Never say never... Where I work we use wireless to connect a building that don't have tunnel access and I think the networking group was telling us that they are doing point-to-point wireless at Gigabit speeds. Think Tsunami. I realize this is a p-t-p wireless bridge and roaming isdifferent but still it is wireless and I'm pretty sure it's gigabit... Oh and I'm also pretty sure it cost just a 'tad' more than Airport cards. But a p-t-p gigabit >7 mile wireless bridge is still pretty effing cool.
As for 802.11a I agree the speed is nice but from what I've read so far the signal doesn't travel indoors (walls/floors etc) nearly as well 802.11b and I too think 802.11g might be a much better bet.
That is called a point to point T1 and the connection is line of sight with a narrow operating window. THERE CAN NOT BE ANY OBSICLES! This will not penetrate buildings or trees. It is also rather expensive. The narrow window means that you must be downrange from the antenna to recieve a signal, If you leave its target box, you get nothing.
Airport is suppose to be a Local Area Network. It is omnidirectional. You can however make a point to point connection at up to 20 Miles with Airport if you follow the techniques described at
<a href="http://www.wirelessanarchy.com"; target="_blank">Wireless Anarchy</a> You may want to hire a HAM operator to help you set up the antenna. The therories are a little more than beginners can grasp.
I doubt that Apple would use 802.11a Not enought benefit in supporting it. Backward compatability alone is enough of a reason not to use it. they have invested much money and mindshare in 2.4Ghz bandwidth. Id say that right now Apple is trying to figure out how to make airport cards speak Bluetooth. Basestations don't really need to speak bluetooth, But, The cards in the machines should.
Comments
<strong>
Never say never... Where I work we use wireless to connect a building that don't have tunnel access and I think the networking group was telling us that they are doing point-to-point wireless at Gigabit speeds. Think Tsunami. I realize this is a p-t-p wireless bridge and roaming isdifferent but still it is wireless and I'm pretty sure it's gigabit... Oh and I'm also pretty sure it cost just a 'tad' more than Airport cards.
As for 802.11a I agree the speed is nice but from what I've read so far the signal doesn't travel indoors (walls/floors etc) nearly as well 802.11b and I too think 802.11g might be a much better bet.
Dave
[ 05-30-2002: Message edited by: DaveGee ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
That is called a point to point T1 and the connection is line of sight with a narrow operating window. THERE CAN NOT BE ANY OBSICLES! This will not penetrate buildings or trees. It is also rather expensive. The narrow window means that you must be downrange from the antenna to recieve a signal, If you leave its target box, you get nothing.
Airport is suppose to be a Local Area Network. It is omnidirectional. You can however make a point to point connection at up to 20 Miles with Airport if you follow the techniques described at
<a href="http://www.wirelessanarchy.com"; target="_blank">Wireless Anarchy</a> You may want to hire a HAM operator to help you set up the antenna. The therories are a little more than beginners can grasp.
I doubt that Apple would use 802.11a Not enought benefit in supporting it. Backward compatability alone is enough of a reason not to use it. they have invested much money and mindshare in 2.4Ghz bandwidth. Id say that right now Apple is trying to figure out how to make airport cards speak Bluetooth. Basestations don't really need to speak bluetooth, But, The cards in the machines should.