Old-school Wi-Fi Is Slowing Down Networks, Cisco Says 254
alphadogg writes "The early Wi-Fi standards that opened the world's eyes to wire-free networking are now holding back the newer, faster protocols that followed in their wake, Cisco Systems said. The IEEE 802.11 standard, now available in numerous versions with speeds up to 6.9Gbps and growing, still requires devices and access points to be compatible with technologies that date to the late 1990s. But those older standards — the once-popular 802.11b and an even slower spec from 1997 — aren't nearly as efficient as most Wi-Fi being sold today. As a result, Cisco thinks the 802.11 Working Group and the Wi-Fi Alliance should find a way to let some wireless gear leave those versions behind. Two Cisco engineers proposed that idea last week in a presentation at the working group's meeting in Los Angeles. The plan is aimed at making the best use of the 2.4GHz band, the smaller of two unlicensed frequency blocks where Wi-Fi operates."
so what about all my old devices? (Score:5, Interesting)
and i mean the ones that sell the same device over many years like a game console. PS3, xbox 360, wii u, nintendo 3ds, etc
and then you have something like printers. sure it's only $100 or $250 but no one wants to buy a new printer just to buy a new wifi router
Re:so what about all my old devices? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:so what about all my old devices? (Score:5, Funny)
So do I. I'm also willing to bet printer manufacturers will sell it for $80.
Re: (Score:3)
Get the Ebay chinese version if you can wait 4 weeks!
Re: (Score:3)
Re:so what about all my old devices? (Score:5, Funny)
And then send it back because it doesn't fucking work.
Re:so what about all my old devices? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
FWIW, I too have had success with Monoprice items. I suspect that Monoprice components are often the same as the brand name components, with a different outer shell, much like store branded electronics.
Specifically, I had a LAN party and I ordered a brand name Gigabit switch and a Monoprice Gigabit switch. Both worked as designed. The Monoprice one had the benefit that the case was flat, so it was more stackable than some of the fancier case designs.
Re: (Score:2)
And tablets? Phones? ... not so much.
Re: (Score:2)
Or even 802.11b. Maybe if you got REALLY lucky you'd find a palm pilot that uses it. I can't recall the last time I owned a b device, I think it was a PCMCIA card for adding wifi to laptops that had them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Nintendo 3DS also uses b when running DS games that aren't enhanced for the DSi.
Why on earth would they do that? Does the game talk directly with the wifi hardware or something? If so, I guess that would...sort of...make sense, but then I'd have to ask: Haven't they heard of a network stack to separate the two?
Re: (Score:3)
The DS didn't really have an operating system. Each game would ship with the "driver" to the chip, and yes, the game would talk directly to the chip. No space (or need) for a network stack.
Re: (Score:3)
Yuck...I mean just coming from the perspective of being a network guy (I don't do programming at all) it seems rather strange to me to do it that way given that it has to involve thinking along the OSI model, which has existed since...the 80's I think?
I can accept the fact that the DS games were just intended to play on DS hardware and that would be that, but they couldn't have expected the network stack to stay the same forever, not to mention if things break somewhere how on earth do they update it?
I mean
Re: (Score:3)
I'm a network engineer myself, so I get the points you're making, but you have to realize - to Nintendo, these are TOYS. Not software you have to perpetually support. It has a shelf life, which ran out some time ago now. Online wasn't even that big part of the console anyway (compared to what you have with Xbox Live or PSN) so it doesn't matter if it fades to obscurity.
Oh, and neither the console nor the games could be updates. It's different on the 3DS now.
Re: (Score:2)
Add-on wireless print servers could be a fix for some, as could a slow subnet done by hanging a slow router off the fast router.
People with a desire for speed will Ebay a lot of their old gear or Craigslist it, so those who like legacy systems can do as always and stock up.
Re:so what about all my old devices? (Score:5, Insightful)
and i mean the ones that sell the same device over many years like a game console. PS3, xbox 360, wii u, nintendo 3ds, etc and then you have something like printers. sure it's only $100 or $250 but no one wants to buy a new printer just to buy a new wifi router
If you want to gain the advantages of the newest router you might, GASP, just have to run a wire to it. You might even have the inconvenience of having to relocate it next to the printer. Oh the humanity.
