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."

Comments

It's a start, but I'm still waiting.

[Trifthen]

Can we please, PLEASE make the next spec. avoid the overcrowded 2.4Ghz range? Every time I use my microwave, my connection becomes unusable.

802.11 cannot replace home networks

[MobyDisk]

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.

Re:802.11 cannot replace home networks

[lelitsch]

Some thoughts on your ten points

1) 180Mbps is the theoretical throughput if the devices are right next to each other.

Probably not for the ultrageeks, but full motion DVD streams at up to 10.08 Mbps. So for most home users 180Mbps with all kinds of degradation will still allow them to run stuff at speeds where other parts (last mile,...) will be the bottleneck, not the wireless network.

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.

You might blow a few hundred exabyte over your network, 99.9% of people won't

3) The latency is higher (gaming)

If you are playing an MMOG, the latency of your home network pales against the latency outside your house, even if you hook directly into L3 networks.

4) It's harder to configure.

Really? That's a UI problem. I find it easier to configure my wireless than crawl back into the closet I use as a server room.

5) It's less secure.

But properly configured, it is more secure than most people need. And the NSA can listen to your wired network.--Which is why a lot of high security instalaltions use fibre optics.

6) It's constantly changing.

Oh, and wired networks aren't? God, I am old enough to remember CAT-10 10MB, 100MB, Gigabit. All of them needed new routers and occasionally new cables.

7) It is expensive.

How is a $29-100 WiFi router more expensive than a wired one plus a few hundred yards or cable plus ripping open the walls to put in cable conduits? You might not mind blue wires running all over the place, I certainly do.

8) Linux drivers are hard to find.

Ok, but that's on Linux developers. Also, 95% of to population are not running Linux on their home network.

9) ISPs won't support it.
What does the ISP have to do with it? They see my router--what happend after that is my business.