Slashdot Mirror


Fast Wi-Fi's Slow Road To Standardization

CWmike contributes this excerpt from Computerworld: "For a technology that's all about being fast, 802.11n Wi-Fi sure took its sweet time to become a standard, writes Steven J. Vaughan Nichols. In fact, until September 2009, it wasn't, officially, even a standard. But that didn't stop vendors from implementing it for several years beforehand, causing confusion and upset when networking gear that used draft standards from different suppliers wouldn't always work at the fastest possible speed when connected. It wasn't supposed to be that way. But, for years, the Wi-Fi hardware big dogs fought over the 802.11n protocol like it was a chew toy. The result: it took five drama-packed years for the standard to come to fruition. The delay was never over the technology. In fact, the technical tricks that give 802.11n its steady connection speeds of 100Mbps to 140Mbps have been well-known for years."

30 of 140 comments (clear)

  1. Not the first time by causality · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Betamax vs. VHS, HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray, now Wi-Fi draft N versus finalized standard draft N.

    Open standards are a good thing. They avoid these kinds of problems. They promote interoperability. They also force vendors to compete on the merits of their implementations of those standards instead of competing on the basis of who is better at customer lock-in. It also lessens but does not remove the competition of who is the best at marketing.

    If you care about assigning blame, it lies squarely on the people who purchased draft-N hardware. Whether they realized it or not, they were using their wallets to vote for this behavior. Those purchasing decisions reward this kind of behavior and make it profitable. Give companies the choice of agreeing on a standard or making no sales and they will agree on a standard every time.

    --
    It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    1. Re:Not the first time by daveime · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So I guess you'll not be using any of that "not-yet-finalized" html5 stuff, or any beta software from Google ?

      After all, no one should invent anything until it's been discussed in committee for a minimum of 10 years, until the technology it is attempting to standardize has already been superseded by something better !

      Thank [deity-of-your-choice] they didnt invent the wheel using open standards. It probably would have had 6 sides, none of which are equal in length, a 100 page operating manual, a concession to Pantone that it should only be made in RGB color 255,147,97, and an alternative implementation involving Microsoft's .innerHTML

      Anything that takes longer to describe than it does to make is probably better not describing. Just use the bloody thing and be done with it.

    2. Re:Not the first time by MorderVonAllem · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well first thing that comes to mind is D-Link and Linksys with their "airboost" and whatever the other one was called. Want to take advantage of the faster speeds you need a specific router or wifi-card/usb dongle/whatever...

    3. Re:Not the first time by Bakkster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So you've been running slow b and g 802.11 while the rest of us have been screaming along on draft n for 4 years. You must feel real kewl.

      I don't do anything that requires 802.11n speeds wirelessly, currently. My PC and XBox are wired Cat 5e, and I don't stream HD video to my Droid or eeePC. So I've been saving money using acceptable hardware, I do feel kewl!

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
    4. Re:Not the first time by causality · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So I guess you'll not be using any of that "not-yet-finalized" html5 stuff, or any beta software from Google?

      Terrible examples. I really don't think you appreciate the difference between open standards and proprietary "standards". That, or you understand it perfectly well but find it inconvenient for your argument, PR-style.

      HTML5 is intended to be an open standard, so in this case you're making my point for me. There was a draft standard of HTML5 released January 2008. This too was produced openly. A vendor who produces something based on this draft standard is using the same specifications that are available to all other vendors. The same will be the case with the finalized standard.

      That has not been the case with the proprietary draft-N implementations. Each vendor has their own version of draft-N. It's very similar to Microsoft's practice of embrace-and-extend. Interoperability with another vendor's implementation is not guaranteed. If you can't get Vendor X's equipment to operate with Vendor Y's equipment, or suffer reduced performance, neither vendor will file that as a bug and fix it. Instead, both will tell you "we recommend you use our products for all your networking needs". You think this is just like HTML5, that you're really comparing an apple to an apple here?

