Slashdot Mirror
Is There Too Much Enthusiasm Over Wireless?
lukOh asks: "in the US, 802.11b/g (2.4Ghz) devices use an
83Mhz-wide frequency range; in-use channels spanning 22Mhz and centered on one of 11 5Mhz steps (badly named as "channels"). This means there should be no more that 3 networks in close proximity, 5 'channels' far from each other, to avoid harmful interference. Now, in the middle of the mixed area where I am, the number of usable WLANs (SNR>20dBm) has gone from 10 to an unworkable number of 20, in just one month. Has the community/the market overestimated the practicality of wireless networks? Are we generally relying too much on such a young, IMHO immature technology made on 'startups hope' and broken firmwares? How can this mess possibly be handled in a working environment, especially the moment your boss asks you to give him access to 'the wireless'?"
"Access points can be easily detected, but the same isn't always true for every single client (or Bluetooth device) searching or using a network. Bluetooth itself employs the same 2.4Ghz range with 1Mhz-wide channels and much less power. To avoid interference a device jumps channel-to-channel, when the currently selected one is busy.
Most WLANs are managed by less-than-perfect SOHO access points. Connecting to an AP in such an environment is a gamble (even from 1ft away), especially when: WPA/WPA2 must be used; 802.11g stability is a dream; anywhere up to 7 networks are on the same 'channel' (1 and 11, being the most used, are standard on many devices); and now 'channel wars' are very common (i.e. 2 or more users concurrently hunting to set a free channel for their network, making the entire range unusable for hours)."
Most WLANs are managed by less-than-perfect SOHO access points. Connecting to an AP in such an environment is a gamble (even from 1ft away), especially when: WPA/WPA2 must be used; 802.11g stability is a dream; anywhere up to 7 networks are on the same 'channel' (1 and 11, being the most used, are standard on many devices); and now 'channel wars' are very common (i.e. 2 or more users concurrently hunting to set a free channel for their network, making the entire range unusable for hours)."
"Are we generally relying too much on such a young, IMHO immature technology made on 'startups hope' and broken firmwares? "
We're relying too much on an unregulated spectrum.
I have to troubleshoot a network timeout problem that doesn't happen in wired locations I support, but the wireless one times out when a certain application isn't used for about 10 minutes.
And the wireless printer there suddenly decided forget how to get an IP address from the wireless router.
It's not a happy time in Wirelessville.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
If your device uses batteries then wireless makes more sense. If it's something that you don't ever want to replace batteries for, then you have to plug it in. At that point, you may as well plug it into the non-wireless network.
Back in my day, we had vt100 and 9600 baud, and we ran long serial cables or keyboard extension cables if you needed to be able to compute while wandering around your dorm room or a lab. How much real progress has been made with the WWW and 802.11 ?
The difference is, I don't think my wife wants to have a giant cable following her around that she can trip over, while she is reading up on her Soap Opera Digest while watching TV in the living room.
The difference is, the Internet is not just for geeks anymore. It is for everyone. And "everyone" does not want cables all over the place, they want a nice, clean, liveable space, and wireless gives them that. They don't really give a flying rats ass if they only get 2.5 Mbps instead of 7Mbps, because they don't know any better, and they have no logical reason to anyways.
Wireless is a tool and can be great when applied appropriately. It is not the answer to everything as some would like to think.
I work for a college and once or twice a year someone brings forward the idea of a mobile cart of laptops for a roaming classroom. All laptops using wireless networking.
It sounds great until you find out they want to 30 students doing graphics or medical imaging at the same time. Of course we mention that it may not perform up to their expectations and that they should do some testing. They never follow through with the testing.
I'll say it again. Wireless is a tool and can be great when applied appropriately.
Keep the Classic Slashdot.
Others have described this as "The Tragedy of the Commons." Have a stretch of pasture where anyone can graze their cattle for free, and it'll soon be overgrazed. Have a stretch of the spectrum that anyone can freely use, and it'll become overused, so much so that no one gets any benefit.
I saw that in a town I visited where the water was unmetered. A local told me that at first it seemed a good idea. Water was so cheap and abundant, why go to the cost of metering and billing by usage? But unmetered led to waste and waste led to a search for new sources that turned out to be expensive. The result was that everyone, whether they wasted or not, had to paid sky-high water bills.
I hate to sound like a scold, but we need to make like good little hobbits and not trash our Technological Shire. We are going to have to discipline ourselves not to waste what's free. If wired can do the job with a trifling more effort (and probably less cost), we need use wire. Reserve wireless where it's necessary or particularly handy.
--Mike Perry, Untangling Tolkien
Just wait until wireless power is available...
