Wired CAT6 or Wireless; pros and cons -help 1

[tmckeown]

My boss is driving me nuts. Our company is moving into a new facility. We've gutted the buildings and are getting ready to purchase new phone and data products. My plan was to use CAT6 for each computer connection, so we could eventually use gigabit bandwidth. My boss doesn't want to run any cables. He feels that wireless is the wave of the future and that within two years, no one will have wired computers. I try to point out the bandwidth, security, and compatability differences between wired and wireless, but it's falling on deaf ears. We have 100 computers in our network and 8 win2003 servers, including an Exchange server. We are a split 50/50 between MAC and PC.

Can anyone point me to documentation that might back up my claims, or set me straight?

Thanks for the help.

 

[Servamatic]

Daron

I wasn't advocating PLC...yet...within the year you will see 100 Mb or so from PLC.
It was just to state the case about wireless.
The 30% return rate is a well known industry fact, being on the manufacturing side we study these types of things. It's just that was the only public document I was able to post quickly.

But I would rely on PLC before I put all my eggs in a wireless basket.
Think about the most common use for wireless in the home, which is where a great deal of wireless products are used,...sharing a broadband connection. The throughput on PLC is more than adequate for that job.

If you want to get into hype, wireless is the BIGGEST culprit of hype in the industry. Touting 54 Mb when it is actually more like 25-30. 54 Mb is the PHY rate, not throughput.


Richard S. Anderson, RCDD

http://www.servamatic.net

 

[daronwilson]

No doubt there is a bunch of hype out there, stated data rates are very misleading, such as the PLC "up to 14mbs" which could mean 512K depending on the circuit, but "up to 14mbs" under some circumstance. Much like your cordless phone can reach "up to 900 feet" (or as little as 45 feet).

I love wireless, but I'd still install wire first (i have both at home and at work). I think the wireless and PLC type solution is a great fix if you are unable to connect via a physical media such as copper or fiber for the full throughput. Wireless is wonderfull when used as intended, we do it quite often in facilities with pen tablet computers so the operators can roam around and stay connected, can't do that with wire or PLC. However, it is a compromise, and I would not suggest rolling it out as the primary network media if there is any other option. If it is rolled out as the primary media, one should be very prepared to be limited on functionality.

Good to see you back Richard.

Daron J. Wilson, RCDD

 

[tmckeown]

Well,
The meeting went pretty well. I explained everything to them. They are still convinced that all companies will be completely wireless within two years. They, of course, have no proof to back up this claim, but they are the bosses. I finally got them to allow me to pull as much cable through the phone conduit as I can fit. That won't be much in some areas, but it's better than all wireless for 100 users.
Thanks for all the replies to this thread.

Tom

 

[skip555]

I went thro something similar with a customer yesterday on phones for 60,000 squre foot warehouse

she wants cordless for warehouse peaple , I am suggesting some cordless suplemented by lots of hardwired single line sets and good paging

she says no lets try cordless and see what happens

I suggest it will be harder thus costlier to wire the phones later .

she says wait .

oh well

 

[tmckeown]

Skip,
Sometimes you just can't win. technology is so much a part of everyone's life, that most people erroneously think they they know enough to make IT decisions for the IT department. It wouldn't be so bad if it were true, but the people I work are clueless on most technology, but pretend to know it all.

 

[ISDNman]

The vast majrity of people just don't understand "bandwidth".

Ther eis only so much radio-spectrum bandwidth out there. It can be managed and/or shared in various ways, bu it is a finite resource not unlike our national forests.

Wired bandwidth is not inherently limited. At any time you can add more cable or fiber.

This is exactly why over-the-air TV is required to be respectful of the public - it is on public "property" e.g. the radio spectrum.

Since the internet is not on public spectrum thus rational does not hold. Same thing for Cable TV - it is running of private fiber/cable whatever.

Sadly, in the rush to make money off public property, the FCC has recently blurred the distinction. Satelite radio and TV use public spectrum and should be require to abide by the same rules as over-the-air radio and TV.