Just how many invisible networks are there? I've never seen any.
Unless you have a 5GHz a/n compatible Wi-Fi card, you won't see them. Nor will you see the 5.8GHz phones running on those same channels, even if you have a card that supports 5GHz a/n because they don't broadcast an SSID and don't use a/n modulation.
Proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Gates did not say that.
The IBM PC introduced in August 1981 only supported 64k on the motherboard. The highest capacity add-in cards developed for the PC only allowed adding 512k of RAM as main memory, giving a 576k memory limit, and those didn't appear until 1983 or later. According to IBM, 256k was the limit on the IBM PC (model 5150). It wasn't until the Compaq Portable (128k on motherboard) announced Nov 1982 shipped in Jan 1983, and the PC/XT in March 1983 (up to 256k on motherboard) that you could even theoretically get to 640k on a PC or compatible. Nor was 640k an MS-DOS limit for computers that weren't completely PC-compatible (e.g. the TI Professional in 1983 ran MS-DOS and allowed up to 768k).
So the 640k limit didn't exist until early 1983 when the Compaq Portable and PC/XT shipped, and even then it wasn't a hard limit as TI demonstrated. It is implausible that Bill Gates or anyone else would have made that comment 12+ months before the "640k limit" was established. Therefore, in the absence of any credible evidence that Gates said it at all, I've demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that Gates didn't say that in 1981. Since 1981 is the only date ever associated with that quote, and Gates denies having said it, it's also demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that Gates didn't make that statement at any time. So, until someone presents some hard evidence to the contrary, Gates didn't say it.
It's not just 802.11a networks, there are a whole bunch of 5.8GHz cordless phones and other some other devices out there too. Apple's Airport base station and built-in Wi-Fi has supported and is commonly run in 5GHz a/n mode for at least 5 years, so that's a sizable number of units just from one vendor. 5GHz is not as crowded as 2.4GHz, but it is in fairly common use.
Wow, a/. poster admitting to making a mistake. What's happening to the world? It happens to all of us, most are just too insecure to admit it. I wish/. would allow me to correct or at least note my typos that I find AFTER I hit submit.:)
600Mbps is modulation rate, not throughput. 802.11ac will not significantly improve throughput vs 802.11n. Throughput is likely to remain around 180-200Mbps for a 600Mbps modulation rate.
"Apple will be out of business by 2000" (Belial6 - 1996)
So, now it's 15 years later, are you denying that you said it? Where is your proof that you didn't say it? I see right there are quote attributed to you from 15 years ago.
No citation possible, you can't prove someone didn't say something. You can't prove a negative, only disprove it. It's up to the claimant to give a citation showing he did say it. If you perform a google search, you'll find that Gates denies saying it, and no one to date has given evidence that he did say it. I'll leave that as an exercise for the interested reader. As much as I would like to see proof that he did make such a foolish statement, until proven that he said it, it must be considered an urban legend.
This won't help any more than using 802.11n in the 5GHz band. Same range limitations, and in reality, no more throughput because of limited channel availability. When they allocate more RF, they can address the throughput issue, but that's not gonna happen below 6GHz and higher frequencies will have even shorter range and less ability to penetrate walls.
BTW, I've seen nothing to suggest that this would get a new RF range, given that all frequencies below 6Ghz are already allocated, it's extremely unlikely that this would get a new range, it will almost certainly share the 5-5.8GHz range used by 802.11a/n, cordless phones, etc. So, you have the issue of having to share the range with any nearby 5GHz devices. From what I have seen, it will need up to 160MHz (8 x 20MHz channels) to achieve those speeds. In most of the world, including the US, there aren't eight 20MHz channels available for use in the 5GHz band. The reality is that there are 4 consecutive 20MHz bands, so you might be able to get 600Mbps, which you can already get using 802.11n
Yes, DOCSIS 1.x can theoretically saturate a/g Wi-Fi, but what I said was most internet connections can't saturate a/g. Few people have over 20Mb/s service even when they have a DOCSIS cable modem connection
3x3 n can go to 450Mb/s with ~150Mb/s throughput in reality. Like I said, current FIOS and DOCSIS 3 speeds can't quite saturate 802.11n because nobody really gets more than 100Mb/s and typically don't get more than 50Mb/s
5GHz is not sensitive to microwave ovens. MW inverters run near 2.45GHz, a frequency that allows them to excite water molecules to heat foods.
I am a network guy. Your statement is correct, except for the "even if clients are connecting at a lower rate of speed, that's still more bandwidth to go around" part. Technically, that's accurate, but the reality is that a single lower speed device can use so much of the time that the amount available to a high speed device is negligible. This shows up in mixed b/g/n Wi-Fi networks, mixed a/n Wi-Fi networks, and in USB connections.
