Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Wireless Networking Hardware

Is There Too Much Enthusiasm Over Wireless? 284

Posted by Cliff from the airborne-packet-collision dept.
lukOh asks: "in the US, 802.11b/g (2.4Ghz) devices use an 83Mhz-wide frequency range; in-use channels spanning 22Mhz and centered on one of 11 5Mhz steps (badly named as "channels"). This means there should be no more that 3 networks in close proximity, 5 'channels' far from each other, to avoid harmful interference. Now, in the middle of the mixed area where I am, the number of usable WLANs (SNR>20dBm) has gone from 10 to an unworkable number of 20, in just one month. Has the community/the market overestimated the practicality of wireless networks? Are we generally relying too much on such a young, IMHO immature technology made on 'startups hope' and broken firmwares? How can this mess possibly be handled in a working environment, especially the moment your boss asks you to give him access to 'the wireless'?"
"Access points can be easily detected, but the same isn't always true for every single client (or Bluetooth device) searching or using a network. Bluetooth itself employs the same 2.4Ghz range with 1Mhz-wide channels and much less power. To avoid interference a device jumps channel-to-channel, when the currently selected one is busy.

Most WLANs are managed by less-than-perfect SOHO access points. Connecting to an AP in such an environment is a gamble (even from 1ft away), especially when: WPA/WPA2 must be used; 802.11g stability is a dream; anywhere up to 7 networks are on the same 'channel' (1 and 11, being the most used, are standard on many devices); and now 'channel wars' are very common (i.e. 2 or more users concurrently hunting to set a free channel for their network, making the entire range unusable for hours)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Is There Too Much Enthusiasm Over Wireless? More

Is There Too Much Enthusiasm Over Wireless?

Comments Filter:

  • Set your boss up with 802.11a (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24, 2005 @10:26PM (#14110491)
    No one else is using it.
    • How can this mess possibly be handled in a working environment, especially the moment your boss asks you to give him access to 'the wireless'?"


      But his Etch-A-Sketch is already wireless?

      If they actually have a computer, simply connect his computer to the wireless router via CAT-5.
  • everything will be wireless one day
    • everything will be wireless one day

      And wired all the others? :P

    • Re:wireless is way of the future (Score:4, Funny)

      by yintercept ( 517362 ) on Friday November 25, 2005 @12:19AM (#14110952) Homepage Journal
      The paperless office will be wireless.

      Dagnabbit!

      Yessiree, when that paperless world finally happens, man, it will be wireless. I tell you, it will be wireless and we will all be on the beach...

      Will the last person to press prt scr please toss out the printer.
      • So much for Wired Magazine.

        The amazing thing about wireless is that people don't turn the power down on their WAPs. This would
        A. Reduce people from seeing/wardriving/logging onto your wireless connection. ie. better security
        B. Reduce interference with other WAP.

        Certainly it isn't easy to determine a level- but the wireless guys should include software with the setup wizard that help to do this. Put your laptop in the furthest place from the WAP- set it- and it should adjust it down.

        Right now- everyo

  • Deregulation (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24, 2005 @10:33PM (#14110524)
    "Are we generally relying too much on such a young, IMHO immature technology made on 'startups hope' and broken firmwares? "

    We're relying too much on an unregulated spectrum.

    • Re:Deregulation (Score:5, Insightful)

      by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Thursday November 24, 2005 @11:47PM (#14110830)
      Says you. I happen to like my WiFi very much. It works great and I'm darn glad I don't need to pay some spectrum owner to use it.

      If you want to rely on regulated spectrum, hook into your cell phone and start paying.

      • Re:Deregulation (Score:3, Informative)

        by StrawberryFrog ( 67065 )
        "regulated" is not the same as "owned and rented out".
    • Okay, it's sorta' like that. I used to have an economics teacher that always used to say, "If socialism worked, I'd be a socialist, but it doesn't, so I'm a Capitolist." He said that if communism and socialism worked (which would only be possible with leaders who truely did everything in the best interest to the people), then people would have pretty good lives, but people with power get corrupt, and so those societies don't work. So we turn to the more Laze Fare (I know, I misspelled it) ideas because they

  • Site Survey (Score:5, Informative)

    by Mateito ( 746185 ) on Thursday November 24, 2005 @10:33PM (#14110529) Homepage
    The extention of the 802.11b standard into 802.11g is a pain the arse for exactly this reason. All access-points should be limited to work on only channels 1,6 or 11, and rate limited so that anything too far away simply drops off, rather than throttling.

