Apple Clarifies 802.11g Controversy

Wireless Spider writes "A couple of days ago there was a controversy over the 802.11g data rates and supposed changes in IEEE specification. Apple has clarified this controversy, stating that nothing has changed in the spec. It seems the article from Computerworld was somewhat misleading. Quote from an Apple Vice President: "802.11g is still a 54Mbit/sec standard," Bell told MacCentral. "802.11b is 11Mbit/sec, but your actual throughput is somewhere between 4 and 5-1/2Mbit/sec. The number that's quoted is the data rate that's used between the radios (raw data rate, which includes the protocols etc.)" After reading this article featured on Macworld, 802.11g transfer rate controversy meaningless, says Apple, it seems clear that the people at Computerworld didn't do their homework for the article featured on May 22. Also, there seems to be a lot of politics between 802.11g and a supporters, and that every article posted on the Internet about this subject might not be true, or could be politically motivated."

Comments

Re:The downside as I see it...

[sargon]

If you had bothered to think this through or do some background research... I guess that is too much to ask of most Slashdot readers.

We in the IEEE are NOT trying to confuse people. You obviously have no idea what standards bodies do.

You should peruse our Web site (www.ieee.org) and look at the history of the 802 committees and working groups. If you had done this, you would have discovered that there are different groups of people working on different aspects of networking (we call them "working groups"). Occasionally one working group discovers that a new working group is needed to pursue something which is beyond the scope of that original group. We do attempt to coordinate our work, but that is not always possible. There are several different working groups under the 802.11 committee. The 802.11b Working Group got its work done first.

Again, go through the IEEE's Web site. You might actually learn something.

Re:Apple?

[sargon]

Why is this the IEEE's fault?

What is wrong with the spec? Are you even QUALIFIED to comment on the spec? Can you tell us WHY 802.11g is a bad standard?

Have you even read the 802.11b spec? It is available for free at the IEEE's Web site.

Why don't you read that, then come back and tell us what YOU would change to give us a better spec.

...and you're lying through your teeth too

[SuperBanana]

Lets step back a bit

Okay.

I was on the commity that voted for this

Since you didn't manage to even spell "committee" correctly, I doubt it. I also doubt it since a google search on your name turns up bupkus.

I work for Apple

Hey, so does the other guy. Small world.

but this person is not on the commity.

I agree it's probably unlikely, but how would you know, given the only thing ID'ing the poster is an email address? You're not exactly "Mr. Credibility" posting as 'Anonymous Coward', either, bub.

there is only one member from the us. And her name is Tracy McNeal (she works for Xerox).

Well, that's funny, because I can't find any such person via Google, trying things like ' "Tracy McNeal" Xerox' or ' "Tracy McNeal" 802.11', or ' "Tracy McNeal" IEEE'. Go fish, bub. Oh, and I don't think Xerox makes any 802.11 equipment, although I could be wrong. A google search wasn't too helpful.

I work for Nokia

Oh? You just told us you worked for Apple. Pick a company, will you?

802.11g is still going to suck.

[hackus]

Ok,

Fine. But I would like to point out that the 802.11g spec is in the 2.4Gighertz range, regardless of the contrversy, it would seem to me with all of the communications gear licenses for this spectrum range, that it is going to be HIGHLY dubious that your going to get the range or the speed benfits from g, even with no changes to the SPEC or how it is interpreted.

Contrast this with 802.11a which is in an entirely different Spectrum range, which IT OWNS, specifically for wireless networking.

My guess is 802.11a is still going to have more practical use outside a battle of the specs, than 802.11g.

I find it dubious that the range increases by 802.11g could be significant over the 802.11b standard with regards to both of them operating in the 2.4Gighertz spectrum.

I can use my 2.4Gigahertz cordles phone, my wireless 2.4Gighertz Blue Tooth enabled mice and keyboard, printer...

but I bet your network throughput in such an environment with 802.11g is going to suck rocks with such a crowded spectrum in the real world.

-gc