[Cerowrt-devel] more well funded attempts showing market demand for better wifi

[Cerowrt-devel] more well funded attempts showing market demand for better wifi

[Dave Taht]

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/portalwifi/portal-turbocharged-wifi?ref=backerkit

"Portal is the first and only router specifically engineered to cut
through and avoid congestion, delivering consistent, high-performance
WiFi with greater coverage throughout your home.

Its proprietary spectrum turbocharger technology provides access to
300% more of the radio airwaves than any other router, improving
performance by as much as 300x, and range and coverage by as much as
2x in crowded settings, such as city homes and multi-unit apartments"

It sounds like they are promising working DFS support.

-- 
Dave Täht
Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software!
http://blog.cerowrt.org

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] more well funded attempts showing market demand for better wifi

[Dave Taht]

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/portalwifi/portal-turbocharged-wifi?ref=backerkit
>
> "Portal is the first and only router specifically engineered to cut
> through and avoid congestion, delivering consistent, high-performance
> WiFi with greater coverage throughout your home.
>
> Its proprietary spectrum turbocharger technology provides access to
> 300% more of the radio airwaves than any other router, improving
> performance by as much as 300x, and range and coverage by as much as
> 2x in crowded settings, such as city homes and multi-unit apartments"
>
> It sounds like they are promising working DFS support.

It's not clear what chipset they are using (they are claiming wave2) -
but they are at least publicly claiming to be using openwrt. So I
threw in enough to order one for september, just so I could comment on
their kickstarter page. :)

I'd have loved to have got in earlier (early shipments are this month
apparently), but those were sold out.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/portalwifi/portal-turbocharged-wifi/comments


>
> --
> Dave Täht
> Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software!
> http://blog.cerowrt.org



-- 
Dave Täht
Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software!
http://blog.cerowrt.org

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] more well funded attempts showing market demand for better wifi

[Dave Taht]

and wow, the fcc cert process has a rss feed now and blog.
https://fccid.io/blog/

This particular product has great documentation on how the typical FCC
certification process works... including the process to withold
proprietary specs and pictures from the public for small periods.

https://fccid.io/2AFZUSAP001#download

I gotta take my hat off the FCC for making this stuff way more
transparent than it has ever been.

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
>> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/portalwifi/portal-turbocharged-wifi?ref=backerkit
>>
>> "Portal is the first and only router specifically engineered to cut
>> through and avoid congestion, delivering consistent, high-performance
>> WiFi with greater coverage throughout your home.
>>
>> Its proprietary spectrum turbocharger technology provides access to
>> 300% more of the radio airwaves than any other router, improving
>> performance by as much as 300x, and range and coverage by as much as
>> 2x in crowded settings, such as city homes and multi-unit apartments"
>>
>> It sounds like they are promising working DFS support.
>
> It's not clear what chipset they are using (they are claiming wave2) -
> but they are at least publicly claiming to be using openwrt. So I
> threw in enough to order one for september, just so I could comment on
> their kickstarter page. :)
>
> I'd have loved to have got in earlier (early shipments are this month
> apparently), but those were sold out.
>
> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/portalwifi/portal-turbocharged-wifi/comments
>
>
>>
>> --
>> Dave Täht
>> Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software!
>> http://blog.cerowrt.org
>
>
>
> --
> Dave Täht
> Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software!
> http://blog.cerowrt.org



-- 
Dave Täht
Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software!
http://blog.cerowrt.org

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] [Make-wifi-fast] more well funded attempts showing market demand for better wifi

[Bob McMahon]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2496 bytes --]

hmm, I'm skeptical.   To use multiple carriers simultaneously is difficult
per RF issues.   Even if that is somehow resolved, to increase throughput
usually requires some form of channel bonding, i.e. needed on both sides,
and brings in issues with preserving frame ordering.  If this is just
channel hopping, that needs coordination between both sides (and isn't
simultaneous, possibly costing more than any potential gain.)   An AP only
solution can use channel switch announcements (CSA) but there is a cost to
those as well.

I guess don't see any break though here and the marketing on the site seems
to indicate something beyond physics, at least the physics that I
understand.  Always willing to learn and be corrected if I'm
misunderstanding things.

Bob

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/portalwifi/portal-turbocharged-wifi?ref=backerkit
> >
> > "Portal is the first and only router specifically engineered to cut
> > through and avoid congestion, delivering consistent, high-performance
> > WiFi with greater coverage throughout your home.
> >
> > Its proprietary spectrum turbocharger technology provides access to
> > 300% more of the radio airwaves than any other router, improving
> > performance by as much as 300x, and range and coverage by as much as
> > 2x in crowded settings, such as city homes and multi-unit apartments"
> >
> > It sounds like they are promising working DFS support.
>
> It's not clear what chipset they are using (they are claiming wave2) -
> but they are at least publicly claiming to be using openwrt. So I
> threw in enough to order one for september, just so I could comment on
> their kickstarter page. :)
>
> I'd have loved to have got in earlier (early shipments are this month
> apparently), but those were sold out.
>
>
> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/portalwifi/portal-turbocharged-wifi/comments
>
>
> >
> > --
> > Dave Täht
> > Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software!
> > http://blog.cerowrt.org
>
>
>
> --
> Dave Täht
> Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software!
> http://blog.cerowrt.org
> _______________________________________________
> Make-wifi-fast mailing list
> Make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/make-wifi-fast
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3685 bytes --]

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] [Make-wifi-fast] more well funded attempts showing market demand for better wifi

[David Lang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/Plain, Size: 3353 bytes --]

Well, just using the 5GHz DFS channels in 80MHz or 160 MHz wide chunks would be 
a huge improvement, not many people are using them (yet), and the wide channels 
let you get a lot of data out at once. If everything is within a good range of 
the AP, this would work pretty well. If you end up needing multiple APs, or you 
have many stations, I expect that you will be better off with more APs at lower 
power, each using different channels.

