IEEE Approves Revision of Wireless LAN Standard 61
An anonymous reader writes "IEEE announced the publication of IEEE 802.11-2012, which defines the technology for the world's premier wireless LAN products. The new IEEE 802.11-2012 revision has been expanded significantly by supporting devices and networks that are faster and more secure, while offering improved Quality of Service and improved cellular network hand-off. The standard's relevance continues to expand with the emergence of new applications, such as the smart grid, which augments the facility for electricity generation, distribution, delivery and consumption with a two-way, end-to-end network for communications and control."
Does this technology involve patents . . . ? (Score:2)
And license fees?
Re:Does this technology involve patents . . . ? (Score:5, Informative)
This is just a wrap-up standard formalizing a bunch of extensions to the previous standard, such as 802.11.n, so the patent situation is roughly the same as what it's been for 802.11 for the past years. Which is that, yes, there are patents on various things, though the situation is not 100% clear.
There is a semi-standard licensing pool, the Via WiFi license pool [vialicensing.com], that claims to hold most of the relevant patents. But Netgear at least partly won its case [wikipedia.org] after they shipped some products that didn't pay to license the Via pool. But balancing that win, Australia's national research organization seems to be successfully claiming relevant patents [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Crazy that things that are supposed to be standards can't be viewed (legally) for free.
I have run into this situation many times. Most recently, while planning a satellite bar to deal with takeaway coffee and breakfast rolls, I was alerted by the local council that the exhaust requirements will have to be met according to some Australian Standard or I could find myself in contravention of my liquor licence. An inconvenience but fair enough I thought, until I attempted to view the regulations. I found that I had to pay to view the standard to ensure I wasn't breaking the law.
Anybody Got a WG Final Draft? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You don't need a subscription. You can buy the pdf for 5 dollars [techstreet.com].
Paywalled Standards?? WTF??!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, folks, this culture of pay-to-play needs to be shut down. When you can't even read a fucking standard which will affect the entire industry without some asshole demanding payment, the system is broken.
WTF ever happened to public domain?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yeah, however will you afford the 5 dollars to buy the pdf. Woe is you...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The amount is not the point of contention, and you know it. It's the principle of the thing. The internet is supposed to be built on open standards.
Re: (Score:1)
Nobody ever said the Internet has to be built upon open standards, and strictly speaking, this is not an Internet standard. The guide is mainly meant for people who are building devices. Are you building a device? If so, $5 is probably nothing.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd bet Tim [w3.org] and a few of the other early visionaries might disagree with you.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because the rest of the world can't keep it's shit together doesn't mean our problems should be ignored. Fuck off.
Re: (Score:1)
Says the guy whining over a 5 dollar pdf.
Re: (Score:2)
Obsess much?
Re: (Score:2)
So complaining about having to pay money to access the standard isn't about money? lolwut?
Re: (Score:1)
Hey. You got one right.
Him bitching about having to pay $5 to get the PDF is not about the money itself.
I am not sure how you got this right. I would have bet everything that you were way to wrapped up in how awesome you are to get it. But you did.
Grats.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Because you say so? That's not a compelling argument.
Re: (Score:1)
Does it have to be? IT'S A FUCKING OPINION.
We are all allowed to have them and they do not have to jive. STOP FUCKING ATTACKING PEOPLE'S OPINIONS. State your case and move on. If you have to go "nyu ah you're wrong so there" then you're doing it wrong.
Re: (Score:1)
... and just so you know, since I just know you are going to say it: you're now on my foe list so slashdot shows you as -1 for me, and I don't have to read your shit ever again. Nothing personal, and it's not meant to be trite.
Re: (Score:2)
"I can't get a standards doc for free! My life is ruined!!!"
I'll use an absurdly exaggerated yet not completely unrealistic scenario to highlight the importance of the pay-to-view model of standards
It is year 2035 and environmental issues are the hot topic in politics. The global population has reached 9 Billion and water has become scarce. An International Standard on toilet flushing systems has been drafted by a consortium of toilet manufacturers, plumbers unions and environmental groups. The standard also gives instructions on how to use a legacy flushing system
Re: (Score:2)
This just in: This isn't an Internet standard.
Re: (Score:2)
Still doesn't make it an Internet standard. The Internet has no reliance on the WLAN standard. They are orthognal standards.
Re: (Score:1)
orthognal standards.
That's not a thing. But I know what you are saying.
I respectfully disagree. Would you argue that the 802.3 has nothing to do with the internet? You'll notice that wireless and traditional ethernet are all underneath 802, which includes such gems as the standards that govern cable modems? It's all one family, and arguably this family forms the backbone of the internet (in a figurative sense, not the literal). They should all be open. This is an opinion. You are allowed to disagree. You are not likely to conv
Re: (Score:3)
While it is certainly the most common transport, there is nothing that requires the use of ethernet for the internet. It's quite possible to get by without it.
Re: (Score:3)
Internet Protocol (IP) starts at layer 3. Ethernet is layer 2. Internet Protocol is about connecting local networks together into a big network, and it is independent of how that local network manages the local point-to-point transport. I can have a site running only ATM, and connect it to the Internet with no problem at all. I don't feel this is being picky, since it's exactly the reason that IP has been so successful.