Things that absolutely need wireless tend to be mobile. Mobile equipment which only takes 802.11b was probably obsolete years ago. For everything that doesn't move, it should be wired anyway.
Re:so what about all my old devices? (Score:5, Informative)
Strange as it may sound to you there are actually reasons to have stationary things connect to the network through a wireless adapter. One good reason would be the simple fact that some of us live in areas where lightning plays havoc on infrastructure, especially telephone lines. If you connect to the 'net through ADSL you'll start seeing the wisdom of having as few wired connections between your modem and your network. While it is more or less impossible to protect the modem from a direct strike and usually inconvenient to protect the router, all other equipment should preferably be connected wirelessly or suffer the wrath of Thor.
This is no idle talk, I have personally lost three modems, two routers, three Thinkpad T23 network adapters, one Intel SS4200 server network interface and one HP Jetdirect card to lightning strikes. The damage always came from the telephone line and was carried through the wired network to the victims. Nothing ever happened to any wireless device, ever.
Re:so what about all my old devices? (Score:5, Funny)
what have you done to Thor, are you a desendant of his brothers.?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:so what about all my old devices? (Score:5, Interesting)
Ever considered spending $20 on a surge protecting power bar that includes RJ11 plugs? They're designed specifically for this, and go between the wall outlet and the ADSL modem.
Coupled with surge protectors on ask the AC adapters, you'd be set.
Re: (Score:2)
Ever considered spending $20 on a surge protecting power bar that includes RJ11 plugs? They're designed specifically for this, and go between the wall outlet and the ADSL modem.
Coupled with surge protectors on ask the AC adapters, you'd be set.
Oh for the love of Thor, this.
I've set up server rooms in remote locations that get very dirty power on any interface, everything was surge protected. It's easy to get inline filters for ADSL modems that will also handle surges.
Re: (Score:3)
Have you ever tried one? They don't work for lightning. Most use MOVs which are too slow to react and can't clamp the very high amounts of energy a lightning spike can cause. Often they fail to provide full protection as well. For example a lightning strike might cause a sudden change in earth potential, and few surge protectors can deal with that.
Most of the time they just die. It happened to me a few times before I ditched dial-up/ADSL. Your equipment dies too, and they make you sent it to them (at your e
Re: (Score:2)
Strange as it may sound to you there are actually reasons to have stationary things connect to the network through a wireless adapter. One good reason would be the simple fact that some of us live in areas where lightning plays havoc on infrastructure, especially telephone lines. If you connect to the 'net through ADSL you'll start seeing the wisdom of having as few wired connections between your modem and your network. While it is more or less impossible to protect the modem from a direct strike and usually inconvenient to protect the router, all other equipment should preferably be connected wirelessly or suffer the wrath of Thor.
This is no idle talk, I have personally lost three modems, two routers, three Thinkpad T23 network adapters, one Intel SS4200 server network interface and one HP Jetdirect card to lightning strikes. The damage always came from the telephone line and was carried through the wired network to the victims. Nothing ever happened to any wireless device, ever.
After the first time I'd have the run RJ11 through an APC UPS....Actually, no, when I had DSL I ran it through the UPS before all of my wired shit got toasted...which it never did.
Re:so what about all my old devices? (Score:4, Insightful)
There are good reasons. That is not one of them. Lightning protection isn't hard.
A more realistic reason is that many people just don't have the option of running cabling through an existing property - people who rent. Some businesses too, espicially those set up in listed historic buildings. It's hard enough putting electric light in those - it often has to be done via adhesive cable attachments to avoid having to make any structural modifications.
Re:so what about all my old devices? (Score:4, Interesting)
Mobile equipment which only takes 802.11b was probably obsolete years ago.
Obsolete is a meaningless term. Why replace something that is still as functional as the day it was made?
