Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Wireless Networking Speeds of 540 Mbps w/ 802.11n

CmdrTaco posted more than 9 years ago | from the i'll-believe-it-when-the-bits-are-in-the-air dept.

Wireless Networking 225

GuitarNeophyte writes "The Register reports three of the major players in forming the 802.11n standard have agreed to join forces in order to bring the new protocol into reality. Speculation states that the speeds using the new standard could be in the 540Mbps area! "Rather than see the 802.11n standards-setting process become deadlocked, as has happened in other cases, most notably ultrawideband, TGn Sync and WWiSE have clearly realized it makes more sense to work together than against each other.""

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I'll believe it when I see it. (1, Insightful)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | more than 9 years ago | (#13221702)


This is excellent news for everyone, although there's a world of difference between pledging to work together and actually submitting a unified proposal to the IEEE.

Re:I'll believe it when I see it. (1)

op12 (830015) | more than 9 years ago | (#13221741)

Given the short timeline, and this:

"In reality, there was relatively little to differentiate the two proposals, and if they can indeed submit a joint proposal next month, it seems certain that the merged specification will be approved by the IEEE 802.11n Task Group - aka TGn - as the foundation for the future standard."

it seems like it's not going to be that complex.

Re:I'll believe it when I see it. (1)

kidtux1 (896975) | more than 9 years ago | (#13221816)

At least this , hopefully, means we won't start having a wifi standard war like what always goes on with dvds +/-, blue ray, hd dvd -_- -- http://kunae.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]

Re:I'll believe it when I see it. (1)

Mattygfunk1 (596840) | more than 9 years ago | (#13221911)

Agreed. Networking gear and configuration really is complex for non-techy households that will hopefully house the majority of wireless gear in the future. Proof is already in the number of open nodes around. If they play nice everyone wins.

__
168 More LaughDAILY Video Clips [laughdaily.com]

Re:I'll believe it when I see it. (1)

Masq666 (861213) | more than 9 years ago | (#13221779)

It'll probably take some time, but i hope we'll see this in about 1-3 years. Im sure this will come into the market, the question is when. It would be to stop progress if they hold something like this back...

Re:I'll believe it when I see it. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13221833)

There is also a world of difference between karma whoring with a pointless statement to get a first post and actually posting something insightful and contributing to the discussion.

Re:I'll believe it when I see it. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13221877)

The only limitaion is receiver bandwidth.
  Consider that right now, 802.11, a, b g is more than 1 allocated channel wide , it's just a matter of RECEIVER bandwidth, but Ill bet the distance is inferior to a, b or g!
  Faster is just an increase in transmitter clock speed , reciving it is just an increase in the receivers required bandwidth and hence an increse in noise and a decrease in diatance

Re:I'll believe it when I see it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13222312)

Yes:
  Show me the radio physics of it
How will they increase the distance or keep at hundreds of feet as 802,11a,b or g while speading the signal over more bandwidth?, Not that it doesn't have good application,
It has excellent possibilties medical imaging comes to mind !
Who needs hundreds of feet, ill take 540 megabits at 20 feet ,there are super applications for that kind of speed!

Re:I'll believe it when I see it. (1)

bigwavejas (678602) | more than 9 years ago | (#13222115)

I think it behooves all parties to expedite this as quickly as possible. I wouldn't anticipate any delays/ problems in submitting this proposal. Sounds like they're already on the same page.

Muahahahaha (3, Funny)

donleyp (745680) | more than 9 years ago | (#13221712)

Now, I will be able to hijack my neighbor's high speed connection ten times as fast!

Re:Muahahahaha (1)

woodlouse_man (903301) | more than 9 years ago | (#13221721)

But there's only so much pr0n you can download

Re:Muahahahaha (1)

'nother poster (700681) | more than 9 years ago | (#13221753)

And it will keep that bandwith maxed for YEARS!

Re:Muahahahaha (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 9 years ago | (#13221926)

But there's only so much pr0n you can download
Haven't you heard - pr0n is subject to Moore's *Other* Law, where the doubling period is 18 weeks, not 18 months.

Also, pr0n expands to exceed all available hard disk space.

Re:Muahahahaha (1)

cshark (673578) | more than 9 years ago | (#13221725)

Exactly, and when the Florida police come knocking at your door, you'll be just as happy about it. Heh heh.