Because RF bandwidth is limited, presumably these devices will share the channels used by 802.11a/n in the 5-6GHz range. Therefore, the presence of existing 802.11a devices will limit the bandwidth available (802.11n devices @ 5GHz will limit it too, but less so). If you're willing to disable all 802.11a devices and not allow them to connect to a base station, then there will be notably more bandwidth available, but that may not be practical. In either case, 802.11n running in the 5GHz band will provide most of the same benefits. You can get 50%-80% of the benefits with existing 802.11n technology, that's why I said it's mostly useless, not completely useless.
Agreed, those are the situations where it could make a difference. However, you can get 50%-80% of that benefit now by running 802.11a/n on 5GHz. And as long as the number of 802.11a devices running on those channels exceeds about 20%, the benefits will be limited regardless if it's running 802.11n or 802.11ac. So it is essentially pointless unless they're giving is a separate band of channels, and last I heard, there weren't any available in that 6GHz range. In theory, it'll provide benefits long term, but for the foreseeable future, 802.11n on 5GHz makes just as much sense. Drop 802.11a support on your base stations and it's got a better chance of providing benefits within the lifetime of devices that could ship in the next 2 years.
Mostly the extra throughput will not be used. What is the real throughput anyway?
Unless you're streaming from a local server, your internet connection will be the bottleneck, and most of those can't saturate 802.11a/g. Even the highest speed FIOS & DOCCIS 3 rates can't quite saturate 802.11n.
The range will be more limited (5-6GHz doesn't propagate through walls as well as 2.4GHz). In dense environments, that's an advantage, but 802.11a/n on 5GHz already has that benefit.
A big issue with any wireless technology is latency. Higher modulation rates help that a bit, but most of the latency is in making sure it's safe for you to transmit, not in the actual transmission.
If you have a use case that needs higher throughput than 802.11n and isn't latency sensitive, then this will be a benefit, but for 99+% of users, it's completely unnecessary.
It's one of the few, perhaps the first plausible claim I've heard from the MAFIAA. They've still got a lot of work to do to prove it, but it's at least a plausible claim.
Slashdot Mirror
Again, someone wastes a mod point to mod that down? Moderators, read the moderation guidelines.
Just how many invisible networks are there? I've never seen any.
Unless you have a 5GHz a/n compatible Wi-Fi card, you won't see them. Nor will you see the 5.8GHz phones running on those same channels, even if you have a card that supports 5GHz a/n because they don't broadcast an SSID and don't use a/n modulation.
Proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Gates did not say that.
The IBM PC introduced in August 1981 only supported 64k on the motherboard. The highest capacity add-in cards developed for the PC only allowed adding 512k of RAM as main memory, giving a 576k memory limit, and those didn't appear until 1983 or later. According to IBM, 256k was the limit on the IBM PC (model 5150). It wasn't until the Compaq Portable (128k on motherboard) announced Nov 1982 shipped in Jan 1983, and the PC/XT in March 1983 (up to 256k on motherboard) that you could even theoretically get to 640k on a PC or compatible. Nor was 640k an MS-DOS limit for computers that weren't completely PC-compatible (e.g. the TI Professional in 1983 ran MS-DOS and allowed up to 768k).
So the 640k limit didn't exist until early 1983 when the Compaq Portable and PC/XT shipped, and even then it wasn't a hard limit as TI demonstrated. It is implausible that Bill Gates or anyone else would have made that comment 12+ months before the "640k limit" was established. Therefore, in the absence of any credible evidence that Gates said it at all, I've demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that Gates didn't say that in 1981. Since 1981 is the only date ever associated with that quote, and Gates denies having said it, it's also demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that Gates didn't make that statement at any time. So, until someone presents some hard evidence to the contrary, Gates didn't say it.
Someone wasted a mod point to mod down my compliment? Try reading the moderator guidelines.
How slow is an infinite loop in Java? Now much memory does it take to execute?
It's not just 802.11a networks, there are a whole bunch of 5.8GHz cordless phones and other some other devices out there too. Apple's Airport base station and built-in Wi-Fi has supported and is commonly run in 5GHz a/n mode for at least 5 years, so that's a sizable number of units just from one vendor. 5GHz is not as crowded as 2.4GHz, but it is in fairly common use.
Those are a whole lot of fun in real-time, event driven systems. Slow things down by tracing the code and the problem doesn't occur anymore.
Wow, a /. poster admitting to making a mistake. What's happening to the world? It happens to all of us, most are just too insecure to admit it. I wish /. would allow me to correct or at least note my typos that I find AFTER I hit submit.:)
600Mbps is modulation rate, not throughput. 802.11ac will not significantly improve throughput vs 802.11n. Throughput is likely to remain around 180-200Mbps for a 600Mbps modulation rate.
"Apple will be out of business by 2000" (Belial6 - 1996) So, now it's 15 years later, are you denying that you said it? Where is your proof that you didn't say it? I see right there are quote attributed to you from 15 years ago.
