[Cialug] OT: Wireless protocols

[Nathan C. Smith]

The story I heard was that it was supposed to give greater range too.  That
just sounds like a recipe for more speed only.

There seems to be a common theme these days to double up on things for
greater speed.  It reeks of "synergy".  Somebody should tell Microsoft that
all the programmers working on Longhorn need two managers so they can
develop faster.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Pohl [mailto:tom at tcpconsulting.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 8:31 AM
To: Central Iowa Linux Users Group
Subject: Re: [Cialug] OT: Wireless protocols



802.11n is the equivalent of the old days where you'd combine 2 dial-up 
modems into a bigger pipe.  It uses a MIMO (multiple-in-multiple-out) 
technology utilizing multiple radio's and antennas to achieve more 
throughput.  I think it's a dirty hack especially if you've already 
constructed a network that efficiently uses all available spectrum 
already.  Personally, I think it's a cheap way out of actual innovation 
to achieve higher speeds :)

-Tom

On Jun 16, 2005, at 12:13 AM, Nathan C. Smith wrote:

>
> I heard about 802.11n just today for the first time.  I wondered if it
> was
> different still from WiMax.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Neal Daringer [mailto:admin at c0wzftp.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 8:56 PM
> To: cialug at cialug.org
> Subject: Re: [Cialug] OT: Wireless protocols
>
>
>
> i use g and tweaked wireless switches/routers. give em a bit higher Tx 
> power and a damn good antenna. i've heard that g routers can do the 
> up-coming wireless "n"
> protocol (i think thats what its called). anyone know anything about 
> the new
> wireless protocol?
>
>
>
>
> Quoting Tom Pohl <tom at tcpconsulting.com>:
>
>> The choice for me is simple.  In the same family of products, B has 
>> always tested with greater range than G products.  Even at the 
>> slowest connection, B connected at 1Mb/s (the other rates are 2.5, 5, 
>> and 11).  Since I aim for an access point density that will give a 
>> minimum connection of 5Mb/s I don't really see a problem with using B 
>> equipment since the broadband coming into the location tends to 
>> always be 1Mb or less, if all of the traffic is destined for the 
>> internet, B or G really makes no difference.
>>
>> I got a phone call in the middle of that so sorry if it doesn't make 
>> much sense.
>>
>> -Tom
>>
>>
>> On Jun 15, 2005, at 3:49 PM, Nathan C. Smith wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Does anybody out there care whether they use 802.11g or 802.11b?   I
> would
>>> normally pick 'b' because it is the lowest common denominator.  Is 
>>> it no longer true that using an 802.11b device will ratchet down 
>>> everyone's speed on an 802.11g access point?  What are the wireless 
>>> hotspot operators using? Do they cater to 'g' and 'b'?
>>>
>>> -Nate
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Cialug mailing list
>>> Cialug at cialug.org
>>> http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/cialug
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cialug mailing list
>> Cialug at cialug.org
>> http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/cialug
>>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cialug mailing list
> Cialug at cialug.org
> http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/cialug
> _______________________________________________
> Cialug mailing list
> Cialug at cialug.org
> http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/cialug
>

_______________________________________________
Cialug mailing list
Cialug at cialug.org
http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/cialug