Re: (Score:3)
Why replace something that is still as functional as the day it was made?
Because it makes the devices I bought yesterday far slower than they are designed to be.
If I have a 802.11b print server on my network, it might work fine. However, when I get home with my new 802.11n laptop & want to get on the web at 50mbit, that obsolete device can slow down my Netflix streaming because it hogs the channel for longer while someone prints to it.
More to the point, a single user in a public Wifi area (stadium, coffee house, etc) with 802.11b would cause EVERYONE to have a slower connect
Re:so what about all my old devices? (Score:5, Informative)
Except, you fail to realize one point.
802.11 devices on the same channel are all affected. Even if they are on separate networks.
It doesn't matter that your 802.11n network is fast. If your neighbour has an 802.11b device on the same channel on their network/strong, your network slows down.
802.11 has channel signalling that applies to everyone on the channel, regardless of the network. Everyone obeys it as cooperation gets you better throughput than interference.
So even if your network is 802.11ac compliant, as long as someone within range is on the same frequency, your network will slow down to accommodate their network.
It's also why early "G-only" networks were doomed - just because your network only allows G clients in, someone on the same frequency using B forces G to downgrade.
Just because two users are on two different networks, doesn't mean they can't influence each other. It's a shared medium.
So your neighbour who's very happy with their 802.11b printer will still force your fast 802.11ac or 802.11n network to slow down until you change the channel, or helpfully upgrade their equipment.
My neighbors' .11n networks forced me to upgrade (Score:2)
I can typically see a dozen or so neighbors' wifi networks at 2.4GHz. Probably 2/3 are 802.11n, the rest g, no b. I used to run on g, and it worked ok except for the far edges of my house, but when my neighbors started upgrading from g to n (or maybe b to n:-), the airwaves were getting too crowded and I kept getting knocked off the network when I was in the room I usually used my laptop in. Eventually I bit the bullet and got an 802.11n router to get a bit more power and range, as well as switching chan
Re: (Score:2)
Your point is complete correct & I was aware & agree with you.
However, my point was to the GP who was saying that nothing is obsolete. Hopefully, between the two of us, he will apologize for being so wrong. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Maye if you had bought an abgn radio for your hot new laptop and an abgn AP, neither your b devices nor your microwave oven would be slowing you down.
The real progress of 11ac is forcing consumers to buy 5gHz radios on their gadgets. 2.5GHz is for crap/old devices.
Re: (Score:3)
Because it's hampering progress.
Would you see all highways limited to 30 MPH speed limits, just because someone might have a working Model T roaming around?
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite the same. There are relatively new systems, 2 to 5 years old, that only did 802.11b. Just because some slashdotter says something is obsolete does not make it true. Most model Ts have worn out over time without expending a lot of work to maintain or restore them. Whereas many first generation wifi products are still working fine.
Still, if you get rid of all those 802.11b devices, you still do not clear up the 2.4ghz bands. There are even older wireless phone handsets still in use (I have two)
Re: (Score:2)
So I should rip up carpet and drill holes through walls to connect my television to my router?
Sure. Pre-run UTP would add value to any house I was considering buying.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd say the easiest way for Cisco to do that is to put TWO different implementations in one box.
You can buy a USB dongle that does wireless. So why doesn't Cisco just put a USB port on their wireless access point and shunt the old stuff through that?
Then, in the future when everything is faster and better and whatever, you just pull the old dongle out and ignore the old stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Old protocols even without old devices (Score:2)
I can see a dozen or so of my neighbors' wifi networks. About 2/3 are running N, 1/3 running G, no B. I have a couple of 802.11b devices in my "old electronic junk" bin, but it's not like they're powered up. And unless you're somewhere that has smart-meters running 802.11b, or some other antique or retro gear, you probably won't have 802.11b running either.
But all of the devices know how to fall back to that protocol, and maybe some of them will, at least with weak signals over long distances.
Re: (Score:2)
With weak signals over long distances they'll get a better connection using g or n protocols at low speed than falling back to b protocols.
