I'm all for more innocuous cell antennas. I'm just not convinced in this case. Just looking at the picture it seems neither innocuous nor particularly transparent even thought it's on glass. Maybe they can make the connections less apparent without exposed coax, and maybe they won't need to add (extra) windows on top of windows, and maybe they can make the conductive areas more transparent, but this is only useful as a proof of concept.
Let's see what they can do for a commercial product. Usually, there are tens of antennas on a single tower so they can't all look like this. Also, I'm going to assume that you have to keep anyone from getting within 3 meters just due to radiated emissions, so don't go just looking out that window!
This is a commercial product, that’s actually been installed and being used. The magic here is a “transparent” antenna. The magic is a carefully tuned, small and innocuous antenna, that when mounted on a window it’s been tuned for, allows 5G to easily propagate through the glass.
Glass facades almost universally use Low-E glass to avoid turning the building into a huge greenhouse. Problem for 5G, is that low-e glass is remarkably good at blocking 5G frequencies[1]. Pair that with 5G smaller propagation distances, and issues of finding viable locations to mount 5G antenna becomes a real problem.
This product neatly solves that problem by allowing carriers to mount these antenna on the inside of a buildings facade, while providing coverage outside the building. Which will substantially reduce the cost and difficulty of installing 5G masts. You can place all your sensitive equipment in normal building voids, without the need for bulky and ugly weather proofing, and you need to break the buildings weather tight seals (which a landlord isn’t gonna let you do without significant assurances you’re going the cover the costs of any water that comes through) to run cables to external antenna.
To make all of this viable, someone has had to do a fair bit of work to figure out how to build an antenna that effectively incorporates the low-e window it’s attached to, into its RF design. The fact the physical antenna is made of glass and partial transparent isn’t actually the interesting part. That’s likely been done because glass is a very rigid material that will make it easy to ensure the conductive parts of the antenna are kept at a specific distance from the window it’s mounted on, to ensure the correct RF coupling occurs.
[1] https://www.ranplanwireless.com/gb/resources/low-e-glass/
See also the Pivotal Commware[0] repeater solution.
> “Usually, there are tens of antennas on a single tower so they can't all look like this. Also, I'm going to assume that you have to keep anyone from getting within 3 meters just due to radiated emissions”
Those towers you see with lots of antennas are massive MIMO installations designed for very high capacity and coverage over a wide area. But not all sites need to look like that. In this case, it’s just a small cell designed to improve coverage within a building and/or on a few local streets. Power levels are also much lower, not all that much different to a WiFi base station. People aren’t going to get cooked if they get close to it.
Do you mean inconspicuous?
- innocuous: not harmful
- inconspicuous: not clearly visible or attracting attention
I think it can be used as "non-objectionable" or "non-irritating" which would still work here
Sure although the article says inconspicuous and transparent and the comment it saying it's neither of those things.
The harm considered here is being conspicuous. So you could make an argument for either term.
I don't think it needs to be fully invisible. There are a lot of places in the building where slightly darkened glass panel would not look too out of place, as opposed to a bulky ugly opaque plastic box. Especially if architects really work on integrating it, it can be made very unobtrusive without needing 100% transparency. And, in a lot of buildings there are glass panels which aren't within the foot traffic areas - high windows, ceilings, technical areas, etc.
> turns a window into a base station that can be attached to a building window inside and turn the outdoors into a service area
You could easily enclose this by some architectural feature on the interior of the building or even use a window that's off the back of a maintenance closet.
The transparency is hard to judge from this one photo, where there's a flat background to it and a line or two.
This seems not at all unreasonably subtle to me. Even with the array of feeder lines, yeah, maybe it's not for very high end stash places but for most places this seems ay okay.
Given what the alternatives are for urban and commercial spaces, this feels like a big win.
My main concern is power level. How much power can you emit if Joe in accounting is 8 feet away from it, and how does that compare versus normal building mounted or pole mounted antennas? Also, what frequencies is this antenna designed for; it seems like 5g can run on lots of spectrum; is this mmWave gear or lower?
Apologies for soapboxing, but I want to chip in my belief that this world is driven by those who see possibility & potential.