    802.11a has a much better frequency spacing (8 non-overlapping channels in most juridstiction, 4 in the others), but many countries won't let you use it outside. The penetrating power at 5GHz is also less than at 2.4GHz.

    Has wireless been overhyped? Hell yeah, but all we are seeing is the same problem that we all had when everybody went out and bought a 900Mhz cordless phone.

    We need to either compress the channel bandwidth (OFDM with few channels around the center frequency), which would give less bandwidth per channel, extend the number of non-overlapping channels available. Jacking up the frequency would give better overall throughput and less channel conflict at the cost of range.

    • Re:Site Survey (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ciroknight ( 601098 ) on Thursday November 24, 2005 @11:10PM (#14110661)
      ..or a more simple solution (and an answer to the Original Poster) is good ol' human co-operation? If someone in the area is willing to host a WAP, contact them and build a network bridge, not only extending the strenght of the network, but also the availability and range, instead of setting up your own, paying for the equipment, connection, etc.

      Part of me hates the idea of Regional WISPs for this reason, they'll come in and wreck everyone's private networks. But part of me will also realize that the people who don't need to host their own WAP, won't, and that'll make the whole area a more network friendly area.

      Once some of the hype dies down, networks will get better, but for now, just grit your teeth and talk to your neighbor. God forbid you get some free internet access out of it, or pay a nominal fee to help with his bandwidth bill.

      • Re:Site Survey (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Breakfast Pants ( 323698 )
        Does anyone know how to go about fighting a regional WISP for illegally boosting their signals? The one in my town is doing this, and I'm interesting in what actions to persue.

        • Re:Site Survey (Score:3, Informative)

          by Detritus ( 11846 )
          File a written complaint with the FCC. Do you have any evidence that proves that they are in violation of FCC rules? "They interfere with my widget" does not prove anything. Your widget may just be a cheap, or even expensive, POS.
    • You don't understand how it works. Using 4 overlapping channels, 1, 4, 8 and 11 is just as good as 1, 6, 11. Having a whole bunch of access points on channel 6 isn't necessarily bad either, since the signal strength drops off very rapidly and the spreading codes are all different anyway. This is spread spectrum technology - it is not as prone to interference as other modulation modes. That is why it works.
      • I'm not too sure about your second point, but I have personal experience of just 3 overlapping networks(two on 6, one on 10) that caused horrid interference. The channel 10 group had no problems but the two homes on 6(one of which was mine with my roommates in college) had endless problems. For a long time, we couldn't figure out why noone in the house could get a decent internet connection. The problem was that we were getting huge interference from our neighbors.

        The only way we figured this out was to

  • solution vs. problem? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Gothmolly ( 148874 ) on Thursday November 24, 2005 @10:38PM (#14110546)
    Wireless technology is great.... when you absolutely need it. Take the Conference Room scenario, whats wrong with a high port density switch under the table, accessible via a central panel? You end up with a 'spiderweb' of Cat5 cables, but with wireless, you still end up with all the power cables.
    Yes, its useful to avoid snaking a cable from your desk to your bed in your dorm room, but is it a necessity?
    Or have consumers bought into the "I need my data everywhere" ideal promised by the wireless people (Centrino! Get it, you'll be a hipster Blue Man Group Guy) and the constant bombardment of high speed wireless access ads from the phone company (Verizon)?
    Back in my day, we had vt100 and 9600 baud, and we ran long serial cables or keyboard extension cables if you needed to be able to compute while wandering around your dorm room or a lab. How much real progress has been made with the WWW and 802.11 ?

    • Re:solution vs. problem? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by brunes69 ( 86786 ) <`gro.daetsriek' `ta' `todhsals'> on Thursday November 24, 2005 @10:46PM (#14110578)

      Back in my day, we had vt100 and 9600 baud, and we ran long serial cables or keyboard extension cables if you needed to be able to compute while wandering around your dorm room or a lab. How much real progress has been made with the WWW and 802.11 ?

      The difference is, I don't think my wife wants to have a giant cable following her around that she can trip over, while she is reading up on her Soap Opera Digest while watching TV in the living room.

