Slashdot Mirror
Old-school Wi-Fi Is Slowing Down Networks, Cisco Says
alphadogg writes "The early Wi-Fi standards that opened the world's eyes to wire-free networking are now holding back the newer, faster protocols that followed in their wake, Cisco Systems said. The IEEE 802.11 standard, now available in numerous versions with speeds up to 6.9Gbps and growing, still requires devices and access points to be compatible with technologies that date to the late 1990s. But those older standards — the once-popular 802.11b and an even slower spec from 1997 — aren't nearly as efficient as most Wi-Fi being sold today. As a result, Cisco thinks the 802.11 Working Group and the Wi-Fi Alliance should find a way to let some wireless gear leave those versions behind. Two Cisco engineers proposed that idea last week in a presentation at the working group's meeting in Los Angeles. The plan is aimed at making the best use of the 2.4GHz band, the smaller of two unlicensed frequency blocks where Wi-Fi operates."
and i mean the ones that sell the same device over many years like a game console. PS3, xbox 360, wii u, nintendo 3ds, etc
and then you have something like printers. sure it's only $100 or $250 but no one wants to buy a new printer just to buy a new wifi router
Yeah, until you can't go through a thick wall, you know, like how people used to build houses before cardboard and sawdust were acceptable?
I have a router which I can set to 802.11n only mode, which is fine for my purposes and devices. By setting this, do I eliminate the problem?
If you put in Cisco equipment your wired network speed WILL speed up.
Since Cisco can't follow standards well and puts wifi systems that are constantly broken your wireless traffic will go WAY down.
Sorry... the use of Cisco in many big complexes is because so many I.T. managers have to get the most expensive equipment. I've personally used Ubiquity and MicroTik equipment and they are more reliable.
Well... making you replace all your devices is a FEATURE, not a bug. At least from Cisco's standpoint.
Nokia N900 cannot do 5GHz. Besides that cheapest 5GHz router is still 3x more expensive than cheapest 2.4GHz router.
Certainly not the FCC. These are unlicensed bands, they don't care what you do with them (which is the whole point of unlicensed bands).
5GHz doesn't penetrate materials as well as 2.4GHz, especially in older homes. I have a dual 5/2.4 router at home, and the 5 is only fastest in the same room as the router. My house is L-shaped and made with brick/cinder block and until I moved the Wifi router there was a corner of my bedroom that didn't even see the 5GHz signal. Just because the numbers are bigger doesn't necessarily mean they're better. To me, the biggest advantage of 5GHz is it's pretty uncrowded.
What's wrong with the current system, where we use multiple letters? The answer is it's not just technical problem with unnecessary signals filling the airwaves, it's a sales problem. Customers don't grasp the differences between letter versions (a/b/g/n) so they purchase the one with the most letters, perpetuating the filling of the limited bandwidth available.
Wifi operates in bands that the ITU has designated "ISM bands", which are basically unregulated. They were bands originally designated for non-telecom equipment, such as microwaves, to be able to operate in without worrying about the RF interference they emit. However telecom equipment is allowed to also operate in the band so long as it can tolerate more or less arbitrary interference. Wifi is nowadays one of the more common uses of the ISM bands, but since they're explicitly "interfere all you want" bands from the ITU's perspective, they don't have much to say about wifi interference.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
All the newer, faster equipment supports the 5GHz band. Use a dual-radio access point, and set aside the 5GHz band for n/ac only. Run legacy devices on 2.4GHz. Use different network names for 2.4 and 5GHz so that people put their newer stuff on 5GHz.
Easiest way to do this is have "networkname" and "networkname_fast". People whose devices support 5GHz will probably use the fast one. Those with only 2.4GHz-only devices won't even see the "fast" one and use the regular one. Everyone should be (relatively) happy.
5GHz has been a godsend for WiFi performance. Sure, it doesn't penetrate as far as 2.4GHz, but in managed setups this is wonderful. Spend a little bit more on additional access points and have MUCH better performance.
