TRENDnet announces upcoming pre-n gear
By Evan Blass 
posted Jun 19th 2006 10:55PM
posted Jun 19th 2006 10:55PM
All of the controversy, delays, and performance concerns surrounding the IEEE's notorious pre-802.11n wireless networking spec haven't deterred TRENDnet from being the latest to announce a new family of products based on the non-final version of the MIMO-powered, next-gen WiFi standard. As you'll recall, there's been no small amount of concern that pre-n gear won't play nicely with legacy 802.11a/b/g equipment, which is why TRENDnet goes it out of its way to stress the "good neighbor behavior" exhibited by its WPA and SPI-protected TEW-631BRP router and TEW-621PC PC card -- both of which use Atheros' XSPAN technology to supposedly ensure interoperability in mixed-network environments. TRENDnet promises real-world speeds of between 150Mbps and 180Mbps , which in theory should be enough to stream around a little HD content and download some torrents while you're chatting on your wireless VoIP handset about that great post you're reading on Engadget. Both new products, along with a $150 access point and a $100 PCI adapter, are scheduled to ship on July 25th, with the router priced at $130 and the card going for an even $100.
I'm sorry, but I'm sick of this pre-N crap. The fact that it destroys legacy networks in the vicinity shows just how rigorous the FCC's testing is, and will undoubtedly create a huge backlash against the pre-N gear when (and IF) the N standard ever becomes certified.
Here's a question I haven't heard asked: WHY DO WE NEED IT?
It doesn't increase the range much, just the throughput. It will use more battery power and cause your devices to need larger batteries/more charges. The pre-N gear is creating a very confusing marketplace for the average consumer; the fact that different vendors' pre-N gear does not interoperate is not helping. None of this is good.
The 802.11G spec was a perfect example of what this type of thing should be: a new protocol, interoperable and backwards compatible with existing equipment, providing better throughput at all ranges. It was evolutionary, not revolutionary - but that is what the wireless world needs.
I think the N spec has no place in the marketplace. At the ranges it would allow the streaming of high resolution video, it's cheaper to buy a cable and connect the components. If you're looking to transfer large files, you should be on a wired LAN anyway. Broadband internet has just hit 20Mb/s over fiber in select places - which G can deliver with 2x overhead. At longer ranges N has no real advantage on the G spec (see TomsHardware article). 54Mb/s is half the speed of a 100Mb wired LAN, and very few people have gigabit switches - so most N gear will be limited to 100Mb performance regardless. Even if my other concerns were addressed, this is the largest problem - N represents a ~2x increase over G, wheras G was a 5x increase over B (with far fewer problems in implementation). Selling N gear to people who already have G networks should be a tough sell - there is just no justification for the wireless speed right now. That isn't to say there won't ever be - just that it seems the WiFi Alliance has become far less concerned with legacy gear in this revision.
Perhaps the WiFi Alliance will prove me wrong, but so far I don't have much hope. I sure won't be buying N gear anytime soon.
You misunderstand the purpose of FCC testing - it only assures that the emissions characteristics of the radio signal fall within the technical requirements of the frequencies on which a product operates. This assures that it will not interfere with equipment operating on other frequencies.
There is no body that can require you to conform to the 802.11 standard, and you're free to use those frequencies any way you like so long as you conform to the emissions standards.
I also have to disagree that 11g was a good example - it maintains backwards compatibility by pretty much giving up all the enhancements when 11b equipment is in the area.
The WiFi Alliance is a *marketing* group, I don't care what they claim to be and to give marketers rein over technical issues is going to disappoint everybody.
Finally, in your last paragraph you mention an article that can't exist - I think you mean a review of the pre-N crud that is shipping. Since the 11n standard was just sent back to the drawing board for all practical purposes, no one can claim to have tested it.
Yeah, it's a review of the pre-N crud - which you and I know is crud - but the general populace doesn't know that, and it is this crud that will shape their impressions.
While G does give up the enhancements to use backwards compatability, I would maintain that expecting anything more would be unreasonable. Getting extra speed from gear not designed for it (even if possible) could harm the older equipment; the very fact that it can seamlessly switch between new and old modes and have co-existing networks on adjacent channels is why I think it is a good example. People want their gear to just work; G gives them that.
Granted, we don't know much about the final N spec. But I think it will be DoA unless the pre-N vendors clean up their acts.
I'd like to hear from anyone who really NEEDS the extra bandwidth N purportedly has to offer the situation in which they really have use for it and why; if any readers can help me out here, please do.
i love this new gear. i already have it installed in my office. as a printer, when i send jobs to our print server, they can reach HUGE file sizes of they contain hi-def picstures. sometimes getting to 30 - 40 GB! we run so many laptops that it is not practical to connect everyone with a cable. this is great tech and workd perfectly with us.
Response (not an attack) to: 'james nahon'
"...sometimes getting to 30 - 40 GB! we run so many laptops that it is not practical to connect everyone with a cable."
You actually send THOSE 30 - 40 GB files over your wifi network, from said Laptops ? While I'm not saying this isn't true, and I'm glad you're happy with your solution, I find it difficult to believe.
If you have so many laptops that you can't wire them up and they are sending files THAT large (particulalry if concurrently), NONE of them could possibly be transmitting at full speed, as with any wireless technology, the air acts a great big HUB. Which of course means your total throughput is shared across the airspace. Not to mention the fact that thus far, even the best gear from 'a' to 'Pre-n' has never managed to deliver it's full theoretical bandwidth.
Now it's true, I don't know which brand or model gear you're running, but I find it hard to believe whatever it is is constantly providing service comparable or superior to cat5e with 100mb+ switches. And at that, I'm going to guess that your printer is hooked to a wired network, so any transmission to it is still *probably* only at most 100mbps (true though, you could have one that's gigabit enabled...).
Bottom line of course is whether or not you're happy with your purchase. Sounds like you are, so as I said, I'm glad, and I'm not trying to beat up on ya. But I think your success/satisfation will probably be fairly unique for a while yet. Given the 'Air-is-a-hub' factor, coupled with the instability of the N and Pre-N markets, I think most people would do better figuring out a way to make a wired solution work if they've got large transfer needs similar to yours. And if they just need basic connectivity, G gear would be a much better investment (certainly a safer 'bet' at this point).
But, on the plus side, by using semi-proprietary technology you have put an extra layer of obfuscation on your transmissions, and thus an extra layer of security :).
TRENDnet? Please. I inherited a network that had a lot of their stuff on it, NONE of it lasted more than a year. I'd rather use tin cans and string.