Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

The Coming Time for 802.11a? 196

Posted by Hemos from the faster-better-more-secure dept.
abhikhurana writes " This article on 80211-planet.com predicts a real boom in the market for 802.11a in the coming year. An excerpt from the article: In tests in my SOHO LAN, I found that in real world conditions, 802.11a averaged four times faster than 802.11b. In addition, with its 5GHz frequency, 802.11a avoids the interference slow-downs that b must suffer with microwave ovens, high-end wireless phones, and other 802.11b networks. Also makes an interesting read for knowing about the technologies which maybe driving the wireless bandwagon in the coming years."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Coming Time for 802.11a? More

The Coming Time for 802.11a?

Comments Filter:
  • they begin making base stations that support both standards and card which support both. These stations and cards would also be able to do both at the same time (IMAGINE THE BANDWIDTH!). They are on different freqs so it should be possible! This would do wonders for terrain based coms.
  • 802.11a... i'm already saturating my outbound DSL anyway with 802.11b, and don't often stream stuff over 4mb/s

    bigger faster better more, the endless pursuit "just because we can."

    This just sucks... when can i buy it?

    • 802.11a... i'm already saturating my outbound DSL anyway with 802.11b, and don't often stream stuff over 4mb/s

      But what happens when you want to transfer files between two machines on your network? I also saturate my cable connection but between machines is where I really see a difference when upping the connection rate. I can't wait to go totally wireless and trade my spiders nest of wires for a brain tumor.

      • you should be safe... I think ~1.8-2.0GHz is the "tumor" range...

        But with 5.0GHz we have to watch out for aliens in other dimentions seeing our subspace signatures and trying to open a vortex to their world.

        Either way it's better then drilling holes in my house.
  • I just got may 802.11b installed last week. Curse this need for the latest and greatist!!!
  • All that wireless networking hardware you just got is obsolete. Step right up to buy the "new pariah thing" or be rendered a pariah by your friends for not having the coolest crap on the block.

    Hell, I still use Wavelan for my wireless gunk and I see no need to upgrade.

  • lower range, houses with chicken-wire in the walls, still limited by the speed of your cable modem/DSL ....

  • Switching Over (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Oculus Habent ( 562837 ) <oculus.habent@gma i l . c om> on Monday September 23, 2002 @02:20PM (#4313100) Journal
    Fresh starters may be more inclined to adopt faster, "cleaner" wireless, but the push will be moving people from 802.11b - having incompatible networks makes buying decisions harder...

    Though some will probably opt for both, as many businesses use b, and won't want to spend the money to replace all the cards in all the laptops.

    I wonder when Apple will produce 802.11a cards, and if they'll support a & b.

    • Re:Switching Over (Score:4, Informative)

      by Wyatt Earp ( 1029 ) on Monday September 23, 2002 @02:25PM (#4313150)
      Apple won't go with 802.11a since 802.11g is on the way.

      http://thinksecret.com/news/airportupdates.html
      • And just how many times will we need to upgrade 802.11x equipment? Once you get teh 802.11g hardware, they'll come out with 80211h-z.

        With everyone running around with differing 802.11 hardware, not much of a revolution's gonna happen.
        • The upside is you can ensure that the business next door can't use your network if you use 802.11q and they use 802.11n

          Think of it - 26 different businesses within 150 feet of each other, totally not interfering...

          Of course, the Wireless Initiatives may suffer from lack of compatible access points.
    • there was an article a while back about a company developing single silicon that supports a/b/g. i would expect something like that to make the transition possible. unless you can mix the networks easily (like you can with 10/100 networks) i dont see a transition happening for a while. especially since b is quite a bit cheaper right now.

      the range is also a definite issue. for home use it's not a big deal, but the value of wireless isn't home use. :)

      • Re:Switching Over (Score:4, Insightful)

        by monkeydo ( 173558 ) on Monday September 23, 2002 @02:37PM (#4313243) Homepage
        The transition is much easier with wireless. You just put in an 802.11a base station next to your .11b base stations. For new clients you buy .11a cards. There is absolutely no need for a single base station to do both. since they are on different freqs you just put them next to each other. Your normal "technology refresh" on the clients and eventually all of your 802.11b is gone. Do it as quickly or as slow as you like.
        • Dual-mode cards are already available, and soon they'll come down to the same cost as current Wi-Fi cards. Eventually, almost everyone will have both, and they'll use a (faster, clearner) most of the time, but they'll keep b for compatability. (Just like 720K floppies gave way to 1.4M, and CD-ROM is giving way to DVD-ROM).

  • how about XP running third-party WLAN software. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by garcia ( 6573 ) on Monday September 23, 2002 @02:20PM (#4313102)
    This may be slightly off-topic, but it still holds water

    How are we going to adopt a technology when MS is deciding for the users what is best.

    How about instead of XP deciding to take over for all WLAN third-party software and FORCING you to use an encryption key, let's let the fucking USERS decide what THEY want to do and what software THEY want to use.

