Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

802.11n Should Be Finalized By September

Posted by Soulskill on from the speedy-process dept.

adeelarshad82 writes "It's probable that the 802.11n standard will finally be approved at a scheduled IEEE meeting this September, ending a contentious round of infighting that has delayed the standard for years. For the 802.11n standard, progress has been agonizingly slow, dating back almost five years to 2004, when 802.11g held sway. It struggled throughout 2005 and 2006, when members supposedly settled on the TGnSync standard, then formed the Enhanced Wireless Consortium in 2006 to speed the process along. A draft version of 802.11n was approved in January 2006, prompting the first wave of routers based on the so-called draft-n standard shortly thereafter."

104 comments

  1. big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    firs post was finalized in July.

    1. Re:big deal by hedwards · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Perhaps you should go back and revise, I think you missed a "T".

  2. Compatibility with Draft-N by nsteinme · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Will the final version be (backwards?) compatible with Draft-N routers and wireless cards?

    --
    call me FOSS im the boss with the sauce and the source
    1. Re:Compatibility with Draft-N by Darkness404 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would think that it would have to be, otherwise no one will use the real standard due to backwards compatibility. Most probably the draft version of N will be about the exact same as the final version of N.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    2. Re:Compatibility with Draft-N by ByOhTek · · Score: 5, Informative

      Or Draft-N will be a subset of N such that N compliance implies Draft-N compliance.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    3. Re:Compatibility with Draft-N by Metasquares · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Which makes one wonder what is taking them so long to finalize it.

    4. Re:Compatibility with Draft-N by Rayeth · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I wouldn't bet on it. Although given the glacial pace that the IEEE has set here, I wouldn't be surprised if nothing at all had changed.

    5. Re:Compatibility with Draft-N by tlhIngan · · Score: 5, Informative

      Will the final version be (backwards?) compatible with Draft-N routers and wireless cards?

      Quite likely, actually. As long as your wireless devices are WiFi Draft N capable. There are two "waves" of Draft N devices (2.5, if you want to go technical). The first was released sometime around 2006 or so, and they were early revision Draft N, the ones that everyone basically said "Avoid at all costs" because of incompatibilities, interference, etc. These are most likely NOT going to work with 802.11n. The "half" wave came shortly after, where we had a flood of 802.11g routers with "extended range" and "MIMO" - they are basically early revision N wireless except re-badged as working with 802.11b/g, and using the N bits to give better range and speed.

      Then in late 2007/2008, came what we know currently as Draft N, when the WiFi Alliance (no relation to IEEE - the WiFi Alliance is a consortium of manufacturers to ensure interoperability) decided to start testing and approving devices based on the final draft spec. These will have the WiFi logo with Draft N in it, being approved for Draft N "standard" and compliance. Part of the requirement was that it was firmware upgradable to 802.11n when it finally came out. Whether or not a firmware upgrade will come out, though is another question.

      Depending on how the WiFi Alliance holds out, they may require that all WiFi-N devices must support Draft N. Or they may just say "screw you all" and make them incompatible.

      The IEEE is the stadnards body behind the spec, 802.11 being the wireless part, 802.3 being Ethernet, etc. They write the spec. Thus, standards compliance includes 802.11b/g/n, which are documents on how these devices are to work.

      WiFi is a trademark of the WiFI Alliance, so technically, calling 802.11? devices "WiFi" is incorrect, as only tested an approved devices carry the WiFi trademark stamp. They approve devices after doing interoperability testing, figuring out that consumers would be best served if devices actually interoperate (and thus everyone can sell more). Thus they created the WiFi trademark, and the approval stamps you see WiFI A, WiFi-B, WiFi G, WiFi Draft N, and soon, WiFi N.

    6. Re:Compatibility with Draft-N by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I would think that it would have to be, otherwise no one will use the real standard due to backwards compatibility.

      Since I've seen Draft-N devices from different companies that had a bloody hard time talking to each other, I have to ask: If it is Draft-N backwards compatible, WHOSE implementation of Draft-N will it be backwards compatible with?

