Reality Bytes
Most homes have G clients. For many people, it is not cost-effective to upgrade them all to N (especially draft N). So, it is my belief that the mixed mode networks, and the associated performance loss, will be unavoidable for many average homes.
For example, I have an old Dell Optiplex SX270 that is setup as a dedicated wireless G print server for my MFP color laser and MFP photo inkjet printers. G works just fine for the purpose, and I do not need N. The print server and printers are always turned on. Therefore, the G client will always be active, and will even be consuming bandwidth without my intervention (virus updates, windows updates, etc.). It is simply not practical to shut the print server down (or otherwise disable the wireless adapter) for the purpose of optimizing my network for N.
Moreover, what about consumers who are buying those increasingly popular wireless inkjet printers? Wireless printers are almost always G, aren't they? The only way to avoid a G vs N client conflict in a home network would be to either turn the printer off when using your N client or to use the printer's ethernet port and disable its wireless. The first option is not practical because it would require you to walk to the printer and turn it on every time you wanted to print. The second option defeats the purpose of buying a wireless printer altogether. What if there is no ethernet port on the printer? Then it would have to be connected to a wireless print server, and those are usually G. It seems unreasonable to buy a wireless N print server for a wireless G printer.
This line of thought certainly extends beyond just printers, but it was a good example in my home and it is consistent with what I've see in the Sunday ads from Best Buy, Circuit City and the like.
Wireless Setup by Necessity
Some of the network setups that forum members are using are pretty elaborate for the average user. I can't image that your average consumer could figure out how to set up a cable modem, two routers (one as an access point) and possibly a switch, etc. There are an awful lot of wires coiled around all this wireless equipment!
It should be simpler.
Consumer Solution to Solve the Problem
Why doesn't anyone make a single band wireless router with two radios that broadcast G and N separately at 2.4ghz so that people don't have to use two routers? Wouldn't this make sense given the horrible mixed mode performance results that occur when active G and N clients coexist? Wouldn't most consumers prefer a single router that actually works well with both G and N clients? An out-of-the box solution without a tangle of cables would be nice.
The companies who make routers certainly must be aware of their poor mixed mode performance. So, why haven't they offered the appropriate router to solve the problem? Why push single radio (non-simultaneous) or dual radio (simultaneous) dual band routers when what most people need are dual radio (simultaneous) single band routers?
Inconsistent Offerings
Instead, we are offered dual band routers that operate at 2.4ghz and 5ghz. In theory, one could run G on the 2.4ghz band and N on the 5ghz band, but this doesn't seem like an optimal solution for many reasons.
I don't want to get into a debate about 5hz, but from what I've read, I'm just not sold on 5ghz at this time. Before draft N hit the market, people were concerned mostly about wireless range AND speed. Now all of the sudden we are somehow willing to spend more on 5ghz equipment and sacrifice range for speed in the process. The whole point of a wireless router was to allow us to move laptops around the house and eliminate the need to run ethernet cables everywhere. Granted, we were sharing a broadband connection then, whereas now we are streaming media and using NAS's.
Not everybody needs dual band. I live in the country/suburbs and don't need to abandon 2.4ghz in favor of 5ghz. It's just not that crowded near me. And, when others eventually make the move to 5ghz in the masses, won't I be right where I started again, except with less wireless range (but more bandwidth)?
Ironically, the lack of range may be a blessing for those who are in congested areas. Once everybody jumps on the 5ghz bandwagon, there will probably be less interference because your router won't be detecting other networks that were once in range with 2.4ghz, but are now out of range for 5ghz. For me, I would prefer to maintain range, especially while not many users have crowded the 5ghz band.
Isn't this just the same pattern as with cordless phones?
900mhz => 2.4ghz=>5.8ghz
Those of us ahead of the technology curve keep getting something new to avoid the interference and congestion caused by the masses. Then we upgrade a few years down the road after our neighbors have caught up. Sometimes I'm tempted to set up an old 900mhz cordless phone again just to see what would happen. I bet their would be no interference, even though there once was. Of course my current cordless 5.8ghz phone experiences no interference. But that's because the signal doesn't travel as far!
But I digress....
