The Future of 802.11ac

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by timothy on Sunday December 30, 2012 @10:12PM from the always-a-game-of-catch-up dept.

CowboyRobot writes "The 802.11ac standard is expected to be ratified in 2013 and NetworkComputing has an interview with representatives of Cisco Systems and Aerohive Networks about what that will mean for everyone else. 'Out of the gate, the increases in performance over 11n will not be tremendously impressive. The second wave--which will require a hardware refresh--gets far more interesting... First-generation 802.11ac products will achieve up to 1.3 Gbps through the use of three spatial streams, 80-MHz-wide channels (double the largest 40 MHz channel width with 802.11n), and use of better hardware components that allow higher levels of modulation and encoding (up to 256-QAM). Whether we will actually see 802.11ac products capable of 6.9 Gbps is dependent on hardware enhancements on both the access point and client that are not certain.'"

125 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

ho hum. still waiting by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-30 22:22 · Score: 0

for 802.11y hardware
1. Re:ho hum. still waiting by TuringCheck · 2012-12-30 22:44 · Score: 2
  
  for 802.11y hardware
  The real speed will arrive with 802.11xxx - specially designed for broadcasting 3D porn ;-)
2. Re:ho hum. still waiting by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-30 23:13 · Score: 1
  
  Hah, that's nothing. 802.11ac was developed by those trolls who keep posting stuff with my slashdot account!
  -
  A. C.
3. Re:ho hum. still waiting by osu-neko · 2012-12-31 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  The real speed will arrive with 802.11xxx - specially designed for broadcasting 3D porn ;-)
  Are you implying there are network protocols designed for other uses primarily?
  
  --
  "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
I'm a wire guy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-30 22:23 · Score: 0

I have to ask: Is anyone getting even close to these advertised transfer rates in real world scenarios? I haven't seen more than low single digit MB/s over wireless LAN, even under line of sight conditions with hardly any interference.
1. Re:I'm a wire guy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-30 22:31 · Score: 0
  
  Omnidirectional, not really. Directional? Hell yeah, I have Ubiquiti Powerbridges deployed and I'm pushing ~297 Mbps.
2. Re:I'm a wire guy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-30 22:33 · Score: 0
  
  I've had just over 200 Mbit/s with 5 GHz 802.11n, sitting in the next room from the AP, with a wall between us.
3. Re:I'm a wire guy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-30 22:35 · Score: 0
  
  MB or Mb? We use bits for measuring data transmission.
  Either way, yes, I do get a high through and goodput on wifi. I still prefer wired though.
  If you're seeing poor performace check the frequencies for interference with a spectrum analyser or (free) for other wifi signals with inSSIDer.
4. Re:I'm a wire guy by Ultra64 · 2012-12-30 22:35 · Score: 2
  
  "I haven't seen more than low single digit MB/s over wireless LAN, even under line of sight conditions with hardly any interference."
  You must be using shitty hardware. We're using ubiquiti hardware at my office and getting the expected speeds.
5. Re:I'm a wire guy by TuringCheck · 2012-12-30 22:41 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I've had just over 200 Mbit/s with 5 GHz 802.11n, sitting in the next room from the AP, with a wall between us.
  And probably noone else using the 5 GHz band in your area - am I right? Because as soon as the signal / noise ratio decreases the high efficiency modulations stop working and you must live with much lower spectral effifciency - that is' much lower usable bandwidth for the same slice of the spectrum.
  Unfortunately increasing the transmission power doesn't help a lot - after all, the neighbour wants high bandwidth as well leading to an arms race.
6. Re:I'm a wire guy by neokushan · 2012-12-30 22:54 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Remember that 5Ghz has a much shorter range than 2.4Ghz so the problems with traffic congestion won't be as bad. If all of your neighbours switched to 5Ghz, you'd still see a noticeable real-world improvement over 2.4Ghz.
  
  --
  +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
7. Re:I'm a wire guy by Andtalath · 2012-12-30 23:20 · Score: 1
  
  I've got a cheapass n router and I get 11 MB/s, which is pretty decent considering it's only got 100 Mb/s into it.
8. Re:I'm a wire guy by solidraven · 2012-12-30 23:26 · Score: 1
  
  I usually get 3-4 MB/s, have had more than a few peaks of 5 MB/s. Which isn't all that weird considering 54 Mbps. And that's through laminate, not exactly the best material for WiFi. Important side note is that I live in the middle of nowhere and the 2.4 GHz band is almost empty except for my neighbours routers which aren't too close either. If you're in an environment with a lot of noise like an apartment building it's worth the additional expense to get the 5GHz equipment.
9. Re:I'm a wire guy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-31 01:04 · Score: 0
  
  Cisco EA4500 (3-stream, 450Mbit/s max) to a 2011 MBP. The laptop says it's connected around 430Mbit/s, and the throughput is on par with 100Mbit/s ethernet (around 12MBytes/s)
  So, just scaling linearly, 802.11ac should see somewhere around the equivalent of 200-250Mbit/s wired.
10. Re:I'm a wire guy by hairyfeet · 2012-12-31 01:06 · Score: 2
  
  Bimbo Newton Crosby, it all comes down to the neighbors. in areas where nobody else is running .N hardware? I've been able to get speeds for my customers on their wireless networks that were as fast as the cable could go, whereas in places where multiple people are using? They are lucky to get 200k in some places.
  The problem is just too damned many people are jumping on the wireless bandwagon and even the ISPs have started handing out wireless routers (at least in my area) so the whole thing is just too crowded. I would say we need another channel but considering how much wireless spectrum goes for good luck with that, I'm shocked some company hasn't bought from the government one of the channels we already have.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
11. Re:I'm a wire guy by kelemvor4 · 2012-12-31 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  I have to ask: Is anyone getting even close to these advertised transfer rates in real world scenarios? I haven't seen more than low single digit MB/s over wireless LAN, even under line of sight conditions with hardly any interference.
  Same problem here. At 25 feet, 100mbit wired trumps 802.11n significantly for streaming video. It's good for cellphones, laptops, and other toys but for moving anything other than tiny amounts of data it's insufficient for me. Of course, I've got everything running gigabit wired now, so this really won't even be slightly interesting to me until the "second wave". By that time 10GB wired or better will probably be running through my attic... so we'll see.
12. Re:I'm a wire guy by skids · 2012-12-31 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, something is definitely wrong there. Even in our most crowded areas on campus our clients manage more than that on raw tx/rx rates -- of course, having that raw "wirespeed" doesn't mean you get that amount of data throughput when tens of other clients are also using the "wire".
  
