8021.11g+

Why are some dealers reluctant to step into the g+ experience? For LAN
or intranet it would be ideal, as this is the first time that LAN
Wireless transmitting speed would go as fast as Ethernet 100Mbps.
Any reaction welcome,
Tx, waldman

It's overrated, as usual.

Bill Crocker


"waldman" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:YkHWb.7794$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Why are some dealers reluctant to step into the g+ experience? For LAN
> or intranet it would be ideal, as this is the first time that LAN
> Wireless transmitting speed would go as fast as Ethernet 100Mbps.
> Any reaction welcome,
> Tx, waldman

Hi Waldman,

I'm still learning, so this is a bit speculative, but there's a couple
of thoughts...

1) I've spoken with a couple of SP'd recently who are waiting to see
what happens with 802.16. The logic is if you can get bigger bandwidth
to an end-user with 802.16 technology, why only use it in the
"distribution" part of the network

2) 802.11g has lower transmit power, I believe, than 802.11b. Given
that some operators aren't thrilled at the range they're getting with
802.11b, why would they move to something that *potentially* gives even
less coverage ?

3) Cost - Even if you're paying someone to login and reconfigure, let
alone upgrade software/hardware, it's still a cost. Existing
deployments which are already generating revenue are "not broken", so
there's nothing for 802.11g to fix.

Anybody ?

AJ

waldman wrote:

> Why are some dealers reluctant to step into the g+ experience? For LAN
> or intranet it would be ideal, as this is the first time that LAN
> Wireless transmitting speed would go as fast as Ethernet 100Mbps.
> Any reaction welcome,
> Tx, waldman

"Adrian James" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi Waldman,
>
> I'm still learning, so this is a bit speculative, but there's a couple
> of thoughts...
>
> 1) I've spoken with a couple of SP'd recently who are waiting to see
> what happens with 802.16. The logic is if you can get bigger bandwidth
> to an end-user with 802.16 technology, why only use it in the
> "distribution" part of the network

802.16 is Metropolitan Area Networks (MAN). MAN protocols are really not
designed for local-area networking, which has different requirements and
makes different assumptions. Maybe some of the encoding techniques might be
applied in 802.11 someday, but 802.15 (Personal Area Networks, or PAN -
which includes Bluetooth) overlaps 802.11 to a much greater extent.

>
> 2) 802.11g has lower transmit power, I believe, than 802.11b. Given
> that some operators aren't thrilled at the range they're getting with
> 802.11b, why would they move to something that *potentially* gives even
> less coverage ?

I don't think so. The 802.11g standard says "The maximum transmit power
level shall meet the requirements of the local regulatory body. For
examples, see Table 115 in 18.4.7.1."

This refers to a table in the 802.11b standard, which basically says that
the max output is 1000mW in the U.S., 100mW in Europe, and in Japan it
depends on which modulation technique is used, which depends on the
negotiated bitrate (but in general, it's 10 mW). The limits differ by
country, not by standard.

>
> 3) Cost - Even if you're paying someone to login and reconfigure, let
> alone upgrade software/hardware, it's still a cost. Existing
> deployments which are already generating revenue are "not broken", so
> there's nothing for 802.11g to fix.

This is an ongoing debate between manufacturers and industry pundits. Some
say 802.11g offers no advantage, so why pay more for the same functionality?
BTW, deployment and operational costs should be the same for 802.11b and
802.11g - the only current difference is that 802.11g equipment is still
pricier.

It seems obvious to me that 802.11 chipmakers (Broadcom, Atheros, et. al.)
have committed to 802.11g, and within a couple of years you won't find any
802.11b-only equipment for retail. It will still be widely available on the
secondary market, and widely deployed, but that's why they made 802.11g
back-compatible with it. Once the vendors have flushed their 802.11b
inventories, the price on 802.11g will plummet, and 802.11b will be mostly
on Ebay.

