Print
Discuss
Send to friend
RSS feeds
I'm all for standards, especially in networking where, for the most part, they make life easier for everyone involved. Where would we be without the 802.3 Ethernet specifications making it possible to connect all manner of networking devices with little or no concern as to whether they will talk to each other?
Unfortunately, the same doesn't apply to the world of wireless LANs (WLANs), which is characterised by confusing and, in some cases, incompatible standards and specifications.
It wasn't so bad when WLANs first took off a couple of years ago. Then there was only one standard that mattered - 802.11b - adherence to which meant both simple integration with fixed Ethernet LANs, and the ability to work with wireless products from other manufacturers.
Consequently, virtually every vendor decided to adopt it.
But 802.11b operates in the "crowded" 2.4GHz radio band, which in theory, although rarely in practice, means signal interference. Some countries also still restrict the number of channels that can be used, and 802.11b's maximum bandwidth of 11Mbit/s is less than a tenth of what most desktop users with 10/100Mbit/s fixed connections currently enjoy.
So along came 802.11a offering a much-improved 54Mbit/s data rate together with a move to the less congested 5GHz waveband. However, because they operate at completely different frequencies, 802.11a devices simply can't communicate with older 802.11b products. That wouldn't have been a problem if 802.11b hadn't proved so popular. We'd have embraced the new technology without a thought, leaving 802.11b to be forgotten.
But that isn't the case. Millions of 802.11b products have been bought, leading to the formulation of another would-be successor in the form of 802.11g. And that, if it comes to fruition, will provide the same 54Mbit/s as 802.11a plus compatibility with 802.11b, because it operates in the same 2.4GHz radio frequency spectrum.
Sound too good to be true? That's because 802.11g is unlikely to be ratified before the end of the year and actual products will take a lot longer to materialise. By which time companies looking for wireless bandwidth may well have bought into 802.11a. And that, in turn, will diminish the value of backwards compatibility and make it even more difficult to work out which WLAN technology to go for.
If that wasn't confusing enough, a number of manufacturers have also added an extra twist, doubling the throughput of their 802.11b devices to 22Mbit/s - but only when communicating with others based on the same chipset. They are sort of compatible with 802.11b, and maybe 802.11g, but still not 802.11a.
Competing standards make life incredibly confusing for firms wanting to deploy WLANs. Should you go with the current, very affordable, 802.11b products, and wait for 802.11g to provide more bandwidth? Or should you jump into the more expensive 802.11a arena and forgo 2.4GHz altogether?
Of course, you could hedge your bets with the dual-frequency products starting to appear. But the existence of more than one wireless standard can't be good for business and it needs to be sorted.
Have your say: contact IT Week
del.icio.us
Digg this
reddit!
