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)."
No one else is using it.
"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.
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.
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.
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
..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
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.
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!!!
Dude, if you're gonna shoot, shoot. Don't talk.
Besides, nobody may understand what the hell you're talking about, but some will pretend they do, just to score some karma. Hell, you might even get a response that reads like it was lifted directly from a rejected fanfic script for ST:TNG!
Geordi: True, a 1-6-11 spread will maximize the spectrum with minimum nodular-crossinterference, but a triple-stepped 4 channel spread will remodularize the wifi matrix-
Riker (adjusting uniform): which would maximize headerless throughput and give us another 10 Teracycles on the core processes!
Picard: Make it so.
Troi: I'm feeling a sense of accomplishment here.
Chewbacca: Arrrr!