  --
  Someone had to do it.
13. Re:I'm a wire guy by vlueboy · 2012-12-31 18:55 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is just too damned many people are jumping on the wireless bandwagon and even the ISPs have started handing out wireless routers
  I remember my first experiences with wifi back in 2006. I recall that the DSL ISP started making it an option back then. G was seldom seen, and everyone was on 2.4ghz, except for the Wireless A guys ( the routers used to tout ABG big time, though WEP was still king and XP didn't quite support WPA out of the box).
  A year later I started getting other people set up, buying a few routers and handing my older ones down as gifts. I eventually settled on a dual band one in 2009 and have been pretty satisfied. However, my ISP and most others are lagging behind on real IPv6 support, so DHCP6 goes unused for now. Sadly, I have seen prices drop, yes, but protocols A and B have also disappeared quietly from support lists. The good part is that for about half the price, I can get dual-band now. That took long!
  Somewhat off-topic rant: The problem now is that my recent $800 laptop doesn't do 5Ghz, which surprised me considering $70 routers do, and $40 routers support "300N" this year^W^W as of 2012. Neither does my year-old android phone, nor most devices I hook up from work, family or friends. My 2007 laptop had no problem doing so, but it cost the full $1000 and didn't have appealing features with the current year's lineup.
  My $500 PC from last year was a satisfying upgrade to the older system I had for years. It surprised by failing to support Gigabit when I finally went and bought the Cat 6 cable. The old $20 NIC I saved up for it is not PCI-E, but had latent support for 1000BaseT, I think. Sad. Today's fragmented networking involves more research than even slashdotters like me care to do, and still moves at a glaciar pace. We ARE being dominated by money-saving choices and ISPs that no longer offer old, non-wifi routers, though most people end up losing...
  I have worked a couple jobs where VPNs and/or bandwidth-heavy applications such as stock tickers were the cause of the issue, but the [local or business client] users cleverly hide the fact that they don't know what they're doing when the insist on Wifi just because they got a laptop from their office for work.
14. Re:I'm a wire guy by vlueboy · 2012-12-31 19:21 · Score: 1
  
  I have to ask: Is anyone getting even close to these advertised transfer rates in real world scenarios? I haven't seen more than low single digit MB/s over wireless LAN, even under line of sight conditions with hardly any interference.
  In 2010 or so I was sadly surprised that my backups (PC Hard drive - > wifi laptop ) hit some invisible barrier of around 1.5 to 2 MByte/s from Windows host to laptop (Ubuntu or Windows). That was despite connections being between 11 and 54Mbit (yeah, the speed negotiated was pretty unstable for some reason, AND overhead plus bit to byte conversions kills about 90% of the fat number we see on the box). PS: Two different rooms, with a drywall separating both machines. The total separation was less than 10 feet given the small size of these apartments. I think I hit a peak of 3M to 4MByte/s, for like one minute out of 30 or so.
  I declined to run another home test this year when buying a replacement for my old dead laptop and just opted for a USB adapter for transfer on the main PC. I should have tested, given that I've since plopped DDWRT on the same router, the new laptop's connection is stable in connection speeds and I always do CUT-PASTE rather than COPY-paste to never miss my place for inevitable CRC, Wired SMB errors and Wifi disconnects. Despite my layers of protection, I chalk it up to having lost confidence in Wifi in general. See my other comment for other setbacks.
15. Re:I'm a wire guy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-31 19:30 · Score: 0
  
  Forgot to specify that the loss of speed happens DESPITE the fact that only the laptop is on Wifi. The windows PC had its full share of 100Mbit/sec goodness. It's just annoying that even ignoring how my N connection router is rated 300Mbit, all the final numbers get cut to the G standard's 54Mbit in the end. And the transfer speeds used to fluctuate randomly on the G and N bands between 11Mbps and 36Mbps for some reason. I'm pretty sure it's like cellphone bars, where you have some potential number up until the moment when you've GOTTA use it as advertised, and then the bars drop like lead bricks.Granted there's a certain stress to transfer algorithms when you're actually transferring a stream of data.
  The saddest part is that I think this area used to be LESS congested back then. I saw about 30 networks around 4am last night by sitting on the bed near the windows. Only mine and the othre 4 or so exceeded 3 bars.
  -vlueboy
16. Re:I'm a wire guy by hairyfeet · 2012-12-31 19:33 · Score: 1
  
  Personally I wouldn't use the one built into a laptop, they ALL suck ass when it comes to bandwidth. I use a little USB dual antenna unit for my customers, works great on desktops and laptops and gets better throughput than the frankly weak units they build into laptops. You have to remember laptops are all about cutting costs and one easy way to cut costs is to have weaker antennas and Wifi chips. Here is the unit I use and sell and I can tell you that unless an area is heavily congested i can usually get pretty close to the max their Internet can handle through one of these, and its small enough you can just slap it in a bookbag no problem.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Not sure the big deal here... by RLU486983 · 2012-12-30 22:36 · Score: 2

damned ISP's choke the shit out of our connections so what is the purpose for exactly... killer LAN parties?!?
1. Re:Not sure the big deal here... by bloodhawk · 2012-12-30 22:48 · Score: 1
  
  Streaming media within the LAN for a start. I had to put in gigabit cable throughout the house as wireless was inadequate. I wonder though is there anything in the standard to better cope with interference, wouldn't greater channel width mean even worse interference problems?
2. Re:Not sure the big deal here... by fufufang · 2012-12-31 00:00 · Score: 1
  
  Well, it is designed for you to stream 3D porn at Blu-ray quality across your house.
3. Re:Not sure the big deal here... by vlm · 2012-12-31 00:31 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  My somewhat extensive experience with mythtv and wireless is that you need speed to work around latency due to interference or random multipath or whatever it is that occasionally slows stuff down. If you've got 1000 mb to transfer over 1000 seconds then on average you only need average speed X. However if you need to transfer exactly 1 mb every second, or the picture breaks up, and you occasionally endure 9/10ths of a second interference/outages, then you need 10 times the average speed to deliver. Or a bigger buffer, which means a long spooling up delay.
  A good IT analogy is its like the difference between batch processing and a realtime OS.
  Or maybe a standard /. car analogy is something like if you've got a 200 mile range gas tank, it doesn't really matter where the gas station is as long as its less than 200 miles away when you have a full tank... but the instant that the closest open gas station is 201 miles away, you're all done. Maybe thats an awful analogy...
  No wait I've got a better car analogy. My gas station can deliver something like 5 gallons per minute, which seems like gross overkill for my fuel injectors which barely burn 2 gallons per hour on the highway. However the key point is my fuel injectors do NOT use 2 gallons per hour, they really use a microscopic droplet 60 times per second. Or something like that. Too early in the morning...
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
4. Re:Not sure the big deal here... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-31 01:09 · Score: 0
  
  For the record, 100Mbit ethernet would've likely worked fine. I needed to drop another switch to get ethernet out to my tv, and the only switch I had handy was an old 100M one. I figured I could easily just replace it when I need to... and I haven't -- 1080p streams easily over 100M ethernet.
5. Re:Not sure the big deal here... by TheRaven64 · 2012-12-31 01:57 · Score: 1
  
  How is your media encoded? BBC iPlayer HD content is 3.6Mb/s, and even DVD rips are only 10Mb/s. Unless you're streaming BluRay rips (without any recompression), 802.11g should be more than adequate. Even BluRay is only 36Mb/s, which is a bit much for 802.11g in the real world, but well within the capabilities of 802.11n.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
6. Re:Not sure the big deal here... by grumling · 2012-12-31 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  So many variables though. I have one of those cheap Android HDMI computers on my TV. When connected via 802.11G streams were somewhat intermittent, even with line of site to the AP. When I switched over to a wired connection all the stuttering stopped, and even web content like Ustream improved.
  I suspect a poorly designed antenna in the Android device, but it could just as easily been bad drivers, interference from neighbors, or another device using bandwidth on the wireless channel. Some other big differences: wireless networks are 1/2 duplex, while wired Ethernet is full duplex, Ethernet (through switches) is basically a dedicated channel between devices, and overall more bandwidth available.
  
