• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

802.11n standard expected to be ratified in September

M

Madwand1

Diamond Member
Originally posted by: SmallNetBuilder
Wi-Fi Alliance 802.11n Certification Change Complicates Consumer Choices

Tim Higgins
July 23, 2009

The Wi-Fi Alliance today said that it would add tests to its released-standard 802.11n Certification program, but not require re-certification of previously-approved products.
The Alliance said it is making "only small optional additions" to its Draft 2.0 802.11n Certification test suite to create the program for the released standard. It plans to start testing in "late September", to coincide with 11n's assumed ratification.

The confusing, and potentially troublesome, part of the Alliance's plan, however, is that products approved under the Draft 2.0 802.11n Certification process will be allowed to "use the approved 802.11n logo without retesting". The Alliance said it is allowing this "because all Wi-Fi CERTIFIED draft 2.0 products meet the core requirements of - and interoperate with - the updated program".

But the final 11n Certification suite will also test for compliance with four "optional" features included in the released standard (packet aggregation, coexistence, three spatial streams and space-time block coding). So once the new test plan kicks in, products with different capabilities will all carry the same Certification mark. The means that consumers will need to dig into product specifications to look for evidence of the optional features, assuming that manufacturers provide the necessary details.

The optional features all affect products' maximum throughput, which is a key selection criteria for most consumers. In particular, the three spatial stream "option", really creates a new class of products, those capable of 450 Mbps maximum link rates. The Alliance's announcement also makes no mention of single-stream (150 Mbps maximum link rate) products, some of which are not certifiable under current Alliance policy.
Click to expand...

http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/content/view/30880/100/

I think this is about as good as can be expected. Technology moves on, so the newer stuff will have a greater performance potential, but current draft 2.0 certified products will not become non-compliant or incompatible.


 
Quote: "The means that consumers will need to dig into product specifications to look for evidence of the optional features, assuming that manufacturers provide the necessary details".

So why do we need any certification? This solution is like certifying that it is Not certified.

Instead of solving the problems, they decided to call the current situation certified and keep selling the "Junk".
 
Does this mean that I can buy an N router sometime soon that actually stands a chance of interoperating with other manufacturers' hardware?

Or since they don't have to retest, it's still the same crap shoot that it has been, except with the appearance of certification (thereby making my hardware selection more difficult)?
 
What it means that whatever you can get now stays the same, only that it would moved from been called Draft_N to be called 802.11n.

In addition there would be new hardware that would be thingys that would do "SuperN" (a la the defunct SuperG).
 
Originally posted by: JackMDS
What it means that whatever you can get now stays the same, only that it would moved from been called Draft_N to be called 802.11n.

In addition there would be new hardware that would be thingys that would do "SuperN" (a la the defunct SuperG).
Click to expand...

So I get the status quo plus additional confusion?

I'm really happy that they took so damn long to agree upon a spec that manufacturers fragmented and did whatever the hell they wanted under the same badge.

Screw it, I'm going back to my original plan of running bundles to each room in the house. When all else fails, there will be a couple of pairs of Cat 5 and coax in each room. I can't figure out a need for all of that now, but maybe someone who buys the place down the line will thank me 🙂
 
Basically, this is a way to satisfy the companies that put out Draft N products, they get to keep selling their Draft N products only rebadge them as "certified" 802.11n but it won't have the new features and actually be REAL 802.11n - basically the consumers get screwed again so the companies don't have to change their products until they feel like and can still keep selling them as 802.11n. IMO - very stupid thing to do.
 
Originally posted by: kevnich2
Basically, this is a way to satisfy the companies that put out Draft N products, they get to keep selling their Draft N products only rebadge them as "certified" 802.11n but it won't have the new features and actually be REAL 802.11n - basically the consumers get screwed again so the companies don't have to change their products until they feel like and can still keep selling them as 802.11n. IMO - very stupid thing to do.
Click to expand...

Would a firmware update (possibly) enable the new features?
Or would new hardware be required?
 
Originally posted by: vailr

Would a firmware update (possibly) enable the new features?
Or would new hardware be required?
Click to expand...

The type of features mentioned probably need new chipsets.

If these features (and others) could be handled by firmware they would the standard would be out long time ago.
 
