802.11n Spec Still In The Air 119
Vitaly Friedman writes "Standards for the hotly anticipated Wi-Fi successor haven't yet been agreed upon. Where's that leave all those early-bird products? 802.11n is a highly anticipated successor to today's Wi-Fi, promising a huge performance boost. The draft spec promises to deliver data rates up to 180 Mbps, which could make wired home networks unnecessary and should allow high-definition wireless video streaming. At issue is whether the draft spec is far enough along that companies can make products that will provide that performance but still be compatible with each other and with older Wi-Fi equipment."
No Wires! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No Wires! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:No Wires! (Score:2)
On the same token, my 100mbps ethernet doesn't run much faster than 85mbps.
Re:No Wires! (Score:1)
Re:No Wires! (Score:1)
Re:No Wires! (Score:1)
Re:No Wires! (Score:2)
Re:No Wires! (Score:1)
If you don't care about standards then you can already buy proprietary solutions to give you that.
Just don't come back wailing when you get stuck with products from only one provider because they don't support a well-defined standard...
I know someone who already has a 108Mbps wireless network at home but he's aware that he'll have to either stick to his current vendor for new hardware, or completly replace his hardware when the time comes to upgrade.
As for myself - I'm re
Re:No Wires! (Score:1)
Re:Wires! (Score:1)
so basically what they're doing is (Score:3, Informative)
nothing could possibly go wrong!
Genuine appreciation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:so basically what they're doing is (Score:2)
It's a start, but I'm still waiting. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:It's a start, but I'm still waiting. (Score:4, Insightful)
have you tried changing your wireless to a different channel? i find that helps, and is less of a hassle than being harassed by the FCC (or insert_local_regulatory_body from your country that does the same thing).
Re:It's a start, but I'm still waiting. (Score:2)
Re:It's a start, but I'm still waiting. (Score:2)
Re:It's a start, but I'm still waiting. (Score:1)
Re:It's a start, but I'm still waiting. (Score:1)
Re:It's a start, but I'm still waiting. (Score:1)
OMG your not wearing your genuine tin, tinfoil hat and overcoat? unbelievable to still be alive taking risks like that!
Leaky microwave ovens... cancer... (Score:1, Informative)
*ALL* microwave ovens leak some RF whenever they are running. The only practical way to stop them from completely leaking RF is to unplug them.
They also typically run at 2450MHz +/- some margin of error and full of harmonics too. They are nasty, very high power 2.4GHz transmitters radiating several hundreds of watts of pure EM crapwaves. Your 802.11b/g toys are transmittin
Re:Leaky microwave ovens... cancer... (Score:1)
http://canopywireless.com/ 2.4 ghz range. Works perfectly.
Re:It's a start, but I'm still waiting. (Score:2)
Re:It's a start, but I'm still waiting. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:It's a start, but I'm still waiting. (Score:2)
Re:It's a start, but I'm still waiting. (Score:2)
Re:It's a start, but I'm still waiting. (Score:2)
Re:It's a start, but I'm still waiting. (Score:1)
Re:It's a start, but I'm still waiting. (Score:1)
Just like the hurricanes, they'll switch to the greek alphabet
I wanted to write something like 802.11-omega, but I guess slashdot support greek letters because it just comes up as a question mark
Re:It's a start, but I'm still waiting. (Score:2)
Some things you may consider:
Last but definitely not least and is kind of an either-or:
Re:It's a start, but I'm still waiting. (Score:2)
Front room -> kitchen -> Office.
Wifi is in the office. Microwaves are pretty well known for disrupting pretty much everything. I actually have a very new panasonic with all the bells and whistles; apparently the faraday cage for the heating frequencies doesn't block whatever fubars my wifi. Heh.
Why don't they just use the frequency 802.11a uses?
Re:It's a start, but I'm still waiting. (Score:1)
In the Air (Score:5, Funny)
Cute!
[/sarcasm]
Re:In the Air (Score:2)
>
>Cute!