  --
  "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
7. Re:Not sure the big deal here... by drinkypoo · 2012-12-31 02:16 · Score: 1
  
  At 55 mph your car gets 40 mpg, and at 70 mph your car gets 20 mpg, and you've got three gallons of fuel and you've got an appointment in one hour, seventy miles away, and you've only got two gallons of fuel. No, that sucks too.
  How about, the highway can carry 100 people per unit of length at 70 mph without collisions or it can carry 200 peopler per unit of length at 35 mph... no, wait...
  How about we just only make car analogies when they make sense :/
  I know, I must be new here
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
8. Re:Not sure the big deal here... by Jeng · 2012-12-31 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, so lets say that you are driving across a bridge and while you are driving across it it starts to collapse behind you at a certain rate. If at any time you get below that certain rate the collapse catches up to you and you die.
  
  --
  Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
9. Re:Not sure the big deal here... by haruchai · 2012-12-31 03:17 · Score: 0
  
  Or you could get your girlfriend to run around naked.
  Oh, wait, this is /.
  Never mind and carry on.
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
10. Re:Not sure the big deal here... by fa2k · 2012-12-31 03:37 · Score: 1
  
  TV recordings from mythtv are about 4 Mbit/s too (standard def). There are significantly more interruptions on "11n" "Lite" gear (with just one antenna, claimed ~100Mbit/s) compared to Gbit wired. One killer is buffering when skipping back and forward. If it takes a second to buffer a second of video, that's very annoying.
  Compressed video streaming isn't a great argument for anything beyond high-quality full speed "n" components though. Raw speed is great when moving big files around, if the CPU and hard drive can keep up.
11. Re:Not sure the big deal here... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-31 04:16 · Score: 0
  
  No. A car that gets 35 MPG is travelling down the highway at 65 MPH. In 3 hours it will be 7:00 PM EST. So what is the temperature in Seattle, WA?
  
  I think that makes much more sense.
12. Re:Not sure the big deal here... by bloodhawk · 2012-12-31 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  I have full ISO's of my Blurays and DVD's which are then remotely accessed. I don't get why people compress the hell out of high def video in todays age of cheap storage and easy high bandwidth when wired. try mounting a 40GB blu ray ISO over a wireless connection not to mention moving them around on the network when needed.
13. Re:Not sure the big deal here... by eggnet · 2012-12-31 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  Better performance in higher density areas. If you're within wifi range of 50 residences, each of which has their own wired uplink, they still have to share the same wireless spectrum. More is better.
14. Re:Not sure the big deal here... by profplump · 2013-01-01 00:55 · Score: 1
  
  That's a trick question. The temperature in Seattle is always 43F.
Not much of an improvement?!? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-30 22:37 · Score: 1

Am I missing something here? Using math "up to 1.3 Gbps" is more than 4x N's "up to 300Mbps" which was a huge jump over G's "up to 54Mbps" so, apparently you need to be 5.5x or faster to be classified a huge jump for cisco people, a measly 4.3x doesn't do it.
1. Re:Not much of an improvement?!? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-31 02:27 · Score: 0
  
  It is the lack of CPU power that they want to put on the consumer plastic routers that can actually the "6.9 Gbps" speed. To make a box at the $200 range, they probably don't want to send more than $15 on a SoC. Also kind of LAN/WAN interface in the router to feed the data? 10Gbps Ethernet would be too expensive for that market segment.
2. Re:Not much of an improvement?!? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-31 02:51 · Score: 0
  
  The summary is technically correct, but doesn;t quite do the math for you:
  First, the 802.11ac speed quote is with 3 spatial streams, while the 802.11n speed you mention is with 2. n supports up to 4, although 4x4 devices are still not available (3x3 only really happened recently in consumer devices). This brings the "speed" of 802.11n up to 450Mbps.
  Next, 802.11n 3x3 at 450 Mbps is using 40 Mhz wide channels, while 802.11ac is using 80 Mhz wide to get 1.3Gbps. Sure, it makes it go faster. But in lots of real world situations you are not going to be able to consume that wide a channel without runnng into interference. Doubling your specturm doubles your bandwidth (literally). If we make ac use a 40 Mhz band, it comes down to 650 Mbps.
  The last part is the addition of 256 QAM modulation. I don't know nearly enough about how this works, but most of the people I trust about this expect this to be a non factor. You need a very clean spectrum in order to maintain this modulation, ie not be in a heavy residential area once 5Ghz becomes congested.
  To sum up: If you compare apples to apples, it really isn't much faster than n. It theoreticaly can be, in the right environment. But you might be living in an unexplored wilderness.
Congestion & old nets = little benefit by phayes · 2012-12-30 22:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

802.11ac isn't out yet but I have little hope of it really helping. I live in an apartment building I can already see 50+ routers on 2.4 & 10+ ON 5GH.
I just don't see that much of a benefit unless the congestion avoidance is really better than 102.11n.

--
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
1. Re:Congestion & old nets = little benefit by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-30 23:09 · Score: 0
  
  You sound like a good candidate of our new high speed data networking system, our transmissions are heavily shielded and all securely transmitted via 50ohm coax cable, ;)
2. Re:Congestion & old nets = little benefit by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-30 23:11 · Score: 0
  
  I wonder that if you ran one central network and vlanned (can you do that with wifi?) the traffic over it in sharing the bandwidth out equally With one vlan per apartment you have privacy and because there's only one professionally set up network in the building it should cut down on the interference. Whether or not you get a speed increase would be the question.
3. Re:Congestion & old nets = little benefit by AmiMoJo · 2012-12-30 23:17 · Score: 2
  
  If you transmit at higher speed it takes less time to send a given volume of data, allowing everyone else more time for theirs. Compared to 802.11n which will use 50%+ of the available bandwidth for streaming HD video the new AC standard might only need 10%.
  Of course all that is mitigated by a single 802.11g router being maxed out by someone doing a download.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
4. Re:Congestion & old nets = little benefit by Pinky's+Brain · 2012-12-31 00:14 · Score: 1
  
  Unless they start putting phase array antenna's on APs to tight beam data to devices there is simply no avoiding time sharing channels... still for a given time on a channel it still gets more data through it, so even in congested situations it helps.
5. Re:Congestion & old nets = little benefit by phayes · 2012-12-31 00:42 · Score: 1
  
  Does 802.11ac slow down in the presence of older networks like 802.11g slows down in the presence of 802.11b clients? All you needed was one old client present on the network for all transfers to slow down by 50%.
  Yeah, you could set the access point to be 802.11g only but even then the 802.11b would keep interfering with the access point...
  