    7. Re:Compatibility with Draft-N by sanjosanjo · · Score: 1

      I think most of the Draft-N hardware has allowed for firmware updates - which could allow you to implement the necessary changes to make something N compliant.

    8. Re:Compatibility with Draft-N by klui · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't draft-N routers have to be updated so they be compliant with final-N? Buying a draft-N product implies the standard is not yet set. So people who bought them "ought" to know that product may not be compatible with the ratified version.

    9. Re:Compatibility with Draft-N by Bakkster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which is, of course, the mistake of releasing, producing to, and buying products based on a draft of a standard: there's nothing standard about it.

      Trying to get compatibility to the draft could prove difficult, depending on the changes. If it isn't there, that's what you get for buying non-compliant hardware. Typical early-adopter penalty.

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
    10. Re:Compatibility with Draft-N by Elros · · Score: 3, Informative

      The problem with that theory is that most products don't plainly say it is based on a draft protocol. They simply say they are based on 802.11N. Any indication that it is a draft is hidden in fine print (if there at all).

    11. Re:Compatibility with Draft-N by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

      Does N stand for "Nigger"? Cause that would make sense: late, lazy, and a half-assed effort.

    12. Re:Compatibility with Draft-N by AlecC · · Score: 1

      Not on the one I bought. Said "draft" on the outside of the box. I knew I was taking a risk when I bought it, but went ahead, and it worked brilliantly. The g connection which had been desperately dodgy became pretty solid with n (router and receiver from same manufacturer). Not rock solid, but dropping out only every day or two rather than several times an hour.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    13. Re:Compatibility with Draft-N by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Funny

      and it worked brilliantly.

      Oh don't worry about that. We'll just fix that in the final spec.

      Yours truly

      IEEE 802.11N technical committee

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    14. Re:Compatibility with Draft-N by LordKronos · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Even if it is there, how many non-techie people are going to know that draft n means "this is an unfinished protocol that most likely will change in the future, possibly rendering this device incompatible with devices based on the finalize protocol".

    15. Re:Compatibility with Draft-N by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's sad that you're subject to the "early-adopter penalty" after purchasing a product that's been out for nearly 5 years...

    16. Re:Compatibility with Draft-N by anonymous+donor · · Score: 1

      Are there any differences between the (then) final draft and the spec that will be finalized?

      --
      fortune favors the lucky
    17. Re:Compatibility with Draft-N by Hasai · · Score: 1

      You're trying to be funny, right?

      Obviously, you're too young to remember SCSI-1.

      --

      Regards;

      Hasai

    18. Re:Compatibility with Draft-N by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Draft-N devices are supposed to be firmware-updateable to the final N spec...or that's what was promised anyways...

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    19. Re:Compatibility with Draft-N by Bakkster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's sad that you're subject to the "early-adopter penalty" after purchasing a product that's been out for nearly 5 years...

      It's sad to expect that purchasing a product built on the first draft of a protocol, rather than an IEEE standard, will be forward compatible.

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
    20. Re:Compatibility with Draft-N by swb · · Score: 1

      The problem there is that the hardware vendors walk away from their products so fast and stop releasing updates of any kind for them after six months.

    21. Re:Compatibility with Draft-N by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think most of the Draft-N hardware has allowed for firmware updates - which could allow you to implement the necessary changes to make something N compliant.

      Most do, but there's a big difference between theory and practice. I notice a lot of older (but still being sold) Draft N stuff that isn't even receiving driver updates anymore (cough, cough, DLink). If a company can't be bothered to fix incompatibilities caused by XP SP3 or Vista SP1, what hope is there for getting firmware to fix incompatibilities with nonDraft-N?

    22. Re:Compatibility with Draft-N by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      Well I remember SCSI-1, cos I implemented lots of hardware and software for it!

      It was compatible - well some subset of the operation was vaguely compatible with some other subsets of some competitors product. Apart from that, it had enhanced performance Yay, better than compatible!

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    23. Re:Compatibility with Draft-N by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1

      It's sad to expect that purchasing a product built on the first draft of a protocol, rather than an IEEE standard, will be forward compatible.