    Ever since switching to XP (from Win2k) as the host for my WLAN (Dlink DWL-650s in ad-hoc) I have had nothing but poor connectivity.

    XP has been reporting that the WLAN is down even if it is working just fine. It won't let me use third-party software to control the WLAN. It forces me to have a network key (it would be different if the range on these cards was over the 25' from the host machine to the furthest reach of the signal).

    Just my fucking rant on how MS and their "users are dumb" is really messing w/ME!

    • Re:how about XP running third-party WLAN software. (Score:4, Informative)

      by John Miles ( 108215 ) on Monday September 23, 2002 @02:28PM (#4313173) Homepage Journal
      I don't know anything about XP's WLAN support (Windows XP is the first MS product that crosses my personal threshold of big-brother toleration, so I have no intention of upgrading beyond Win2K until absolutely forced to). But those DLink cards are garbage.

      Snag a couple of Lucent Orinoco Silver cards on eBay -- they go for a song these days -- and plug them into the DLink PCI carriers you're already using. You'll instantly see a 50% or more improvement in effective working range.

      • I can second that... (Score:3, Informative)

        by Andy Dodd ( 701 )
        I own two D-Link DWL-650 cards. The range was never all that great (even in Linux). I assumed it was the fact that I was communicating card-to-card.

        Things became much better when I started using a proper AP.

        Later on, I needed a WLAN card for my desktop. After a BAD runin with a D-Link DWL-520 that I promptly returned, I tried a Orinoco and PCI carrier. The PCI adapter didn't work to well on my desktop. (Fine under Linux, useless in Windows) I returned the PCI adapter, but because the Orinoco had seemed to give slightly better performance and was supported by Netstumbler, I kept it.

        A few weeks later I pulled out the D-Link once again for comparison - At that point I realized just how bad it was.

        Side-by-side in the same place, the Orinoco blew away the D-Link. Orinoco reports a "good" signal strength upstairs. The D-Link barely gets signal. Downstairs, the D-Link reports low signal strength IN THE SAME ROOM AS THE AP! The Orinoco is pegged at full strength in this case.

        I'm sticking with Orinocos from now on...
        • The signal strength is fine at the furthest point that our computers need to be.

          I have read the reviews online, I knew what I was getting into, the cards are not the problem.

    • How are we going to adopt a technology when MS is deciding for the users what is best.

      That's easy...L-I-N-U-X

    • Re:how about XP running third-party WLAN software. (Score:4, Informative)

      by mac123 ( 25118 ) on Monday September 23, 2002 @02:31PM (#4313207)
      Methinks you are configuring things wrong on your system or on your WAP

      XP doesn't forbid the use of 3rd party WLAN configuration software (I am running Orinoco's Client Manager).

      It also doesn't require an encryption key. I turn mine off once in a while to allow others easy access.

      Works with no encryption, 64 bit or 128. XP controls none of this...the WAP does
      • no. The setup is the same as it was before. No changes other than moving to XP.

        The DLink cards may be below par but they work for the setup that we have here. The only reason for the problems is XP.

        It doesn't FORBID the use of third-party software no, but it is built in and wants you to use that instead (causing WLAN manuf's to tell you to use XP instead of their product).

        I just tested it before posting this. On a Win2k machine the network stays up at 11mbs w/o a hitch.

        On the XP machine it stays under 5.5mbs and every 5 to 10 mins I have to RESCAN the network for it to find the connection.

        Everytime I open the XP tray icon for the WLAN connection it yells at me telling me that I do NOT have an encryption key set and it sits there blinking on the prompt. I click for it to not use the key and click Apply, Ok, and when I open it again, alas it is back.

        XP is forcing me to do two things I don't want to do. I don't like it. I don't like the fact that MS is dummying even WLAN setup down.

        The DLink software worked fine (it still works fine on the Win98 clients). I don't see why MS had to include it's own happy horseshit and degrade my connection.
        • Spend the $80 and get an Orinoco Gold card (Silver only supports 64bit WEP). You'll be pleasantly surprised.

          I consistently get an 11Mbps connection virtually everywhere in my (rather large) house.

          I use a Linksys Access Point....I had a Dlink (it sucked and so did the support).

          The Dlink's aren't worth the time you are spending on them.
    • You know, MS may be a bunch of grade A bastards when it comes to their business pratices, but none of things you say about XP are true. You CAN use third party software, you DON'T have to use encryption.

      Your obviously having driver problems/configuration, and some PEBCAK as well. I would suggest a)buying a new lan card or b) going back to win2k if you can't get XP working right.
    • XP has been reporting that the WLAN is down even if it is working just fine. It won't let me use third-party software to control the WLAN. It forces me to have a network key (it would be different if the range on these cards was over the 25' from the host machine to the furthest reach of the signal).

      I connected to my home network with WEP disabled last night. Had to since I was setting up a new Access point.

      Sounds to me like you are asking why you have to have a name for your network, that is because the spec says you have to.

      The big advantage of having XP take over the 802 management is that it makes it much easier to swap card on the laptop. For example I can pull out one of my Wavelan cards and plug in a Cisco card and everything will work without having to reconfigure.

