NEWS.COM VISION SERIES 3--When Vic Hayes was designing wireless networks inside Toronto auto plants, he had an inkling about the potential for the technology. Throughout the 1990s, the Dutch native kept at his labour of love, which earned him the sobriquet of father of Wi-Fi.
Hayes, who oversaw the first working group to draft what became the 802.11b standard, has since played a leading role in shepherding the development of the Wi-Fi technology used by an estimated 8 million wireless networks in US homes and offices. Although Wi-Fi has turned into one of the hottest young technologies, Hayes says the real excitement will start after the computer industry hurdles the 100mbps (megabits per second) speed barrier.
How fast will Wi-Fi become?
It's hard to say, but compare it to the wired industry. The Internet was 10 megabits (per second) for a very long time. Then they went to 100 megabits. Now it's at 1 gigabit, and soon, 10 gigabits. If you extrapolate that to wireless, the dream might be also going in that direction--as soon as we get spectrum, though.
Can Wi-Fi attain that speed and still have a 300-foot range?
It will likely work over distances. When we were working very hard on the first standard, the thought was that the best you could do was 2 megabits. It has to do with reflections. It's like a big cathedral, when a reverend is talking too fast. You can't hear it anymore because one syllable is overthrown by syllables he spoke a few seconds ago. He has to talk slowly to be able to be heard.
So what's going to be the biggest technology impediment to the widespread adoption of Wi-Fi?
Technology-wise I do not see any impediment. The main impediment is the market and the investment to develop the market. Wi-Fi will come to business use in laptops, anyway. It is just a matter of using it and installing access points in offices.
Given that there's scarcity of spectrum, how do we get any more of it? Is that even possible?
There is spectrum in the higher frequency range, but the technology is still too expensive for the markets. In the current spectrum, we can still find ways to share with the users that have the spectrum allocated. Currently, we are conducting sharing studies with the NTIA (National Telecommunications and Information Administration) in the 5470 to 5725MHz area.
You're talking about breaking the gigabit barrier. How fast do you think Wi-Fi transmission rates can reasonably become by the year 2005?
By 2005, I estimate that we reach over the 100mbps speed. IEEE 802.11 currently has a study group that is looking into asking for a project authorisation.
What's realistic? Once we reach that level, do you think that it will change the way we work and communicate using technology?
We would have much more visual information and animation in our daily tasks and answers to questions. We would get an explanation of how to mount a part in an assembly. Or the warehouse picker, the one that picks up and collects devices in a warehouse, would rather see the device he has to pick up on a screen than have to look for a part number.
What industries that don't use wireless will incorporate it into their next class of devices?
It is likely they will be integrated into home-automation and energy-control systems, letting users know how to use sun or wind energy at the best time, how to bake the best apple pie or rinse laundry using the least amount of detergent.
What sorts of devices do you think will include wireless capability that you don't currently find using the technology?
Anything that needs communications or control will be wirelessly connected--from your freezer to the TV, from the light switch to the most sophisticated laptop. Wireless will be ubiquitous.
Is it just a matter of smaller, faster, cheaper--or will there be something on a breakthrough level?
For one thing, making the devices smaller, faster and cheaper will enable a breakthrough by itself.
Like what?
Spectrum is the most scarce resource. We need more than there is (currently) available. What is available has already been given out to multiple users and services. To make the use of the spectrum more efficient, and yet share it with other users, will be the most important achievement.
You say wireless technology will get built into anything that needs communications for control. But considering where we are today, that sounds like a huge undertaking. How long do you think this will take and what will be needed to make it happen?
It will depend on whether the entrepreneurs see a market in it.
Won't that always be the case, or is there something standing in the way of what could potentially become a huge industry?
Sure. In this case, the turning point will depend on price versus savings, or ease of use and installing the control devices. I am looking backward, say, around 1970. There was a huge difference between an office machine and a computer, a chip and a computer, a PBX (telephone network equipment) and a computer. I saw the differences fading away.
Computers are now the main engines in office equipment like copiers. A computer on a chip is the reality and a PBX is a special-purpose computer. You will see computers entering into (kitchen) ranges, into the internal heating and cooling, and the climate control. All will have wireless communications for control. Where the breakthrough would be is unknown to me.
When you say wireless will be everywhere, do you mean that literally--for instance, the capability will get built into wristwatches?
Again, that is just a matter of which entrepreneur will develop which market.
Will this likely come from the entrepreneurial community or will it be something that established industries, for instance, watchmakers will clasp onto?
Established industries could very well be the entrepreneurs in this case. They hold the know-how of the market and the channels. And they need to be innovative to keep market share. There seems to be no limit to the kind of device that can be wireless. Does the world need a wireless washing machine? There are limits, but even a washing machine can be integrated in a domestic energy-control program to balance the energy used when available and when most effective.
When you were developing what became Wi-Fi, how large were your ambitions. What was your realistic expectation?
I personally wanted to have it everywhere.
Does Wi-Fi have a boundary?
A study group was just set up in 802.11 (standards committee) for going beyond 100 megabits. There's still some research to see how to further use the frequencies and radios. It would either need a bigger, more powerful cell (radio) or lots of little ones. We're not very keen on making a big cell, which has lots of frequency needs. We'd rather have smaller cells, which don't use as much frequency. You have to create additional frequency out of nothing, like reusing the frequency.
Why do it?