David Lang




On Thu, 23 Jun 2016, Bob McMahon wrote:

> Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:55:19 -0700
> From: Bob McMahon <bob.mcmahon@broadcom.com>
> To: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
> Cc: make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net,
>     "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>     <cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Subject: Re: [Make-wifi-fast] more well funded attempts showing market demand
>     for better wifi
> 
> hmm, I'm skeptical.   To use multiple carriers simultaneously is difficult
> per RF issues.   Even if that is somehow resolved, to increase throughput
> usually requires some form of channel bonding, i.e. needed on both sides,
> and brings in issues with preserving frame ordering.  If this is just
> channel hopping, that needs coordination between both sides (and isn't
> simultaneous, possibly costing more than any potential gain.)   An AP only
> solution can use channel switch announcements (CSA) but there is a cost to
> those as well.
>
> I guess don't see any break though here and the marketing on the site seems
> to indicate something beyond physics, at least the physics that I
> understand.  Always willing to learn and be corrected if I'm
> misunderstanding things.
>
> Bob
>
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/portalwifi/portal-turbocharged-wifi?ref=backerkit
>>>
>>> "Portal is the first and only router specifically engineered to cut
>>> through and avoid congestion, delivering consistent, high-performance
>>> WiFi with greater coverage throughout your home.
>>>
>>> Its proprietary spectrum turbocharger technology provides access to
>>> 300% more of the radio airwaves than any other router, improving
>>> performance by as much as 300x, and range and coverage by as much as
>>> 2x in crowded settings, such as city homes and multi-unit apartments"
>>>
>>> It sounds like they are promising working DFS support.
>>
>> It's not clear what chipset they are using (they are claiming wave2) -
>> but they are at least publicly claiming to be using openwrt. So I
>> threw in enough to order one for september, just so I could comment on
>> their kickstarter page. :)
>>
>> I'd have loved to have got in earlier (early shipments are this month
>> apparently), but those were sold out.
>>
>>
>> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/portalwifi/portal-turbocharged-wifi/comments
>>
>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dave Täht
>>> Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software!
>>> http://blog.cerowrt.org
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dave Täht
>> Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software!
>> http://blog.cerowrt.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> Make-wifi-fast mailing list
>> Make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/make-wifi-fast
>>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 167 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Make-wifi-fast mailing list
Make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/make-wifi-fast

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] [Make-wifi-fast] more well funded attempts showing market demand for better wifi

[Bob McMahon]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4137 bytes --]

An AP per room/area, reducing the tx power (beacon range) has been my
approach and has scaled very well.   It does require some wires to each AP
but I find that paying an electrician to run some quality wiring to things
that are to remain stationary has been well worth the cost.

just my $0.02,
Bob

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:10 PM, David Lang <david@lang.hm> wrote:

> Well, just using the 5GHz DFS channels in 80MHz or 160 MHz wide chunks
> would be a huge improvement, not many people are using them (yet), and the
> wide channels let you get a lot of data out at once. If everything is
> within a good range of the AP, this would work pretty well. If you end up
> needing multiple APs, or you have many stations, I expect that you will be
> better off with more APs at lower power, each using different channels.
>
> David Lang
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2016, Bob McMahon wrote:
>
> Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:55:19 -0700
>> From: Bob McMahon <bob.mcmahon@broadcom.com>
>> To: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
>> Cc: make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net,
>>     "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>>     <cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> Subject: Re: [Make-wifi-fast] more well funded attempts showing market
>> demand
>>     for better wifi
>>
>>
>> hmm, I'm skeptical.   To use multiple carriers simultaneously is difficult
>> per RF issues.   Even if that is somehow resolved, to increase throughput
>> usually requires some form of channel bonding, i.e. needed on both sides,
>> and brings in issues with preserving frame ordering.  If this is just
>> channel hopping, that needs coordination between both sides (and isn't
>> simultaneous, possibly costing more than any potential gain.)   An AP only
>> solution can use channel switch announcements (CSA) but there is a cost to
>> those as well.
>>
>> I guess don't see any break though here and the marketing on the site
>> seems
>> to indicate something beyond physics, at least the physics that I
>> understand.  Always willing to learn and be corrected if I'm
>> misunderstanding things.
>>
>> Bob
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/portalwifi/portal-turbocharged-wifi?ref=backerkit
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Portal is the first and only router specifically engineered to cut
>>>> through and avoid congestion, delivering consistent, high-performance
>>>> WiFi with greater coverage throughout your home.
>>>>
>>>> Its proprietary spectrum turbocharger technology provides access to
>>>> 300% more of the radio airwaves than any other router, improving
>>>> performance by as much as 300x, and range and coverage by as much as
>>>> 2x in crowded settings, such as city homes and multi-unit apartments"
>>>>
>>>> It sounds like they are promising working DFS support.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's not clear what chipset they are using (they are claiming wave2) -
>>> but they are at least publicly claiming to be using openwrt. So I
>>> threw in enough to order one for september, just so I could comment on
>>> their kickstarter page. :)
>>>
>>> I'd have loved to have got in earlier (early shipments are this month
>>> apparently), but those were sold out.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/portalwifi/portal-turbocharged-wifi/comments
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dave Täht
>>>> Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software!
>>>> http://blog.cerowrt.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dave Täht
>>> Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software!
>>> http://blog.cerowrt.org
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Make-wifi-fast mailing list
>>> Make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/make-wifi-fast
>>>
>>>
> _______________________________________________
> Make-wifi-fast mailing list
> Make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/make-wifi-fast
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6375 bytes --]

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] [Make-wifi-fast] more well funded attempts showing market demand for better wifi

[David Lang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 4409 bytes --]

When I run the wifi network for the Scale conference, I will put multiple APs in 
each room. This last year I tried for ~1 per 50-75 seats in theater format 
(~25-30 in classroom format where there are tables).