Re:Muahahahaha (1)

TheSneak (904279) | more than 9 years ago | (#13221726)

And be arrested 10 times as fast!

Moderator.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13221737)

Arrest that man!

Re:Muahahahaha (1)

burtdub (903121) | more than 9 years ago | (#13221967)

Now hackers will be able to hijack idiot's credit card numbers ten times as fast!

Re:Muahahahaha (1)

VolciMaster (821873) | more than 9 years ago | (#13222226)

and ten times as far...

Re:Muahahahaha (2, Insightful)

hexalite (904492) | more than 9 years ago | (#13222230)

I plan to ping flood my whole neighbourhood offline, those wireless B modems won't stand a chance!

Time? (1)

kidtux1 (896975) | more than 9 years ago | (#13221723)

Any idea how long we will have to wait before we start seeing these products? Although if you are just browsing the net with your wifi, i don't see how having such a fast connection will help you since your dsl or cable connection will be much slower.

Re:Time? (1)

Taevin (850923) | more than 9 years ago | (#13221778)

Well, it would be good for transferring files between PCs on your home network (although my backbone is still just 100Mbps...). But really, I think this would be even better for setting up ubiquitous wireless all over a town or an even larger area. I mean how cool would it be to have that much bandwidth all the time, wherever you are, wirelessly!

Re:Time? (1)

'nother poster (700681) | more than 9 years ago | (#13221822)

Just get several internet connections and agregate the bandwidth. Then give me your SSID and WEP keys. ;)

Re:Time? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13221873)

It's true that you don't have anywhere close to even a 54 Mbps pipe to the Internet; the usefulness of these technologies come in being able to wirelessly deploy applications that require high bandwidth LANs. The first application that comes to my mind is wirelessly streaming HDTV from an HD MythTV box, something that I've been tinkering with for the last few months, but wireless technology isn't up to it, especially if both boxes are wireless (I've since attached the MythTV box to the AP over a cable, but it seriously restricts placement of both devices).

This is probably tied into the whole media convergence whatever, but more normal users are likely to benefit from increased speeds for network file shares and might be able to create/buy something like a DVD jukebox media server (54 Mbps is adequate for this, but of course the more users, you start running into problems).

Also, the range is much better. Ranges of hundreds of meters are regularly claimed and demonstrated in some of the early gear. While certainly not up to the level of WiMAX (which is an infrastructure-level technology, designed to be deployed at this point as a last mile solution, not a LAN solution), it's a big improvement over existing wireless LAN technology. It'll probably have a price tag to match in the early going. :-)

Expect early products to appear maybe later this year, with practical products probably not appearing for another 6-12 months later.

Re:Time? (1)

stinerman (812158) | more than 9 years ago | (#13221878)

802.11-based technologies are not designed for WAN deployment. 802.11b is 11mbps and 802.11a/g are both 54mbps. Neither of these come close to what most people get via their WAN connection. These are LAN products which will make them competitive with Gigabit ethernet, not DSL or Cable.

Re:Time? (1)

Taevin (850923) | more than 9 years ago | (#13221999)

Maybe this is what you meant (although if it is, you worded it in an odd way), but actually what most people get from their WAN connection doesn't come close to their wireless speed. My cable connection is 6Mbps downstream which is significantly less than even a .11b connection speed (assuming full speed). And on my .11g router, I consistantly get speeds of at least 42Mbps, 7 times the speed of my cable modem (down of course... the up is pathetic).

Re:Time? (1)

stinerman (812158) | more than 9 years ago | (#13222053)

That is exactly what I meant. And I always seem to word things in odd ways. ;-)

Re:Time? (1)

hb253 (764272) | more than 9 years ago | (#13222049)

What kind of WAN speeds does your company have? Mine uses either T1 or T3, which is what, 1.5 Mbps and 45 Mbps, respectively? Network is 100 Mbps or 1 Gbps.

My Cablevision home internet is 10 Mbps down/1 Mbps up.

In both cases, the limiting factor is the Internet/WAN connection, not the LAN/network.

Re:Time? (1)

stinerman (812158) | more than 9 years ago | (#13222233)

Whoops ... I meant to say that the WAN is always the limiting factor. Of course, your LAN bandwidth will always be more than your WAN/MAN bandwidth.

