Slashdot Mirror
802.11g... It's Official
JoeBuck writes "This article in CommsDesign reports that the IEEE has officially approved the IEEE 802.11g standard, as well as another standard (802.15.3) for shorter-range, very-low-power operation.
Two other standards designed to improve compatibility between different vendors' access points were also approved."
I triple E, 8 Oh 2 point eleven, G.
Yeeaa. Fo shizzle my wi'ahless using nizzles, wi-fi all day players.
Fizzle pizzle
802.11g operates at the same frequency as 802.11b. The good news: existing antennas and other range extension techniques should work fine (Pringles can, anyone?). The bad news: interference is going to be a nightmare. In heavily-populated areas, it's common to have a dozen or more legacy 802.11b signals, which tend to hog the bandwidth that would otherwise be available for .11g. Add in microwave ovens (which interfere massively on the same band), and many people will be lucky to see even 20 Mbits/sec.
The security is also a mixed bag: although the WEP mess is improved, security is still going to be a headache, particularly for people who want to roam safely.
Here is the link to IEEE
a l.html
http://standards.ieee.org/announcements/80211gfin
ENJOY
Victory is gained, not in knowing your opponents next move, but in preempting them.
An important question that I didn't see adressed in the article is what about products that are out now? Is the standard significantly different than, for example, apple's airport extreme? Being involved in the communications industry I know standards basically come down to which company wins the "no let's do it my way" fight (e.g. the cat 6 cable standard). Who was the winner in this case?
Hansel USA - Chut up and read!
802.15.3 last I heard wasn't really "approved" by the Bluetooth SIG. In fact, the whole 802.15 working group was trying to take over engineering aspects of Bluetooth from the Bluetooth SIG and leave the SIG to handle marketing, compliance, branding..etc.
But that didn't apparently happen because Bluetooth didn't want to wait X years for the next standard. Also, IEEE has a nasty habbit of ignoring backwards compatability when taking over a standard (we didnt design it, so who cares).
So, now we have this new, high rate, low power, WPN, that is supposed to be backwards compatabile with 802.15.1 (which is IEEE code word for Bluetooth. They built the 802.15.1 around the existing Bluetooth spec, but _changed_ it a bit).
Yet, no where, have i seen, an engineer say " 802.15.3 IS COMPATIBLE WITH Bluetooth". Maybe i missed that somewhere. Anyone know if this WPN will work with the present day number 1 WPN on the market?
Either way, this is really cool technology. High bandwidth, cheap, low power WPN means wireless KVM switchs among lots of other cool gadgets.
-malakai
-Malakai
A Dragon Lives in my Garage
This story kind of explains the speed thing. The actual throughput speed has not changed at all since 802.11g first came out.
Happiness is like peeing yourself. Everybody can see it but only you can feel its warmth.
How is it that I can go down to Fry's and buy a wireless router which supports a standard which hadn't even been approved? Or a DVD writer that may or may not be supported tomorrow, and which may or may not work with my DVD player? Or a graphics card which I may be able to be heard over if I scream loud enough, or which may play my games without crashing me to the desktop every two seconds.
Sure, competing standards a A Good Thing, but only if the companies that espouse them are willing to stand by them until the consumer has gotten their money's worth out of them. I constantly worry that my growing DVD collection will only be useful as a set of dinner plates in the near future, because of some new and exciting standard which the industry wants to force on me.
Growth, prosperity, innovation, yakkety yak. All I want is to pay some money and have something useful for a number of years. How many people are getting rich suckering us into the latest and greatest technology every year?
OK, it seems that there are a *lot* of people who either don't read the articles closely, or in the case of the last one posted on Slashdot, don't differentiate between "radio data rate" and "data throughput".
:) Although I do hear rumblings about drivers possibly surfacing soon - fingers crossed.
On ordinary 802.11b gear, the maximum "radio data rate" is 11Mbps. Once you account for the inherent loss in throughput because of the uncertainty of the medium (air), and the fact that the protocol was designed to accomodate this uncertainty, your actual maximum "data thoughput" is about half of that - around 5Mbps. 11Mbps 802.11b != 11Mbps throughput, it never has, it never will.
The same goes for 802.11g - the maximum radio data rate was, and _still is_ 54Mbps. However, the throughput is again slightly less than half of that, in the 20Mbps range.
The reported "change" to 802.11g to "20Mbps" media frenzy stemmed almost entirely from simply clarifying that the actual "data throughput" was about 20Mpbs, *not* that the radio data rate had changed, been knocked down, whatever.
You get roughly 20Mbps "data throughput" in a pure 802.11g network - and again, similar to 802.11b, 54Mbps 802.11g != 54Mpbs throughput.
A 4x increase in throughput using 802.11g over 802.11b is nothing to complain about. Now, if we could get Atheros 802.11g drivers for Linux, I'd be a much happier camper
Brad
Eight Oh Too Eleven Gee What does the future have instore for thee? Is it good? Is it bad? Will it make Bill Gates mad? Does it route and will it ping? Will it help find porn for my ding-a-ling? Eight Oh Too Eleven Gee What does the future see? - Ra Hahn - Where Ends the Sidewalk
The great thing (to my thinking) about 802.11g is not the 54mpbs (which realistically is a throughput of only about 20-25mbps at best) but rather the power requirements.
Portable users are and always will be the mainstay of the Wireless Networking market and as performance machines come out the fight to keep battery life up is also going strong.
The Pentium-M and it's chipsets help this a great deal (but don't get me started on Centrino, that's just a marketing scam). However, one of the big winfalls for portable users will be the prevalence of 802.11g networks. They require half of the power of an 802.11b network and transmit data about 4 times faster.
This is the real prize you earn for switching to 802.11g.
OK, once again.
802.11a: 5.4GHz operating frequency, 54MBPS data rate. Uses OFDM modulation, similar to DSL and HDTV VSB.
Good things about a:
-more channels than at 2.4HGz=more users simulataneously
-less interference from bluetooth and microwaves
-more advanced modulation standard=more data in less BW.
Bad things about a:
-a lot harder to manufacture: you can't even use the common FR4 substrate. Testing is more of a pain
-the modulation standard requires higher quality (more linear) transmitters
-5.4GHz experiences more attenuation, so less range
802.11b: The old reliable: 2.4GHz operating frequency (the same as a P4!), with 11MBPS data rate. Uses CCK, which is a massaged QPSK modulation method
Good things about B:
-most commonly avaliable type
-WiFi certification for interoperatiblity
-can use lower cost ic and materials. Testing is easier.
-longer range than A with less power (better for laptops)
Bad things about B:
-lower data rate
-more 'congested' spectrum
-CCK is less effecient in spectrum usage
-less channels available
802.11b+: Almost nobody has it: TI's PBCC modulation that gives 22MBPS on normal B. PBCC is an optional capability for G.
Good things about B+:
-it is/was available earlier
-Was cheaper
-Pretty much B, only a $10 more expensive.
Bad things about B+:
-I bought it because I couldn't wait for G
-Nobody except TI made chips that support PBCC
-Really, think of it as G-, not B+
802.11g: Same frequency as b, same modulation as A
Good things about G:
-backwards compatable
-easier/cheaper to get more linear transmitters for 2.4GHz than 5.4GHz.
Bad Things about G:
-no WiFi interoperability certification yet
No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.