Slashdot Mirror
802.11g Approved By IEEE 54 mb/s on 2.4 gigahertz
wavecentral writes "IEEE just approved the 802.11g as the new standard in a vote late Thursday. This enables data transfer rates of up to 54 megabits per sec and works on the 2.4 gigahertz band that 802.11b uses. This in turn makes it compatable and operable between the offical standard." Ewann also writes: "By mid-2002 we should be seeing products based on this technology. Unlike 5 GHz 802.11a, 802.11g is backwards compatible with the huge installed base of 802.11b products. Cool stuff if you want to wirelessly stream video and music in your home. More info on 0211-planet."
Yes, please set up more of these networks. I love driving downtown and being able to surf the web wirelessly on my Pocket PC.
It's great that this is backwards compatable, transitioning from one technology is very difficult in itself, going cold turkey where you have to get rid of your current hardware and migrate completely is even worse.
Being able to use your current stuff in conjunction with the new stuff is what will make technologies like this able to improve and expand.
Do you Gentoo!?
YEAH!! ANOTHER STANDARD WE CAN'T USE!
I'm going to put my copy with the CSS aural style sheets standard.
How about a standard cost, bandwidth and level of service (i.e. cost lead) for broadband first?
We must learn to walk before we can fly.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
I find it interesting and/or odd that the line "3Com Corp., Cisco Systems Inc. and Intel Corp. are among the largest makers of wireless LAN equipment." is at the end of the yahoo article, even though NONE of these companies are mentioned anywhere in the article. Nice side-fact, or prehaps they are sponsors?
Interoperability with 802.11b is nice and all, but at least 802.11a uses reserved frequencies.
This inturn makes it compatable and operable between the offical standard.
Man, my interns only fetch coffee and occasionally do some copying. Where do I get these interns that are able to design wireless networks? Come to think of it, where do I get Clinton-style interns?
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Yup. And the neighborhood too. Can you imagine a realtime babysitter network of these things? Or, perhaps a pet watching service...
(Hoping the frequency gives this kind of range)
more info at eetimes
The final proposal calls for two mandatory modulation/access schemes of complementary code keying (CCK) used in 802.11b and the newly allowed orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) used in the 5-GHz 802.11a standard. As an option, however, the 802.11g proposal allows for the inclusion of Intersil's original CCK-OFDM scheme, which supports rates of 6 to 54 Mbits/s, and of TI's PBCC-22 (packet binary convolutional coding) method, which supports rates up to 33 Mbits/s.
Three possible coding schemes? This will either drive the price up (to support all three), or lead to incompatibilities when only portions of the spec are implemented. I'd love to find out more... is there some negiotiation in the protocol too see what coding methods are supported?
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
Even better, a beowulf cluster of network drives, running Linux!!!!!!
Unlike 5 GHz 802.11a, 802.11g is backwards compatible with the huge installed base of 802.11b products.
But will it be backwards compatible with 802.11a?
Wake up.
802.11a has very short range, which is why Apple did not implement it in its new AirPort products, but chose to wait out for 802.11g, which will offer the same range and backwards-compatibility. As was mentioned, the products probably won't be available until mid-2002. From an ITWorld article: "The range supported from access point to client in an 11M-bit/sec network is about 300 feet. The shorter, wider radio waves in a 5GHz 802.11a LAN, while offering more capacity, transmit only about 90 feet."
"Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity" -Alvy Ray Smith
Is this some kind of a joke? It better be! I find this EXTREMELY offensive. Moderators, -1 on the double.
If anyone can answer any of these questions I'll buy them a beer! the article is decidely fluffy on these details, and a quick google search turned up nothing of value...
1) How does it achieve backwards compatability?
1a) If you throw an 802.11b into an 802.11g network, what impact does it have on performance? i.e. does the 11b drag the network down?
1b) How are broadcast packets sent? (11b or 11g standard?)
2) Is 802.11g more or less resisant to "hostile RF". that 2.4Ghz spectrum is crowded, does 802.11g improve resiliance to interference?
3) How is the range of 802.11g? I understand that the range of 802.11a (the other high speed wireless at 5Ghz) has a much shorter range due largely to the fact that it is at 5Ghz. Does 11g retain the strength of 11b here?
4) What is the security protocol? We all know that WEP in 11b is broken....
If yo uhave the information, please pass it on!
It never fails... yesterday I spent $2500 on a new laptop with 802.11b and an access point, log on today and I see that I probably should have waited another few months.