Re:Time? (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 9 years ago | (#13222316)

ah yes, but everyone thinks this - that its all about your connection to the internet via your slow modem.

I think something like this will be very useful for companies that use wireless for their LAN. After all, there are a lot of buildings that have old wires that will not even take 100Mbps speeds, or that do not have cable outlets in the desired locations - and for these, going wireless is a very inexpensive way to network the company. And seeing as I'm now you're talking about LAN speeds, 54Mbps is reasonably slow by todays standards, so its not surprising that faster is desired.

So, if you have 1 person using wireless to surf the web and download pr0n, yes, this kind of stuff is no big deal at all. If you're using it as a shared network, it is a big deal.

Re:Time? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13222034)

exactly, that is why I still tell friends and relatives to get 802.11b and to hell with the worthless g stuff.

your internet is 10 times slower than the b, so why the hell do you want to have 1000BT to the cablemodem? only morons that think the go fast wings are an improvment.

Re:Time? (1)

'nother poster (700681) | more than 9 years ago | (#13222246)

For your relatives and friends that may be true. Not for everyone though. Not by a longshot. You obviously don't have anyone doing video editing or music production like I do as a hobby. I have 4 PCs and an AIX box hooked up in the basement plus 802.11g for the laptops. Believe me 802.11g is a godsend for me. Not everybody uses their home network for just surfing the web.

Re:Time? (1)

LV-427 (315309) | more than 9 years ago | (#13222227)

Pre-N hardware is available now from manufacturers such as Belkin [belkin.com]

Wow... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13221732)

Companies choose to work with each other instead of against? Now friend...that's news!

This is the dumbest post I have ever posted (0, Troll)

thundercatslair (809424) | more than 9 years ago | (#13221735)

So we can now have Wifi speeds that will never reach the speed of our internet connection. I hope one day that in the future I can have a connection of wireless porportions to my house so I can get a new cat. In conclusion i touch myself too much. Thank you for your time.

Re:This is the dumbest post I have ever posted (1)

Mantus (65568) | more than 9 years ago | (#13222028)

Apparently you have never transfered a DVD image across a wireless netowrk.

Believe it or not people ran networks long before widespread internet use.

No, that's wrong. (2, Funny)

Khakionion (544166) | more than 9 years ago | (#13221739)

If Blu-Ray versus HD-DVD has taught us anything, it's obviously better to have an overzealous, point-missing war over two completely incompatible formats.

Re:No, that's wrong. (1)

ergo98 (9391) | more than 9 years ago | (#13222249)

If Blu-Ray versus HD-DVD has taught us anything, it's obviously better to have an overzealous, point-missing war over two completely incompatible formats.

Yes, it probably is. It's called capitalism, and it's a sort of technology Darwinism where hopefully the best of the best survive. Yes, there are exceptions, but I prefer it over some central government resolution to declare whatever half-assed proposal comes first the standard.

Let them fight it out for a while, undoubtedly stealing the best of each other's ideas, and then introduce something great.

n? (2, Interesting)

should_be_linear (779431) | more than 9 years ago | (#13221747)

How does this "n" letter compares to WiMAX?

Re:n? (2, Informative)

Khakionion (544166) | more than 9 years ago | (#13221766)

WiMax is 802.16. It's not intended for single household use, like 802.11.

Re:n? (1)

Nos. (179609) | more than 9 years ago | (#13221787)

WiMax and Wi-Fi, generally speaking, have two different goals. WiFi is meant for your home or LAN. WiMax on the other hand is aimed more at replacing your broadband connection. WiMax is looking to have a range of 60 miles or more, and provide speeds up to 70Mpbs. WiFi will more than likely be able to out perform WiMax as far as bandwidth, but without special antennaes and line of sight, won't be able to touch WiMax as far as range.

In the past... (2, Insightful)

MaestroSartori (146297) | more than 9 years ago | (#13221752)

...three apartments I've lived in, we've struggled to get over 20Mbps with 100Mbps-rated gear. Does this mean we'll actually get 100Mbps from this, or will they somehow be able to avoid whatever's causing current-gen wireless gear to degrade when going through anything thicker than a fibreboard partition? :(

Re:In the past... (1)

megla (859600) | more than 9 years ago | (#13221771)

Rewriting the laws of physics might proove a little tricky...

