Any reason to provide 11.b as a fallback?

No. I suggest you disable 802.11b compatibility. That will allow both the 802.11g and the 802.11n traffic to run at full speed. Details if you want them.

I would like to lobby for 802.11b support at all public access points; add an 11b-only WAP to avoid degrading g/n performance. In some parts of the country/world folks have 'mature' devices limited by O/S and hardware to 802.11b and a hotspot operator stands to gain by being agnostic on access method.

Michael

Frankly, if they're too cheap to replace the devices then they're unlikely to fit in the scheme providing the wifi service. Why should a provider burden their desireable customers (or their target advertising market) with the slower, interferring traffic on the trailing edge crowd? This might seem rude but it's harsh reality.

On the other foot, I would propose a nation ban on 802.11b devices as an ecological measure in order to preserve rapidly diminishing air time. 802.11b is so slow, that it hogs LOTS of air time, thus preventing other users from communicating. It's very roughly proportional to the connection frequency. For example, 1Mbit/sec data hogs about 50 times the air time, so send the same amound of data, as

The mere presence of 802.11b devices causes a degredation in available bandwidth. Never mind that 802.11b sends *ALL* management packets at the slowest 1Mbit/sec speed (for compatibility). 802.11g uses

Huh? I don't understand. What part of the world are you talking about and what is the difference between "mature" device and an obsolete piece of junk?

Ooops. That should be 6Mbits/sec.

Well, perhaps this is a regional issue; in my area the spectrum is quite underutilized and I am thankful that all known public access points here do 11b. I would also suggest that much contemporary envionmental action is counterproductive to human welfare.

Harumph, nice to have money huh?

I am just now getting into H/PC (WinCE 2.11) on a Fujitsu Pencentra 130 and I appreciate its large screen format, complete set of standard ports and connectors and manageable form factor. I don't really see an equivalent product in newer technology and certainly not one that I can use in the field for my intended applications. I may even try NetBSD on the device if developing in CE isn't ultimately practical. For now the best I can do for wifi is 11b using Rangelan/Openair/HomeRF on it but it is servicable and very useful.

Michael

It varies. At home, I can see 5 access points (including the ones that hide their SSID). I'm protected by the forest. However, at my office, I can see about 25 access points without even trying, and perhaps about 50 if I go outside and wave the laptop around. My 12 mile commute typically shows 150 or more access points with Netstumbler and somewhat more with Kismet. The surest sign of success is pollution and I guess Wi-Fi is successful.

Yep. Much environment legislation oddly resembled redistributing the wealth or the expense. Much ecological action seems to be based on magic, alchemy, or junk science. Remind me to unload my standard rant on how lead recycling was codified and handled.

Damn right it is. I worked hard for it, busted my ass, saved my pennies, and took risks. So now I'm fairly comfortable. However, I d>>>In some parts

and I don't understand what you're complaining about. Making obsolete technology mandatory is only effective if the obsolete industry has something to gain by selling the same old junk. That happened between about 1950 and 1990 in the avionics business, where the FAA made it cost prohibitive for new technologies to be introduced. Lots of other RF related industries have had similar problems with the FCC. However, the average hot spot operator would just love to throw out the Wi-Fi junk and just sell overpriced coffee and munchies. He doesn't care what technology is being used, does not have a trade group lobbying for the rights of hot spot operators, and is not even interested in industry politics.

So, where on this planet, is there such a place where hot spot operators stand to gain, lose, or even care, whether you use 802.11b or not? If I misinterpreted what you said, then please restate your rant.

About $17 with shipping. Add battery $35 and charger $28 on eBay:

I gotta admit, it is a nice package.

Incidentally, I collect HP LED type calculators. At one time, I advocated making RPN mandatory on new calculators as I didn't want to learn how to use algebraic entry type calculators.

That's good logic for why you bought one, but insufficient to justify mandatory 802.11b support at hot spots just to prevent premature obsolescence.

Those are all frequency hopping technologies and are NOT 802.11b. They're just 802.11. None of them will work with the common DSSS (direct sequence spread spectrum) access points. If you drag it to a hot spot, it won't work. Perhaps you meant to suggest that we make FHSS (frequency hopping spread spectrum) also mandatory? Incidentally, I think I may have some Proxim Rangelan access points, which might work. I also have a Symbol PPT-4300 Pen PC with exactly the same problem.

Inadvertently redacted in the above before I posted:

For now the best I can do for wifi is 11b using a few supported cards like the Roamabout and Orinoco Hermes stuff and Rangelan...

I do maintain a HomeRF 2.0 FHSS access point on premises for those devices that use it and find that its connections are far more tolerant of interference (QRM) and multipath and also the power output is ~100mw with published hacks to double it, and receiver sensitivity is published at ~-85dbm.

Michael

Hair splitting: RangeLAN2 uses Proxim's OpenAir spec and is usually frequency hopping. RangeLAN-DS is 802.11b compatible. Orinoco Hermes is the chipset used in the original Wavelan, Orinoco Gold, Orinoco Silver, Avaya, and Agere cards. When Proxim bought the product line, they changed the chipset.

I only have a little experience with HomeRF, but have had quite a bit with Breezecom/Alvarion, Symbol, and Raylink frequency hoppers (FHSS). Also Metricom/Ricochet was FHSS. You're absolutely correct about interference tolerance. In my never humble opinion, FHSS is the right answer for dense and interference infested systems. When FHSS and DSSS collide, FHSS always gets through, with traffic just slowing down. DSSS always gets trashed and traffic comes to a complete stop.

Plenty big politics was involved with the FCC decision to promote DSSS over FHSS. HomeRF was a reaction to the frustration of some vendors with IEEE politics during 802.11g development. In its infinite wisdom, the FCC decided to allow it, but only at drastically reduced tx power output. The logic was that since it was superior and capable of trashing DSSS, a reduction in power should put it at equal footing for coexistence.

FHSS is required to hop over the entire 83.5MHz bandwidth, while DSSS only uses about 25Mhz. While many systems could easily coexist if everyone used FHSS, only 3 can with DSSS.

The spec sheets will show that FHSS receivers have worse sensitivity than DSSS. That's not due to anything inherent in the technology. It's simply that current DSSS chips use current process technologies (SiGe), while FHSS tend to be much older (Bipolar) which has a higher NF (noise figure).

All this stuff was a common debate in the early daze of 802.11, but is now only a historical footnote as DSSS has obviously won the FH versus DS competition.