I see it as being useful for containing signals, not broadcasting widely or as a public service. The benefit of lifi is that you can have a different "network" in each room of the house and have them be separated by walls, so your interactive devices can have more functionality within rooms and not depend on being numbered and set up manually. Why use a wavelength in cities for municipal wireless internet that needs to be installed every 10 feet and is easily obstructed by visible matter and fog

>>8032015
I thought we already had infrared info-transfers.
Like how the GBA and GBC had those black-ish windows on the side for Info swapping

Thanks for the replies :)
For now I think we can't rely much on this technology yet since there are risks when using in wider range but since people use LEDs more often, it can become more effective in the future in my opinion. The fact is, that even the fog can be a problem when using somewhere outside atm. About the infrared.. I remember using it and the downside about it was the signal sensitivity/interruption since it has to have a direct line of sight. Not many people have used it though which is another downside but it may be different with LEDs. It may be similiar but it works on a bit different principle. If anyone had the chance where would be the best place to use it, or what for? (opinions) :)

Meh. For static point-to-point backhaul it probably makes tons of sense (basically like a fiber-optic connection without the fiber), but for end-user point-to-multipoint networks, I can think of hardly any applications which actually demand such high datarates (it's a luxury at best), while the propagation characteristics of light present substantial drawbacks in terms of coverage and reliability.
>Smartphone in your pocket? Lolnoconnection
>Accidentally cover the receiver with your finger? Connection lost
>Sitting in a cubicle, or in another room from the access point? Weak indirect connection or none at all
Radio is just so much more practical. Fuck, anyone who's used an infrared TV clicker from the other room knows what a pain they can be regarding propagation.

>Just imagine the whole house powered by light fidelity like flushing the toilet with an app, starting up the heater or A/C, closing powered windows etc.
All of these would be better-suited by low-bandwidth radio.
>Since I mentioned cars, it could be also used in them to make cars able to communicate with other cars for safety reasons for example or some other features we do not have yet atm.
That's a bit more appropriate, but still perfectly doable with radio.

>>8032015
Sure, this is well known tech. Unfortunately the market is not exactly exuberant. Remember IrDA? It works, works well, is fast but only popular in Japan and perhaps a few other places.

Problem number 2 is that a lot of cheap LED lighting has el cheapo drivers that put out a lot of RF noise and correspondingly high frequency flickering that will effectively be noise in LIFI communication. Since LED lasts for years it means that the noise problem will be with us for a long time, in fact the problems increase since they still haven't cleaned up their act regarding drivers.

On the other side of the coin thus sure is needed. RF spectrum is way overcrowded and getting new bands released for common use is like pulling teeth.

>>8032154
>easily obstructed by visible matter and fog
IR penetrates fog and reflections can carry you past obstructions.

>>8033454
>Radio is just so much more practical.
Sure, as long as there is free bandwidth left.

>>8034352
>IR penetrates fog and reflections can carry you past obstructions.
Don't over-generalize. MWIR and LWIR penetrate dust and fog, but NWIR (which they will be using for LiFi) does not. None of them can go through obstructions, though they can feasibly negotiate certain obstructions by reflecting/scattering off of nearby surfaces.
>RF spectrum is way overcrowded
How so? It's somewhat congested, but the current regulations do a fairly good job at minimizing congestion and interference within the existing bands. The only occasions I've ever had any problems with radio WLAN were in proximity to either a noisy experimental/amateur/non-compliant transmitter, or situations where an optical datalink would perform even worse (i.e. trying to communicate with an access point through one floor and several walls).

>>8033454
>basically like a fiber-optic connection without the fiber
No.

Non uniform temperature and air currents mess up the wavefornt pretty quickly.

>>8035598
I meant in terms of bandwidth, not really range. LiFi is every bit as fast as a fiber-optic connection. We're still a long way off from having optical receiver technology capable of demodulating the waveform itself, or even having any incentive to develop it for that matter.

>>8035594
>MWIR and LWIR penetrate dust and fog, but NWIR (which they will be using for LiFi) does not.
Images on te net show that SWIR will get through some fog. Remember that we are not concerned here about projecting or receiving an image, illuminating the fog will also get the signal through.

>It's somewhat congested,
Exactly. And broadcasting is in conflict with telecom for who should get the bands that might be released from prior use. Also some, like iRobot, have tried to take over bands strictly reserved for research. And Qualcomm launched a prospect showing how they could optimize transmission by taking over the 2.4 GHz band.

It is only a few months since last WRC meeting and negotiations over frequency bands were difficult due to the huge demands.

Will be obsolete imo once we have THz onwafer sources with high enough output power.

>>8036696
Considering much will be absorbed by atmospheric gases that sure has to be a lot of power.

>>8032015
My lecturer's Harald Haas, if you want me to ask him any questions?