproveit.net/sites/default/files/prove-it/files/military_radiowave.pdf

 

[DelJo63]

It's non-ionizing radiation. It is literally impossible for it to cause any damage except for burns and we're talking about less than 500 mW EIRP of power at the antenna. The amount of pathloss between the antenna and any person is always going to be substantial especially at 60 GHz.

Ionization occurs when you are able to break molecular bonds between strands of DNA. This is not possible at WiFi, cellular or 60 GHz frequencies.

People need to get up to times to what technology has advanced to. These aren't 30W-200W massive HF radio stations bouncing signals off the ionosphere anymore. Look at the SAR limits from the FCC, you'd have to grip onto one of the 60 GHz antennas and hold your hand there for 30 minutes to even be above the normal limit. You're exposed to significantly more ionizing radiation by flying on an airplane than you are by 802.11ad/ay.

FEW have any background in RF :sigh:

 

[Dustyn]

Yeah but it got FCC approval. It must be safe.

 

[jpuroila]

Good by slow internet and hello more Cancer!!

Yep, and infertility, amongst all manner of other physiological damage from this ultra high frequency radiation. Absolutely disgraceful what they are doing in an obvious depopulation attempt.

It's non-ionizing radiation. It is literally impossible for it to cause any damage except for burns and we're talking about less than 500 mW EIRP of power at the antenna. The amount of pathloss between the antenna and any person is always going to be substantial especially at 60 GHz.

Ionization occurs when you are able to break molecular bonds between strands of DNA. This is not possible at WiFi, cellular or 60 GHz frequencies.

People need to get up to times to what technology has advanced to. These aren't 30W-200W massive HF radio stations bouncing signals off the ionosphere anymore. Look at the SAR limits from the FCC, you'd have to grip onto one of the 60 GHz antennas and hold your hand there for 30 minutes to even be above the normal limit. You're exposed to significantly more ionizing radiation by flying on an airplane than you are by 802.11ad/ay.

"Non-ionizing" just means that it can't cause cancer by damaging DNA directly. That doesn't mean it can't cause damage through some other mechanism.

 

[fktech]

Where does it say it's 10X the cost? 802.11ad is built into every snapdragon from qualcomm these days on your phone, albeit normally not going to a front end radio, but the baseband is there. A 60 Ghz RF frontend isn't expensive, many FEMs out there for all sorts of suppliers exist, and the antenna itself is a wash and is extremely small in terms of form factor.

An 802.11ad/ay SoC with an integrated baseband and radio front end with a PCI-E connection to a computer is likely going to be no different in cost than a 802.11ax/ac/abgn PCI-E SoC that you'd find in a laptop.

When does it NOT cost consumers more for less....

 

[JBoyers]

Non-Ionizing radiation is perfectly capable of causing huge damage to all living-organisms, just look at the 1972 de-classified US Navy document "BIBLIOGRAPHY OF REPORTED BIOLOGICAL PHENOMENA ('EFFECTS') AND CLINICAL MANIFESTATIONS ATTRIBUTED TO MICROWAVE AND RADIO-FREQUENCY RADIATION)" which deals with far lower frequency and intensity waves than what we are faced with on a daily-basis today, let alone 60ghz.... let alone considering the future plans to have "5G satellites (6-100ghz) firing down WIFI from space at 5 million watts over the entire planet from the likes of Elon Musk and other corporate puppets helping to eradicate a large % of the human-race.

http://www.justproveit.net/sites/default/files/prove-it/files/military_radiowave.pdf

You do realize that sunlight (apart from the higher frequency ultraviolet light that's mostly filtered by the atmosphere) is a much higher frequency non-ionizing radiation (between 430–770 THz) and an even higher level of power (approximately 1,000 Watts/m2 on a clear day when perpendicular to the sun) than any of the RF communications being discussed, whether 100GHz, 60GHz, or 5GHz. Yes, it is possible for these frequency to cause burns, but the power levels required to do so are so significantly higher than the allowed radiation levels for those as to be laughable. If you let sunlight into your home, you are at a higher risk of damage than the use of these frequencies as regulated.

