[mythtv-users] Wireless Bridges and "Thinking it's wired"

[Brian Wood]

On Thursday 04 February 2010 08:11:33 am Travis Tabbal wrote:

> 
> That's pretty much what I was getting at. And even if it works now, there's
> nothing preventing someone from setting up another WiFi network next door
> and causing just enough interference to mess up your video streams.

Or a microwave oven, cordless phone, or even a "Mister Microphone" for their 
kids.

> It's
> great for internet access and such, but for sending 20Mbps HD video streams
> where packet loss is not acceptable, not so much. And if you have more than
> one such stream to send.......
> 

Most people simply do not understand the rules under which WiFi operates, they 
assume that if they purchase a product it will operate as advertised. They 
simply do not read, or understand, "must accept any interference, including 
that which results in undesired operation".

Most consumers are not capable of diagnosing, or even noticing, the horribly 
slow rates they get with WiFi, if they don't see any error messages they 
assume things are working. The system was designed to hide retransmits and 
waits from the users.

At present 802.11a is "better", but more expensive and harder to find, 
certainly not marketed to consumers in the way that b/g/n is.

The industry certainly doesn't help much, in their relentless pursuit of 
profits many were selling "802.11n" products when no such standard existed, 
hiding behind print so fine that most lawyers would reject it (the "Enron 
Miniscule" font).

The term "frequency coordination" means nothing to WiFi users. I suspect a lot 
of ISPs push WiFi because they realize it will take a lot of load off their 
backbones, as the aggregate rates drop from what they were when everyone used 
copper.

At least even the obtainable rates with WiFi are faster than most consumer 
"broadband" connections, as those speeds get faster with DOCSYS3 and FIOS, the 
bottlenecks will become more obvious even to non video users.