....should find a way to let some wireless gear leave those versions behind
So... similar to how pretty much most/all modern routers give you the option to switch between 'a/b/g/n' mode, or enable just 'n', or just 'ac'? And like how they let you choose to use the 2.4GHz band or 5GHz or both, or...? It seems to me that there really isn't a technical problem here, just a user education issue of TELLING them that there may be a speed benefit to turning off standards they aren't using anyway.
So default to OFF for the older protocols.
eg. I have a 5GHz access point for my devices that support it, and a 2.5GHz access point for those that don't. I'm able to set my 6GHz band to N-only and my 2.5GHz band to G-only because all the devices I have on it support G. I'm able to effectively disable A/B support and speed up my network.
Start shipping routers with A/B disabled, and make it an easy checkbox in the forced setup to enable "legacy" devices.
No need to drop the functionality entirely is there?
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
not only older houses, but also every solid house on places where the earth keeps moving.
-Kz-
Excepting noise
The trouble is with radio you can't really do that, for the most part whatever is loudest wins. 802.11[abgn] you have to recognize the old carrier, and more challenging the old implementations have to recognize your carrier. Otherwise they will think you are noise and turn their radios up to the highest transmit powers.
Because you would need to stay carrier compatible that is probably major constraint building a more efficient protocol.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
802.11b should be the first to go, but not 802.11a. Even though it didn't get good industry support, 802.11a is great. People instead adopted 802.11g, which is not 5 GHz like 802.11a, but it had better compatibility with 802.11b.
I was pleasantly surprised when I learned that my Samsung Galaxy S III supports 802.11a. I took my 802.11a AP out of storage and returned to wireless.
At some point in the near future I'll be purchasing 802.11ac equipment and putting my a network to bed. My two 802.11a adapters are PCMCIA, and laptops don't have that anymore, so I'll be generating three pieces of fairly useless eWaste.
With 5GHz you get more non-overlapping channels (12 vs 3) along with the benefit (if you live in an apartment building) of not having to worry about conflicting with other apartments because the signals are absorbed by the walls.
The logic is indeed baffling. If you have old device A and new device B at home, then the new device would connect with the faster protocols by default and normally never use the old protocol, correct? Having the old protocol is only for products like A, which one wants to keep around if they can.
Thus, the only way to get rid of usage of the old protocol is make network comm equipment that is not incompatible with A-type devices, meaning A devices are now useless trash.
Thus, it's either stupidity or greed (force purchases of replacement gizmos). Or are we missing a subtle 3rd option because we didn't carefully RTFA?
Table-ized A.I.
Every router I have ever seen has an option for "n only" or "a only" or whatever band only.
Just turn off the older standards. Done and done. Some people may want to maintain compatibility with legacy devices. That should be their choice.
I have an iBook - I always liked the look of the thing when it came out and around 2005 when it was no longer the current model, I bought a grey&white 366mhz, 10gb HDD iBook and the matching curve-shaped bag via eBay
Its had intermittent periods of use as and when I needed an extra machine, and although now 14 years old, with RAM upgraded to 392mb, an aftermarket battery giving 7 hours on a charge and OSX 10.3.9 installed, it still works. HOWEVER - it has an original Apple Airport card (probably worth more than the laptop & bag put together...) and these dont work with WPA2 or with any 802.11n router - they just wont connect.
So its just become a curiosity on the shelf - a machine with only one USB port is hopelessly compromised by using an external Wifi adapter.
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
And they want them in all your Things.
Cheapest 5GHz router is still 3x more expensive than cheapest 2.4GHz router.
The cheapest 2.4GHz router is less than $15, and the cheapest 5GHz router is $40, according to the latest listings from NewEgg. It may be 3x as expensive in relative terms, but in absolute terms the difference is less than the cost of 5 Big Mac meals. I certainly would rather buy a 5GHz wireless router than a Big Mac.
Have a nice time.
