"seaweedsteve" <seaweedsteve@gmail.com> hath wroth:

> Well, I suppose the batch of misstatements on that site actually
>helped us understand more thoroughly as you guys took apart the worst
>ones...

It's fairly easy to tell if someone is clueless about wireless. They
tend to leave off the necessary qualifiers. For example, if someone
said "802.11b has more range than 802.11g", that would be baloney
because they didn't specify at what speed(s) and at what BER (bit
error rate). BER is the reference level used to measure receiver
sensitivity. More specifically:

Wrong:
1. 802.11b has more range than 802.11g.
2. 802.11g goes faster than 802.11b.
3. 802.11g is "better" than 802.11b.

Right:
1. For equal tx power levels, speeds, and bit error rates,
802.11g goes farther than 802.11b mostly because the receiver
sensitivity for a given speed is better.

2. For equal tx power levels, speeds, and test condiditions,
802.11g is "better" than 802.11b because it is more immune to
reflections and intereference.

Incidentally, there seems to be a rather odd misuse of the "b" letter
suffice. 802.11 (no suffix) is strictly 1 and 2 Mbit/sec[1]. 802.11b
added 5.5 and 11Mbits/sec. 802.11g added 6, 9, 12 ... 54Mbits/sec.
When someone is mumbling about the slower 1 and 2Mbit/sec connections,
it really should be 802.11, not 802.11b.

[1] Older Breezecom FHSS radios would also do 3Mbit/sec.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558