Not enough new wireless devices suporting 5GHz operation

[shovenose]

Re: Not enough new wireless devices suporting 5GHz operation

Thz? That's called Chernobyl.
Just kidding
Yeah variable frequency would be a good idea.

[ratdude747]

Re: Not enough new wireless devices suporting 5GHz operation

wifi-to-wifi communication has greater throughput then wired in that case

maybe some future specification will have a dynamic range capable of thousands of channels with a great ghz/thz range, but we still have to overcome problems

not likely. the FCC(or your country's equivalent) reserves a lot of channels... 5ghz and 2.4 ghz are allowed for things... but in between, IIRC it is restricted more or less.

[Uranium-235]

Re: Not enough new wireless devices suporting 5GHz operation

not nesseccarly varible frequency, but a larger range given by the FCC FOR WIFI ONLY. There are so many 2.4ghz AND 5GHZ devices that is why we need a range FOR WIFI ONLY.

[severach]

Re: Not enough new wireless devices suporting 5GHz operation

wifi-to-wifi communication has greater throughput then wired in that case

Not if it has to use the same channel in and out. Only half the bandwidth gets allocated to each direction. This problem is eliminated when the wireless traffic goes out the switch and if the switch is gigabit then the wireless data should not be able to saturate it.

In testing I was able to get select Wireless b and g equipment to transfer data in some directions at 63% advertized speed. I and all of the reviews I've seen can only get 30% of N. 30% of 300Mbps is 100Mbps so until the radio manufacturers figure out how to get N up to 60% that b and g can do, a 100Mbit switch is enough to handle Wireless N traffic. Gigabit is only in the switch to make it desirable for those who want gigabit Ethernet. Wireless N doesn't yet have what it takes to steamroll 100Mbit Ethernet.

Gigabit Ethernet is equally disappointing. Over the years the efficiency of 100Mbit worked up to where it was easy to get almost 100% of the rated bandwidth. Thanks to Linux Microsoft had to remove the 5MB/sec rate limiter in the Windows XP file & print sharing and now pretty much anything can get 9.8 megabytes per second through a 100Mbit switch. You'd think that the years of practice would ensure that Gigabit would get near 100% but no, small frames tops out at 40MB/sec, only 4x faster then 100Mbit.

[Topcat]

Re: Not enough new wireless devices suporting 5GHz operation

Who needs it?

Give me wired networking over wireless anyday... All houses should be built with cat6 cabling.

This....although I did mine in cat5. Nothing like the speed, stability, and security of a hardwired network.

A nice example of this in my shop:
https://www.badcaps.net/forum/showpo...6&postcount=55

[mockingbird]

Re: Not enough new wireless devices suporting 5GHz operation

Impressive...

I think you can still do half duplex gigabit over cat5 wire... Don't expect to use jumbo frames though, not that you'd need them...

Lots of cables.... What, are you hosting LAN parties in there?

You forgot to put a jack in the bathroom!

I think I read a post in AVS Forum like 10 years ago about how some guy was putting audio/video cables all over his house... He must feel like a moron now.

[kc8adu]

Re: Not enough new wireless devices suporting 5GHz operation

at least he can use the old ones to pull cat6 in.

I think I read a post in AVS Forum like 10 years ago about how some guy was putting audio/video cables all over his house... He must feel like a moron now.

[BigTroll]

Re: Not enough new wireless devices suporting 5GHz operation

I work for a wisp and spend much of my time rechanneling, 2.4 does have more interference but goes through trees better in some areas we even use 900mhz the heavily treed areas but less 5ghz routers out the less interferance and time I have to spend rechanneling 5 ghz relays

[Topcat]

Re: Not enough new wireless devices suporting 5GHz operation

Impressive...

I think you can still do half duplex gigabit over cat5 wire... Don't expect to use jumbo frames though, not that you'd need them...

Lots of cables.... What, are you hosting LAN parties in there?

You forgot to put a jack in the bathroom!

I think I read a post in AVS Forum like 10 years ago about how some guy was putting audio/video cables all over his house... He must feel like a moron now.

I ran a few underground in conduit to my house. Every room in the shop (except the bathroom) has 3~4 rj45 wall outlets, including closets. I left room to grow...and I could host a LANfest if I wanted. I used to host them all the time when I had my computer store....some of the first being BNC & coax. We didn't have terminators, so I made them from resistors...... I have gigabit switches, and its plenty fast. For my own LAN, I don't really forsee the need to expand it anytime soon. If I needed to, theres an access panel in the floor above the cabinet where I could snake cabling through....but it would still be a nightmare.....for now, this is fine.

FWIW, i do have a couple WAP's scattered around for the laptops to use.....

[NxB]

Re: Not enough new wireless devices suporting 5GHz operation

I live in a very populated area. 2.4 is very saturated near my house. Everyone wants channel 6. There is 1 5ghz AP.

Doing a spectrum scan, 5ghz is very empty but still a little noisy. 4.9ghz is EMPTY... I mean fucking totally nothing empty. Almost no noise reading. 2.3 is mostly empty too.

Why can't wireless use 2.3-2.6 and 4.9-6.0? There is nothing significant on those frequencies except for some radars operating in the 5ghz band (none near me).

[BigTroll]

Re: Not enough new wireless devices suporting 5GHz operation

Not sure, pretty sure 4.9ghz is police emergency frequency.

[shovenose]

Re: Not enough new wireless devices suporting 5GHz operation

I live in a very populated area. 2.4 is very saturated near my house. Everyone wants channel 6. There is 1 5ghz AP.

Doing a spectrum scan, 5ghz is very empty but still a little noisy. 4.9ghz is EMPTY... I mean fucking totally nothing empty. Almost no noise reading. 2.3 is mostly empty too.

Why can't wireless use 2.3-2.6 and 4.9-6.0? There is nothing significant on those frequencies except for some radars operating in the 5ghz band (none near me).

Whoa! How do you scan that?

[severach]

Re: Not enough new wireless devices suporting 5GHz operation

Wikipedia: Gigabit Ethernet

1000BASE-T uses all 4 pairs and can run on Category 5 or better. Cat 5 was made for the 100BASE-T spec which only uses 2 of the 4 available pairs. Some Cat 5 wire vendors twisted the unused pairs poorly expecting them to never be used. Poorly twisted Cat 5 cables may not function properly with 1000BASE-T. Cat 5e comes with the expectation that all 4 pairs are twisted correctly.

1000BASE-TX uses 2 pairs and can run on Cat 6 or better.

1000BASE-TX electronics was cheaper but it was not accepted in the marketplace because of all the rewiring to Cat 6 that would have been needed. 1000BASE-T electronics initially cost more due to the extra complexity of supporting two more pairs but it didn't need any wire changes so it took off. Volume production made it cheap and widely available.

The naming for 1000BASE is opposite to the naming of 100BASE. 100BASE-TX used 4 pairs which was not accepted by the marketplace so 100BASE-TX products are virtually non existent. I've only seen quantity 4 100BASE-TX cards by Intel at a scrap dealer. 100BASE-T uses 2 pairs and is what became popular and widely available. Because of this naming confusion vendors use 1000BASE-TX and 1000BASE-T interchangeably though the standards are different and 1000BASE-TX products are virtually non existent.

100BASE-TX, 1000BASE-T uses 4 pairs.
100BASE-T, 1000BASE-TX uses 2 pairs.

100BASE-TX failed because consumers running the hodge podge of wiring including Cat 3 and 50 ohm BNC had to upgrade wire anyways so they waited for attractive pricing. 100BASE-T had cheaper electronics and was able to price more aggressively so sales went up and the price plummeted. 1000BASE-T failed because no price penalty for the more expensive electronics in 1000BASE-TX could exceed the cost of new wiring. Volume production eliminated the price penalty and eliminated 1000BASE-T.

So long as Cat 5 is carrying Gigabit without problems, keep using it. Don't tear out perfectly good wiring until something like high Power Over Ethernet 802.3at or 10Gig Ethernet forces Cat 6a or whatever comes out next.

[NxB]

Re: Not enough new wireless devices suporting 5GHz operation

Whoa! How do you scan that?

I have atheros radios and I modified the driver to allow for all frequencies. It does 802.11a/b (2.3-2.6 and 4.9-6ghz). Also have a ubiquity that does 4.9-6 with 802.11n.

Not sure, pretty sure 4.9ghz is police emergency frequency.

Ahh yes, the police frequency. 2.4 has channel 14. All it has been used for is surveillance cameras in the city proper. Completely dead here.

[PCBONEZ]

Re: Not enough new wireless devices suporting 5GHz operation

5GHz wifi isn't 'new'. Came out in 1999.
I have some 5Ghz gear that's going on 10 years old.
I think I got it in '02 or '03 and some of it was used gear.
.
Wired is better. I only use wifi for two things around the house.
- This one place where I only intended to live for a year and running wired would have been a nightmare, so not worth it.
Even then all I did was use 2 access points to link two wired sections at opposite ends of the house.
- Occasionally when I want to 'go mobile' around the house with a laptop.
When I'm not actively doing that the [which isn't often anyway] the wifi is off completely.
.
I always use 5Ghz at home.
Had a router once where the firmware wouldn't let me turn the 2.4Ghz wifi off so I opened it up and disconnected the power pin on the wifi chip.
.
.
5Ghz is less used, less interference, and shorter range.
The shorter range 'sounds bad' until you realize it also means less likely to get hacked.
.
.
Microwave ovens jerk with 2.4Ghz too.
.
I dealt with a customers 2.4Ghz PCI NIC that would crash [drop the connection] if a cell phone was used within 5 feet of it.
It was a bugger to figure out THAT intermittent problem.
.

[mockingbird]

Re: Not enough new wireless devices suporting 5GHz operation

Even then all I did was use 2 access points to link two wired sections at opposite ends of the house.

Yes... This is exactly what WiFi is perfect for...

Corporation used to do this, albeit with proprietary wireless technology at the time... They'd put two really big directional antennas on their roofs and point them at eachother (That is - one antenna per roof).

But if you need to connect two long distances, you hook up a directional cantenna to each router and point them at eachother (The fat and short cantennas are omnidirectionial, the long pringle ones are directional)...

[NxB]

Re: Not enough new wireless devices suporting 5GHz operation

Microwave ovens jerk with 2.4Ghz too.

Yup, blocks mine up.

5GHz wifi isn't 'new'. Came out in 1999.

802.11A vs 802.11n

[smason]

Re: Not enough new wireless devices suporting 5GHz operation

Yup, blocks mine up.



802.11A vs 802.11n

I'd do 802.11A on 5GHZ in a heartbeat instead of G or N on 2.4 2.4 is soo crowded. Unfortunately pretty much no devices have it built-in. I'm CAT6 and Gigabit everywhere I can be, but a few spots in the house I can't wire.

[NxB]

Re: Not enough new wireless devices suporting 5GHz operation

What about 5ghz on N

[shovenose]

Re: Not enough new wireless devices suporting 5GHz operation

Sorry but does this mean that using Cat5e cables in my network makes the Gb connections useless?