802.11a - Is anyone using it?

Is anyone using 802.11a? My 802.11b network is getting me down. For anything other than browsing the web or network printing, it sucks. Way too slow. I was thinking of adding an 802.11a AP to my network.

I was also looking at this but up to 14Mbps excites me very little.

I was also looking at this but up to 14Mbps excites me very little.

That's shocking!

(sorry, couldn't resist! )

Asoka is using a chipset from this company. It was odd seeing them make the RioReceiver an example of a home networking product. I doubt very many visitors to that site would recognize what the RioReceiver is.

The graphic towards the top of the site is dynamic. You may have to refresh to see the receiver.

I don't personally own and 802.11a equipment (yet), but I have been on a network that had one of these and it worked quite well. A friend of mine had a 802.11a card in his laptop, and the speed difference was very obvious. Still, for speed, nothing beats being wired (again, yet).

What do you consider slow? like what are you averaging on downloads in kbps?

When I rip a CD, transferring the MP3s to my music server is painfully slow. True 10Mbps over cat5 is at least twice as fast and more reliable. After reading the manual for the powerline stuff, it seems like an OK option. Plus it would be much cheaper.

Yeah, that thing is cool. Very expensive though.

Do I remeber correctly that you need to register with the FCC to run 802.11a?

I've never heard this. I probably won't adopt 802.11a until Orinoco comes out with a new pcmcia card. Their stuff is stable (though pricey), and most of their access points simply use the pcmcia cards (upgradable).

Greg

802.11g is my migration path. I still need 802.11b access for many things, so switching to a at home would be costly. Where as g is backwards compatible, so my card will work fine at home and work.

Both a and g are 54mbps, but a made it out quicker.

Thanks for the heads-up on 802.11g. I would tend to go with whichever is cheaper. If I were to get 802.11a, I would keep my 802.11b access point running for backward compatibility. 802.11g would only benfit me by having one less geeky box. I actually prefer having as many geeky boxes as possible.

If I do go with a faster wireless, I have a bunch of devices that will still have to run on 802.11b. I cannot see any 802.11a-to-ethernet bridges on the market. 3 of the powerline bridges at $89 a piece (cheap) would cover almost every device in my apartment. The only one to remain wireless would be my laptop and 802.11b is fine for that.

The powerline suff keeps looking great because I have more devices with ethernet ports than cardbus or PCI slots. However, the chart below from this PC Magazine article is keeping me from taking the plunge.

AFAIK that only applies to using an external, high-gain antenna for reaching long distances, and not to equipment being used within a building. Of course, I could be wrong.

that's because the 802.11b marketing is deceptive. it's 11mbit, but that's full duplex, you actualy only get 5.5mbit each way. or around 650kbytes/sec.

also, it depends on your signal strength. if you are far-out, it will down-train to 2mbit mode.