Oh well, at least when I take my system into a place with 802.11g I know that I'll still be able to get on, even if it's only 1/5 the actual speed I should be getting.
One thing I'm looking forward to is when this new stuff hits the streets. I'll be able to pick up access points and wireless cards for my parents very cheaply as people move to the new tech and start dumping their old 802.11b pieces on ebay.
-C
"Well kids, you tried your best, and you failed. The lesson is, never try." -Homer Simpson
One of my co-workers has been following 802.11g through the standards approval process and he said that 802.11g is designed to "fall back" to using a part of the spectrum reserved specifically for this protocol if the rest of the available frequencies are congested. Although this will help little if there are several wireless networks in a dense area (cf. downtown Chicago), it will help a lot for networks like my home 802.11b setup, which starts dropping packets when somebody fires up the microwave, cordless phone, or X-10 video transmitter. These devices should not interfere with the reserved area of spectrum and thus a moderate level of network performance will be maintained.
It just goes to show that sometimes when the FCC serves the interests of their large corporate customers (who undoubtedly begged for the reserved 802.11g frequencies for obvious business reasons), consumers benefit. Not usually, but sometimes.
~wally
Im sorry, but your theories of grease are not valid. I, being a geek, am a very greasy guy! All the pizzas, not showering for weeks, and stuff... so no...
-1000 on your post anyway =p
Despite the recent introduction of higher-speed 802.11g products, the outlook for 802.11b continues to be strong and we forecast that the market will grow 35 percent in 2002, according to Dell'Oro Group.
Support Texas Troops use TXGoogle
The approved standard is tentative. The group will meet again next year to approve the real standard. This isn't coming to market for some time yet. register article
On the plus side, it will be usable in many countries rather than just North America like 802.11a (which is in a different spectrum) and it should be easier to share the RF section with 802.11b.
On the down side, it is in the same spectrum with 802.11b so you won't be bringing it up in parallel without interference and possible slow downs.
I haven't seen any predicted comparisons for cost, real world bandwidth vs. distance numbers or watts/byte numbers. These will be critical for determining which standard wins acceptance in various markets. No, I'm just kidding. The marketing departments of the manufacturers will choose which we use. I am guessing 'g' because it is later in the alphabet and clearly must be more advanced, but 'a' has that whole letter-grade thing going for it. Could go either way.
Any idea if 802.11g is going to be limited in operating radius compared to b?
This inturn makes it compatable and operable between the offical standard.
Wow, that's a nice internship! When I was an intern, I had to scan newspapers and look for advertisements for hair replacement therapies... but I made $7.50 an hour!
No standards body for me!
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
So much for that 802.11a 30ft range crap! Now we get a REAL revision of the wireless standard. 802.11a has just been killed.
I'm wondering how we managed to jump from b to g. Do other versions exist (other than a,b and now g)?
I use Macs to up my productivity, so up yours Microsoft!
Now that something that's 1) backwards compatible and 2) fast fast fast exists, I predict the rise of massive wireless networks. Some professionally built for official purposes, and some built for shits and grins by maniacs...
My reasoning here is that a lot of people who are interested in the wireless network have held off waiting for a faster standard to work with. I personally can't wait to play Rogue Spear on the net from my hammock in the yard with my g4 titanium.
Who did what now?
The thing has a TINY range. I thought that it'd be able to go really far, it runs at 1100 Watts. I can install cool software like HotDog Pro, Java, and other stuff like that. I have detected problems with it though. It tends to run hot. In fact, I have seen water boil in it before! AOL CDs can be installed and they work perfectly. It even has a unique blue flash. The thing is I tried installing NT4 and it crashed.
Weird.
--Josh
There are exactly 42,935,718 letter sized sheets in a square mile.
so, how long does it usually take for hardware to be made using such standards? And, can I turn my old pentium into a server that uplinks to other computers using linux? I don't like having to buy a new router box each time something fancier comes along.
===> An eye for an eye makes everyone blind - MG
"I think G is really going to help move along B, especially in areas where the data rate of B was holding it back," Nogee said.
Yes! Now I can watch my streaming pr0n right on my porch! I can now be a truly high-tech redneck!
802.11g does have a small range of reserved frequencies. I read about it a few months ago, I think it was in EEtimes or PC Magazine.
802.11c
802.11d
802.11e
802.11f
802.11h is already under development!
Disclaimer: I really don't know what any of this stuff is, I just searched on google.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
2.4 ghz SUCKS in residential areas. It just takes a new generation cordless phone to knock your connection down, or someone just has to microwave dinner, and you're offline.
