Spinning Wireless Speeds

Articles

Event Coverage | Editorials | Guides

Author:
Editor:
Sponsor:
Published:

Richard Poelling
Brian

Apr. 17, 2006

Article

Specifications

Images

User Reviews (0)

Comments (0)

<< Previous

Home >>

Continued...

For most people, their first taste of this wireless alphabet soup started with the 802.11b standard. The thought of using your laptop or desktop sans wires was so cool that few cared about network speed. And it's a good thing, since most 802.11b links run at about 5-6Mbit/s throughput. This is probably where it all started. Someone figured out that "theoretically" the connection should have a throughput of 11Mbit. This is the part that confuses me and is why the internet itself is the home of so many tech websites, including our own. Why label something 11 when you know that you can only get 6??? Sure, there is signal degradation, interference, and the pure act of making the signal wireless and then transferring it back to the wired world. But should we be penalized by 50%? At what point does lying become "OK"? I'm sure that every manufacturer of networking gear has a set of equations somewhere that shows their protocol achieving this rate. Now don't get me wrong, I'm glad that they have intelligent people working for them who know complex math - it's a good skill to have, and it could come in handy some day. With that said, I, as the end user couldn't really care less what creative formula some engineer was able to come up with for the marketing team. What I want to know is "how does this device perform?" What will I see in my home, with my walls and my interference?

I have personally tested networking components from several different manufacturers using different standards. Every time, I see a result that is at most 50% of its advertised speed. It's not like one company or even one standard is to blame, they all are. What started with 802.11b has gracefully carried itself over to 802.11g as well as 802.11a and even to the proprietary "super G" rated products. Rather than come out and report the full bandwidth of 802.11g, wireless manufacturers decided to just double the number, AGAIN. Now we are looking at products that are rated at 108Mbits/s throughput. Well, in that case, I better just scrap all this 100Mbit wiring I have and go with that super speedy 108. It is faster than my wired connection, right?

It's great that we now have wireless connection speeds approaching wired speed. That is truly a great innovation. Even if we go with the 50% rule of what marketing says, that 108 Mbps connection is now at the 54Mbps throughput we were after in the first place. Yeah! But wait, you don't have an adaptor and router from the same company, so you are back to 20 something throughput of "standard g". Not only are manufacturers going off-standard, they are still fibbing on the speed. I guess once you tell a lie, a second, or even a third really isn't any more harmful. Unfortunately for the consumer, just when you think you're getting ahead, you will soon realize that you aren't.

Of course it is for this reason that standards were created. A standard, when followed, is one where all certified products for that standard will interoperate with each other. Sounds like a good idea, and I agree it is, but what happens when manufacturers jump the standard? As with the case of the super g products going off-standard, some manufacturers are releasing products on a standard which hasn't even been standardized yet.

This has happened with the 802.11n. Everyone wants to be first, but in the case of 802.11n, first is not necessarily right. Here you have the pre-n products which sound kind of special, but in a rare case of advertising honestly, they are telling you that you have something that does not conform to a standard, but rather is more of a loosely based amalgamation of something they based on a developing standard. Kind of like a movie loosely based on a book. This type of product may garner the company additional sales, but in the end, it is the end user who loses. Even after purchasing all the equipment to get the better signal, when the final standard comes out, you may be holding a piece of obsolete equipment that will only work with the same manufacturer. This type of proprietary equipment only does the manufacturer any good; the end user, as usual, will be the one left out in the cold.

I guess the real question in all this mess would be this: Why would any one company want to change? Companies are in the business of making money, period. Whether that means selling networking gear or selling apples, people are in business because they can make a profit. Any company can try to do the "right" thing and advertise EXACTLY what they sell. The sad part is that even though they would be telling the truth, in the end, they would be the ones out of business as sales decreased due to the "well, this ones not as fast as that one" buying phenomena. Although I see this trend increasingly with network products, I shouldn't be surprised. It is pervasive throughout the entire industry. Does any piece of hardware ACTUALLY do what it claims? Can I go and test a product and get within 5% of the listed specs? I seriously doubt it. Everything from hard drives to software is tagged with those lovely little asterisks which state something akin to "your mileage may vary." We would do better to just label things as model 1, model 2, and so on. At least we know we wouldn't be lied to.

What it all comes down to is who you believe. I understand marketing has its place; a product is useless if no one knows about it. The fine line comes when you are no longer presenting a product, but instead spinning it. Outright lies and deception do no one any good. Sure, the average user is just that, average - not really caring one way or the other if they are getting that extra MBit here or there in their transfers. If they can do their job, and surf their internet, then all is fine. Anything over that is for the geeks to fight over. I wish I could cry for a call to arms against major corporations to get them to actually write what their products will do, but even I know it is fruitless. The only way you would get someone to change is to sue them. I am sure during the trial they would put their countless engineers up on the stand who would give the jury all their equations that tell you your wireless "could" operate at such and such speed. Although it might be true, the little asterisks would probably win the day and the companies would go back to business as usual. In the end, only the lawyers would win and we would still be without the truth.

<< Previous

Page 2 of 2

Home >>

Page 1: Spinning Wireless Speeds
Page 2: Spinning Wireless Speeds, Continued

Subscribe to Editorials [more info]

View All

Holiday Buying Guide: Staff Picks

Editorials December 22, 2008

Holiday Buying Guide: Earphones

Editorials December 16, 2008

Nikon's D90 Through the Eyes of a Video Pro

Editorials November 4, 2008

Apple October '08 Macbook Refresh Hands-On

Editorials October 31, 2008

Add Comment

0 User Comments

Add Comment

To add a comment without being a member, you may omit the password field, but you must enter your name (or nickname) along with your comment. * Denotes required fields.