People are speed-hungry. If you see what is possible nowadays with streaming video, then you really need it. Streaming needs to go beyond 11mbps to be successful. There are more applications that are bit-rate hungry.
Hayes, who oversaw the first working group to draft what became the 802.11b standard, has since played a leading role in shepherding the development of the Wi-Fi technology used by an estimated 8 million wireless networks in US homes and offices. Although Wi-Fi has turned into one of the hottest young technologies, Hayes says the real excitement will start after the computer industry hurdles the 100mbps (megabits per second) speed barrier.
How fast will Wi-Fi become?
It's hard to say, but compare it to the wired industry. The Internet was 10 megabits (per second) for a very long time. Then they went to 100 megabits. Now it's at 1 gigabit, and soon, 10 gigabits. If you extrapolate that to wireless, the dream might be also going in that direction--as soon as we get spectrum, though.
Can Wi-Fi attain that speed and still have a 300-foot range?
It will likely work over distances. When we were working very hard on the first standard, the thought was that the best you could do was 2 megabits. It has to do with reflections. It's like a big cathedral, when a reverend is talking too fast. You can't hear it anymore because one syllable is overthrown by syllables he spoke a few seconds ago. He has to talk slowly to be able to be heard.
So what's going to be the biggest technology impediment to the widespread adoption of Wi-Fi?
Technology-wise I do not see any impediment. The main impediment is the market and the investment to develop the market. Wi-Fi will come to business use in laptops, anyway. It is just a matter of using it and installing access points in offices.
Given that there's scarcity of spectrum, how do we get any more of it? Is that even possible?
There is spectrum in the higher frequency range, but the technology is still too expensive for the markets. In the current spectrum, we can still find ways to share with the users that have the spectrum allocated. Currently, we are conducting sharing studies with the NTIA (National Telecommunications and Information Administration) in the 5470 to 5725MHz area.
You're talking about breaking the gigabit barrier. How fast do you think Wi-Fi transmission rates can reasonably become by the year 2005?
By 2005, I estimate that we reach over the 100mbps speed. IEEE 802.11 currently has a study group that is looking into asking for a project authorisation.
What's realistic? Once we reach that level, do you think that it will change the way we work and communicate using technology?
We would have much more visual information and animation in our daily tasks and answers to questions. We would get an explanation of how to mount a part in an assembly. Or the warehouse picker, the one that picks up and collects devices in a warehouse, would rather see the device he has to pick up on a screen than have to look for a part number.
What industries that don't use wireless will incorporate it into their next class of devices?
It is likely they will be integrated into home-automation and energy-control systems, letting users know how to use sun or wind energy at the best time, how to bake the best apple pie or rinse laundry using the least amount of detergent.
What sorts of devices do you think will include wireless capability that you don't currently find using the technology?
Anything that needs communications or control will be wirelessly connected--from your freezer to the TV, from the light switch to the most sophisticated laptop. Wireless will be ubiquitous.
Is it just a matter of smaller, faster, cheaper--or will there be something on a breakthrough level?
For one thing, making the devices smaller, faster and cheaper will enable a breakthrough by itself.
Like what?
Spectrum is the most scarce resource. We need more than there is (currently) available. What is available has already been given out to multiple users and services. To make the use of the spectrum more efficient, and yet share it with other users, will be the most important achievement.
You say wireless technology will get built into anything that needs communications for control. But considering where we are today, that sounds like a huge undertaking. How long do you think this will take and what will be needed to make it happen?
It will depend on whether the entrepreneurs see a market in it.
Won't that always be the case, or is there something standing in the way of what could potentially become a huge industry?
Sure. In this case, the turning point will depend on price versus savings, or ease of use and installing the control devices. I am looking backward, say, around 1970. There was a huge difference between an office machine and a computer, a chip and a computer, a PBX (telephone network equipment) and a computer. I saw the differences fading away.
Computers are now the main engines in office equipment like copiers. A computer on a chip is the reality and a PBX is a special-purpose computer. You will see computers entering into (kitchen) ranges, into the internal heating and cooling, and the climate control. All will have wireless communications for control. Where the breakthrough would be is unknown to me.
When you say wireless will be everywhere, do you mean that literally--for instance, the capability will get built into wristwatches?
Again, that is just a matter of which entrepreneur will develop which market.
Will this likely come from the entrepreneurial community or will it be something that established industries, for instance, watchmakers will clasp onto?
Established industries could very well be the entrepreneurs in this case. They hold the know-how of the market and the channels. And they need to be innovative to keep market share. There seems to be no limit to the kind of device that can be wireless. Does the world need a wireless washing machine? There are limits, but even a washing machine can be integrated in a domestic energy-control program to balance the energy used when available and when most effective.
When you were developing what became Wi-Fi, how large were your ambitions. What was your realistic expectation?
I personally wanted to have it everywhere.
Does Wi-Fi have a boundary?
A study group was just set up in 802.11 (standards committee) for going beyond 100 megabits. There's still some research to see how to further use the frequencies and radios. It would either need a bigger, more powerful cell (radio) or lots of little ones. We're not very keen on making a big cell, which has lots of frequency needs. We'd rather have smaller cells, which don't use as much frequency. You have to create additional frequency out of nothing, like reusing the frequency.
Why do it?
People are speed-hungry. If you see what is possible nowadays with streaming video, then you really need it. Streaming needs to go beyond 11mbps to be successful. There are more applications that are bit-rate hungry.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment