Confusing Wi-Fi Labeling Should be a Federal Offense?

[thiggins]

http://7signal.com/blog/confusing-wi-fi-labeling-should-be-a-federal-offense/

Discuss.

 

[L&LD]

The more knowledge a consumer has of any product from a toaster to a home, the better their chance of getting what they want.

Everything in between being 'ripped off' to getting exactly what they wanted is called experience.

As the article points out, 'buyer beware'. This hasn't changed for thousands of years.

 

[BeachBum]

Yes, do your homework. The last thing we want is the Gov't making more laws...

 

[netwrks]

Sadly, the average consumer does not have a clue about what they are getting themselves into, whether it be a phone, laptop/desktop, a printer, a router, extender, or some other whiz-bang piece of tech.. They just want what their friends have, because it's cool.

Or, they want the latest bleeding edge tech, that's still dripping wet, and full of problems.. Then they hit the forums screaming, the stuff is crap and it doesn't work, and who should I sue?! Do your home work, but understand the tech you want to use, (if it's a fit for you) by asking questions, and doing research. RTFM.. And, certainly, buyer beware.

 

[pete y testing]

i do tend to agree in the terms of laptop specs that its near impossible to find the wifi max rates on the blurb , this prob also applies to smaller appliances line phones and media players etc and this should be cleared up but how its done is another matter all together and what is indicated on the packaging is another

do they advertise the max rates for both bands like routers do and you now get a 1200M max device and wouldn't that just also confuse buyers would say why cant my laptop do 1200M

do you give the number of bands and the spectral streams and the MSC index eg dual band 2 x 2 msc 14

we have 3 different buying groups when it comes to tech ,

those that know nothing and totally rely on the advertising and blurb but wouldnt know what they are reading if its in black and white anyway and usually dont need the tech anyway

those the know enough to be dangerous and ignore the advertising and blurb and buy the product thinking its got what they need then complain when it hasnt

those that know that you do your homework before buying anything and make sure its got what you want

----------------

for me its the middle group thats the issue and no matter how and where you put the detail it will ether never be enough or they missed it or they just believed it had what they wanted

forcing regulations on the industry just because this group are to lazy to do their homework and or believe they know better is a fix for fools imho and will resolve little apart from prob making the products more expensive

 

[sfx2000]

A good example below:

Seem vendor name - AC3200 - which is actually N450* + AC1300 rated device

* N450 as TurboQAM is non-standard and proprietary... and having the second AC1300 class radio doesn't make things any faster for an AC1300 or AC1700 class client...

 

[RMerlin]

The problem is, how much information can you put inside a label? Should the label also state the number of CPU cores, whether it has Hyperthreading or VT-d support, what revision of OpenGL and DirectX the video module supports?

"Wi-Fi Max Data Rate of 150Mb/s on a 40MHz channel" isn't very helpful either, as it doesn't state on which band. And the max data rate is different on each band, so you'd have to put at least twice as much information to make it actually useful.

I think what they should do is list the exact part number of each included components. For example, "Intel Centrino 8265AC", and leave it to the shopper to obtain the actual capacity/performance information (something either the salesman or a web search would provide). Just like they already do with the CPU or the video module. Trying to put on a label which bands are supported, how many streams, whether it supports MIMO, MU-MIMO, Wake On Wireless LAN, etc... would make it unmanageable at the labeling level.

 

[thiggins]

I think the current router class system is simple enough, i.e. AC1900, N300, etc.

All that's needed on the box is a link (QR code) to an explainer article from a trusted industry source.

More seriously, smartphone manufacturers are the worst when it comes to Wi-Fi specs for their products.

 

[mstombs]

My first wireless router was a Linksys WRT54GS v1.1 was marketed as Speedbooster 125 Mb/s at the time, which sounds great compared to the 100Mb/s Ethernet standard, but was a complete falsehood for wireless G even with proprietary Broadcom Afterburner technology. The maximum data rate was never more than 33Mb/s in one direction, wireless is still fundamentally half-duplex. Good job I bought it for its open-source hackability 8MB flash, 32MB ram at the time!

Marketing values for wireless have always been unachievable in real use, with errors/retries/overheads - on the other hand wired Ethernet is understated - you can get close to 100Mb/s simultaneously in both directions on 100Mbps wired Ethernet and Gigabit Ethernet is 1000Mbps full duplex faster than anything I have to test it!

Similar wild claims are usb speeds, anything over 11Mbps is usb2, but there is also high speed and full speed and up-to 480Mbps claimed but never realized!

 

[RMerlin]

I think the current router class system is simple enough, i.e. AC1900, N300, etc.

It's indeed a simple classification system, and it works fairly well for routers (at least as a basic classification system - end-user research still needed to go beyond that speed specification). But it might not work as well with clients right now, where you have a larger portion of them still sporting single band support. I could see an N300 client being either single-band 300 or dual band 150 Mbps per band.

