Extended Wi-Fi coverage
Extended Wi-Fi coverage
There isn't any official information available about this technology. I only found references from two different employees at the same major telecom company, each in a separate area. They described a system allowing Wi-Fi coverage up to 30 km between nodes with speeds ranging from 300 to 1 gigabit per second within a 4 km radius. This setup eliminates the need for extensive copper wiring or fiber. I’m having trouble understanding how uploading data works over such distances, as it seems to require large antennas. I’ve seen images of these large 360-degree antennas, which were about six feet tall, suggesting they might be in experimental use elsewhere. It appears this project has been running since at least last summer, so it’s not brand new.
You can easily identify point-to-point connections over that range, and many use Wi-Fi for communication. They employ big antennas. Check out the example here: https://www.ui.com/airmax/nanobeam-ac-gen2/
For reliable Wi-Fi beyond 30km with solid speed, you'll need a directional antenna. A full 360-degree setup rarely works unless you switch to lower frequencies such as 900MHz, though that moves away from standard Wi-Fi definitions. Are you referring to point-to-point configurations? In these cases, both the client and access point use directional antennas aimed directly at each other. These systems help deliver internet in locations where cables aren't feasible. The client's transceiver functions similarly to a modem, allowing devices to connect through it.
they possess those broad-range antennas with considerable flexibility. I learned that a few degrees are needed to enable two-way communication between the two nodes situated 30km apart, so it seems they are directional. At the same spot there’s a six-foot-tall secondary antenna designed for 360 degrees, covering up to four kilometers around each client (as seen in these city tests) with individual receivers. It looks like they don’t need a landline inside the house for uploading, which doesn’t make much sense. At that distance, a standard home antenna likely wouldn’t be strong enough to send back to the main hub, so it must be a directional setup on the client side. The individuals I know didn’t have the client receiver in their hands. One person worked at the main hub downtown while another handled signal stability for several weeks.
Are you sure about that? AFAIK there's always some directional client device involved, though they don't have to be bulky or obvious; they can be very subtle and compact, so there's a chance you haven't noticed them. There's absolutely no way you can just connect to the wireless network with a phone or something like that. Like you said, any signal it'd send would never make it to the base station, and also, there's a good chance a normal wifi device won't even pick up the signal because directionality is also important for reception.
My understanding is that certain applications need four highly focused antennas—two on each side—and a powerful amplifier that pushes beyond standard FCC limits for unlicensed use. WiFi operates on radio waves, and traveling it 30 kilometers or more around the globe via AM modulation has been achieved for decades. The challenge lies in the fact that a WiFi base station functions as an unlicensed broadcast device. Broadcasting without a license is permitted, but output levels remain limited, restricting range. Obtaining a license from the FCC would allow higher power usage. HAM radio enthusiasts have long used packet radio techniques. Contemporary WiFi systems might demand eight or sixteen separate antennas. Each system would require its own antenna for every side and possibly different shapes for each frequency. Not always necessary. In the past, a cantenna—constructed from threaded rod, washers, and a Pringles can—could cover up to half a kilometer. Just two of these could handle both transmitting and receiving across multiple frequencies, though you’d still need to align them carefully with a scope.