David Lang


On Thu, 23 Jun 2016, Bob McMahon wrote:

> An AP per room/area, reducing the tx power (beacon range) has been my
> approach and has scaled very well.   It does require some wires to each AP
> but I find that paying an electrician to run some quality wiring to things
> that are to remain stationary has been well worth the cost.
>
> just my $0.02,
> Bob
>
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:10 PM, David Lang <david@lang.hm> wrote:
>
>> Well, just using the 5GHz DFS channels in 80MHz or 160 MHz wide chunks
>> would be a huge improvement, not many people are using them (yet), and the
>> wide channels let you get a lot of data out at once. If everything is
>> within a good range of the AP, this would work pretty well. If you end up
>> needing multiple APs, or you have many stations, I expect that you will be
>> better off with more APs at lower power, each using different channels.
>>
>> David Lang
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2016, Bob McMahon wrote:
>>
>> Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:55:19 -0700
>>> From: Bob McMahon <bob.mcmahon@broadcom.com>
>>> To: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
>>> Cc: make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net,
>>>     "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>>>     <cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [Make-wifi-fast] more well funded attempts showing market
>>> demand
>>>     for better wifi
>>>
>>>
>>> hmm, I'm skeptical.   To use multiple carriers simultaneously is difficult
>>> per RF issues.   Even if that is somehow resolved, to increase throughput
>>> usually requires some form of channel bonding, i.e. needed on both sides,
>>> and brings in issues with preserving frame ordering.  If this is just
>>> channel hopping, that needs coordination between both sides (and isn't
>>> simultaneous, possibly costing more than any potential gain.)   An AP only
>>> solution can use channel switch announcements (CSA) but there is a cost to
>>> those as well.
>>>
>>> I guess don't see any break though here and the marketing on the site
>>> seems
>>> to indicate something beyond physics, at least the physics that I
>>> understand.  Always willing to learn and be corrected if I'm
>>> misunderstanding things.
>>>
>>> Bob
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/portalwifi/portal-turbocharged-wifi?ref=backerkit
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Portal is the first and only router specifically engineered to cut
>>>>> through and avoid congestion, delivering consistent, high-performance
>>>>> WiFi with greater coverage throughout your home.
>>>>>
>>>>> Its proprietary spectrum turbocharger technology provides access to
>>>>> 300% more of the radio airwaves than any other router, improving
>>>>> performance by as much as 300x, and range and coverage by as much as
>>>>> 2x in crowded settings, such as city homes and multi-unit apartments"
>>>>>
>>>>> It sounds like they are promising working DFS support.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's not clear what chipset they are using (they are claiming wave2) -
>>>> but they are at least publicly claiming to be using openwrt. So I
>>>> threw in enough to order one for september, just so I could comment on
>>>> their kickstarter page. :)
>>>>
>>>> I'd have loved to have got in earlier (early shipments are this month
>>>> apparently), but those were sold out.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/portalwifi/portal-turbocharged-wifi/comments
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Dave Täht
>>>>> Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software!
>>>>> http://blog.cerowrt.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dave Täht
>>>> Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software!
>>>> http://blog.cerowrt.org
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Make-wifi-fast mailing list
>>>> Make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/make-wifi-fast
>>>>
>>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Make-wifi-fast mailing list
>> Make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/make-wifi-fast
>>
>>
>

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] [Make-wifi-fast] more well funded attempts showing market demand for better wifi

[dpreed]

The actual issues of transmitting on multiple channels at the same time are quite minor if you do the work in the digital domain (pre-DAC).  You just need a higher sampling rate in the DAC and add the two signals together (and use a wideband filter that covers all the channels).  No RF problem.

Receiving multiple transmissions in different channels is pretty much the same problem - just digitize (ADC) a wider bandwidth and separate in the digital domain.  the only real issue on receive is equalization - if you receive two different signals at different receive signal strengths, the lower strength signal won't get as much dynamic range in its samples.

But in a LAN setup, the variability in signal strength is likely small enough that you can cover that with more ADC bits (or have the MAC protocol manage the station transmit power so that signals received at the AP are nearly the same power.

Equalization at transmit works very well when there is a central AP (as in cellular or normal WiFi systems).



On Thursday, June 23, 2016 4:28pm, "Bob McMahon" <bob.mcmahon@broadcom.com> said:

> _______________________________________________
> Make-wifi-fast mailing list
> Make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/make-wifi-fast
> An AP per room/area, reducing the tx power (beacon range) has been my
> approach and has scaled very well.   It does require some wires to each AP
> but I find that paying an electrician to run some quality wiring to things
> that are to remain stationary has been well worth the cost.
> 
> just my $0.02,
> Bob
> 
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:10 PM, David Lang <david@lang.hm> wrote:
> 
>> Well, just using the 5GHz DFS channels in 80MHz or 160 MHz wide chunks
>> would be a huge improvement, not many people are using them (yet), and the
>> wide channels let you get a lot of data out at once. If everything is
>> within a good range of the AP, this would work pretty well. If you end up
>> needing multiple APs, or you have many stations, I expect that you will be
>> better off with more APs at lower power, each using different channels.
>>
>> David Lang
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2016, Bob McMahon wrote:
>>
>> Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:55:19 -0700
>>> From: Bob McMahon <bob.mcmahon@broadcom.com>
>>> To: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
>>> Cc: make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net,
>>>     "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>>>     <cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [Make-wifi-fast] more well funded attempts showing market
>>> demand
>>>     for better wifi
>>>
>>>
>>> hmm, I'm skeptical.   To use multiple carriers simultaneously is difficult
>>> per RF issues.   Even if that is somehow resolved, to increase throughput
>>> usually requires some form of channel bonding, i.e. needed on both sides,
>>> and brings in issues with preserving frame ordering.  If this is just
>>> channel hopping, that needs coordination between both sides (and isn't
>>> simultaneous, possibly costing more than any potential gain.)   An AP only
>>> solution can use channel switch announcements (CSA) but there is a cost to
>>> those as well.
>>>
>>> I guess don't see any break though here and the marketing on the site
>>> seems
>>> to indicate something beyond physics, at least the physics that I
>>> understand.  Always willing to learn and be corrected if I'm
>>> misunderstanding things.
>>>
>>> Bob
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/portalwifi/portal-turbocharged-wifi?ref=backerkit
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Portal is the first and only router specifically engineered to cut
>>>>> through and avoid congestion, delivering consistent, high-performance
>>>>> WiFi with greater coverage throughout your home.
>>>>>
>>>>> Its proprietary spectrum turbocharger technology provides access to
>>>>> 300% more of the radio airwaves than any other router, improving
>>>>> performance by as much as 300x, and range and coverage by as much as
>>>>> 2x in crowded settings, such as city homes and multi-unit apartments"
>>>>>
>>>>> It sounds like they are promising working DFS support.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's not clear what chipset they are using (they are claiming wave2) -
>>>> but they are at least publicly claiming to be using openwrt. So I
>>>> threw in enough to order one for september, just so I could comment on
>>>> their kickstarter page. :)
>>>>
>>>> I'd have loved to have got in earlier (early shipments are this month
>>>> apparently), but those were sold out.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/portalwifi/portal-turbocharged-wifi/comments
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Dave Täht
>>>>> Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software!
>>>>> http://blog.cerowrt.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dave Täht
>>>> Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software!
>>>> http://blog.cerowrt.org
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Make-wifi-fast mailing list
>>>> Make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/make-wifi-fast
>>>>
>>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Make-wifi-fast mailing list
>> Make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/make-wifi-fast
>>
>>
> 

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] [Make-wifi-fast] more well funded attempts showing market demand for better wifi

[David Lang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 6107 bytes --]

On Thu, 23 Jun 2016, dpreed@reed.com wrote:

> The actual issues of transmitting on multiple channels at the same time are 
> quite minor if you do the work in the digital domain (pre-DAC).  You just need 
> a higher sampling rate in the DAC and add the two signals together (and use a 
> wideband filter that covers all the channels).  No RF problem.

that works if you are using channels that are close together, and is how the 
current standard wide channels in N and AC work.