 

[O805782765]

Non-Ionizing radiation is perfectly capable of causing huge damage to all living-organisms, just look at the 1972 de-classified US Navy document "BIBLIOGRAPHY OF REPORTED BIOLOGICAL PHENOMENA ('EFFECTS') AND CLINICAL MANIFESTATIONS ATTRIBUTED TO MICROWAVE AND RADIO-FREQUENCY RADIATION)" which deals with far lower frequency and intensity waves than what we are faced with on a daily-basis today, let alone 60ghz.... let alone considering the future plans to have "5G satellites (6-100ghz) firing down WIFI from space at 5 million watts over the entire planet from the likes of Elon Musk and other corporate puppets helping to eradicate a large % of the human-race.

http://www.justproveit.net/sites/default/files/prove-it/files/military_radiowave.pdf

Those are MASSIVE HF radio sites. They pump out into the kW of energy and normally have extremely restricted access and located in super remote areas of the world like Alaska. They work by bouncing off the ionosphere or even go through the earth itself. They take entire electrical grids by themselves to operate. No doubt there is affects at that end, it's still non-ionizing, meaning no one is being turned into mutants, but yeah it's about as severe as standing near an electrical transformer station.

a 100-500mW transmitter is so low in power it's hard to fathom for most people. It's not even 1/120th of the power of a single light bulb. We're going about incredibly low power and at a typically perceived power that is near the thermal noise floor, e.g. the ambient power that we experience at all times just because of entropy in the universe, across all spectrums.

You're consistently exposed to higher doses of actual ionizing and damaging radiation through cosmic radiation than you are by Wi-Fi / 802.11ad. Keep in mind Wi-Fi / 802.11ad do not also constantly transmit, their duty cycles are at the very most extreme cases going to be maybe 50%, majority of the times significantly less. One of the biggest issues with 802.11 and what ax is trying to solve, along with ay, is the inefficiency in terms of channel contention. Simply put, transmitters have to sit around and listen a lot more than they actually transmit. Their average power over time, not their maximum EIRP like 100/500mW, is actually very, very small.

 

[O805782765]

"Non-ionizing" just means that it can't cause cancer by damaging DNA directly. That doesn't mean it can't cause damage through some other mechanism.

Absolutely, that was my point is all. It can cause a burning sensation at extremely high power or at a very close distance (I.e. holding onto the antenna) for a significant period of time (30 mins or more per the FCC OET 65 requirements). It is after all, current and voltage no more or less than you'd experience holding onto an electrical cable it just happens to use the medium of air for transmission rather than wires.

 

[O805782765]

When does it NOT cost consumers more for less....

I assure you whenever you buy a modern android phone with a Qualcomm SoC inside, which is a huge majority of them, you're already buying the most expensive part of 802.11ad radio chain which is the baseband. The FEM and antenna is kind of insignificant.

 

[thelatestmodel]

Ayyyyyyy lmao

 

[DelJo63]

Absolutely, that was my point is all. It can cause a burning sensation at extremely high power or at a very close distance (I.e. holding onto the antenna) for a significant period of time (30 mins or more per the FCC OET 65 requirements). It is after all, current and voltage no more or less than you'd experience holding onto an electrical cable it just happens to use the medium of air for transmission rather than wires.

There is significant difference here:

1. direct wire contact to non-rf wires performs electrocution at the heart
2. rf does not do that, but cooks the body inside-out like a microwave oven does food.
3. direct contact with an RF antenna while transmitting acts like #2

 

[tkabou]

Good by slow internet and hello more Cancer!!

Yep, and infertility, amongst all manner of other physiological damage from this ultra high frequency radiation. Absolutely disgraceful what they are doing in an obvious depopulation attempt.

It's non-ionizing radiation. It is literally impossible for it to cause any damage except for burns and we're talking about less than 500 mW EIRP of power at the antenna. The amount of pathloss between the antenna and any person is always going to be substantial especially at 60 GHz.

Ionization occurs when you are able to break molecular bonds between strands of DNA. This is not possible at WiFi, cellular or 60 GHz frequencies.

People need to get up to times to what technology has advanced to. These aren't 30W-200W massive HF radio stations bouncing signals off the ionosphere anymore. Look at the SAR limits from the FCC, you'd have to grip onto one of the 60 GHz antennas and hold your hand there for 30 minutes to even be above the normal limit. You're exposed to significantly more ionizing radiation by flying on an airplane than you are by 802.11ad/ay.

You have absolutely no understanding of biochemistry, physiology, and biology and how it is affected by this type of radiation. Hiding behind "oh it's non-ionizing radiation" is an elementary argument without actual substance. At 60GHz with transmitters and receivers on every other lamp post, we'll be in one giant microwave.

 

[jpuroila]

Absolutely, that was my point is all. It can cause a burning sensation at extremely high power or at a very close distance (I.e. holding onto the antenna) for a significant period of time (30 mins or more per the FCC OET 65 requirements). It is after all, current and voltage no more or less than you'd experience holding onto an electrical cable it just happens to use the medium of air for transmission rather than wires.

And my point was that stating "It is literally impossible for it to cause any damage except for burns" is rather silly. Human biology is incredibly complex and our understanding of it is very limited. It's entirely plausible that some non-ionizing parts of the EM spectrum can cause damage in ways we don't understand yet.

 

[koblongata]

Yes, I need all my Hi-Res 4K video 384khz audio signal and my top of the line VR headset be wireless, please.