Research: Wi-Fi 'Inefficient Method of Communication'
Networks, Particularly in Busy Areas, Less and Less Efficient
According to new research
being carried out by the University of Twente’s CTIT research institute, on behalf of Radiocommunications Agency Netherlands, the efficiency of Wi-Fi is degrading rapidly as more and more networks pop up -- particularly in urban markets. Most routers already deliver only a fraction of their marketed throughput, and the researchers found that in some busy locations -- the bandwidth available for actual data traffic can drop to less than 20 percent. "Wi-Fi has become an inefficient method of communication," argues Doctor Roel Schiphorst, who notes vendors need to work on improving future standard performance in busy locations. That's particularly important as more and more wireless carriers look to Wi-Fi to help ease cellular congestion.
Re: Wi-Fi Saves Battery Compared to Cellular Well, I'm with T-Mobile recently since I have purchased a Samsung Exhibit II 4G for about $170 off of Amazon. I then put in CyanogenMod 9 (unofficial build from jocala at XDA Developers forum). So what is left with my Optimus V is I have it always in airplane mode all the time and it can do other functions like function as a SIP client using CSipSimple, use a remote control for XBMC, and do some other things.
I also have a SIP client in my Exhibit II 4G, but my primary SIP phone is my Yealink SIP-T22P, so my hardware phone and two Android devices are all connected to my Asterisk PBX. Because I don't use T-Mobile a lot, I'm only paying $3 for up to 24 hours which comes with unlimited voice minutes and texts but with 200 MB of 4G data, but T-Mobile could create a $3/day play that comes with 30 minutes, no text messages, and 500MB of data since I rarely make and receive phone calls when I'm not at home.
And I'd never thought about authentication servers when it comes to using cellular data.
Phone: Yealink SIP-T22P + CSipSimple in Optimus V
Phone System: Asterisk 10.1; Server: Debian Sid+Exp
I'm in heaven with VoIP except for 3G wireless.
Re: Wi-Fi Saves Battery Compared to Cellular
said by GraysonPeddi:There are no authentication servers on the TCP/UDP part of the cellular data connection. If there is a transparent cache, it would have to have a Captive Portal to capture credentials. Otherwise, all that kind of stuff happens on the backend.
And I'd never thought about authentication servers when it comes to using cellular data.
The more I C, the less I see.
Don't get it... This makes no sense! Wi-Fi isn't becoming less efficient, if anything the spectrum is being used more efficiently. We do need to see 5 GHz get more used. In most places 5GHz has free spectrum even as 2.4 GHZ is overloaded. Also, Wi-Fi should never have had channels 2,3,4,6,7,8,10,11,14. A 1,6,9,13 (no 13 in the US) channel plan, 20MHz spacing, like in the 5GHz band would have greatly reduced interference problems.Someone using, say, channel 3 completely wipes out 1 and 5 or 1 and 6, whereas co-channel users cause far lower impact...
Re: Don't get it...
said by meowmeow:I totally agree, in fact I wonder why we never used unused spectrum from the beginning instead of the 2.4ghz spectrum considering WiFi used to severely interrupt older wireless telephones...
In most places 5GHz has free spectrum even as 2.4 GHZ is overloaded. Also, Wi-Fi should never have had channels 2,3,4,6,7,8,10,11,14. A 1,6,9,13 (no 13 in the US) channel plan, 20MHz spacing, like in the 5GHz band would have greatly reduced interference problems.
I think what we should be doing is educating the people on spectrum itself instead of marketing it the way we are, I've been to houses where people have 15 + devices connected to 1 WiFi router and then wonder why their internet runs like crap, or they can't transfer files unless they want to wait a day between devices. These people don't understand why their having these issues because they don't understand how spectrum and radio signals operate.
When you explain to people that wireless should only be used for dynamic devices, or that one static device that doesn't have a network cable accessible, and only use wired for transferring files (if you can help it) they start to understand it a lot more, instead of just thinking "I have wireless I can connect everything to it and everything will be fine!"
Edit: Forgot to add this, I think the other reason for these "inefficient" claims is because most places that serve free WiFi or etc get Enterprise level "Cisco" or other WiFi Access Points, that can only service maybe 50 - 200 people at once and are usually placed in a stadium or etc that 500 people are trying to access. What they really needed to do to fit the needs of people was to implement the equivalent of a cell tower for WiFi where it can accept up to 1,000 or so connections at once.
I am no longer an AT&T Employee. Check out my kudos! »/profile/1626573
Have U-verse questions? Please email email@example.com and they will assist you!!
Re: Don't get it... 2.4 GHz was less crowded than 900 MHz, and 5 GHz doesn't have the range.