No citation possible, you can't prove someone didn't say something. You can't prove a negative, only disprove it. It's up to the claimant to give a citation showing he did say it. If you perform a google search, you'll find that Gates denies saying it, and no one to date has given evidence that he did say it. I'll leave that as an exercise for the interested reader. As much as I would like to see proof that he did make such a foolish statement, until proven that he said it, it must be considered an urban legend.
This won't help any more than using 802.11n in the 5GHz band. Same range limitations, and in reality, no more throughput because of limited channel availability. When they allocate more RF, they can address the throughput issue, but that's not gonna happen below 6GHz and higher frequencies will have even shorter range and less ability to penetrate walls.
My point exactly.
BTW, I've seen nothing to suggest that this would get a new RF range, given that all frequencies below 6Ghz are already allocated, it's extremely unlikely that this would get a new range, it will almost certainly share the 5-5.8GHz range used by 802.11a/n, cordless phones, etc. So, you have the issue of having to share the range with any nearby 5GHz devices. From what I have seen, it will need up to 160MHz (8 x 20MHz channels) to achieve those speeds. In most of the world, including the US, there aren't eight 20MHz channels available for use in the 5GHz band. The reality is that there are 4 consecutive 20MHz bands, so you might be able to get 600Mbps, which you can already get using 802.11n
Yes, DOCSIS 1.x can theoretically saturate a/g Wi-Fi, but what I said was most internet connections can't saturate a/g. Few people have over 20Mb/s service even when they have a DOCSIS cable modem connection
3x3 n can go to 450Mb/s with ~150Mb/s throughput in reality. Like I said, current FIOS and DOCSIS 3 speeds can't quite saturate 802.11n because nobody really gets more than 100Mb/s and typically don't get more than 50Mb/s
5GHz is not sensitive to microwave ovens. MW inverters run near 2.45GHz, a frequency that allows them to excite water molecules to heat foods.
Great sig.
I am a network guy. Your statement is correct, except for the "even if clients are connecting at a lower rate of speed, that's still more bandwidth to go around" part. Technically, that's accurate, but the reality is that a single lower speed device can use so much of the time that the amount available to a high speed device is negligible. This shows up in mixed b/g/n Wi-Fi networks, mixed a/n Wi-Fi networks, and in USB connections.
Because RF bandwidth is limited, presumably these devices will share the channels used by 802.11a/n in the 5-6GHz range. Therefore, the presence of existing 802.11a devices will limit the bandwidth available (802.11n devices @ 5GHz will limit it too, but less so). If you're willing to disable all 802.11a devices and not allow them to connect to a base station, then there will be notably more bandwidth available, but that may not be practical. In either case, 802.11n running in the 5GHz band will provide most of the same benefits. You can get 50%-80% of the benefits with existing 802.11n technology, that's why I said it's mostly useless, not completely useless.
Like I said, it's amazing how fast public disclosure can get bugs fixed. Even ones that have been known for 10 years.
Unstable overrides cheap every time. I'll take stable and fast for $200, Alex.
Aren't Adobe products were simply a collection of bugs, artfully put together to form a useful, but slow and insecure program.
Agreed, those are the situations where it could make a difference. However, you can get 50%-80% of that benefit now by running 802.11a/n on 5GHz. And as long as the number of 802.11a devices running on those channels exceeds about 20%, the benefits will be limited regardless if it's running 802.11n or 802.11ac. So it is essentially pointless unless they're giving is a separate band of channels, and last I heard, there weren't any available in that 6GHz range. In theory, it'll provide benefits long term, but for the foreseeable future, 802.11n on 5GHz makes just as much sense. Drop 802.11a support on your base stations and it's got a better chance of providing benefits within the lifetime of devices that could ship in the next 2 years.
There is no evidence Gates ever said that.
It's amazing how fast public disclosure can get bugs fixed.
Mostly the extra throughput will not be used. What is the real throughput anyway?
Unless you're streaming from a local server, your internet connection will be the bottleneck, and most of those can't saturate 802.11a/g. Even the highest speed FIOS & DOCCIS 3 rates can't quite saturate 802.11n.
The range will be more limited (5-6GHz doesn't propagate through walls as well as 2.4GHz). In dense environments, that's an advantage, but 802.11a/n on 5GHz already has that benefit.
A big issue with any wireless technology is latency. Higher modulation rates help that a bit, but most of the latency is in making sure it's safe for you to transmit, not in the actual transmission.
If you have a use case that needs higher throughput than 802.11n and isn't latency sensitive, then this will be a benefit, but for 99+% of users, it's completely unnecessary.
It's one of the few, perhaps the first plausible claim I've heard from the MAFIAA. They've still got a lot of work to do to prove it, but it's at least a plausible claim.
You mean that one night stand you got after going to the movies, dinner and having a drink?
You take one night stands to the movies?
You were gonna spend the money on dinner and drinks regardless, so there is no added cost, aka free.