Conclusion
I don’t need to sell you on how the world is moving to being video-centric. If you’ve stuck with us this far, it’s probably because you see the writing on the wall and know that you’re either going to have to string Ethernet cabling through your walls or else find some sort of wireless solution for your present and future video needs. Moreover, CAT5e or CAT6 only get you so far. The day when most of us have more video-oriented devices in our pockets than on our desks and walls can’t be far off. Woe to the hapless consumer who doesn’t have a wireless backbone up to the task of distributing streams wherever needed.
I don’t want you to walk away from this article with the single message: “Ruckus rocks!” That’s not the point. What we’ve seen here is that on-chip beamforming, at least in the way that Cisco has implemented it on the 1142, barely has any effect. No wonder the feature arrives disabled today. However, beamforming in principal can have a tremendous effect. Ruckus clearly shows that all 802.11n up to present has merely been a preface. This is the next level, and so far there’s only one company standing on it.
My hope is that this article will raise some eyebrows and spur the industry to advance. With the 1142, Cisco largely relied on existing designs. The level of innovation was minimal, and it shows. We need more companies like Ruckus willing to invest two or three years into rethinking the problem and taking wireless communications forward in multiples of performance, not single-digit gains. Yes, there will be interoperability wars. Yes, the pricing will be double what you pay for non-beamforming equivalents. But in return, we’ll be able to do and enjoy things with our wireless LANs that simply can’t be done today.
- beamforming ,
- wifi ,
- ruckus
first post?!?!?!
No, REAL first, dipshit.
I don't think it's a problem that this is really only enterprise-class hardware. The very fact that there's an tenna sensitivity that can cripple the entire system shows that for Joe Apefist this is too much trouble for its own worth.
But, the tech shows amazing potential and given some tweaking time, I'm sure it will become more robust and more economical and will rapidly see adoption at home.
Personally I can't wait!
As a crude guide if you want 10dB gain over omnidirectional (10x the power in some direction) then you need to have 10 antenae to cover all directions. It works but with an obvious price in money and size, and a more subtle one in intereference for/from other transmitters unlucky enough to be in the chosen direction.
Personally I'd prefer multiple omni basestations and just focus on minimising distance. Inverse square law is your friend.
Personally I'd prefer multiple omni basestations and just focus on minimising distance. Inverse square law is your friend.
:-)
Yeh totally why punch through 4 walls when you can punch through 2. Plus you can site access points/ repeaters in free space away from mwave reflective objects.
Also note that much more important to enterprise wireless LANs is NOT the raw AP to single client thoughput that so many of these gearhead tests do. We are constantly faced with offering stable and usable wifi for dozens to hundreds of concurrent users in crowded areas (conference centers, auditoriums....) Like any shared medium, Wifi suffers from co-channel interference and overly RF loud clients.
One BIG advantage that you will see enterprise vendors work towards is NOT how much speed to any one client you can get, but how much Reduced interference beamforming will allow to neighboring wireless APs in the same ESS. The net result is that all users see benefit of solid and stable wireless connectivity.