> [/sarcasm] The article poster's an incorrigible punster. Don't incorrige 'im!
"up to 180 Mbps" - right (Score:2)
Re:"up to 180 Mbps" - right (Score:2)
However, if you neighbor's neighbor is stealing bandwidth from him, the signal spillover might affect you. (:-(
Re:"up to 180 Mbps" - right (Score:1)
Re:"up to 180 Mbps" - right (Score:1)
Re:Version 802.11n? (Score:1)
Firmware updates will make it okay. (Score:4, Insightful)
That's what having firmware updates is for.
Re:Firmware updates will make it okay. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Firmware updates will make it okay. (Score:2)
Re:Firmware updates will make it okay. (Score:1)
The same mistakes, over and over: 802.11g revisit (Score:4, Insightful)
Or 802.11g. Everyone's bucking for market share, to be the first ones on the block, to entice you with speed.
-Compatibility? Who knows.
-Backwards compatibility with 802.11b/g? Who knows.
-Data rates that are what was advertised? Early tests say no way, not even close by b/g standards.
-Firmware all nicely baked? Nope.
-Non-CardBus capability? Dream on.
-Low-power chipsets? Nightmare on.
-Test regimens? No.
-Test equipment? No.
-New cellular distribution capabilities? Who knows? It's not a standard yet.
-Requirement that it has even a modicum of internal security like WPA2? Ho ho ho....
-Any open source motherboards? You wish.
-Resplendent ubiquitous deployments? Not for years.
-Faster than b/g and EV-DO (not EV-DOa)? Probably.
Weren't we here about four years ago? Didn't anyone learn any lessons? Ok, it's about early marketshare. It can't be about anything else.
Curse of Lomo? No, Curse of MIMO.
Re:The same mistakes, over and over: 802.11g revis (Score:1)
Bandwidth saturation? (Score:1)
802.11 cannot replace home networks (Score:5, Informative)
1) 180Mbps is the theoretical throughput if the devices are right next to each other.
2) Even then, you STILL won't get that speed. A typical cat 5 cable and switch will give you 99.9% of the theoretical max.
3) The latency is higher (gaming)
4) It's harder to configure.
5) It's less secure.
6) It's constantly changing.
7) It is expensive.
8) Linux drivers are hard to find.
9) ISPs won't support it.
Please reply to continue the list. There has to be at least one more.
Re:802.11 cannot replace home networks (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:802.11 cannot replace home networks (Score:2)
From my experience, it is easier for a novice (not beginner) to setup a reliable wireless network, than a wired one. I had a lot more support issues, with $10 switch hooked to $10 switch, looped network connections, worn out/broken clips on the eithernet cables... (I work at a office with a lot of visitors, and laptops.)
than I have ever gotten with, here's a USB dr
Re:802.11 cannot replace home networks (Score:2)
Sure, not everyone is doing that, especially not a normal home user who is just browsing the net
Re:802.11 cannot replace home networks (Score:1)
If you have to pull cable yourself its a major pain and I'd recommend wireless of course, but it seems most newer buildings have networking already, and at least for desk
Uh... That's only 0x9 (Score:1, Funny)
Re:802.11 cannot replace home networks (Score:2)
Dont' forget most wired (to the internet) homes already have a wireless G router at home and most network traffic is through the internet at 1 M/bit max. With the exception of some network printing no one needs that bandwidth at this point. If the argument was for small office computing then I would agree but the truth is there is no demand for that at home and there wont be for at leat another 2-3 years, or until everyone gets a gigabyte connection to the net.
Re:802.11 cannot replace home networks (Score:1)
Re:802.11 cannot replace home networks (Score:2, Insightful)
The point I'm getting at is that home networks are not always just about sharing the Internet connection. For sharing large files between local computers, 802.11g is just a pain.
Re:802.11 cannot replace home networks (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re:802.11 cannot replace home networks (Score:1)
Re:802.11 cannot replace home networks (Score:2)
My above remarks are taken totally out of context. 0xA
Re:802.11 cannot replace home networks (Score:2)
Pun-tastic! Cross the line, feed the troll.
