Slashdot Mirror
Inexpensive 11megabit Wireless LAN
x mani x writes "Due to recent Apple postings, I noticed something new on their site no one has mentioned yet: 11mbit radio-based NICs and hubs. Of course, something clever like this could only have been developed by Lucent. Oh, they don't cost an arm and a leg either. "
I don't see an x86 version, but we need Linux drivers. My
2mbit ZoomAir lan is addictive, but 11mbs will make my mp3s
stream in so much quicker :) (Unrelated: This page actually
has pics of the new iBook macs too)
I found a page for a company called No Wires Needed that supports IEEE 802.11 DSSS for PC's. They have an Open Source Linux driver for one of their cards. Both Apple and No Wires Needed claim their products work (and play well with others) with other IEEE 802.11 DSSS equipment.
URL for No Wires Needed is:
http://www.nwn.com/
Drive by shootings in Quake anyone.
"Trouble is, just because it's obvious doesn't mean it's true"
"Trouble is, just because it's obvious doesn't mean it's true"
--Terry Pratchett
From http://www.apple.com/airport/faq2.html
Q. What kind of security does AirPort provide?A. AirPort offers password access control and encryption to deliver security equivalent to that of a physical network cable. Users are required to enter a password to log on to the AirPort network--and, optionally, an additional password for access to any other computer on the network. When transmitting information, AirPort uses 40-bit encryption to scramble data, rendering it useless to eavesdroppers
Though you can receive signals with just about any type/length of antenna (though antennas tuned for specific frequencies are usually better at it, though few people seem to notice), TRANSMITTING signals is something entirely different. If you attach antennas of the wrong type/length to a transmitter expecting a tuned antenna (usually the antenna that comes with the equipment), you will eventually fry the transmitter.
Basically radio waves are exactly that: waves. They have a measurable wavelength. Tuned antennas are "tuned" by matching the end of the antenna with the ends of those wavelengths (or some nice fraction thereof). When you transmit, the wave basically travels along the length of the antenna and when it hits the end, *reflects* back (and, as I understand it, a similar effect happens on the opposite end, where the antenna is attached). If everything is nice and in phase, the wave looks and acts really nice and you get a nice strong signal radiated without much of it being reflected back into the equipment. However, with an improperly tuned antenna (for example a TV antenna), you will not get a nice, in-phase reflection and you'll get a significant amount of the signal reflected back into the equipment, which fries it.
It may not happen immediately, but it will certainly decrease the lifetime of the equipment.
Bottom line: If you have equipment that transmits RF, don't fuck around with the antenna if you value the equipment.
Perhaps they mean it's up to 10 *percent* faster... At 11 Mbps, I can't imagine it being 10 times faster than anything still in common use.
Anyway, it sounds perfect to me. I just moved into a new house and I really, really don't want to cable it!
Geeky modern art T-shirts
If the frequency is known, you could easily build a simple beam antenna. This would perhaps be quite illegal as the beam would be concentrated, but very effective in long distances of a mile or more away. If its in the gigahertz range, one could make a small horn antenna.
It's 2.4 GHz. As others have said, the max distance is 150 feet. Basically, it's running on the same base frequency as the high-end phones (they are generally 2.4GHz receive and 900MHz send, but there are exceptions).
- Vincit qui patitur.
Just build a Network Interface using an old 486. Maybe Linux in the Network Interface, but that's not important as it's just a network device. Do the real networking in that device. Connect the NT boxes to the nearest Network Interface.
I have used a 2Mb wireless LAN at work for the last year. Not for day-to-day use, but mostly just for bringing laptops to meetings, ocassionally working outside the building, etc. Our wireless LAN is pretty slow, the best transfer rates I've gotten were more along the lines of 500-700kbps (about 60-90KB/sec). I've always wanted to set one up at home, but the costs were prohibitive. Our Netwave hub cost around $1000 and each PC card is around $250. So this new Apple/Lucent setup looks great, I might just buy one.
3COM has an x86 implementation of IEEE 802.11 called AirConnect
The iMac I understand...attracts customers who don't know much about computers other then "point & click"...but who among them is going to get a hub?
Apple hopes a whole lot of them. In fact, that's their target audience. The point is that Joe Sixpack orders DSL, buys a couple of iBooks and a hub, runs the GUI-based setup tool, and he's got a super-fast, super-reliable network connection. This may be the first real networking for the masses. If Apple's configuration program is as simple as they seem to think it is, pretty much anyone should be able to set up a home network with it.
Keep in mind that this thing is designed to go with the iBook. The iBook's got the antenna built in, and a $100 card that can be easily added on to enable airport. Then you just plug the hub into either a DSL "modem" or phone line, and you've got yourself wireless internet anywhere in the house. This could be a big hit among consumers. The biggest problem I see is the $2000 total for the computer + card + hub is still a little pricey. But there are still a *lot* of computerless consumers that can afford that if it's compelling enough.
