• New Patreon Tier and Early Access Content available. If you would like to support AVForums, we now have a new Patreon Tier which gives you access to selected news, reviews and articles before they are available to the public. Read more.

Hello LiFi, Bye Bye WiFi

Foster

Distinguished Member
and that is why we'll still have Wi-Fi cost.
 

GaseousClay

Distinguished Member
Anthony Cuthbertson points out: The benefits of Li-Fi over Wi-Fi, other than potentially much faster speeds, is that because light cannot pass through walls, it makes it a whole lot more secure.

Yeah but what about the windows. Maybe our very own @SBT could ramp up production of his window boards. :D
 

DPinBucks

Distinguished Member
How does the data get to the LEDs? At what speed? How do you stop two LEDs in the same room interfering with each other? Does it work 2-way? Does it need to? If it doesn't, do you still need Wi-Fi for the return?

1 gb/sec means the bits are about a foot apart. With multiple nodes, receivers are going to get awfully confused if you're not careful (= slow it down). Is there a speed which it's not worthwhile to exceed? Domestic Wi-Fi already approaches that, I would think.
 

IronGiant

Moderator
I always thought that was a benefit of wifi - or am I missing something? :)
I think the idea is that you don't have single point, you have a network of lights flooding any space that may require a signal. So you would have e.g. multiple LED lights in every room. Obviously it's more practical to do it in an office environment than a home. Just imagine going to bed to quietly stream a video without disturbing your partner. Just a moment while I turn the network lights on...
 

Apsilon

Senior Moderator
I honestly don't see the benefit for everyday users. The speed is obviously a boon but I'd imagine the cost of installing it (if it relies on LoS) would far outweigh it's practicality. You would need interconnected nodes in every room for users to able to use it. Great for big open plan spaces but, useless for houses with lots of walls and rooms in close proximity cutting the signal.
 

imightbewrong

Distinguished Member
I think the idea is that you don't have single point, you have a network of lights flooding any space that may require a signal. So you would have e.g. multiple LED lights in every room. Obviously it's more practical to do it in an office environment than a home. Just imagine going to bed to quietly stream a video without disturbing your partner. Just a moment while I turn the network lights on...

Gah the flickering bedroom lights :laugh:

It's not exactly 'bye bye wifi' then is it? I've never even worked in an office with wifi :) Hard-wired gigabit ftw.
 

Toko Black

In Memoriam
How does the data get to the LEDs? At what speed? How do you stop two LEDs in the same room interfering with each other? Does it work 2-way? Does it need to? If it doesn't, do you still need Wi-Fi for the return?

1 gb/sec means the bits are about a foot apart. With multiple nodes, receivers are going to get awfully confused if you're not careful (= slow it down). Is there a speed which it's not worthwhile to exceed? Domestic Wi-Fi already approaches that, I would think.

That's where the protocols, mux'ing, frequency banding etc kick in - just like with wi-fi or packet radio.
You are quite right in the fact that there will be an optimum speed that will vary with concentration of nodes and clients - it's always a case that theoretical maximums are only achievable in lab based set ups.

The success or failure of such technologies in real world application and take up are going to be in part down to how well the design of the protocols maintain high data throughput's with scale.

The big seller for me, is that wi-fi is getting more and more saturated by the uptake of users and other technologies using the same frequencies - the more uptake the higher the incidence of saturation, interference and slowdowns.
 

nheather

Distinguished Member
This could be useful for use in hazardous areas. I design Information Systems for the Defence Market and one of the restrictions with wireless technology is that they won't allow it anywhere near fuel or munitions.

Could also be used on aircraft to provide an inflight internet service to customers (although US Airlines are already doing this with conventional WiFi).

Which answers the question: "Is wifi really dangerous on a plane"

Answer: "Yes, unless you are paying the airline lots of money to use it"

Cheers,

Nigel
 

IronGiant

Moderator
How is this any different from when companies connect multiple buildings with line of sight laser networks?
I'd think the technology is similar, but you have a potentially moving target, so you have a more diffuse, lower range souce
 

Toko Black

In Memoriam
How is this any different from when companies connect multiple buildings with line of sight laser networks?

In the same way that your broadband connection to your provider is different from your internal network switches/hub between local peripherals and computers.

It's usually microwave point to point connections used to connect buildings in line of sight.
In terms of communication satellites:
- li-fi and wifi would be the equivalent of satellite phones. You can wander about along with other users within the cone of transmission area.
- the connections between satellites and the trunking back to a service centre on Earth which connects the satellite communications to other networks would equate to your line of sight/point to point microwave link.
 

Toko Black

In Memoriam
This could be useful for use in hazardous areas. I design Information Systems for the Defence Market and one of the restrictions with wireless technology is that they won't allow it anywhere near fuel or munitions.

Could also be used on aircraft to provide an inflight internet service to customers (although US Airlines are already doing this with conventional WiFi).

Which answers the question: "Is wifi really dangerous on a plane"

Answer: "Yes, unless you are paying the airline lots of money to use it"

Cheers,

Nigel

Mobile phones/wi-fi don't transmit enough energy to induce sparking (or if they do, the sparks are so low energy they aren't a danger).
Seems the MoD et al are being silly beggars if they don't allow any wireless tech.
I could understand if it was higher energy applications.
 

Sebastalona

Distinguished Member
Did anyone read the title to the tune of 'Bye Bye Badman'?

No?

Just me then!
 

Foster

Distinguished Member
Wonderful, I just know that bt will use this as the next excuse for my regularly dropped connection.

After that I'm expecting them to just blame the fairies

*inidian voice* *shakes head from side to side* "Please Sir turn off your fairy lights and run the speedtest again"
 

Foster

Distinguished Member

The latest video from AVForums

Fidelity in Motion's David Mackenzie talks about his work on disc encoding & the future of Blu-ray
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom