Slashdot Mirror
Intel's 802.11A Wireless: 5x Faster
Jaben writes: "Intel today released the first 802.11A wireless LAN devices which offer more than a fivefold increase in speed over the current 802.11B. as soon as more devices get onto the market this new technology will really make wireless a possible alternative instead of a neat item to play with."
I keep saying it, if one company would make this cheap it wouldn't be just a toy. Cost is the main problem with wireless, and why I haven't adopted it.
*YET*
:)
When are we going to get a technology that's 5x more secure?
I was looking around SMC's site a few weeks ago and they had already released an 802.11a wireless access point.
SuPz.orG
oh, so the 802.11B that i'm using at home now is not real? excuse me, but... it works. its good. and even if i do have to be a wireless nazi about who gets in, it is a working feasible technology.
and cost wise... since i'm using an apple powerbook, the card is only $99
oh and by the way, the airport cards they're shipping now are 128bit capable. (no software yet...)
but it works just fine for me.
It's not speed that makes wireless a toy. It's the cost! I don't consider an 11mbps wireless connection a "toy" and if it wasn't for the costs associated, I'd jump on right now.
Come on, seriously... alot of us are still on 10mbps connections to the Internet. 11mbps is far from a toy, and the speed bump will be nice but that's NOT the issue. 54mbps, 11mbps... who cares! what about the cost!?
i agree that 802.11a, at 54Mbps, is quite powerful, but i think the consumer would prefer an easier upgrade path: 802.11a requires entirely different hardware from 802.11 because it uses 5GHz instead of 2.5GHz. seeing as 99% of us cannot hose a 10Mbps ethernet for more than a few minutes at a time, i don't think the extra speed is going to justify to the consumer the cost of re-buying all the expensive hardware (new base station, new cards, new range-extender antennas, etc).
who knows, the market will decide. but i don't see it catching on in the next two years, at least.
to hack : doesn't 802.11a use RC4 like 802.11b ?
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Wasn't there an article on here a while back about another company that was delivering 802.11a "first"?
was /. a PR news site?
but does it interfere with my microwave? faster net versus no programming food. thats a hard one.
"[T]his new technology will really make wireless a possible alternative instead of a neat item to play with."
Excuse me, but an 11 megabit wireless connection isn't quite worthless just yet. How many home users, even with DSL or cable modems, are pushing this limit? And how many offices are still using 10baseT LANs, or 10baseT hubs on even faster LANs? To all these users, 802.11b is still 10% overkill. Will 400% overkill make us any happier or more productive?
Plus, 802.11a is much more power-hungry, making it a decidedly unattractive choice for wireless PDAs. What say ye?
Their web site says that they've announced that ALPS will be using their chipset; I don't remember who else will be using it.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Slashdot needs a fact checker.
The whole premise of this story is wrong. 802.11b is NOT a toy; it a very useful technology. 11Mb/s is not to be sneezed at. Who are you kidding? 99% of network apps are thrilled to run at that speed.
Second, 802.11a has issues of its own. Most importantly, it is WAY shorter range, and can be blocked by a wet piece of paper. 802.11b is so robust, people have run over several miles (with special antennas).
More importantly, networking is *infrastucture* and displacing infrastructure is hard. All those laptops with builtin 802.11b arent going away. Neither are all those deployed Access points.
I forsee 802.11b having continued success, at even cheaper prices.
Proxim also has a line of 802.11a stuff, possibly a little further along. They have an Access Point that should be available at the end of November roughly, but the cards are available now supposedly. There is a company called Luna Communications handling the early release stuff.. Lunacom.com
Here's the link to Proxim
We're planning on getting a setup soon, the claim of 54Mbit/s from the x2 technology sounds way too good to be true! Anyone have experience on actual speeds that they get? I've never even gotten close to 1/2 of the 802.11b bandwitdh maximum (11Mbit/s).