      Most of the beta software that Google has released for download has been open source (Chromium, for example). Open source is no good if you want to implement a proprietary standard. It's great when you want the world to see precisely how something was done so they can interoperate with your software or port it to other platforms. Google obviously understands the value of this. That again serves to reinforce my point.

      This is just another example of a phony debate tactic. If there's not a term for this, there should be. The procedure goes like this:

      1. Ignore any points that the other person made. This is important. If anything the other guy said contradicts your position, just pretend that you didn't notice. Best foot forward, even at the expense of intellectual honesty. Besides, this way you don't have to waste your time with refutation and can get right down to expressing your predetermined conclusion.
      2. Proceed to find anything the other person said that is generally true, and does apply for the specific examples that person gave. Then take the general truth to an absurd extreme.
      3. Pretend like this says something about the validity of the general truth. Whatever you do, don't acknowledge that it says anything about your ability to interpret the general truth within a reasonable perspective.
      4. Declare that the general truth is inherently absurd. State outright or imply strongly that it must be false in all cases. It was false when you took it to an absurd extreme well beyond its intended scope, so it must be totally useless in all cases. Right?
      5. Congratulate yourself for your ability to handle argumentation. For extra points, assume that the other guy was a total idiot, that your trivial objections never occurred to him, and that the existence of such trivial objections could not possibly have indicated that you missed his point.
      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    5. Re:Not the first time by jedidiah · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've been running wired GigE for 4 years.

      I also have fiber in the same cable strand, so I could go A WHOLE LOT FASTER.

      So your lame bragging doesn't really sound so hot.

      Wireless has always been a train wreck compromise for people too cheap to set up a proper network.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    6. Re:Not the first time by daveime · · Score: 2

      I'll try to respect your handy punchlist of debating etiquette, and just focus on one aspect of your reply.

      That has not been the case with the proprietary draft-N implementations. Each vendor has their own version of draft-N. It's very similar to Microsoft's practice of embrace-and-extend. Interoperability with another vendor's implementation is not guaranteed. If you can't get Vendor X's equipment to operate with Vendor Y's equipment, or suffer reduced performance, neither vendor will file that as a bug and fix it. Instead, both will tell you "we recommend you use our products for all your networking needs". You think this is just like HTML5, that you're really comparing an apple to an apple here?

      It is *exactly* like html5, because the individual proprietary vendors will all use their own fallback techniques where they can't or haven't been able to implement the correct standard method yet (of course, as it's still a draft, they have no choice).

      To take a quick example, the <video> tag.

      So we will have the situation where you see additional tags inside the video start / end tags to allow graceful fallback to a default method, such as Windows Media Player applet for MSIE, VLC Player applet for Firefox etc.

      Even IF they fully implement the video tag correctly, who exactly will reformat all their existing video collections in AVI / FLV into open source format (.OGG ?), and what benefit will it give them. Absolutely none.

      And for sure, even if and when the standard *is* finalized, that won't be before all the big players have bartered with the comittee for concessions on alternative allowable formats, and we'll end up with a video tag that needs to play not just open source formats but also AVI, WMV, FLV and all the popular formats of the day.

      Provided of course in the next N years, an even better video compression format comes along and despite the agreed upon video tag, we'll end up with an <ms-video> tag, an <flv-video> tag etc etc.

      In an ideal world a lot of things would be great ... unfortunately we live in the real world where innovators cannot wait 5 years for technology to be debated, formalized, bartered, compromised and generally muddied into yet another worthless piece of documentation that is out of date before it's ever released.

    7. Re:Not the first time by cyber-vandal · · Score: 3, Informative

      Or alternatively you could spend your time doing something enjoyable. The reason wireless is more widespread than wired in home networking is because it's convenient. If you have loads of free time to wire up your house good for you but don't knock those who'd rather do something else instead.

    8. Re:Not the first time by causality · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I agree that a five-year wait is a big problem, especially for things that develop at a fast pace like software or networking. But, to me that doesn't mean we should scrap the whole idea of open standards and open protocols. It means we should improve the processes by which those open standards are produced. We should profile them like any algorithm and look for bottlenecks. We should do that with a ruthless willingness to eliminate those bottlenecks.

