Slashdot Mirror
54 Mbps/100 Mbps Wireless LAN
carbon60 writes: "Proxim seems to have very quietly released 802.11a based products. 54 Mbps in standard mode and 100 Mbps in "2X" mode. The main website lists the products." They're a little more expensive, and I dunno about Linux drivers, but still, that's some fast wireless action.
fp
All of 20 feet is going to be real useful!
Also, the 2x mode is proprietary so you won't be able to mix with other vendors cards.
But it's a good start.
Anyone know about how much range it should be possible to get with a real antenna?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Suffer the pain of running wire enough and the price doesn't seem so high.
By definition, a government has no conscience. Sometimes it has a policy, but nothing more. - Albert Camus
There's no reason to be using "land-line" LAN's anymore, unless you have some sort of privacy/security issues, and even then you could just VPN the wireless traffic.
Oh, and cost. But hopefully someday the cost of wiring a building will push past the cost of a traditional LAN versus a wireless.
--- RFC 1149 Compliant.
Dammit! As soon as I finally buy a wireless solution for the house, this becomes available. I just (3 weeks ago) bought a Compaq Ipaq ConnectionPoint base and wireless PC card for my laptop. 802.11b. Oh well, it still kicks ass being able to sit upstairs where it's warm and surf, hack PHP, whatever. You'd be amazed at how much faster you can type when you're not shivering.
--- Think of it as evolution in action ---
Does it work with NetStumbler?
I'm sure this is good for somebody but my 11mb wireless lan is already 11 times faster than my net connection. Locally, I rarely every transfer large files between machines.
It seems to be that good 'ol 802.11b is still the price/performance leader. And with a range of only 20 feet, I can't see much use for 802.11a in my house.
Maybe when cards that support both 802.11a and 802.11b are cheap enough I'll start buying those. That's what it took for 100 mbs lans to take over, that's probably what it will take for 54 mbs wlan to take over the marketplace.
That which does not kill me only makes me whinier
You could use this as a GREAT way to transport internet to non-cabled places (or poorly cables places)
Get a full 100Mb link (as a backbone) to a town and split it there to 1 or 2 Mbits... you could serve a lot of people that way!
Would sure come in handy where I live!!
Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity
I've read the product page, but can't quite decode it. Does it also support 802.llb?
I've had this sig for three days.
Superfast wireless is really cool, but the point is moot if you want to surf the web through these things. Most web content is accessible at 56K, right?
Of course, if everyone had one, then we wouldn't need the physical net. Peace, Love, and Anarchy
--- this space intentionally left blank.
They're CardBus, so you can't use a dusy ole 486 for a wireless gateway.
--- this space intentionally left blank.
I'm looking to set up a wireless network, and looking for fast wireless sloutions since space and placement of equipment is an issue.
Most web content is available at a faster rate, AFAIK. Who would host a site on a dialup connection any more when broadband is relatively inexpensive now?
Dunno about Linux drivers
:-)
Well, Proxim did a good set of (albeit binary-only) drivers for Linux, which work swell under 2.4 or later - I should know, I'm using one right now
Seriously, I'd expect that Proxim will either release a driver for this soon, or it will be covered under existing ones.
How do I feel that this is already posted (perhaps here?) Oh well, must be one of those Deja vu-thingies, I guess.
This is the place where you write something that will make you seem like a complete idiot.
Is anyone else out there sick of talking about 802.11b ( and 802.11a ) ?
It talks way too long to say. It needs a better name. In an interesting section on the wireless internet at The Economist they suggest the name Wi-Fi, which stands for Wireless fidelity or some such silliness. How do people feel about this? Personally as silly as the definition seems to be it seems better than talking of 802.11b. Also, is anyone using this name ?
Does anyone know what the channel seperation is on the 5 GHz band? On the 2.4 GHz band, you can combine channels 1, 6, and 11 (since they require 5 channels of seperation) with three wavelan adapters and a combiner/decombiner on each end of a point-to-point link. At 2.4 GHz, you can max out at 33 Mbps/sec by doing this - at 5 GHz, combining two channels would get you 108 Mbps - or more if there are more channels to work with.