The logic is indeed baffling. If you have old device A and new device B at home, then the new device would connect with the faster protocols by default and normally never use the old protocol, correct? ... Thus, it's either stupidity or greed (force purchases of replacement gizmos). Or are we missing a subtle 3rd option because we didn't carefully RTFA?
The problem is that legacy support makes the newer protocols less efficient. The "450 Mbps" of a modern 802.11n network is only a burst speed, and the rest of the time the router is busy sending 1 Mbps preambles and beacons. If we can drop support for the older standards, then the router can dedicate more of its time to high-speed data transfers.
Have a nice time.
Because they don't have a strong monopoly position. They are a big player yes, but Arista, Juniper, PaloAlto, HP, Aruba, Extreem, Enterasys the list is long. Cisco has pretty serious competition in almost every domain they play in. In some domains like Data Center distribution they are not even the leader.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Cisco is a company with its own interests at heart. In fact, the executive leadership's interests at heart. They want more and more money but they have to convince you there is something inadequate about what you are using now in order to sell it to you.
Back in the earlier dot-com bubble days, no convincing was needed. Money-spending-executives (much like gadget buying housewives) bought into the notion that buying new tech will somehow translate into more money in their pockets.
Right about now, tech has lost its magic in that arena. People dislike upgrades. They are expensive and do not promise much of value because now people increasingly understand what they are buying where before they didn't.
Cisco says "you need faster networks!!!" Businesses are asking "oh really?" Sorry Cisco, but your glory days are soon to be behind you. More importantly, we're about to see a kind of technology revolution where experience is more important than certifications. Certifications are little more than brand endorsements these days anyway and HR departments everywhere are wising up to that fact as well.
Cisco, you need a new game. I doubt you will come up with any. Your products demand standards compliance which means just about anyone will be able to replace you. Well, that is unless you can convince people to buy your expensive patented technology right? I guess your best bet is to get new standards adopted using your expensive patents. Otherwise you will have to compete with other beige-box sellers out there.
Note to self: New business model
1. Create safety reporting scheme followed closely by
2. Astroturfing parental concern over wifi brain tumors.
3. ???
4. Profit!!
That's what I was thinking. Either that, or sales are down so much thanks to the spying debacle that they're having to push hard for new revenue, even if the new equipment doesn't/won't carry backdoors. 2013 was looking like a banner year for Cisco, up until August; they're almost back to 2012 share price now.
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
TFA's author seems to live in alternate reality.
Despite this, I was successfully using 802.11a, a 5GHz-only standard, back when 802.11b was all the rage specifically because I wanted to avoid the growing traffic in the 2.4GHz spectrum. I probably still have the PCMCIA card kicking around.
And get off my lawn.
This, my house is 100 years old, I can get through 1-2 walls, and then nothing.
Going out on a limb here (at risk of getting modded down or worse my butt flamed in front of all my friends) but someone wrote there was a time when RF was new and FCC carved out spectrum for various services. Then along comes the computer people, "we need wireless!" But everything was taken, except 2.4GHz that was given to ISM and microwave ovens. Kind of like land grabbing in early 1800s, by end of that century all the good stuff was taken. And everything that is licensed-free wireless is all put in 2.4GHz. Don't have a choice unless you get licensed services meaning Part 97 amateur radio but mostly limited as it is perceived as old school (i.e. operators are senior retired people) and cannot use it for business and entertainment. But most spectrum belongs to the big boys that bought lots of it from FCC so they can deploy all the stuff made in China to operate in their spectrum, and sell use of it to people (and many get screwed with data caps or charged lotsa bux when exceeding data limits).
mfwright@batnet.com
I can typically see a dozen or so neighbors' wifi networks at 2.4GHz. Probably 2/3 are 802.11n, the rest g, no b. I used to run on g, and it worked ok except for the far edges of my house, but when my neighbors started upgrading from g to n (or maybe b to n:-), the airwaves were getting too crowded and I kept getting knocked off the network when I was in the room I usually used my laptop in. Eventually I bit the bullet and got an 802.11n router to get a bit more power and range, as well as switching channels, though there were almost as many people on 6 and 11 as on 1. Now my connections are pretty reliable, except for one tablet that has a wimpy radio.
