Forum

Now that some actual product are showing up, at least in paper form, it would be fun to begin discussing 802.11ac.D-Link and TrendNet both announced 802.11ac products launching.
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/802.11ac-Wireless-AC-TRENDnet-router-media-bridge,news-13788.html
http://ces.cnet.com/8301-33372_1-57354323/802.11ac-is-the-future-of-wi-fi-d-link-says/
Some interesting tech bits on the standard
Uses 5GHz spectrum, actually I think it just says <6GHz but UNII is probably the only place with the bandwidth
80MHz and 160Mhz channels
256 QAM with 5/6 coding
MU-MIMO <-- SDMA Spatial Division Multiple Access; allows simultaneous streams from multiple users
And of course Beamforming.
1.7Gbps to each STA and almost 7Gbps PHY throughput
I wonder if SCA (single channel architecture) would bring this to some enterprises? It's a great time to learn wireless.

[quote]It's a great time to learn wireless. [/quote]

I couldnt agree with your more! Thats why im in. This time next year, I want to be in a position that says "CWNE application submitted" :-)

Do you think the 160MHz implementation would only run in UNII-2e, since if it were to combine UNII-1 and UNII-2 then the maximum power of those two bands are different?
Maybe it's too much speculation at this time.

Not sure, I would imagine the bandwidth would need to be contiguous. UNII-1 and UNII-3 only have 80MHz of contiguous bandwidth. UNII-1 is next to UNII-2 in terms of spectrum however, UNII-2/UNII-2ext are subject to radar detection and avoidance. Not sure if you would want to use 160MHz with UNII-1 and UNII-2. As far as power output, that is usuallay determined based on the channel bandwidth (MHz not Mbps). I would suspect that UNII-2 and UNII-2ext would be the prime realestate for 802.11ac.

When I first read about the wider channels my though was it will be a poor design choice to offer such wide channels outside of very small isolated deployments and I'm not going to be using that much, though having to explain why often! My CWDP will come in handy there I hope ;-)

So it will be gangbusters at my house and not viable in public or enterprise deployments outside of very special use cases in small areas.

[quote]Do you think the 160MHz implementation would only run in UNII-2e, since if it were to combine UNII-1 and UNII-2 then the maximum power of those two bands are different?
Maybe it's too much speculation at this time. [/quote]

I would expect it to run where ever there are two available bonded or non-bonded channels available. I wouldn't expect the IEEE taking differing power into account as this varies by regulatory domain. From memory, max txpower in UNII-1 and UNII-2 varies in the US however (for example) in Australia they are both a max of 200 mW (assuming TPC and DFS are used in UNII-2).

[quote]When I first read about the wider channels my though was it will be a poor design choice to offer such wide channels outside of very small isolated deployments [/quote]

My thoughts exactly. I wish the IEEE had not offered the 160 MHz choice just like I wish they didn't offer 40 MHz channels at 40 MHz. At least Cisco doesn't support it though some other enterprise manufactures do. Most SOHO gear seems to default to 40 MHz at 2.4 GHz also - I can't help but think they will do the same with 160 MHz channels when chipsets start to support that. Any enterprise within -85 of SOHO gear doing 160 MHz.... *shakes head*.