Actually, widely separating the frequencies is good. It simplifies the filtering necessary to do full-duplex.
Approximately three-to-one frequency split lets you use the same antenna, too. A quarter-wave for the lower frequency is about three-quarters for the higher, and will load up reasonably well - especially with a the odd loading coil or capacitor here and there - which just might fall out as a side-effect of the band splitter.
You want the talk channel to be better than the listen channel, so you don't keep yattering away at somebody that YOU can hear just fine but who can't hear you.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Actually, using a yagi instead of an omni to increase directional gain does *not* violate ISM band rules (2.4Ghz). Regulation on power output are based on an omnidirectional source. If the beam is 'focused', higher gain is very much permitted.
Example.
a 2.4Ghz ISM band wireless router that I have.
It operates up to about 150 feet with an small omni.
With a pair of yagi antennae, we can use them to create a link over 5km long. And this is still within regulations.
Standard Speed being equivalent to 2Mbps, this indicates to me that this Turbo card maxes out at 6Mbps. This falls short of the 11Mbps promised from the AirPort product.
So I wonder if they are really the same product after all. I'd love it if they were; I'd buy 3 in a heartbeat at $99 a pop. But the lack of any 11 Mbps option on the WaveLAN page makes me wonder.
Folks, this is simply Lucent's WaveLAN product, which has been working with Linux for quite a while. I've been using it at home for 3 years. (Used to work at ATT... Old demo equipment headed for the scrap heap... No way would I have picked it up at List Price.) As for getting the ISA card to work, if you look at the WaveLAN pages, you'll notice that they have gone to a PCMCIA ISA card, with a PCMCIA WaveLAN adapter plugged into it. Card Services should handle this like any other PCMCIA device. To be certain, just add a genuine PC Card controller to your PC, and just buy the PC Card version of the product.
For those that would die defending it, Freedom
has a sweet taste that the protected will never know.
I work at an ISP and have used these wireless 11MB things before. They work generally well once you get them going. They may say 11MB but once you get three or more connected it goes down to about 3-5MB. Not that that is all that bad but it's not 11. It works like ethernet over token ring. The main unit polls each of the clients about 1500 times per second. If they don't have anything to send then it goes to the next client... If you start playing TF on these radios they go to shit. The UDP packets go way too fast for the polling system and things get laggy. But if you just want to transfer files it'll do the job. It really shouldn't need any drivers so all you should have to do is plug yer nic into it. Good Luck if you buy one.
Sure, just have a look at an old Compaq luggable, or even an Osborne 1.
Now, *those* were some butt-ugly computers.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
- I have a firewall between my ADSL and my home network. But with AirPort, there's only 40-bit encryption (weak) preventing an attacker from becoming part of my network. With my current wired Ethernet, the attacker would have to either physically break into my home, or subvert my firewall. It's always possible that the firewall has weaknesses that I'm unaware of, but unless the attacker knows or finds those weaknesses, he has to break a 168-bit triple DES key to attack it.
- Even if an attacker doesn't want to break into my personal network, he can get free access to my ADSL internet connection. Again, assuming only that he breaks a 40-bit key.
I'm not saying that AirPort is a bad product. I'm only pointing out that you do have to worry about the encryption, and that 40 bits is pathetic. Obviously they wanted to avoid the stupid US crypto export regs. I'd be much more inclined to buy a unit with strong crypto, if some company starts selling them.Not because I really think random people are trying to attack my network (although my firewall logs do show some script-kiddie attacks), but more as a matter of principle.
If you go to the Airport faq it says specifically that this will be compatible with both PCs and existing IEEE 802.11 DSSS devices.
Also, I dont know anything about that standard, but I found this:
The 802.11 DSSS standard currently supports a data rate of 2 Mbps with collision avoidance. Future generations of standards-compatible DSSS
products from Zoom are expected to have data rates up to 11 Mbps with backward compatibility to 2
Mbps products.
on the Zoomtel website. I guess that means that were going to see other devices that can perform the same way as Apple's Airport
The FAQ makes several interesting points:
* The signal uses radio frequencies instead of IR. It will therefore pass through walls and other obstacles.
* No encryption scheme is mentioned. If multiple base stations are in close proximity - say in apartments, dorms, etc. - I wonder how performance will be affected and who might decide to listen in.
* Two iBooks with AirPort cards can communicate without any base station. Imagine playing Quake during lectures? I also wonder about the broadcast capabilities. Sending lecture notes, applets, and homeworks assignments to the audience could be quite convenient in academic settings.
In conclusion, this makes the IR on the Palm V look quite primitive.
Given one hour to live, the student replied: "I'd spend it with professor FP who can make an hour seem like a lifetime."