I just hope the cordless phone makers don't decide the 5ghz range "is nifty" for phones when those wireless solutions come out.
... and all I wanted for xmas was a magic 8 ball, but i got this lousy
No, you don't need to prove it...
What type of range is it possible to get in the unlicensed spectrum? I think there are power output limits that prevent you from setting up high powered antennas to deliver long-range 2.4Ghz wireless Internet access. Also, how will the higher speeds affect the range and reliability of the signal (will it be as tolerant of noise)?
ByteMyCode.com: A Web 2.0 code sharing community.
FWIW, Atheros claims that 802.11a works up to 225 feet and provides more bandwidth than 802.11b at any range. Take it with a grain of salt since Atheros makes 802.11a chips, but it's still worth a read.
How did this get rated up as "insightful," rather than obvious?
The correct answer is "I don't know", but I can tell you how 802.11b maintains compatability with 802.11. In order to maintain compatability between speeds in 802.11, all packet headers are sent at 1Mbps. That way, all clients can understand the basics that each access point is sending. When an AP is involved, the clients only talk to the AP and never to each other. So, as long as the client can tell the AP to send it's own packets at the right speed, everything is good.
I'm pretty sure all the info needed for a client to participate in the collision avoidance algorithms, in contained in most basic of the packet headers (destination address, length (so it knows how long to keep quiet for), etc.) Clients don't need to be able to understand each other, or even the data portion of all the packets. The slower hosts will just ignore the faster packets, but will watch the headers in order to try and avoid collisions.
ok seriously, how is this off topic? who moderated this off topic? I think they are off topic.
I know I'm opening some deep wounds in the radio community, BUT,
What about the other users of this spectrum?
Sure people can share radio spectrum between themselves, but there's a big difference between a phone sharing with a microwave sharing with a camera, and a world-wide rollout of a million lil radios sharing with a few private weak-signal radio users.
Yea, it's nice they at least move if they find interference, but what about the "hidden transmitter" effect? (I hear him, he don't hear me.) If I'm listening to an amateur radio satellite, and our new friends start up, would I have to move my antenna away (to keep from overloading the sat), key the transmitter, then move the ant back?
What if I can't send out on the signal cuz it's a listening-only frequency?
Awe heck, it'll work itself out anyways.
Sigh.
-Dan
Gayport Inc. reported that another highlight of the Windows XP and 802.1x combination is that it allows link layer authentication, enabling seamless user authentication. Specifically, corporations will be able to use their active directories and databases to automatically sodomize employees. Gayport stated that this should effectively decrease anal penetration time for corporations. Gayport service is currently available at four major U.S. airports and in many hotel chains. Gayport also recently acquired nine Laptop Pal locations in several airports, from which it provides both wireless and wired Internet connections and associated orrifice services.
FYI, "frequency" has little to do with "range". Pick up an ARRL handbook at your local library.
I realize this may be far-fetched, since it's supposed to be back-compatible, however...
Is there any chance they managed to make WAP for 802.11g not a joke? I would think that would be a major selling point, in addition to the added bandwidth.
When I first read the headline, I parsed it as millibits. Not a really big deal...
I was there. Not in the 11g meetings, but in 802.11 all the same. This is just the latest chapter in a long, very bitter and contentious battle between a couple of chipset vendors who both wanted their pet modulation scheme in the standard, and other interest groups (notably a certain 11a chipset vendor) who wanted it to DIE.
And die it should, really. Backwards compatibility was perfectly possible using dual mode 11b/11a NICs, which will be hitting the market end of next summer. Instead, we have a three-way kludge of modulation schemes and MAC tricks to get higher than 11 Mbps in the very congested 2.4 GHz band.
Very interesting exercise of Robert's Rules of Order, too. At the Wednesday 802.11 Plenary meeting, there was a motion to recind the PAR for the G task group. It was decided this was a technical issue, hence needed a 75% majority. This was appealed, but the meeting ran out of time. The vote would be made on Friday. The rest of Wednesday and Thursday were spent by G probably trying to figure out how not to get offed. Then, surprisingly, one of the G group's biggest foe suggested the winning proposal.
As far as 11a range goes, of course a higher bit rate is less range (with same power). If you operated 11a at the (mandatory) 12 Mbps rate, you'd get about the same range as 11b with its 11 Mbps rate - almost same energy per bit. You want 54 Mbps? It won't go as far at 2.4 or 5 GHz.