  --
  Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
6. Re:Congestion & old nets = little benefit by Tagged_84 · 2012-12-31 01:04 · Score: 1
  
  I know the feeling, used to live in a city apartment myself, similar numbers. The good news is that 802.11ad, operating at 60ghz, is expected in 2014.
7. Re:Congestion & old nets = little benefit by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-31 01:15 · Score: 0
  
  Just don't forget your terminators, or you'll spew bits all over your floor
8. Re:Congestion & old nets = little benefit by RicktheBrick · 2012-12-31 01:49 · Score: 1
  
  I was hoping that this would free me from purchasing a lot of equipment. I was hoping the cable company would purchase the router and place on pole around my house. I would than purchase adapters for every television and have wireless reception. I would than purchase cordless phones with the base being the router. I would not have to purchase a video recorder since the cable company would record all the channels I receive and allow me to choose what time to watch them. Until this happens, I will not be excited by any advance in routers.
9. Re:Congestion & old nets = little benefit by TheBlackMan · 2012-12-31 01:57 · Score: 1
  
  802.11ac isn't out yet but I have little hope of it really helping. I live in an apartment building I can already see 50+ routers on 2.4 & 10+ ON 5GH.
  I just don't see that much of a benefit unless the congestion avoidance is really better than 102.11n.
  You are probably right. I think this invention will be of more help: http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/12/10/23/1946248/increasing-wireless-network-speed-by-1000-by-replacing-packets-with-algebra It works basically "repair data" in RAR archives for WiFi networks, so distorted/damaged packets can be recovered even if their checksums don't match.
10. Re:Congestion & old nets = little benefit by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-31 02:04 · Score: 0
  
  Next time you change wall-paper, put a layer of aluminium foil behind the outer walls of you apartment. You cell-phone coverage might suffer a bit but it should keep down the congestion.
11. Re:Congestion & old nets = little benefit by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-31 02:35 · Score: 0
  
  802.11ac includes beamforming.
  http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/beamforming-wifi-ruckus,2390.html
  The ability to deliver a higher bitrate to particular points, without needing to increase the radiated power (802.11 has limits on radiated power) is a wonderful thing.
  It does use multiple antennas to do this.
  Being able to increase the SNR between the router and a handful of specific points is very helpful. Being able to "tune out" interference in certain areas also helps.
  Not sure if this standard will allow you to have 2 different clients at 2 different locations use the exact same channel at the same time; we're certainly headed that direction, though.
12. Re:Congestion & old nets = little benefit by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-31 02:55 · Score: 0
  
  Sorry AC. But you are trying to solve a layer 1 issue with a layer 2 solution. To best understand why this won't work let's switch some of the descriptions around. Let us make it a layer 1 non-switched network. You have many users connecting over a hub to talk to an end point. When one is transmitting, no others will in a wired network. They will check to see if there is signal on the line. We can then add layer 2 sitching to seperate collision domains and allow multiple talkers. However in wireless we have to worry about signal what we don't see at the transmitter that may be seen at the receiver. We only have collision domains dictated by which bands we are transmitting on.
  Creating a logical abstraction of a vlan wouldn't resolve the issues of the medium looking diffrently to the transmitter then to the receiver at the time of transmission.
  Now if the centrally administered network controlled the bands that individual transmitters opperated on, you could use vlans on the wire to enhance the security posture. In an appartment building you are going to have alot of transmitters however, and are quickly going to have alot of bleed over and collisions. The upside might outweigh the costs, but you are still at the mercy of the networks on your fringes.
13. Re:Congestion & old nets = little benefit by SuricouRaven · 2012-12-31 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  But the download will either uses less time-share, or complete faster. Depending where the bottleneck is.
14. Re:Congestion & old nets = little benefit by CohibaVancouver · 2012-12-31 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  I was hoping the cable company would purchase the router and place on pole around my house
  Just wait until you have trouble, call the ISP's tech support line and they tell you to go up the pole, unplug the router, wait ten seconds, then plug it in again.
15. Re:Congestion & old nets = little benefit by RicktheBrick · 2012-12-31 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  I forgot that router should also have a 8 core microprocessor with 20 GBytes of ram memory and 120 GBytes of SSD and a Terabyte of hard drive space. Wireless keyboard and mouse should be able to communicate with router so any television should be able to be used as a monitor for that computer. Of course all of this should be available for around a $100 a month.
16. Re:Congestion & old nets = little benefit by Pinky's+Brain · 2012-12-31 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  It helps against interference and attenuation ... but competing routers aren't treated as interference. Once they can beam it tight enough that the CSMA/CA algorithm is adapted to take it into account (ie. the spec allows one router to simply shout across a competing one with a directional signal) then things will change. I don't think beam forming with 4-8 antennas will be nearly tight enough to allow that.
17. Re:Congestion & old nets = little benefit by phayes · 2012-12-31 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  Move to France, I actually have most of what you're asking for as I am on Free.fr.
  My Freebox server v6 provides:
  - ADSL connection
  - 802.11n (2.4 & 5Ghz)
  - a 250Gb NAS
  - DECT for my wireless phones (& free calls to much of the world - to almost all places I call)
  - 4 Gb ethernet ports
  The Freebox player provides:
  - television over ADSL or antenna
  - recording emissions to the Freebox server
  - playing videos from all DLNA servers on my LAN
  - airplay from the Macs & iDevices (no video though)
  - Digital connection to my dolby decoder.
  
  --
  Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
18. Re:Congestion & old nets = little benefit by phayes · 2012-12-31 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  Not if 11ac access points slow down automatically when seeing non 11ac access points like 11g access points do when they see 11b traffic...
  
  --
  Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
19. Re:Congestion & old nets = little benefit by AmiMoJo · 2012-12-31 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  Depends what you mean... The slow down was actually due to having to wait longer between the end of one transmission and starting another one to give 802.11b clients a chance to jump in. I don't know if it matters for 802.11ac or not.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
20. Re:Congestion & old nets = little benefit by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-31 06:20 · Score: 0
  
  802.11ac isn't out yet but I have little hope of it really helping. I live in an apartment building I can already see 50+ routers on 2.4 & 10+ ON 5GH.
  I just don't see that much of a benefit unless the congestion avoidance is really better than 102.11n.
  Except that I'd wager if those 50+ on 2.4 GHz switched to 5 GHz, you wouldn't see 60+ in total, but rather 30-40. There are probably 25+ on 5 GHz in the same area/range as some of the 2.4 GHz signals, but you're only seeing half of them.
  The reason for both is that 5 GHz has a much lower (relative) range. You also have to remember that most of the channels at 2.4 GHz overlap each other, but each channel at 5 GHz is independent, You can have maybe four networks (@20 MHz each) on 802.11b/g/n before they start stepping on each other's toes, but in 5 GHz you can have over twenty different APs, each getting 20 MHz, before they start colliding:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WLAN_channels
  As long as you and all your neighbors don't need the range of 2.4 GHz all at once, then everyone switching over to 5 GHz will improve things in a rising-tide-all-boats kind of way.
21. Re:Congestion & old nets = little benefit by skids · 2012-12-31 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  Yes and no, dot11ac requires 5GHZ radio support, and there are more channels available there -- and also consequently on a 5GHz network enterprises can pack APs more tightly without turning down the power level. So dot11h and other frequency conflict avoidance schemes should allow APs to automatically avoid each other. However, because of the 80MHz channel option, which will doubtless be turned on by just about everyone, this advantage is mitigated to half over a 40MHz dot11n network and to 1/4th of an unbonded dot11n network, because in that scheme, you may be taking less time to transmit the packet, but you are doing it over 4 channels instead of one, so you have to wait for all 4 to be clear and all 4 have to wait for you to be clear.
  In addition spatialized MIMO should theoretically act not only as a bandwidth booster but also as a way to reduce crosstalk.
  The real winner will be the 2.5GHz spectrum, because forcing vendors to put a 5GHz radio in means that we'll finally reach some level of sanity and balance between the two bands.
  