$249 is not to bad (list) for a new offering like this
in 3 months, it'll be $150 on pricewatch
-- www.globaltics.net
Political discussion for a new world
In such a short time, we've gone from the days where 80m long radio waves were considered "shortwave" and anything over 100 Mhz was "unusable" to our new modern dreams of Multi Ghz signals and waves getting so short that we are tempted to measure them in millimeters. Lo! What brave new world is this?
The great thing about really, really tiny waves is the antenna size. While nobody would want to venture the project of making a 24dbi parabolic dish for use with AM radio signals at 500kHz, $80 will get one to your doorstep ready for 2.4Ghz. Now that we are in the upper 5Ghz range, it will finally be feasible to build a mega-super dish where the actual radiated power is in the mega-super-ka-jigga-trilla-watt range. Maybe we could get rid of that whole line of sight problem with Moonbounce communications. Of course the ping time would be seriously worse than the average satellite... The "big sattelite" is just a little outside of geosync orbit..
I apparently forgot that sig != uptime...
I was about to ask 'Whut in da heck is NetStumbler' but instead I got off my butt and
found out for myself:
Network administrators deploying an 802.11b wireless network need site survey tools to help plan locations for access points. Once installed, the access points need to be checked periodically to ensure they are providing adequate coverage.
Some wireless network cards provide reasonable survey tools, but the freeware Network Stumbler is far superior to most. The program captures signal strength and signal-to-noise statistics, but perhaps more important, it helps network administrators identify and locate rogue access points--those that employees may have installed without central IT's permission--as well as determine whether or not WEP (Wired Equivalent Privacy) is being used, to help prevent potential security breaches.
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
Anyone?
quis custodiet ipsos custodes - Juvenal
This is not a product for the home LAN - the range is far too limited. You'd require some kind of repeater in every room.
Fortunately, the main use for wireless in home LANs is to share Internet access. Since mine is capped at 1.5 Mbps, it doesn't matter that 802.11b only runs at roughly twice that. (I know it's rated at 11 Mbps, but true throughput is far less.)
Digital video over wireless will just have to wait.
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball...
Right now they're only offering the wireless access point and a cardbus card. If you don't have a PCMCIA slot or your laptop doesn't support cardbus, you're boned.
::ahem:: non-pirated / non-porn movies from your computer on your couch!
I assume they'll bring out PCI cards any day now, but it's interesting to do a product launch w/o supporting desktop computers at all!
This should be enough bandwidth to stream videos without jerks... imagine putting a computer with TV out in your living room and watching all of your
Prevent linux based DDOS's!
http://linux.denialofservice.org/
Given similar power and antenna size, 802.11a range is about the same at 802.11b.
Seems to me that this is going to do for the price of existing 802.11b hardware what 100Mbps hardware did to the price of existing 10Mbps hardware.
This is great, because 802.11b is easily fast enough for most home broadband. The $19.99 802.11b card was already on the way, this will make it show up faster.
Then 5GHz crept up on me a few months ago. I just somehow missed it.
Now I'm just going to keep stringing CAT5 through my apartment when it's needed and wait for the wireless storm to pass and all prices to drop.
I've been using a proxim wireless lan for quite some time albiet the 1.5mbps. I've been reasonably happy with the range and okay with the performance (who cares if you get >1.5 if you're just sharing cable internet). However, I must say the driver support is a weakness. The drivers are maintained by a third party whose site is not always up. Apparantly the guy had to pay for the privilege. (http://www.komacke.com/distribution.html). So while I'm happy with it for the cost and what it does (especially considering its > 2 years old), I think I'll be looking for more standard stuff when I upgrade.
As for range on this: I can go upstairs but it only works on half of the upstairs. I can generally travel downstairs anywhere I want. The laptop version has a shorter range unless you replace the silly nub antenna.
I still thing wireless has a bit of a ways to go (especially the cheap stuff) mostly in the area of range and price before it replaces good ol wire.
yep, we need more pseudo words like 'Wi-Fi'... thats a descriptive as 802.11b or whatever.
If everyone was obsessive about checking /. in the morning, things might have been different.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
I believe Enterasys Networks (formerly Cabletron Systems) RoamAbout R2 Wireless was the first wireless access platform that offered 54 Megabits per second (Mbps) performance based on the 802.11a standard (w/advanced Layer 3-4 capabilities)
http://www.enterasys.com/roamabout/
And yes support for linux is there...