802.11 (the original subject) is just one of the ways that you might choose to run a
Re: (Score:1)
Yep. Because you are omnipotent and know what I do for a living, and know that it is nonproductive. I'm sure that's how it works.
Hint: you are not imnipotent, you do NOT know what I do for a living, and it IS productive.
Some of us care about things even if we don't work with them as part of our jobs.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, however will you afford the 5 dollars to buy the pdf. Woe is you...
Gee, I guess you're right; I mean, it's not like this sort of shit every becomes law, which you then have to pay a fucking fee to make sure you're not doing anything illegal, right?
Wrong. [slashdot.org]
Monetization of the standards by which all people are supposed to adhere to is fucking greed and nothing else, no matter how hard assholes and idiots try to rationalize it.
Re: (Score:2)
Your link was about access to public safety codes and had no citation about a private industry standard being forced through law. Yes, public safety codes should be free to access but they are in a completely different class to the latest WLAN standard of which no one is forced to implement or adhere to. Flawed comparison is flawed.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing you didn't read my post. Yes, public safety codes should be freely accessible since they are legally mandated. The WLAN standard is not legally mandated and thus is a completely different thing. Yes, if you were forced by law to implement 802.11 it should be freely accessible, but adhering to the standard IS COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY.
Re: (Score:2)
The WLAN standard is not legally mandated and thus is a completely different thing.
"The"... WLAN... standard...
'cuz, you know, there's only the one... sorry, thought I was talking to someone who had half a clue.
Didn't mean to wake you, you probably wouldn't get it anyway, even if we used Muppets for illustration... go on back to your fantasy land of blissful oblivion while the grown-ups discuss important legal matters.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm pretty sure we should all just foe Lunix Nutcase (the name should be a clue) and make sure our "Viewing" settings are set to show Foes with a -6 modifier.
Re: (Score:2)
Send me a dollar!
What's wrong, too rich for your blood? Cough it up big spender!
Re: (Score:2)
OK, so how, precisely, are we to adhere to IEEE standards when viewing the standard is FUCKING PAYWALLED?
Wait for a seeder? Just sayin...
Re: (Score:1)
What's worse is that sometimes references to these standards are written into laws, meaning that you cannot even really read the law without paying some private organization for a copy of the standard, since it's impossible to determine what the law means without being able to read the standard it references.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that it is hard, or particularly expensive, it is that it is a barrier to casual perusal. Said casual perusal is important, because a bored network admin who just happens to read the standard (which is way beyond his job requirements to do) might actually avoid mis-applying the technology in some obscure way that, while it works just fine for now, eventually causes grief down the road. Moreover, even though these standards are vetted pretty well, it is often the case that they still have a hole i
Re: (Score:3)
Last time I checked, 6 months after publication it becomes open access and public via GetIEEE802.
Re: (Score:2)
This is what happens when you pretend information can be owned.
Re:Paywalled Standards?? WTF??!!! (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, all IEEE 802 stadanrds are freely available. The reason you have to pay $5 right NOW is if you want it right now. If you want, you can wait 6 months and get it for free.
The IEEE, like many other orgnaizations (including ISO) have paid standards, and most stndards require payment. It was just the popularity of 802.11 that the IEEE decided to open access to the 802 standard track for everyone. Of course, since the people who want the standard early are all the manufacturers trying to get a leg up on each other, the IEEE offers a brief exclusionary period so those who pay for early access get it. Everyone else too cheap to pay can wait (and delay their product by 6 months).
Nothing at all unusual - Google does it with Android - want access to the latest Android code, and license "with Google"? You gotta join the OHA and sign a ton of agreements.
About the only truly open standard spec I can remember is USB. Everything else is paywalled. IEEE's Get802 program is probably one of the few times the IEEE has opened up standards to public viewing - most other standards are closed paywall only.
Heck, the PCI spec was supposed to be free and open (but paywalled) and some guy went to post them online under that thought. He was forced to remove it.
Of course, just because it's in the standard doesn't make it free of patent agreements. 802.3 (Ethernet) is still patented, and implementing GigE means having to pay HP for use of auto-MDIX patents. And that's really what happens in standards committees - a lot of back and forth over who can get their patents in the spec. It's why Apple has trouble with nano-SIM (Nokia, RIM oppose it, because it means Apple would pay less in FRAND, even if Apple gives away nano-SIM for free). The best technical stuff rarely comes out of standards - it's all politicking on who can get their patents in, backroom deals, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt there is a single person who knows about every aspect of IEEE 802.11.
There is. His name is Matthew S. Gast. Read this book [oreilly.com] and you'll have a solid foundation, too.
I paid the $5 (Score:5, Informative)
It's not worth it. It's a high level overview, and it's only 38 pages. I care deeply about the changes in it, and this doesn't mention ANY of the new important things that was meant to happen (eg, better adhoc). So, it's a bit of a let down, actually.
--Rob