  --
  Someone had to do it.
22. Re:Congestion & old nets = little benefit by adri · 2012-12-31 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  The inter-frame spacing is mostly the same. It's tiny compared to contention window handling and actual frame duration. It's not really the main reason for drastic slowdowns in mixed networks.
  The main issue in mixed networks is:
  * having to enable RTS and CTS-to-self frame protection to interoperate with legacy stations that don't understand MCS rates, and
  * just sheer length of non-aggregate frames (ie, 11abg frames, and 11n stations that aren't doing aggregation - eg if they're doing voice data that isn't being aggregated into A-MPDU or A-MSDU for whatever broken reason they have.)
  The other major thing is that most consumer grade APs don't do fair scheduling very well, so when you have multiple stations all doing traffic, they can end up with an uneven balance of traffic, causing drastic reductions in throughput. I won't go into the handwave details unless people care; I've written about it before.
  Now, _I_ get ~ 170mbit TCP throughput on FreeBSD -> FreeBSD atheros 11n devices (AR9280 2x2, 5GHz) _WITH_ RTS/CTS and legacy interoperability enabled. Things just tend to slow down when multiple stations show up.
23. Re:Congestion & old nets = little benefit by phayes · 2012-12-31 12:05 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for the info.The thing is, for many people like me in noisy environments, 11ac with it's use of larger frequency windows will give us even more contention. As nobody has replied to my question on it including better contention, it appears that 11ac's advantages over 11n for us will be slight to none.
  
  --
  Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
24. Re:Congestion & old nets = little benefit by tlhIngan · 2012-12-31 18:32 · Score: 1
  
  Does 802.11ac slow down in the presence of older networks like 802.11g slows down in the presence of 802.11b clients? All you needed was one old client present on the network for all transfers to slow down by 50%.
  Yeah, you could set the access point to be 802.11g only but even then the 802.11b would keep interfering with the access point...
  Actually, 802.11g only does NOTHING to prevent this. It's not the 802.11b client on the network, it's just an 802.11b client on the same channel.
  802.11 in general is a protocol used to communicate data packets with some encoding over wireless. It dictates certain things like RTS/CTS clearance frames and CSMA/CA. It has a concept of "reservation timer" which means "even if you cannot understand the data, consider the media busy for N time".
  802.11 actually cooperates, and clients on different networks actually do communicate with each other - just because a frame isn't destined for the network doesn't mean the client or AP doesn't react to it. (Interference does happen from the hidden node problem, though).
  The thing with the 802.11g thing is easy - the 802.11 spec identifies that the preamble and header are sent at 1/2Mbps (802.11) speeds, then the body is sent at higher speeds (the reason for this is so every 802.11 client can consider the media busy). The trick with the 802.11g is that it could send the 802.11 headers at 802.11g speeds, but any 802.11b or lower client had a chance of interference so G-protection kicks in that forces headers to be sent at 802.11 speeds. This happens in the presence of ANY 802.11 client that appears, attached to that AP or not. After all, an 802.11b ad-hoc network could be using the airwaves as well, and interference just means no one's packets get through.
  The reason you still get intereference is hidden node - you will have clients transmitting randomly because they can't hear the other transmitting node, and the receiver can hear both (it's alleviated with RTS/CTS - which would silence both transmitters). Just once you hit a certain density, there's enough that even that can't protect it due to more hidden node issues.
Hoping for indoor range improvements by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-30 23:22 · Score: 0

I live in an old motel, which has no wired connections in the rooms, and a NetGear N600 dual-band wifi router on the first floor. I'm on the second floor, and a short distance to the side. My NetGear WNCE2001 wifi-to-ethernet adapter is getting a good connection (up to 2 megabytes / sec, saturating the top speed of the cable-modem). The 5GHz signal doesn't get anywhere near my room, so I'm using 2.4GHz. There are almost never more than half-dozen simultaneous users. The problem is that the signal gets much weaker for rooms that are further away, so their residents have to take their laptops to the motel lobby to get a decent connection.
Which new or upcoming wifi standards would improve this situation?
--libman
1. Re:Hoping for indoor range improvements by jones_supa · 2012-12-31 00:14 · Score: 2
  
  Is it possible to simply deploy more APs?
2. Re:Hoping for indoor range improvements by Luckyo · 2012-12-31 00:18 · Score: 2
  
  None. Most of them are about reducing congestion problems, typically through reducing range (like 2.4GHz to 5GHz shift) or various antennae and beamforming solutions.
  Your problem is the exact opposite, and typically handled by installing additional WiFi routers or amplifiers. Your problem has been long solved, but it would appear that your motel is simply not interested in investing in solutions.
3. Re:Hoping for indoor range improvements by Pinky's+Brain · 2012-12-31 00:25 · Score: 1
  
  Get some extra wlan routers, put them at intermediate points and bridge to different channels to extend the range (repeaters make inefficient use of channel bandwidth). Not entirely trivial to setup but perfectly doable even with cheap routers.
4. Re:Hoping for indoor range improvements by phayes · 2012-12-31 04:55 · Score: 0
  
  I already use 2 APs & own the apartment I live in. Don't assume that because you live in a motel that everyone else does.
  
  --
  Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
5. Re:Hoping for indoor range improvements by phayes · 2012-12-31 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  I already use a WRT that has the same SID/password as the 11N AP to cover some parts of my apartment. That doesn't change the high noise floor/interference from all the neighbouring APs.
  
  --
  Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
6. Re:Hoping for indoor range improvements by phayes · 2012-12-31 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  Already doing that. My Freebox in in one corner of the apartment & I have an old WRT with the same SID/password in the opposite corner where multiple walls & neighboring wifi APs render the freebox wifi unusable. I can thus pass off from the freebox & the WRT transparently but that doesn't change the high noise floor & interference from all the other nets.
  
  --
  Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
7. Re:Hoping for indoor range improvements by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-31 18:31 · Score: 0
  
  Get some extra wlan routers, put them at intermediate points and bridge to different channels to extend the range (repeaters make inefficient use of channel bandwidth). Not entirely trivial to setup but perfectly doable even with cheap routers.
  I was hoping that new tech / standards would make that unnecessary, but it now seems like the only solution.
  Thank you for your replies, Pinky, Luckyo, and Jones.
  (Phayes seems to be confused in thinking that all replies to my message were directed at him. NP, the same thing has happened to me once before. The message hierarchy tree can get quite discombobulating...)
  --libman
Realism... by solidraven · 2012-12-30 23:22 · Score: 2

256-QAM modulation for wireless data transfer, sure...
What's the intended range in realistic situations, 5cm?
1. Re:Realism... by Luckyo · 2012-12-31 00:19 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Shorter range is a significant advantage today because it reduces interference.
  Interference is probably the main reason for lack of speed and reliability in modern city apartment WiFi.
2. Re:Realism... by brunes69 · 2012-12-31 00:28 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  And when you live in a house, like oh say 50%+ of the population, you will now have to purchase 3 wireless routers to ensure coverage, whereas previously only one decent one was enough.
3. Re:Realism... by vlm · 2012-12-31 00:38 · Score: 1
  
  It'll be better than that, but not much. The killer problem is the average house would probably work pretty well WRT multipath distortion, but they don't need the bandwidth, and the office which needs the bandwidth is all steel framing and steel cubicles and steel beams and aluminum window frames which is going to multipath distort the signal into unusability. The TLDR is where its needed it won't work, and where it'll work its not needed. Whoops. Well back to selling kitty litter over the internet...
  Another curious question is I wonder what the power budget is for this beast. If it makes a tablet too hot to touch or kills the battery in 30 minutes then I'm not too interested. Maybe a modern complicated wifi chipset uses less power than an ancient legacy chipset... but a modern simple slow chipset would surely use less. My point being I've never felt limited by a handheld device's LAN speed... battery life, sure
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
4. Re:Realism... by betterunixthanunix · 2012-12-31 01:30 · Score: 1
  
  Or you purchase repeaters (cheaper) or you purchase higher-gain antennas (even cheaper, but will probably only improve coverage on one floor), or you illegally plug your AP into a linear amplifier and hope the FCC never comes for you (and it is unlikely they will). I know someone who uses a repeater in his house; it is not all that uncommon nor is it difficult.
  