> Also, what frequencies is this antenna designed for; it seems like 5g can run on lots of spectrum; is this mmWave gear or lower?
The article says it's for the "sub-6" 5G bands, a.k.a. normal cellular frequencies, not mmWave.
As always, these are non-ionizing frequencies, they pose absolutely zero risk to health or safety unless you're absorbing enough power to be meaningfully heated by it.
> How much power can you emit if Joe in accounting is 8 feet away from it, and how does that compare versus normal building mounted or pole mounted antennas?
Assuming an antenna gain of 10 dBi, which seems to be "normal" for panel-style antennas in the 5G low band, just short of 30 watts in to the antenna would be safe according to the guidelines the FCC gives us amateur radio operators for "uncontrolled" environments if the antenna were aimed directly at a person eight feet away.
Obviously in the real world these antennas will be aimed outward so the energy being absorbed by anyone in the building will be significantly less than that.
These should not be installed in places someone could directly touch it or the cables feeding it, but there's no reason to believe there's any danger to someone just existing normally in the same room.
> My main concern is power level. How much power can you emit if Joe in accounting is 8 feet away from it
That was my first takeaway from the photo from outside. The kinds of antennas they put on top of buildings routinely run many hundreds to a thousand watts or more of power directionally out into the city. That's fine when you're putting it on equipment outside the building on a controlled access roof pointing away from the occupants in the building. Everyone actually in the beam pattern is going to be far away from the active elements.
This design doesn't seem to be incredibly directional especially outwards. You're not going to be able to run much power on that antenna, and now you're going to have it on the inside of metallized glass. A lot of that energy is going to stay in the building. I wouldn't want the desk next to this if it's going to run even 100W. Just asking to get some good RF burns.
> ”A lot of that energy is going to stay in the building.”
Right. The point of these small cell sites is usually to improve coverage within the building.
Occupational RF exposure is pretty strictly regulated in most countries. I’m sure there is design/installation guidance to ensure they stay well within legal limits.
> My main concern is power level. How much power can you emit if Joe in accounting is 8 feet away from it, and how does that compare versus normal building mounted or pole mounted antennas?
My thoughts exactly. Who would like to sit that close to a 5G Base Station?
This is a demonstration setup to show that it works.
It's fairly obvious that there are thousands of different ways to camoflauge this equipment in a real-world customer deployment, just like how routers, etc., are hidden in restaurants and stores.
> Apologies for soapboxing, but I want to chip in my belief that this world is driven by those who see possibility & potential.
Cynics never lose but optimists win.
Is it possible to create a mesh 5G network run by volunteers supplying their connectivity, thus remove the need for mobile network operators?
I participated in community mesh networks for years and even did a startup where people could get paid for installing mesh nodes on their roof. Many others have done this as well over many years, and have either pivoted (Meraki) or gone out of business and sold their assets to conventional ISPs (Common Networks).
The biggest hurdle is that reliably running high performance transmitters is not easy for amateurs, and the payoff for any one transmitter is not that much. I'm going to use the example of a residential ISP but this applies to cell networks as well. The "meshier" the network is, the more people revenue needs to be split between, exacerbating the problem.
Another issue is that reliability is extremely important for internet access. Given the fact that amateurs are not going to be able to maintain high uptime, for a decentralized mesh network to succeed at actually providing internet service, you need to have a lot of redundancy in any given area, further reducing income from any one node.
The solution to this is to have a team of technicians that can go around and fix and optimize nodes as soon as there is any problem. This is basically what an ISP or cell carrier does. An added difference is that in a mesh network, the idea is generally that the property owner owns the node, while with a conventional ISP, the property owner leases to the ISP who owns the node. Property owners generally prefer the latter, since this is the model they are used to operating under as landlords.
How do you prevent selfish leechers that use network bandwidth, but don't contribute to it, like on public torrents? Using people's cellphones as relay nodes is a non-starter because it's going to be a massive drain on battery life, so you'll have to rely on volunteers setting up their own wired base stations.