I was surprised by this story, because I have my router set to g/n only (I probably could switch to n only now I think about it, as my wife's laptop was the last g holdout, and got upgraded last year) and thought that was a standard option on most routers these days.
Re: (Score:3)
Sort of. Let me see if I can put this into a better format.
5GHz standards
802.11a
802.11n
802.11ac
802.11ad
2.4GHz standards
802.11b
802.11g
802.11n
So the only overlap is 802.11n and the other 2.4GHz standards should not be bothering the newer standards on 5GHz. So just move all of the 2.4GHz stuff to a USB dongle. Then
Re:so what about all my old devices? (Score:4)
They are all disposable, how dare you think you can continue to use a device for more than a couple of years..
Re:so what about all my old devices? (Score:4, Interesting)
This. Cisco is essentially annoyed because other people's wireless hardware doesn't fail fast enough so they can't sell them new junk. I have network hardware at home from the 1990s that still works, and since it's adequate for the traffic on my network there is no reason to replace it. If Cisco doesn't want to support the old protocols like 802.11b in their newer hardware they don't have to. If that protocol is all that works on my ancient backup laptop/dev box (it is) then I won't buy their new stuff. (Not that I would buy Cisco, anyway.)
Re: (Score:2)
What are they currently connecting to? Odds are, it's an existing router with WiFi capability. So when you get the new router, what's stopping you from having the old router connect to the new? It's a waste of power to have 2 routers running, certainly, but it may be a better option than buying everything new.
If your current router is an ISP-supplied one and you have to return it when they send you a new one, then you'd just have to pick up any one cheap by-then-considered-old-but-not-yet-vintage routers
Re: (Score:2)
and i mean the ones that sell the same device over many years like a game console. PS3, xbox 360, wii u, nintendo 3ds, etc
The Xbox 360 and PS3 use 802.11n.... they are not part of the problem.
An old printer that only supports 802.11b or 802.11g should definitely go; it's worth the replacement cost to "upgrade" to non-G supporting wireless hardware. It's probably so old at this point, that the drum is near end of life anyways, and everyone knows........ a new printer is cheap, the ink is the expens
Re: (Score:3)
Are you going to give me the 100+ bucks for a new printer, new cartridges, etc ?
Why am I going to replace functional hardware JUST to "fix" a problem that isn't really a problem for me ?
Re: (Score:2)
Why am I going to replace functional hardware JUST to "fix" a problem that isn't really a problem for me ?
Then why are you replacing your functional 802.11g router, smart guy?
Re: (Score:2)
He was unhappy that new routers in the future might be incompatible with his old printer, necessitating him replacing his printer... but that assumes he has to replace his router. Getting mad about it now is something like shouting at clouds.
Because let's face it, it's pretty unrealistic to get bent out of shape because you can't buy daisy wheels or get 14k modem service anymore. Technology will evolve and things we use today will become obsolete, and we'll replace them when we have to or when we want to. N
Spare access point on another channel (Score:2)
My HP Laser Printer is running just fine after a decade. It doesn't have wifi, just ethernet and USB, though I think there was a wifi printer of the same generation. It usually sits in the same room as the wifi router. But Wifi uses channels, so if you've got an old 802.11b-only printer and want to keep it on the air instead of hanging it on an ethernet, you've probably got an old wifi router sitting around by now, so put it and the printer on one channel and your fast gear on another channel (or on 5 GH
Re: (Score:3)
"... no one wants to buy a new printer just to buy a new wifi router..."
Backwards compatibility (or at least capability) is important. Look at TV.
They could have chosen a digital broadcast TV standard that was backwards-compatible with the older signalling system. It existed. It was one of the choices.
Instead they went with a brand-new protocol, that made all old TVs obsolete, unless they bought an expensive converter box and antenna. The result? Relatively few people in the U.S. watch broadcast TV anymore. Instead they pay outrageous fees for cable.
If you want to kill
Re: (Score:3)
They could have chosen a digital broadcast TV standard that was backwards-compatible with the older signalling system.