      The other big advantage is that if you have the right access point XP has a bunch of fixes embedded in the O/S that allow the brokeness of 802.11 WEP to be avoided.

  • How long ? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23, 2002 @02:21PM (#4313112)
    How long should I wait to get wireless? I don't want to get trapped in an upgrade loop, like I've been in with computers.

    Since '92 I've just been happy to stay 1-2 generations behind to keep the cost down.

  • Nice... (Score:5, Informative)

    by chainrust ( 610064 ) on Monday September 23, 2002 @02:22PM (#4313122) Journal
    Here is a nice comparison of B and A [80211-planet.com] on 80211 planet. Also, a whitepaper for A [proxim.com] is available at Proxim Communications. Also, don't forget the FAQ [3com.com]!

    My personal feeling about this: The U.S. government should sponsor a 802.11a nationwide network, so we can all have cell phone and data access anywhere, and a provider can 'buy' an area from the government to charge wireless rates for. Kind of like the current system we have in place for land-line phones.

    Everyone comes out happy:
    the cell phone company has a local monopoly
    the customer has access to wireless data and phone everywhere
    the government 's pocket gets fatter.
    • Everyone comes out happy:
      the cell phone company has a local monopoly

      There's the problem with your statement. Monopoly. That's a 4-letter word nowadays. I don't see how that would be good for customers though. If there's only one provider, what if they decide to be evil and charge exorbitant rates? People would have no choice then, and have to pay the rates, or go without something they've grown used to (*cough* Road Runner *cough* Time Warner *cough*).

      I do agree that the government should help install a wireless infrastructure, make it able to be easily upgradeable to the latest and greatest, and backward compatible for those who are happy with their 802.11b. But after the infrastructure is laid, back off. I don't want to have the government controlling my wireless access. Sell it to whomever can afford it, but don't limit it to one vendor in an area. Let many of them do it. Drive the price down, and stimulate cash inflow. Seems like everyone wins.

    • Re: Not 802.11a... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by McCart42 ( 207315 )
      I don't see this happening with 802.11a. The range for a is MUCH shorter than the range for b, and even b is rather short. There would need to be some way to put out a much stronger signal with a to make this effective. Simply put, I don't see a government nationwide wireless network happening for another year or two. The technology still is not there yet. Of course, the rate of change is getting faster by the month now, so my prediction may be more out of date than 640k in 6 months, but time will tell.

      • Re: Not 802.11a... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by pete-classic ( 75983 )
        I don't see this happening with 802.11a. The range for a is MUCH shorter than the range for b, and even b is rather short.


        This seems to be the conventional wisdom, but the technical specs indicate that at a given range a is faster, and that they both drop off at roughly the same range.

        Can anyone point out any docs that show why a should have a shorter range in practice? Is it just because 5GHz is not as effective at penetrating barriers?

        -Peter
    • 802.11a is too high power and doesn't have the "tricks" pcs/gsm/digital cellular use to get longer batter life to use for cell phones, if you want any more than a few hours battery life.

  • 5 Ghz? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Quasar1999 ( 520073 ) on Monday September 23, 2002 @02:22PM (#4313125) Journal
    Anyone care to comment on why this is not prone to problems? Sure Microwaves screw with 802.11b, and cell phones, etc. But who in their right mind thinks that as soon as 802.11a takes off there won't be other devices using that range, like cordless phones, etc... This is going to be a constant problem forever. Since as soon as one device has the right to use a frequency, other devices will be manufactured to use that same frequency...

    • Re:5 Ghz? (Score:4, Informative)

      by d.valued ( 150022 ) on Monday September 23, 2002 @02:31PM (#4313198) Journal
      Here's an exercise which should help clear this up.

      Name everything you can think of that interferes with 2.4 GHz band.

      Here goes... Wireless phones, microwave ovens, satellite TV, wireless broadband, medical equipment, cell phones.. There's a huge list because the frequency mixes high enough bandwidth and fairly good range at low power.

      Now, let's try 5 GHz.

      Short list, huh.

      Not much is there yet because there's the wall problem. With computers and the 11a ability to down-negotiate bandwidth, it can be tolerated and handled. Not much else can do that.

      • Now, let's try 5 GHz.

        Short list, huh.

        Short list now... But if this 5 GHz Wi-Fi device can be used for the home/office according to FCC rules (or whatever the hell regulates wireless frequency usages), then why would cordless phone manufacturers, etc, not try to migrate to the new available frequency (aside from the wall problem, which can be solved multiple ways with a bit of programming, and good protocol development) to get away from the interference of the 2.4GHz band? If there isn't interference now, there will be, since the FCC will allow all devices with a certain class rating to use that frequency...

        • Re:5 Ghz? (Score:3, Informative)

          by d.valued ( 150022 )
          The 11a protocol doesn't necessarily help the cell/wireless phone people. Their phones can operate in low tolerance conditions (after all, the human voice operates in 4000 Hz of spectrum, tops).