Brett
__ No registration required to read this message. They did it in the Matrix.
While the improvement in throughput is excellent, it comes at a cost of range. The 5.4GHz spectrum does not carry as far as the 2.4GHz band, used in 802.11b. This difference will be felt the most in long-range applications, whether it be a directional long-shot or the more omni-directional community wireless networks such as BAWUG or Houston-Wireless.
--
The Sphere Guerilla Net
Space City, TX
802.11b wasn't much of a problem for Linux - the cards look about like an Ethernet card, with some extra frobs you can tweak if you want to (e.g. the so-called security features, and features that tell you how the RF sections are doing.) I'm told that 802.11a is much different - it expects much more driver support from the operating system, somewhat the same way that Winmodems do. Some of the chip and card makers are working on Linux driver support, but before using 802.11a you'll need to find out how much you really get from them, and when - they've got an obvious market priority to get Windows working first.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
"wireless a possible alternative instead of a neat item to play with."
I feel that the biggest downside to current wireless is not the speed, which even at the 6.0mbps that I was getting in a lecture hall this morning while I was in #coverage in slashnet being obsessive about today's crash, but the range. Just under 500ft away I was getting 0% reception. Most people use very little bandwidth the majority of the time they are using any sort of networking and in most cases it is reliability rather then speed that is the limiting factor. Intel's site doesn't say anything about an increase in range only in speed, and as nice it will be to be able to stream audio, video, and serve a webpage over a wireless connection I do not really see the need for 55mbps over 11mbps.
When we start to see antenna's that are more then just useless screens and reliability without line of site is when you'll see more of a push to wireless.
I do know that the Microwave one is more along the lines where if you have interference from it, you probably should be worying about getting baked by standing in front of it instead of dropping packets.
But the last time it came up on Slashdot, people were chiming in that certain brands of phones really suck when used in conjunction with Wireless Ethernet. Which makes sense. They are using the exact same band, which will degrade the signal to varying extents.
Of course, consumer reports found that the gigahertz phones tend to perform worse than the equivelently featured 900MHz phone. But the manufacturers have their hearts set on the gigahertz phones, so they are making sure that the 900MHz ones suck.
Gentoo Sucks
Unless 802.11a fixes the totally broken WEP security used with "better" 802.11b products, I don't view this as an improvement. I'm pissed that I spent so many $$ on wireless products with "128 bit encryption", only for that encryption standard to be found practically useless due to fundamental implementation flaws. I sincerely hope a new generation of wireless users aren't faced with the same bogus problems. The link to the Intel site provides no useful info on this subject, nor do any of the articles on the web that I dug up.
Even if 802.11a fixes those problems, I'll still be pissed if they don't come out with a new standard for 802.11b (and a firmware upgrade for my Lucent wireless cards that implements the fix). I don't feel like throwing my expensive wireless hardware in the trash just yet.
I've found that the best way to create a network is to have your laptop systems use wireless and your desktops use the wired "backbone".
Our three laptops and print server are all wireless but our desktops are all hardwired.
Second, 802.11a has issues of its own. Most importantly, it is WAY shorter range, and can be blocked by a wet piece of paper. 802.11b is so robust, people have run over several miles (with special antennas).
Short range prevents network leakage and enhances security, which can be a good thing.
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
1 megabyte pdf on the range of 802.11a This pdf talks about the range of 802.11a and how they tested it, and it also includes some cool charts comparing it to 802.11b. It turns out the farther your computer is away from the base station the slower the connection is.
"If you commit sodomy they'll put you in jail with a guy who will sodomize you." -- George Carlin
Unless you happen to be some kind of alien (or corporate) super-genius, you can't just take a 5 GHz antenna, slap it onto a 2.4 GHz transmitter, repackage it, and call it 802.11a.