The one other thing that's changed is that almost all the nearby wifi want authentication (even if it's only WEP.) Almost none of the b access points used it, many of the g versions did, and all of the n access points have authentication enabled on them. It's kind of frustrating, because every couple of years my DSL has a problem, and in the past I could borrow a neighbor's wifi until I got it fixed.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Fast and old school
I can see a dozen or so of my neighbors' wifi networks. About 2/3 are running N, 1/3 running G, no B. I have a couple of 802.11b devices in my "old electronic junk" bin, but it's not like they're powered up. And unless you're somewhere that has smart-meters running 802.11b, or some other antique or retro gear, you probably won't have 802.11b running either.
But all of the devices know how to fall back to that protocol, and maybe some of them will, at least with weak signals over long distances.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
My HP Laser Printer is running just fine after a decade. It doesn't have wifi, just ethernet and USB, though I think there was a wifi printer of the same generation. It usually sits in the same room as the wifi router. But Wifi uses channels, so if you've got an old 802.11b-only printer and want to keep it on the air instead of hanging it on an ethernet, you've probably got an old wifi router sitting around by now, so put it and the printer on one channel and your fast gear on another channel (or on 5 GHz, where fast stuff belongs.) If you can get your printer and router to use Channel 14, that's probably best, because it's not officially supported in the US so there's usually nothing else on it.
And there's nothing wrong with 802.11g, though yeah, any 802.11b is worth retiring.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
That's an especially good time to deploy some old router that it can connect to so you can use it at home, on a different channel than your main wifi, though for roaming use you might need a USB hub.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
That is interesting that wireless products are apparently required to support back to 802.11 1997 and b out of the box. I have seen that on my gear but didn't know it was mandated. Anyway, one of the first steps I take when deploying a new AP is to log in and, after disabling WEP and WPA1, change a dropdown box from b/g/n to g/n.
This should eliminate all the legacy traffic, surely?
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Ya, I'm no captain of industry and would consider myself pro-consumerist over pro-profiteer, but what's wrong with "Good Enough"? Most people have zero need for 6Gbps. Yes, most. Most people aren't downloading massive files over public networks nor does it matter if they get instant access to the newest viral craze on Youtube.
For most people 802.11b is good enough. Upgrading is too resource intensive when the cost of continuing the status quo is ZERO DOLLARS.
I equate this "issue" with Dell complaining that no one is buying their OctoCore 3GHZ 16GB dual-Video machines that support 4 monitors. Sometimes, old tech is good enough. Don't take that away.
That is because of all the lead in your walls. :-)
Yeah, well on the plus side, you don't have to worry about the NSA tapping into your wifi! Seriously, metal lath and plaster? May as well be living in a Faraday Cage!
It's called running your hardware in an exclusive mode. I'm not sure what other crappy access points everyone there is using, but my Linksys E2500 in it's Wifi settings has an option for operating solely in an 802.11N mode while throwing legacy compatibility to the wind. I've never enabled it due to compatibility reasons, but the option is very much there. So if Cisco is complaining about A/B/G revisions of wireless slowing down networks, then start selling hardware that's N or AC-only by default and make sure it's clearly listed on the box, the product listing, and the instruction manuals. Cisco's trying to create a problem that doesn't exist if you know what you're doing.
The Amarri pray for god, the Caldari pray for profit. the Gallente pray for peace, but the Minmatar pray their ships hol
In Windows 7, I remove 6 clients + protocols I don't use listed below (no home LAN is how I get away with it, single system only)
Removing LAN protocols might work for people who live alone, but I don't see how it'd work for households with more than one person, or even with one person and both a computer and a smartphone or tablet. Otherwise, I can see the value of the other measures you listed, namely NoScript (or the counterpart built into a particular browser) and a DNS-level blacklist (your hosts file).