      Though they do write that word "Draft" damn tiny. It's all RANGEBOOSTER N! and N ULTRA RANGEPLUS! in large fonts.

      And even the fine print is misleading. "Built on the latest 802.11n Draft technology!" "Upgrade to the newest 802.11n Draft wireless system!" The precise meaning of "draft" is never explained, anywhere; the word "standard" is only conspicuous in its absence. I know that a person should research, but in a world with programs like Windows Vista and Photoshop CS, people are used to random irrelevant words and symbols being bolted onto things in lieu of version numbers. The word "draft" is no different. It conjures up brief images of a source of cold air, or being made to serve in the army, or college students joining professional sports teams. "Draft" as in "rough draft" is just never thought of unless you already know what Wireless N is all about.

    24. Re:Compatibility with Draft-N by drizek · · Score: 1

      It can rever back to G, so people who don't know what N means probably don't even need it and won't notice the difference anyway.

    25. Re:Compatibility with Draft-N by shentino · · Score: 1
      non-techie people most likely shouldn't be messing around with implementing the standard anyway.

      For much the same reason as you don't try to do surgery without going to medical school

    26. Re:Compatibility with Draft-N by smash · · Score: 1
      *shrug* in the 5 years it's taken for the ratifying authority(ies) to pull their finger out, you could have purchased and de-commissioned draft-N gear.

      As far as draft-N goes, my apple airport talks to a couple of Dell draft-N notebooks, a Thinkpad, my mac mini, and some china-spec draft-N card in my main home PC.

      And in the meantime i've been able to actually stream high-def-ish content over 802.11n...

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    27. Re:Compatibility with Draft-N by LordKronos · · Score: 1

      Uhhhh, yeah sure. That would be nice if they didn't sell the draft-n routers at best buy along with all the ones that are based on final specs and with a sufficiently clear warning about future problems. As it is, they ARE available in the store, and it ISN'T sufficiently clear just what they are buying into, so you end up with people going to the store, looking at the offerings, and saying "I could buy this g-thingy for $x, or I could pay a littler more and get this n-thingy which is faster....I'll buy the better one".

    28. Re:Compatibility with Draft-N by Bakkster · · Score: 1

      Right, and I feel like the producers are the ones most at fault. They should know better, and the name "802.11n" should never have been allowed to be attached to the draft, since it's not an IEEE standard.

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
  3. California Budget by zonker · · Score: -1, Troll

    You'd think these guys were trying to finalize the California budget for the amount of time they've taken fooling around with this mess.

    --

    Large print giveth, and the small print taketh away

    1. Re:California Budget by Ritz_Just_Ritz · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I suspect a lot of companies are gun shy about "rushing" into any standards after the sphincter-busting tactics of Rambus in the JEDEC memory standards fiasco.

    2. Re:California Budget by JCSoRocks · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Seriously. I don't remember how long it took but it always seemed like a/b/g came along fairly quickly. Then n was rumored for a while, then it was finally "drafted" and I got all excited and figured it was only 6 months or a year from being final.... not so much. Here we are 3 and a half years later and I still haven't bothered to buy something based on n because I've been burned too many times by things that don't quite meet the official spec.

      --
      You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
    3. Re:California Budget by ground.zero.612 · · Score: 1
      Citation needed.

      What does one nefarious company involved with a separate standards organization have to do with any other company involved with any other standards organization? Please forgive me if this was the appropriate place to rant about Rambus, Inc.

      --
      "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
    4. Re:California Budget by LordKaT · · Score: 1

      I don't know why you were modded -1, Troll; in the time between the 802.11n standard being worked on and then being finalized, we've had a war end and subsequently being again, a presidential election, numerous state elections, several revisions of Windows 7, two new Ubuntu releases, Duke Nukem Forever was finally canceled, speculative trading of oil causing major financial headaches for the American SUV market, and the banking and housing market bubbles finally popped.

      In fact, California and New York may actually work faster than the 802.11n standards consortium. +5, Insightful, imo.

    5. Re:California Budget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps the poster's point was that given the litigious nature of some of the participants in various standards setting organizations, it's not a stretch to imagine that every dotted i and every crossed t is checked a bazillion times to limit a repeat of this type of gotcha in the future.