First off, the componants for a 5GHz transmitter need to be (and are) smaller than the componants for a 2.4GHz system. This is why 2.4GHz phones and 802.11b cards have effective antennas within such a small form factor, and this is also why 11a cards have greater range. The antenna that can be fit into a Type II or CF slot would provide approx. a 10 dB gain (or double the effective radiated power) of the 2.4 antenna. (Besides that, a 5 GHz signal can be sent from a 2.4 GHz antenna with a little shrinking for that gain.)
The reason the transmitter is smaller is that the signal is much more easily affected by the environment, and by shrinking the distances between componants (and the componants themselves) one reduces that possibility.
In addition, the hardware has to be capable of handling the increased thoroughput. If you put a 100baseTX card on a Cat4 based network, it ain't gonna get you full bandwidth; likewise, a 10baseT on a Gigabit Ethernet connection can't do squat. 11a's guts are different from 11b's.
Also... about security in wireless: Let's make this clear. Any form of broadcast-based system, be it wired (like Ethernet) or wireless (802.11x), IS VULNERABLE TO EAVESDROPPING. Security has to be made application-level, like IPsec, SSL, SSH, and not hardware level. Especially if everyone has access to (sufficiently similar) hardware.
I used to be someone else. Now I'm someone better.
Real life is underrated.
Mercedes-Benz showcases a car of the near future with a built-in wireless Ethernet 802.11a connection that will capture high-speed bursts of data from roadside transceivers as the car hurtles down the highway.
Looking for any old 8-bit Heathkit/Zenith software/hardware - http://heathkit.garlanger.com
Your comments are bang on. But this problem seems to extend to most wireless tech. When I worked with RDLAP-19.2, MDC-4800 or 9600, and CDPD (19.2) wireless networks, the same phenomena was visible (moreso in RDLAP...). We'd often only get usable bandwidth on the order of 40-60% of advertised bandwidth. Heck, I recall days on the 9600 bps nominal network where practical bit rates hit about 2400...
The longer you are transmitting for (the larger the packet), the more likely you'll get a fade or some interference and your packet will be corrupted. And with phones and other devices operating through the same spectra, and with crappy antennas bouncing out signal harmonics that can tromp your signal, this isn't really surprising. Just sort of an occupational hazard in the wireless environment.
When I ported one of our products to CDPD, I recall that it had a spec limit of 2020 for packet size 9or something like that)... but the local wireless provider advised me they'd never got anything over about a 1300 byte packet to transit the network without a problem. I got 1400 byte packets working... but that's where I capped it.
Even having said all this, and realizing 802.11b has a different performance characteristic than 802.11a, it will still (most of the time) end up being faster, which really is what end users tend to care about. If it only ends up 2x as fast, so be it. If it is only 2x as expensive, you're doing okay. Now, if its 5x as expensive and in practice averages 2x as fast... well.... then you've bought the Pentium-IV of the wireless world.... (*grin*)
-- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
I think when it comes to airsnort, it's Rx sensitivity that you really want.
Any card will do, just get an antennae more suited to the job.
Heck.. if you're driving around breaking into networks, why not break the law a little more and use some amplifiers?
Glad somebody else has noticed this. I have an 802.11b network at home, and another at work; I use them to keep my (and my roommates') laptop(s) on the network without having to drag 100+ feet of Cat5 around the place. Do I feel limited by using "only" 11Mbps? Hell, no! I rarely break 1Mbps--on any network. I used to use a 100Mbps wired network, with a decent NIC in my laptop (3Com hardware NIC, not a WinNIC), a decent 100MBps switch, and still rarely broke 1Mbps, even with my desktop machines running closer to 50 Mbps. Why? In short, laptops suck. Seriously--when you're looking for performance, you don't look at laptops. The hard drives are much slower than anything in a desktop, the bus speeds are slower (my laptop has a 66MHz FSB; my desktop has a 133, with DDR RAM); everything is slower and scaled back. 11Mbps is no limit to a laptop, in my experience. It would be a limit to a desktop terminal connected to the WLAN, but most people/companies don't use wireless for desktops.