  --
  Palm trees and 8
5. Re:Realism... by solidraven · 2012-12-31 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but 256-QAM is very noise sensitive. Works fine on a coax cable, works fine on short copper lines. But wireless is a different story. Especially considering how crowded the 2.4 GHz band is these days. I'm not saying it's impossible, I just wonder how cost efficient these devices will be considering the SNR you'll have to achieve to keep the error rate down. At some point it might not be worth it.
6. Re:Realism... by solidraven · 2012-12-31 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  Well, that depends on how smart the MIMO algorithm is I'd say. I've seen a few very efficient implementations that do seem to be able to select fairly good paths. I'm more worried about the necessary SNR.
7. Re:Realism... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-31 03:56 · Score: 0
  
  So... do something radical. Use what you've already got instead of buying something new that doesn't fit your requirements. Its crazy, I know. But be realistic. If you needed more bandwidth for local transfers, current solutions didn't fit anyway and you did something expensive like wire the house. If you're just using the wireless as a connection to the internet, then 802.11n is already more than adequate for your uplink.
8. Re:Realism... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-31 03:56 · Score: 0
  
  check the constellation size for satcomms...
9. Re:Realism... by sunderland56 · 2012-12-31 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  Amateur radio licencees can use much higher power on some 802.11b/g frequencies (1500 watts, versus 1 watt), and so can use amplifiers that are illegal for the general public. However, it doesn't solve the problem at all - you need bidirectional communications for things to work. Boosting the AP transmit power doesn't make it receive any better. Adding a receiver preamplifier helps some, but since they boost the noise as well as the signal, they aren't as useful as you'd think.
  If you need to boost a signal in one direction only (for instance, a single-floor dwelling with the AP at one end), antennas are a good solution. Otherwise, more than one AP is the best answer.
10. Re:Realism... by adri · 2012-12-31 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  There's a simpler solution - stop buying access points with inbuilt (ie, crappy) gain antennas.
  Some have _PCB printed_ antennas that are just plain crap at everything.
  Spend a little more money, buy something 2x2 or 3x3 with external antennas worth a damn, and you'll find your reach and throughput drastically increasing.
  The number of houses I've been in lately with crappy wifi due to their APs having onboard antennas is just plain ridiculous.
11. Re:Realism... by slonik · 2012-12-31 20:12 · Score: 1
  
  Shorter range is a significant advantage today because it reduces interference. Interference is probably the main reason for lack of speed and reliability in modern city apartment WiFi.
  RF propagation (and, thus, interference) is in no way dependent on the QAM modulation scheme and is the same for QPSK, QAM-16, QAM-64, QAM-256. Moreover, going to higher modulation constellations could force you to increase transmit power generating even more interference. Just my two cents from real world RF engineering.
12. Re:Realism... by solidraven · 2013-01-01 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  Ah yes, but satellite is quite different from WiFi in so many ways. Satellites use very directional spot beams in a frequency band that's not used for anything else. Combined with the fact that the spectrum allocated for satellites is very strictly regulated compared to the ISM band. A second factor is that the 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz bands are very crowded compared to that. Atmospheric interference isn't that much of a problem with WiFi obviously (especially with the lower frequencies). But the interference from other devices is. Another problem one can't forget is the that the up-link and down-link use different frequency bands that are quite a distance away from each other. So no cross-interference from the transmitter to the receiver like you have when you work in the 2.4 GHz band. And a few other differences. It's not cause you manage to use a certain type of modulation for a certain wireless application that it can be used for all the others. Modulation makes or breaks most wireless protocols. Hence why I fear they might have been a bit overly ambitious with this one.
802.11ac routers are already on the market by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-30 23:45 · Score: 0

I just bought an Asus 802.11ac router a few months ago and it's features are impressive. I already get 450 Mbit/s transfer rates using wifi and 1.7 Gbit/s via lan. Fortunately my Lenovo W530 supports this wifi setting. :-)
1. Re:802.11ac routers are already on the market by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-31 05:43 · Score: 0
  
  That's just the draft version.
crypto by spikestabber · 2012-12-31 00:09 · Score: 2

With all the recent Wi-Fi developments, why isn't encryption now standard? I should be able to setup an *open* access point with encryption these days so my users don't get their email passwords jacked. There is absolutely NO technical reason why this cannot be part of any modern specification. I will never ever use an open access point for this very reason...
1. Re:crypto by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-31 00:39 · Score: 0
  
  That's a US government issue. Look into the history of encryption and its restrictions for export. The regulations and laws have been ruled unconstitutional once already, but were simply transferred to another federal department. The result is that governments, especially including the US government, retain easy access to citizen data and have strong reasons to interfere with strong encryption by default.
  Encryption by default has been proposed, repeatedly, for basic network interface devices and has never gotten past the subtle and unsubtle federal interference.
2. Re:crypto by spikestabber · 2012-12-31 01:18 · Score: 1
  
  Good point, I thought of this, but I'm growing tired of US political crap on a global scale... most of us in the world do NOT live in the US last I checked....
3. Re:crypto by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-31 01:48 · Score: 0
  
  I should be able to setup an *open* access point with encryption these days so my users don't get their email passwords jacked.
  
  So, wait, why aren't your users using SSL to connect to their email provider?
  I mean, the access point shouldn't be able to see those email passwords either.
4. Re:crypto by drinkypoo · 2012-12-31 02:12 · Score: 2
  
  I should be able to setup an *open* access point with encryption these days so my users don't get their email passwords jacked. There is absolutely NO technical reason why this cannot be part of any modern specification. I will never ever use an open access point for this very reason...
  Security: you don't understand it, so you're doing it wrong. Your problem is that you're too trusting. You don't trust sniffers, sure, but you trust the router you're connecting to, which is beyond daft. You should never trust some random jerkoff's AP. They could well be subjecting all of your packets to DPI to look for passwords after they are decrypted by the AP. Or you could use https or ipsec and then the data remains encrypted until it arrives at the intended destination, which is how you actually protect your data.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
5. Re:crypto by kwerle · 2012-12-31 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  So you're entire argument is that one should trust unencrypted public airspace more than (or as much as) one should trust a single router?
  Less exposure is less exposure, and that's good. It ain't perfect, but nothing is.
6. Re:crypto by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-31 04:01 · Score: 0
  
  So you're entire argument is that one should trust unencrypted public airspace more than (or as much as) one should trust a single router?
  You're missing the point, which is that if you're actually worried then you shouldn't trust either one (and specifically you shouldn't let the fact that your traffic is encrypted over-the-air lull you into a false sense of security about what happens to it afterward).
7. Re:crypto by drinkypoo · 2012-12-31 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  So you're entire argument is that one should trust unencrypted public airspace more than (or as much as) one should trust a single router?
  Mine entire argument is that one should not trust the encryption betwixt wireless ethernet card and access point to protect anything at all. Do not trust it to keep people off of your wireless network, and do not trust it to protect your email password, and do not trust it to protect your browsing habits. You may reasonably trust a combination of firewall and IPSEC provided you keep up with advisories and updates, and even that is plenty debatable. How do you define "trust"? You trust the tool to do what it is capable of doing. Not only have wireless encryption schemes been defeated in the past, suggesting that the same might happen again, but a router outside of your control is the very definition of an "untrusted" device.
  