And how on earth do you propose a digital TV standard that's backwards compatible and still uses only 6MHz? We optimized our bandwidth usage and gained a whole block of frequencies for LTE.
In the US, it cost maybe $10 (after government rebate) to buy a converter box during the rebate program. After, it was $40-50. That's maybe one month of fees for cable TV. And the picture was better than cable. If anyone spent more to switch to cable rather than pay a small one-time fee, they weren't making the best
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, it cost maybe $10 (after government rebate) to buy a converter box during the rebate program.
Sometimes it cost nothing after rebate. Unfortunately, the standards for the rebate units did not initially include analog passthrough, so if you put one of those converters on your TV before the cut-off date you lost access to analog channels. And if you have analog LPTV/translators, you still can't get to them. Only later did the passthrough get put in.
And the picture was better than cable.
The picture for the two "channels" I could get using the digital converter were very nice. (One station, two channels.) The other channels went away alto
Re: (Score:2)
"... no one wants to buy a new printer just to buy a new wifi router..."
Backwards compatibility (or at least capability) is important. Look at TV.
They could have chosen a digital broadcast TV standard that was backwards-compatible with the older signalling system. It existed. It was one of the choices.
Instead they went with a brand-new protocol, that made all old TVs obsolete, unless they bought an expensive converter box and antenna. The result? Relatively few people in the U.S. watch broadcast TV anymore. Instead they pay outrageous fees for cable.
If you want to kill off a technology, abandoning backward compatibility is a great way to do it. (Again I will add "or capability"... the new system doesn't have to be "compatible" with the old, as long as it will work in parallel.)
TVs have a fair bit of backwards compatibility. New TVs can connect to HD content (through HDMI/DVI, cable/antenna, VGA), as well as SD content (composite, component, cable/antenna, VGA). And colour NTSC was made with excellent B&W backwards compatibility. In the past 6 years new LCD/Plasma TVs have seem a tremendous amount of market adoption. For the remaining six people the government subsidized receiver boxes. In the mean time anyone with a modern TV can hook up an antenna and get free HD content. A
Re: (Score:2)
They could have chosen a digital broadcast TV standard that was backwards-compatible with the older signalling system. It existed. It was one of the choices. Instead they went with a brand-new protocol, that made all old TVs obsolete, unless they bought an expensive converter box and antenna. The result? Relatively few people in the U.S. watch broadcast TV anymore. Instead they pay outrageous fees for cable.
There really wasn't a surge in cable subscribers leading up to the switch to digital in the US. Probably one of the reasons why they could pull off the switch is because of the fact that the vast majority of households have a pay for TV service, which wouldn't be affected by the switch.
Re: (Score:2)
[citation needed]
Re: (Score:2)
Its already happened (Score:2)
Its had intermittent periods of use as and when I needed an extra machine, and although now 14 years old, with RAM upgraded to 392mb, an aftermarket battery giving 7 hours on a charge and OSX 10.3.9 installed, it still works. HOWEVER - it has an original Apple Airport card (probably worth
Especially good time for two routers (Score:2)
That's an especially good time to deploy some old router that it can connect to so you can use it at home, on a different channel than your main wifi, though for roaming use you might need a USB hub.
Re: (Score:2)
and i mean the ones that sell the same device over many years like a game console. PS3, xbox 360, wii u, nintendo 3ds, etc
and then you have something like printers. sure it's only $100 or $250 but no one wants to buy a new printer just to buy a new wifi router
Most routers do both 802.11G and N these days. Unless your ancient devices are operating on the A or B protocols you should be fine.
If they are, the simple solution is to get the new router and keep the old one as a dumb AP for the old device to connect to until you retire that device.
Re: (Score:2)
good idea (Score:2)
If you put in Cisco equipment your wired network speed WILL speed up.
Since Cisco can't follow standards well and puts wifi systems that are constantly broken your wireless traffic will go WAY down.
Sorry... the use of Cisco in many big complexes is because so many I.T. managers have to get the most expensive equipment. I've personally used Ubiquity and MicroTik equipment and they are more reliable.