      Full disclosure: I'm not a member of either standards committee. :P

    6. Re:California Budget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and Duke Nukem Forever was non-cancelled...

    7. Re:California Budget by tyldis · · Score: 1

      You haven't missed out on much.
      I did try to go the N-route, until I discovered that different devices operate on differetn frequencies. Buying teo draft-N certified products I thought I had a good chance of them working together.
      Turns out one was for 2.4GHz band and the other for the 5GHz band.

      Both were certified and one of them metioned nothing of frequencies outside the box.

      If the standard actually allows this, I don't know. Beware...

  4. So... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Any bets on how many "Draft N" products will play nice with "N" products? (and, in that vein, any boneheaded misfeatures going into "N" because Vendor X sold 15 million "draft N" chips that were a little undercooked?)

  5. IEEE FAIL! by wondersparrow · · Score: -1, Troll

    Seriously, how many years has this been in the works? The tech industry isn't one you can drag your feet in. When you do, people just move forward without you as in this case.

    1. Re:IEEE FAIL! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Since 2004.

      Trouble is, with something like Wifi, where much of the value lies in ubiquity and interoperability, there really isn't a "forward" to move toward without a standard(official, informal consensus, or de-facto standard + clones).

  6. old stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Man, I didn't realize the N draft went back to when nSync was standard.

  7. Hooray, I guess? by the_humeister · · Score: 1

    My computers can't even saturate 802.11g.

    1. Re:Hooray, I guess? by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      However, 802.11n has a much larger range than 802.11g. So while you might not use all the speed, the fact that you can get a much better connection everywhere in your house makes it a better standard.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    2. Re:Hooray, I guess? by samurphy21 · · Score: 1

      I've got two new-ish Macs, and it's absolutely painful to transfer files between them over G. Draft N (dlink router) isn't MUCH better, when you consider how fast USB2.0 or Firewire is, but sometimes I just can't be bothered to hook up the cables.

    3. Re:Hooray, I guess? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Seriously? 802.11g peaks at around 2MB/s in real-world usage, typically closer to 1.5MB/s. I was using (cheap) computers a decade ago that could push more data than this over a wired network. My current laptop can easily handle over 10MB/s, if the link supports that much bandwidth. If your computer can't, then you can pick up a second hand Pentium 3 that can easily saturate 802.11g for next to nothing these days.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:Hooray, I guess? by Lord+Ender · · Score: 3, Informative

      Try streaming HD video, especially when there is some distance between you and your access point. Then you will understand why N is long overdue.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    5. Re:Hooray, I guess? by sexconker · · Score: 1

      3 years ago, I would have killed for 300 Mbps wireless (even if I only got half of that in actual use).

      Today I'm transferring 15 GB MKVs. By the time I'm anywhere near ready to upgrade to N, I'll be moving around 50 GB blu-ray images.

      Running a wire across floors is ridiculous.
      (Can't run it through the wall without cutting into drywall and drilling through the fire block... and this is an apartment...)

      I figure my solution in the near future will involve an eSATA connection.

    6. Re:Hooray, I guess? by hax0r_this · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Unless you use 802.11n at 5GHz, which is really necessary to see most of the speed benefits anyway. At 5GHz the range is pretty terrible.

      I get 2 bars on my iPhone from my Linksys WRT 610N from about 20 feet away through two thin walls (in the bathroom of my one bedroom apartment). The upside is that that particular router has 2 radios, so it can run on 2.4GHz simultaneously, allowing me to access it from outside where the 5GHz doesn't reach.

    7. Re:Hooray, I guess? by hax0r_this · · Score: 1

      Oops, I just actually looked at my phone and I guess its only 1 "bar". Somehow I had in mind that there were 4 total.

    8. Re:Hooray, I guess? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except if you have a MacBook Pro. If you have a MBP 802.11n connects for 10 minutes, then disconnects unless you restart. 802.11g doesn't have these problems. Just Google "Macbook Pro Wireless N Problems", it's been going on for years.

