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)."
Will we all have to ditch the metal jewelery, as not to be burned? :)
I always figured it'd be batteries that would be the solution.
Really good, long lasting, no special treatment needed, juice boxes.
Pretty Pictures!
Wireless technology is great.... when you absolutely need it. Take the Conference Room scenario, whats wrong with a high port density switch under the table, accessible via a central panel? You end up with a 'spiderweb' of Cat5 cables, but with wireless, you still end up with all the power cables.
Yes, its useful to avoid snaking a cable from your desk to your bed in your dorm room, but is it a necessity?
Or have consumers bought into the "I need my data everywhere" ideal promised by the wireless people (Centrino! Get it, you'll be a hipster Blue Man Group Guy) and the constant bombardment of high speed wireless access ads from the phone company (Verizon)?
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 ?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
One Solution that /nerds seem to find suitable is to login to whatever access points are chocking your channels and change their settings.
I know, its not exactly ethical, it is legally dubious, etc.
But, since most people rarely change the default admin password, you can't argue with the results from switching people off your channel, or reducing the broadcast power of their WAP.
Mostly though, the issue is that WAPs aren't 'intelligent.' They aren't spread-spectrum, they can't automaticall channel hop because they can't predict how good/bad your reception will be... There's a whole host of technical challenges to making them play nicely together.
Here's a super nerdy pdf with equations, pics representing signal intensity/overlap. If it doesn't answer your questions in a highly technical matter, I don't know what will.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
I imagine we'll wind up with some sort of consolidation. We'll have something similar to phone companies with wireless. A regulated monopoly actually seems the most efficient here. I'd say the best example is radio stations. They are regulated so that they don't interfere with each other. We'll probably have wireless "markets" where different companies work. And at least here two or three could co-exist in some markets. And since competition among wireless providers means an area is more attractive to businesses, then gov't will maybe subsidize tower-building?
2. 802.11a does not use the same frequencies as b and g, and has more spectrum. Unfortunately, the wireless manufacturers aren't promoting it, but even if the complaint above - that there are only three distinct bands and therefore you can't have more than three networks in one place - was actually true, it is an actual solution.
3. The complaint noted by the article is false. While it is true that there are only three distinct, non-overlapping, slices of spectrum allocated for 802.11b and g, you can have more than one network using the same slice of spectrum, at the cost of efficiency and speed. It is not the case that having a network on, say, bands 1-4 suddenly means that no other networks can use that spectrum, either theoretically or practically. The more networks run on those bands, the poorer performance will be, that's all. In reality, the chances of the performance decrease being so bad that it actually makes more of a difference than your DSL's bandwidth is relatively low, especially in the US where 1.5Mbps is considered a really good connection.
So, to recap. Wireless works. It could be more efficient, but as sold, currently, it's more than up to the task. The proof of the pudding is that people are actually going out there and setting up their own wireless networks, and keeping them. We're not facing any real problems yet.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
All the appliances in your home are battery powered? I bet she puts up with cords for a variety of things, even the television. Of course, most of those are hidden down the edge of the walls and behind the furniture, etc so I see your (hers) point but only somewhat.
;)
It's not the wires that are a problem, it's the builders philosphy of where to put outlets and what to have "outletted".
The solution is just modern home design with some better plug-age in the normal areas. The problem is, it is only in the last few years that ethernet and coax cabling to every room has become sort of common in new residential construction. Most places it is somewhat doable as a retrofit, others it is not or exceedingly difficult. Another problem is the aversion people have to floor as opposed to wall outlets, because it forces a somewhat fixed furniture location. A dictatorship like an office can get away with it, but most homeowners wouldn't want it unless it was camoflauged somewhat or they could be content with their initial furniture layout and add in the ethernet/cable outlets where they fit the best. Yes, work, but maybe worthwhile work.
And besides, it's always nice to have an excuse to get out the sawzall!
From what I hear, Intel is planning to introduce WiMAX any day now. One of the big changes is that it will use licensed spectrum in some modes. Hopefully mortal people will be able to purchase a license. If that's the case we'll be able to have some recourse if someone causes our carrier to noise ratio (C/N) to drop to an unacceptable level. 2.4GHz is mostly unlicensed space, so there's not much you can do about it.
"Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
Okay, it's sorta' like that. I used to have an economics teacher that always used to say, "If socialism worked, I'd be a socialist, but it doesn't, so I'm a Capitolist." He said that if communism and socialism worked (which would only be possible with leaders who truely did everything in the best interest to the people), then people would have pretty good lives, but people with power get corrupt, and so those societies don't work. So we turn to the more Laze Fare (I know, I misspelled it) ideas because they at least work better.
Anyway, if we didn't have the constant pessimism that regulators (of any technology) would abuse and misuse their powers, then we could get all of the frequencies regulated and probably be just fine. But, since various regulation groups tend to be bent one way or another due to various large interested companies, the unregulated seems like the best choice to us...
For certain applications, regulated sounds fine. In others, like in private homes, it'd be horrible. My solution: offer companies that are willing to pay extra the ability to use regulated frequencies to do their networking, and let the rest of us have at it in the unreg spectrum.
GentryDigital.com - A Digital Photography Education
Does anyone know how to go about fighting a regional WISP for illegally boosting their signals? The one in my town is doing this, and I'm interesting in what actions to persue.
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
The amazing thing about wireless is that people don't turn the power down on their WAPs. This would
A. Reduce people from seeing/wardriving/logging onto your wireless connection. ie. better security
B. Reduce interference with other WAP.
Certainly it isn't easy to determine a level- but the wireless guys should include software with the setup wizard that help to do this. Put your laptop in the furthest place from the WAP- set it- and it should adjust it down.
Right now- everyone is screaming at the top of their lungs- and they complain that they can't hear themselves think.
I live in a rural area- there is one other WAP I see- so I don't have many issues. I do however put my WAP in the back of my house so I cannot access it from the street- and I also shut my WAP off when I am not home. When my alarm gets set- my home automation system shuts off the WAP. How is that for security and reducing interference?
"regulated" is not the same as "owned and rented out".
Yes it is. On what basis will the regulated channel be allocated and by whom? For instance, at the de-regulation of the EU (de-regulation meaning here: no more state owned/controled cell phone companies), phone European wireless telcom companies acquired spectrum for tens of billions of euros. I think this is how much the wireless spectrum is worth and how much the authority (public, private, company, city or not) will have to manage. Do you have a budget of a few thousand (or few millions in strategic places in big cities) dollars/euros to rent exclusive access for the spectrum in your tiny area?
Amateur radio (at least in the USA) is regulated, but not owned or rented out. Unfortunately it has too many strings attached to the licensing with regards to banning encryption and commercial use to make it a viable WiFi replacement. That doesn't mean there couldn't be a licensed amateur radio-like band set aside for commercial and home WiFi use. It would just mean the responsible operator would need to take and pass a modest test to acquire a license and be responsible for the care and operation of the stations under his callsign. It would also do away with the chaotic nature of the 2GHz spectrum where you have absolutely no idea who the 20 people with access points around you are or any recourse to contact them in order to resolve a frequency dispute without going door to door.
Yes.