Granted, we could probably saturate the WLAN if we had twenty or so people all trying to pull large files, but that condition has its own flaws: 1) how often does the situation occur--even in a meeting, with 30 people attending, how many of them are trying to pull big files at a given time (usually none...), and 2) how many clients can an access point actually handle? Most of the ones with which I'm familiar (consumer equipment, admittedly) get flaky around 20-30 people; any more, and you need another AP--add another AP, and you effectively double the bandwitdh, as you're splitting the load across two different AP's, each on a different channels. Also remember than many networks are still only 10 Mbps, because of the high infrastructure cost of upgrading a major network (particularly if recabling is required); on such a network, the bit behind the AP is already the bottleneck, so it's not that big of a deal if the WLAN is only 11Mbps.
In short, yeah, it's neat, it's cool, but it's not that big of a deal, as long as laptops don't get a major bus upgrade. A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link.
"Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
--Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), Casablanca
802.11a uses OFDM whereas 802.11b uses DSSS, and they're in completely different frequency bands. Consequently, dual-protocol devices can't share much of their hardware between the two standards. Right now, there aren't any chipsets that support both, although there are some in the works - the major hardware vendors are keenly aware of the need for this.
I never thought 802.11b was that slow. I've been using it for my laptop since February, and at 11 megabits, it's plenty fast enough IMO. Sure, it's not 100 MB/sec but it is wireless...
If you're refering to range issues (eg, an alternative for more broad coverage), then I'll agree. But for home and office intranet usage, 802.11b is more than suitable. Even with cable/xDSL/T1, it's considerably faster than your external connection anyway...
The one really good thing that might come of this IMO is that 802.11b products may go way down in price once the faster alternative is made available...
NGWave - Fast Sound Editor for Windows
If you dig PR, then head to 802.11 Planet. You'll get all the corporate lubing you could ever hope for.
802.11a is not new, it's been around since 1999. Check the IEEE website. They have the document available for free download.
I run VNC, MP3, video streams, games, and backups over 802.11b. If wireless gets faster, that's nice. But I don't really have a desparate need for it, and I suspect few other peopled do either.
802.11a is not as great as it seems. The range at which you can get 54Mpbs is only 10-15 meters. It's only great if you use it within those distances. 802.11a only offers 11Mbps in the 30-40m range which is half the range of 802.11b @ 11Mbps.
Many people will want to stick with 802.11b because it will still cost less even if the 802.11a nics are no more expensive. 802.11a means many more access points for the same amount of coverage as a 802.11b network.
Beware the marketing hype!
Sometimes you have to attribute it to malice, sometimes to stupidity, sometimes to changes in technology.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
But offices are much different - wiring cubicles for Cat5 and running it back to a phone closet costs money, and hubs that can provide management services (for lots of users) as opposed to simple dumb hubs also costs money, and reconnecting the things every time you play the Shrinking Cubicle Space Game costs money. Especially now that wireless cards are $100 heading for ~$50, and good laptop 100baseT cards are $40, if you're not loading your network heavily, wireless is a big win.
It's not as strong a case if you're in a file-server-intensive environment, but for typical corporate use, 10 Mbps is enough for a lot of users doing email, printing, and web browsing plus their desktop-based apps. (Of course you'd run 100Mbps for a wired network, now that it's as cheap as 10Mbps.)
Wireless is also a really convenient approach for office telephones, as long as they don't interfere with wireless data connections, cell phones, microwave ovens, .... Eliminating Moves/Adds/Changes for phones is a big win.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
My building has 100Mbps LAN, though my laptop currently has a 10Mbps card since the 100Mbps dongle broke (:-), but the connection to the outside world is only a T1 (1.5Mbps, symmetric), and it's more than enough bandwidth to get huge Powerpoint presentations from those marketing folks at headquarters.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
...we would all share and enjoy secure communication. Everyone focuses on Tunnel Mode ipsec without paying attention to other possibilities in the specification. Linux FreeS/WAN, the BSD's, and even Win2K all support both Tunnel and Transport Mode ipsec, why don't more people use this stuff? Though, honestly, why the FreeW/AN folks don't use a standard IKE daemon for key exchange is beyond me....
