wireless Wi-Fi5

gurramok

i came across this here about new wireless stuff.
If this came about here at fair prices of course , how would it affect the net access situation ??
or will we be still dreaming of it ever coming ? !!

yellum

This is IEEE802.11a The regulator here already knows about it and has asked for feedback on it in the latest FWA document.

The equipment though will be a lot more expensive and I think the range isn't as good as 802.11b

dahamsta

"What's Wi-Fi5?"

"It's 802.11a."

"So why don't you call it 802.11a?"

"Cos consumers are dumb."

"Where'd you get the 5 from?"

"We put some raffle tickets in a hat."

mayhem#

Originally posted by yellum
This is IEEE802.11a The regulator here already knows about it and has asked for feedback on it in the latest FWA document.

The equipment though will be a lot more expensive and I think the range isn't as good as 802.11b

I'm not to sure about the pricing but 802.11a will have a much higher bandwidth and range than 802.11b.
See http://80211-planet.webopedia.com/TERM/8/802_11.html for more info..

dahamsta

I'm not to sure about the pricing but 802.11a will have a much higher bandwidth and range than 802.11b. See http://80211-planet.webopedia.com/TERM/8/802_11.html for more info..

Nah, it won't mayhem. Higher bandwidth, shorter range, like was said. From the first link off the Wepopedia definition:

Of course the superior performance of 802.11a offers excellent support for bandwidth hungry applications, but the higher operating frequency equates to relatively shorter range. I've seen demonstrations of 802.11a radios delivering 54 Mbps with distances of about 60 feet, which is far less than the 300 feet or so that you'll have with 802.11b systems. As compared to 802.11b, you'll need a much larger number of 802.11a access points to cover a facility, especially large ones.

Course, 802.11b will go a /lot/ farther than 300ft, but you get the idea.

I'm feeling argumentative, ok? Leeme alone.

adam

mayhem#

Fair enough, you go by a web-page, I go by what people who have actually tested the kit told me.
Apparently they managed to get a signal as far as 10km.

bkehoe

dahamsta is correct. 802.11a does not have the range that 802.11b does, in stock configuration anyway. Its quite bad compared to 802.11b for use in buildings, e.t.c., and more access points are needed to give decent coverage. Depending on what the ODTR decides, it may be possible to (legally) get links at greater distance than 802.11b, but 802.11b can easily work much further than 802.11a if both have the same output power.

802.11g however, operates at 2.4GHz, and while no actual product exists yet, the chips are being made, and it should offer almost the same range as 802.11b, and will be fully backwards compatible with 802.11b cards and also the antennas.

Brendan.

yellum

The ODTR are genuinely looking for peoples opinions on 802.11a and form their document on FWA they will have higher legal output limits than 802.11b.

damien, who is really trying to sell the idea of everyone replying to the odtrs fwa doc.

dahamsta

Commercial providers seem to be considering "skipping out" the 802.11a generation altogether, as it happens, and moving straight to 802.11g. A recent (although probably not the best!)example is our (disappearing) friend from Beam.

adam

mayhem#

Just checked with my "source" and we're both right.
While 802.11a has a shorter range than 802.11b when operating at the same power, a lot of the 802.11a kit coming out operates at a higher power-level thereby covering larger distances....

Stonemason

Would be cost effective but 300 and 60 surely there is no point.I thought the whole point would be to save costs in other words it may cost alot for the equipment but if one send/receiver unit can cover 20 houses its surely got to be cheaper than running cable to each house not to mention the speed the system could be rolled out 20 house = alot of digging.




Stone

PS havent read the links off to work will read it later sounds good though