  Less exposure is less exposure, and that's good.
  OK, these days there's little reason not to use encryption, unless you have legacy devices which don't support meaningful encryption. But then, there's also no reason to believe that the encryption provided by the AP will protect your data. I assume that it is a minor inconvenience to an attacker at best, and I am never disappointed. If I care about security, then I use some kind of VPN technology, like IPSEC tunneling — probably the best scheme for the typical user, if they can manage the configuration, because of the broad compatibility. To wit, virtually everything works fine through IPSEC provided that there is no NAT involved, and many software packages which once did not work have been deliberately modified to permit IPSEC NAT traversal. And there is a fairly high level of compatibility between implementations, to the point that you can reasonably expect to get IPSEC working whether your nodes are running Linux or Windows or HP-SUX or what have you. Configuration, however, may be hairy and scary... Which is why stuff like openvpn even exists, AFAICT.
  
  It ain't perfect, but nothing is.
  I don't disagree, but if your goal is to protect your login credentials from unknown third parties, then wireless encryption on an open AP is essentially useless. I have no way whatsoever to know that the AP itself isn't some kind of trap, and I have an equal lack of opportunity to determine whether the AP has been compromised without compromising it myself, checking its software version, obtaining a dump of the software, and comparing it to a reference download. As such, trusting any public access point is something that I must not do. If your goal is to protect your data, then you must do (or indeed, not do) the same.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
8. Re:crypto by ceoyoyo · 2012-12-31 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  His argument is that you shouldn't trust an unknown router OR unencrypted wireless. Encrypted wireless just gives you a false sense of security.
  The solution to the problems you mentioned is to phase out unencrypted passwords. In the meantime, use end to end encryption.
9. Re:crypto by nine-times · 2012-12-31 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  Basically yes. You shouldn't trust a single unknown wireless router more than you would trust unencrypted public airspace. The two have comparable levels of security, which is to say "none at all".
10. Re:crypto by kwerle · 2012-12-31 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  His argument is that you shouldn't trust an unknown router OR unencrypted wireless. Encrypted wireless just gives you a false sense of security.
  No. Encrypted wireless gives you 100% protections against other wireless users. It is 100% effective at protecting from 99% of the likely threats (discounting the government and phone/cable companies). And I think that's worth something.
  
  The solution to the problems you mentioned is to phase out unencrypted passwords. In the meantime, use end to end encryption.
  Encrypted passwords don't come into it. Even with end to end encryption, encrypted passwords don't come into it. We're talking about data in motion, not data at rest.
11. Re:crypto by drinkypoo · 2013-01-01 00:10 · Score: 1
  
  Encrypted passwords don't come into it.
  It's what we're talking about, you might try keeping up.
  
  Even with end to end encryption, encrypted passwords don't come into it. We're talking about data in motion, not data at rest.
  There is no difference. Data is data, bits are bits. They don't take on some special property because you send them through a wire.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
12. Re:crypto by kwerle · 2013-01-01 17:25 · Score: 1
  
  There is no difference. Data is data, bits are bits. They don't take on some special property because you send them through a wire.
  They kind of do:
  http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/06/data_at_rest_vs.html
  We have been specifically talking about data in motion, where part or all of the journey is (or is not) encrypted. "Encrypted Passwords" implies the data at rest portion of the problem - for which the generally accepted best practice solution is bcrypt.
  http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4494234/what-are-the-best-practices-to-encrypt-passwords-stored-in-mysql-using-php
  Solving the rest portion obviously does not solve the motion portion. And vice versa.
13. Re:crypto by drinkypoo · 2013-01-01 23:25 · Score: 1
  
  Bruce has been wrong before and he's wrong again. Cryptography solves one kind of problem: the kind of problem where someone might intercept your bits and glean meaning from them that you would prefer remain dark. That problem crops up both when sending bits across a wire and when bits are lying around unused. Believing that bits "on a wire" are different from bits on a disk is the same as believing that a business method "on the internet" deserves a different patent from the same business method without the internet. It doesn't matter to you how an attacker intercepts your bits; either way, you want cryptography for the same reason. You may well use a different algorithm for data which needs to remain highly secret but only for a short time, but you are still using cryptography.
  Encrypting passwords does not imply the "data at rest" problem, which again is not a separate problem. We send passwords over a wire all the time, and we like to encrypt them when we do this. Thus data at rest becomes data in motion without turning into different bits, which is how you can tell there's no difference. It's the same bits. You often apply cryptography at a different time for data being transferred, but not only is that not always the case, but that's irrelevant when we're discussing interception of encrypted data. The only things that're relevant are how it's encrypted and whether it's encrypted when an attacker intercepts it.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
14. Re:crypto by kwerle · 2013-01-02 02:34 · Score: 1
  
  The needs and reasons for encryption are inherently different for data at rest vs. data in motion. Yeah, the end result is that you don't want someone to see them, but the vectors are so different it is useful to think of them differently. Data at rest need never be decrypted. When it is decrypted, it need only be decrypted once, and only in one location.
  Data in motion is almost always unencrypted twice - once when it is being entered, and it *must be* again when it is used at its destination.
  
  You often apply cryptography at a different time for data being transferred, but not only is that not always the case, but that's irrelevant when we're discussing interception of encrypted data. The only things that're relevant are how it's encrypted and whether it's encrypted when an attacker intercepts it.
  Timing is important, as the method for encryption is often different for data at rest vs. in motion. It is useful to be able to talk about them differently.
  It is critical that all passwords be stored encrypted. It is much less important that other 'personal data' be kept encrypted (there is all manner of data that can be found in public records).
  I argue that it is useful and important that all web traffic be encrypted.
  "Encrypted Password" implies a solution like bcrypt. It also implies that the password can never be decrypted. Instead, it is the target crypto string (is it a hash for bcrypt?) that gets matched.
  "Securing the communication channel" implies a solution like SSL, and the fact that the password gets encrypted en route (and decrypted at the terminus) can be inferred. The fact that it is decrypted at the terminus is important.
Re:Firjst poSt by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-31 00:11 · Score: 0

You forgot to include "BSD" there somewhere.
Speed... Meh by markdavis · 2012-12-31 00:55 · Score: 1

Always obsessed with speed. Year after year all most of us want is better range and less interference, not more speed. More channels and frequencies are needed. Do that and it might have a chance at being interesting.
1. Re:Speed... Meh by drinkypoo · 2012-12-31 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  obsessed with speed. Year after year all most of us want is better range and less interference, not more speed.
  Well no. I live in the boonies, and all I want from my wifi is more speed. I don't have interference to worry about, with no microwave and a 5.8 GHz phone next to a 2.4 GHz AP.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
2. Re:Speed... Meh by markdavis · 2012-12-31 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  You are probably not "most of us", then :)
Point to point links? by betterunixthanunix · 2012-12-31 01:26 · Score: 1

This is kind of like asking, "What is the point of having 100 megabit ethernet when hardly any ISPs have 100 megabit service?"