I guess we'll all have to wait for IPV6 before this stuff becomes ubiquitous. But there's really no reason why an end user need worry about secure communications across the internet. If everyone had the infrastructure (local daemons) for key exchange and ipsec it would be entirely hidden from the user and totally secure point to point. No more need for wrapping various protocols through SSL pipes... which is an obnoxious hack IMO. The ipsec guys have it right. Setting up a secure communication point to point should be completely transparent to the end user, and given ubiquitous support ipsec would be just that simple.
So your "Average Joe" argument is worthless. Your second argument about securing local systems is beside the point and not relevant to secure communications across an insecure network. Your third point that there is already a huge installed base of IPV4 systems without ipsec support is, unfortunately, the truth. The point that "there is more to the world than IP" is yet another meaningless statement. There is more to the world than a woman, beer, and dinner. But I'm not about to turn down dinner with Guinness and a date anytime soon.
JMO,
--Maynard
"11 Mbps should be enough for anyone, forget 802.11a." -- Slashdot posts, 2001.
"I'll just chip in a bit for RedHat: I actually have that installed on my university machine." - Linus, '95
802.11b is plenty fast enough... for me anyways.
Hopefully it drives the 802.11 equipment prices way down so I can expand my public wireless node coverage. and possibly set up more point-2-point wireless links. (486 laprops are basically free but 2 wireless cards is danged expensive, then mods for external antennas, etc...)
Hopefully I'll see some Sub $50.00USD wireless cards available sometime soon... or maybe a native PCI wireless card with Rf connector that is actually supported in linux.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Something reliable - the frequencies used. 802.11b uses the same 2.4Ghz freq. space used by high-end portable phones. 802.11a, in contrast, uses the 5Ghz band.
I hear this all the time.. and not just of Linux...
There are people absolutly convenced that you need to be a total geek to use a Mac... You try convencing them otherwise.
There are reasons why they think this some of them I won't get into..
But the primary reason is the person was told so by a person who never used the Mac.
Linux has the same problem only a lot more of it.
Most of us would laugh off the clame for Mac but the same clame made of Linux is believed.
This story starts when a person has a problem with a system. We've all heard how only a 15 year old can set a VCR clock. If you can set your own watch you can set a VCR clock.. People trying often do it when they don't have the time to learn and set themselfs up for failure.
Same for Mac, Windows, and Linux.
Then the story speads...
With Mac the story is laughed at.. "Jo thinks Mac is hard... ha ha ha"
With Linux the story is believed..."Ask Jo about how hard Linux is... he knows"
Jo is just relaying what he heard.
Then you have the 15 year old who never heard this. He installs Linux no problem.
The diffrence is he dosn't know it's hard. He gives himself time just like he dose for everything becouse his parents insist on it. It's the only way he'll learn anything.
Then later he discovers what he dose in his sleep others find imposable. He must be really smart. Wow...
Those people annoy Solarus and BSD admin who do exactly the same thing every day. They do even more. They know more than the avrage 15 year old 31337 know it all Linux user. So when someone comes off with the "I use Linux so I'm smart" addatude they get really mad.
Any idiot can use Linux. The learning curve is inflated.
I know this is a troll.. He makes some really big unfounded clames.
But the one that is believable is the "Linux is hard" clame and thats one people make a lot with out actually being a troll.
So there you have it...
But I'll close with this....
"any one who seeks a professional OS with high performance, scalability, stability, adherence to standards, etc."
Is going to be disapointed no matter what they get.
Everyone lacks something on that list..
I don't actually exist.
Yeah.. you aren't aware you can amplify a received signal as well?