Posted by
Hemos
on from the making-wireless-really-work dept.
LupeROD writes "Here's a story that shoulders the responsibility of trying to convince us all that the spectrum wars between 802.11 and Bluetooth are bogus and the truth, be it obscured, is that 802.11 and Bluetooth are really compadres.""
this is not new information
by
Fnkmaster
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
This article rehashes what we already know - the purposes of Bluetooth and 802.11b are fundamentally different - Bluetooth supports what he calls a WPAN (Wireless Personal Area Network) and 802.11b is for WLANs.
This article does not address the _real_ issue that I have heard quite a few people bring up - that the intentions of the technologies and their use cases are orthogonal, but they use the same chunk of bandwidth and the nature of their frequency usage does not play nicely with each other.
I don't know the exact details, but I've used older FHSS and DSSS WLAN technologies as well as 802.11b hardware and I believe it has something to do with the fact that one of Bluetooth or 802.11b is direct-signal and one is frequency-hopping and they therefore tend to obliterate each others signals intermittently. I can't personally testify to this, as I only have experience with 802.11b, but I will tell you that with a 2.4GHz portable phone that my mother bought and the old Proxim Symphony (FHSS if I remember correctly), the interference was a real problem in a practical situation. The 2.4GHz phone could not be used while sitting at the computer desk where the Symphony antenna lived, or the computer would lose connectivity. I finally ditched the wireless network in that apartment and moved to HPNA 2.0, a fabulous solution if your physical configuration doesn't allow good 2.4GHz transmission.
So yes, we would all love to have both Bluetooth and 802.11b work together in perfect harmony and we accept that they don't really compete, and there have been several/. articles with many postings to that effect. The real question is how do we make a technical solution to get the two standards to play nice with each other, if indeed the problems are as significant as I imagine they will be (based on anecdotal reports from others and based on my personal experience with 2.4GHz technology).
Re:this is not new information
by
gr
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I don't know the exact details, but I've used older FHSS and DSSS WLAN technologies as well as 802.11b hardware and I believe it has something to do with the fact that one of Bluetooth or 802.11b is direct-signal and one is frequency-hopping and they therefore tend to obliterate each others signals intermittently.
Nice theory. 802.11B can be either depending on how you set your card and station up, so this couldn't be the only problem. (Though every 802.11B installation I've ever see uses FHSS.)
Not that this invalidates your point that the two still interfere with each other.:^>
-- Do you have a/. uid shorter than five digits? No? Then piss off.
Okay... I realize that we live in a seriously acronym heavy society, but WPAN?!
Seriously though, the article in question seems to underline the problems with Bluetooth:
The data rate for Bluetooth communications is about one-tenth that of IEEE 802.11
The reach of IEEE 802.11 is about ten times that of Bluetooth technology
Bluetooth uses packets designed specifically for Bluetooth transports
So, we're talking about a networking protocol that is slow, only works in very close proximity, and is an additional, propietary packet structure. Great...
802.11 works for both "WLAN" and "WPAN" applications... why bother addressing two protocols?
802.11 works for both "WLAN" and "WPAN" applications... why bother addressing two protocols?
Bluetooth uses a lot less power than IEEE 802.11. This makes it suitable for use in your next keyboard and mouse, your PDA, etc. You don't want to replace a battery in your keyboard every week! Nor does a keyboard or a mouse need an IP address (yet!:) )
Also, Bluetooth support adds $5 to the cost of a device today. In a years time that will be $2, in two years time $0 as it will be a standard integrated part of PDA CPUs, etc. The chips are small, easy to integrate, etc. 802.11 adds a lot more to the cost of the device ($20+), uses up power (to transmit further) thus requiring more/better batteries (more $$$).
We all know the solution is wireless electricity distribution....:) Tesla didn't finish his work in this arena though, and nobody has looked at it since or cares.
On a related note, 802.11a uses 5.4GHz
by
Black+Acid
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The new 802.11a uses the 5.4GHz spectrum, thus avoiding any problems of interference. Presently, 5.4GHz is (sparingly) used by governmental instutions, but the band itself is license-excempt.
Then there is the 802.11a standard. It is also licence-exempt but operates at 5.4GHz.
You've got it backwards - this does not raise revenue for private companies, it raises revenue for governments that sell it.
In fact, these rules prevent private companies from strong-arming their way into the market just because they have lots of money. Suppose that IBM coveted the same radio spectrum as your favorite community-hippie radio KHIP (yes, I'm guessing this will apply to you, Erris... don't ask me how I know). With the rules in place now, they can't simply start using it in a way that would interfere with your ability to enjoy the Arlo Guthrie marathon currently playing on KHIP.
Wireless bandwidth is a limited resource, and there needs to be a minimal set of rules to regulate its disposition (akin to the Land Title Registry for real estate for example). Without these rules, no one gets any productive use out of it, and you will find there is no "public good" for you to defend.
-- Slashdot is entertaining like pro wrestling is entertaining
Slashdot Mirror
This article does not address the _real_ issue that I have heard quite a few people bring up - that the intentions of the technologies and their use cases are orthogonal, but they use the same chunk of bandwidth and the nature of their frequency usage does not play nicely with each other.
I don't know the exact details, but I've used older FHSS and DSSS WLAN technologies as well as 802.11b hardware and I believe it has something to do with the fact that one of Bluetooth or 802.11b is direct-signal and one is frequency-hopping and they therefore tend to obliterate each others signals intermittently. I can't personally testify to this, as I only have experience with 802.11b, but I will tell you that with a 2.4GHz portable phone that my mother bought and the old Proxim Symphony (FHSS if I remember correctly), the interference was a real problem in a practical situation. The 2.4GHz phone could not be used while sitting at the computer desk where the Symphony antenna lived, or the computer would lose connectivity. I finally ditched the wireless network in that apartment and moved to HPNA 2.0, a fabulous solution if your physical configuration doesn't allow good 2.4GHz transmission.
So yes, we would all love to have both Bluetooth and 802.11b work together in perfect harmony and we accept that they don't really compete, and there have been several
Seriously though, the article in question seems to underline the problems with Bluetooth:
The data rate for Bluetooth communications is about one-tenth that of IEEE 802.11
The reach of IEEE 802.11 is about ten times that of Bluetooth technology
Bluetooth uses packets designed specifically for Bluetooth transports
So, we're talking about a networking protocol that is slow, only works in very close proximity, and is an additional, propietary packet structure. Great...
802.11 works for both "WLAN" and "WPAN" applications... why bother addressing two protocols?
Guvegrra?
Tired of free ipod spam sigs? Opt ou
You've got it backwards - this does not raise revenue for private companies, it raises revenue for governments that sell it.
In fact, these rules prevent private companies from strong-arming their way into the market just because they have lots of money. Suppose that IBM coveted the same radio spectrum as your favorite community-hippie radio KHIP (yes, I'm guessing this will apply to you, Erris... don't ask me how I know). With the rules in place now, they can't simply start using it in a way that would interfere with your ability to enjoy the Arlo Guthrie marathon currently playing on KHIP.
Wireless bandwidth is a limited resource, and there needs to be a minimal set of rules to regulate its disposition (akin to the Land Title Registry for real estate for example). Without these rules, no one gets any productive use out of it, and you will find there is no "public good" for you to defend.
Slashdot is entertaining like pro wrestling is entertaining