      The difference is, the Internet is not just for geeks anymore. It is for everyone. And "everyone" does not want cables all over the place, they want a nice, clean, liveable space, and wireless gives them that. They don't really give a flying rats ass if they only get 2.5 Mbps instead of 7Mbps, because they don't know any better, and they have no logical reason to anyways.

      • battery powered? (Score:2, Interesting)

        by zogger ( 617870 )
        All the appliances in your home are battery powered? I bet she puts up with cords for a variety of things, even the television. Of course, most of those are hidden down the edge of the walls and behind the furniture, etc so I see your (hers) point but only somewhat.

        It's not the wires that are a problem, it's the builders philosphy of where to put outlets and what to have "outletted".

        The solution is just modern home design with some better plug-age in the normal areas. The problem is, it is only in the last
        • really to practically use ethernet for portable use you wan't an ethernet socket with virtually every mains socket. One per room is really far from enough.

          also ethernet is more awkward than mains to split which can be a pain unless you wan't a switch in every room or many seperate drops to every room from a huge central switch. With mains outlets you just wire em all in paralell.

          and then there is semi-permanent stuff, suppose a room has a couple of mains sockets and you wan't more but can't afford to have p
        • I would assume that she puts up with cords for stationary objects, whereas portable appliances (such as the laptop the grandparent was describing) would have batteries and thus be free of cords.
        • Another aspect is that I don't get cut off when I move from one room to another. It's a minor thing, but it's worth the investment of a wireless access point once.
    • and the constant bombardment of high speed wireless access ads from the phone company (Verizon)?

      Can you ping me now? Good!
    • Ummmm. Can you remind me what the vt100 equivalents of eBay, Google and Skype were?
    • But today, people are going mobile with PDAs, laptops, cell phones, etc.

      Me, I got a wireless router at home and use wireless wherever I can simply for physical and electrical safety - I do not have to worry about a freak power incident zapping my laptop through the LAN port when I am connected wirelessly. I also do not have to worry about network cables being tripped over and ripping the Ethernet jack off my laptop's PCB.

      I go wired only for large data transfers... preferably over FireWire for large transfer
    • We have wireless technology, why not use it? Wireless has obviously become popular enough that it needs more bandwidth. I'm sure there are lots of radio services that are less popular that should get squeezed a little.

  • Wireless isn't making me happy these days (Score:5, Insightful)

    by saskboy ( 600063 ) on Thursday November 24, 2005 @10:39PM (#14110549) Homepage Journal
    I have to troubleshoot a network timeout problem that doesn't happen in wired locations I support, but the wireless one times out when a certain application isn't used for about 10 minutes.

    And the wireless printer there suddenly decided forget how to get an IP address from the wireless router.

    It's not a happy time in Wirelessville.

  • does everything use batteries? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Wardini ( 608107 ) on Thursday November 24, 2005 @10:40PM (#14110556)
    If your device uses batteries then wireless makes more sense. If it's something that you don't ever want to replace batteries for, then you have to plug it in. At that point, you may as well plug it into the non-wireless network.
  • There are three usable channels. A good engineer will put up a tower with three 120-degree antennas, and put one channel on each side. On alternating towers, arrange the overlap so you are always covering the same zone with the same channel. Ideally you create three overlapping lobes.

    Under this scheme, there can be three service providers in an area, and they have to cooperate to avoid interference. The fourth provider is SOL and is on a short train to bankruptcy.

    Here is the beauty of wi-fi through; it

    • Re:First come first serve (Score:5, Insightful)

      by InvalidError ( 771317 ) on Thursday November 24, 2005 @11:15PM (#14110677)
      This does not work.

      WiFi works on unlicensed spectrum, companies cannot claim it as their own... that spectrum is for all to use however they please within the limits set by the relevant agencies. Trying to bury the new guy by boosting your transmitter's output would most likely violate the peak radiation limit and get your transmitter shut down if not brought back within compliance.

      What would be really useful is moving WiFi towards true spread-spectrum modulation to reduce performance degradation from multiple full and partial overlaps. The main issues with this would be extra complexity, longer channel scanning/sync times and yet more bandwidth (but at a lower mW/MHz density) per useful channel.