I've seen demo's with a Compaq IPAQ running Linux using these wireless cards
Sounds like nothing more than a power-guzzling alternative to Bluetooth, which is a nice way of saying "worthless".
Range and security are what people want.
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
With such a short range, a VERY limited product line (where is the desktop hardware?!), and a 2x mode that is proprietary, is anyone really going to jump on these just yet?
I know I'm certainly not switching--this just isn't good enough to replace Cat5 yet. Plus the price is too high and the range is too low to attract consumers away from 802.11b. I'm going to hold off until there is a much larger selection of products by more than one company before I even think about 802.11a.
As you've said you've got an iPaq with a 802.11 did you test savaje XE ???
...
www.savaje.com
i've tested it but as i get no wifi card i was no able to test the TCP/internet stuff
Tnx.
I would troll slashdot, but the storys today suck rocks. No potential at all.
I guess I could pop off with some objectionable non-sequitur, or just abuse the usual bunch of idiots, but, feh.
Come on guys, how about a story about how the RIAA is using Sircam to spread anthrax? Gimme something worthy of trolling here.
At some point in the very near future, the wireless capabilites will outstrip the wired capabilites. Right now, the fastest single hard connection to a computer that I'm aware of is Gigabit Ethernet.
The Dopester
"Yes, I'm a Karma Whore, but I'm doing it to pay my way through school."
First STFU, Katz post!
(oh, wait, this isn't a jonkatz screed? well, STFU, KATZ! anyhow!)
Intel also is releasing an 802.11a product. Details at www.intel.com
There's several cracks of it out and about. Combine it with NetStumbler or something similar and you've got a security issue- sweeps won't get you anywhere unless you're lucky enough to be doing the assessment when the SOB that's breaking into your net is there at the time. Unfortunately, almost everyone can't afford an audit of their net and those that can really pretty much can only afford it about once a month.
This is not to say that 802.11(b) is not useful- far, far from it. This is analogous to having a car with or without airbags. Would you drive a car without airbags? Most people will say "sure" or at least "maybe" because a car's too useful in and of itself with or without that extra level of security. Same goes for 802.11(b).
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
> Experience 100 Mbps wireless networking in your
> conference room, classroom, or office
Why do they show a model lying on a couch with a wireless laptop?
While engineers pummel the hell out of the wireless handheld market trying to save their jobs their marketing has become a bit paranoid.
may I remind everyone here that wireless will always be just a bus with user's sharing 100Mbps in the ether. And cheap switches that have 10Mbps and DSL are direct point ot point connections.
... now that I've finished wiring my house -- convincing myself all the while that all my effort was worth the extra bandwidth...
Well, at least now I have a whole new relationship with my attic and with the spiders in the cellar that wireless would have never permitted.
NoCat
--- this space intentionally left blank.
>...eight-oh-two-dot-eleven-eh...
For those among us who don't speak Canadian (and by the way, it's "eight-oh-two-dot-eleven, eh?") this is "eight-oh-two-dot-eleven-ay".
Always glad to help.
Virg
Yeah, my pussy seems to be in the wrong place.
Perhaps the Proxim press release is a bit unclear on the range issue. The 802.11a products can step down to several lower speeds to tradeoff range versus bandwidth. The result is comparable range to 802.11b, but higher bandwidth.
There's a good paper discussing this issue in technical detail here.
(The Proxim product, as mentioned in the press release, is based on the Atheros chipset).
Second, 802.11a has more channels available than 802.11b. That means that there's less chance that nearby networks (at your neighbor's house, for example) will interfere with your network (when nearby networks use the same channel, each sees reduced bandwidth).
I had the fourth (or so) comment under this story, and the first one about range. How is this redundant?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Will the whoe network shift to slow because of one computer in slow range?
Does a higher frequency have any effect on the fresnel zone? I'm surrounded by similar hight buildings that currently block effective point-to-point for me. If I could get a rise of 2 more meters, I could make it to where I want to get to now w/ 802.11b .3 miles away. I buy this in a second if it fixed my problem.
I know, it's redundant and a bit off topic, but it's so fun to talk aobut it.
The 10 gig ethernet standard will be finalized in a few months. It's fiber only, no copper. There are some products already available. Broadcom's website says they have an 8 port switch that's currently available for around $2000 per port.