At that point, if you want good support, if you want upgradeability to new
standardized 802.11 technology (like quality-of-service), if you want to do
AES encryption in the chipset instead of in the laptop driver ... 802.11b
customers will be last in line behind people with 802.11g. Look how long
it's taking to get WPA support on 802.11b.

802.11b will *not* disappear quickly, and there's no reason for many, or
even most, coffeeshop hotspots to upgrade right now. But inevitably, as
their customer demands increase and change (think VOIP, vidoeconferencing,
streaming ...) they will all migrate toward 802.11g, or maybe something
beyond that.


>
> Anybody ?
>
> AJ
>
> waldman wrote:
>
> > Why are some dealers reluctant to step into the g+ experience? For LAN
> > or intranet it would be ideal, as this is the first time that LAN
> > Wireless transmitting speed would go as fast as Ethernet 100Mbps.
> > Any reaction welcome,
> > Tx, waldman

By G+, I assume you mean 108Mbps, as in DLink SuperG. Here's why I think not
everyone is jumping on this.

1. It's implemented in silicon, and propietary to Atheros. If some other
vendor offers a similar solution someday, it will almost certainly not be
compatible.

2. Broadcom has demonstrated that some workloads cause interference across
the entire 2.4Ghz spectrum, so although the bitrate suggests that you are
using only 2/3 of the available spectrum, you may actually be making it hard
for any nearby network anywhere in that band. Some vendors - i.e. Broadcom -
don't wish to do that, and have publicly criticised Atheros.

3. You don't actually get 108Mbps, that's merely a theoretical upper limit.
In practice, a big chunk is still lost to protocol overhead, and if your
data is not compressable (video, audio, jpeg), then SuperG is less
effective.

4. Work has started on a new standard, 802.11n, which aims to provide REAL
throughput in excess of 100Mbps. That means, after accounting for protocol
overhead (802.11 as well as TCP/IP overhead). While this has just started,
and a final standard is a few years away, current vendors have to ask the
following question:

5. Do people really need 108 Mbps today? Everybody who's using it right now
to stream video around their local nets will scream, "Of course! I'm doing
it!". But the chipmakers and vendors realize that most wifi nets are still
used to access the Internet at speeds clamped to 3 or 4 Mbps in the best
case, and the number of people who would make a buying decision based on
SuperG is very small. The cost to chipmakers to add SuperG, even if it's
only a small tweak, is not justified by the market. Atheros could afford it
because they already implemented something very similar for 802.11a, a long
time ago, so they'd already paid most of the development/test cost anyway.
And vendors like DLink, who are using Atheros chipsets, figured what the
hey? The chip already supports it, it doesn't cost us much to enable it in
our drivers, and it differentiates our product from the competition. I think
everyone else will wait for 802.11n.

My opinions only, YOMV.

"gary" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:efXWb.3083$(E-Mail Removed) m...
>
> "Adrian James" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Hi Waldman,
> >
> > I'm still learning, so this is a bit speculative, but there's a couple
> > of thoughts...
> >
> > 1) I've spoken with a couple of SP'd recently who are waiting to see
> > what happens with 802.16. The logic is if you can get bigger bandwidth
> > to an end-user with 802.16 technology, why only use it in the
> > "distribution" part of the network
>
> 802.16 is Metropolitan Area Networks (MAN). MAN protocols are really not
> designed for local-area networking, which has different requirements and
> makes different assumptions. Maybe some of the encoding techniques might
be
> applied in 802.11 someday, but 802.15 (Personal Area Networks, or PAN -
> which includes Bluetooth) overlaps 802.11 to a much greater extent.
>

Just noticed you were talking about 802.16 in the context of ISP backhaul,
not replacing 802.11. I got confused because the rest of this was about
802.11 issues. Yes, 802.16 certainly will play a part in ISP backhaul from
hotspots, but you'll still want 802.11 for the local home/office network.
IPWireless is using 3G cellphone technology to provide another alternative
for the last mile.