Slashdot Mirror
802.11n Spec Still In The Air
Vitaly Friedman writes "Standards for the hotly anticipated Wi-Fi successor haven't yet been agreed upon. Where's that leave all those early-bird products? 802.11n is a highly anticipated successor to today's Wi-Fi, promising a huge performance boost. The draft spec promises to deliver data rates up to 180 Mbps, which could make wired home networks unnecessary and should allow high-definition wireless video streaming. At issue is whether the draft spec is far enough along that companies can make products that will provide that performance but still be compatible with each other and with older Wi-Fi equipment."
I don't care what they settle on. If I can get 180mbps from one part of my house to the other, without pesky wires - I want it sooner rather than later.
putting the cart (the product, in this case the routers) before the horse (standards).
nothing could possibly go wrong!
Can we please, PLEASE make the next spec. avoid the overcrowded 2.4Ghz range? Every time I use my microwave, my connection becomes unusable.
Read: Rabbit Rue - Free serial nove
Cute!
[/sarcasm]
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
The trouble with those "up to" specs for wireless devices is that they're achieveable only when nobody else is using the spectrum. Pumping HTDV around your house is likely to work only when you're some distance from anyone else using that band.
If it's gonna be such a huge change, why not increase the version number to 803.0 or at least 802.12?
It really doesn't matter how far the spec is, as long as the basics are there, they can do a firmware update to bring the products in line once the final spec is released. This has happened all over the place.
That's what having firmware updates is for.
It's like how it was with LattisNet, then 10BaseT.
Or 802.11g. Everyone's bucking for market share, to be the first ones on the block, to entice you with speed.
-Compatibility? Who knows.
-Backwards compatibility with 802.11b/g? Who knows.
-Data rates that are what was advertised? Early tests say no way, not even close by b/g standards.
-Firmware all nicely baked? Nope.
-Non-CardBus capability? Dream on.
-Low-power chipsets? Nightmare on.
-Test regimens? No.
-Test equipment? No.
-New cellular distribution capabilities? Who knows? It's not a standard yet.
-Requirement that it has even a modicum of internal security like WPA2? Ho ho ho....
-Any open source motherboards? You wish.
-Resplendent ubiquitous deployments? Not for years.
-Faster than b/g and EV-DO (not EV-DOa)? Probably.
Weren't we here about four years ago? Didn't anyone learn any lessons? Ok, it's about early marketshare. It can't be about anything else.
Curse of Lomo? No, Curse of MIMO.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
I understand that this offers more bandwidth than a traditional 10/100 wired netowork, but what about local bandwidth? With this your LAN traffic is getting broadcast over airwaves, and if enough folks in your vicinity use this won't it crowd out the frequencies and subsequently lower performance?
56k modems anyone?
0xA reasons 802.11N is not likely replace home networks any time soon.
1) 180Mbps is the theoretical throughput if the devices are right next to each other.
2) Even then, you STILL won't get that speed. A typical cat 5 cable and switch will give you 99.9% of the theoretical max.
3) The latency is higher (gaming)
4) It's harder to configure.
5) It's less secure.
6) It's constantly changing.
7) It is expensive.
8) Linux drivers are hard to find.
9) ISPs won't support it.
Please reply to continue the list. There has to be at least one more.
It'll be close. You might get enough bandwidth out of this for hidef video ... 1080p/60 prefers 135MBps to look good. Given a max of 180MBps, the likelihood that you'll deliver that kind of bit rate over any distance is not good. Lower res formats will probably be fine, but the so called 'true hi def' won't. I guess we'll all still wire up gigabit networking or wait for the next generation wireless networks for our ultra cool hi def wireless entertainment.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Anyone care to recall the happy days of analogue modems and the pre-ratified 'standards': Courier HST, K56flex, X2 and all that?
It must be difficult to take the time to ratify standards when the manufacturers are forcing themselves out of the starting gate to meet customer 'I want it now' expectations.
Buying a 'pre-n', wifi enabled laptop with Blu-ra..er..HD-D...er...whatever... is the true mark of someone living on the bleeding edge.
AT&ROFLMAO
The draft spec promises to deliver data rates up to 180 Mbps, which could make wired home networks unnecessary
So untrue. I have the fortune of running my wired lan at gigabit speeds which is very nice and skip free while streaming and still being able to use the network for other high bandwidth operations at the same time. Not to mention the problems that will continue to haunt wireless for some time.
