Slashdot Mirror
The Coming Time for 802.11a?
abhikhurana writes "
This article on 80211-planet.com predicts a real boom in the market for 802.11a in the coming year. An excerpt from the article:
In tests in my SOHO LAN, I found that in real world conditions, 802.11a averaged four times faster than 802.11b. In addition, with its 5GHz frequency, 802.11a avoids the interference slow-downs that b must suffer with microwave ovens, high-end wireless phones, and other 802.11b networks.
Also makes an interesting read for knowing about the technologies which maybe driving the wireless bandwagon in the coming years."
Fresh starters may be more inclined to adopt faster, "cleaner" wireless, but the push will be moving people from 802.11b - having incompatible networks makes buying decisions harder...
Though some will probably opt for both, as many businesses use b, and won't want to spend the money to replace all the cards in all the laptops.
I wonder when Apple will produce 802.11a cards, and if they'll support a & b.
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
This may be slightly off-topic, but it still holds water
How are we going to adopt a technology when MS is deciding for the users what is best.
How about instead of XP deciding to take over for all WLAN third-party software and FORCING you to use an encryption key, let's let the fucking USERS decide what THEY want to do and what software THEY want to use.
Ever since switching to XP (from Win2k) as the host for my WLAN (Dlink DWL-650s in ad-hoc) I have had nothing but poor connectivity.
XP has been reporting that the WLAN is down even if it is working just fine. It won't let me use third-party software to control the WLAN. It forces me to have a network key (it would be different if the range on these cards was over the 25' from the host machine to the furthest reach of the signal).
Just my fucking rant on how MS and their "users are dumb" is really messing w/ME!
How long should I wait to get wireless? I don't want to get trapped in an upgrade loop, like I've been in with computers.
Since '92 I've just been happy to stay 1-2 generations behind to keep the cost down.
Here is a nice comparison of B and A on 80211 planet. Also, a whitepaper for A is available at Proxim Communications. Also, don't forget the FAQ!
My personal feeling about this: The U.S. government should sponsor a 802.11a nationwide network, so we can all have cell phone and data access anywhere, and a provider can 'buy' an area from the government to charge wireless rates for. Kind of like the current system we have in place for land-line phones.
Everyone comes out happy:
the cell phone company has a local monopoly
the customer has access to wireless data and phone everywhere
the government 's pocket gets fatter.
If you don't know what Zoo Blacklisting is, click here.
Anyone care to comment on why this is not prone to problems? Sure Microwaves screw with 802.11b, and cell phones, etc. But who in their right mind thinks that as soon as 802.11a takes off there won't be other devices using that range, like cordless phones, etc... This is going to be a constant problem forever. Since as soon as one device has the right to use a frequency, other devices will be manufactured to use that same frequency...
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
The truth is about halfway down the article, where they acknowledge that 802.11g is coming down the pike with better range than 802.11a, plus backwards compatibility with 802.11b. Any of us who already have investments in 802.11b are going to be more than a little hesitant to rip out that infrastructure and replace it with another incompatible format - when we can get an even better format, with backwards compatibility, by waiting a few more months.
I don't even buy the argument that homeowners just now getting wireless should get 802.11a equipment: they can't take their wireless cards and use them at public or private 802.11b access points. Why pay extra for something you can only use at home, when you can get something cheaper that works all over the US? It would be like buying a cellular phone that only worked in your neighborhood.
What's your damage, Heather?
..especially when you can use them to their fullest.
Other advantages of the 5 MHz frequency are that the same antenna you use for 2.4 can be used at almost double gain (as long as you're careful), since the wavelength is almost half as long you can use the same antenna. The thoroughput kills 11b by a factor of 5 to 1 at max.
Disadvantages... At 5 MHz, walls are a factor. Objects start to interefere more. So on a campsite, 11a will be amazing. In an office, you'll need repeaters. Hardware costs more right now, on par with what 11b cost at first.. then again, you can get 11b cards right now for under $50.. even Orinocos for under $60.
I used to be someone else. Now I'm someone better.
Real life is underrated.
I think we have reached the 'good enough' point with wireless networking. 802.11b is faster than any internet connection I will have in the forseeable future, and performs perfectly well for the small day to day file transfers over the LAN. It doesn't work for large file transfers, but when I need to do those, I pull out the Wi-Fi card, walk the laptop over to the hub, and plug a spare cable into it's ethernet port.
I won't be upgrading until there is a compelling reason, and I can't see there being one for at least the next 3-5 years.
-josh
It's in dual band devices such as this one from linksys http://www.linksys.com/Products/product.asp?grid=2 2&prid=452
My multimedia machine in my living room runs off 802.11b with a music server in another section of the house. When my 2.4 GHz phone rings, the music pauses nice and automatically (well after the buffer runs out). Its a great feature!
Seriously, webcams, phones, baby monitors all can clobber 802.11b pretty badly. I can't wait for affordable dual mode so I can put the multmedia machine at least in the 5 Ghz range. Home users with lots of tech toys are going to be much happier with 802.11a. 802.11g will do nothing for them.
That is my two cents. Of course, the big variable is when 802.11g recieves finalized specs. 802.11a is already there.
One more question for the grou: I have read a lot (for a Business Analyst) about wireless networking and have yet to see a place which explains the "lettering system" used by the 802.11 products. Why are a, b, and g given those names? Are there 802.11c and d awaiting consideration?