If you try to use channels that aren't adjacent, this is much harder to do.

Remember that the current adjacent channel use goes up to 160MHz wide, going 
wider than that starts getting hard.

> Receiving multiple transmissions in different channels is pretty much the same 
> problem - just digitize (ADC) a wider bandwidth and separate in the digital 
> domain.  the only real issue on receive is equalization - if you receive two 
> different signals at different receive signal strengths, the lower strength 
> signal won't get as much dynamic range in its samples.
>
> But in a LAN setup, the variability in signal strength is likely small enough 
> that you can cover that with more ADC bits (or have the MAC protocol manage 
> the station transmit power so that signals received at the AP are nearly the 
> same power.
>
> Equalization at transmit works very well when there is a central AP (as in 
> cellular or normal WiFi systems).

define 'normal WiFi system'

It's getting very common for even moderate size houses to need more than one AP 
to cover the entire house.

David Lang

>
>
> On Thursday, June 23, 2016 4:28pm, "Bob McMahon" <bob.mcmahon@broadcom.com> said:
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Make-wifi-fast mailing list
>> Make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/make-wifi-fast
>> An AP per room/area, reducing the tx power (beacon range) has been my
>> approach and has scaled very well.   It does require some wires to each AP
>> but I find that paying an electrician to run some quality wiring to things
>> that are to remain stationary has been well worth the cost.
>> 
>> just my $0.02,
>> Bob
>> 
>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:10 PM, David Lang <david@lang.hm> wrote:
>> 
>>> Well, just using the 5GHz DFS channels in 80MHz or 160 MHz wide chunks
>>> would be a huge improvement, not many people are using them (yet), and the
>>> wide channels let you get a lot of data out at once. If everything is
>>> within a good range of the AP, this would work pretty well. If you end up
>>> needing multiple APs, or you have many stations, I expect that you will be
>>> better off with more APs at lower power, each using different channels.
>>>
>>> David Lang
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2016, Bob McMahon wrote:
>>>
>>> Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:55:19 -0700
>>>> From: Bob McMahon <bob.mcmahon@broadcom.com>
>>>> To: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
>>>> Cc: make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net,
>>>>     "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>>>>     <cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Make-wifi-fast] more well funded attempts showing market
>>>> demand
>>>>     for better wifi
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> hmm, I'm skeptical.   To use multiple carriers simultaneously is difficult
>>>> per RF issues.   Even if that is somehow resolved, to increase throughput
>>>> usually requires some form of channel bonding, i.e. needed on both sides,
>>>> and brings in issues with preserving frame ordering.  If this is just
>>>> channel hopping, that needs coordination between both sides (and isn't
>>>> simultaneous, possibly costing more than any potential gain.)   An AP only
>>>> solution can use channel switch announcements (CSA) but there is a cost to
>>>> those as well.
>>>>
>>>> I guess don't see any break though here and the marketing on the site
>>>> seems
>>>> to indicate something beyond physics, at least the physics that I
>>>> understand.  Always willing to learn and be corrected if I'm
>>>> misunderstanding things.
>>>>
>>>> Bob
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/portalwifi/portal-turbocharged-wifi?ref=backerkit
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Portal is the first and only router specifically engineered to cut
>>>>>> through and avoid congestion, delivering consistent, high-performance
>>>>>> WiFi with greater coverage throughout your home.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Its proprietary spectrum turbocharger technology provides access to
>>>>>> 300% more of the radio airwaves than any other router, improving
>>>>>> performance by as much as 300x, and range and coverage by as much as
>>>>>> 2x in crowded settings, such as city homes and multi-unit apartments"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It sounds like they are promising working DFS support.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not clear what chipset they are using (they are claiming wave2) -
>>>>> but they are at least publicly claiming to be using openwrt. So I
>>>>> threw in enough to order one for september, just so I could comment on
>>>>> their kickstarter page. :)
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd have loved to have got in earlier (early shipments are this month
>>>>> apparently), but those were sold out.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/portalwifi/portal-turbocharged-wifi/comments
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Dave Täht
>>>>>> Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software!
>>>>>> http://blog.cerowrt.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Dave Täht
>>>>> Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software!
>>>>> http://blog.cerowrt.org
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Make-wifi-fast mailing list
>>>>> Make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/make-wifi-fast
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Make-wifi-fast mailing list
>>> Make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/make-wifi-fast
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] [Make-wifi-fast] more well funded attempts showing market demand for better wifi

[dpreed]

On Thursday, June 23, 2016 4:52pm, "David Lang" <david@lang.hm> said:

> On Thu, 23 Jun 2016, dpreed@reed.com wrote:
> 
>> The actual issues of transmitting on multiple channels at the same time are
>> quite minor if you do the work in the digital domain (pre-DAC).  You just need
>> a higher sampling rate in the DAC and add the two signals together (and use a
>> wideband filter that covers all the channels).  No RF problem.
> 
> that works if you are using channels that are close together, and is how the
> current standard wide channels in N and AC work.
> 
> If you try to use channels that aren't adjacent, this is much harder to do.
>
The whole 5 GHz U-NII band is not that wide.  It's easy to find DACs that run at 1 Gsps or better. On transmission you don't need to filter the bands where you put no energy in the middle (or not much).
 