"What problems?" you might ask. Well, let us start with security. While the methods and keys used to lock wireless networks continue to grow stronger, it is still easier to get onto a wireless network then it is to sneak into someone's apartment and plug into their network like you would have to do with a physical connection. There is also the interference concern. In areas of high population density, especially apartment communities, you have to start worrying about interference from nearby networks. The larger these communities are, the fewer separation between channels available to avoid the interference problems. You can also get interference from other devices on the same frequency. I have heard of varying degrees of problems with 2.8 GHz phones and wireless B/G networks.
I do not think we are going to see an end to wired networks just yet.
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
Speaking of which, I would like to say that I genuinely appreciate all early adopters that make it possible for technology to quickly advance without me having to spend an arm and a leg. Thanks to LOTS of people with disposable income, the PC's that I buy at my local thrift store at $25/each are FANTASTIC! I don't know what all of the wealthy geeks are using their new fancy equipment for, but I don't care! If not for them, I wouldn't be able to know that I don't even have to look at the specifications for old machines these days because they always do whatever I need. Not that I'd ever use it for anything remotely important, but I'm hoping to see used PC's hit my local thrift stores soon that incorporate "outdated" 802.11b technology (which works fine, of course). Thank you, rich geek consumers!
Also, I've been using computer networking wireless technologies since before the 802.11 standards, starting with the old CISCO Aeronet stuff in the mid to late 1990's. I do appreciate improved throughput up to my current router's 802.11g 52 Mbps, but before I spent any more money on new wireless networking gear, I would need some assurances of improved latency, resiliency to interference or placement effects, and range.
I understand some of this comes down to equipment choice, for example my metal-caged powerbook doesn't get very good reception, while my desktop with its external antenna does much better, and I understand I can use repeaters or buy better antennas, but it doesn't take a lot of fiddling with a wireless network to improve its performance characteristics to make me just want to plug in.
The draft spec promises to deliver data rates up to 180 Mbps, which could make wired home networks unnecessary
I don't think so. There will always be the need for wired networks. Reasons range from security to speed (180 Mbps? Pshhh... What about gigabit ethernet?). And with structured wiring built into the walls, there are no pesky cables on the floor.
Thank God I got my Netgear 802.11n Draft aka Pre N equipment yesterday. Not only is it cutting edge and way ahead of the curve, it also promises 300 Mbps speeds! w00t!!!!
Plus they say it's interoperable with all the other 802.11n gear so there!
Well, as long as I only have a 512/256 kbps net connection, why would I need anything faster than 802.11b?
Get your own free personal location tracker
You still need either a reason 0) or A)!
I don't care what they settle on. If I can get 180mbps from one part of my house to the other, with wires - I want it sooner rather than later.
...what are we going to do when we run out of characters in the alphabet for the 802.11* protocols? Do like the tropical storm/hurricane name-givers and move to the greek alphabet? 802.11iota?
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
Most people I know use wireless systems simply for the use of the internet. I realise that many people could use this speed for thier home network stuff, but it won't matter for a typical broadband connection. A typical broadband connection being a cable connection at 5 mbps, 802.11b more than suites the home user's needs. I have trouble seeing this as more than a petty excuse to sell more expensive hardware to an unknowing consumer.
Not a single word about security?
The reason I took down my wireless LAN was NOT because of speed, nor the fact that roving interference from my/my neighbour's microwave ovens would hose the link. It was security, plain and simple.
Have they addressed this, or is it still crap like WEP that can be broken easily by some dork with a laptop and a wireless card?
No way in hell this will replace wired LANs.
Once you hit 802.11z, it rolls over and all wireless connections have to ripped out in favor of 802.12 compliant 100Base standard wiring.
Let's pray it never comes to that.
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
WTF? Why was this moderated as a troll??? Here's a link to the equipment. They're claiming all of the things he stated including 300Mbps. He may have been joking, I don't know, but it definitely isn't a troll.
You need a new microwave. Your microwave should not be letting the waves out of the cooking chamber. You will have cancer in a few years.
*ALL* microwave ovens leak some RF whenever they are running. The only practical way to stop them from completely leaking RF is to unplug them.
They also typically run at 2450MHz +/- some margin of error and full of harmonics too. They are nasty, very high power 2.4GHz transmitters radiating several hundreds of watts of pure EM crapwaves. Your 802.11b/g toys are transmitting maybe a tenth of a watt, and have very sensitive receivers in order to get useable range from such miniscule transmit power levels.