Wireless power is available today. The problem is capturing it and converting it. This is something that plants have gotten very good at over the past several hundred million years.
..or a more simple solution (and an answer to the Original Poster) is good ol' human co-operation? If someone in the area is willing to host a WAP, contact them and build a network bridge, not only extending the strenght of the network, but also the availability and range, instead of setting up your own, paying for the equipment, connection, etc.
Part of me hates the idea of Regional WISPs for this reason, they'll come in and wreck everyone's private networks. But part of me will also realize that the people who don't need to host their own WAP, won't, and that'll make the whole area a more network friendly area.
Once some of the hype dies down, networks will get better, but for now, just grit your teeth and talk to your neighbor. God forbid you get some free internet access out of it, or pay a nominal fee to help with his bandwidth bill.
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
Wireless will only dominate where data security is not a real issue. Wireless is still too insecure and will always be less secure than wired networks, regardless of the encryption protocols used.
This does not work.
WiFi works on unlicensed spectrum, companies cannot claim it as their own... that spectrum is for all to use however they please within the limits set by the relevant agencies. Trying to bury the new guy by boosting your transmitter's output would most likely violate the peak radiation limit and get your transmitter shut down if not brought back within compliance.
What would be really useful is moving WiFi towards true spread-spectrum modulation to reduce performance degradation from multiple full and partial overlaps. The main issues with this would be extra complexity, longer channel scanning/sync times and yet more bandwidth (but at a lower mW/MHz density) per useful channel.
After a year of wireless I have just finished moving back to a wired home network. In retrospect it seems like a loony idea: why replace a reliable wired network with a whole bunch of expensive equipment that provided less performance with far less reliability?
Using your laptop on the couch or on the deck has great novelty value, but is useless from a work or ergonomic perspective. Throw in interference, inevitable drop outs, and the fact that real world performance is no where near the '54Mbs' marked on the box and it all adds up to an unappealing package in the home.
if it weren't for a pair of legitimate concerns that all the home users in a neighbourhood have like:
- ISPs putting ridiculously low monthly bandwidth limits on users - like mine, 10Gb/month down... If I download one Mandriva install DVD, that just about uses it up! Add in that Finnish Star Trek spoof, and I'll probably be getting a phone call saying I'm downloading too much.
- ease of setting up a network where your LAN is private, but the wireless router will allow other LANs to be set up... then people could reasonably share a single access point.
When I set up my network 2 years ago, there were 2 other detectable wireless networks. Now there's 10; 1 is open.
If I could be made to feel that my home network is reasonably secure (with wireless), and I didn't have to worry about download limits, then mine would be a public access point.
When I park somewhere to borrow Internet access, more often than not, the majority of WAPs are Linksys on channel 6. If it's a spot I might use again, sometimes I'll log in (l:admin p:password) and sort out the mess, putting some of the APs on 1 and 11.
I believe WAP manufacturers (the big three especially) have a responsibility to at least default each unit to a random channel (1, 6, or 11). Even better, have the WAP scan for and use the least cluttered channel on power-up.
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
really to practically use ethernet for portable use you wan't an ethernet socket with virtually every mains socket. One per room is really far from enough.
also ethernet is more awkward than mains to split which can be a pain unless you wan't a switch in every room or many seperate drops to every room from a huge central switch. With mains outlets you just wire em all in paralell.
and then there is semi-permanent stuff, suppose a room has a couple of mains sockets and you wan't more but can't afford to have proper wiring done yet. you run extention leads behind furniture from the most conviniant sockets which nearlly always have multiple gangs. and if not you can always hide a powerstrip somewhere.
now try doing the same with networking. you need to go from the outlet you wan't to use to a hub/switch as its probablly only a single outlet. then you have to arrange power for that switch (another box and wire) then you have to plug in long ethernet leads. then you either have to have a lot hanging out or use couplers as ethernet extention leads are rare.
fixed wire ethernet is going to be a pita for portable stuff unless you literally blanket the place with outlets and connect them all back via huge conduits or trays to a central point. Most people talking about home ethernet only seem to talk about a port or two per room and often all on the same panel. I'd think for a reasonable sized living room 4-8 points with some of them being doubles would be more reasonable if you wan't conviniant plug in anywhere.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
wires are a pain only to clueless lazy slobs.
BTW Nicoli Tesla had wireless power working in the 20's... he even was building towers to service a HIGE section of his region until they realized there was no way to meter the power and sell it.
tesla still wanted to go ahead, his investors backed out.