--
Palm trees and 8
The law by betterunixthanunix · 2012-12-31 01:40 · Score: 1

Here's the problem: the law only allows relatively narrow bands for unlicensed use (courtesy of the ITU), and so getting "more channels" is not easy to do. You could mandate that the standard operate on more bands -- 900MHz, 24GHz, 60GHz, etc. -- but that will drive up the cost of the equipment.

--
Palm trees and 8
1. Re:The law by markdavis · 2012-12-31 01:59 · Score: 2
  
  I know it would require more bands... and that is precisely what is needed. What is taking so long? The FCC auctioned off billions of dollars worth of bands to companies for mobile phones/etc, and we citizens are still stuck with these few crappy little crumbs for one of our most important wireless technologies.
Consumer Fail / Backhaul Win by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-31 02:15 · Score: 1

802.11ac will be a relative failure for the consumer market. While it will provide great speed benefits for very short ranges, the penetration og 5GHz through walls etc. will require lots of APs and won't be widely adopted.
However...
802.11ac for open space, line of sight, long range backhaul links sounds pretty promising.
ac is relatively useless by Shaman · 2012-12-31 03:07 · Score: 1

It's got more application in a server room than it does in the home. Range will be no better (and probably worse) than 5Ghz on your 802.11n routers and the amount of 5Ghz frequency it requires is simply put: ALL OF IT. So you won't be able to place multiple routers in an area, because they'll stomp on each other either at the AP or the endpoints.
This is a standard for (at best) a home audio/video system where all the components are nearby and for a server rack where you use wireless as a second network to communicate between servers. For home device use, most of us will be better off with 802.11n
And BTW, 802.11n is *still* not being fully utilized. You can get 600Mbps (air speed) per frequency out of a single 802.11n router if you take full advantage of its spatial abilities. The best I know of is 450Mbps per frequency. Ruckus probably makes the best APs out there right now.

--
...Steve
1. Re:ac is relatively useless by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-31 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  I manage an installation of nearly 5,000 APs. We have about 800 in the larger buildings. Yes, we do get basic 802.11n speeds on 5GHz, but 2.4GHz is a crap shoot. Way too much interference both non-802.11 and co-channel from neighbor APs.
  We still have trouble with 5GHz as we are seriously out of channels with 20MHz bands. We can't bond them to 40MHz. So, 802.11ac is functionally useless. I have told that to vendors marketing 802.11ac products to us. Without more channels, we can't bond.
  At home, I can probably use it nicely. My nearest neighbor is just barely visible on 2.4 GHz. I can bond the whole freaking spectrum in 5GHz and bring up as many spacial streams the hardware will let me and not worry about it.
  I can't imagine trying it being useful in a dense urban location like an apartment complex. There's an argument for shorter radio time at higher speeds, but how many people really upgrade their gear? I still have to support "new" 802.11b client hardware.
2. Re:ac is relatively useless by Shaman · 2012-12-31 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  I have no idea why you were downvoted. What you've said is entirely accurate.
  
  --
  ...Steve
What's in it for me? by fast+turtle · 2012-12-31 03:17 · Score: 1

All my WiFi gear still uses the 802.11b range as I get better speeds from it then the .11g mode and don't even try N mode as I don't have any adapters that offer/use it. Simply aint worth the money due to to many routers on the same damn frequency. Hell I'm even looking to switch back to the old 900Mhz band for cordless phones due to everyone having moved to the 5Ghz models. Better range and no interference from others. All of this crap in the same band simply chokes 802.11n speeds to less then what I see on the 11b settings, which pushes damn close to the full 10M advertised wired speed for 10M ethernet. Not bad and for the house, it's good enough for all of us to use at the same time.

--
Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
1. Re:What's in it for me? by jonadab · 2012-12-31 09:21 · Score: 1
  
  > All my WiFi gear still uses the 802.11b range
  
  Yeah? Well, I'm still using 100BaseT for everything. I'd tell you to get off my lawn, but I'm pretty sure there's a mean old geezer dozing off around here somewhere who still uses 10Base5 or maybe even token ring, and if I yell at you too loudly he'll probably wake up and kick us both off the grass.
  
  --
  Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
Horse Hockey!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-31 04:01 · Score: 1

Omnidirectional, not really. Directional? Hell yeah, I have Ubiquiti Powerbridges deployed and I'm pushing ~297 Mbps.
That's what the AP's dashboard reports. And tyhe manufacturer and its Apple-esque acolytes will argue that that's "radio" speed. But, run iperf , or some internet bandwidth tester and get back to us.
Actual TCP/IP bandwidth on your ~297 Mbps link is less than 100Mbps. Hell the PowerBridge only has a 10/100 Base-TX ethernet interface! How do you suppose they squeeze 297Mbps over 100Mbps? Yea. Horse hockey!
1. Re:Horse Hockey!!!!!! by FrankSchwab · 2012-12-31 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know about the GP's Powerbridge, but I had a pair of Ubiquiti NanoStation Loco M5's providing bridge service between two of our offices that got real-world throughput of around 75 Mbps (Measured by transferring a 4GB file using Windows Explorer to another Windows box, and stopwatching the time). The offices were only a hundred yards apart, but I had the TX power cranked down to minimum.
  I've measured similar on other wireless routers. Haven't tried on Gigabit connected routers. So on to the question: Yes, you can get 100 Mbit Ethernet speeds - but recognize that's only about 10 MBytes / sec.
  
  --
  And the worms ate into his brain.
What about range? by WarJolt · 2012-12-31 06:25 · Score: 1

Who cares about speed. 802.11ac will give you better range. 4x4 will give you better range because of beamforming.
1. Re:What about range? by Shaman · 2012-12-31 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  Uh.................. only if they support 4x4. And that range will be very limited. 5.x does not penetrate obstacles well.
  Show me a single 802.11n router today that fully support beamforming. Even the Ruckus and Wavion gear are only using part of the 802.11n spatial multiplexing capabilities.
  
  --
  ...Steve
Let me get this straight, now... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-31 07:21 · Score: 0

So, I will get 1.3 to 6.9 Gbps wireless inside my house when the best I can get is 1.5Mbps staticy DSL with super-slow EDNS from my ISP? Or move to ComCrap for a whopping 3Mbps? Okaaaaaayyyyyyyyy...
What the hell... by Aizenmyou · 2012-12-31 07:38 · Score: 1

...happened to the rest of the alphabet sequence? No M?
1. Re:What the hell... by vlueboy · 2012-12-31 20:00 · Score: 1
  
  ...happened to the rest of the alphabet sequence? No M?
  You jest! BUT...
  The IEEE suddenly realized they'd have to do like in apartment buildings: Normally named from 1A through Z their units beyond the first 26 combinations require a wrap-and-restart at 1AA for the rest of the units on that floor.
  "That's MADNESS! I've never seen these other 20-something protocols!!" a curious slashdotter might say... Yes, there's really a lot of networking protocols AND they're just not ALL in the domain of Wifi tech. It's networking in general. The power of "QoS" we consider so widely-abused by ISPs and something called "Bridge operations procedure", for example, take some of the first few, yet little-known letters.
  It was nice visiting this link again, to see that most stuff that is real still doesn't get the mainstream spotlight.