Re:In the past... (0, Offtopic)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | more than 9 years ago | (#13221850)


"I cannae change the laws of physics, Captain..."
James Doohan [hadler.de] , AKA "Scotty" [joemotes.com]

No this means.. (1)

Cumstien (637803) | more than 9 years ago | (#13221825)

No this means you can join another class action suit against D-Link for promissing theoretical speeds and failing to account for the inherent overhead with wireless such as encryption and authentication. Bullshit indeed. Now where did I put my attorney?

Re:In the past... (1)

Malc (1751) | more than 9 years ago | (#13222020)

Are you talking wireless or not? I was under the impression that the fastest wireless spec for consumers is 54Mbs (802.11g and 802.11a), and that the higher speed equipment was using proprietary extensions, e.g. Linksys' SpeedBooster. If that's the case, I can't help feeling a little sceptical about the speed claims, especially considering how long it took bog-standard 802.11g equipment from different manufacturers to interoperate properly. In fact, the wireless in my Dell M60 (Dell TrueMobile 1400, or something like that) has only just started working properly with my Linksys gear (it had massive latency problems) with the latest set of drivers I downloaded recently, although it was fine with SMC access point. It seems to me that the manufacturers were more interested in speed inflation (like Intel and GHz wars) than actually delivering something reliable.

Re:In the past... (1)

eht (8912) | more than 9 years ago | (#13222148)

Many of the wireless products out there allow you to use two different frequencies to double pump the wireless connection.

Here is one of Dlink's offering called AirPlusXtremeG [dlink.com]

Re:In the past... (1)

Malc (1751) | more than 9 years ago | (#13222229)

"With the D-Link 108G enhancement, the DWL-2100AP can achieve wireless speeds up to 15x in a pure D-Link 108G environment"

I thought we liked standards around here! ;)

Sounds like a recipe for disaster (or at least low speed wireless). And I'm also curious where they get that 15x from: "now capable of delivering transfer rates up to 15x faster than the standard 802.11b ". 802.11b is 11Mbs. 11 x 15 = 165Mbs. 108/15 = 7.2... so are they admitting that their 802.11b equipment only delivers 65% thoughput? Extrapolating, can one only expect 71Mbs from their 108Mbs proprietary spec equipment? 65% would also be inline with what I've seen from my Linksys and SMC 802.11g devices (I easily hit 35Mbs throughput.)

Re:In the past... (2, Insightful)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 9 years ago | (#13222101)

Because you live in an appartment, it's very common to see quite a few wireless routers online around you. For example, I can detect at least eight. As such, you will have a very high SNR (Signal to Noise Ratio). The best thing you can do at this point is to set your router to a different channel.

Channels go from 1 through 11. The only channels that do not overlap are 1, 6, and 11. Basically, pick any one of the channels farthest away possible near you for the best signal.

Distance! (2)

PhYrE2k2 (806396) | more than 9 years ago | (#13221758)

I'd rather have distance over speed... like the article a couple days about about 125mi WiFi. Has a lot more purpose, as anything important and needing the speed isn't going to be going over Wireless.

-M

Re:Distance! (1)

Ingolfke (515826) | more than 9 years ago | (#13221938)

I agree, speed is nice, but at this point, I'm more interested in WiMax (omnidirectional distance) and roaming Wi-Fi (Wi-Fi in your car?). Those technologies will revolutionize the way we use Wi-Fi and the Internet.. then speed and security will be a top issue again.

Re:Distance! (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 9 years ago | (#13222079)

I'd rather have distance over speed.
Aw, come on ... how much pr0n do you think a carrier pigeon can carry, anyway?

what will the long term health risks be (1)

Exter-C (310390) | more than 9 years ago | (#13221763)

Running speeds like that over wireless is going to raise many questions like.

What are the long term health risks going to be?.

At what point will the governing bodies start to enforce legislation regarding notifications and health warnings that are seen on many mobile phone products already in many parts of the world.

Re:what will the long term health risks be (2, Insightful)

Taevin (850923) | more than 9 years ago | (#13221812)

Maybe I'm just not thinking enough about this, but why would faster speeds be any more dangerous than existing wireless technology?

Re:what will the long term health risks be (1)

Exter-C (310390) | more than 9 years ago | (#13221979)

Well there are more questions that can be asked. If mobile phone can cause health problems "possibly". and high power microwave is known to cause problems. Then why would there be no issues with current technology letalone higher speed specifications.