      802.11g isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

    9. Re:Hooray, I guess? by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Perhaps I'm missing something, but don't iPhones only support B/G wireless networks? That would mean you would be only getting the G signal...

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    10. Re:Hooray, I guess? by localman57 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I get 2 bars on my iPhone ... (in the bathroom of my one bedroom apartment).

      Note to self: Never buy hax0r_this's used iPhone. (It's been "flagged").

    11. Re:Hooray, I guess? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, I don't seem to be having any issues on 3 generations of MBPs on any of several different WAPs.

    12. Re:Hooray, I guess? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I get 2 bars on my iPhone ... (in the bathroom of my one bedroom apartment).

      Note to self: Never buy hax0r_this's used iPhone. (It's been "flagged").

      Flagged? Oh so thats what the kids are calling it these days.

    13. Re:Hooray, I guess? by swb · · Score: 1

      Maybe the better solution is getting out of your apartment once in a while.

    14. Re:Hooray, I guess? by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 1

      (Can't run it through the wall without cutting into drywall and drilling through the fire block... and this is an apartment...)

      I live in an apartment I own (saying it like that in case "condo" is not a universally recognized term) - is your problem that you don't own it and so can't alter it? Or is there some other reason? What is the "fire block" you mention? The only fire protection we have is fire resistant grade drywall (thicker and more fire resistant than the drywall for interior walls) but it has many penetrations in it from wall sockets for phone/power/cable to picture hangers sunk into wood studs.

      I've been thinking of running cable myself so I'm curious as to what you see it as a problem - unless it's just the ownership thing?

      --
      The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
    15. Re:Hooray, I guess? by riceboy50 · · Score: 1

      My MBP is working just fine with my D-Link Draft N router. From the Network Utility: "Link Speed: 130 Mbit/s"

      --
      ~ I am logged on, therefore I am.
    16. Re:Hooray, I guess? by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Correct - we rent.

      A fire block is a literal blocking in the wall space that prevents the spread of fire. Without it, all that open air between the drywall layers of your walls is just like a road map for the fire to spread to each and every room.

      A fire block is typically a 2x4. It's not meant to stop the fire, but to prevent your house from being completely engulfed in flames in 20 seconds.

      In my situation, I wanted to drop a line from upstairs to downstairs. The cable line comes in downstairs, and is split to go upstairs. I tried dropping a cat 5 down the hole where the split coax is upstairs. But the fire block is there. The coax was put in then the apartment was built, so it's actually routed through a hole drilled in the fire block. The only way for me to drop a line down would be to cut a hole in the drywall and route the cable around the fire block if possible, or drill another hole for it.

    17. Re:Hooray, I guess? by kayditty · · Score: 0

      that's cute. I get 3MB/s easily over generic 802.11g hardware, and that's not only "real-world," but it's post overhead. 802.11g doesn't "peak around" anything necesarily. you can get around 30Mbps with some devices, and once you take into account the quoted 54Mbps is about "wire" speed (well, for lack of better term), this makes pretty clear sense. but I think this is what the guy meant--he doesn't get 54Mbps. I doubt he meant at all to say he can't saturate it. I can saturate 1MB/s with my 486DX2 over ISA 10Base5.. or, well, almost.

  8. Hmm... discontinued models from vendors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just think... all these vendors have probably discontinued quite a few of those models based on the draft N spec (at least those routers from late 2006 on)... I know Buffalo Tech has discontinued the infiniti N router of mine.

    1. Re:Hmm... discontinued models from vendors by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I know Buffalo Tech has discontinued the infiniti N router of mine.

      There's some DLink Draft-N wireless cards that don't - and apparently won't ever - have XP SP3 compatible drivers.

    2. Re:Hmm... discontinued models from vendors by hedwards · · Score: 1

      I'm personally curious as to how many draft-N routers and other hardware devices are going to actually get updated firmware to handle the final spec. Considering that Nintendo for instance doesn't care enough to be fully compliant with the relevant specs, I'm curious as to how well other devices are going to work.

      What we really need is some sort of a law that says that you can't claim to support a spec unless it's tested with relevant exceptions for small scale hardware producers and hobbyists.