That should be fine. If it's part of every modem/gateway router, there should be so much bandwidth it doesn't matter. Standard QoS techniques can apply - don't allow someone to take it all when there are more people who want bandwidth.
>If it's part of every modem/gateway router, there should be so much bandwidth it doesn't matter.
Why would it be part of every modem/gateway? Since there's no monetary incentive to participate, in all likelihood all nodes would be run by volunteers who are shelling out extra for a compatible modem/router.
Actually come to think of it, you can run a volunteer network providing internet connectivity with off the shelf equipment right now. It's called setting your wifi network to "open". Why don't people do that? How would your mesh network fix those issues?
Not only just shelling out more for that compatible modem/router, that volunteer would also have to be willing to set up at least the antennas in a place optimal for others to actually use it instead of potentially optimal placement for their own services. A client on the street is not going to get good connectivity to someone's cell repeater tucked deep in their media cabinet next to their game console and under their TV in the center of their home. You'll need to get your volunteers to bother placing these antennas on their roofs, on the top of flagpoles, etc. to get good propagation. They better have properly grounded it as well and put fourth good lightning protection for this new wire high point at the top of their home.
> If it's part of every modem/gateway router
That's not really a "mesh" then. It is just a bunch of infrastructure AP's everywhere.
Why is it not a mesh? There are fundamental differences between normal and mesh networks in the ways they route packets, and I think this is still a mesh network.
> If it's part of every modem/gateway router
If it's a part of every modem/gateway router, why would you bother routing it through a bunch of mesh hops just to eventually get out instead of just routing it through the far more reliable wired networking available at every modem/gateway router?
Those regular WiFi networks only have tons of available bandwidth because they're not trying to repeat a bunch of wireless traffic. Even the current mesh WiFi networks only really work when you're using frequencies that aren't trying to compete with neighbors. Start getting actual density and it'll all fall apart.
Also your idea of "standard QoS can still apply" isn't exactly true. That QoS is only going to work if people play along with it. In the end its a shared medium. Get some clients to not play along with your configurations, you'll start getting collisions regardless of what you configure your QoS settings.
If it isn't doing mesh routing, then it isn't a mesh.
The question is can devices connect to other devices that route to router with internet. Is it possible to have router for house without internet connection that routes to the neighbors that do?
Yes, that should be possible.
Is it possible? Sure, its possible. Would it actually be feasible and good? Probably not.
Take a look at WiFi-dense apartment buildings. So much crowding, no centralized assignment or management of the bands. It is a wild west of people transmitting on whatever channels and whatever power levels they want (within the legal limits). It ends up with few people actually having a good experience when there's no centralized management. 5GHz/6GHz makes WiFi more usable because it naturally limits your ability to hear your neighbors. Going to 700MHz/900MHz/1.2GHz (the normal frequencies used in a lot of 5G deployments) is only going the opposite direction of where WiFi has been going to solve this problem. Expect more noisy neighbor problems as you lower the frequencies.
Then we're not only going to saturate the bands with people doing whatever they want (within legal limits), we're going to depend on mesh routing through all that noise? There goes your reliability and efficiency of sending data.
I'm talking about creating a single mesh network, not a Wifi-like situation with many networks on the same bands.
There is no difference in the end. It is still a single collision domain for everyone talking.
And who's to say they want to join your mesh and not Bob's super awesome mesh? Or start their own mesh? Oh, you get to decide how to operate the mesh but I can't? I guess you'll end up getting some kind of license so you can standardize how this particular mesh should operate and prevent others from running competing services on the same frequencies as your one mesh.
You'll put out standards on what kinds of devices are certified to work on it and ensure certain settings so tx/rx errors are reduced to ensure good usage. You'll start encouraging people to not put up more nodes in a certain area because it's just getting too crowded here, but hey we need to incentivize someone to set up a node on the other side of town.
Snap now it seems like we're running a regular carrier.
I participate and use city-sized WiFi mesh networks in the amateur radio world. They're not anywhere near a replacement for what normal people think of as internet connectivity. I can't imagine swapping WiFi for 5G cellular stacks would end up making a radical difference. The issues are largely with having to make multiple wireless hops, mesh routing inefficiencies/problems, and having everyone actually play nice all the time.