What I want to know is that if this Broadcom switch has eight ports at 10Gb each, does that mean it can take an 80Gb fiber and distribute it into 8 10Gb streams? Or is it that each port is a 1Gbps stream and the whole switch can handle 8Gbps?
If it's the former, wow! Managing such oceans of bandwidth for the price of a mid range automobile. You could set up quite a promiscuous wireless network with a feed like that eh? Hosin' down the whole city with bandwidth. Let's see, how many 1Mbps streams can you cut 80Gbps into? Or perhaps more importantly, how much can you get bandwidth for at such wholesale volumes?
I have been looking forward to the nokia rooftop ;-(
router because it allows non line of sight installation as part of a multipoint meshed
wireless design. (Too costly though)
After taking a quick look, it now seems as though both proxim and enterasys products do the same.
Does anyone know if there are 802.11b access points that do this as well?
Once 11a products flood the market, it should make the 11b access points become dirt cheap and
if they have multipoint routing, we could see community wireless nets become a reality.....
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
What are the radiation levels of 802.11a and 802.11b compared to common household appliances?
I use my laptop 10 hours per day and I'm not sure I want my brain bombarded with energy all that time.
Dejan
www.jelovic.com
I thought 802.11a was the 2/1M one, and .11b was the 11/5.5/2/1M one... where'd this 55M stuff come from?
The thing I'm interested in is whether these can step down and work with existing 802.11b hardware, similar to what 100bt cards do on a 10bt network.
I'd guess no, and that will hurt things somewhat. 802.11b has a reasonable home following, and I don't see a lot of users upgrading their home networks to 'a', because they don't need the additional bandwidth in most cases. (If I want video, it's probably going to be on a stationary device I can run a cable to). A lot of corps may implement 'b' because of the extra range and bandwidth, so your laptop would need two cards in it... which would suck.
What we have here is an ethernet card (essentialy) that is not compatible what so ever with any other ethernet card in the world. Its nice to see some speed increases comming out of the wireless industry, However the use of FULL spectrum cards sickens me. about the time u run ur microwave or use ur spiffy new 2.4 ghz cordless anywhere near it, u start getting tons of interfearance. I would recommend sticking with lynksys if u want a cheap solution, (altho its DSSS for home use) however if u want somthing that u and 10 of your freinds can use in the same room at the same time without interferance issues, id go get a FHSS card, like breezecoms.
Who has them for sale? I tried the first three reseller links on Proxim's web page and none of them had 802.11a stuff listed. Or rather no one has Proxim's 802.11a stuff. Several people have Intel's.
CDW
Insight
Tired of free ipod spam sigs? Opt ou
Generally speaking, the higher the frequency, the lower the traffic. The highest frequency services in wide-area local use are in the 2.7 GHz band (for Sprint's wireless broadband service), 1.9GHz (for digital cellphones) and around 1.8 GHz (for DBS/DSS services).
;)
The wavelength of a 5 GHz signal is a little less than half that of a 2.4 GHz signal; at the low power we're talking about for 802.11x signals (less than a tenth of a watt peak emitted power), a 2.4 antenna should work with a 5 source.
It also means that it is more subject to physical interference, and that bullhorn antennas are now an option
I used to be someone else. Now I'm someone better.
Real life is underrated.
If they use the Intsil (sp?) PRISM chipset or something compatible enough, perhaps the drivers from the Linux WLAN project may work.
If not, I bet Mark's planning to make 'em work.
I agree. It's too cumbersome to say 802.11b. It's also cumbersome to say IEEE 1394. Yeah sure, you can use Wi-Fi or Fireport, but for some reason, manufacturers don't. I suspect it's because: 1) People want to be sure what they're getting for their money, 2) Wi-Fi and Fireport each have separate meanings or separate associations, and 3) it just sounds cooler saying 802.11b or IEEE 1394, it sounds like you know what you're talking about. The other day I was watching a woman on the Home Shopping Channel trying to sell a new computer system and intead of saying Fireport, or IEEE _1394_, she just said that the system came with IEEE ports. To me, it sounded completely ridiculous, but I guess to the unknowing suckers who buy stuff from HSC, it sounded like a deal.
Linux at home