Re: (Score:3)
I use Cisco wireless at work and Ubiquity at home. I have to say that there is still value for the Cisco products in larger companies.
The Ubnt stuff works OK at home, but there is no way I'd deploy a factory full of them using that java "controller" compared to Cisco's WLCs.
If you're a small business, sure, Ubnt is fine. If you have 300 sites to manage, you want something that can allow a single person to manage all of those networks from one console. The lower headcount can buy a LOT of expensive hardware.
Sales Problem and Technical Problem (Score:2)
What's wrong with the current system, where we use multiple letters? The answer is it's not just technical problem with unnecessary signals filling the airwaves, it's a sales problem. Customers don't grasp the differences between letter versions (a/b/g/n) so they purchase the one with the most letters, perpetuating the filling of the limited bandwidth available.
Re: (Score:2)
Not just sales -- if you've been bit by this a few times, you tend to buy the hardware that supports the most frequencies even if you may think you don't need them. For example, the Nintendo wii has a built-in 802.11b/g wifi adapter, but it has some bugs that prevent it from working on plain 'g' for many
Re: (Score:2)
No, it is not a 'stupid customer' problem. The STANDARD says that an 'n' device must also do a/b/g. That is what Cisco is complaining about. They want a new standard that does not have the requiement of supporting the old standards.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think that standard was setup that way?
This is a non-problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
All the newer, faster equipment supports the 5GHz band. Use a dual-radio access point, and set aside the 5GHz band for n/ac only. Run legacy devices on 2.4GHz. Use different network names for 2.4 and 5GHz so that people put their newer stuff on 5GHz.
Easiest way to do this is have "networkname" and "networkname_fast". People whose devices support 5GHz will probably use the fast one. Those with only 2.4GHz-only devices won't even see the "fast" one and use the regular one. Everyone should be (relatively) happy.
5GHz has been a godsend for WiFi performance. Sure, it doesn't penetrate as far as 2.4GHz, but in managed setups this is wonderful. Spend a little bit more on additional access points and have MUCH better performance.
Re: (Score:2)
In managed environments you honestly have to do this. Windows (or the drivers) is real stupid about which band it wants to use so 90% of your devices hop on 2.4Ghz, which is congested already with all your neighbors also being on it. If you've got 100 people in a 5th floor downtown office it can get awful even if you put a bunch of APs in.
So we make two SSIDs, one for 5G and disable it on the 2.4 radio.
Re: (Score:2)
Lack of penetration is a GOOD thing.
In my apartment building, on the 2.4Ghz range, I get maybe 100 different wifi networks, including the coffeeshop down the street.
When I switched to 5 Ghz only, there were many fewer networks (and much less interference). Sure some of that is because so many people run 2.4 Ghz. But even if they did, I wouldn't see nearly as much interference.
Although I do hope Coffee Company doesn't switch to 5 Ghz. It's nice to steal their wifi when mine goes out.
Um... (Score:2)
So... similar to how pretty much most/all modern routers give you the option to switch between 'a/b/g/n' mode, or enable just 'n', or just 'ac'? And like how they let you choose to use the 2.4GHz band or 5GHz or both, or...? It seems to me that there really isn't a technical problem here, just a user education issue of TELLING them that there may be a speed benefit to turning off standards they aren't using anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the point is that Cisco would like to ship their products with the slower stuff off, but if they do, they are no longer "Wi-Fi" compliant.
They're asking for a second "Wi-Fi" standard created so they can give the user a faster access point right out of the box & still be compliant with a standard.
Re: (Score:2)
Turn off old protocols by default (Score:2)
So default to OFF for the older protocols.
eg. I have a 5GHz access point for my devices that support it, and a 2.5GHz access point for those that don't. I'm able to set my 6GHz band to N-only and my 2.5GHz band to G-only because all the devices I have on it support G. I'm able to effectively disable A/B support and speed up my network.
Start shipping routers with A/B disabled, and make it an easy checkbox in the forced setup to enable "legacy" devices.
No need to drop the functionality entirely is there?