Wireless Wants
I think many people buy dual band routers because of the following factors:
* Marketing hype and good looks compared to older models;
* They are used to getting the top of the line router, which is not necessarily a bad thing because a top of the line router will often include other features like better QoS, gigabit connection, third antenna, increased range and performance, USB print server or NAS, etc.;
* and, People are trying to future-proof their network, sometimes regardless of cost.
Wireless Needs:
If you want to sell consumers two routers, then stop making them dual band, even if it sounds better, is more flexible and more marketable. It's not flexible in a good way because a consumer who desires 5ghz probably has fundamentally different needs than a consumer who desires 2.4ghz, whether they realize it or not.
Combining the two bands into one router requires that a consumer compromise on one of the two bands. Unless somebody comes along and fixes the problem, this will always be the case in mixed mode environments, which are, unfortunately unavoidable for the average home at this time. Sure, you could just replace every G client's adapter with a new N adapter, but I have to assume that for most homes it would be cheaper to upgrade the router than to upgrade every adapter. And, because N is still draft, it would make more sense to find a router that works well today (and a year from now) than to spend even more money on upgrading adapters that will need to updated again when N is finalized. Good routers are relatively cheap. A half dozen, or more, matching adapters is not.
I think most people would be better off with single band, dual radio routers with three antennas (internal or external), gigabit ports and a USB port or two for printers or USB storage. Offer the router in a 2.4ghz and 5ghz flavor, and make it easy to configure either one as an access point only. Omit the LCD/OLED displays on the routers because the main purpose of a router is to be away from it, not staring right at it.
Make the router chassis stackable, which would probably require internal antennas on at least one of the routers. Make each router flavor look alike, so when they are stacked they looked like a purposeful system instead of a custom rig. Provide a short 3-inch ethernet patch cable so that both units can be connected neatly when stacked without excess cable.
Then, sell a matching dual-bay SATA NAS that has the same form factor as the routers and can be stacked. Put at least one USB port on the front so that a USB flash drive can be added or removed quickly. Don't forget to provide another short patch cable.
Now you have it all: dedicated G, dedicated N in 5ghz, dedicated N in 5ghz and even dedicated A (because if 2.4ghz G and N conflict, then I'd be willing to bet that 5ghz A and N will also conflict) plus all the bells and whistles and even a matching NAS option.
No more "mixed mode woes".
Most homes have G clients. For many people, it is not cost-effective to upgrade them all to N (especially draft N). So, it is my belief that the mixed mode networks, and the associated performance loss, will be unavoidable for many average homes.
For example, I have an old Dell Optiplex SX270 that is setup as a dedicated wireless G print server for my MFP color laser and MFP photo inkjet printers. G works just fine for the purpose, and I do not need N. The print server and printers are always turned on. Therefore, the G client will always be active, and will even be consuming bandwidth without my intervention (virus updates, windows updates, etc.). It is simply not practical to shut the print server down (or otherwise disable the wireless adapter) for the purpose of optimizing my network for N.
Moreover, what about consumers who are buying those increasingly popular wireless inkjet printers? Wireless printers are almost always G, aren't they? The only way to avoid a G vs N client conflict in a home network would be to either turn the printer off when using your N client or to use the printer's ethernet port and disable its wireless. The first option is not practical because it would require you to walk to the printer and turn it on every time you wanted to print. The second option defeats the purpose of buying a wireless printer altogether. What if there is no ethernet port on the printer? Then it would have to be connected to a wireless print server, and those are usually G. It seems unreasonable to buy a wireless N print server for a wireless G printer.
This line of thought certainly extends beyond just printers, but it was a good example in my home and it is consistent with what I've see in the Sunday ads from Best Buy, Circuit City and the like.
Wireless Setup by Necessity
Some of the network setups that forum members are using are pretty elaborate for the average user. I can't image that your average consumer could figure out how to set up a cable modem, two routers (one as an access point) and possibly a switch, etc. There are an awful lot of wires coiled around all this wireless equipment!
It should be simpler.
Consumer Solution to Solve the Problem
Why doesn't anyone make a single band wireless router with two radios that broadcast G and N separately at 2.4ghz so that people don't have to use two routers? Wouldn't this make sense given the horrible mixed mode performance results that occur when active G and N clients coexist? Wouldn't most consumers prefer a single router that actually works well with both G and N clients? An out-of-the box solution without a tangle of cables would be nice.