Re:what will the long term health risks be (2, Informative)

hab136 (30884) | more than 9 years ago | (#13222065)

Well there are more questions that can be asked. If mobile phone can cause health problems "possibly". and high power microwave is known to cause problems. Then why would there be no issues with current technology letalone higher speed specifications.

Yes, high power microwaves cause this health problem called "cooking".

Low power gear like cell phones WiFi haven't been shown to cause problems.

For the people that think "OMG the radiation!" think of it this way - you have no problems with a 1 degree change in temperature. You'd have a big problem with a 100 degree in temperature. Likewise, some radiation is ok (and most gear puts out *less* than the Earth naturally radiates!). A lot will cause you problems.

WiFi is very low power. (1)

raygundan (16760) | more than 9 years ago | (#13222252)

The legal limit for radiated power from wifi devices is something like 100mW. Your cell phone radiates many times that, and your microwave goes several orders of magnitude above that.

Additionally, "speed" has little to do with how much radiation you will be getting. Picture yourself talking slowly on a CB radio. Now talk twice as fast. Are you somehow making that radio transmit more power by talking faster? Nope... you're just cramming more information into the same radio signal.

Consider also that "faster" digital cell phones use significantly less power than their old analog cousins.

I'm not saying there are no issues with cell phones, etc... the jury is still out on that. But the risks from wifi are trivial in comparison to those from cell phones, and raising the speed doesn't do much to the output power.

Re:what will the long term health risks be (1)

Ingolfke (515826) | more than 9 years ago | (#13221876)

I, being the proactive person that I am, have placed two warning signs in my front yard. One states, that the unencrypted open wireless broadband access point in my house is not for public use, the other warns that the radiation emitted by said device may cause cancer, impotence, hunger, pregnancy, and/or death, BEWARE!

Re:what will the long term health risks be (1)

oringo (848629) | more than 9 years ago | (#13221960)

Non-sense! I live right next to a cellphone tower and use my microwave oven with the door open all the time! So far only my dog has died, and my fish is blind. But I'm perfectly healthy and am going to live another 100 years because of the advancement of medical technology. Argh! gotta stop and take care of my bleeding nose.

Re:what will the long term health risks be (1)

Sir Phobos8 (827639) | more than 9 years ago | (#13221996)

Yes, but how often are you holding your wireless router to your head?

Re:what will the long term health risks be (1)

databyss (586137) | more than 9 years ago | (#13222088)

They're about as dangerous as all the AM/FM signals beaming through your head at the moment...

Security, please (1)

RevengeOfPoopJuggler (872968) | more than 9 years ago | (#13221789)

I'd be more interested in more security than faster speeds. I could download so much more porn if my neighbors weren't stealing my bandwidth...

Re:Security, please (1)

op12 (830015) | more than 9 years ago | (#13221887)

I hope they don't add security. I couldn't download so much porn if I wasn't stealing my neighbor's......wait a second!

Re:Security, please (1)

Taevin (850923) | more than 9 years ago | (#13221900)

Have you considered turning off SSID broadcast and turning on WEP? Even security as basic as that should be more than enough to stop your neighbors, and it's built right in to your wireless router.

Re:Security, please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13222141)

That plus MAC address filtering and its more trouble than its worth for most hackers.

Re:Security, please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13221920)

Modern access points have WPA.. I'm sure this will have the same thing or something better. AFAIK, thats secure.

Re:Security, please (1)

vertinox (846076) | more than 9 years ago | (#13221983)

I could download so much more porn if my neighbors weren't stealing my bandwidth...

Have you ever considered hacking your wireless router's DNS table so that all URLs point to goatse?

Re:Security, please (1)

Jeff Hornby (211519) | more than 9 years ago | (#13222155)

Have you considered sniffing their packets to get their porn?

(And on a side note, is "sniffing their packets" just the wrong words to use in this situation)?

Network Burn (2, Interesting)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 9 years ago | (#13221800)

We know that some EM radiation does cause cancer and other health problems. Which bands and frequencies, targeted for use by telecom (licensed or not), actually are hazardous? And how long before they're used by telecom providers struggling to deploy bandwidth?

Re:Network Burn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13221977)

What kind of a question is this? ALL frequencies are hazardous, in varying degrees, with both known and as yet undiscovered effects. Everything in the world (and out of it) is hazardous to some degree. Where do you want to draw the line?

Or do you think it's somehow 100% safe if someone else makes those tricky decisions for you?

Re:Network Burn (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 9 years ago | (#13222199)

We're talking about practical applications. For example, if some telecom company put up 100MW 2.4GHz towers, we'd all fry - the water in our bodies and the air around us would heat up, and worse. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the thresholds of safety in the bands that telecom companies are targeting. Rather than today's version of that thinking, which amounts to "we don't know, it looks safe", until enough people get hurt that someone does public tests proving the frequency/amplitude unsafe, and we have to retrofit.

So that's gently clarifying the point, giving you the benefit of the doubt. But you really don't deserve it, based on your final snotty statement. You're just a techoworshipping loser. When the telcos put up those towers, they're making those decisions for me. That's why I pay for the FCC with my taxes: to keep those corporations in check, so they don't fry us with their ambitious profit-extraction technologies. Damn it, what is the cancer growing on the brains of fascists like you, that questions about product safety trigger your obnoxious corporate zombie hands towards your keyboards? Maybe it's already too late for you, even with today's relatively low radiation levels.

Re:Network Burn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13222290)

What you're asking for, which is what ignorant consumers keep asking for, is a magic list, a sort of 21st century talisman. It does not exist, but since you insist on having one, here's one that's as good as any other

Monkeys: Bad
Hats: Good, so long as they are no more than 0.23m in any direction
Jello: Good, except raspberry
Stereo headphones: Bad
the letter 'F': Good

Now run along and live by these entirely arbitrary rules. Or, next time, ask a sensible question.

Re:Network Burn (1)

building_970 (890222) | more than 9 years ago | (#13222259)

There are two issues you probably have to worry about.

One band of harmful EM radiation is the ionizing radiation, high energy photons that are X-rays and gamma rays. Naturally, 802.11n won't be these.

UV rays are harmful at high enough intensities. Microwaves, which cause water molecules to resonate and therefore heat up, are around the 2 GHz frequency of 802.11.

However, you must remember that the effects rely entirely on the power output. If our wireless transmitters had a power output of 3000 W like our microwave ovens, then yes we should be worried. However, the tiny milliwatt outputs aren't an issue.

There have been worries that low frequency (radio wave) RF can induce microamp currents in cells, killing them, but this theory is unsubstantiated.

Hell Has Definitly Frozen Over (1)

skatephat420 (803185) | more than 9 years ago | (#13221855)

Hell has definitly frozen over... Not only has Apple released a multi-buttoned mouse, tech companies are actually realizing that working together is better than working against each other. Two miracles in one day,who would have thought?

Re:Hell Has Definitly Frozen Over (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 9 years ago | (#13221966)

All I can say is that if I don't see a dupe on /., I'm going to start running for the hills. The hair is already starting to stand up on the back of my neck, it's so creepy.

Re:Hell Has Definitly Frozen Over (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13222023)

Well, the Eagles got back together to make that Album, you know.

And in other news... (1)

woodlouse_man (903301) | more than 9 years ago | (#13222033)

Microsoft has announced that "All that Longhorn stuff - it's just one big joke. We're licensing Apple's OSX for Intel"

Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were last seen checking into a room at a nearby Holiday Inn for some "one-to-one interfacing"

I'm going to wait it out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13221936)

I'm holding out for 802.11z. That will be the fastest.

Why isn't there 540Mbs Ethernet ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13221939)

How on earth can wifi be faster than cables ? I want faster cables not faster wifi (which I never use and hopefully never will)

Re:Why isn't there 540Mbs Ethernet ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13221974)

You know you can do gigabit over ethernet right?

Re:Why isn't there 540Mbs Ethernet ? (2, Insightful)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | more than 9 years ago | (#13222037)


Actually, 10-gigabit ethernet [wikipedia.org] has been ratified since 2002.

Re:Why isn't there 540Mbs Ethernet ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13222336)

from the wiki:

Unlike earlier Ethernet systems, 10-gigabit Ethernet (for any nontrivial distance) is so far based entirely on the use of optical fibre connections. However, the IEEE is developing a standard for 10-gigabit Ethernet over twisted pairs (10GBASE-T), using Cat-6 or Cat-7 cable and planned for approval in 2006.