          The FCC rules solely dictate the following:

          1. The frequencies that are available for unrestricted use;
          2. The maximum peak power that you can put out onto thsoe frequencies;
          3. These unlicensed devices must not created and must accept harmful interference.

          The 802.11a specification merely defines the radio frequencies used, the format of the transmission, and the procedures for downgrading and upgrading the given bandwidth.

          Besides that, protocol development is expensive and/or time-consuming (and really overkill for a damned phone), and the wall problem is inherent to the frequency and power requirements. The only ways around the wall problem are either breaking the FCC rules or spending lots of money on multiple base stations or on enhanced protocol development.

      • Guess what, wireless phones are using 5Ghz now [vtech.com]. It's just a matter of time before this spectrum fills up, as well. 2.4Ghz used to be pretty empty not too long ago.
      • Short list, huh. Not much is there yet because there's the wall problem.

        Which is kind of a killer, isn't it? At least I can turn off my microwave and hang up my cordless phone. The walls are a bit more difficult to disable. What's the possible point of having wireless net access if I still need to have line-of-sight connectivity?
        • possible point of having wireless net access if I still need to have line-of-sight connectivity?

          Shooting the signal over a luddite neighbor's land without his consent or knowledge?

          With good enough antennas, you should be able to get this going 200-300 feet or more line of site, neglecting rain, which is more of a problem than with 802.11b.

          Also, if your walls are non-metallic and non-conductive, they are going to be pretty invisible to the radio most likely.

  • The truth is buried in the article (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Brento ( 26177 ) <brento.brentozar@com> on Monday September 23, 2002 @02:23PM (#4313130) Homepage
    The truth is about halfway down the article, where they acknowledge that 802.11g is coming down the pike with better range than 802.11a, plus backwards compatibility with 802.11b. Any of us who already have investments in 802.11b are going to be more than a little hesitant to rip out that infrastructure and replace it with another incompatible format - when we can get an even better format, with backwards compatibility, by waiting a few more months.

    I don't even buy the argument that homeowners just now getting wireless should get 802.11a equipment: they can't take their wireless cards and use them at public [houstonwireless.org] or private [t-mobilebroadband.com] 802.11b access points. Why pay extra for something you can only use at home, when you can get something cheaper that works all over the US? It would be like buying a cellular phone that only worked in your neighborhood.
  • That being said I will probably switch to 802.11a when Apple supports it. I have a DLink 802.11b and DLink NIC for my (PC) Laptop and it's really fast. The Apple AirPort is slower than grandma driving to the "beauty shop". Kind of sad really, I get this sweet computer with wireless networking and still have it plugged in!

    Oh well, I really shouldn't complain. OS X is unbelieveable. It's like running linux but having real commercial apps available (Photoshop, Flash, Dreamweaver, InDesign, Acrobat(full), ...) and a standard UI to boot!

  • Higher frequencies are a beautiful thing... (Score:4, Informative)

    by d.valued ( 150022 ) on Monday September 23, 2002 @02:24PM (#4313138) Journal
    ..especially when you can use them to their fullest.

    Other advantages of the 5 MHz frequency are that the same antenna you use for 2.4 can be used at almost double gain (as long as you're careful), since the wavelength is almost half as long you can use the same antenna. The thoroughput kills 11b by a factor of 5 to 1 at max.

    Disadvantages... At 5 MHz, walls are a factor. Objects start to interefere more. So on a campsite, 11a will be amazing. In an office, you'll need repeaters. Hardware costs more right now, on par with what 11b cost at first.. then again, you can get 11b cards right now for under $50.. even Orinocos for under $60.

    • For offices this works fine .. but in a home .. 11a is unrealistic.. I do this for a living .. and have had to come behind many an installer that talked a client into installing 11a into the home .. and the client got pissed cause of drop outs.

      Given that most people have cable modems or DSL to the house at best.. 11b is a good solution on all counts. I have seen VERY few cases of interferrence from phones and things. Most times these are temporary and result in the user loosing speed .. not connectivity.

    • 5Mhz goes through walls like a hot knife through butter. 5Ghz on the other hand...

  • 802.11b is good enough (Score:5, Insightful)

    by joshv ( 13017 ) on Monday September 23, 2002 @02:25PM (#4313145)
    I think we have reached the 'good enough' point with wireless networking. 802.11b is faster than any internet connection I will have in the forseeable future, and performs perfectly well for the small day to day file transfers over the LAN. It doesn't work for large file transfers, but when I need to do those, I pull out the Wi-Fi card, walk the laptop over to the hub, and plug a spare cable into it's ethernet port.

    I won't be upgrading until there is a compelling reason, and I can't see there being one for at least the next 3-5 years.

    -josh

    • I agree. It works fine for me. I'm using it at home with one or maybe two laptops for surfing the net or grabbing a (small) file.

      I need the wireless"ness" more than access to larger pipe.

      I came. I bought. I'm done.
    • I agreee -- but the connection I get is plenty
      fast enough all the time on 802.11b. I've
      even used it to update my gentoo laptop.
      --Rodney
    • Maybe, maybe not.