5G for just internet is somewhat doable, but unlikely reasonable. There is a volunteer-driven LoRaWAN Helium[0] mesh network which added 5G some 2 years back. But it's cryptocurrency-driven and apparently unprofitable for volunteers investing in radios and antennas. At least where I live.
My neighbor still has the Helium antenna and radio on his balcony but it's offline due to costs/profits disproportion. It's the LoRaWAN, pre-5G hardware though, and I don't know anyone running the 5G version, if it's even a real thing. I liked the idea from technical perspective but the project itself was off-putting for me due to being built around a crypto token and having overall web3 smell.
There are a few problems with this. Mesh is cool for other uses but can't replace the infrastructure of mobile operator.
One, what frequency are you going to use? If you use 2.4GHz or 5GHz, your Wifi-using neighbors will hate you. There is the 6GHz spectrum but has problems with long ranges. The 3.5GHz CBRS is probably the best bet but that requires spectrum allocation and organization to run it. The mobile operators have all the good low frequency, long range spectrum.
Two, the range with home routers is going to be pretty short, maybe 1mi. That means lots of node to cover a city. Also, 5G routers are not that cheap. It also means that there will be no reception away from the city. Most routers are meant to be used inside, and good coverage, requires mounting them outside on a pole.
Three, I'm not sure there is 5G device-to-device. There was LTE-Direct but it never got implemented. There D2D in 5G spec but I can't find any implementations.
Yes it is possible. However, it would probably require regulatory changes. It would really suck to have your internet shutdown because someone was pirating movies on the mesh.
Let's start with the technology, then it can be used to argue for legal changes.
I think the technology is already there to hook into a 5g network and repeat it. However, you would need to create a network "Provider" for the mesh. Then you would need to connect all the nodes. In the end you have made one more wireless company. I think the governance model for the mesh provider would be way more important than the tech itself.
However, creating the Wikipedia/Internet Archive of wireless ISPs would be pretty awesome.
Connecting the nodes through a common backbone shouldn't be necessary in a mesh network. Nodes can provide connectivity by relaying even if they don't have access to internet directly.
Yes via sidelink: https://www.abiresearch.com/blogs/2022/11/08/5g-sidelink/
Not used everywhere, but seen as something that would be rolled out for critical communications, natural disasters, etc.
There's some specs out for 5G on unlicensed bands, but even that uses licensed bands for coordination.
So, if you want to run legally, you're going to need spectrum licenses and transmitter licenses and all that. That will make you a mobile network operator, regardless of how you arrange labor and sites.
Not sure I'd classify this under "volunteers", but you can run a 5G hotspot on the Helium network: https://www.helium.com/5G
It feels like they've partially given up on the whole Helium 5G model as much as it still exists. Their current sham is instead to rely on user-installed Wi-Fi hotspots that use Passpoint 2.0 it looks like, and they're steering more adoption of their cursed WiFi implementation.
mesh is a pipe dream
change my view
That's less a "mesh" than it is a community-run WISP.
Mesh would be each home (or some percentage of the homes) act as nodes. These have all the homes hit a few towers around the city. Traffic isn't routed directly between (or through) the homes in this example, it is all centralized. They hit a single big tower that then does all the routing.
The link in the Vice article to the project's site is old. Here's a current one; https://detroitcommunitytech.org/eii
Maybe we’d have a chance if you told us why you have that view in the first place.
Why is it a pipe dream? It could also be something like roaming (in foreign countries), whatever - just a community mobile network that anyone can join.
If you're talking about wireless-only mesh and using it as the only form of connectivity, sure, you're right. If it's just another way to connect then it is very practical for use in high-density urban areas, but highly unlikely to be widely implemented as ISPs are the main distributors of the most suitable node devices and they are the ones with the most to lose if mesh is easily available.
I'd like to see a version that doubles as exit signage.
They do that in this article towards the end: https://wavebyagc.com/en/hidden-antennas-for-urban-environme...
Very cool, thanks. It looks like they can be used for WIFI as well, which would make these perfect for business mesh networks.
