802.11n Delayed to 2008 107
An anonymous reader writes "Looks like we have to wait some more for 802.11n and promised 100 Mbps speeds. IEEE has delayed ratification of the standard until 2008, yet again, due to continuing problems with interoperability and too many comments from chipset manufacturers and other interested parties. Analysts are telling firms not to deploy n until the new standard is ratified."
Re: (Score:1)
Terrible idea... (Score:4, Insightful)
Delaying the standard for more than a year is only going to ensure that none of these systems will be interoperable, and certainly not forewards compatible.
An imperfect (slightly less backwards-compatible) standard now, would be much better than a perfect standard in 2 years.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No joke! (Score:4, Informative)
These companies will continue to manufacture specialty equipment based on draft N specifications for business use-- and there's nothing wrong with that. The problem lies with the Joe-sixpack consumers who don't recognize the technology's proper application.
Re:No joke! Do You Have A Recording... (Score:2)
Do you have a recording of this call? Can you post it? I need a good laugh!
Did you consider telling him that with the 802.11o standard just around the corner that it might be premature to jump into 'n' too quickly?
Did you ask how somebody as stupid as he was managed to have enough money to send his child to your school -- or operate a telephone and cal
Re: (Score:2)
who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:who cares? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:who cares? (Score:5, Interesting)
Not all wireless apps are for use in the mobile market. The intended final incarnation of my media server will see remote wireless nano-PCs attached to tvs all around the house, to access all content through the server. When 2 or more devices are running concurrently, 22 Mbps gets saturated and you get the *buffering* that we all hate.
Roll on 1 Gbps wireless !
Re: (Score:2)
Roll on 1 Gbps wireless !
Except that 1Gbps wireless won't really be 1Gbps, just like current incarnations perform far below their nominal specs. And by then you'll be pushing multiple HD streams, plus you'll still have to deal with interference from other wireless devices both yours and your neighbors'.
Wired will always be faster and more reliable. Unless you just have no other choice, I'd stick with that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Technology in general is a convenience! (Score:1)
For some even electricity is considered a "convenience".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not that much. What does require bandwidth are the admin-type things that we all have to do (or should be doing). Backing up and/or restoring from a machine on your local network is one. Ever try to ghost a Windows system to a network share? You'll be crying for more bandwidth. Then, there's all that multimedia stuff already described in a previous post. Myself, for my personal systems, backups are all network-based, installati
Re: (Score:2)
Use for higher data transfer rates (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
That's fine for home... (Score:2)
In a corporate environment, where many active users may be on an AP, more bandwidth is can be very useful, and "n" is, well, almost twice as good as what's available.
Remember, wireless is a shared medium, like old Ethernet hubs, and that won't change within the current RF bandwidth limitations. Moving from a wired, switched 100 mbps connection to shared 54 mbps (802.11a or g) is almost always a very significant step down in speed in an en
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You now want to support a full domain login with roaming profiles at 2-3Mb a time, synchronously loaded at login while the computer said "loading network settings" (makes the start of the lesson quite slow).
Now couple that with u
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Apple's new Airport will be delayed... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
So what IS the matter? (Score:1)
In layman's terms, WTF does this mean - seriously. Is it going to be available en masse and change the way I work from month-to-month project by project? There doesn't appear to be much information. In Australia I want really good wireless access from 'reasonable' areas of work and on the move. From the beach to the city and out to the suburbs. - when passign through the city, will the buildings and more importantly the tunnels affect my link. At wh
Re: (Score:2)
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH 3G. This is not the kind of wireless internet you can get by hooking up your cell-phone to your laptop or using one of those little Laptop cards that lets you get internet anywhere there's a cellular signal.
This is about Local-Area wireless, commonly used to share a cable or DSL internet connection within a single home or business. With 802.n you can probably cover 20 of your neighbors homes too but going from "the beach to the city and out to the suburbs.
Re: (Score:2)
That will give you a lot of the longer distances that everyone is asking for.
People try to get 802.11 boxes to do a lot more than they were ever designed for.
Remeber the 802.11 standard(s) wereall set for (if I remember correctly) something like 30meters maxdistance.
Speed is good but ubiquity would be better (Score:5, Interesting)
I would really like to see universal coverage, and low bandwidth by throttling socket connections to keep people from abusing the system would be OK. There would still be a huge market for high speed wireless, cable, and fiber, but a backgound universal lower level of service system would be a good infrastructure investment.
Unfortunately, this is very unlikely to happen in the USA given our current political climate that subsidizes corporations and for political reasons needs to inhibit growth and prosperity of the middle class and small local businesses(just pointing out that the middle class is the largest threat to the republican dream of a 1000 year reich: permanent control).
Re: (Score:2)
I have only to guess what happened after 2000.
Re: (Score:2)
I would much rather that such a network be created by the citizens than some government monopoly (presumably with eavesdropping and censorship built in). Hopefully what you describe will
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think permanent control is possible.
honestly, folks (Score:1, Insightful)
We get a few questions regarding
Re: (Score:2)
Re:honestly, folks (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No wonder the average consumer gets confused.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
MB/Mb, IOW "220-221 what ever it takes" - I was making a point other than being correct about my throughput per second
sorry I got all your panties in a bunch over that one.