The first step would be for single band interfaces to die. Manufacturers should not sell anything that's below dual band, N300 class. It's 2016, FFS, and this specs bump would add, what, 2-4$ to the BOM perhaps? So once they all start shipping clients that are from the same era as the router class system, you can start matching them together by also advertising what class your wireless client uses. This would allow a customer to buy both the router and the laptop that matches the same class. They wouldn't even need to know any advanced details, they would just know that they have something that would run at its full capable speed.

 

[pete y testing]

by also advertising what class your wireless client uses.

but isnt that in its self ambiguous , lets say they are 750M class , buyer thinks it will do that speed , classes would be better eg 300M + 450M etc as just saying its b/g/n/ac means ac can be anything from 150M to 2156M , its certainly not one the manufactures seem interested in resolving as the still struggle to put the right into on a router box and something i cant see being fixed anytime soon

 

[sfx2000]

I think the current router class system is simple enough, i.e. AC1900, N300, etc.

All that's needed on the box is a link (QR code) to an explainer article from a trusted industry source.

More seriously, smartphone manufacturers are the worst when it comes to Wi-Fi specs for their products.

I don't know if there is a good way - obviously the OEM's want to be able to get customer attention (hence the ever rising numbers), but it can lead to missed expectations...

Consider Joe Six-Pack, just upgrading from his old laptop that had a B11/G54 single band adapter - walking thru the big box store, he spots a shiny new Dell Inspiron 3000 (nice computer BTW), with 802.11n support (Dell 1705 single-band/single stream adapter, N72 at best on a 2.4GHz narrow channel) - so he takes it home, his N300 Router/AP isn't quite cutting the mustard any more, so he goes back to BuyNLarge, and gets up sold into a shiny new AC5300 router (bigger numbers, better performance right??), takes it home, and finds that it's no different than what he already has...

Joe ain't very happy now... and that shiny AC5300 Router/AP boomerangs back for a customer return.

I know there's no easy answer - Do we call the AC5300 as what it's max possible rate could be, e.g. AC2165 - but even that number doesn't really mean much these days...

 

[sfx2000]

From another thread currently running...

"I'm searching for the best priced RT-AC88u which is the 3100, confusing because theres an AC 3200."

Bigger numbers aren't necessarily better numbers...

 

[woe_and_fury]

From another thread currently running...

"I'm searching for the best priced RT-AC88u which is the 3100, confusing because theres an AC 3200."

Bigger numbers aren't necessarily better numbers...

Yes I had to check Asus website to get a better understanding and I'm not retarded, maybe tier 1 monkey

 

[sfx2000]

Yes I had to check Asus website to get a better understanding and I'm not retarded, maybe tier 1 monkey

No, you are not a tier 1 monkey - but it's a good case-study why current Vendor WiFi ratings are terribly wrong...

Apologies for quoting you out of context...

six

 

[woe_and_fury]

No, you are not a tier 1 monkey - but it's a good case-study why current Vendor WiFi ratings are terribly wrong...

Apologies for quoting you out of context...

six

Non taken. We even found out there's two version of the 3100/rt88 one with 4more wan ports lol

 

[thiggins]

The WiFi classing system isn't perfect and refers to only one aspect of a WiFi router's value proposition. Also not perfect or a direct indication of router performance is # of processor cores and clock rate or RAM/Flash capacity.

That's why testing and reviews are done and there is no substitute for informed consumers.

Wi-Fi is a technology that's a victim of its own success. In the long term, Wi-Fi has to evolve to operate more like cellular, where the network is in charge, not the device and the user decision tree moves to features that are more understandable to the average consumer.

 

[woe_and_fury]

The WiFi classing system isn't perfect and refers to only one aspect of a WiFi router's value proposition. Also not perfect or a direct indication of router performance is # of processor cores and clock rate or RAM/Flash capacity.

That's why testing and reviews are done and there is no substitute for informed consumers.

Wi-Fi is a technology that's a victim of its own success. In the long term, Wi-Fi has to evolve to operate more like cellular, where the network is in charge, not the device and the user decision tree moves to features that are more understandable to the average consumer.

Like PC building I don't understand why we can't make a wifi router. Micro ATX, add some RAM and a ultra eff. CPU, add some attennas in the back and call it a day....

 

[woe_and_fury]

http://www.cnet.com/products/asus-rt-ac88u-router/

The writer there also agrees with you especially with the introduction of AC. A little bit down the article he also brings up a point that the bands are added it sounds fast but your device only can connect to one band at a time anyways...

D-link 3150 lol

I thought y'all might get a good chuckle

 

[stevech]

re WiFi air link bit rates advertised versus net yield versus ISP's speed ... is a main reason most consumers over-spend.
And the vendors know what their deception is, but $$$ prevails.