Until the 5 GHz band becomes just as crowded as 2.4?
802.11a is not the wave of the future. It's going to be a nice for those hardcore who absolutely need obscene speed and live in an interference-prone environment.
It has to compete against the HUGE installed base of 11b hardware that is *far cheaper* than 11a and is more than adequate for 90% of the people out there.
I was thinking of upgrading to 11a since I happen to be a power user - But that means that the card I bought would be useless on most networks I might roam to (such as my former college's wireless network). In the end, 11b won out because:
a) I already had some 11b equipment
b) My parents had 11b equipment
c) I have never had problems with 11b interference - Spread spectrum is pretty resistant to CW interference (Microwave ovens - People could run microwaves all they want in my apartment and I wouldn't notice any difference on my network.) and 900 MHz analog is "good enough" for me in the cordless phone arena, which means that the most famous 802.11b interference culprit (2.4 GHz phones) isn't present.
d) 11b hardware was a helluva lot cheaper than 11a hardware.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
A 10 mbit 802.11a can cost as much as a gigabit NIC, which isn't too favourable if you're not going to do much roaming. The fact that you have to buy several Wi-Fi cards to get a wireless network together makes the proposition daunting for homes and small businesses. It doesn't have to be fast (or even secure, that's what ipsec is for), but for the technology to become truly ubiquitous, it needs to be priced at commodity levels, say around £10 to £15.
Personally I'm hedging my bets on systems that offload most of the processing to the host CPU like the stuff Microsoft is working on. It allows not only for cheaper hardware, but also gives more flexibility and upgradability (care to upgrade your Wifi setup to 100mbit with a software update?) The only thing that could potentially go wrong with this technology is if Microsoft tries to abuse its position and fails to release open specs for the hardware or releases proprietary (or no) drivers for non-Windows operating systems. However, given their commitment to FreeBSD it's quite possible that they'll go ahead and release some BSD-licensed reference drivers for FreeBSD which can be ported to other architectures.
I belive that you cant legally run 802.11a in the UK or europe
intel had to get a licence for London Fashion Week where they did video streaming of differant shows
not sure about china or taiwan anyone know
regards
John Jones
If I was sitting normal in a chair and using the computer, no problems.
I see this a a bigger push from 802.11b, as the 11a components will now demand the high price, 11b components will drop even more.... eeeexcellent Smithers.
This is not the sig line you are looking for... -- Old Jedi Sig Line Trick
I was a beta tester for a 802.11a product in early 2001. I was attending school at RPI and our test product did not reach through the dorm walls. I couldn't, on high power, reach to the dorm next door. However, with the same company's 802.11b system, it would go all the way around the building. The issue is that 5ghz drops off faster than the 2.4ghz equipment.
The real world:
That said, a small office or home that can be covered by a single unit should work acceptably. I would wait for 802.11g before installing a large number of units based on 802.11a, especially for any core business use.
does anyone actually know of a PCMCIA card that does both Bluetooth and 802.11b ?
that would make alot of people Very happy
regards
john jones
p.s. bluetooth phone dialup when your not in the office and 802.11b for when you are
I own two D-Link DWL-650 cards. The range was never all that great (even in Linux). I assumed it was the fact that I was communicating card-to-card.
Things became much better when I started using a proper AP.
Later on, I needed a WLAN card for my desktop. After a BAD runin with a D-Link DWL-520 that I promptly returned, I tried a Orinoco and PCI carrier. The PCI adapter didn't work to well on my desktop. (Fine under Linux, useless in Windows) I returned the PCI adapter, but because the Orinoco had seemed to give slightly better performance and was supported by Netstumbler, I kept it.
A few weeks later I pulled out the D-Link once again for comparison - At that point I realized just how bad it was.
Side-by-side in the same place, the Orinoco blew away the D-Link. Orinoco reports a "good" signal strength upstairs. The D-Link barely gets signal. Downstairs, the D-Link reports low signal strength IN THE SAME ROOM AS THE AP! The Orinoco is pegged at full strength in this case.
I'm sticking with Orinocos from now on...
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Distance affects usability, of course - if the thing can't talk from the living room to the bedroom, that's a problem. But speed isn't enough to justify the extra cost for most home users.
Business is a different matter - there you often have enough machines sharing a server in the same building that total bandwidth matters.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
If your microwave is interfering with ANY 2.4Ghz product then REPLACE IT ASAP. A microwave in good operating condition should not leak any 2.4Ghz radiation as the entire chamber should be properly sealed and the screen on the front of the microwave should keep the radiation in. Some people freak about cell phones and wlan devices, but the max power output of an 802.11b radio is 100mw for a client card, while a microwave over has radiated power in the hundreds of watts.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
I don't see this happening with 802.11a. The range for a is MUCH shorter than the range for b, and even b is rather short. There would need to be some way to put out a much stronger signal with a to make this effective. Simply put, I don't see a government nationwide wireless network happening for another year or two. The technology still is not there yet. Of course, the rate of change is getting faster by the month now, so my prediction may be more out of date than 640k in 6 months, but time will tell.
"I may be quite wrong." - Socrates
This seems to be the conventional wisdom, but the technical specs indicate that at a given range a is faster, and that they both drop off at roughly the same range.
Can anyone point out any docs that show why a should have a shorter range in practice? Is it just because 5GHz is not as effective at penetrating barriers?
-Peter
"Quick fix will let one avoid interfering with the other"