Number based consumerism is when a consumer bases their buying habits on one or more numbers typically part of a products specifications. You likely see this all the time, and perhaps even have been guilty of it yourself. It’s most prevalent in technology though it exists in other sectors.
802.11n, something I was starting to think would never get beyond draft is now approved. Having suffered through “compliant” 802.11b devices I long ago decided wireless networking is fussy enough to warrant stricter standards. As a result I stuck to Wi-Fi Alliance certified 802.11g devices, and the results have been awesome. I’m still of the opinion that the difference between “compliant” and “certified” is gigantic. Certified 802.11n devices should start to appear in the next few months.
Looks like the goals for any 802.11n upgrade are MIMO (obviously) and preferably dual-band (2.4GHz and 5GHz). I can’t see why I would want to do anything otherwise.
Considering most ISP’s don’t yet provide the downstream or upstream bandwidth necessary to take saturate a good 802.11g network, I’m not sure it’s really necessary to upgrade just yet. Thanks to a solid signal I can sustain up to about 19 Mbps over 802.11g even with WPA2 overhead and slight signal degradation. Under 1ms pings as well. ISP currently offers up to 16 Mbps, 12 Mbps plans for mortals. Rarely is that performance actually seen thanks to “the Internets being a series of tubes”. At least for today upgrading would only improve local network performance, not Internet performance. Most traffic is going outside the network anyway. 802.11n would bring capacity up to 130 Mbps, but since the uplink is still 12 Mbps, that really provides no real performance boost.
For anyone who would argue the faster CPU’s on the newer access points would improve performance, I’ve found that my current AP rarely sees more than a 2% load, with rare spikes up to about 40% capacity.
Of course hardware providers, and retail outlets will continue to tell people that downloading will be 6X faster1, but logic and common sense proves otherwise. It’s the equivalent of a Bugatti Veyron stuck behind a funeral procession.
That of course also assumes all devices are connecting via 802.11n. If you have an 802.11g and 802.11n devices connecting over 2.4 GHz, you’re going to be in mixed mode and slow down while 802.11g devices send/receive anyway. As far as I know there’s no way around that.
Then there’s the issue of all the pre-N adapters sold in laptops over the past few years and their compatibility, which is generally pretty good, but not perfect when mixing vendors.
So despite the marketing getting even stronger, I don’t see how it would be really beneficial to upgrade just yet. The actual performance increase for most activity will be virtually non-existent until ISP’s get faster. I’d rather wait until the hardware matures and prices drop more.
1. up to 6X faster, actual results may vary.
I turned on Wireless Multimedia (WMM) support the other day on my wireless network, figuring QoS for a wireless network would pretty much be a slam dunk. For those who don’t know, the four access categories it uses are:
I was surprised to find, at least with the Netopia box that this actually resulted in a significant slowdown in http traffic, even when there was no other services being used. To put some numbers out there, we’re talking 10000 kbps with it enabled vs. 17400 kbps when disabled (these aren’t scientific, they are just bandwidth tests). I think the performance hit negated any real benefit, at least in this case. The box doesn’t handle much VoIP, so it really doesn’t do much. Video is more about raw bandwidth these days than latency thanks to CDN’s becoming more common and reducing the bulk of the latency issue. Also interesting is that the CPU hit seems pretty minimal. Daily average increased from 2% to about 4%, it’s double but really nothing serious. With it enabled it never spiked past 50%, and that was only one time.
So after a few days testing, WWM is turned off. Seems QoS at least in this case doesn’t pay. I can’t complain, wireless performance (20Mbps+) and signal strength are fantastic (when the microwave isn’t on) for an 802.11g network. Despite that, there’s always the desire to find ways to make it even better. Next step would be 802.11n, but I have a thing against uncertified gear. Once it’s standardized, I’d strongly consider it, especially if I can find a device that supports Linux firmware.
Experiment complete.