Re:802.11 cannot replace home networks (Score:2)
1) 180MBps is indeed the limit, but achieving 100MBps to beat standard home networking won't be that hard. And frankly, I think people will take 80 MBps if they can lose the wires.
2) I can achieve real 20MBps on my g network. They only need to quadruple that to come pretty close to what 100MBps networks can do.
3) True. But the difference is so small compared to the interne
Re:802.11 cannot replace home networks (Score:1)
Re:802.11 cannot replace home networks (Score:2)
Re:802.11 cannot replace home networks (Score:1)
Heh, I remember the old days when Ethernet routers were $150 and were just starting to become layman's items. If you asked SBC, they'd tell you routers didn't even exist and that they wouldn't work even if they did. Of course, our Linksys router worked perfect after simply plugging in all the cables. Nowadays, S
Re:802.11 cannot replace home networks (Score:1)
The salespeople at Best Buy will push the latest 802.11n router, regardless of the customer's networking needs.
Re:802.11 cannot replace home networks (Score:4, Informative)
1) 180Mbps is the theoretical throughput if the devices are right next to each other.
Probably not for the ultrageeks, but full motion DVD streams at up to 10.08 Mbps. So for most home users 180Mbps with all kinds of degradation will still allow them to run stuff at speeds where other parts (last mile,...) will be the bottleneck, not the wireless network.
2) Even then, you STILL won't get that speed. A typical cat 5 cable and switch will give you 99.9% of the theoretical max.
You might blow a few hundred exabyte over your network, 99.9% of people won't
3) The latency is higher (gaming)
If you are playing an MMOG, the latency of your home network pales against the latency outside your house, even if you hook directly into L3 networks.
4) It's harder to configure.
Really? That's a UI problem. I find it easier to configure my wireless than crawl back into the closet I use as a server room.
5) It's less secure.
But properly configured, it is more secure than most people need. And the NSA can listen to your wired network.--Which is why a lot of high security instalaltions use fibre optics.
6) It's constantly changing.
Oh, and wired networks aren't? God, I am old enough to remember CAT-10 10MB, 100MB, Gigabit. All of them needed new routers and occasionally new cables.
7) It is expensive.
How is a $29-100 WiFi router more expensive than a wired one plus a few hundred yards or cable plus ripping open the walls to put in cable conduits? You might not mind blue wires running all over the place, I certainly do.
8) Linux drivers are hard to find.
Ok, but that's on Linux developers. Also, 95% of to population are not running Linux on their home network.
9) ISPs won't support it.
What does the ISP have to do with it? They see my router--what happend after that is my business.
probably not enough for real hidef video (Score:3, Informative)
Re:probably not enough for real hidef video (Score:2)
Re:probably not enough for real hidef video (Score:2)
Re:probably not enough for real hidef video (Score:2)
Re:probably not enough for real hidef video (Score:2)
Here we go again (Score:3, Funny)
It must be difficult to take the time to ratify standards when the manufacturers are forcing themselves out of the starting gate to meet customer 'I want it now' expectations.
Buying a 'pre-n', wifi enabled laptop with Blu-ra..er..HD-D...er...whatever... is the true mark of someone living on the bleeding edge.
Re:Here we go again (Score:1)
Chris
not so fast (Score:5, Insightful)
So untrue. I have the fortune of running my wired lan at gigabit speeds which is very nice and skip free while streaming and still being able to use the network for other high bandwidth operations at the same time. Not to mention the problems that will continue to haunt wireless for some time.
"What problems?" you might ask. Well, let us start with security. While the methods and keys used to lock wireless networks continue to grow stronger, it is still easier to get onto a wireless network then it is to sneak into someone's apartment and plug into their network like you would have to do with a physical connection. There is also the interference concern. In areas of high population density, especially apartment communities, you have to start worrying about interference from nearby networks. The larger these communities are, the fewer separation between channels available to avoid the interference problems. You can also get interference from other devices on the same frequency. I have heard of varying degrees of problems with 2.8 GHz phones and wireless B/G networks.