Re: (Score:2)
In Windows 7, I remove 6 clients + protocols I don't use listed below (no home LAN is how I get away with it, single system only)
Removing LAN protocols might work for people who live alone, but I don't see how it'd work for households with more than one person, or even with one person and both a computer and a smartphone or tablet. Otherwise, I can see the value of the other measures you listed, namely NoScript (or the counterpart built into a particular browser) and a DNS-level blacklist (your hosts file).
Tuning the IP stack for BOTH speed & security @ the registry level
What tuning do you recommend in this case?
b should be the first to go (Score:2)
802.11b should be the first to go, but not 802.11a. Even though it didn't get good industry support, 802.11a is great. People instead adopted 802.11g, which is not 5 GHz like 802.11a, but it had better compatibility with 802.11b.
I was pleasantly surprised when I learned that my Samsung Galaxy S III supports 802.11a. I took my 802.11a AP out of storage and returned to wireless.
At some point in the near future I'll be purchasing 802.11ac equipment and putting my a network to bed. My two 802.11a adapters are P
Just turn it off (Score:2)
Every router I have ever seen has an option for "n only" or "a only" or whatever band only.
Just turn off the older standards. Done and done. Some people may want to maintain compatibility with legacy devices. That should be their choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Realtek by any chance? I have an internet radio with an Realtek 802.11b USB dongle embedded. It crashes as soon as it sees any 802.11n router. For a while I was able to get by with running my router on channel 1 with n disabled so it would find it and connect before it got around to scanning my neighbours' routers, but eventually my neighbours figured out that it was pretty congested on channel 6, and started switching
Cisco: We've got things to sell you! (Score:2)
Cisco is a company with its own interests at heart. In fact, the executive leadership's interests at heart. They want more and more money but they have to convince you there is something inadequate about what you are using now in order to sell it to you.
Back in the earlier dot-com bubble days, no convincing was needed. Money-spending-executives (much like gadget buying housewives) bought into the notion that buying new tech will somehow translate into more money in their pockets.
Right about now, tech has
why 2.4GHz? (Score:2)
Just use 802.11a (Score:2)
Required out of the box? (Score:2)
That is interesting that wireless products are apparently required to support back to 802.11 1997 and b out of the box. I have seen that on my gear but didn't know it was mandated. Anyway, one of the first steps I take when deploying a new AP is to log in and, after disabling WEP and WPA1, change a dropdown box from b/g/n to g/n.
This should eliminate all the legacy traffic, surely?
Re: (Score:3)
It eliminates it from devices on your network. But your devices still need to play nice with your neighbours' networks on the same channel. Part of the problem I think is that 802.11b wasn't really designed to play well with different networks operating on the same channel in close proximity. So later standards need to detect 802.11b traffic and avoid it - which means slowing down due to gaps in the communication at least.
What about "Good Enough"? (Score:2)
Ya, I'm no captain of industry and would consider myself pro-consumerist over pro-profiteer, but what's wrong with "Good Enough"? Most people have zero need for 6Gbps. Yes, most. Most people aren't downloading massive files over public networks nor does it matter if they get instant access to the newest viral craze on Youtube.
For most people 802.11b is good enough. Upgrading is too resource intensive when the cost of continuing the status quo is ZERO DOLLARS.
I equate this "issue" with Dell complaining that
There is a way... (Score:2)
Re:Do anyone care about 2.5GHz speed? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Do anyone care about 2.5GHz speed? (Score:4, Informative)
not only older houses, but also every solid house on places where the earth keeps moving.
Re: (Score:2)
This, my house is 100 years old, I can get through 1-2 walls, and then nothing.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sure Cisco et al will be more than happy to sell you a wireless access point for every room in your house, and then declare them all obsolete whenever 802.11xyz comes out.
Re: (Score:3)
Well... making you replace all your devices is a FEATURE, not a bug. At least from Cisco's standpoint.