    • Re:First come first serve (Score:2, Insightful)

      by TBC ( 11250 )
      I would sugguest that you read the FCC Part-15 rules that all WiFi equipment operate under.

      To Quote:

      15.5 General conditions of operation.

      (a) Persons operating intentional or unintentional radiators shall not be deemed to have any vested or recognizable right to continued use of any given frequency by virtue of prior registration or certification of equipment, or, for power line carrier systems, on the basis of prior notification of use pursuant to 90.63(g) of this chapter.

      (b) Operation of an intent

  • It is about using the right tool (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Monoman ( 8745 ) on Thursday November 24, 2005 @10:47PM (#14110583) Homepage
    Wireless is a tool and can be great when applied appropriately. It is not the answer to everything as some would like to think.

    I work for a college and once or twice a year someone brings forward the idea of a mobile cart of laptops for a roaming classroom. All laptops using wireless networking.

    It sounds great until you find out they want to 30 students doing graphics or medical imaging at the same time. Of course we mention that it may not perform up to their expectations and that they should do some testing. They never follow through with the testing.

    I'll say it again. Wireless is a tool and can be great when applied appropriately.
    • It sounds great until you find out they want to 30 students doing graphics or medical imaging at the same time. Of course we mention that it may not perform up to their expectations and that they should do some testing. They never follow through with the testing.

      We recently issued 60 wireless tablets thanks to a grant from HP and were able to get them all to work fine. We did get a couple of additional access points in the room where the tablets would primarily be used, but we had the foresight to get t

  • One Solution (Score:4, Interesting)

    by TubeSteak ( 669689 ) on Thursday November 24, 2005 @10:48PM (#14110585) Journal
    One Solution that /nerds seem to find suitable is to login to whatever access points are chocking your channels and change their settings.

    I know, its not exactly ethical, it is legally dubious, etc.

    But, since most people rarely change the default admin password, you can't argue with the results from switching people off your channel, or reducing the broadcast power of their WAP.

    Mostly though, the issue is that WAPs aren't 'intelligent.' They aren't spread-spectrum, they can't automaticall channel hop because they can't predict how good/bad your reception will be... There's a whole host of technical challenges to making them play nicely together.

    Here's a super nerdy pdf [cirond.com] with equations, pics representing signal intensity/overlap. If it doesn't answer your questions in a highly technical matter, I don't know what will.

    • OT: I love cirond... they make PocketWinC. I actually PAID them the $12 for the software and it was worth every penny. No, I don't work for or own stock in Cirond.

  • Regulation inevitable (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ZachPruckowski ( 918562 ) <zachary.pruckowski@gmail.com> on Thursday November 24, 2005 @10:51PM (#14110596)
    I imagine we'll wind up with some sort of consolidation. We'll have something similar to phone companies with wireless. A regulated monopoly actually seems the most efficient here. I'd say the best example is radio stations. They are regulated so that they don't interfere with each other. We'll probably have wireless "markets" where different companies work. And at least here two or three could co-exist in some markets. And since competition among wireless providers means an area is more attractive to businesses, then gov't will maybe subsidize tower-building?
    • ..but fuck regulation.

      Wireless works because there is NO regulation. I've been a ham radio operator for 15 years. It doesn't get any more regulated than that. Know where that hobby is?

      Cellular is regulated. How much per kB, that's 1024 bytes, to tranfer IP packets?

      Regulation would spell instant death for wireless. We don't NEED regulation in those bands. That's the WHOLE POINT OF THE 2.4GHZ BAND!

      Enough already. I don't want to pay a liscence fee to the government to use my wireless hub.

  • Yes there is (Score:2, Informative)

    by axis_omega ( 771398 )
    And for a good reason, it is so cool to be able to work from anywhere. When I was in college. We had alot of tables with network connections. But with so much student they were always taken. We could only work at places that had no plugs.

    So the hotspot were my savior. Now when I work in my office, I don't need to mess with cable anymore(beside AC or mouse). I would never get back to the "old" way now.
    One day the wireless turned out not to work very well. We didn't understand it at first. Cause it was wo

  • The Tragedy of the Commons (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24, 2005 @10:59PM (#14110618)
    Folks, there's no free lunch. Wireless over wired has a cost called interference. If you live on a farm in the country, it's nothing. But if you live in a gadget-intense city, in time it'll get dreadful. That's why cordless phones, that started out at frequencies like 49 MHz, have migrated all the way up to 5.2 GHz to try to escape one another.