The only flaw with 11a at this point is the lack of "harmonization" around the world. We're still working out how to build a radio that can operate in all the authorized bands up at 5 GHz. That's the work of the 11h task group and the regulatory folks.
I did some informal testing with a 2.4 GHz cordless phone and some 802.11b wireless gear and didn't see any effect at all on the wireless link when the cordless phone was used around the equipment.
Bleh!
*HOW* is this off topic? Please? someone? Hasent the person who rated this off topic ever seen a an ethernet network drive server?
The article discuss what many have talked about on slashdot before -- that the current 802.11b standard is too slow. I for one would love to see a faster wireless device (becides 802.11a) but people need to remember that the possiblity of something being faster dosen't make it better. In my university, all connections are maxed at 10Mbit. Of course all the buildings have cat5 and could support 100Mbit, but it was decided a long time ago that the school is not interested in upgrading. I am sure many places running wireless are the same way. Although the 802.11g standard will allow for faster connections in-house, most people won't have anywere near that big of a pipe to the internet to take advantage of the faster equipment. So, everyone stop saying such bad things about 11Mbit. It's pretty fast for most things and the prices are finaly comming down. (That I will thank 802.11a/g for...)
What a wonderfully orgasmically sensational news headline! "802.11g Approved By IEEE 54 mb/s on 2.4 gigahertz". Thank god for geeks.
--
"C line noise" anagrams with "sonic edlin", and as accidental inventions go, grunting "burp" to save file seems thought-provoking.
Not from any 802.11b product I have ever encountered. In fact, the existing 802.11b products I have tried are lucky to get anywhere near 90 ft in a real-world environment.
I think whether 802.11a will be better or worse than 802.11b in real life remains to be seen. If its theoretical range is shorter it may actually work better in practice because there is less interference from neighboring users. And the 5GHz band is a lot less busy than the 2.4GHz band.
is how they manage to squeeze 54Mbps out of it while still staying within the 2.4GHz ISM regulations?
I have a range type question.
:)
I'm in an apartment building facing North. I have a friend about 10-20 floors below me (so at minimum there are 10-20 floors worth of concrete between us, I forget exactly what floor he's on).
I have another friend in another building that is to the south-east of my building, and he's on the south side and 15 floors lower down. So that means he's probably got 1-2.5 times as much concrete in the way.
What are my odds that *any* of these protocols will connect us? Even if we're using directional antennas? And what are the RF 'radiation' hazzards for the people living between us
(There are no tall buildings at all to the north of our buildings, just 1-2 story residential houses.)
The performance of an 802.11 WLAN depends on the MAC protocol as much as the transmission rate. 802.11b employs a collision avoidance scheme in which stations wait a random period after detecting an idle medium. For
People should be more interested in end-to-end throughput, which will improve just as much with changes to the MAC protocol as with changes to the transmission rate.
Tim
No, the biggest problem with 802.11a is that it isn't spread spectrum. Yes, I know that some adherents like to think that FH is SS, but a quick look at a spectrum analyzer will show you how unspread the signal is, full of peaks and impulses. And then there's the 5 GHz question. Four times the path loss, and unwanted gain.
Face it, backward compatibility matters. And for the broader market, that means 2.4 GHz and something that will do "b" in a pinch. One can argue technical merits until you're blue in the face, but what really matters is the market, and if the history of POTS modem development is any guide, "g" is the future.
...-.-
And, for all 3 bands, the use by ISM devices is on a shared and secondary basis to other uses, including amateur radio, vehicle monitoring, etc.
There are restrictions as to power output, effective radiated power, and bandwidth, as specified in 47 CFR Part 15 (which is, of course, Part 15 of the FCC Rules and Regulations). The IEEE has no control or say in it. Thanks to the IEEE, the noise floor just went up again...
So, if your network goes down, bear in mind that it could be due to a number of things well beyond your control, including military radar.
(Oh, BTW, the original title should read "...54 Mb/s" since we're talking about Megabits per second, not millibits, and it's on "2.4 gigaHertz", or GHz., since the unit to denote frequency is named for someone, hence is capitalized.)
Not compatible with other 802.11 devices of course (different frequency, 1/4 rate), but 5 km range!
Disclaimer: waverider employee
The 11 Mbit connection I have running on 802.11b for laptops in my home is terrible for anything but telneting and casual browsing. I would welcome anything that could bring my speeds up close to a _normal_ 10/100 LAN. Wireless is great so that I don't have to retrofit my place with conduit for wire replacement, but if I mp3s can't even be streamed, well...