> Remember that the current adjacent channel use goes up to 160MHz wide, going
> wider than that starts getting hard.
> 
>> Receiving multiple transmissions in different channels is pretty much the same
>> problem - just digitize (ADC) a wider bandwidth and separate in the digital
>> domain.  the only real issue on receive is equalization - if you receive two
>> different signals at different receive signal strengths, the lower strength
>> signal won't get as much dynamic range in its samples.
>>
>> But in a LAN setup, the variability in signal strength is likely small enough
>> that you can cover that with more ADC bits (or have the MAC protocol manage
>> the station transmit power so that signals received at the AP are nearly the
>> same power.
>>
>> Equalization at transmit works very well when there is a central AP (as in
>> cellular or normal WiFi systems).
> 
> define 'normal WiFi system'
Ones based on access points. In general, in typical WiFi deployments one prefers to make smaller cells so that the signal level variation between "near" and "far" signals is modest, which makes equalization much easier or even optional. If there is a large variation of power received at the access point then CSMA is hard to achieve, and the far stations have to run at slow rates, occupying more than their fair share of airtime.
(a non-normal system would be a peer-to-peer mesh over a wide enough area that you end up with "hidden terminal" issues all over the place)
> 
> It's getting very common for even moderate size houses to need more than one AP
> to cover the entire house.
> 
Agree. No question about that.

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] [Make-wifi-fast] more well funded attempts showing market demand for better wifi

[Bob McMahon]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6815 bytes --]

Curious, where does the "in a LAN setup, the variability in [receive]
signal strength is likely small enough" assertion come?   Any specific
power numbers here? We test with many combinations of "signal strength
variability" (e.g. deltas range from 0 dBm -  50 dBm) and per different
channel conditions.  This includes power variability within the spatial
streams' MiMO transmission.   It would be helpful to have some physics
combined with engineering to produce some pragmatic limits to this.

Also, mobile devices have a goal of reducing power in order to be efficient
with their battery (vs a goal to balance power such that an AP can
receive simultaneously.)  Power per bit usually trumps most other design
goals.  There market for battery powered wi-fi devices drives a
semi-conductor mfg's revenue so my information come with that bias.

Bob

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:48 PM, <dpreed@reed.com> wrote:

> The actual issues of transmitting on multiple channels at the same time
> are quite minor if you do the work in the digital domain (pre-DAC).  You
> just need a higher sampling rate in the DAC and add the two signals
> together (and use a wideband filter that covers all the channels).  No RF
> problem.
>
> Receiving multiple transmissions in different channels is pretty much the
> same problem - just digitize (ADC) a wider bandwidth and separate in the
> digital domain.  the only real issue on receive is equalization - if you
> receive two different signals at different receive signal strengths, the
> lower strength signal won't get as much dynamic range in its samples.
>
> But in a LAN setup, the variability in signal strength is likely small
> enough that you can cover that with more ADC bits (or have the MAC protocol
> manage the station transmit power so that signals received at the AP are
> nearly the same power.
>
> Equalization at transmit works very well when there is a central AP (as in
> cellular or normal WiFi systems).
>
>
>
> On Thursday, June 23, 2016 4:28pm, "Bob McMahon" <bob.mcmahon@broadcom.com>
> said:
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Make-wifi-fast mailing list
> > Make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net
> > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/make-wifi-fast
> > An AP per room/area, reducing the tx power (beacon range) has been my
> > approach and has scaled very well.   It does require some wires to each
> AP
> > but I find that paying an electrician to run some quality wiring to
> things
> > that are to remain stationary has been well worth the cost.
> >
> > just my $0.02,
> > Bob
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:10 PM, David Lang <david@lang.hm> wrote:
> >
> >> Well, just using the 5GHz DFS channels in 80MHz or 160 MHz wide chunks
> >> would be a huge improvement, not many people are using them (yet), and
> the
> >> wide channels let you get a lot of data out at once. If everything is
> >> within a good range of the AP, this would work pretty well. If you end
> up
> >> needing multiple APs, or you have many stations, I expect that you will
> be
> >> better off with more APs at lower power, each using different channels.
> >>
> >> David Lang
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, 23 Jun 2016, Bob McMahon wrote:
> >>
> >> Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:55:19 -0700
> >>> From: Bob McMahon <bob.mcmahon@broadcom.com>
> >>> To: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
> >>> Cc: make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net,
> >>>     "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net"
> >>>     <cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> >>> Subject: Re: [Make-wifi-fast] more well funded attempts showing market
> >>> demand
> >>>     for better wifi
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> hmm, I'm skeptical.   To use multiple carriers simultaneously is
> difficult
> >>> per RF issues.   Even if that is somehow resolved, to increase
> throughput
> >>> usually requires some form of channel bonding, i.e. needed on both
> sides,
> >>> and brings in issues with preserving frame ordering.  If this is just
> >>> channel hopping, that needs coordination between both sides (and isn't
> >>> simultaneous, possibly costing more than any potential gain.)   An AP
> only
> >>> solution can use channel switch announcements (CSA) but there is a
> cost to
> >>> those as well.
> >>>
> >>> I guess don't see any break though here and the marketing on the site
> >>> seems
> >>> to indicate something beyond physics, at least the physics that I
> >>> understand.  Always willing to learn and be corrected if I'm
> >>> misunderstanding things.
> >>>
> >>> Bob
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/portalwifi/portal-turbocharged-wifi?ref=backerkit
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Portal is the first and only router specifically engineered to cut
> >>>>> through and avoid congestion, delivering consistent, high-performance
> >>>>> WiFi with greater coverage throughout your home.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Its proprietary spectrum turbocharger technology provides access to
> >>>>> 300% more of the radio airwaves than any other router, improving
> >>>>> performance by as much as 300x, and range and coverage by as much as
> >>>>> 2x in crowded settings, such as city homes and multi-unit apartments"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It sounds like they are promising working DFS support.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> It's not clear what chipset they are using (they are claiming wave2) -
> >>>> but they are at least publicly claiming to be using openwrt. So I
> >>>> threw in enough to order one for september, just so I could comment on
> >>>> their kickstarter page. :)
> >>>>
> >>>> I'd have loved to have got in earlier (early shipments are this month
> >>>> apparently), but those were sold out.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/portalwifi/portal-turbocharged-wifi/comments
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Dave Täht
> >>>>> Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software!
> >>>>> http://blog.cerowrt.org
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Dave Täht
> >>>> Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software!
> >>>> http://blog.cerowrt.org
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Make-wifi-fast mailing list
> >>>> Make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net
> >>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/make-wifi-fast
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Make-wifi-fast mailing list
> >> Make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net
> >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/make-wifi-fast
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 10137 bytes --]

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] [Make-wifi-fast] more well funded attempts showing market demand for better wifi

[David Lang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 6915 bytes --]

I think he is meaning when one unit is talking to one AP the signal levels 
across multiple channels will be similar. Which is probably fairly true.