I do not think we are going to see an end to wired networks just yet.
Re:not so fast (Score:2)
"What problems?" you might ask. Well, let us start with security. While the methods and keys used to lock wireless networks continue to grow stronger, it is still easier to get onto a wireless network then it is to sneak into someone's apartment and plug into their network like you would have to do with a physical connection.
I call BS. I think you are overestimating the value of physical security, and underestimating the robustn
Wahhhhh???? (Score:2)
There is no overestimating the security of not being able to access a network. Presuming it's firewalled, if you can't access it, you can't intentionally do anything to it. You have to wait for them to come to you.
Cables will always be more reliable than wireless. The question is application. If you have a box on a table, you don't need wireless. If you have a laptop that you want to move around with, than wireless makes sense.
New homes are wired with Cat-5e and fiber-optic and they are well justified
Open Standards for latency, resiliency, and range (Score:1)
Also, I've been using computer networking wireless technologies since before the 802.11 standards, starting with the old CISCO Aeronet stuff in the mid to late 1990's. I do appreciate improved throughput up to my current router's 802.11g 52 Mbps, but before I spent any more money on new wireless networking gear, I would need some assurances of improved latency, resiliency to interference or placem
WTF?? HERE'S THE LINK (Score:1, Funny)
if wlan_speed net_speed .... (Score:2)
Re:if wlan_speed net_speed .... (Score:2)
If you've got more than one computer on your LAN, and you ever communicate between them, then more speed on the LAN is good whatever the speed on your upstream link to the rest of the network. If you've just got one computer, and you use 802.11foo simply as a way to avoid running cable (maybe you've got a laptop you want to move around the house with without hassle), then the extra speed isn't much go
Not directly related, but... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Not directly related, but... (Score:1)
Check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11#Standards [wikipedia.org]
Re:Not directly related, but... (Score:2)
Re:Not directly related, but... (Score:1)
It rolls over (Score:4, Funny)
Let's pray it never comes to that.
Re:Not directly related, but... (Score:2)
You may look at the much older 802.3 group (ethernet) that has made the 802.3af spec (Power over Ethernet), 802.3ab (GigabitEthernet over copper, aka 1000Base-T)
Will it actualy be usefull for the public (Score:1)
Re:Will it actualy be usefull for the public (Score:1)
Here in Sacramento, Surewest has been installing very high speed fiber optic connections for years. Many parts of the city now have Surewest connections available, with internet speeds that run at 10Mbit both up and down, and they have an option for people to have a 20Mbit connection for a little bit more money.
There is also the WiMAX standard which shows the potential to complete the final
Re:Will it actualy be usefull for the public (Score:1)
Media projects (Score:2)
It also make simple TiVO or other PVR transfers much quicker.
802.15-3a / UWB (Score:1)
It does not intefere with 802.11g and targets a -minimum- of 100 Mbit/s at 10m and USB2 like rates within a short distance. I've read about chips that achieve 100 Mbit/s at 20m and that are already sampled.
Security (Score:1)
why would it (Score:1)
I really don't see any logic in using wireless networks for desktop PCs, which normally don't move away from their desks, and most likely can have a network cable pulled to them, cause those PCs already need electricity cables anyway. The only good use of wireless networking is imo for portable devices, like laptops or maybe even MP3 players. Yea, it would be fun if MP3 players all had built in wireless communication systems, lol. And seriously, would anyone replace a
Can't wait (Score:1)
Re:What about security? (Score:1)
What do you do that you actually care if anyone else sees?
Internet banking? How is that any easier to hy-jack from the local network than from the internet at large?
Your accounts files that are stored on a central server?
1) why?
2) SSH/scp?
3) Wht not just do you accounts on a wired PC...
I am the exact opposite of this. When I get a wireless router it will be specifically open, with rules on my (linux) router that say who can get at what resources. Why shouldn