I got 1000BaseTX to my machine and can xfer huge media files instantly. you go ahead and stay with your loser speeds of 10 - 54mbps oh and that marketing tripe about "speedier" wireless at @x speeds is pure unadulterated bullshit for morons that believe marketing stickers.
you go ahead and think thatwires are a pain, I find wires to be the edge in lacking latency higher efficiency and greater speeds always.
I would sugguest that you read the FCC Part-15 rules that all WiFi equipment operate under.
To Quote:
15.5 General conditions of operation.
(a) Persons operating intentional or unintentional radiators shall not be deemed to have any vested or recognizable right to continued use of any given frequency by virtue of prior registration or certification of equipment, or, for power line carrier systems, on the basis of prior notification of use pursuant to 90.63(g) of this chapter.
(b) Operation of an intentional, unintentional, or incidental radiator is subject to the conditions that no harmful interference is caused and that interference must be accepted that may be caused by the operation of an authorized radio station, by another intentional or unintentional radiator, by industrial, scientific and medical (ISM) equipment, or by an incidental radiator.
(c) The operator of a radio frequency device shall be required to cease operating the device upon notification by a Commission representative that the device is causing harmful interference. Operation shall not resume until the condition causing the harmful interference has been corrected.
Most users believe that (c) is the "first-come-first-served" clause, but it actually refers ONLY to the primary user of the frequency, the ham radio operators. All secondary users are subject to (b) which is that you must accept any interference from a type-approved radio, including that which may cause unintended operation.
If you are ramp up your power, you are no longer type-approved, and can be subject to (c). As long as your equipment is type-approved, or under the EIRP power limits, you have as much right to the frequencies as anyone else.
Note: This does not allow you to specifically construct a "jammer" or simply change frequencies specifically to interfere with someone else. That would be willful interference, and WILL land you in civil court. If you ever end up there, be prepared to show that you made a good faith effort to mitigate the interference issue, and that there were specific technical reasons why you needed to be at the frequency you were at...
I've been using wireless in the form of packet radio for almost 15 years and using aironet gear (the guys cisco bought) in production since 1998. While it's true that there are a lot of networks in the air most of them continue to function despite the interference. Isn't that strange??? no it's not ... all you need is a good enough piece of hardware to pick the sound from the noise. Perhaps more importantly I am writing this over a 5 meg full duplex wireless connection that gets fast internet to me from 13.2 miles away and hasn't dropped a packet in three years!!!
If there are 20 networks in range of you, why aren't they all doing the mesh thing to maximize bandwidth and get some redundancy too? This is just like with OSS - everybody wants to "homestead the frontier" instead of realizing that it's not a frontier anymore, and cooperate with what already exists. And those who are smart enough to do so want to secure the hell out of their networks too, not share with the neighbors at all. Just human nature, I guess.
The lack of organization is really inefficient. I'm surprised there aren't more organized free community networks nowadays; I really thought that was going to happen more, and that the big corporate empires wouldn't be as efficient about covering large areas with hotspots and then charging big fees to use them. A lot of hams have some sense of duty to use their skills for community service, but a lot of wifi hackers don't, apparently.
Unfortunately you mistake what you're paying for. That $45/month isn't for the local link, it's mostly for the transport between your ISP and the rest of the Internet. Your scenario B has you paying $45/year for access to... well, nothing really. Only those computers associated with the same wireless access point as you. Basically exactly what you'd have if you set up an 802.11b access point of your own that wasn't plugged into a LAN. Now you have to go about getting your access points connected up to the rest of the Internet, and that costs money. Just like your home AP requires a router and connection to your ISP to let you talk to the Internet, a wireless service provider's access points require peering and transit service from a backbone provider or peering point to let the people attached to them talk to the Internet or they're just isolated LANs.
Obviously you use your computer differently than I do.
I have a laptop. 75% of the time, it sits on the desk, right next to the router. But it's that other 25% of the time that made my $30 wireless router worth it. Being able to yank the power plug and usb hub, and pull the laptop onto the couch while watching tv. Or reading slashdot, deciding I want to take a dump, and hauling the computer onto the pot. Or when the wife has company over, so I want to go take the computer and hide in the other room.
Why mess with all the hassle of setting up HPNA, or running wires, when you could just buy a $30 router and it works ANYWHERE in the apartment, and you are free to move around?
Sure, I'll be the first to admit that there are problems with wireless, just like everyone else is saying. Speed is slower, and overcrowding, yeah yeah. But I don't think it's overhyped -- I use it because it's cheap and convenient. That's not hype, it's quality. And if the high quality means that the rest of the non-geek world catches on and wants to use it, well, so be it. Sure, it could have the side-effect of lowering the quality slightly for me, but that doesn't mean that there's too much enthusiasm. It means the world has caught on to something useful.