50-200 people on an AP? LOL no way. Perhaps in allowed associations, but not in use. All major vendors I know of recommend 30 users/AP except Ruckus. I've never used Ruckus but they're claiming far more.
It's not about how many connections are accepted, but about how well they can work. Ideally, in a stadium setup, each AP should cover maybe a couple hundred seats (30 users typically or so). With only three non-overlapping channels (four, but one of them isn't generally used in the US because it bumps up against a restricted band, so it has strict power and emission limits on it here) in the 2.4 GHz band, this means channels will get repeated too soon.
A more practical plan is to cover maybe one 2.4GHz AP per 500 seats, and then put two 5 GHz AP's in the same area. MUCH better use of the spectrum. The problem is...
MOST PHONES, ETC DON'T DO 5 GHz!
This is where 802.11ac will be great. 802.11ac spec mandates 5 GHz. I can't see deploying 802.11ac commercially. It just uses far too wide of channel for enterprise deployments. But it'll mean a lot more people who can use the 5 GHz 802.11n channels!
Re: Don't get it... Which ones? Link to products, and yes, that's cheating. 3x120 sectors is 3 AP's, not 1. Still, I'd love to see a product claiming 1300 active users on an AP. That just downright violates physics. 1300 connected maybe.
For example, on one random Cisco product I looked up, they say the AP *can* handle 2048 associated clients, but they *recommend* no more than 24: »www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/···3e.shtml
Just because it *can* handle 1300, doesn't mean it's recommended. Still, I'd love to read the product info! Which AP are you referring to?
| |said by meowmeow:That may be true, but as the number of WiFi enabled devices grows exponentially, the interference concerns are growing much more rapidly than the technology is improving.
This makes no sense! Wi-Fi isn't becoming less efficient, if anything the spectrum is being used more efficiently.
I think part of the problem is way too many devices rely on WiFi these days, and the average consumer thinks WiFi is the ultimate solution to all their networking needs. It's not. WiFi should be used only for mobile devices (ie: phones, laptops, tablets). TVs, desktop computers, network media players, game consoles, printers, etc, really shouldn't be using WiFi.
Unlike what some people like to believe, the future is not completely wireless. Wired networking technologies will always have a place, even in household situations.
Re: Don't get it... Oddly enough, I can say I totally disagree with you in home environments. In a single-family home, Wi-Fi works very well and interference concerns are minimal. Of course, I wire desktops when possible - why not? But I have no hesitation about the Wi-Fi only single family home.
For apartments, 5 GHz Wi-Fi is the promised land. More channels and shorter range! Shorter range is better in apartment buildings - less interference. 802.11ac will obviously add a whole freaking ton of interference, and I don't plan to deploy 802.11ac for business customers anytime soon, if ever. I need all those 20 and 40 MHz channels. But 802.11ac will stay mostly to a few neighboring apartments, dramatically improving Wi-Fi performance in those situations.
Wi-Fi is very efficient. Not quite (until 3x3) as efficient as LTE, or even the current UMTS releases, but pretty darn efficient, especially in 802.11n. 802.11n 3x3 MIMO (not widely used) is more efficient (getting up to 450mbps PHY in a 40MHz channel, whereas LTE Rel 8 2x2 pushes 100mbps PHY in a 10MHz channel).
Now, understand LTE gets much closer to seeing it's PHY layer speed at the application layer than 802.11n does so even 3x3 802.11n isn't as efficient as LTE, but seriously, with the very narrow re-use (Wi-Fi rarely covering even 100m - though I have AP's deployed providing outdoor coverage 200+ meters out from the AP). Due to this narrow cell spacing, the Wi-Fi spectrum is some of the most efficiently used spectrum in the United States. So how on earth anyone can claim Wi-Fi is inefficient is beyond me.
The problem is we're just demanding so much that 60MHz of usable spectrum (on the 1, 6, 11 channel plan) isn't enough. Easing operating restrictions to allow a 1, 5, 9, 13 channel plan on US equipment would be a potential step forward - but there's too many users out there on channels 6 and 11 (which shouldn't even exist... but that's another rant) to allow this to be of benefit in apartments and the like. But it'd be great for large campus deployments. Also, remember that another killer in apartments is people using adjacent channels. All it takes is a few uses on overlapping channels to totally ruin Wi-Fi for everyone. Adjacent channels are far worse than co-channel. Wi-Fi should ONLY have 1, 5, 9, 13. The other channels should have never been built. But 802.11b needed 22MHz - thus the 1, 6, 11, 14 scheme. Which was wasteful too - since that is 25MHz spacing for 1, 6, and 11 (and 22 MHz to 14).
5 GHz is the new frontier to fix this. There are no overlapping channels. That alone is a huge benefit. The range is much shorter. We just need to oh, actually start using it!