    3. Re:Hmm... discontinued models from vendors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There we go..."There ought to be a law!!!"

      Screw laws, you bought Draft N knowing full well that it wasn't the final standard. And if *your* devices are working OK as they are on the draft spec, what's the big deal anyway?

    4. Re:Hmm... discontinued models from vendors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "dlink" or "buffalo" don't make any drivers, the chipset companies do. The super secret special customizations dlink make involve plastering your screen with the dlink logo.

    5. Re:Hmm... discontinued models from vendors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No laws, please.

    6. Re:Hmm... discontinued models from vendors by Reziac · · Score: 1

      How are the Belkins doing? In the early days of N, they were the only ones that actually worked as advertised. Dunno about now.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    7. Re:Hmm... discontinued models from vendors by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1

      How are the Belkins doing? In the early days of N, they were the only ones that actually worked as advertised. Dunno about now.

      Good question. And one I can't answer. All the Belkins we have are G, as far as I remember. The caprice of a supplier or owner, I guess. As far as general use, all I know is that while we sell less Belkin than Linksys or DLink, I can't remember a Belkin ever coming back.

  9. Oh goody by piphil · · Score: 5, Funny

    Oh goody. Now I can get dropped connections from twice the distance!

    1. Re:Oh goody by DiegoBravo · · Score: 3, Funny

      Twice the distance? so I'll have 4 times the routers to steal internet access?

    2. Re:Oh goody by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eat my 22Mbit 802.11b+ PBCC network!

      Thank you Texas Instruments!

    3. Re:Oh goody by smash · · Score: 1

      Actually, you'll have more than that. Area of the circle = pi*r^2

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    4. Re:Oh goody by brucmack · · Score: 1

      If you use the area of the circle then it solves to 4 times. Replace r by 2r in your equation and you get a result 4x larger.

      In reality the increase will be determined more by the geography of the surrounding area.

    5. Re:Oh goody by kayditty · · Score: 0

      this is assuming the distribution of access points ("routers") is a constant. it's also assuming an ideal isotropic source with some particular beam width and corresponding geography (as mentioned).

  10. Yeah, sure. by FlyingSquidStudios · · Score: 0, Troll

    Right after Duke Nukem Forever is released.

    --
    http://twitter.com/OLDTELEGRAM
    1. Re:Yeah, sure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Well, now Gmail is out of beta ... why not?

    2. Re:Yeah, sure. by genericpoweruser · · Score: 1

      and Wine hit 1.0

      --
      A fool and his lamb are worth two in the bush.
    3. Re:Yeah, sure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and duke nukem forever finally... wait, what? YOUR TELLING ME THIS NOW?!

  11. Yay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    now i can finally use the technology that i've been using for the past 3 years!

  12. ho8o by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    recent Sys Admin around return it Free-7oving climate

  13. No by sexconker · · Score: 2, Funny

    802.11n SHOULD HAVE BEEN finalized over a year ago.

    1. Re:No by YoniX · · Score: 1

      or 3 years ago, based on their glacial speed.

  14. Troll much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Jeez did someone get a little trigger happy with the troll mod in this thread?

    1. Re:Troll much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

      No shit. Not like much of the posts have been top quality humor or anything, but god damn. =/

    2. Re:Troll much? by TheCycoONE · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Clearly someone doesn't want any mention that the standard was delayed.

      They probably think this line from the summary is trolling too: "ending a contentious round of infighting that has delayed the standard for years."

    3. Re:Troll much? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      They probably think this line from the summary is trolling too: "ending a contentious round of infighting that has delayed the standard for years."

      It is a troll - it implies those working on products were in-fighting, when it was the Australian government that screwed everything up, at least in recent history.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  15. Great news by arugulatarsus · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now maybe some networking companies can start releasing wireless N products.

    On another note, imagine how much the nerd herd is going to have to work to sell a netowrk product now.
    Chuck: "OK, you can get this router which is a draft N, but this new N product will do everything the draft N product does for 20$ more"
    Client: "All these letters confuse me and make me belligerent. Can't we only use one letter? "
    Chuck: "Ok, howabout N?"
    Client: "Why not something simpler, like A, A is the best you know."
    Chuck: "Just give me 150$ for the router a 75$ for an extended warranty."
    Client: "Here you go, I am easily parted from my money."