Re:Why isn't there 540Mbs Ethernet ? (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 9 years ago | (#13222015)

Get yourself a gigbit e-net switch and cards. Buy.com has an 8-port for about $60 after rebate right now (SMC, just set mine up). Runs 1000Mb/s over cat5(e). I can't even saturate my Gb net at home with an 8-drive FW tower (limited by drive speed and/or FW bandwidth of 400Mb/s/channel) between my server and my laptop.

However, it would be nice not to have to be plugged into the cables when I want to edit video on the server. Right now, the connection (54Mb) is dicey enough and slow enough (10-15Mb max real throughput, down hill, with the wind behind me) that its impractical.

Re:Why isn't there 540Mbs Ethernet ? (1)

Malc (1751) | more than 9 years ago | (#13222126)

I would be willing to bet that it's your laptop that is the bottleneck in that equation and that all the other stuff you wrote was an attempt to boast about the gear that you have in your home.

Re:Why isn't there 540Mbs Ethernet ? (1)

pinkocommie (696223) | more than 9 years ago | (#13222282)

802.11g sucks for anything that is remotely video related. I've been wanting to run gigabit for a while but my issue is that my computers are in different rooms and i'm not good with my hands, have no idea how to run copper through the walls (townhouse) and what chance i have of screwing stuff up big time :-D. Is your equipment all in the same location? if not how did you manage the wiring?

Re:Why isn't there 540Mbs Ethernet ? (1)

PIBM (588930) | more than 9 years ago | (#13222036)

I guess you still have a P3-500 ? If you've bought a recent computer, you should have noticed that many boards offer what is called gigabit ethernet - offering 1000Mbps. While this is good, many motherboard even go to offer 2 connections like those. If you want more, you can get dedicated hardware that could support up to 10Gbps for an "acceptable" price.

Also, have you ever seen an optical fiber cable ? Those got the records for the speed ;)

Re:Why isn't there 540Mbs Ethernet ? (1)

HermanAB (661181) | more than 9 years ago | (#13222311)

because there is 1Gbps ethernet?

Uplink Speed (1)

Blindman (36862) | more than 9 years ago | (#13222070)

This may be fine and good for some high-end applications, but I don't believe that a lot of places have upgraded to Gigabit Ethernet yet. For the home user whose main activity would be surfing the internet anywhere in the house, communicating with the router 10 time faster than 802.11g won't make the internet any faster.

I'm all in favor of the advance of technology, but the only use I can find for this is faster streaming of video on a local basis once Gigabit ethernet becomes the standard. For right now, the 540 Mb/s is not going to matter much over 100 Mb/s wires.

Re:Uplink Speed (1)

pinkocommie (696223) | more than 9 years ago | (#13222163)

Running multiple HDTV/SDTV streams? I've currently got a mediacenter setup with multiple tuners, would be awesome if I could add some more tuners and then stream it wirelessly to all rooms in the house without having to run more copper. I'm sure there are thousands of other uses for the bandwidth that other slashdotters can come up with.

Re:Uplink Speed (1)

Silver Sloth (770927) | more than 9 years ago | (#13222289)

There's a lot more to the world than the home user. I'm busy putting together the wireless office where all users will have wireless laptops and for me wireless bandwidth is a big issue.

Oh, and incidentally I stream MP3s arround my home to a number of netgear MP101s and I notice the performance suffering when I'm downloading bittorrents or when ny son is playing on-line games so maybe I'd like more bandwidth at home too. Yes - I'm at the technically savvy end of the market but much more domestic data streaming is coming real soon and it's difficult to convince my wife that all these cables are required when wireless is available.

Temperature? (1)

haakondahl (893488) | more than 9 years ago | (#13222084)

IANA...whatever...but at what point do the little antennae heat up?
Clippy: "Looks like you're trying to remove a flaming WiFi card..."
Combine this with a cantenna, and roast pigeons as they fly by.

Re:Temperature? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13222149)

faster speeds != higher transmit power

you don't need higher transmit power to acheive faster transfer speeds. It's all in the modulation type and data encoding.

Re:Temperature? (1)

haakondahl (893488) | more than 9 years ago | (#13222276)

Okay, thanks for the reminder about duty cycle, etc... But still, assuming we're transmitting far more transitions/time, then is there a miniscule inductive heating effect? Granted, we're not roasting anything here, but if you vary the current (& the field) more rapidly, more frequently... what? No? nevermind...