> I don’t think the idea for using transparent conductive materials as an antenna existed before
Many slightly older cars (2000-2020) had antennas embedded in glass. The idea is solid. Antennas in glass are protected, so they can be very thin and almost invisible, more aesthetically pleasing than a shark fin or a rod on the roof.
I would consider this an aesthetic choice, not so much engineering. A small antenna sticking out on the roof solves the engineering problem adequately.
They still do, I believe. Cars usually have several antennas embedded in e.g. the rear glass. Even something like the FM radio often has 3+ antennas in different locations and the receiver switches between them to get the best signal. One shark fin isn't enough.
Now shark fins are in vogue again because they house multiple antennas — FM/AM, DAB, GPS, and recently more importantly, 4G. Maybe even WiFi — weird as it sounds, I saw some strings for WiFi antennas in a popular stock media/head unit’s firmware.
Though you are probably right and many cars with just FM/AM and DAB still put them in windshields.
I’m not sure about that 3+ antenna claim for FM. Do a fact-check there. ;) I think most diversity antenna systems that you describe use 2. And they are still considered “premium”. 3 is a bit overkill for FM, FM is very resilient against obstacles.
If I’m wrong, would be interesting to see an example of a car that uses 3 or more. Probably far outside of my pay grade to say the least.
I'm going by the BMW E90 (Top HiFi option) which has 3 physical FM antennas FM1, FM2 and FM3, all in the rear glass, and a fourth "FM4" which is not a physical antenna but a combination of FM1 and FM2.
They really didn't want you losing signal!
This isn't even mentioning the festoon of other antennas for DAB, mobile (which has a backup too and phones home in a crash: in case the shark fin is broken in a crash)
I could be wrong, but E90 with the best HiFi package is a very rare exception to the rule. I wouldn’t say you often see such configurations.
It’s cool they did that but it’s almost like they are trying to prove some point — maybe to be the best in the market for FM by a hair. :) One antenna is more common than 3 to my knowledge, by far.
Won't tapping on the glass disrupt the signal, or simply wind or heavy rain against it disrupt it as well?
It took me a moment to realise this is about window not an operating system even though 'windows' was lowercase
Exactly the same here... Same happens when I see the word 'file' written somewhere (which in Italian means queues, and I'm Italian), and I read it as the English IT word 'file'. This always make me lightly smile.
I'm exited to see if an array of antennas in the glass can 'beamform' in the building and increase signal strengths intelligently.
Why not just make a hawk silouhette into an antenna? They paste those on windows all the time to minimize bird strikes.
Next step is to develop the use case for smartphones, then for foldable smartphones.
The new HSR trains in my country use similar tech to improve cell phone reception while traveling
https://press.siemens.com/global/en/pressrelease/obb-puts-fi...
No. The article is about windows as active antennas. Meanwhile, trains now start having permeable windows that let the radio coverage from outside through. Train windows are metallized to protect from the sun - unfortunately blocking radio waves as well.
Maybe not in your country but I know there's cell repeaters all over civic infrastructure in Europe
how do we end up with statements like 'millimeter waves can deliver typically between 10 and 50 GHz of bandwidth' getting published in ieee spectrum? are there no electrical engineers at the ieee anymore? apparently this article is by a 'tim hornyak' with a degree in journalism from carleton university in ottawa. what the fuck?
Which way up is that picture?
Pretty sure we're lookup up at a slight angle. Those high hat lights are usually on the ceiling and not walls or floors.
The product website has a bit more helpful pictures: https://wavebyagc.com/en/hidden-antennas-for-urban-environme...
What advantage does this actually confer over just a normal antenna you place at the top of your window? The "look it's glass!" hype claims it won't obstruct your view, but on an 8ft tall window, nothing is obstructing your view up there anyway!
So you are telling me this looks better than a simple dish antenna resembling a Unifi AP dish? This thing might be a concept, but when it is implemented, it will still show a bunch of wires encased in glass. I am also not into being blasted by radio waves all day long from every angle.
Would this work with peptide glass?
