Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

IEEE Approves 802.11n Wi-Fi Standard

Posted by Soulskill on from the lightning-fast dept.

alphadogg writes "The IEEE has finally approved the 802.11n high-throughput wireless LAN standard. Bruce Kraemer, the long-time chairman of the 802.11n Task Group (part of the 802.11 Working Group, which oversees the WLAN standards), has sent out a notification to a listserv for task group members, which includes a wide range of Wi-Fi chip makers, software developers, and equipment vendors. A press release is available now as well. This process began in 2002."

20 of 115 comments (clear)

  1. Umm... ok, thanks. by NitroWolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Gee thanks. Appreciate the timely response, Bruce. I'm glad the 802.11n Task Group was so on this project that they got the 802.11n standard finally approved years after all vendors have already been making products. Yeah, thanks.

    Next time... I don't know... maybe define the standard in a reasonable time frame, not 5 years after the fact.

    1. Re:Umm... ok, thanks. by NitroWolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They built the products early because the IEEE was dragging their feet on the final approval. The IEEE defined the standard exceptionally late - that's WHY the vendors built early. You've got the cause and effect totally reversed.

    2. Re:Umm... ok, thanks. by More_Cowbell · · Score: 4, Informative
      Totally agree with you, but for me, here is the important part (emphasis mine):

      ...--will enable rollout of significantly more scalable WLANs that deliver 10-fold-greater data rates than previously defined while ensuring co-existence with legacy systems and security implementations.

      So, cool. Don't know which I'll be replacing first, my laptop with 11.n or my wireless router - but it's nice to know that any new device will work with the old. (The extra throughput would not benefit me as my cable internet is the current weak link...)

      --
      Experience teaches only the teachable. -AH
    3. Re:Umm... ok, thanks. by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Informative

      You meant the ITU, right? IEEE is an entirely different organization.

      The other thing was the context was a market where there already were a lot of non-ITU standards. V.32 came about as an effort to get modem manufacturers to unify on a common standard after virtually everyone did their own (entirely different, unrelated to any ITU effort) thing to get to 9600bps. Some modified V.29 to make it kinda full duplex, others did OFDM, others came up with even more exotic systems.

      V.32 was finally released, and quickly followed by V.32bis. At this point:

      - Some companies just stretched V.32 a little bit more and came up with V.32terbo. Nobody did this in anticipation of an ITU standard though, obviously, they'd have been happy if it had been supported.

      - Hayes and USR, on opposite sides, came up with V.FC and 56KFlex, neither directly in anticipation of a specific ITU standard but hoping their technology would form the basis of "the next" ITU standard, whatever that was.

      This is different to the pre-N (and before that pre-G) stuff. In the latter cases, the IEEE actually published a draft standard, and the manufacturers decided to go ahead and implement it. The "draft N" routers weren't proprietary technologies designed to compete with other "much better than IEEE standards" systems from rival manufacturers, they were actual implementations of a standard everyone was kinda sorta unified around but which hadn't had the official seal of approval for a variety of reasons.

      So the context is very different. The ITU wasn't wearing running shoes, but it at least put its walking boots on every time the industry called. The IEEE, on the other hand, seems to be content to prance around in very uncomfortable 3" high heels.

      (You were expecting a car analogy?)

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  2. Standard finalized but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    now how long will it be before anyone actually supports the standard.

  3. Yipee? by flipper9 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So what? There have been Wireless-N products out now for quite a long time. Who gives a flippin' **** about the official approval of the format? It's not like the manufacturers will go back and update the firmware on the older devices. They'll just put out new products, brand them as "Official Wireless-N", and drop support for older equipment which may or not work as well.

    1. Re:Yipee? by jdion · · Score: 5, Interesting

      So what? There have been Wireless-N products out now for quite a long time. Who gives a flippin' **** about the official approval of the format? It's not like the manufacturers will go back and update the firmware on the older devices. They'll just put out new products, brand them as "Official Wireless-N", and drop support for older equipment which may or not work as well.

      One of the requirements to have a pre-n modem branded as 'pre-n' since 2007 is that the firmware would be upgradable to the official N standard when drafted. If anything, this will allow a vendor to release the final firmware upgrade for older devices branded on or around 2007, and get on with life.

      We should see at least one more update for older devices.