  16. I thought they renamed it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    to Wyfy

    1. Re:I thought they renamed it... by geirnord · · Score: 1

      More likeliy, it's going to be Wifiz

  17. ah, marketing by nimbius · · Score: 2, Insightful

    once again steering the fail-boat that engineering is driving, until she wraps around a phone pole, hits a standard, and kills a company or two.

    "draft" N is exactly why i make sure marketing does not get to see developer mailing lists and content at my slave site. why in the holy hell SHOULD the production standard be compatible, or even remotely similar to, its draft??

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  18. What next? by EveryNickIsTaken · · Score: 2, Funny

    IPv6 will be adopted by the masses?

  19. 802.11o by Serenissima · · Score: 1

    Don't worry, as soon as 802.11n is finalized, technology will have progressed to 802.11o so we'll have to wait another 3 years until that is finalized. At which point, we'll have 802.11p. :)

    --
    Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. But light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
    1. Re:802.11o by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, as soon as 802.11n is finalized, technology will have progressed to 802.11o so we'll have to wait another 3 years until that is finalized. At which point, we'll have 802.11p. :)

      802.11o looks to be free, but 802.11p is used. But given the way 802.11, 802.11a-k,m,n,p,r-z are allocated, they've already gone into the double letters. I'm guessing the missing letters were from committees that didn't quite make it or disbanded.

      Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/802.11#Standard_and_amendments

      I suggest for confusion's sake, 802.11bb...

    2. Re:802.11o by dotgain · · Score: 1

      Letters like i, j and o are often avoided in numbering schemes due to their similarity with digits.

    3. Re:802.11o by dotgain · · Score: 1

      And I'll do everyone else the favour making myself look like a dick here: It seems 802.11i and 802.11j have in fact been used, after a brief search.

  20. Another worthless 'standard'.... by Hasai · · Score: 1

    ....that will be immediately supplanted by yet another 'standard,' once again brought to you by the moronic greed-heads who couldn't come to an agreement in time to get 802.11n out the door before it was already obsolescent.

    --

    Regards;

    Hasai

  21. designing products with draft standards by Bassman59 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I have a copy of one of the draft PCI specifications. In big bold letters it tells the reader to "NOT DESIGN PRODUCTS BASED ON THIS DRAFT STANDARD." Because the very definition of "draft" means that it's not complete and it's likely that the final specification will deviate from the draft in some ways.

    I suppose the standards folks have no real way of enforcing that edict (an aside: the USB Implementers group are particularly toothless), but still -- anyone who buys a product based on a draft spec should not be surprised when it doesn't work with products built to the released spec.

    1. Re:designing products with draft standards by DrGamez · · Score: 1

      I can imagine a small portion of those people who bought draft-N know this, they were just tired of waiting while everyone bickered and fought about what should be the final product. I've considered getting a draft-N router because 1.5mb/s really doesn't cut it for trying to stream anything worth watching on a larger screen.

    2. Re:designing products with draft standards by smash · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile, people have shit they want to get done (eg, streaming pirate hi-def video over their home network) and 802.11draft-N works just fine. Today. And has done for at least a year or two. I'm all for standards, but when it takes 3+ years for a standard to get a rubber stamp, when it works just fine already; something is wrong. From reading TFA, one of the hold ups mentioned was "acceptable co-existence language" mentioned in the draft. Sounds to me like the standards committee is broken.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
  22. CSIRO? by Drathos · · Score: 1

    Does this mean that CSIRO finally signed the Letter of Assurance that IEEE has been asking for?

    --
    End of line..
  23. Sweet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I heard DNF would be released soon, too.

  24. audio faluts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one to notice that draft n wireless results in audio static? Any computer with a wireless N card built in or a secondary PCI card will cause blips and random static to come from your speakers. How has this not been resolved? This standard should not be approved until they make it reliable.

  25. To avoid confusion... by Adhemar82 · · Score: 1

    The final version of the spec will be called "802.11n Forever"