      I bet that there are no technical reasons why it takes 5 years or more to come up with an HTML standard. I bet that there are lots of political reasons for that. I bet that a small team of engineers could do a better job in less time than a bureaucratic committee.

      And for sure, even if and when the standard *is* finalized, that won't be before all the big players have bartered with the comittee for concessions on alternative allowable formats

      I think you identified the problem right there.

      unfortunately we live in the real world where innovators cannot wait 5 years for technology to be debated, formalized, bartered, compromised and generally muddied into yet another worthless piece of documentation that is out of date before it's ever released.

      Nothing is stopping them from innovating. They just can't legitimately call their independent innovations "HTML 5". That doesn't bother me. But what we get for that are ubiquitous yet proprietary things like Flash and all of the problems that come with them. I still think it'd be better to fix what's wrong with the processes we use to create open standards.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    9. Re:Not the first time by daveime · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's funny you mention Flash.

      It's one of the few things that really "just works" across all browsers, regardless of the underlying O/S. Perhaps that is why the web as a whole has adopted Flash so readily, (for better or worse), and why I feel we'll never be rid of it even when html5 is "live".

      Now it's proprietary, which means the owner gets the control over what the user can see or not see (source), but let's face it, it doesn't take Adobe 5 years to bang out an even better version, what are we on now, version 11 or 12 ?

      If, and I know it will never happen (just hypothetical ponderings), Adobe open-sourced it tomorrow and released the complete data format specs, so that the underlying instructions and objects could be expressed in say XML, do you think we'd need html5, or indeed html markup at all, ever again ?

      Just trying to think what you could do with html5 that you couldn't already do with flash where the applet / player read from an XML "data" file that anyone could edit without the need for proprietary IDE's and design software etc.

      The more I see of html5, the video, canvas and drawing support we've been missing for so long, the more it looks like a SWF object animation format.

    10. Re:Not the first time by Renegrade · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, unless your ISP is hitting you with false data of some sort, your 6mbps connection is definitely faster than 802.11b.

      The effective throughput of wifi is only a fraction of it's media speed - on the order of ten to twenty percent. It's also adding measurable latency to the connection. And upwards of a few percent of packetloss, in most installations.

      A 10 mbps connection should be able to transfer at 1,250 short kilobytes per second minus overhead. Not 125 or 250.

      Granted, you're better off just wiring quality cat5e. You can run 10/100/1000 megabits over it, with a strong guarantee of future proofing against upgrades to your internet connection (ADSL2+, that is, ITU G.992.5, can handle 24 megabits/sec in the highest profile for instance), as well as the ability to hook in devices like NAS/fileservers and such. Also you don't have to worry about the fact that your legacy B gear is running WEP, which someone else is using to access your 6mbps connection to download something the FBI is very interested in right now.

  2. Drama...? by ScoLgo · · Score: 3, Funny

    I love this line; "The result: it took five drama-packed years for the standard to come to fruition"

    Yep, this has definitely kept me on the edge of my seat waaayyyy more than watching Lost or Heroes.

    --
    "Michael, I did nothing. I did absolutely nothing - and it was everything that I thought it could be."
    1. Re:Drama...? by RichMan · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I went through two small companies working on pre-standard N devices. Both went under as a little company you can't pre-run a standard to market. We were ready for production 7 years ago.

      So yes, drama that personally affected me as I went through two collapsing companies.

    2. Re:Drama...? by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I hear HBO has hired someone to write a season or two based on the whole ordeal. Rumours are it will be called "N" and the tagline will be "Wi the Fi is this taking so long?". It's not above any of the normal problems that HBO shows have. You know, the kind where there is a secret love plot between two characters that have no influence on the story whatsoever. Or the writers write in a love scene, and then it gets cut short for commercial breaks.

