 nunyaWho is John Galt?Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:8
 ·Charter
 ·surpasshosting
| reply to tschmidt
Re: Future Proofing home networks For residential use, I think wired networks don't have much of a future at all. Maybe for hardcore enthusiasts. For most people wireless will be plenty.
The only way to "future-proof" a wired network is conduit.
Back in the late 90's and early 00's, we were installing banana peel with mm fiber. Nobody ever bothered to use it. Why? Unnecessary expense. Cat5 does what you need with no "special" conversion.
I'd even say cat6 is a waste of time any more. Wireless just keeps getting better and better. All of our client devices are trending to wireless as well (phones, iPad's, laptop, kindle, etc...
--
If someone refers to herself / himself as a "guru", they probably aren't. |
|
|
|
 shdesignsPowered By Infinite Improbabilty DrivePremium
join:2000-12-01
Stone Mountain, GA | said by nunya:Wireless just keeps getting better and better. All of our client devices are trending to wireless as well (phones, iPad's, laptop, kindle, etc...
In many places, wireless keeps getting worse and worse.
I used to get good wireless speeds but now there are too many neighbors with wireless routers to get reliable speeds. (I see 6 AP's or more in my client)
This is a neighborhood with 1/2 acre lots. Those in apartments have it worse.
It is fine for cell phone use but by laptop needs wired for HD video and my desktop needs gigabit for access to my server.
--
Scott Henion
Embedded Systems Consultant,
SHDesigns home - DIY Welder |
|
JoelC707Premium
join:2002-07-09
West Point, GA
kudos:5 | You know, I was thinking this too. Wireless has the potential to be a major game changer, at least in residential settings. I recently setup a new computer for a friend in an apartment near Mercer University. She mentioned horrible wireless interference as an issue and upon looking at inSSIDer it was clear why. I saw no less than 30 APs with each channel having 5-6 APs on it, and the major ones having more than that. I ran a cable instead of dealing with that.
Honestly for wireless to truly take off there needs to be some changes. First and foremost, get rid of 2.4 GHz, it's too crowded. Going to 5 GHz is of course going to reduce range but I'd rather have low signal at the far corners of my property than have 2.4 barely make it out of the house.
Sure this is a chicken and egg scenario, there's a lot of 2.4 only devices out there and just dropping 2.4 will cause problems. My opinion is there needs to be a major incentive to upgrade. Or if you just don't care about the speeds then run a separate G/N network. If you include both 2.4 and 5 in it as N does, you have no incentive to upgrade your devices and just keep it on 2.4 (I know mine is on 2.4 only).
The other major thing is speed. 300 meg N APs are great but honestly you are lucky to get 150 out of them. Sure, it's better than G and better than a typical fast ethernet wired connection but it doesn't take long to degrade and that fast ethernet connection is looking better and better. When they can make a wireless AP that delivers at least gigabit speeds at max distance, then we'll see widespread adoption. |
|
 cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | reply to nunya
said by nunya:For residential use, I think wired networks don't have much of a future at all. Maybe for hardcore enthusiasts. For most people wireless will be plenty. Try to stream a high-bitrate 1080P BD over wireless-g in an urban/suburban area. Wired networks will be around for a long time. |
|
TheMGPremium
join:2007-09-04
Canada
kudos:2 | reply to nunya
said by nunya:For residential use, I think wired networks don't have much of a future at all. Maybe for hardcore enthusiasts. For most people wireless will be plenty.
It will be interesting to see what will happen when the typical home or apartment contains dozens of active WiFi devices.
Actually, it's already happening. Getting good performance out of WiFi in a high density area can already be challenging especially on the 2.4GHz band.
And I expect that as more and more devices start using the 5GHz band, it will have the same problems as well.
Fact is, the amount of spectrum allocated to consumer devices (in other words, the unlicensed ISM bands) is absolutely minuscule, especially when you can have 100+ devices within range of each other all using the same band.
It's only going to get worst. Especially as people start substituting wireless instead of wires for interconnecting their various audiovisual devices (several technologies are emerging that can stream high definition video and audio wirelessly to a TV).
The problem becomes even more apparent when you look at these bands with a spectrum analyzer. It's quite nasty.
Who knows, maybe eventually the FCC/IC/etc will allocate more ISM bandwidth. But for now, I'm not convinced that wireless will totally replace wires in the consumer side of things. |
|
| When I had to swap my Samsung GS3 at ATT it couldn't download the simple activation files on their wifi in the store, there was too many other devices eating the spectrum, BestBuy is just as bad. I try to wire all I can. |
|
| said by Pher9999:When I had to swap my Samsung GS3 at ATT it couldn't download the simple activation files on their wifi in the store, there was too many other devices eating the spectrum, BestBuy is just as bad. I try to wire all I can.
Problem is there are some devices that must use wireless such as ipods and ipads and smart phones. In this portable era wireless for other tablets and laptops is nice too. Wired is good for blu-ray players or stationary smart TVs and desktops that stay in one place so you can figure wires for those or additional APs . |
|
 whizkid3Premium,MVM
join:2002-02-21
Queens, NY
kudos:9 | reply to nunya
said by nunya:For residential use, I think wired networks don't have much of a future at all. Maybe for hardcore enthusiasts. For most people wireless will be plenty. Respectfully, I would have to disagree. I am in the city, but in a 'burb' type setting of single family homes with some apartment buildings nearby. I can see no less than 15 wireless networks at any time; with about 1/3 interfering. I have DirecTV receivers on internet. I am not going to attach a wireless AP to each one of those, especially considering the bandwidth they require.
Going by theory alone, there is only so many bits (you can call it bandwidth if you like) that can be carried on a radio signal with a given power level. This is based on laws of physics and can not be improved. Given these constraints, improved coding is one way to solve this, but will only get one so far. The more people go to wireless, the less 'bandwidth' available for others. If one wants increased data rates ('speeds'), its going to have to be 'wired'. |
|
 alkizmo
join:2007-06-25
Pierrefonds, QC
kudos:1 | said by whizkid3:said by nunya:I think wired networks don't have much of a future at all. Respectfully, I would have to disagree. I think it's a matter of blending the two.
Keeping wired networks up to date when you have an outlet in every room is kind of intense. Also, a lot of devices are now wireless only, or pretty annoying to hook up:
- Laptops (Sofa, kitchen table, toilet, you name it, can't hook it up every time).
- Cellphones, Tablet PCs, they are only wireless.
What's left are desktop computers, Set-Top-Box (and variances of it) and network storage. Those are typically in fixed locations.
What I'm doing is running cable to key locations but I'm not going to bother getting a RJ45 port in every bedroom, just the office room. |
|
nunyaWho is John Galt?Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:8 Reviews:
·Charter
·surpasshosting
| reply to whizkid3
I wholeheartedly agree that the 2.4 GHz band is now just "junk". But as people move to 5 GHz and buy newer equipment with better "anti-crowding" algorithms, things will get better.
Remember, as wired data rates increase, wireless rates do as well, with an increasingly shorter lag period.
--
If someone refers to herself / himself as a "guru", they probably aren't. |
|