David Lang

On Thu, 23 Jun 2016, Bob McMahon wrote:

> Curious, where does the "in a LAN setup, the variability in [receive]
> signal strength is likely small enough" assertion come?   Any specific
> power numbers here? We test with many combinations of "signal strength
> variability" (e.g. deltas range from 0 dBm -  50 dBm) and per different
> channel conditions.  This includes power variability within the spatial
> streams' MiMO transmission.   It would be helpful to have some physics
> combined with engineering to produce some pragmatic limits to this.
>
> Also, mobile devices have a goal of reducing power in order to be efficient
> with their battery (vs a goal to balance power such that an AP can
> receive simultaneously.)  Power per bit usually trumps most other design
> goals.  There market for battery powered wi-fi devices drives a
> semi-conductor mfg's revenue so my information come with that bias.
>
> Bob
>
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:48 PM, <dpreed@reed.com> wrote:
>
>> The actual issues of transmitting on multiple channels at the same time
>> are quite minor if you do the work in the digital domain (pre-DAC).  You
>> just need a higher sampling rate in the DAC and add the two signals
>> together (and use a wideband filter that covers all the channels).  No RF
>> problem.
>>
>> Receiving multiple transmissions in different channels is pretty much the
>> same problem - just digitize (ADC) a wider bandwidth and separate in the
>> digital domain.  the only real issue on receive is equalization - if you
>> receive two different signals at different receive signal strengths, the
>> lower strength signal won't get as much dynamic range in its samples.
>>
>> But in a LAN setup, the variability in signal strength is likely small
>> enough that you can cover that with more ADC bits (or have the MAC protocol
>> manage the station transmit power so that signals received at the AP are
>> nearly the same power.
>>
>> Equalization at transmit works very well when there is a central AP (as in
>> cellular or normal WiFi systems).
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, June 23, 2016 4:28pm, "Bob McMahon" <bob.mcmahon@broadcom.com>
>> said:
>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Make-wifi-fast mailing list
>>> Make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/make-wifi-fast
>>> An AP per room/area, reducing the tx power (beacon range) has been my
>>> approach and has scaled very well.   It does require some wires to each
>> AP
>>> but I find that paying an electrician to run some quality wiring to
>> things
>>> that are to remain stationary has been well worth the cost.
>>>
>>> just my $0.02,
>>> Bob
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:10 PM, David Lang <david@lang.hm> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, just using the 5GHz DFS channels in 80MHz or 160 MHz wide chunks
>>>> would be a huge improvement, not many people are using them (yet), and
>> the
>>>> wide channels let you get a lot of data out at once. If everything is
>>>> within a good range of the AP, this would work pretty well. If you end
>> up
>>>> needing multiple APs, or you have many stations, I expect that you will
>> be
>>>> better off with more APs at lower power, each using different channels.
>>>>
>>>> David Lang
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2016, Bob McMahon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:55:19 -0700
>>>>> From: Bob McMahon <bob.mcmahon@broadcom.com>
>>>>> To: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
>>>>> Cc: make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net,
>>>>>     "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>>>>>     <cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Make-wifi-fast] more well funded attempts showing market
>>>>> demand
>>>>>     for better wifi
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> hmm, I'm skeptical.   To use multiple carriers simultaneously is
>> difficult
>>>>> per RF issues.   Even if that is somehow resolved, to increase
>> throughput
>>>>> usually requires some form of channel bonding, i.e. needed on both
>> sides,
>>>>> and brings in issues with preserving frame ordering.  If this is just
>>>>> channel hopping, that needs coordination between both sides (and isn't
>>>>> simultaneous, possibly costing more than any potential gain.)   An AP
>> only
>>>>> solution can use channel switch announcements (CSA) but there is a
>> cost to
>>>>> those as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess don't see any break though here and the marketing on the site
>>>>> seems
>>>>> to indicate something beyond physics, at least the physics that I
>>>>> understand.  Always willing to learn and be corrected if I'm
>>>>> misunderstanding things.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/portalwifi/portal-turbocharged-wifi?ref=backerkit
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Portal is the first and only router specifically engineered to cut
>>>>>>> through and avoid congestion, delivering consistent, high-performance
>>>>>>> WiFi with greater coverage throughout your home.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Its proprietary spectrum turbocharger technology provides access to
>>>>>>> 300% more of the radio airwaves than any other router, improving
>>>>>>> performance by as much as 300x, and range and coverage by as much as
>>>>>>> 2x in crowded settings, such as city homes and multi-unit apartments"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It sounds like they are promising working DFS support.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not clear what chipset they are using (they are claiming wave2) -
>>>>>> but they are at least publicly claiming to be using openwrt. So I
>>>>>> threw in enough to order one for september, just so I could comment on
>>>>>> their kickstarter page. :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd have loved to have got in earlier (early shipments are this month
>>>>>> apparently), but those were sold out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/portalwifi/portal-turbocharged-wifi/comments
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Dave Täht
>>>>>>> Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software!
>>>>>>> http://blog.cerowrt.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Dave Täht
>>>>>> Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software!
>>>>>> http://blog.cerowrt.org
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Make-wifi-fast mailing list
>>>>>> Make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/make-wifi-fast
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Make-wifi-fast mailing list
>>>> Make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/make-wifi-fast
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] [Make-wifi-fast] more well funded attempts showing market demand for better wifi

[Bob McMahon]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7804 bytes --]

Thanks for the clarification.   Though now I'm confused about how all the
channels would be used simultaneously with an AP only solution (which is my
understanding of the kickstarter campaign.)