The companies who make routers certainly must be aware of their poor mixed mode performance. So, why haven't they offered the appropriate router to solve the problem? Why push single radio (non-simultaneous) or dual radio (simultaneous) dual band routers when what most people need are dual radio (simultaneous) single band routers?
Inconsistent Offerings
Instead, we are offered dual band routers that operate at 2.4ghz and 5ghz. In theory, one could run G on the 2.4ghz band and N on the 5ghz band, but this doesn't seem like an optimal solution for many reasons.
I don't want to get into a debate about 5hz, but from what I've read, I'm just not sold on 5ghz at this time. Before draft N hit the market, people were concerned mostly about wireless range AND speed. Now all of the sudden we are somehow willing to spend more on 5ghz equipment and sacrifice range for speed in the process. The whole point of a wireless router was to allow us to move laptops around the house and eliminate the need to run ethernet cables everywhere. Granted, we were sharing a broadband connection then, whereas now we are streaming media and using NAS's.
Not everybody needs dual band. I live in the country/suburbs and don't need to abandon 2.4ghz in favor of 5ghz. It's just not that crowded near me. And, when others eventually make the move to 5ghz in the masses, won't I be right where I started again, except with less wireless range (but more bandwidth)?
Ironically, the lack of range may be a blessing for those who are in congested areas. Once everybody jumps on the 5ghz bandwagon, there will probably be less interference because your router won't be detecting other networks that were once in range with 2.4ghz, but are now out of range for 5ghz. For me, I would prefer to maintain range, especially while not many users have crowded the 5ghz band.
Isn't this just the same pattern as with cordless phones?
900mhz => 2.4ghz=>5.8ghz
Those of us ahead of the technology curve keep getting something new to avoid the interference and congestion caused by the masses. Then we upgrade a few years down the road after our neighbors have caught up. Sometimes I'm tempted to set up an old 900mhz cordless phone again just to see what would happen. I bet their would be no interference, even though there once was. Of course my current cordless 5.8ghz phone experiences no interference. But that's because the signal doesn't travel as far!
But I digress....
Wireless Wants
I think many people buy dual band routers because of the following factors:
* Marketing hype and good looks compared to older models;
* They are used to getting the top of the line router, which is not necessarily a bad thing because a top of the line router will often include other features like better QoS, gigabit connection, third antenna, increased range and performance, USB print server or NAS, etc.;
* and, People are trying to future-proof their network, sometimes regardless of cost.
Wireless Needs:
If you want to sell consumers two routers, then stop making them dual band, even if it sounds better, is more flexible and more marketable. It's not flexible in a good way because a consumer who desires 5ghz probably has fundamentally different needs than a consumer who desires 2.4ghz, whether they realize it or not.
Combining the two bands into one router requires that a consumer compromise on one of the two bands. Unless somebody comes along and fixes the problem, this will always be the case in mixed mode environments, which are, unfortunately unavoidable for the average home at this time. Sure, you could just replace every G client's adapter with a new N adapter, but I have to assume that for most homes it would be cheaper to upgrade the router than to upgrade every adapter. And, because N is still draft, it would make more sense to find a router that works well today (and a year from now) than to spend even more money on upgrading adapters that will need to updated again when N is finalized. Good routers are relatively cheap. A half dozen, or more, matching adapters is not.
I think most people would be better off with single band, dual radio routers with three antennas (internal or external), gigabit ports and a USB port or two for printers or USB storage. Offer the router in a 2.4ghz and 5ghz flavor, and make it easy to configure either one as an access point only. Omit the LCD/OLED displays on the routers because the main purpose of a router is to be away from it, not staring right at it.
Make the router chassis stackable, which would probably require internal antennas on at least one of the routers. Make each router flavor look alike, so when they are stacked they looked like a purposeful system instead of a custom rig. Provide a short 3-inch ethernet patch cable so that both units can be connected neatly when stacked without excess cable.
Then, sell a matching dual-bay SATA NAS that has the same form factor as the routers and can be stacked. Put at least one USB port on the front so that a USB flash drive can be added or removed quickly. Don't forget to provide another short patch cable.
Now you have it all: dedicated G, dedicated N in 5ghz, dedicated N in 5ghz and even dedicated A (because if 2.4ghz G and N conflict, then I'd be willing to bet that 5ghz A and N will also conflict) plus all the bells and whistles and even a matching NAS option.
No more "mixed mode woes".
Last edited by a moderator:
