Wireless Networks Causing Headaches For Businesses

ElvaWSJ writes "Wi-Fi was supposed to reduce complications, not create new ones. But in many offices Wi-Fi has been a headache. Like all radio signals, Wi-Fi is subject to interference. Its low power — less than even a typical cellphone — means that walls and cabinets can significantly reduce signal strength. Wi-Fi also creates networks that are more open than wired ones, raising security issues. And Wi-Fi has caused problems for virtual private networks. Some VPNs require a lot of processing power. If a wireless access point — at home, at the office, or on the road — isn't robust enough, a user often gets bumped off the connection."

Re:Um...

[YouTookMyStapler]

It really shouldn't be a surprise that a wi-fi signal gets weaker as you move away from the source. This would be the same as people saying "I had no idea that the further away from a cell tower you get the weaker the reception."

"It was almost like if you wanted to have remote access, you'd better expect to not have a good experience," says Mr. Friemann, 38 years old, who is based in Cherry Hill, N.J.

Some people are just so negative.

Re:I've always heard...

[drinkypoo]

it takes more wire to set up a good wireless network than it does to set up a wired network.

It still might be cheaper, because in many (most?) cases you pay per drop and not per foot. If you're paying for both, it still might come out cheaper.

Of course, as you probably^Walmost certainly know already, WiFi is a better fit for edge conditions than it is for every computer in your network (even if you don't count servers.)

Re:Transmitter power

[morgan_greywolf]

lets see poor transmitter power output, integrated 1/8th wave PCB antennas, microwave frequencies, $3 of electronics
gee i wonder why its crap ?

1) To keep the cost down. Even 'commercial-grade' access points use inexpensive components to help keep the costs down to the point that people can afford them. Compare the cost of ham radio -- and then consider if you would buy a WAP that had that amount tacked on the sale price.

2) Government regulation. Governments around the world regulate these 2.4 GHz-range frequencies and given the number of devices in the range, transmitter power is kept necessarily low by regulation.

3) To keep the equipment from interfering with other devices such as cellphones, 2.4Ghz-range walkie talkies, and countless other devices that use this frequency range. See #2.

Site survey

[ch-chuck]

Before rolling out a big business wireless network, the installers should do a check of existing interference, then setup a simple access point/client and check it out in different places using a spectrum analyzer [circuitcellar.com]. Just like cable techs sometimes need a cat-5 analyser to trouble wiring plant problems, the wireless tech needs an instrument to measure the rf environment.

Heck, my wireless pda loses signal while standing near the microwave popping pop corn. Some buildings, especially in industrial areas, can get lousy with interference [wikipedia.org]

Re:Supplement not Replacement

[julesh]

Wifi should be a supplement for larger areas with changing configurations (meeting rooms, conference rooms, etc) not as a replacement for a typical wired setup. Unless you plan on constantly rearranging your cubes, there's no reason to do that.

Except cash. Installing cabling can be quite expensive. A 5 person office could easily cost £500 to cable up, including health & safety inspections (which may or may not be mandatory depending on your locality, but are almost always a good idea when installing cables around employees). Wireless networking hardware for that same office might come in at £300. Savings almost certainly scale up with larger offices.

There are other reasons, too... I visited an IBM office a few years back where the employees were expected to "hot desk": they didn't have an assigned place to work, and when turning up just found a free desk anywhere and hooked in to the wireless network. They had a mobile phone base unit, so their mobile phones turned into office phones while they were in the building, etc. Management ensured there were slightly fewer convenient places to work than there were employees in the building on an average day -- encourages people to turn up early.

Re:Some buildings just aren't "Wi-Fi compatible"

[multipartmixed]

Try putting your WiFi AP in your basement, on a floor joist. If it really is the roof that's giving you grief, that might be far enough away to weaken multipathed signals out of detection.

You could also try decreasing the transmit power if you suspect multipathing. And, of course, lower the basic rate.

Re:Um...

[The_Quinn]

This is one of the reasons I am greatly anticipating Sprint's new WIMAX wireless broadband network. [gizmodo.com]

I think it will be one of those breakthroughs where you won't even realize how cool it is until you start seeing people wandering around with wireless devices that "just work", anywhere, without much thought of how or why.

WiFi isn't perfect, streaming video on .11

[maggard]

Rules of WiFi:

1. Determine needs. How many users in an area. What kind of usage?
2. Do a site plan. Where will access points be placed. How will they be networked? How will they be powered?
3. Test signal propagation. Are there competing nodes? Are there reflections/absorbers?
4. Evaluate hardware. Is the firmware stable? Are the antennas good enough? How much heat does it produce/can it take? How is it all managed?
5. Set expectationsof the IT staff, of the managers, of the users.
6. Plan for hardware failures. I anticipate a 24 month lifespan of each access point, and plan for an up to 10% failure rate in any month.
7. Monitor, both the internal networks and the general environment. Have a running watch of all access points with alerts for rogue ones, particularly dupes.

Put in dedicated services for visitors with instructions conspicuously posted in conference areas (along with sufficient power supplies.) Inform staff if they are caught using these open systems their devices will be taken away, and if they relied upon such to do their jobs they will then be unsuitable for continued employment.

Finally, consider alternatives to WiFi. There are any number of products that will carry WiFi-equivalent bandwidth over residential wiring. If youre looking to connect fixed devices without running ethernet then these are a no-hassle approach with competitive costs.

Re:Surprising!

[gen0c1de]

It sounds like the people she works for don't understand technology and just don't like wires, and to top it off i bet you they are the same people that go and by the 39.99 Netgear wifi router for there office solution. There are a lot of business owners like that so it doesn't really surprise me, and it shouldn't come down on the person head that actually installed the stuff as they may not have had any say in the decision.

A well designed system doesn't have problems

[Newer Guy]

I have designed many 2.4 gig WiFi systems that have none of these issues. First off, you have to consider the design of the area you want to use WiFi in. Lots of steel studs or concrete walls mean more access points (though I don't use AP's because routers are cheaper and can be used as APs). Generally speaking, you need an AP for every four 10x20 rooms and for every ten computers. Trying to use less AP's or more computers will create an overloaded system. Next, the quality of the AP's is paramount. As a minimum, I generally use Linksys or Buffalo equipment. Next, channel selection is important. Channels 1,6 and 11 do not overlap at all, and my experience is that channel 1 is lightly used. Channels 1.4.8 and 11 barely overlap, and can be used in bigger networks. I like to use channels 4 and 8 when I'm in an area where 1,6, and 11 are heavily used. If you use the same SSID for each AP, there will be almost seamless roaming between APs. I never use wireless repeaters-all AP's are wired back to the router. Yes it's more work, but the results are so much better! Finally, I use third party firmware on all routers, because I find it more stable then the firmware provided by the manufacturers. It also has the capability to be used for a field survey, which is useful to find any new wireless gear that's been installed lately.

Of course, it goes without saying that encryption should always be used, the tighter the better!

Bullshit

[DJCacophony]

VPNs require exactly the same amount of processing power on an access point as any other network application. The access point doesn't encrypt or decrypt anything on a VPN. All it sees are packets and frames, regardless of the application.