    2. Re:Yipee? by CastrTroy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just because something is upgradeable doesn't mean that the vendor will actually release an upgrade in a timely fashion, or at all.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  4. Blow off some steam, fellas... by swanzilla · · Score: 5, Interesting
    From the notification:

    I expect to extend the celebration of the success , (while we continue work on the other amendments in process ) when we convene in Hawaii two weeks from now.

    It only took seven years to get this far...may as well go relax.

    I'm very jealous of that time table.

    --
    0 = 1 + e^(Alt something)
  5. This process began in 2002. by Threni · · Score: 5, Funny

    LOL - sounds like where I work. What about these new fangled 3.5 inch disks - are they ready to replace low density 5.25 inchers? You can't rush these things, otherwise there'll be too much choice.

  6. Awesome news! by Tanman · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now they can finally optimize Duke Nukem Forever's network code to utilize this new standard at LAN parties!

  7. Not completely their fault by SuperBanana · · Score: 5, Informative
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/21/802_11n_patent_threat/

    I'm assuming that if it had been as simple as "take their legos and play elsewhere" (ie replace CSIRO patented technology), they would have done so. The article was written before CSIRO refused to sign the agreements, and before they secretly negotiated what amounted to licensing agreements with a number of top manufacturers.

    Interestingly, someone just revised the Wikipedia article by wholesale-deleting any references to patent issues, CSIRO, or their licensing "settlements".

    What is annoying is that I had to give up trying to find information on WHAT the infringements were. Nobody seems to know, or want to say.

    --
    Please help metamoderate.
    1. Re:Not completely their fault by X0563511 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The talk page...

      I encourage other wiki users to look at this diff and help determine if this edit is unfounded or not.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  8. Another standard approved today by NetRanger · · Score: 4, Funny

    In related news, the same body has approved a special security packet encapsulator consisting of pigmented lipids that bond the rolled packet together, with a special imprinted signature to establish non-deniability of the transmitter and ensure the packet has not been intercepted and examined by third parties.

    The standard was submitted for approval in '02.

    That is, 0002.

    --
    -- We live in a world where lemonade is artificial and soap has real lemon.
  9. vendors are part of IEEE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    They built the products early because the IEEE was dragging their feet on the final approval. The IEEE defined the standard exceptionally late - that's WHY the vendors built early. You've got the cause and effect totally reversed.

    And it's not like the vendors had anything to do with the delay. They certainly worked together in a harmonious fashion without trying to push their own technological agenda into the working group. /sarcasm

    Who do you think was in the IEEE effort? It was the vendors themselves. Just look at the 802.11 member list:

    http://www.ieee802.org/11/Voters/votingmembers.htm

    It was the members themselves that couldn't decide between the competing technologies (TGn Sync and WWiSE):

    http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/news/article.php/3490926
    http://www.networkworld.com/net.worker/news/2005/020705netleadside.html

    The IEEE is not some ivory tower institution sending down standards from the clouds like Zeus and his lightning bolts. It is made up of members, and those members are sponsored by their employers to work on these standards (and there may even be a few "independents" as well).

    The IEEE took a long time to come to a consensus because the vendors (through their paid employees) took a long time to come to a consensus.

    1. Re:vendors are part of IEEE by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 5, Funny

      The IEEE is not some ivory tower institution sending down standards from the clouds like Zeus and his lightning bolts.

      So it's not like ISO.

  10. Re:IEEE Stinks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    All IEEE 802 standards are available for free:

                    http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/
                    http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/portfolio.html

    Besides, what's wrong with them charging for it? Even a non-profit has bills to pay.

    (And 802.11-2007 is 1184 pages.)

  11. IPV6? by sadler121 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Are there any non-apple routers that support IPv6 out of the box? Upgrading from 802.11b/g/a to n would be the perfect opportunity to make sure the consumer router market is ready for IPv6.

  12. Good news by stokessd · · Score: 4, Funny

    I just went down and told my router, it blinked it's little lights in approval.

    Sheldon

  13. Re:Breaking Products by owlstead · · Score: 4, Insightful

    FROM THE FUCKING ARTICLE AND A POST ABOVE.

    For those who haven't read until the end of the boring article, let me just put in the last sentence:

    "According to the Alliance, users can expect future Wi-Fi products to be fully compatible with todays products."

    Moderators, wake up and read the actual article before modding anything up.

    Nom du Keyboard indeed. Lire le Screen?