    Others have described this as "The Tragedy of the Commons." [econlib.org] Have a stretch of pasture where anyone can graze their cattle for free, and it'll soon be overgrazed. Have a stretch of the spectrum that anyone can freely use, and it'll become overused, so much so that no one gets any benefit.

    I saw that in a town I visited where the water was unmetered. A local told me that at first it seemed a good idea. Water was so cheap and abundant, why go to the cost of metering and billing by usage? But unmetered led to waste and waste led to a search for new sources that turned out to be expensive. The result was that everyone, whether they wasted or not, had to paid sky-high water bills.

    I hate to sound like a scold, but we need to make like good little hobbits and not trash our Technological Shire. We are going to have to discipline ourselves not to waste what's free. If wired can do the job with a trifling more effort (and probably less cost), we need use wire. Reserve wireless where it's necessary or particularly handy.

    --Mike Perry, Untangling Tolkien

    • lets get one thing straight the narrow bands of license exempt spectrum are a tiny portion of total usable spectrum (the end of total usable spectrum is iirc somewhere in the tens of GHZ atm).

      and they are generally a good thing because they allow normal people to use some radio based equipment without huge licensing hassles.

      if your favorite unlicensed band becomes too crowded you have a few options

      1: move to another unlicensed band thats less crowded(e.g. move to 802.11a)
      2: buy licensed bandwidth (expensive

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday November 24, 2005 @11:00PM (#14110623)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • If I have 802.11g, and an internal network, I don't compare my bandwidth to my DSL connection, I care about my own internal network speed and my own internal network's stability wrt connectivity. In that sense the poster is deadon, in my apartment complex there are way too many access points.

      What makes it more problematical is that for understandable reasons the cable and dsl companies hand out wireless routers on purpose.

    • "While it is true that there are only three distinct, non-overlapping, slices of spectrum"

      Agreed. Wardriving around my neighborhood, I found a surprising large number of instances where two or even three neighbors had APs on the same channel. Obviously it doesn't bother them enough for anyone to change channels.

      Actually, while 1, 6, and 11 are the "primary" channels, you can often sqeeze in two more at 3|4 and at 9 with only a slight degredation in performance. Most of the bandwidth is concentrated in the m

  • Pointless in a home environment (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Team Zissou ( 887422 ) on Thursday November 24, 2005 @11:15PM (#14110680)
    After a year of wireless I have just finished moving back to a wired home network. In retrospect it seems like a loony idea: why replace a reliable wired network with a whole bunch of expensive equipment that provided less performance with far less reliability?

    Using your laptop on the couch or on the deck has great novelty value, but is useless from a work or ergonomic perspective. Throw in interference, inevitable drop outs, and the fact that real world performance is no where near the '54Mbs' marked on the box and it all adds up to an unappealing package in the home.
    • I sit on my couch and work on my laptop for a couple hours each night using wireless (compiling at the moment so give me a break ok?) Laptop on lap, feet on ottoman, nice music on the stereo, what's the problem again?

      Sometimes I do work in my study, even then I don't bother to plug in the ethernet other than to play a movie while I treadmill. Why bother? Wireless works fine, going on 4 years now.

  • if it weren't for a pair of legitimate concerns that all the home users in a neighbourhood have like:

    - ISPs putting ridiculously low monthly bandwidth limits on users - like mine, 10Gb/month down... If I download one Mandriva install DVD, that just about uses it up! Add in that Finnish Star Trek spoof, and I'll probably be getting a phone call saying I'm downloading too much.

    - ease of setting up a network where your LAN is private, but the wireless router will allow other LANs to be set up... then people c

  • Channel clutter (Score:3, Insightful)

    by cffrost ( 885375 ) on Thursday November 24, 2005 @11:22PM (#14110723) Homepage
    When I park somewhere to borrow Internet access, more often than not, the majority of WAPs are Linksys on channel 6. If it's a spot I might use again, sometimes I'll log in (l:admin p:password) and sort out the mess, putting some of the APs on 1 and 11.