    3. Re:Drama...? by stnt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Can you name the companies ? I was part of Wipro Newlogic in France, designing 802.11n hardware IP. We collapsed too 6 months ago. Seems no phone or TV / STB manufacturer was ready to integrate 11n in their chips. The late standardization didn't help for sure.

  3. Wi-fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Between crap home routers and microwaves knocking out my signal I'm just sticking to good ole fashioned cables. Wifi has been nothing but a headache in the years I've used it. Give me a good ethernet cable anyday.

  4. Re:Blueray of Wifi by The+Ancients · · Score: 3, Informative

    BG is good enough, tied to residential/office network, and hard to notice the benefit of N.

    Do you do much copying of files at all? We can see a huge difference on our network (have had n since the first 11n Airport Extreme), with speeds 3-5 times faster than G in the same environment. For us, 11n actually made wireless an acceptable alternative.

  5. Re:Blueray of Wifi by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I have this magic technology called wired networking. Even the copper stuff goes all the way up to 10Gb.

    Wireless is 99% of the time more a pain than it is worth.

  6. Lack of Demand by Isaac-1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Maybe the problem is lack of demand, how many people need the speed, for that matter how many people need the speed of 802.11G. These days everything seems to be about streaming media, at home people stream media off the internet, or for the more geeky stream it off a media server. So do they really need a wireless connection that is 50 times faster than a typical home broadband connection, particularly when these N routers are over twice the price of their G counterparts.

    Ike

    1. Re:Lack of Demand by Xeno+man · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Lots of people have more than 2 or three computers, but hardly anyone sends large files back n forth. Just because you and you Slashdot friends all push gigs of data over your network, doesn't mean everyone does. Most people only use a network so all of their computer can go online, that's it. Some of them will venture into printer sharing and maybe a few for network storage or backup but that is the extent of it. Go hang out in future shop and stand next to the wireless routers and see what regular customers are saying. They are buying N routers because they must be "better" because they are more expensive and they expect the internet to go faster, which it won't. Hardly anyone will say, "I have a media server that I stream from..."

    2. Re:Lack of Demand by jasonwc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's an exaggeration. Here are real-world best-case-scenario speeds:

      1 GB file
      802.11b- 27 Minutes at 5 Mbit/sec (625 KB/sec)
      802.11g- 8.5 Minutes - 7 Minutes at 20 Mbit/sec (2.5 MB/sec)
      802.11n- 1 Minute, 15 seconds at 110 Mbit/sec (13 MB/sec)

      100-BaseTX- 1 Minute, 30 seconds at 92 Mbit/sec (11.5 MB/sec)
      1000-BaseT from/to Laptop drive- 17 seconds at 480 Mbit/sec (60 MB/sec)
      1000-BaseT from+to high-performance desktop drive- 11 seconds at 800 Mbit/sec (95 MB/sec)
      1000-BaseT RAM --> RAM - 9 seconds at 945 Mbit/sec (118 MB/sec)

      60 MB/sec is realistic to expect when transferring to or from a laptop with a 5400 RPM drive. 85-95 MB/sec or even 100 MB/sec+ is achievable when transferring between high-performance 7200 RPM desktop drives, at the beginning of the drive.

      However, 1 GB is small. A typical HD tv show is 1.1-1.4 GB. A typical 720p x264 encode is 5-8 GB. A typical 1080p x264 encode is 8-15 GB. A system backup can be anything from > 10 GB for incremental backups to 60-100 GB for full backups of system partitions.

      At 85 MB/sec you can transfer a DVD (4.37 GB) in 60 seconds.

  7. History Repeats Itself by organgtool · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The same thing happened with 802.11g. I remember going through four 802.11g PCI cards before finding one that could communicate with my 802.11g router at a distance of more than three feet. I was not aware that the devices were pre-draft (they didn't state "pre-draft" on the packaging like they do now), so I did not realize that was causing my problem. Eventually the standard was ratified, and if my memory is correct, the manufacturers released firmware updates so that the devices complied with the ratified standard. I doubt that this practice will go away since the manufacturers want to release bleeding-edge technology to stay ahead of the competition, but at least their packaging now states "pre-draft" so that cautious consumers will know to avoid it.