Bob

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 7:14 PM, David Lang <david@lang.hm> wrote:

> I think he is meaning when one unit is talking to one AP the signal levels
> across multiple channels will be similar. Which is probably fairly true.
>
>
> David Lang
>
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2016, Bob McMahon wrote:
>
> Curious, where does the "in a LAN setup, the variability in [receive]
>> signal strength is likely small enough" assertion come?   Any specific
>> power numbers here? We test with many combinations of "signal strength
>> variability" (e.g. deltas range from 0 dBm -  50 dBm) and per different
>> channel conditions.  This includes power variability within the spatial
>> streams' MiMO transmission.   It would be helpful to have some physics
>> combined with engineering to produce some pragmatic limits to this.
>>
>> Also, mobile devices have a goal of reducing power in order to be
>> efficient
>> with their battery (vs a goal to balance power such that an AP can
>> receive simultaneously.)  Power per bit usually trumps most other design
>> goals.  There market for battery powered wi-fi devices drives a
>> semi-conductor mfg's revenue so my information come with that bias.
>>
>> Bob
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:48 PM, <dpreed@reed.com> wrote:
>>
>> The actual issues of transmitting on multiple channels at the same time
>>> are quite minor if you do the work in the digital domain (pre-DAC).  You
>>> just need a higher sampling rate in the DAC and add the two signals
>>> together (and use a wideband filter that covers all the channels).  No RF
>>> problem.
>>>
>>> Receiving multiple transmissions in different channels is pretty much the
>>> same problem - just digitize (ADC) a wider bandwidth and separate in the
>>> digital domain.  the only real issue on receive is equalization - if you
>>> receive two different signals at different receive signal strengths, the
>>> lower strength signal won't get as much dynamic range in its samples.
>>>
>>> But in a LAN setup, the variability in signal strength is likely small
>>> enough that you can cover that with more ADC bits (or have the MAC
>>> protocol
>>> manage the station transmit power so that signals received at the AP are
>>> nearly the same power.
>>>
>>> Equalization at transmit works very well when there is a central AP (as
>>> in
>>> cellular or normal WiFi systems).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, June 23, 2016 4:28pm, "Bob McMahon" <
>>> bob.mcmahon@broadcom.com>
>>> said:
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Make-wifi-fast mailing list
>>>> Make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/make-wifi-fast
>>>> An AP per room/area, reducing the tx power (beacon range) has been my
>>>> approach and has scaled very well.   It does require some wires to each
>>>>
>>> AP
>>>
>>>> but I find that paying an electrician to run some quality wiring to
>>>>
>>> things
>>>
>>>> that are to remain stationary has been well worth the cost.
>>>>
>>>> just my $0.02,
>>>> Bob
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:10 PM, David Lang <david@lang.hm> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Well, just using the 5GHz DFS channels in 80MHz or 160 MHz wide chunks
>>>>> would be a huge improvement, not many people are using them (yet), and
>>>>>
>>>> the
>>>
>>>> wide channels let you get a lot of data out at once. If everything is
>>>>> within a good range of the AP, this would work pretty well. If you end
>>>>>
>>>> up
>>>
>>>> needing multiple APs, or you have many stations, I expect that you will
>>>>>
>>>> be
>>>
>>>> better off with more APs at lower power, each using different channels.
>>>>>
>>>>> David Lang
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2016, Bob McMahon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:55:19 -0700
>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Bob McMahon <bob.mcmahon@broadcom.com>
>>>>>> To: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
>>>>>> Cc: make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net,
>>>>>>     "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>>>>>>     <cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Make-wifi-fast] more well funded attempts showing market
>>>>>> demand
>>>>>>     for better wifi
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> hmm, I'm skeptical.   To use multiple carriers simultaneously is
>>>>>>
>>>>> difficult
>>>
>>>> per RF issues.   Even if that is somehow resolved, to increase
>>>>>>
>>>>> throughput
>>>
>>>> usually requires some form of channel bonding, i.e. needed on both
>>>>>>
>>>>> sides,
>>>
>>>> and brings in issues with preserving frame ordering.  If this is just
>>>>>> channel hopping, that needs coordination between both sides (and isn't
>>>>>> simultaneous, possibly costing more than any potential gain.)   An AP
>>>>>>
>>>>> only
>>>
>>>> solution can use channel switch announcements (CSA) but there is a
>>>>>>
>>>>> cost to
>>>
>>>> those as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess don't see any break though here and the marketing on the site
>>>>>> seems
>>>>>> to indicate something beyond physics, at least the physics that I
>>>>>> understand.  Always willing to learn and be corrected if I'm
>>>>>> misunderstanding things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/portalwifi/portal-turbocharged-wifi?ref=backerkit
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Portal is the first and only router specifically engineered to cut
>>>>>>>> through and avoid congestion, delivering consistent,
>>>>>>>> high-performance
>>>>>>>> WiFi with greater coverage throughout your home.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Its proprietary spectrum turbocharger technology provides access to
>>>>>>>> 300% more of the radio airwaves than any other router, improving
>>>>>>>> performance by as much as 300x, and range and coverage by as much as
>>>>>>>> 2x in crowded settings, such as city homes and multi-unit
>>>>>>>> apartments"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It sounds like they are promising working DFS support.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's not clear what chipset they are using (they are claiming wave2)
>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>> but they are at least publicly claiming to be using openwrt. So I
>>>>>>> threw in enough to order one for september, just so I could comment
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>> their kickstarter page. :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd have loved to have got in earlier (early shipments are this month
>>>>>>> apparently), but those were sold out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/portalwifi/portal-turbocharged-wifi/comments
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Dave Täht
>>>>>>>> Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software!
>>>>>>>> http://blog.cerowrt.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Dave Täht
>>>>>>> Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software!
>>>>>>> http://blog.cerowrt.org
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Make-wifi-fast mailing list
>>>>>>> Make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/make-wifi-fast
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Make-wifi-fast mailing list
>>>>> Make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/make-wifi-fast
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 14736 bytes --]

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] [Make-wifi-fast] more well funded attempts showing market demand for better wifi

[David Lang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 8456 bytes --]

well, with the kickstarter, I think they are selling a bill of goods.

