New wifi router from Ignition labs

[graison]

Just wondering if anyone's seen or heard of this.
http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/4/10704656/ignition-portal-wi-fi-router-ces-2016

Any thoughts?

 

[L&LD]

Kickstarter? I'll save my money for a real product (and better adherence to standards).

 

[stevech]

2nd paragraph sounds like this firmware clear channel assessment (CCA) and dynamic frequency selection (DFS).
These two functions are required by many countries' regulator authority (e.g., FCC in the US) in order to operate in some of the 5.4GHz ISM band frequencies (rather than the ISM band at 5.8GHz.

There is also a lower max TX power constraint in 5.4GHz in many countries.

This kickstarter has the onerous challenge of getting regulatory certification and permission to sell from each country in which they intend to sell.
This is very costly - about $30K per country if you pass first try. Some regulatory domains like the EU and Japan and France have emissions masks that limit Power Amp out to 10mW to pass, whereas in the US and elsewhere, the masks are less stringent. Same for human tissue minimum range tests that are required.

This done, they they have to pay the WiFi Alliance the entry fee and recurring dues fees in order to legally use the "WiFi" alliance logo and trademarks.

So, I'd take a pass on this.

 

[Razor512]

If a router company has to pay for WiFi alliance related stuff, then wouldn't it be in their best interest to simply not join in the first place?

 

[stevech]

If a router company has to pay for WiFi alliance related stuff, then wouldn't it be in their best interest to simply not join in the first place?

To use the WiFi trademark and logo, they must join, else risk a lawsuit for copyright/trademark violation. WiFi compliance tests costs, as does government regulatory test compliance.

The regulatory approval (e.g., FCC part 15 compliance in the US), is onerous for those doing low volume WiFi. Unless they buy an OEM PC board certified by the board manufacturer. But these flow-through regulatory compliance policies vary by country/region. The US is less stringent than many/most, e.g., user-chosen antennas if gain is <= x.

 

[graison]

they've passed FCC testing. Don't know if this is the same as approval but it seems a step in the right direction.

 

[thiggins]

I was briefed on this a month ago and spent time with Terry Ngo at a CES press event last night. I'll get a private demo tomorrow, then write my story.

These guys are serious, know their stuff and have very interesting technology that can make using DFS channels a piece o' cake. They have some work to do with the FCC to get some regs changed, though.

Kickstarter is primarily to get the word out, they have money. As the Verge story notes, the real business they're after is to get their module into the usual suspects' routers.

And L&LD, you can start your rant now; the product relies on processing in the cloud.

Stevech: what does Wi-Fi Alliance have to do with DFS? Wi-Fi Certification isn't required to sell a product and the Alliance doesn't even have a DFS Certification.

 

[stevech]

I was briefed on this a month ago and spent time with Terry Ngo at a CES press event last night. I'll get a private demo tomorrow, then write my story.

These guys are serious, know their stuff and have very interesting technology that can make using DFS channels a piece o' cake. They have some work to do with the FCC to get some regs changed, though.

Kickstarter is primarily to get the word out, they have money. As the Verge story notes, the real business they're after is to get their module into the usual suspects' routers.

And L&LD, you can start your rant now; the product relies on processing in the cloud.

Stevech: what does Wi-Fi Alliance have to do with DFS? Wi-Fi Certification isn't required to sell a product and the Alliance doesn't even have a DFS Certification.

My discussion of DFS was in the context of FCC et al regulatory domain approval (Part 15 in the US), not the WiFi Alliance. I forgot to mention in addition to DFS and CCA, there's TPC (transmitter power control), where each data frame (not IP packet) is to be sent with the minimum power needed for that client and for the current but dynamically chosen modulation order. TPC is a paradox in WiFi which based on CSMA/CD. However, TPC is widely used in proprietary TDMA systems and in IEEE 802.16e such as it is.

Vendors like Redline have been selling 5.4GHz products (not 802.11) for many years, and they comply with DFS/TPC/CCA regulations in regulatory domains that require it. It's irregular around the globe. Some developing nations have no FCC equivalent at all, or a tiny one for cellular and broadcast TV/radio only.

Regulatory approval (e.g., FCC) long ago was a prerequisite for entry into the WiFi alliance.
Originally, the WiFi Alliance established signal quality and receiver sensitivity vs. FER and SINR minimum standards. And there was a test process and proof to be submitted to ask the Alliance for specific product compliance with the relevant WiFi specs. For example, transmitted waveform Rho (quality, error-vector magnitude), ability to achieve what WiFi wanted for FER vs. data rates. And so on.

Only when the Alliance was satisfied with the proof was the approval to use the WiFi logo and trademark to be granted. But the Alliance is not a big corporation; the Alliance has no real income stability and no clout for offenders.

But now, I believe that the Alliance is impotent. Paltry dues aren't enough to run such a program. Same for IEEE's 802 committees - they have no certification program becuase they have no authority or funding. I served on the 802.15.4 committee for a while and sat in some 802.11 meetings. Attendees are gratis and often on the agenda of their employer.

