Where Apple needs to put in some work... WLAN tech

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Peter Bjørn Perlsø - 27 Dec 2006 22:16 GMT

http://homepage.mac.com/techedgeezine/2004-0402_g-turbo_shootout9.htm

Apple's APE (AirPort Extreme) doesn't support anything above the
run-of-the-mill 802.11g (54 Mbps), does it?

If so, Apple needs to pull itself together. Most PC products today
feature G+ or G+ MIMO, which allows 108 or 125 Mbps wireless bandwidth
(theoretically).

Signature

regards , Peter B. P. - http://titancity.com/blog , http://macplanet.dk

"If guns kill, do pencils cause spelling errors?"

Reply to this Message

Michelle Steiner - 27 Dec 2006 22:59 GMT

> If so, Apple needs to pull itself together. Most PC products today
> feature G+ or G+ MIMO, which allows 108 or 125 Mbps wireless
> bandwidth (theoretically).

There's no standardization there yet. I'm sure that when standards are
set, Apple will produce a product that adheres to them.

Signature

Support the troops: Bring them home ASAP.

Reply to this Message

Jim Polaski - 27 Dec 2006 23:22 GMT

> > If so, Apple needs to pull itself together. Most PC products today
> > feature G+ or G+ MIMO, which allows 108 or 125 Mbps wireless
> > bandwidth (theoretically).
>
> There's no standardization there yet. I'm sure that when standards are
> set, Apple will produce a product that adheres to them.

Took the words I was going to say, however, it's rumored that the iTV will usher in
802.11n.

Signature

Jim

Reply to this Message

Lefty Bigfoot - 27 Dec 2006 23:12 GMT

> http://homepage.mac.com/techedgeezine/2004-0402_g-turbo_shootout9.htm
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> feature G+ or G+ MIMO, which allows 108 or 125 Mbps wireless bandwidth
> (theoretically).

Which is complete marketing BS for all but maybe 0.5% of the
user population. first of all, all of those extensions are
proprietary. More importantly, they're also all faster (by
orders of magnitude in some cases) than the internet bandwidth
coming in/out of the location. Unless you're treating a
wireless system as a file server (silly), it's pointless.

Signature

Lefty
All of God's creatures have a place..........
.........right next to the potatoes and gravy.
See also: http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/images/iProduct.gif

Reply to this Message

Peter Bjørn Perlsø - 27 Dec 2006 23:37 GMT

> > http://homepage.mac.com/techedgeezine/2004-0402_g-turbo_shootout9.htm
> >
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> coming in/out of the location. Unless you're treating a
> wireless system as a file server (silly), it's pointless.

Well, the regular 802.11g installed here get me 3 MBps for a single user
on a good day, but collapses when multiple users are on the carrier.

Needless to day, I'm looking forward to 802.11n.

Oh and lastly, in 3 months, I'll be having 10/10 Mbps fiber to my home,
and then I will definately need the bandwidth.

25/25 and 100/100 will follow in a few years.

Signature

regards , Peter B. P. - http://titancity.com/blog , http://macplanet.dk

"If guns kill, do pencils cause spelling errors?"

Reply to this Message

Lefty Bigfoot - 28 Dec 2006 05:24 GMT

>>> http://homepage.mac.com/techedgeezine/2004-0402_g-turbo_shootout9.htm
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> Well, the regular 802.11g installed here get me 3 MBps for a single user
> on a good day, but collapses when multiple users are on the carrier.

That's because wireless is half-duplex, and that problem will
show at some point regardless of the peak bandwidth. It sounds
counter-intuitive, but a 100mbps wireless connection is nowhere
/near/ as fast as a 100 mbps full-duplex wired connection.

> Needless to day, I'm looking forward to 802.11n.
>
> Oh and lastly, in 3 months, I'll be having 10/10 Mbps fiber to my home,
> and then I will definately need the bandwidth.

Actually, no, you won't. The wireless router will still be much
faster than the pipe into your home.

> 25/25 and 100/100 will follow in a few years.

So, when that happens (the latter one), then a 54g won't be fast
enough.