    I believe WAP manufacturers (the big three especially) have a responsibility to at least default each unit to a random channel (1, 6, or 11). Even better, have the WAP scan for and use the least cluttered channel on power-up.
  • I've used wireless a few times, on different machines, different networks and different platforms, with different wireless adapters connecting to different hubs. In no case has it ever worked right the first time. The proprietary Windows driver program (with cutesy nonstandard user interface that looks like it was carved out of a 1970s station wagon) will display hubs, but simply not connect to one, and not provide an explanation or any way to get an explanation. If it does eventually decide to work, it wil
    • See, that's just SAD.

      I've had the exact opposite experience with Apple's implementations of wifi, even the early ones running on OS 9: It has always JUST WORKED. On OS X it's even easier.

      I have had similar bad expeirences with windows systems... man, what awful software. WHY do people put up with such crap?
  • This has been a problem with most systems based on Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum, specifically those with overlapping channels in the 2.4 Ghz band.

    Note that the reason the band is supposedly 11 channels (14 are defined, and the number of channels you can use in various countries are restricted, etc etc) dates back to the original 802.11 standard, which had a maximum throughput of 2 Mbps, and a much smaller channel width. With a much smaller channel width, these channels really were non-overlapping. But as
    • -"A lot of FHSS devices are used in warehouses and the like, as FHSS is fairly immune to noise, but had a much lower limit on it's speed (2 Mbps or slightly more if you go vendor specific)." Uhmm, no. Frequency hopping (FH) is no more immune to noise than any other technique. This is because noise power tends to be spread equally over all frequencies (white noise) so there is no benefit in hopping from one frequency to another. It is however more immune to interference since this (sometimes) tends to be
  • But, it is important to keep in mind the technology still has a ways to go. As more people start using wireless it becomes pretty obvious that improving the infastructure of wireless networks really is the next big step. Where wireless really is incredibly useful is:

    1) In homes where people own a laptop

    2) In homes/businesses where running cat from one end of the building to the other would be cost prohibitive or a plain old pain in the butt.

    3) Any form of mobile technology(gaming units, phones, m

  • Licensed spectrum - WiMAX? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by grumling ( 94709 ) on Thursday November 24, 2005 @11:58PM (#14110887) Homepage
    From what I hear, Intel is planning to introduce WiMAX any day now. One of the big changes is that it will use licensed spectrum in some modes. Hopefully mortal people will be able to purchase a license. If that's the case we'll be able to have some recourse if someone causes our carrier to noise ratio (C/N) to drop to an unacceptable level. 2.4GHz is mostly unlicensed space, so there's not much you can do about it.

  • better late than never (wireless fanboys) (Score:3, Funny)

    by puzzled ( 12525 ) on Friday November 25, 2005 @12:01AM (#14110898) Journal

        Slashdot has been filled to the top with slobbering wireless fanboys for years and years. This is the very first article I've seen where the poster isn't gushing all over the ISM band and how they'll put a brazillian bits/second through it from over the horizon.

        I did see quite a few theoretical posts - ie there are three channels, a good engineer will use three 120 degree sectors. That is better, but they go on to say the next ISP that comes along is SOL. Not the case - they just elbow there way in, and people keep loving up the ISM band until it turns into packet bukkake - 100% utilization, 0% throughput.

        Anyone who seriously wants to deploy that stuff should go google for "n9zia wireless" and read the Green Bay packet crazies ideas, which is where I learned half of what I know. The other half came from hard experience.

        There will, of course, be two dozen fanboys all set to reply to this. You need to ask yourself the following questions:

    Ever climb a tower?

    Ever made a 21.7 mile shot using 802.11b?

    Ever operated a wireless ISP in a metro area?

    Ever been invited to speak at WispCon?

      If you're not qualified, please shoot your mouth off on some other topic. Really. This article is a step in the right direction for Slashdot - away from wireless delusions of grandeur and towards a bit of realism.

    • If you're not qualified, please shoot your mouth off on some other topic. Really. This article is a step in the right direction for Slashdot - away from wireless delusions of grandeur and towards a bit of realism.

      It's not often that one witnesses such pretentious flamebait from such a low UID. Congradulations, sir. Here's your asshat.

      On a more serious note: One does not need to be a wireless engineer to offer an opinion, particularly within such a community as this. You've obviously been here longer t


      • I spent a couple of years being an example ... on Slashdot ... at WispCon ... on a couple of wireless ISP mailing lists ... via my local Linux Users Group.