    1. Re:History Repeats Itself by RedLeg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Indeed it does.... and you don't know the half of it.

      IEEE operates with a completely different dynamic from what most internet folks are used to.

      One of the big motivations for a company to sponsor a participant (an engineer, by paying him to prepare and to attend) is to get the company's intellectual property incorporated into the standard under development as a MUST. This is all above board, and the companies must declare up front if they believe they have IP in a proposal and to agree that if adopted they will license the IP to implementers at "fair and reasonable" rates.

      When there is only one proposal, or when one is clearly superior, live is good and things typically move along smoothly.

      On the other hand, when there are multiple proposals with relatively equal technical merit, it can drag out.

      This happened in g, and in again in n.

      We narrowly headed it off in i.... At one point the, the AES cypher in the draft as a MUST was OCB (Offset Code Book), and incumbered by no less than three independent patents. This had two implications that several of us strenuously objected to:

              - First, implementers would have had to license three times to be certain they were in the clear, thus increasing the cost of the chips and the end product.

              - Second, since the open source community has no real way to execute said license agreements or to pay royalties, this would have guaranteed that it would have been impossible for there to be a "legal" open source implementation.

      In the end, we prevailed and the AES cypher in the spec is CCMP, which is not encumbered.

      Sadly, this is just the way it is..... at least in -some- standards organizations.

      Red

  8. Re:Unimpressed with 802.11n by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Basically any 802.11n system is going to be shit with legacy devices nearby. I believe this was one of the final barriers to standardization between Draft-N and final.

    So to get decent performance you MUST be in the 5 GHz range. However, there are almost no 5 GHz 802.11n routers out there with external antennas! (Curse Linksys for their move to "saucer" form factors across their entire 802.11 product line... 100% driven by form and aesthetics/marketing, not technical function.) End result is that in most situations, a G router with an external antenna (especially an upgraded one) will blow nearly any of the 11n devices on the market out there.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  9. Re:Blueray of Wifi by BeardedChimp · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I also have a girlfriend who bitches when I place wires all round the house. Doesn't stop me doing it though.

  10. Re:Promoting the progress of science and useful ar by HoppQ · · Score: 2, Funny

    an Australian government

    and one from the US Constitution: ... Try again, Congress.

    Does this not point out a flaw in your logic?

    He's obviously suggesting that U.S. Congress failed because it didn't order an invasion of Australia to promote the progress of science.

    --
    My sig will be released in 2015 third quarter. Rating pending.
  11. Blame the Manufacturers by Virtucon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Despite the moniker of "open standard" every vendor who contributes to these standards and who has "voting" authority on them have to maintain their business interests. 802.11n was held up more for business reasons, members are competitors remember, where some didn't have product available. They obviously want to make sure that their engineering and pre-manufacturing ramp ups are in line before the standard is released. Like 802.11n, this didn't stop many vendors from releasing "pre standard" products as soon as the RF standards were put into place. In reality it then becomes a firmware or driver issue to become compliant once the status is released.

    If the standards boards were truly "open" then they'd get the standards drafted, agreed to and voted on in short order. The reality is that they need the industry experts and those experts also have to maintain their company's interests. It won't change, just learn to live with it.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  12. The tricks: LDPC codes. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 3, Interesting

    One of the tricks is low density parity check codes (LDPCC) which are the best currently known error correcting codes. They're decoded with a wonderfully elegant decoding algorithm which is embarresingly parallel so it works very well in hardware.

    In fact, you can pretty much implement the belief network in hardware directly.

    The codes are also used in 10G Ethernet, too.

    Funny thing is that they date from the 60's, but were impractical because of the amount of computation required to decode them. The decoding algorithm was then rediscovered for inference on Bayes nets.

