Slashdot Mirror
802.11g Slows Down
Moosifer writes "Computerworld reports that in order to step on fewer 802.11b toes, the IEEE has reduced the actual throughput of 802.11g in its latest (and allegedly final) draft. I think I might keep old firmware on my linksys AP and card so that I can at least pretend I have faster gear." It's been moved from 54Mbps all the way down to 10-20Mbps, more than just a slight change.
How do they plan to market it against 802.11a? The advantage you were gaining in speed in exchange for distance is almost gone now.
So politics again get in the way of technology. Are there are there any firmware options that will allow the higher throughput? Or are we stuck with only a minor improvement?
This sort of political wrangling has gotten in the way of so much decent technology. Wankel, hybrid and fuel cell engines come to mind.
I understand the need for standardization, but it shouldn't limit the technology.
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
Actually, the biggest problem will be with older, buggy firmware, which people will use due to the higher speed. This is not the first time IEEE has made a similar mistake... *sigh*
Karma: Positive (probably because of superiour intellect)
I got my Wireless 11g Router (Linksys WRT54G) and PCI card (SMC2802W) for my pc upstairs and I always connect at 54 mbs (according to the software). According to the artical, it says that the Wireless g devices have to send out a warning to the wireless b devices which is what will cause the drop in speed. I say screw the warning. If a wireless b device messes up, they need to upgrade to g. Instead of kill the speed of g for the courtousy of b devices, but phase out b tech really quickly. I will take my stuff back and just run a cat9 line upstairs instead if I'm reduced below even what my ISP gives me. They need to find another solution quick or I won't upgrade my firmware and those b devices can just take it up the #%@%.
/.ers if I come off mad, but I was really excited about my new toys. I knew the risks of buying a draft technology, but I didn't think that the speed would go down to basicly nill.
I would like to say I'm sorry to the other
No.
It almost seems that the new standard will more accurately reflect the real throughput for these devices, especially in mixed 802.11b/g environments. It's better to lower the expectations now before people purchase and are disappointed. I've read plenty of comments at amazon.com from purchasers of 802.11g access points where they were surprised that "backwards compatable" meant that mixing the b/g would make everything run slower.
"We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
Just plug in a cable. While I admit (by the time this posts, like seven other people before me) that knocking it down below one half of the original throughput is weird, 54Mbps is not neccessary. If I need 54Mbps I'll just grab an ethernet cable.
Normal/casual connections need no more than a megabit per second anyway. Browsing, SSH, IM etc does not require a enormous connection. Maybe if there were a "safe mode" there would be both safety for 11b and speed when only 11g is present in the area.
It appears from the comments here that quite a few people haven't bothered to read the article (slashdot users commenting before reading the article? there's a suprise!).
This is NOT a proposal that's going to slow down all the 54Mbps cards out there to 10-20Mbps, all it's saying is "Hey, we were a little optimistic, these g cards have never been 54Mbps, and it would be a little more honest at this point to tell people that they're only 10Mbps-20Mbps cards."
So hold off on your firmware upgrades if you wish, but you still won't have 54Mpbs wireless!
Jolyon
Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
the IEEE didn't make a mistake.. This spec had to be approved by them and the current 802g products on the market aren't IEEE certified. Now that they got arround to cert'ing it they brought down the speed, thats all.
- what is the definition of simultanagnosia?! I've been meaning to look it up!
802.11b is billed as 11, but it can only do 5. Make sure that you compare apples to apples. Even if the actual throughput is 10 Mbps, it's still double 802.11b's actual throughput.
The post and article compare incompatible metrics, 54Mbps is the theoretical bandwith, vs. 20Mbps measured throughput. The maximum throughput of the draft devices is between 22-24Mbps. The new 10Mbps mode is only when an 802.11b network is detected in the same channel, which is better than the nasty and unpredictable timeslicing that happens with most draft equipment. So... real speed loss = 22-24 to 20. Bad, but not that bad.
-Ryan C.
-Ryan C.
This is a very bad choice.
Right now I have an 802.11b access point that can do 22Mbps with other Dlink stuff. I recently installed newer firmware on it that supposedly made it even faster. The only problem is that the extensions to make it go faster are not standard. Thus, my Linksys card will never be able to connect at 22Mbps.
By dropping the 802.11g standard down to twice the speed of 802.11b they're just causing the market to fragment. Everyone is going to develop different propritary extensions to the standard so they can get the 54Mbps that they already printed on their boxes.
"802.11g" equipment is already shipping. They're just not going to get manufacturers to make their equipment slower. This means everyone's going to have their own proprietary standards and dealing with them in gonna be a bitch.
Life is too short to proofread.
Ratified standard or not the hardware was manufactured and sold by a company making claims to 45 Mbps. I'd just take it back, 40% of the advertised thoughput IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE margin.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
I can't believe it took this long for someone to pick up on the fact that they were comparing to completely different numbers.
The drop in effective data throughput in pure 802.11g environments is only about 2Mbps (from 22Mbps to 20). It's nothing to sneeze at, but it's hardly the 24Mbps drop that the headline would imply.
Granted most office space is/should be wired, but by choosing a place that isn't could save you a lot of money. You might even want to have your business very mobile
Just a thought.
And and incorrect one at that. Cabling is a very minor cost in the total makeup of moving an office. And proper setup of wireless access points (yes, there is more to it than putting an AP on a desk in each corner of the building or wherever you notice a dead spot) will cost far more than dropping cable. And if you really have the density of workstations to make it cheaper to properly carpet bomb your office with wireless, you won't have enough wireless bandwidth for all of your clients to make it usable. No matter what letter you put after 802.11.
Not to mention the fact that your entire network can be taken down by someone who has a $15 cordless phone within a few hundred feet of your office.
Do not fold, spindle or mutilate.
Or more likely they will put in a "IEEE compliance" switch.
Turn it on and you obey the IEEE standard.
Turn it off and you operate at the "full 802.11g" speed.
The only question is what will be the default out-of-the-box setting...
-cmh
Advertisers say the car I bought can do 180 MPH. Just because I can not legally go above 70 MPH on the freeway doens't mean that the advertising was false or that the car is only capable of 40% of its advertised throughput.
Similiarly, I'm sure the devices produced by "Bug Company" can do 45Mbps -- just because that speed is over the standard limit, doesn't make the advertising any less true.
Modems are another fine example of this. Most modems routinely connect as speeds less than their advertised speed -- sometimes considerably less. I've never heard of companies refunding people for their modems because of this though.
The
There's multiple factors that degrade things, a lot of them having to do with channel control and being able to share the connection for multiple users.
However, the beacon has to be sent at a fairly low data rate (so distant nodes can receive it), which means it uses a lot of the access point's time on the channel. The AP's can't receive and transmit at the same time, so this takes up a fixed percentage of the channel bandwidth.