Re: (Score:3)
5GHz doesn't penetrate materials as well as 2.4GHz, especially in older homes. I have a dual 5/2.4 router at home, and the 5 is only fastest in the same room as the router. My house is L-shaped and made with brick/cinder block and until I moved the Wifi router there was a corner of my bedroom that didn't even see the 5GHz signal. Just because the numbers are bigger doesn't necessarily mean they're better. To me, the biggest advantage of 5GHz is it's pretty uncrowded.
Good for apartments but bad for houses. (Score:2)
With 5GHz you get more non-overlapping channels (12 vs 3) along with the benefit (if you live in an apartment building) of not having to worry about conflicting with other apartments because the signals are absorbed by the walls.
Re: (Score:2)
The logic is indeed baffling. If you have old device A and new device B at home, then the new device would connect with the faster protocols by default and normally never use the old protocol, correct? Having the old protocol is only for products like A, which one wants to keep around if they can.
Thus, the only way to get rid of usage of the old protocol is make network comm equipment that is not incompatible with A-type devices, meaning A devices are now useless trash.
Thus, it's either stupidity or greed (
Re: (Score:3)
The logic is indeed baffling. If you have old device A and new device B at home, then the new device would connect with the faster protocols by default and normally never use the old protocol, correct? ... Thus, it's either stupidity or greed (force purchases of replacement gizmos). Or are we missing a subtle 3rd option because we didn't carefully RTFA?
The problem is that legacy support makes the newer protocols less efficient. The "450 Mbps" of a modern 802.11n network is only a burst speed, and the rest of the time the router is busy sending 1 Mbps preambles and beacons. If we can drop support for the older standards, then the router can dedicate more of its time to high-speed data transfers.
Re: (Score:3)
Cheapest 5GHz router is still 3x more expensive than cheapest 2.4GHz router.
The cheapest 2.4GHz router is less than $15, and the cheapest 5GHz router is $40, according to the latest listings from NewEgg. It may be 3x as expensive in relative terms, but in absolute terms the difference is less than the cost of 5 Big Mac meals. I certainly would rather buy a 5GHz wireless router than a Big Mac.
Re: (Score:2)
As someone with a lot of friends visiting (who would like to use my 5Ghz network)
The iPhone didn't support 5Ghz till the iPhone 5.
Samsung only started supporting 5Ghz a year and a half ago.
Any friends with an earlier phone, or another model (e.g. HTC) tends to be unable to get onto my network.
Laptops are hit or miss. It appears quite a few older laptops have 5Ghz but then a friends new netbook won't.
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly not the FCC. These are unlicensed bands, they don't care what you do with them (which is the whole point of unlicensed bands).
Re: (Score:2)
Wifi operates in bands that the ITU has designated "ISM bands" [wikipedia.org], which are basically unregulated. They were bands originally designated for non-telecom equipment, such as microwaves, to be able to operate in without worrying about the RF interference they emit. However telecom equipment is allowed to also operate in the band so long as it can tolerate more or less arbitrary interference. Wifi is nowadays one of the more common uses of the ISM bands, but since they're explicitly "interfere all you want" bands
Re: (Score:2)
Excepting noise
The trouble is with radio you can't really do that, for the most part whatever is loudest wins. 802.11[abgn] you have to recognize the old carrier, and more challenging the old implementations have to recognize your carrier. Otherwise they will think you are noise and turn their radios up to the highest transmit powers.
Because you would need to stay carrier compatible that is probably major constraint building a more efficient protocol.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, you do. Which is Why I see no point at all in Cisco's plan other than to try to obsolete some gear that should otherwise stay in service for many years to come.
Anybody who actually does have a problem from slow devices and knows how to tell what will need replacement will know enough to do the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Because they don't have a strong monopoly position. They are a big player yes, but Arista, Juniper, PaloAlto, HP, Aruba, Extreem, Enterasys the list is long. Cisco has pretty serious competition in almost every domain they play in. In some domains like Data Center distribution they are not even the leader.
Re: (Score:2)
Note to self: New business model
1. Create safety reporting scheme followed closely by
2. Astroturfing parental concern over wifi brain tumors.
3. ???
4. Profit!!