FCC is not concerned with WiFi types of criteria (Rho, etc.); FCC just cares about channel power and power spilling out of the US ISM band at more than X (emissions masks). FCC does not care about bit/frame error rates or suitability for purpose - that's what the WiFi alliance was supposed to do.

Due to economics and market forces, WiFi product makers must have interoperability with popular client devices of all brands, else they'd not sell well!
But I feel that the WiFi Alliance's power of trademark and logo use is not policed today due to global volumes.

 

[thiggins]

The Wi-Fi Alliance, like all such groups, HomePlug, MoCA, etc. is a commercial trade organization, with no regulatory powers.

The primary driving forces causing a company to obtain Wi-Fi Certification are marketing / sales, not technical validation.

 

[stevech]

The Wi-Fi Alliance, like all such groups, HomePlug, MoCA, etc. is a commercial trade organization, with no regulatory powers.

The primary driving forces causing a company to obtain Wi-Fi Certification are marketing / sales, not technical validation.

that was my point!
WiFi Alliance began with good intentions and a good process.
Not so now.

The Alliance does have the power of ownership of the trademark and logo of WiFi. But no practical (affordable) way to pursue those that infringe.

 

[fiberboy]

I have not used this one.

 

[sfx2000]

This kickstarter has the onerous challenge of getting regulatory certification and permission to sell from each country in which they intend to sell.
This is very costly - about $30K per country if you pass first try. Some regulatory domains like the EU and Japan and France have emissions masks that limit Power Amp out to 10mW to pass, whereas in the US and elsewhere, the masks are less stringent. Same for human tissue minimum range tests that are required.

This done, they they have to pay the WiFi Alliance the entry fee and recurring dues fees in order to legally use the "WiFi" alliance logo and trademarks.

The "Product" isn't the hard part - the real challenge is building a business around it - I can take a flight over to Shenzhen and within an hour, have a product ready to go, off the shelf, install OpenWRT on it, and get it FOB their dock for a very reasonable price (AC1900 class for less than 80 bucks in a white paper box)..

Certifications - Regulatory is the expensive part that needs to be covered, as without it, the product can't be imported into certain (many) countries... WiFi Alliance is optional, but it's really the logo that can cost real money as SteveCH indicates above...

The real costs associated are channel costs - the distribution and sales channels, buying shelf space, getting word of mouth in the reviewer community, support after the sale - these are the killer costs that drive many off the road before they even get started...

 

[stevech]

The word "WiFi" is trademarked by the Alliance. A product was to be certified as to waveform quality and so on before permission to use the trademark was granted.

Hard to sell a China garage shop 802.11 WiFi thing without using that word. But, since when do they care about regulatory type acceptance (FCC et al), trademarks, copyright, patents?

 

[sfx2000]

The word "WiFi" is trademarked by the Alliance. A product was to be certified as to waveform quality and so on before permission to use the trademark was granted.

Hard to sell a China garage shop 802.11 WiFi thing without using that word. But, since when do they care about regulatory type acceptance (FCC et al), trademarks, copyright, patents?

Wi-Fi (tm) is a trademark - WiFi, WIFI, wiFI, etc... are collections of letters - as long as a vendor does not claim certification, no issues with Wi-Fi Alliance (tm)

Most ODM's have pass thru agreements with the chipset vendors (royalties are baked into the price of the chipset). So the major cost is the regulatory approvals (and testing to support it)

Anyways, 80 bucks is probably on the high side - see Alibaba's selection here

 

[stevech]

http://www.wi-fi.org/certification

Gotta read the footnote-fine print! "Certified", is what you're saying.

http://www.wi-fi.org/product-finder-results?categories=6
lists certified products

 

[sfx2000]

Gotta read the footnote-fine print! "Certified", is what you're saying.

No... what I'm saying is that Wi-Fi Alliance (TM) certification is optional... nice to have perhaps, but as long as a device passes Regulatory Acceptance by the various SDO's - and there requirements are fairly harmonized these days...

Besides - what if one just puts a product on the shelf that says AC1900 - 802.11b/g/n/a/ac compliant - then why does Wi-Fi Alliance (TM) care?

 

[stevech]

I offer that the typical customer in Best Buy wants WiFi. If box doesn't say WiFi, they'd ask the imminently trustworthy sales person.
(802.11b/g/n/a/ac compliant" is probably geek talk to most such customers)

 

[thiggins]

I would think you guys would welcome something that makes DFS channels available.

You sound like a bunch of cranky old geeks. Dvorak already has that covered.

 

[sfx2000]

I would think you guys would welcome something that makes DFS channels available.

You sound like a bunch of cranky old geeks. Dvorak already has that covered.

I have something that already supports the DFS channels - so perhaps not as big of a deal for me...

The big challenge with the DFS channels is that they have to listen for a period of time before they can actually start transmitting on those channels - clients are ok, as the assumption is that the AP has already done the listening period, so if the AP is operating in those channels, it's good to go...

 

[thiggins]

I have something that already supports the DFS channels - so perhaps not as big of a deal for me...

What is your solution? Most consumers are not able to access DFS channels.