    If you lick this sort of thing, it is worth reading Mackay's book on inference which is free online. I have no affiliation to Mackay, btw.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  13. Re:Blueray of Wifi by jasonwc · · Score: 4, Informative

    I completely agree with the parent. Wireless is often more trouble than it's worth. It's great for casual internet access on laptops, but it's really unreliable for HD video streaming, system backups, or large file transfers. If you live in a single-family home, you probably don't have many interference issues to deal with, but in a multi-unit apartment building, there is often significant interference on the 2.4 Ghz spectrum not merely from other Wireless routers but from phones, microwaves, baby monitors and other devices. The end result is often dropouts, unreliable connectivity, and slow speeds.

    Wired Ethernet is a reliable and mature technology that pretty much always works. While the vast majority of wireless routers are crap, it's quite easy to purchase a quality Gigabit Switch, and pretty much any wireless router will provide stable wired connections. People seem to ignore the fact that wireless only provides shared speeds while wired ethernet provides dedicated bidirectional bandwidth per port. In addition, the stated maximums for wired ethernet provide a sense of real world speeds while wireless does not.

    For example, 802.11g provides real-world speeds of 20-25 Mbit/sec - not the 54 Mbit theoretical speed pasted on the box. 802.11n is advertised as 300 Mbit/sec but generally provides 100-130 Mbit/sec at best. However, these speeds can only be obtained with a line-of-sight connection at a short distance - a distance so short that you could easily connect over wired ethernet and obtain 10x the speed! At 100-BaseTX I am able to obtain 90 Mbit/sec after network (94 Mbit/sec with Jumbo frames). With Jumbo Frames Gigabit can achieve 950 Mbit/sec or higher speeds.

    So, 802.11n in a best-case scenario (little interference, 10 ft from the AP) provides speeds only slightly in excess of 100-BaseTX, a standard formed 14 years ago (1995)! If you actually connect from any significant distance, 100-BaseTX will provide better speeds. In addition, you get dedicated upstream and downstream per-port bandwdith on 100-BaseTX.

    Gigabit switches with Jumbo frame support can now be had for less than $30 - and in some cases $20. Nearly all laptops and desktops now come with Gigabit NICs and support Jumbo frames. Modern dual and quad-core CPUs can easily take the overhead of transferring at gigabit speeds with or without jumbo frames. Furthermore, modern OS's are more efficient at high-speed network transfers.

    Yet, I see 802.11n routers advertised for streaming HD video, system backups, and large file transfers. Would you really want to backup 100 GB over 802.11n? Sounds like fun watching your entire network come to a crawl for 3 hours. Gigabit ethernet over Cat 5e/6 is generally limited only by your hard drive setup, and can be used for all the aforementioned tasks without any impact on network performance.

    The following is my recent experience with wireless networking:

    I use a WRT54GL with the Tomato (Linux) firmware. This provides a rock-solid solution, yet I was getting dropouts on wireless at my current apartment. I know it's not the router as it worked fine in my cinderblock college dorm, and I have another WRT54GL running Tomato at my home in NJ - which usually is up for months at a time - until a power outage.

    At my latest apartment, I was getting constant dropouts on wireless. I ran a second AP to get a stronger connection. The connection was indeed stronger but I still got intermingle dropouts. I tried changing the wireless channel, antenna placement etc. but nothing worked. Finally, I just said fuck it, bought a 100' Cat 5e cable for $8 and ran it directly from the ADSL router to the router in my room. No dropouts since then - and I get more consistent and faster speeds.

    I purchased an 8 port Gigabit switch with Jumbo Frames for my internal network and now my network speeds are limited only by my hard drives. Transferring between a 1 TB eSATA and 1 TB SATA drive, I was able to transfer a 12 GB file in 2:15 at an average speed of 95 MB/sec - around 800 Mbit/sec. With

  14. Re:Blueray of Wifi by Lost+Race · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Learn how to dress up the wiring nicely. It's a useful skill to have, and females appreciate quality nest-building in a mate.