802.11g Demonstrates White Lies of Wi-Fi
Wireless Supersite Editor Ross Rubin calls on the wireless industry to start labeling gear with actual capabilities the way monitor and hard disk companies do.
When is a 17-inch monitor not a 17-inch monitor or a 30GB hard disk not a 30GB hard disk? When you actually use them. Following the outcry over misleading vendor statistics, monitor and hard disk manufacturers began modifying their measurement of screen size and hard disk capacity to include such qualifiers as "usable" screen space and "formatted" capacity. The move was a positive one because it allows users to compare apples to apples. However, this truth in advertising doesnt exist in the land of wireless networks, where a consumer or hapless small business owner would be left in a quandary over which networks can travel at which speedsthat is, once theyve figured out the other pressing issues of compatibility and range. Take 802.11b, which is touted as providing 11 Mbits per second. However, its typical maximum throughput is closer to 4 or 5 Mbps.
Like other white lies, ones about bandwidth tend to spiral and grow. Even larger gaps exist between the theoretical and stated throughputs of 802.11a and 802.11g. While both are rated at exactly the same speed of 54 Mbps, youll be lucky to see even half of that, and only with 802.11a. The real-world throughput of 802.11g is even slower. However, vendors are reporting that, while neither high-speed Wi-Fi variant can match the range of 802.11b, 802.11g can do more with fewer access points. This is likely due to its better penetration of walls.