      While I do have a cable modem with good speed, I also have three kids and a wife who have started to get active online.

      While the 802.11b may outstrip *MY* usage of the cable, if all 5 people hit at once, it starts to get a little iffy.
  • Doesn't "b" come after "a"?

    Why does this "a" thing sound newer?

  • Oh no, my music autopause won't work. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Billy Bo Bob ( 87919 ) on Monday September 23, 2002 @02:27PM (#4313163)
    My multimedia machine in my living room runs off 802.11b with a music server in another section of the house. When my 2.4 GHz phone rings, the music pauses nice and automatically (well after the buffer runs out). Its a great feature!

    Seriously, webcams, phones, baby monitors all can clobber 802.11b pretty badly. I can't wait for affordable dual mode so I can put the multmedia machine at least in the 5 Ghz range. Home users with lots of tech toys are going to be much happier with 802.11a. 802.11g will do nothing for them.

  • Poster mentions 802.11a, but... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Nomad7674 ( 453223 ) on Monday September 23, 2002 @02:27PM (#4313169) Homepage Journal
    ...the article also mentions 802.11g, which is more likely to become the standard for the vast majority of users. It is backwards compatible with the Apple Airports and Linksys wireless routers that are making so many inroads into homes and small businesses. Why pay a premium to upgrade everything to 802.11a when with 802.11g you can upgrade the router first and then the cards one at a time as money makes itself available? This option also allows for the largest compatibility for visitors - inmportant in public places like coffee bars and airports which are already adopting wireless standards for customers.

    That is my two cents. Of course, the big variable is when 802.11g recieves finalized specs. 802.11a is already there.

    One more question for the grou: I have read a lot (for a Business Analyst) about wireless networking and have yet to see a place which explains the "lettering system" used by the 802.11 products. Why are a, b, and g given those names? Are there 802.11c and d awaiting consideration?

    • One more question for the grou: I have read a lot (for a Business Analyst) about wireless networking and have yet to see a place which explains the "lettering system" used by the 802.11 products. Why are a, b, and g given those names? Are there 802.11c and d awaiting consideration?

      Do a Google search and you'll get the answer. 802.11d is a set of protocol addons to 802.11b to enable it to work where 802.11b is illegal, for example. More info here. [80211-planet.com]
    • 802.11g is NOT backward compatible with 802.11b. But since they are on the same frequency many if not all manufacturers are planning to have their 802.11g radios switch modes to talk to 802.11b devices. 802.11g uses ofdm signaling in the 2.4Ghz spectrum, 802.11b uses dsss at 2.4Ghz which is less efficient. 802.11a uses ofdm at 5Ghz and so is not compatible with 2.4Ghz antennas but has the advantage of a much less used spectrum chunk. 802.11a also has the advantage of having outdoor point to point modes that allow much higher power then what is available in the 2.4Ghz range. Eventually the roadmap is to have a 3 mode AP that can talk to any client be it 802.11 a,b or g.

  • And how long.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Andy Dodd ( 701 ) <atd7NO@SPAMcornell.edu> on Monday September 23, 2002 @02:29PM (#4313177) Homepage
    Until the 5 GHz band becomes just as crowded as 2.4?

    802.11a is not the wave of the future. It's going to be a nice for those hardcore who absolutely need obscene speed and live in an interference-prone environment.

    It has to compete against the HUGE installed base of 11b hardware that is *far cheaper* than 11a and is more than adequate for 90% of the people out there.

    I was thinking of upgrading to 11a since I happen to be a power user - But that means that the card I bought would be useless on most networks I might roam to (such as my former college's wireless network). In the end, 11b won out because:
    a) I already had some 11b equipment
    b) My parents had 11b equipment
    c) I have never had problems with 11b interference - Spread spectrum is pretty resistant to CW interference (Microwave ovens - People could run microwaves all they want in my apartment and I wouldn't notice any difference on my network.) and 900 MHz analog is "good enough" for me in the cordless phone arena, which means that the most famous 802.11b interference culprit (2.4 GHz phones) isn't present.
    d) 11b hardware was a helluva lot cheaper than 11a hardware.
    • I'm sitting here using my computer at work over Remote Desktop (yes, stuck using Windows crap, but as Windows goes, this remote desktop stuff is pretty trick). Wireless network is pretty much pegged between this and local stuff. I'm showing solid green (excellent signal), and I'm sitting here on my DSSS 2.4ghz cordless phone.

      Now maybe if there were other phones or something in the area it'd be a problem, but I'm just not seeing it.

  • Bringing down the price (Score:4, Insightful)

    by AirLace ( 86148 ) on Monday September 23, 2002 @02:29PM (#4313179)
    A 10 mbit 802.11a can cost as much as a gigabit NIC, which isn't too favourable if you're not going to do much roaming. The fact that you have to buy several Wi-Fi cards to get a wireless network together makes the proposition daunting for homes and small businesses. It doesn't have to be fast (or even secure, that's what ipsec is for), but for the technology to become truly ubiquitous, it needs to be priced at commodity levels, say around £10 to £15.