Tuning the IP stack for BOTH speed & security @ the registry level
What tuning do you recommend in this case?
As someone with a lot of friends visiting (who would like to use my 5Ghz network)
The iPhone didn't support 5Ghz till the iPhone 5.
Samsung only started supporting 5Ghz a year and a half ago.
Any friends with an earlier phone, or another model (e.g. HTC) tends to be unable to get onto my network.
Laptops are hit or miss. It appears quite a few older laptops have 5Ghz but then a friends new netbook won't.
What? I actually read the article. The 54g I got in 2002 had '802.11b only', '802.11g only', and '802.11 b&g' as its three available modes.
What's new here?
Oh, and multicast still sucks over 802.11n, it still falls back to the base symbol rate - is that what they're talking about? Don't try to run PulseAudio over multicast if you don't have IGMP snooping on your switches, or you're gonna have a bad time!
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
In our office and campus environment, we load up on access points in open office areas so you are never more than 30 feet from an AP in open air. 802.11an is the preferred protocol. But in my house, I have lots of plaster walls, ceilings, etc. I don't fell like wiring up an AP in each room, so 802.11g is my preferred protocol. There is nothing wrong with 2.4Ghz in my house. There is very little interference from my neighbors, as they are at least 30 feet beyond my walls and I can allocate non-adjacent channels. It's far desirable to a 5Ghz frequency that will be cut by 2/3 when it passes through the first wall. Sure, I could upgrade to 802.11gn, but I easilly get 30M to my AP, and my FiOS is only 10M so why bother? My servers and other things that matter are all wired anyway.
I do not understand that. Sometimes one wants connectivity from some small mobile device and there has been no replacement yet for N900 - see also some other recent article about it.
The difference is one and half workdays salary of a waiter or about one workday salary for other jobs in the rural area here. These people may have different opinion when you have to recommend them wireless for home.
I'm sure Cisco et al will be more than happy to sell you a wireless access point for every room in your house, and then declare them all obsolete whenever 802.11xyz comes out.
Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
More specifically, Industrial, Scientific and Medical .. with the 2.4ghz band also being where microwave ovens "live"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Time Warner is the problem for the most part. My LAN link of a quadzillion gigabytes is nice to be sure and if you decide you need a wireless fileserver for all the internets of things in your house might be useful but the problem is Conchita and Ramesh over at Time Warner who both don't care that you're paying $140/month for an internet connection 1/20th of that speed and, the fact that having it available 80% of the time at all is fine.
I wouldn't say that ISM bands are unregulated, at least in the US - they're in fact heavily regulated. What they are are unlicensed.
You still have type acceptance, emission type limits, power/field strength limits, etc. It's not a free-for-all.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
I have a dual band device. It actually allows me to have 4 separate wireless networks -- 2 2.4g (primary and guest) and 2 5g (primary and guest). I set up three (2 2.4g (primary and guest) and 1 5g). The few legacy devices I have are on the 2.4 and the rest are on 5g.
Works great. You're not going to get that functionality for $39.99... but you certainly can for under $150.
Oh how I remember "movie night" a few years ago. Wife/kids would go to pop popcorn and since the file server and internet connection was wifi'd elsewhere, POOF goes the movie. Had to plan out WHEN to use the microwave before mediaportal/netflix use.
It's the industry standard.
Why are we still talking about this? Just go buy some new Cisco stuff and be quiet.
Could it sample older protocols less often instead of ignore them?
Table-ized A.I.
Where I live we prefer our buildings not to fall down every couple of years. Granted, there are few ones more than 30 stories high, but those that are there have survived several sizable quakes.
note, these aren't brick and stone; reinforced concrete is all the rage... and not too good for wifi, even at 2.5Ghz That's why I make sure my wireless phone is 900Mhz and not 2.4Ghz
-Kz-