Originally posted by: vailr
Would a firmware update (possibly) enable the new features?
Or would new hardware be required?
Click to expand...

The new features are optional, and some of them would require different hardware -- e.g. I'm not aware of any consumer 4x4 "600 Mb/s" products at present.

Otherwise, it's much ado about nothing -- the new certification program will test for these optional features, and basically ensure that if the optional features are implemented, that they comply with the standard. You still need to check whether or not the optional features you want are implemented in the particular devices you're considering.

Checking for "450 Mb/s" or "600 Mb/s" maximum data rate in the marketing material is challenging only to the already-challenged, and even in areas where the wireless information is generally poor (e.g. laptops), "450 Mb/s" tags will tend to be advertised when they're available. If they're not specified, assuming a "300 Mb/s" maximum data rate implementation will probably be right or close enough for some time.
 
The Wikipedia article on 802.11n has a lot of good information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11n

This one in particular is relevant to complaints and speculation on why 802.11n took so long:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...1n#CSIRO_Patent_Issues

CSIRO Patent Issues

In late November 2007, work on the 802.11n standard slowed due to patent issues. The Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) holds the patent to a component of the 802.11n standard. This component is also part of 802.11a and 802.11g. The IEEE requested from the CSIRO a Letter of Assurance (LoA) that no lawsuits would be filed for anyone implementing the standard. In Sep 2007, CSIRO responded that they would not be able to comply with this request since litigation was involved.[12]

In April 2009, it was revealed that CSIRO reached a settlement with 14 companies, including Hewlett-Packard, Intel, Dell, Toshiba, ASUS, Microsoft and Nintendo, on the condition that CSIRO did not broadcast the resolution.
Click to expand...

It's amazing how the standardization process picked up after the CSIRO issue was settled -- it's now several months ahead of the previous estimate of 2010.

That aside, it's really great that the final standard is within grasp, and that standard compliance of current draft-compliant devices is essentially assured.
 
I find it funny that some of the people on here are totally pissed that the draft 2.0 stuff did not get pitched out the window. I guess it screwed up their predictions and their pissed. Now, as Madwand1 said, most of the differences have to do with optional stream configurations so who cares. The one that doesn't only has to do with coexisting with other networks, which you can do your self by switching to 20mhz bands.
 
Nah, Speaking for my self I knew that nothing would be thrown away.

It was obvious that at a certain point there would be a commercial compromise on the "Back of the Consumers".

The main issue is that beside some marginal improvement in LAN Wireless traffic for people who need to stream HD via Wireless there is nothing really Good that the Draft does.

In matter of fact if you would conduct double blind research controlling for social desirability, over 90% of the End-Users would not sense the difference between the Draft and a good 802.11g when using their Wireless computers.

Speaking for my self I do not gain any thing one way or the other.

Disclaimer, I have no connection with any Brand/Vendor that manufactures/sells Network Devices of any kind, my comments are based as a reference to hardware that I buy with my own money.
 
Originally posted by: Madwand1
The Wikipedia article on 802.11n has a lot of good information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11n

This one in particular is relevant to complaints and speculation on why 802.11n took so long:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...1n#CSIRO_Patent_Issues

CSIRO Patent Issues

In late November 2007, work on the 802.11n standard slowed due to patent issues. The Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) holds the patent to a component of the 802.11n standard. This component is also part of 802.11a and 802.11g. The IEEE requested from the CSIRO a Letter of Assurance (LoA) that no lawsuits would be filed for anyone implementing the standard. In Sep 2007, CSIRO responded that they would not be able to comply with this request since litigation was involved.[12]

In April 2009, it was revealed that CSIRO reached a settlement with 14 companies, including Hewlett-Packard, Intel, Dell, Toshiba, ASUS, Microsoft and Nintendo, on the condition that CSIRO did not broadcast the resolution.
Click to expand...

It's amazing how the standardization process picked up after the CSIRO issue was settled -- it's now several months ahead of the previous estimate of 2010.

That aside, it's really great that the final standard is within grasp, and that standard compliance of current draft-compliant devices is essentially assured.
Click to expand...

Why didn't CSIRO just ask for a small licensing fee as part of using the standard? It would have made sense, and it wouldn't be the first time this has happened. If they own a patent on a technology, they deserve proper compensation if they so choose to exercise that option.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top