Cisco reshuffles its wireless deck

[DaveMcLain]

New Linksys Router Numbers

A while ago I saw an article where Cisco is going to relabel the Linksys router lineup with numbers like E2000, E3000 etc. I believe that they are all current existing models simply with new designations is that true? I wonder if they are going to drop some of those models like the WRT54G2, WRT120N and WRT400N?

 

[thiggins]

The announcement is out today. I'll have an article up shortly.

 

[thiggins]

Cisco today announced a revamp of its consumer wireless router line that includes the first Cisco-only branded products.
http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wireless/wireless-news/31110-cisco-shuffles-its-wireless-deck

 

[saturation]

If these are truly repacked versions of the WRT equivalent in more attractive cases, but without fundamentally changing its user experience, I'm not sure how Linksys-Cisco will increase its market share when mommy and baby face the 3.5 star reviews given on Amazon.com. Given some AP-routers can achieve 4-4.5 star ratings, Apple and Dlink come to mind in the same number of reviews, 200+, why settle for less? 3.5 stars isn't bad, but its the tech neophytes who suffer the most when faced with just simple level of tech troubles.

I can only guess the stock of extant color shelled cases has been used up, a reorder was made, so why not a simple color change that could tap an unharvested area technological naivete?

 

[slyck]

Why the lack of external antennas on routers nowadays??? The E2100L is the only model shown that has it, but sadly it lacks Gigabit Ethernet, which happens to be the MAJOR shortcoming of so many N routers. PATHETIC!!!

All mid to high priced routers should have GigE. I've been waiting years for an N router, guess I'll keep waiting. Haven't seen a decent one yet(with external antenna).

 

[DaveMcLain]

From what I've seen in my own personal experience and from what I've read if you're using the stock antennas there is not any advantage to having them be external or internal. For instance here at home I replaced a D-Link DIR655 with a Linksys WRT320N and I see no difference in the coverage here in my home. Both routers were set up in exactly the same location and both perform equally well with wireless.

Reading some of the descriptions has made me wonder if a guest zone is some new feature on stock Linksys firmware.

 

[mhw]

Cisco told me that the rest of the WRT models, including G-only products, will be sold until inventory is exhausted.

Does that mean they'll cut out the trusty old WRT54GL?

 

[thiggins]

Does that mean they'll cut out the trusty old WRT54GL?

If Cisco means what it says, yes.

 

[thiggins]

Reading some of the descriptions has made me wonder if a guest zone is some new feature on stock Linksys firmware.

I'll check w/ Cisco.

I second your observation regarding internal vs. external antennas. Only advantage to external, connectorized antennas is the ability to upgrade to higher gain antennas.

 

[thiggins]

Cisco confirms that the E series has the Guest access feature.

 

[rlcronin]

From what I've seen in my own personal experience and from what I've read if you're using the stock antennas there is not any advantage to having them be external or internal. For instance here at home I replaced a D-Link DIR655 with a Linksys WRT320N and I see no difference in the coverage here in my home. Both routers were set up in exactly the same location and both perform equally well with wireless.

Reading some of the descriptions has made me wonder if a guest zone is some new feature on stock Linksys firmware.

I put a Dlink 1522 wireless bridge (with no external antennas) where I had an SMC WEB-N prior (which has 3 external antennas) and it got horrible reception. So at least in my experience, external antennas made a huge difference (and as a result I will not consider any wireless router or bridge that does not have external antennas).

 

[thiggins]

I put a Dlink 1522 wireless bridge (with no external antennas) where I had an SMC WEB-N prior (which has 3 external antennas) and it got horrible reception. So at least in my experience, external antennas made a huge difference (and as a result I will not consider any wireless router or bridge that does not have external antennas).

Glad the swap worked out for you. But that's not really a valid experiment of whether internal vs. external antennas alone make a difference.

 

[stevech]

From what I've read, the Cisco "Valet" series try to simplify the user experience so that non-geeks can actually get router and WiFi working. I suspect that this is best done with an all-Cisco/Linksys Valet set of gear, much like Buffalo did long ago with largely automated setup. But perhaps Cisco/Linksys has taken it to the next level.

 

[stevech]

Glad the swap worked out for you. But that's not really a valid experiment of whether internal vs. external antennas alone make a difference.

Methinks that a *real* 11n MIMO router with combinational diversity in 40MHz (rather than switched diversity in 20MHz as has prevailed), requires too many ugly antennas. And costly antennas.

So they use inferior internal antennas, but with spiffy 11n full MIMO. Maybe. So it comes out about a wash.

Kind of like 11b versus 11g in range: Common chipsets for 11b (DSSS) were about 100mW RMS power. For 11g (OFDM) backed off from 100mW by about 5dB due to the higher peak to average ratio. So the 6dB or so advantage of OFDM was a wash with the lower power due to the backoff. The backoff was needed to avoid a steep price hike for a better power amplifier for OFDM. Without the backoff, the transmitted OFDM signal had too much distortion for a good bit error rate (and flunked WiFi Assoc. "Rho" criteria).

 

[thiggins]

From what I've read, the Cisco "Valet" series try to simplify the user experience so that non-geeks can actually get router and WiFi working. I suspect that this is best done with an all-Cisco/Linksys Valet set of gear, much like Buffalo did long ago with largely automated setup. But perhaps Cisco/Linksys has taken it to the next level.

Nope. The USB key worked fine with a wired and Intel 5300 wireless connection from XP and Win 7 machines.

 

[Enki42]

I'll check w/ Cisco.

I second your observation regarding internal vs. external antennas. Only advantage to external, connectorized antennas is the ability to upgrade to higher gain antennas.

Some of us like the ability to upgrade and/or add reflectors to existing antenna. The reason I want external antennas is so I can replace them with something better.

The internal antennas are what, 1/8th wavelength antennas? I know then don't put 40.5mm antennas in there (1/2 wavelength) or make use of more advanced antenna designs that take even more space like:
http://www.rason.org/Projects/collant/collant.htm
http://wireless.gumph.org/articles/homemadeomni.html
(would come out to 14" scaled to 2.4GHz)



I think N makes this slightly harder to do well because MIMO means they need to be arranged properly as all the antennas are used at the same time now.

 

[saturation]

From what I've read, the Cisco "Valet" series try to simplify the user experience so that non-geeks can actually get router and WiFi working. I suspect that this is best done with an all-Cisco/Linksys Valet set of gear, much like Buffalo did long ago with largely automated setup. But perhaps Cisco/Linksys has taken it to the next level.

From SNB initial review, it seems the Valet series isn't any different from the WRT hardware except for the case, so not sure how the user experience will suddenly improve. Hopefully its better firmware.

 

[Enki42]

If they are all the same hardware I wonder if the firmware is interchangable. Also will the new E series add functionality not in the WRT series?

 

[thiggins]

I know then don't put 40.5mm antennas in there (1/2 wavelength) or make use of more advanced antenna designs that take even more space like:
http://www.rason.org/Projects/collant/collant.htm
http://wireless.gumph.org/articles/homemadeomni.html
(would come out to 14" scaled to 2.4GHz)

Everything costs money. Manfs don't put in any more than they need to because most people buy based on price.

 

[thiggins]

From SNB initial review, it seems the Valet series isn't any different from the WRT hardware except for the case, so not sure how the user experience will suddenly improve. Hopefully its better firmware.

Firmware should be essentially the same. But might be jiggered to prevent using WRT stuff and vice-versa.

Only difference I know of is addition of guest access. But that might already be in latest WRT-series routers. Anyone confirm/dispute that?