Me and me doggy... (0, Offtopic)

sirkarmabad (904524) | more than 9 years ago | (#13222106)

Me and me doggy has manyies talento's incliding ice fishing. We go drinkin on the weekends that don't end in why. Me and me doggy has manyies talento's incliding ice fishing. We go drinkin on the weekends that don't end in why. Me and me doggy has manyies talento's incliding ice fishing. We go drinkin on the weekends that don't end in why. Me and me doggy has manyies talento's incliding ice fishing. We go drinkin on the weekends that don't end in why.

Channel Use (1)

CaptBubba (696284) | more than 9 years ago | (#13222109)

I wish they would focus on somehow fixing the conjestion of the current 2.4GHz spectrum. Having three non-overlapping channels (in the US) is simply not enough. Of course, you won't even have that because some company will come out with an "OMG-1Gb-WIRELESS!!" type AP which will use the whole damn spectrum.

From my apartment I can pick up no less than 20 wireless networks using netstumbler. I'd be much more interested in having 11 or 54 megabit wireless, but a whole bunch of non-overlapping channels.

What happened to H I J K L & M? (1)

gone.fishing (213219) | more than 9 years ago | (#13222111)

What happened to H,I,J,K,L,& M?

Seems like a waste of alphabet to me. And what happens when we get to Z? Will there then be Aa Ab,Ac and so on through Zz?

Re:What happened to H I J K L & M? (1)

pinkocommie (696223) | more than 9 years ago | (#13222234)

Wiki on 802.11i [wikipedia.org] they're already available and you probably are using it or its subset WPA :)

Re:What happened to H I J K L & M? (3, Informative)

majest!k (836921) | more than 9 years ago | (#13222334)

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11 [wikipedia.org] :

IEEE 802.11 - The original 1 Mbit/s and 2 Mbit/s, 2.4 GHz RF and IR standard
IEEE 802.11a - 54 Mbit/s, 5 GHz standard (1999, shipping products in 2001)
IEEE 802.11b - Enhancements to 802.11 to support 5.5 and 11 Mbit/s (1999)
IEEE 802.11d - International (country-to-country) roaming extensions
IEEE 802.11e - Enhancements: QoS, including packet bursting
IEEE 802.11F - Inter-Access Point Protocol (IAPP)
IEEE 802.11g - 54 Mbit/s, 2.4 GHz standard (backwards compatible with b) (2003)
IEEE 802.11h - 5 GHz spectrum, Dynamic Channel/Frequency Selection (DCS/DFS) and Transmit Power Control (TPC) for European compatibility
IEEE 802.11i (ratified 24 June 2004) - Enhanced security
IEEE 802.11j - Extensions for Japan
IEEE 802.11k - Radio resource measurement enhancements
IEEE 802.11n - Higher throughput improvements
IEEE 802.11p - WAVE - Wireless Access for the Vehicular Environment (such as ambulances and passenger cars)
IEEE 802.11r - Fast roaming
IEEE 802.11s - Wireless mesh networking
IEEE 802.11T - Wireless Performance Prediction (WPP) - test methods and metrics
IEEE 802.11u - Interworking with non-802 networks (e.g., cellular)
IEEE 802.11v - Wireless network management
IEEE 802.11w - Protected Management Frames

Note that 802.11x is not a standard or task group. Rather, it is a colloquial term used to denote any current or future 802.11 standard, in cases where further precision is not necessary.

Antennas (1)

MECC (8478) | more than 9 years ago | (#13222129)


Both proposals are based on the Multiple Input, Multiple Output (MIMO) many-antennae technique and Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) to boost data throughput rates using two- and four-antenna arrays

Is one of the antennas propellor shaped - placed atop beannie?

Distance and Speed Issues (1)

TheStonepedo (885845) | more than 9 years ago | (#13222288)

Until the strength of the signal is boosted significantly, consumers will not be happy with an improvement in the 802.11 range of wireless networks. If you can't install repeaters in places where they will both have good signal and not be eyesores, you might as well have cables. In my experience, both the overhead for sending data wirelessly and the distance from the base combine to cut speeds drastically. Until these issues are settled, gigabit ethernet with well-hidden wires seems a better option.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?