    Personally I'm hedging my bets on systems that offload most of the processing to the host CPU like the stuff Microsoft is working on [geek.com]. It allows not only for cheaper hardware, but also gives more flexibility and upgradability (care to upgrade your Wifi setup to 100mbit with a software update?) The only thing that could potentially go wrong with this technology is if Microsoft tries to abuse its position and fails to release open specs for the hardware or releases proprietary (or no) drivers for non-Windows operating systems. However, given their commitment to FreeBSD it's quite possible that they'll go ahead and release some BSD-licensed reference drivers for FreeBSD which can be ported to other architectures.
    • microsoft has a commitment to freebsd?
      did i miss the memo? the only thing i know that connects microsoft to freebsd is the fact that they used portions of the tcp/ip code in win2k.
      • okay, i've never squawked about moderation before, but here goes:

        that's not flamebait. flamebait would be *complaining* that they used portions of the bsd tcp/ip code in win2k etc. flamebait would be imprecating them for that. flamebait would be using a dirty name or word. flamebait would be insulting the bsd license that allows such use.

        i did none of the above.

        i just simply stated what the only connection i know of between the two was. i suppose i could get linkage to illustrate, but it's pretty common knowledge.

        i don't know if they currently use the stack in xp. haven't tried ftp on it.

        i am still curious to know what commitment microsoft has to bsd. i've never heard of such a thing. they've had an off-and-on commitment to SCO (flamebait warning: yuck.) but that's the closest they come, i think.

  • 802.11b and 2.4GHz phones (Score:3, Interesting)

    by axis-techno-geek ( 70545 ) <.rob. .at. .goshko.ca.> on Monday September 23, 2002 @02:30PM (#4313192) Homepage
    I have an 802.11b network at home and the only way I could get my 2.4GHz wireless phone to interfere with it was to have the phone right next to the PCMCIA card and transmitting.

    If I was sitting normal in a chair and using the computer, no problems.

    I see this a a bigger push from 802.11b, as the 11a components will now demand the high price, 11b components will drop even more.... eeeexcellent Smithers.

  • Range Issues (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23, 2002 @02:31PM (#4313203)
    I was a beta tester for a 802.11a product in early 2001. I was attending school at RPI and our test product did not reach through the dorm walls. I couldn't, on high power, reach to the dorm next door. However, with the same company's 802.11b system, it would go all the way around the building. The issue is that 5ghz drops off faster than the 2.4ghz equipment.

  • 802.11a -- A personal heck. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Umrick ( 151871 ) on Monday September 23, 2002 @02:31PM (#4313206) Homepage
    Our facility was 802.11a (using Intel APs). The amount of trouble we had was just this side of insurmountable. Fortunately, thanks to a manufacturing defect in the Intel APs, we got to send them back for replacement 802.11b units.

    The real world:
    • The shorter range means a much greater density of units in any facility of any size. Fourty feet is the normal range.
    • If you have an older building with lots of brick/cement/steel, 802.11a will not penetrate nearly as well. Expect your range to drop to as little as 20 feet in a dense structure.
    • Many of the currently available access points will not roam properly(Intel at least).
    • There are no readily available antennas yet available for increasing range baring some nice directionals.
    • Average throughput in our environment was 6Mbs due to roaming computer(Medical practice) problems. They would authenticate to one unit, but never roam until they lost all signal from the first.

    That said, a small office or home that can be covered by a single unit should work acceptably. I would wait for 802.11g before installing a large number of units based on 802.11a, especially for any core business use.

  • I'm just wondering...does 802.11a not operate in the 5.8 GHz range? I know there are three chunks of the 5 GHz area, so is 802.11a going to work in the low and middle bands only (5.15 -5.35)?

    I ask because I know VTech (and so other manufacturers, probably) are selling 5.8 phones [vtechphones.com] now, which I assume are operating in the high band.
  • Double the frequency of 802.11b means a shorter range. For those of us who've been building cantennas and such, there's really no point in switching to 802.11a, unless we like the "challenge".
  • Hey Guys... a small correction. When I posted this article I wanted the subject to be coming of time for 802.11a?
    So hey, sorry for the ommited of :-)

  • So as the 'new wave' of 5 GHz devices come out, the next phones will again mess with wireless. You get rid of the microwave, but not phone. Personally, I have not experienced problems with 802.11b and interference.

    Range will, however, be hurt. Wireless becomes pointless as the range diminishes. Range matters in some ways more than excessive bandwidth. Beyond 11 Megabit, it certainly doesn't matter much. For 95% of the applications out there, the extra bandwidth is unnecessary. I am able to stream extremely high quality video content through that to a handful of users on a single access point. Accessing things through network shares are still a pain in the ass at 100 megabit, so the added pain of 11 megabit most of the time isn't enough to make the sacrifice. As they say, 802.11g looks more promising, but in any event I can for about a hundred bucks set up a wireless system and client with 802.11b that suites all my needs. Why bother?
  • ok, i read ages ago about a trial in cardiff (i think) about a radio network where each home was a node and sumwhere there was a internet POP... surely this is the future? as it grows u end up with a massive network in itself, areas link up as more ppl join and before u kno it there is no definition of where this WAN and the international WAN that is the internet join. anyone can host, there can be less censorship (no ISPs) and no one can limit what anyone else can do. It also makes the whole thing even more fault tolerant. or at least thats how i see it. /me cowers from flames.