Signature

Lefty
All of God's creatures have a place..........
.........right next to the potatoes and gravy.
See also: http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/images/iProduct.gif

Reply to this Message

ZnU - 28 Dec 2006 09:35 GMT

> >>> http://homepage.mac.com/techedgeezine/2004-0402_g-turbo_shootout9.htm
> >>>
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> Actually, no, you won't. The wireless router will still be much
> faster than the pipe into your home.

Um. Maybe. My wireless is quite a bit slower than that, because there
are about 10 access points fighting over the same channels. Of course,
these 108 Mbps schemes, if they work the way I suspect they do, wouldn't
help with this problem at all.

802.11n will probably be fast for me for the first month, until everyone
else upgrades.

Heh. Home wireless isn't to great in densely populated cities. Of
course, by way of compensation, there are open access points all over
the place when I'm out and about. It's a beneficial trade, I think; at
home I can always plug in.

> > 25/25 and 100/100 will follow in a few years.
>
> So, when that happens (the latter one), then a 54g won't be fast
> enough.

Signature

"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."
-- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005

Reply to this Message

Lefty Bigfoot - 28 Dec 2006 17:19 GMT

>>>>> http://homepage.mac.com/techedgeezine/2004-0402_g-turbo_shootout9.htm
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
> Um. Maybe. My wireless is quite a bit slower than that, because there
> are about 10 access points fighting over the same channels.

Bad network design isn't the fault of the Airport implementation
from Apple. :-)

> Of course, these 108 Mbps schemes, if they work the way I suspect they do,
> wouldn't help with this problem at all.

Correct.

> 802.11n will probably be fast for me for the first month, until everyone
> else upgrades.
>
> Heh. Home wireless isn't to great in densely populated cities.

Because people don't really know their neighbors anymore, even
when so close by, so the truly useful solutions are not even
attempted.

> Of course, by way of compensation, there are open access points all over
> the place when I'm out and about. It's a beneficial trade, I think; at
> home I can always plug in.

If you don't mind the security risks of connecting to a network
about which you know nothing (and certainly doing this with OS X
is less scary than with windows), then fine.

Signature

Lefty
All of God's creatures have a place..........
.........right next to the potatoes and gravy.
See also: http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/images/iProduct.gif

Reply to this Message

ZnU - 28 Dec 2006 19:50 GMT

[snip]

> > 802.11n will probably be fast for me for the first month, until everyone
> > else upgrades.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> when so close by, so the truly useful solutions are not even
> attempted.

One potential solution is to have the devices work things out for
themselves (at a level beyond just automatic channel selection). If done
in a sufficiently clever way, having more wireless access points
covering a given area would be beneficial, rather than detrimental.

The system could even let people borrow spare Internet bandwidth from
each other. I can regularly spot 8-10 wireless networks from my bedroom.
That's probably at least 30-40 Mbps worth of downstream bandwidth, and I
bet it's 90% unutilized.

ISPs wouldn't like that, of course.

> > Of course, by way of compensation, there are open access points all over
> > the place when I'm out and about. It's a beneficial trade, I think; at
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> about which you know nothing (and certainly doing this with OS X
> is less scary than with windows), then fine.

Driver bugs are the only real threat, and those seem to be under
control. All the other security issues can be neatly addressed with a
VPN.

Signature

"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."
-- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005

Reply to this Message

Lefty Bigfoot - 28 Dec 2006 20:20 GMT

> [snip]
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> One potential solution is to have the devices work things out for
> themselves (at a level beyond just automatic channel selection).

In some magical non-standard way perhaps, but that's not how the
existing wireless networking standards work.

> If done
> in a sufficiently clever way, having more wireless access points
> covering a given area would be beneficial, rather than detrimental.

You only need as many as you need... silly, but apparently needs
to be spelled out. Having 25 access points in an apartment
won't do anything besides consume more electricity.

> The system could even let people borrow spare Internet bandwidth from
> each other.

Depends upon the type of access. If it's cable modem, it's
shared bandwidth anyway, and will not make any difference at
all. Nevermind the complexity of routing.