What is more unfortunate, is that instead of eevery actually talking about pixie dust internet numbers, the chose to tackle my screw up.
slashdot mentality right on par.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You miss the biggest market (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Wow.. I've seen a couple of weird notation over the years, but that one is just wrong..
I think what you tried to write was: 100 Mbps (one hundred megabits per second). Other possible ways as well:
Re: (Score:2)
Will this enable me to transfer a set number of seconds based upon miles? I'm interested in your ideas, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Hrm... (Score:1)
-don
Re:honestly, folks (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
I myself use my wifi at a daily basis for streaming movies to my laptop. From time to time
I copy large files between laptop and workstation, and a bit faster connection wouldn't hurt
in those moments.
(yes, I know, 11Mbit is enough for streaming movies. But maybe I would like to do it while
I'm copying all my huge files!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Stop assuming that wireless is only ever used for accessing the internet. I'd love to be able to get a solid 20MB/s (note: megabyte, not megabit) sustained transfer rate over wireless. 11n has the
Re:honestly, folks (Score:4, Interesting)
It's a lot easier to understand your post if you don't get MB and Mb confused. My current Internet connection is 4Mb/s, and I can saturate that (500KB/s) for extended periods. An 802.11b connection is a theoretical 11Mb/s, but in practice can be a lot lower. Also consider than any wireless connection is shared, and multiple people accessing it at once can dramatically reduce the bandwidth available.
My home network uses 802.11g, and I can generally get a sustained transfer rate of about 2-3MB/s for local traffic. The speed of my Internet connection has doubled every 12-18 months in the last 4 years, and I have no reason to suspect this will slow down any time soon. It only needs to double two more times before I start saturating an 802.11g network, and that's assuming that no one else is using it for local transfers. In three-four years, 802.11g will not be fast enough.
If you 'work for a wireless company,' you should also be aware that 802.11n is not a replacement for 802.11g; it is a WMAN solution, not a WLAN solution; more of a competitor to 4G mobile telephone connections than it is to WiFi.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I live in the UK. I don't have a great ISP, I have a cheap one. And I have one of their cheap connection packages; the top of the (consumer) line is for a 10Mb/s connection, although I don't know how well that performs in the real world. They are currently in the process of upgrading their infrastructure, so I expect to see greater speeds next year.
The speed is not that great, since I live quite near the edge of a relatively small town. In major m
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The most important thing is compatability. Nobody will use N if there isn't compatability between different implementations.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
WEP is for encryption, not access-control.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:honestly, folks (Score:4, Insightful)
Is there some strange reason that Slashdotters think that the only use for wireless networks is browsing the Internet? None of you have ever used wireless to print, or copy a file off a server, or play a LAN game, or stream video, had more than one wireless device running?
Re:honestly, folks (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes I think that all of the real-world geeks have got up and left. You know, the folks who work on networks at places that are willing to pay them money to do so?
That or newbie Friday has been held over into Saturday this week.
Re: (Score:1)
So, ok, for internet access 11 could be enaugh, but, for intranet stuff (expecially in big companies), fast wifi could be very useful.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, you don't sound trollish. You sound like a moron.
Can you please let us know what wireless company you work for so I can avoid using them? Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
I do agree that current technoligies should be maximized but there are applications where faster wireless needs are justified.
For example, I work at a college and someone thought they could offer a medical imaging class utilizing a cart of mobile laptops and the WLAN. Can you imagine 20-30 wirless clients trying to work with very large images over a shared 11Mbps WLAN? This would not be a pretty site.
At home my "server" is a WLAN client and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You are assuming... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
1. If you meant "Megabits" in your statement, you'll want to use "Mb/sec" or "Mbits/sec". Using the uppercase "B" means "bytes".
2. The signaling rate of 802.11b is 11Mbits/sec. The real data throughput is about half that or 5.5Mbit/sec. Same ROT for 802.11g: 54Mbit/sec signaling but real throughput of 22Mbit/sec.
Me thinks linksys will have an edge (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the idiots who are selling Pre-N today will prob
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What? (Score:1)
Come on people. It's saturday.
In Soviet Russia (Score:4, Funny)
Oh wait. Dammit.
WiMAX forum mye be killing it (Score:1)
We all know WiMAX 50km range was a hoax, all they want is market share and stopping really promissing alternatives
This is a good thing (Score:1)
Early standards have more bugs (Score:1)
802.1n saved my wireless (Score:1)
what about the draft standard? (Score:1)
Also, if not what are the chances that a given "Nd1" router could be upgraded to the standard with just a firmware change?
802.11n performs awfully (for now) (Score:2)
I'd only bother with the 11n equipment at this point if your 11b/g environment is hugely saturated. And you might want to try switching channels first - most peop
KILL THE NIC?!?!?!? (Score:3, Informative)
Umm, excuse me, even wireless cards are NICs (Network Interface Cards.) NIC is going nowhere anytime soon.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)