Setting up a, b & g networks - difficulty

Can anyone explain why the majourity of the computing magazines in the UK
say that it is
harder to setup a 802.11a network rather than a `b` or `g` ?

I know it`s difficult setting up an `a` network from experience - still
havn`t managed it

Andy M Moore

Most 'a' hardware costs more. In addition, the range of 'a' is more limited
so more access points are needed and their placement is more of an issue
(again, this costs more).

-Yves

"Andy M Moore" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Can anyone explain why the majourity of the computing magazines in the UK
> say that it is
> harder to setup a 802.11a network rather than a `b` or `g` ?
>
> I know it`s difficult setting up an `a` network from experience - still
> havn`t managed it
>
> Andy M Moore
>
>

But what about the actual setting up ??

--
Andy M Moore
www.poultonband.org.uk

In article <brlk2f$srf$(E-Mail Removed)>, Yves Konigshofer says...
>
>Most 'a' hardware costs more. In addition, the range of 'a' is more limited
>so more access points are needed and their placement is more of an issue
>(again, this costs more).
>

Does anobody know of hard data to support this often asserted factoid?

I do realise that 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz have different propagation losses, but I was
wondering about practical impact, in particular for high data rate where
mutipath could make a greater difference than signal strength...

So, are there any like-for-like (identical modulation, identical output power,
identical antenna gains) comparisons of 802.11a and 802.11g in various
environments? Prefereably *not* white papers from manufacturers who sell only
one and not the other type of equipment ;-) ;-)

I wouldn't be surprised if 1 Mbits/s 802.11b has more range than 54 Mbits/s
802.11a (or indeed 802.11g), but I was wondering about the difference between 54
Mbits/s 802.11a and 54 Mbits/s 802.11g.

Thanks in advance

Jens

Key ID 0x09723C12, (E-Mail Removed)/(E-Mail Removed)
Analogue filtering / 5GHz RLAN / Mdk Linux / odds and ends
http://www.imaginet.fr/~jensting/ +44 1223 211 585
"I told you to write a fake letter, not fake writing a letter" 'Cerebus'

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Jens Tingleff <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
oes anobody know of hard data to support this often asserted factoid?

:I do realise that 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz have different propagation losses, but I was
:wondering about practical impact, in particular for high data rate where
:mutipath could make a greater difference than signal strength...

:So, are there any like-for-like (identical modulation, identical output power,
:identical antenna gains) comparisons of 802.11a and 802.11g in various
:environments? Prefereably *not* white papers from manufacturers who sell only
ne and not the other type of equipment ;-) ;-)

I'm pretty sure I've seen something along those lines on
smallnetbuilder, probably then imported to tomshardware .

I can't see the test I was thinking of at the moment, but this page
touches on the topic:

http://www4.tomshardware.com/network...s_ntk1-13.html


In the 11g vs 11b test that I'm remembering, under normal use the
range of 11g wasn't really much better, but 11g held on to the connection
better.

It is hard to compare 11b / 11g versus 11a, as the power limitations
for the lower two bands of 11a are much lower, and although the
third band is starting to get comparable in power, the third band
is only for outdoors use.
--
Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million
typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare. -- Blair Houghton.

No, it is not more difficult to set up. However, it is difficult to justify
spending extra on 802.11a when 802.11g will probably do just fine.

-Yves

"Andy M Moore" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:3fdebab2$(E-Mail Removed)...
> But what about the actual setting up ??
>
> --
> Andy M Moore
> www.poultonband.org.uk
>
>

I repeat my point, the majourity of the magazines I read in UK say setting
up a 802.11a network is more difficult than a `b` or `g`.

When(if) I eventually get my a network up & running, I don`t suppose i will
have to worry about microwave devices or digital cordless home phones !

--
Andy M Moore

You need to specify the operational environment. If you're talking about a
small home with microwave-friendly building materials, 802.11a is no more
difficult than 802.11b or 802.11g. If you're talking about offices or larger
homes with opaque building materials and lots of walls, than 802.11a has a
significantly more limited range at 5 Ghz than the other standards at
2.4Ghz. That means you'll have to think about boosting the signal, or
deploying more APs, which makes 802.11a "more difficult" than the other
standards.

I've been running an 802.11a network in my two-floor condo for several
months. I have no range or signal quality issues. Getting everything set up
to my liking, including WEP, took a few hours. I have no interference (but
there are several 2.4Ghz nets that overlap my radio space).

802.11a is currently expensive. If you're going to spend the extra money, I
recommend getting a dual-band trimode client adapter. I can take mine to the
neighborhood 802.11b hotspot and it runs like a champ (and runs just as well
at an 802.11g hotspot I know of).

"Andy M Moore" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:3fdf5646$(E-Mail Removed)...
> I repeat my point, the majourity of the magazines I read in UK say setting
> up a 802.11a network is more difficult than a `b` or `g`.
>
> When(if) I eventually get my a network up & running, I don`t suppose i
will
> have to worry about microwave devices or digital cordless home phones !
>
> --
> Andy M Moore
>
>

They're all easy. I have a, b and g in my home, all running concurrently and
flawlessly. I CAN attest in MY environment, G has a greater range, at
54mbps than A at 54mbps. In fact, B at 11mpbs has a great range than A at
11mpbs, as A drops to slower rates faster.

All Access points at the same physical location.

Tom
"Andy M Moore" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:3fdf5646$(E-Mail Removed)...
> I repeat my point, the majourity of the magazines I read in UK say setting
> up a 802.11a network is more difficult than a `b` or `g`.
>
> When(if) I eventually get my a network up & running, I don`t suppose i
will
> have to worry about microwave devices or digital cordless home phones !
>
> --
> Andy M Moore
>
>

got one of these also, for life of me cannot get it to work using any wep
settings or encryption. Linksys tech support says not supported currently,
"probably a future firmware release" -- even though the setup wizard has options
for this. Lame support.

Tom Scales wrote:

> They're all easy. I have a, b and g in my home, all running concurrently and
> flawlessly. I CAN attest in MY environment, G has a greater range, at
> 54mbps than A at 54mbps. In fact, B at 11mpbs has a great range than A at
> 11mpbs, as A drops to slower rates faster.
>
> All Access points at the same physical location.
>
> Tom
> "Andy M Moore" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:3fdf5646$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > I repeat my point, the majourity of the magazines I read in UK say setting
> > up a 802.11a network is more difficult than a `b` or `g`.
> >
> > When(if) I eventually get my a network up & running, I don`t suppose i
> will
> > have to worry about microwave devices or digital cordless home phones !
> >
> > --
> > Andy M Moore
> >
> >