  • Speed Doesn't Affect Home Usability; Distance Does (Score:4, Insightful)

    by billstewart ( 78916 ) on Monday September 23, 2002 @02:53PM (#4313367) Journal
    For the home user, the speed of a wireless connection doesn't affect usability - your connection to the outside world is probably DSL or cable modem, usually not more than 1.5Mbps, so even if you only get 2Mbps out of your wireless, it's fast enough. (Also, the last time I had a 1.1Mbps DSL connection, I found that my end was almost always faster than the other end; the only way to fill it was to download more than ~10Mbps from a really big server.) Sometimes you might be doing big file transfers between different machines in your house, but most people don't do that very often, except for backups where speed doesn't matter - the video stuff that vendors are using to say that you should buy their products isn't really widespread, especially since DVD players for PCs are cheap enough that the difference in price between 802.11a and 802.11b can buy you an extra DVD drive.

    Distance affects usability, of course - if the thing can't talk from the living room to the bedroom, that's a problem. But speed isn't enough to justify the extra cost for most home users.

    Business is a different matter - there you often have enough machines sharing a server in the same building that total bandwidth matters.


  • Actually, 802.11b has better penetration at the same power, mainly becouse 5GHz iterferes with concrete walls even more than 2.4GHz
    Maybe a microwave oven will force you to go as low as 1MB/s, but for sharing a ADSL connection (what I use it for) it is more than enough, plus I get the extra distance. 802.11a born dead...

  • Just a note (Score:5, Informative)

    by afidel ( 530433 ) on Monday September 23, 2002 @03:04PM (#4313448)
    If your microwave is interfering with ANY 2.4Ghz product then REPLACE IT ASAP. A microwave in good operating condition should not leak any 2.4Ghz radiation as the entire chamber should be properly sealed and the screen on the front of the microwave should keep the radiation in. Some people freak about cell phones and wlan devices, but the max power output of an 802.11b radio is 100mw for a client card, while a microwave over has radiated power in the hundreds of watts.
    • sorry charlie but I have a 1000 watt microwave and my frequency counter locks in on it's operating frequency easily when in the kitchen. (the microwave is brand new, and 20 other microwaves at the store does the same thing.) Now, the signal strength is at only 10mw peaking at 20mw when I had a spegetti-o stuck inbetween the door seal.. but EVERY microwave oven leaks some RF energy. you cannot seal it up tight without resorting to a $500.00 door seal.

      Take a service monitor to any store or any microwave for that matter and watch.. you see RF energy and leakage that is well below the federal regulations but you do have leakage. enough to screw up your 2.4gig phone (add noise) or drop that 802.11b connection for a bit.

      ALL microwave ovens leak some RF energy.
  • about a month ago (D-Link DWL-6000AP). We have 802.11b in the other building and I decided to try 802.11a down here to see how they compared.

    802.11a has a noticably shorter range than does .11b and hard barriers (concrete walls, walls with a lot of steel, etc.) seem to attenuate the signal much more quickly. I don't get nearly the range with 802.11a here as I did a couple of years ago when we tested 802.11b here (before moving it to the executive building.) Speed drops off much more quickly, too: I get about 40-50 feet here in the office at full speed and then it drops off very quickly to 802.11b speeds beyond that, before finally quitting altogether at about 90 feet.

    If it were me, I'd stay with 802.11b until .g comes along: .a seems like a -very- interim technology with few advantages and some serious faults.

    On the plus side, all of our Thinkpad notebooks with built-in 802.11b work effortlessly with the D-Link access point. I've got three systems (two notebooks, one desktop) with the 802.11a cards in them and half a dozen Thinkpads with 802.11b either built in or with cards and it all works very well.
  • There are companies out there who use this 5 ghz unlicensed band to do reliable 50+ mile shots using 6-8 foot dishes. Radio stations also use it for digital studio to transmitter links.
    Andrew makes a line of dishes for this band that are very popular.

  • China, Europe etc all have issues with Radar interference in the 5Ghz band. Only when the military people in each of the various markets sign on will there be widespread 802.11a penetration. The technology is there, no question about it, it's the regulatory issue that is the holdup. Lobby your govt in the respective countries to get it approved. Until then, volume manufacturing will always favor 802.11b/g for now.

