Samsung's 60GHz Wi-Fi technology will let you transfer 1GB movie in under three seconds

[Himanshu Arora]

Samsung has developed 60GHz Wi-Fi technology that it claims bridges the gap between theoretical and actual Wi-Fi speeds. The technology touted 802.11ad will enable data transmission speeds of up to 4.6 gigabits per second (Gbps), or 575 megabytes (MB) per second, a five-fold increase over the existing maximum of 866Mbps.

Just to give you an idea, the new Wi-Fi technology would enable a 1GB movie to be transferred between devices in less than three seconds, and would allow uncompressed high-definition videos to be streamed from mobile devices to TVs in real-time without any delay.

Samsung claims its 60GHz Wi-Fi technology maintains maximum speed by eliminating co-channel interference, regardless of the number of devices using the same network, exhibiting an actual speed which is over 10 times faster than that of the existing 2.4GHz and 5GHz Wi-Fi technologies.

The South Korean company says it has solved the penetration and path loss issues associated with millimeter waves by leveraging millimeter-wave circuit design and high performance modem technologies, as well as by developing wide-coverage beam-forming antenna.

“Samsung has successfully overcome the barriers to the commercialization of 60GHz millimeter-wave band Wi-Fi technology, and looks forward to commercializing this breakthrough technology”, said Kim Chang Yong, Head of DMC R&D Center of Samsung Electronics.

Samsung plans to apply the technology to a wide range of products, including audiovisual, medical, as well as telecommunications equipment. It will also be integral to development of Samsung's Smart Home initiatives related to the Internet of Things, the company says. Commercialization of the technology is expected as early as next year.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/58405-samsung-60ghz-wi-fi-technology-you-transfer-1gb.html

 

[VitalyT]

Nice! This just about to max out USB 3.0 for the new WiFi dongles.

 

[Guest]

It will also give you cancer in 1.5 seconds!

 

[Guest]

It will also give you cancer in 1.5 seconds!

Wow, really? Please tell me you posted that from a 56k dial-up modem because "phones lines are safer" or some such similar ridiculousness.

 

[Mr. McGibblets]

Doesn't matter how fast it is if ISPs keep throttling data transmission speeds.

 

[Guest]

Yeah it would be awful to stream movies from a server, in my house, to all of my tablets and TV's in full 1080p HD with no hiccups because of the evil ISP's. just awful.

 

[Ben613]

It will also give you cancer in 1.5 seconds!

Wow, really? Please tell me you posted that from a 56k dial-up modem because "phones lines are safer" or some such similar ridiculousness.

You know what they say:
"Smart Meters
Dumb People"

 

[Luay]

It will also give you cancer in 1.5 seconds!

Wow, really? Please tell me you posted that from a 56k dial-up modem because "phones lines are safer" or some such similar ridiculousness.

If he did, yes he would be safer.

Plants and people have been shown to absorb the radio signals that wi-fi emits & scientists are divided over whether this is enough to cause damage to tissue. Researchers in Holland found that trees exposed to wireless radio signals suffered from damaged bark and dying leaves.

There is little evidence, however, that wireless emissions pose any danger to human health. Wi-fi signals use very low intensity radio waves, 100,000 times less powerful than a microwave. So sitting in a wi-fi hotspot for a year would only expose you to the same dose of radio waves as making a 20-minute mobile phone call.

So by making fun of someone who might have jokingly exaggerated the effects of wifi, you and the other guest made fools of yourselves by showing your utter ignorance of the existence of this important trade-off that Apple, Samsung and Co., and all consumers whether consciously or otherwise decided to do.

So let us have this civil debate or you GTFO.

 

[superfrosty]

Doesn't matter how fast it is if ISPs keep throttling data transmission speeds.

I agree. I wish I could run a server out of my house.

 

[Ronnie D.]

It will also give you cancer in 1.5 seconds!

Wow, really? Please tell me you posted that from a 56k dial-up modem because "phones lines are safer" or some such similar ridiculousness.

I know RIGHT? Sounds like a germafoid who probably doesn't step on lines! But congrats to the devs for bridging this gap...hopefully this will go all out mainstream so all of us can enjoy faster WiFi regardless who our carrier is!

 

[Guest]

802.11ad is a common IEEE standard. Samsung is a co-developer of the Wireless Gigabit Alliance (WiGig). There are two competing standards for 60-GHz applications: Wireless HD and IEEE 802.11ad. The main purpose of 802.11ad is to enable data streams over short distances, such as movie streaming. It can deliver up to 7 Gbits/s in approximately 9 GHz of spectrum (in Europe) at 60 GHz using 64-QAM OFDM and beamforming techniques or 4.6 Gbits/s within a single channel (thus the lower power requirement). 802.11ad and 802.11ac (both commonly referred as VHT Wifi) are set to replace 802.11n.

-Bob

 

[Kevin82485]

I think the one downside with these higher frequencies is they become more and more incapable of passing through walls and floors. The signal will just bounce off the surfaces.