Just using the DFS channels and aggregating them as supported by N and AC 
standards would do wonders (as long as others near you don't do the same)

David Lang

On Thu, 23 Jun 2016, Bob McMahon wrote:

> Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 20:01:22 -0700
> From: Bob McMahon <bob.mcmahon@broadcom.com>
> To: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
> Cc: dpreed@reed.com, make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net,
>     "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>     <cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Subject: Re: [Make-wifi-fast] more well funded attempts showing market demand
>     for better wifi
> 
> Thanks for the clarification.   Though now I'm confused about how all the
> channels would be used simultaneously with an AP only solution (which is my
> understanding of the kickstarter campaign.)
>
> Bob
>
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 7:14 PM, David Lang <david@lang.hm> wrote:
>
>> I think he is meaning when one unit is talking to one AP the signal levels
>> across multiple channels will be similar. Which is probably fairly true.
>>
>>
>> David Lang
>>
>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2016, Bob McMahon wrote:
>>
>> Curious, where does the "in a LAN setup, the variability in [receive]
>>> signal strength is likely small enough" assertion come?   Any specific
>>> power numbers here? We test with many combinations of "signal strength
>>> variability" (e.g. deltas range from 0 dBm -  50 dBm) and per different
>>> channel conditions.  This includes power variability within the spatial
>>> streams' MiMO transmission.   It would be helpful to have some physics
>>> combined with engineering to produce some pragmatic limits to this.
>>>
>>> Also, mobile devices have a goal of reducing power in order to be
>>> efficient
>>> with their battery (vs a goal to balance power such that an AP can
>>> receive simultaneously.)  Power per bit usually trumps most other design
>>> goals.  There market for battery powered wi-fi devices drives a
>>> semi-conductor mfg's revenue so my information come with that bias.
>>>
>>> Bob
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:48 PM, <dpreed@reed.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> The actual issues of transmitting on multiple channels at the same time
>>>> are quite minor if you do the work in the digital domain (pre-DAC).  You
>>>> just need a higher sampling rate in the DAC and add the two signals
>>>> together (and use a wideband filter that covers all the channels).  No RF
>>>> problem.
>>>>
>>>> Receiving multiple transmissions in different channels is pretty much the
>>>> same problem - just digitize (ADC) a wider bandwidth and separate in the
>>>> digital domain.  the only real issue on receive is equalization - if you
>>>> receive two different signals at different receive signal strengths, the
>>>> lower strength signal won't get as much dynamic range in its samples.
>>>>
>>>> But in a LAN setup, the variability in signal strength is likely small
>>>> enough that you can cover that with more ADC bits (or have the MAC
>>>> protocol
>>>> manage the station transmit power so that signals received at the AP are
>>>> nearly the same power.
>>>>
>>>> Equalization at transmit works very well when there is a central AP (as
>>>> in
>>>> cellular or normal WiFi systems).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thursday, June 23, 2016 4:28pm, "Bob McMahon" <
>>>> bob.mcmahon@broadcom.com>
>>>> said:
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Make-wifi-fast mailing list
>>>>> Make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/make-wifi-fast
>>>>> An AP per room/area, reducing the tx power (beacon range) has been my
>>>>> approach and has scaled very well.   It does require some wires to each
>>>>>
>>>> AP
>>>>
>>>>> but I find that paying an electrician to run some quality wiring to
>>>>>
>>>> things
>>>>
>>>>> that are to remain stationary has been well worth the cost.
>>>>>
>>>>> just my $0.02,
>>>>> Bob
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:10 PM, David Lang <david@lang.hm> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, just using the 5GHz DFS channels in 80MHz or 160 MHz wide chunks
>>>>>> would be a huge improvement, not many people are using them (yet), and
>>>>>>
>>>>> the
>>>>
>>>>> wide channels let you get a lot of data out at once. If everything is
>>>>>> within a good range of the AP, this would work pretty well. If you end
>>>>>>
>>>>> up
>>>>
>>>>> needing multiple APs, or you have many stations, I expect that you will
>>>>>>
>>>>> be
>>>>
>>>>> better off with more APs at lower power, each using different channels.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David Lang
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2016, Bob McMahon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:55:19 -0700
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Bob McMahon <bob.mcmahon@broadcom.com>
>>>>>>> To: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> Cc: make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net,
>>>>>>>     "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>>>>>>>     <cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Make-wifi-fast] more well funded attempts showing market
>>>>>>> demand
>>>>>>>     for better wifi
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> hmm, I'm skeptical.   To use multiple carriers simultaneously is
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> difficult
>>>>
>>>>> per RF issues.   Even if that is somehow resolved, to increase
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> throughput
>>>>
>>>>> usually requires some form of channel bonding, i.e. needed on both
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> sides,
>>>>
>>>>> and brings in issues with preserving frame ordering.  If this is just
>>>>>>> channel hopping, that needs coordination between both sides (and isn't
>>>>>>> simultaneous, possibly costing more than any potential gain.)   An AP
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> only
>>>>
>>>>> solution can use channel switch announcements (CSA) but there is a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> cost to
>>>>
>>>>> those as well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I guess don't see any break though here and the marketing on the site
>>>>>>> seems
>>>>>>> to indicate something beyond physics, at least the physics that I
>>>>>>> understand.  Always willing to learn and be corrected if I'm
>>>>>>> misunderstanding things.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bob
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/portalwifi/portal-turbocharged-wifi?ref=backerkit
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Portal is the first and only router specifically engineered to cut
>>>>>>>>> through and avoid congestion, delivering consistent,
>>>>>>>>> high-performance
>>>>>>>>> WiFi with greater coverage throughout your home.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Its proprietary spectrum turbocharger technology provides access to
>>>>>>>>> 300% more of the radio airwaves than any other router, improving
>>>>>>>>> performance by as much as 300x, and range and coverage by as much as
>>>>>>>>> 2x in crowded settings, such as city homes and multi-unit
>>>>>>>>> apartments"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It sounds like they are promising working DFS support.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's not clear what chipset they are using (they are claiming wave2)
>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>> but they are at least publicly claiming to be using openwrt. So I
>>>>>>>> threw in enough to order one for september, just so I could comment
>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>> their kickstarter page. :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'd have loved to have got in earlier (early shipments are this month
>>>>>>>> apparently), but those were sold out.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/portalwifi/portal-turbocharged-wifi/comments
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Dave Täht
>>>>>>>>> Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software!
>>>>>>>>> http://blog.cerowrt.org
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Dave Täht
>>>>>>>> Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software!
>>>>>>>> http://blog.cerowrt.org
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Make-wifi-fast mailing list
>>>>>>>> Make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/make-wifi-fast
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Make-wifi-fast mailing list
>>>>>> Make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/make-wifi-fast
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>