  • 802.11a devices are not powerful and have difficulty with any objects that would obstruct the sight. to get near maximum speed, you have to sit in line of sight around 10-15 meters from the
    device. Bandwidth deteriorates quicky as you move behind walls.
    That was my experience with 802.11a. There should be intermediate solution @ 3.2 ghz or around there, so people can get better range out of their devices. 802.11a, is to be used as replacement of inhouse networks, nothing more.
    I guess this is great for cafes and alike due to reduced range, they don't have to step on each
    ones toes...
    2c,
    p.
  • Very loosely speaking, I see the triad of 802.11, 802.11b, and 802.11a as being like the triad of Ethernet, FastEthernet, and GigabitEthernet.

    There was once a time when everyone had Ethernet, and all was good, if a tad bit slow.

    When FastEthernet came out, there was some initial hand wringing, but pretty much everyone has moved to FastEthernet and declared it The Standard. Since it was the prevailiing technology at the time that computers with integrated networking were starting to come out in droves, FastEthernet has achieved critical mass.

    Now, Gigabit Ethernet is out, but no average home user will ever see it in his computer. He's not likely going to need that high performance, and is certainly not willing to pay for it. It's a specialty application product.

    Similarly, the older 802.11 wireless cards (2 MBit) was a good thing at the time they came out; but they were still a bit too slow.

    When 802.11b came out, the performance reached a good level for the most common wireless use. And the price is pretty darned good. And since most laptops with integrated wireless come with 802.11b, it is achieving (has achieved?) critical mass. (Or is that critical mess?)

    Although 802.11a is now available, they are too expensive and have not yet achieved the interoperability track record of 802.11b. And, besides, if you have a portable wireless network application, you probably don't need the higher speed. Really now, when was the last time you compiled your kernel over wireless? Or streamed video from a server to watch it on your laptop while you're seated at your comfy couch?

    The world got along fine with Plain Old Telephone Service for a 100 years.

    Now, wired FastEthernet, and wireless 802.11b is the "pretty good and cheap" solution for the masses.
  • That is the reason I bought 802.11b instead of 802.11a:

    I need the extra bandwidth because I use the wireless to stream video (divx) on a daily basis. 11 Mbps is barely adequate and often causes jerkiness in high quality video. So I did some reasearch on 802.11a to find the one best supported by Linux. The result? There is *no* support for any 802.11a cards as far as I could tell. So I didn't buy any.

    Some of these companies need to figure out that early adopters are also people likely to use Linux...

  • Before modding this down as a troll, please read the whole thing:
    802.11a is horrible. The testing I've done for my company indicates that the highest actual throughput you'll get with an access point is 8Mb. The highest you'll get ad-hoc is 18 (which is actually pretty good).
    The problem is that kind of throughput is only possible when the system is right next to the AP or when the two systems are practically touching. If you walk a few meters and have line-of-site, you'll be able to get +10Mb throughput with the two adapters in ad-hoc, but if you go around a corner it drops off radically.
    Now, why does 802.11a have such a problem with corners? Because the higher frequency transmissions will not bounce as well. Rather than diffracting like 2.4GHz transmissions do (diffraction is the bending of a wave around an obstruction), the radio waves bounce, diffuse, etc. Basically, the signal breaks up.
    802.11b, though (and 802.11g) will route around obstructions better because of the lower frequency. The lower the frequency, the more diffractive the signal. I predict 802.11a will be passed over for 802.11g. Especially because 802.11g is backwards compatible. The real panacea will be cards that work with 802.11a/b/g. They'll have to have two different antennas, but they'll be kick-ass.
  • I've discouraged (well, banned actually) any wireless from my area of responsibility due to concerns about security. I admit I need to spend more (precious) time looking into it more. But I just get the creeps when I went to h2k2 and watched how open all those wireless LANs were in the area. Apparently you can crack WEP too, if you listen to enough traffic.

    I need to deploy it eventually, but my main concern right now is users hooking up an access point to their PC and using internet connection sharing or some other hack to give access to our network. So far, threat of death is working, but I can't rely on that. (We disabled ICS in AD GPOs but some users have admin rights to their PCs....)

    ... The days of Sys Admins are numbered? [slashdot.org]. I doubt it...

    Does 11a or 11g provide any improvements in security? All "advice" I've read about seems useless (like turning off SID advertising, easily gotten around using kismet, for example).

  • Do 802.11a or 802.11g fix the lousy security of 802.11b? I mean, no wireless network will ever be secure as a wired one because making it secure requires key management, but at least I should be able to expect that if I do my key management correctly, other people can't break in.
  • The ACA has some interesting ideas about the 5.2/5.8Ghz spectrum that don't quite agree with the FCC. For example 5.2 can't be used outdoors and the 5.8 can't be used in the long haul point to point modes and the max power leves seem to be 1/2 of what the FCC allows. The worst part about this is that the only references I can find are proposals about what they intend to do with the frequencies.

    The reason for this madness is that some satellite is using 5.2 for an uplink. Considering how well regulated the frequency is in most of the countries between here and Japan, I would think it would be a very bad idea to keep a sat on a frequency that lots of people will be using.

Slashdot Top Deals

Saliva causes cancer, but only if swallowed in small amounts over a long period of time. -- George Carlin

Close