The whole 2.4GHz band is the garbage pit of the microwave RF spectrum. I find it totally incredulous to see so many companies trying to sell 2.4GHz wireless networking products as viable, reliable business-grade equipment. It's not. It never will be. It's a farce. The 2.4GHz spectrum is for toys, not tools, and everyone who tries to rely upon it for any mission-critical business is a fool. The fact that most 2.4GHz equipment works as well as it does is more by accident than intentional design. The networking portions and RF modulation/frequency-hopping techniques are great technologies, but the 2.4GHz RF band is a killing showstopper (5.8GHz isn't too far behind in the downhill plunge to the bottom of the septic tank either). When the day comes that some other chunk of the spectrum (preferably somewhere in the 900-1000MHz range) gets set aside for unlicensed wireless networking only, and abso-freakin-lutely no other devices are permitted to operate there, then you'll begin to see wireless network gear that can actually deliver robust performance and reliability too.
PS: Regarding your cancer concern... literally everyone will get at least some small amount of some form of cancer in their bodies over time regardless of environment or diet.... unless they die young of something else first.
What about UWB?
It does not intefere with 802.11g and targets a -minimum- of 100 Mbit/s at 10m and USB2 like rates within a short distance. I've read about chips that achieve 100 Mbit/s at 20m and that are already sampled.
That's a great headline... nice subtle bit of punnery.
In-LAN communication, such as NAS devices, wireless security webcams, etc etc.
My karma makes buddha cry.
If you've got more than one computer on your LAN, and you ever communicate between them, then more speed on the LAN is good whatever the speed on your upstream link to the rest of the network. If you've just got one computer, and you use 802.11foo simply as a way to avoid running cable (maybe you've got a laptop you want to move around the house with without hassle), then the extra speed isn't much good.
Clearly, you get more benefit from fast LAN speed if you've also got fast upstream speed.
This makes the idea of a central home server for storage much more attractive. Store your vids and music centrally and use the fast network to copy or stream it to remote stations.
It also make simple TiVO or other PVR transfers much quicker.
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
The oft-maligned wireless networks are not much more insecure than their LAN counterparts. And a wireless network secured with WPA or WPA2 can be more secure than most of its wired counterparts. Few people take the time to implement things like IPsec on the wired networks, so anyone with an Ethernet cable and port can connect. Of course, it's not the same as someone squatting outside of the building, but it's still not very secure.
"make wired home networks unnecessary"?
I really don't see any logic in using wireless networks for desktop PCs, which normally don't move away from their desks, and most likely can have a network cable pulled to them, cause those PCs already need electricity cables anyway. The only good use of wireless networking is imo for portable devices, like laptops or maybe even MP3 players. Yea, it would be fun if MP3 players all had built in wireless communication systems, lol. And seriously, would anyone replace a wired gigabit network with a wireless 180mbit network? Well, I probly will ADD a wireless router to the network here soon, so my brother doesn't have to run to a network cable with his laptop, but I won't remove the wires from my desktop PCs.
Kaetemi
I have plenty of speed 802.11g running about 34Mb but I'm more concern about security. 128-bit is good but I'm looking for 256-bit greater, better logging of who is using or attempting to use your network, better authenication so no one snoop on my wireless network. These issues with security is what stopping large enterprises from adopting wireless for their internal networks and I 'm on that boat also.
I don't see the big deal about making the throughput 10x greater than 802.11g.
The big issue should be improving the security of WLANS.
What happened to 802.11i? The energy spent on getting 802.11n an approved standard should be spent on improving wireless security standards - not making it easier for people to capture MORE packets faster in order to break your encryption scheme!
There is no overestimating the security of not being able to access a network. Presuming it's firewalled, if you can't access it, you can't intentionally do anything to it. You have to wait for them to come to you.
Cables will always be more reliable than wireless. The question is application. If you have a box on a table, you don't need wireless. If you have a laptop that you want to move around with, than wireless makes sense.
New homes are wired with Cat-5e and fiber-optic and they are well justified in doing this. You can run a completely wireless telephone system as well. But it still isn't as simple and robust as having a phone jack or two in every room (especially when the power goes out).
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
This'll be great way to connect my Windows Vista box to my 1000 inch holographic display. DNF might even be out in stores around that time! /sideswipe
Procrastination Man strikes again!