"A self-healing multispectral transparent adhesive peptide glass" https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07408-x :
> Moreover, the supramolecular glass is an extremely strong adhesive yet it is transparent in a wide spectral range from visible to mid-infrared. This exceptional set of characteristics is observed in a simple bioorganic peptide glass composed of natural amino acids, presenting a multi-functional material that could be highly advantageous for various applications in science and engineering.
Is there a phononic reason for why antenna + window?
Bass kickers, vibration speakers like SoundBug, and bone conductance microphones like Jawbone headsets are all transducers, too
Transducer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transducer
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41442489 :
> FWIU rotating the lingams causes vibrations which scare birds away.
I don’t 100% get the story. TLDR, skeptical due to the issue of the two 5G frequency ranges.
> Because 5G networks include spectrum comprising higher frequencies than 4G, base stations for 5G networks serve a smaller coverage footprint.
Sure
> It [the window antenna] is compatible with frequencies in the 5G Sub6 band—meaning signals that are less than 6 gigahertz (GHz). Sub6 antennas represent critical portions of a 5G deployment, as their lower frequency ranges penetrate barriers like walls and buildings better than the substantially higher-bandwidth millimeter-wave portions of the 5G spectrum.
But 4G seems to go into at least the 3-ish GHz range just fine. At least my layman understanding is that sub-6Ghz doesn’t have the range problem, the whole point of adding that (IMO, less-than-intuitive-to-consumers) frequency band was that (while it didn’t fulfill the bandwidth promises of 5G) it also didn’t have the range problem. So it is there to fill the gaps.
The ability to deploy sub-6GHz antennas everywhere seems like it misses the whole point of that band.
I’m sure there’s some advantage to the 5G tech in general, because it is newer. But that’s a different pitch, right?
Sub6 is more or less the same frequencies as 4G. I know there's more low frequency (additional spectrum formerly used for over the air TV), and there might be some slightly higher frequency too, but this is the general purpose stuff. The mmWave stuff is really for locations with dense crowds like stadiums and maybe airports and busy train/transit stations.
5G is still better than 4G on sub6 for lots of reasons, but yeah, it doesn't have the oodles of bandwidth that 5G promised.
Being able to put more sub6 base stations in more places is still good though. There's plenty of areas with poor coverage, and sometimes the reason there's no coverage is the aesthetics of the base stations are poor. Blending in helps. Which is why some antennas look like weird saguaro or palm trees and pine trees. It might be nice to have antennas in windows in office buildings instead hanging on the side, and it might be easier to install as well.
That's not a glass antenna. That is an antenna encased in glass.
The glass and the antenna have been designed and tuned to work together. The antenna will not work without the glass, its part of its RF characteristics.
Agreed, also the article becomes orders of magnitude less interesting once you get past the click bait title.
My first thought was, which windows version does it need? /s
So the conspiracy theorists were right about Bill Gates all along!
(sorry not sorry)
Glass is silicon and silicon is conductive metal, after all…
Glass is a resistor, it is not conductive. Its actually a pretty good resistor, its often used to separate extremely high voltages. Those little discs you often see holding high-voltage power lines are often made from glass.
Silicon is not a conductive metal. Its a semi-conductor, it needs doping to become a good conductor. That's why its used in IC's. Naturally not very conductive but react a little with something else and suddenly it becomes a pretty good conductor. Make a mask of the channels where you want that conductivity, and suddenly you can draw little wires.
Also why this system needs to be customized and tweeked to work with each specific panel of building glass it is placed with to get the full RF signal pass through
It's not using the glass itself as an antenna though:
>NTT Docomo reports that it uses transparent conductive materials as the basis for its antenna, sandwiching the conductive material along with a transparent resin, the kind used in laminated windshields, in between two sheets of glass.
a semiconductor.
“Silicon substrate, as one of the most important materials for the integrated circuit industry, can be used to manufacture mm-wave antennas for a highly integrated purpose”
Here’s an interesting paper on how to make it work efficiently:
https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/12/24/4983#:~:text=Silicon%20....
That neither makes silicon a metal, nor glass silicon (it's silicon oxide at best, and oxides generally have radically different chemical and electrical properties than the pure element).