> I can regularly spot 8-10 wireless networks from my bedroom.
> That's probably at least 30-40 Mbps worth of downstream bandwidth, and I
> bet it's 90% unutilized.

You don't appear to understand networking. If it's distinct DSL
lines feeding those networks, maybe. If it's cable modem from
the same provider, not at all. More importantly, if you had
10mbps or 1000mbps, if the site(s) you are browsing collectively
can't serve up data to you in excess of 10mbps, you will see
/no/ improvement, no matter how much bandwidth you think you
have.

> ISPs wouldn't like that, of course.

If they have the bandwidth, they shouldn't care. If they do
not, you wouldn't care.

>> If you don't mind the security risks of connecting to a network
>> about which you know nothing (and certainly doing this with OS X
>> is less scary than with windows), then fine.
>
> Driver bugs are the only real threat, and those seem to be under
> control.

False.

> All the other security issues can be neatly addressed with a VPN.

Most of them.

Signature

Lefty
All of God's creatures have a place..........
.........right next to the potatoes and gravy.
See also: http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/images/iProduct.gif

Reply to this Message

ZnU - 28 Dec 2006 22:21 GMT

> > [snip]
> >
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> In some magical non-standard way perhaps, but that's not how the
> existing wireless networking standards work.

I was speculating about possible future developments.

> > If done
> > in a sufficiently clever way, having more wireless access points
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> to be spelled out. Having 25 access points in an apartment
> won't do anything besides consume more electricity.

It would provide better coverage and performance, if they worked
together.

> > The system could even let people borrow spare Internet bandwidth
> > from each other.
>
> Depends upon the type of access. If it's cable modem, it's shared
> bandwidth anyway, and will not make any difference at all.

See below.

> Nevermind the complexity of routing.

Yes, this would be a challenge.

> > I can regularly spot 8-10 wireless networks from my bedroom.
> > That's probably at least 30-40 Mbps worth of downstream bandwidth, and I
> > bet it's 90% unutilized.
>
> You don't appear to understand networking.

A rather interesting statement.

> If it's distinct DSL lines feeding those networks, maybe. If it's
> cable modem from the same provider, not at all.

Untrue, since most cable modems are artificially capped, rather than
limited by network capacity.

> More importantly, if you had 10mbps or 1000mbps, if the site(s) you
> are browsing collectively can't serve up data to you in excess of
> 10mbps, you will see /no/ improvement, no matter how much bandwidth
> you think you have.

Yes, of course, but it's very often "last mile" bandwidth that is the
limiting factor.

> > ISPs wouldn't like that, of course.
>
> If they have the bandwidth, they shouldn't care. If they do not, you
> wouldn't care.

This assumes that ISPs do not impose artificial per-user restrictions on
bandwidth. Which, of course, they do.

> >> If you don't mind the security risks of connecting to a network
> >> about which you know nothing (and certainly doing this with OS X
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> False.

Please identify these other threats.

> > All the other security issues can be neatly addressed with a VPN.
>
> Most of them.

Please identify threats, other than driver bugs, which are not addressed
though the use of a VPN.

Signature

"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."
-- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005

Reply to this Message

Barry Margolin - 29 Dec 2006 00:29 GMT

> > ISPs wouldn't like that, of course.
>
> If they have the bandwidth, they shouldn't care. If they do
> not, you wouldn't care.

That's not the way it works. They add bandwidth as demand increases.
But if this demand is coming from non-paying customers, they're spending
money to support freeloaders. These costs will eventually be passed on
as price increases to the paying customers.

Signature

Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***

Reply to this Message

Steve de Mena - 29 Dec 2006 04:25 GMT

>> [snip]
>>
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> shared bandwidth anyway, and will not make any difference at
> all.

What do you mean? If I have 8MB download speed
and I take 2MB (each) from five different
neighbors I will have more than 8MB download. The
"shared bandwidth" you speak of is much more than
8MB total.

Steve

Reply to this Message

Mac Forum / General / Networking / December 2006

Where Apple needs to put in some work... WLAN tech