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?
Well... making you replace all your devices is a FEATURE, not a bug. At least from Cisco's standpoint.
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.
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.
not only older houses, but also every solid house on places where the earth keeps moving.
-Kz-
I use Cisco wireless at work and Ubiquity at home. I have to say that there is still value for the Cisco products in larger companies.
The Ubnt stuff works OK at home, but there is no way I'd deploy a factory full of them using that java "controller" compared to Cisco's WLCs.
If you're a small business, sure, Ubnt is fine. If you have 300 sites to manage, you want something that can allow a single person to manage all of those networks from one console. The lower headcount can buy a LOT of expensive hardware.
Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
I think the point is that Cisco would like to ship their products with the slower stuff off, but if they do, they are no longer "Wi-Fi" compliant.
They're asking for a second "Wi-Fi" standard created so they can give the user a faster access point right out of the box & still be compliant with a standard.
Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
Yes, you do. Which is Why I see no point at all in Cisco's plan other than to try to obsolete some gear that should otherwise stay in service for many years to come.
Anybody who actually does have a problem from slow devices and knows how to tell what will need replacement will know enough to do the same.
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.
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.
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
It eliminates it from devices on your network. But your devices still need to play nice with your neighbours' networks on the same channel. Part of the problem I think is that 802.11b wasn't really designed to play well with different networks operating on the same channel in close proximity. So later standards need to detect 802.11b traffic and avoid it - which means slowing down due to gaps in the communication at least.
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