 

[Lionvibez]

I think the one downside with these higher frequencies is they become more and more incapable of passing through walls and floors. The signal will just bounce off the surfaces.

This!!

Distance and objects blocking the signal are still a major issue.

 

[MonsterZero]

802.11ad is a common IEEE standard. Samsung is a co-developer of the Wireless Gigabit Alliance (WiGig). There are two competing standards for 60-GHz applications: Wireless HD and IEEE 802.11ad. The main purpose of 802.11ad is to enable data streams over short distances, such as movie streaming. It can deliver up to 7 Gbits/s in approximately 9 GHz of spectrum (in Europe) at 60 GHz using 64-QAM OFDM and beamforming techniques or 4.6 Gbits/s within a single channel (thus the lower power requirement). 802.11ad and 802.11ac (both commonly referred as VHT Wifi) are set to replace 802.11n.

-Bob

ISP's need to get with this new standard and stop shipping sub par equipment. I recently upgraded FiOS to 75/75 and the new router they sent was a friggen Wireless N router. I quickly daisy chained and disabled wireless to use an asus rt-ac56r router. What a difference......

 

[Guest]

Will this be good for steam game streaming ?
I cant get it to work now but its I had this speed I bet I could run everything on my living room sofa

 

[Jad Chaar]

Doesn't matter how fast it is if ISPs keep throttling data transmission speeds.

Yeah totally. We need gigabit internet speeds standard before this is useful. That is probably never going to happen though lol.

 

[SNGX1275]

Yeah totally. We need gigabit internet speeds standard before this is useful. That is probably never going to happen though lol.

Yeah it would be awful to stream movies from a server, in my house, to all of my tablets and TV's in full 1080p HD with no hiccups because of the evil ISP's. just awful.

Its not all about how fast you can get data from some server on the internet, if that was the case, why did we have gigabit routers many years ago, could have just stopped at 100Mbps or even 10Mbps. A lot of us have a lot of data at one location on our network that we want access to from another device.

I think the one downside with these higher frequencies is they become more and more incapable of passing through walls and floors. The signal will just bounce off the surfaces.

Yeah, that is a significant problem.. The article says they overcame that, although I'm skeptical. Trying to get 5.8Ghz without LOS is pretty poor.
From the article:

The South Korean company says it has solved the penetration and path loss issues associated with millimeter waves by leveraging millimeter-wave circuit design and high performance modem technologies, as well as by developing wide-coverage beam-forming antenna.

 

[Guest]

Actually it wouldn't because if you did a transfer on your network from your server, you wouldn't be using any internet to transfer it over the network.

 

[Ben613]

It will also give you cancer in 1.5 seconds!

Wow, really? Please tell me you posted that from a 56k dial-up modem because "phones lines are safer" or some such similar ridiculousness.

If he did, yes he would be safer.

Plants and people have been shown to absorb the radio signals that wi-fi emits & scientists are divided over whether this is enough to cause damage to tissue. Researchers in Holland found that trees exposed to wireless radio signals suffered from damaged bark and dying leaves.

There is little evidence, however, that wireless emissions pose any danger to human health. Wi-fi signals use very low intensity radio waves, 100,000 times less powerful than a microwave. So sitting in a wi-fi hotspot for a year would only expose you to the same dose of radio waves as making a 20-minute mobile phone call.

So by making fun of someone who might have jokingly exaggerated the effects of wifi, you and the other guest made fools of yourselves by showing your utter ignorance of the existence of this important trade-off that Apple, Samsung and Co., and all consumers whether consciously or otherwise decided to do.

So let us have this civil debate or you GTFO.

Sorry, some of us are aware of the debate. You didn't mention specifically how he would be safer though. Anyone know the statistics regarding death by phone lines?

 

[RustyTech]

I think the one downside with these higher frequencies is they become more and more incapable of passing through walls and floors. The signal will just bounce off the surfaces.

Exactly! Also, I would think that the distance in general would be limited to probably feet (maybe even inches). So thanks, but no thanks?

 

[Guest]

Actually with these kind of speeds you wont need an ISP. Just have files hand off through your neighbors to the other side. hahahaha. Hope the range is improved too. Like 40 miles.

 

[tonylukac]

A dvd is at least 8 g, hi def movies can be 50 g, 4k movies can be over 100 g.

 

[SNGX1275]

A dvd is at least 8 g, hi def movies can be 50 g, 4k movies can be over 100 g.

DVD is somewhere between like 4 and 9 of mpeg2 typically. Bluray is bigger capacity and a different format but is typically h.264 (it can be others).

My point is, you are increasing capacity and increasing video compression efficiency. So to just compare DVD to bluray to 4k on a file size is not appropriate.

 

[Adhmuz]

Any word on power requirements? This is great for devices that are not run by batteries, but for me to think piratical it needs to be supported by at least one common wireless device and one hard wired device. For example a tablet and a TV, the tablet would need to be able to stream said HD content for the duration of the film without the batteries failing. Although fast, this will never replace the hard-lines in my home for two reasons, you just can't beat the latency and reliability of a hard-line or the security.