        The local WISP business is just pure poison. I've seen lawsuits, computer and network intrusion, jamming, breaking and entering, barratry, criminal charges for theft by deception, a number of other instances where people should have been charged with theft by deception, strategic placement of high powered amateur equipment allowed in the 2

  • Immature Technology?? Are you kidding??? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by brainchill ( 611679 ) on Friday November 25, 2005 @12:25AM (#14110994)
    I've been using wireless in the form of packet radio for almost 15 years and using aironet gear (the guys cisco bought) in production since 1998. While it's true that there are a lot of networks in the air most of them continue to function despite the interference. Isn't that strange??? no it's not ... all you need is a good enough piece of hardware to pick the sound from the noise. Perhaps more importantly I am writing this over a 5 meg full duplex wireless connection that gets fast internet to me from 13.2 miles away and hasn't dropped a packet in three years!!!
  • There will always be people still using wires for important applications. When shielded properly at least, there are no unknowns like potential interference. There's no signal leaking out the window, and as long as that clip thingy on the jack end of the cat5 cable that locks the wire into the jack is intact, you got nothing to worry about. Except too sharp bends and kinks.

    Not to mention phones. Cordless phones rely on two sources to work and of course they tend to die.

    What really needs to be invented is u

  • If you would prefer a well engineered, well thought-out solution with central channel allocation, with a central authority who will take care of any resource disputes, nobody is stopping you from signing up with Verizon or T-Mobile and their wonderful data $ervice$. I will be laughing at you from my multi-MB/s wireless LAN.

  • community networks (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ecloud ( 3022 ) on Friday November 25, 2005 @01:10AM (#14111188) Homepage Journal
    If there are 20 networks in range of you, why aren't they all doing the mesh thing to maximize bandwidth and get some redundancy too? This is just like with OSS - everybody wants to "homestead the frontier" instead of realizing that it's not a frontier anymore, and cooperate with what already exists. And those who are smart enough to do so want to secure the hell out of their networks too, not share with the neighbors at all. Just human nature, I guess.

    The lack of organization is really inefficient. I'm surprised there aren't more organized free community networks nowadays; I really thought that was going to happen more, and that the big corporate empires wouldn't be as efficient about covering large areas with hotspots and then charging big fees to use them. A lot of hams have some sense of duty to use their skills for community service, but a lot of wifi hackers don't, apparently.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • All the stories about kiddy-porn surfers sitting in cars with laptops probably don't help.

      People don't want to share their bandwidth with others in the first place ("buy your own") and don't want to be blamed for what others do with it if it were shared.

      I don't mind sharing my bandwidth with my neighbors, but I'm shaping that traffic so I get priority of course.
  • Wireless in my apartment is hopeless. There are only a couple of networks but even before there were any others my wireless wouldn't even work in some rooms. And it drops so many packets that it's unusable for anything but light webpage browsing. Doing anything that requires a constant connection fails horribly. I had to go back to a wired which obviously works fine.
  • Is There Too Much Enthusiasm Over Wireless?

    There's not enough enthusiasm for wireless!

    Wireless could allow consumers to free themselves from the regional telecom monopolies' grasp and transform internet access from a monthly pay-service into a single expense commodity market. That's a tremendous gain for consumers as commodity markets are much more competitive and offer far better flexibility of choice. It will be a wonderful day when wireless allows us to abandon the Bells and the Alltels that are blocki

    • Unfortunately you mistake what you're paying for. That $45/month isn't for the local link, it's mostly for the transport between your ISP and the rest of the Internet. Your scenario B has you paying $45/year for access to... well, nothing really. Only those computers associated with the same wireless access point as you. Basically exactly what you'd have if you set up an 802.11b access point of your own that wasn't plugged into a LAN. Now you have to go about getting your access points connected up to the r

      • None of what you just said refutes my post in the least.

        I outlined the ideal schenario...a very possible future that would benefit all of us vastly

        Of course you'll need connections between the lily pads, and of course that's not free. But if you have enough computing power and enough harddisk capacity there is potential for mirroring and other techniques that would still allow us to 'keep our internet' without having to pay an arm and a leg to regional telecom monopolies. 0.0001% of our income tax could f

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close