Welcome to the future: A world where network cables are on display in museums, and your PCs can wirelessly access your home or office network from 100 feet away. Fast, convenient, and (most of all) as secure as a wired network, the wireless network of years to come will even bring other types of devices under its umbrella such as cellular phones, palmtop PCs, and personal digital assistants (PDAs), just to name a few. Hang on a second . . . now that I think about it, all that stuff is available now! Wireless networks are rapidly overtaking traditional wired networks in homes and small offices. Even companies with extensive wired networks have added access points (APs) for the laptop crowd, just to be hip. In this article, I show you how wireless networking works, what’s available, and how you can set up a wireless network in Windows XP.

Understanding Wireless Networking

In a sense, wireless networking isn’t as revolutionary as you might think. In fact, it operates in the same manner as the standard wired Ethernet configuration that I discuss in the preceding article, complete with packets, collisions, and all the hoo-hah that you read about networking. Of course, the method of transmitting and receiving packets is different when you’re using wireless networking; instead of being sent over a wire, the packets are broadcasted through the air like a radio signal. (However, you can’t use your wireless network hardware to run a pirate radio station. Sorry about that, matey.)

How does wireless compare with wired?

Other than the transmission method, here are the only three major differences between a wired network and its wireless sibling:

-  Wireless connections are slower. This is the big ’un as well as the major reason why most larger networks still depend on wired Ethernet for the bulk of their connections. Even the fastest current wireless technology can only pump data at 54 Mbps, but any run-of-the-mill wired network can easily deliver 100 Mbps; heck, the fastest wired networks can hit gigabit (1000 Mbps) speeds! In fact, they can use fiber optic cabling instead of plain copper wire cabling to hit their top speeds; recently, a group of researchers used fiber optic connections to transfer the same amount of data stored in 2 DVD movies in less than 60 seconds.

-  Wireless hardware is more expensive. Depending on the standard supported by your wireless hardware more on standards in the next section you’ll pay up to twice as much for wireless hardware as you would for 10/100 Mbps wired hardware.

-  Wireless networks require no hubs or switches. Most wireless base stations and APs can provide connections for up to 253 simultaneous users, so a larger wireless network (with 50 PCs or more) requires far less hardware and upkeep than a wired network that can handle the same number of computers. Would you like to impress your network administrator? Of course . . . wouldn’t we all? (If you run your own home or small office network, you can impress a PC hardware technician instead.) Use the techno-nerd buzzwords for network transmission technologies and refer to your wireless network as an unguided network as opposed to a guided, or wired, network. Naturally, you can add a wireless access point or, as it’s commonly called, a WAP to your wired network, which will give you the best of both worlds. Most WAP units actually require two physical connections: one to your wired Ethernet network (naturally) and a Universal Serial Bus (USB) connection to the computer that will control it. You can also share your Internet connection with a dual router, which has both wired and wireless hardware buil

The standards involved

Like any other evolving PC technology, wireless networking suffers from competition between different standards some are compatible with others, and some are not. Readers of my other articles are already acquainted with my overwhelming love for strange names and obfuscating acronyms in the PC world . . . NOT. Unfortunately, wireless networking has a handful of the most confusing names in the entire PC world, so make sure that you have a bottle of aspirin handy. Here, in one easy-to-consume section, is the lowdown on the different wireless standards, as well as which you should consider and which you should eschew. The current standard: 802.11b Commonly called Wi-Fi (short for Wireless Fidelity), the first 802.11b wireless base station (named the AirPort) was introduced by Apple Computer in 1999 a fact that the good folks at Cupertino have been gloating over ever since. Wi-Fi supports a maximum transfer rate of 11 Mbps, which is just a little faster than the slowest 10 Mbps wired Ethernet standard in common use. Distance is important in the wireless world, of course. It’s one thing to be able to use your laptop on your network from across the room and another thing entirely to use it in your backyard. 802.11b devices are rated at a maximum distance of 300 feet from the base station, but that figure is about as realistic as an African wildebeest wearing a hula skirt appearing in your living room. This idea of “theoretical top speed” also applies to high-speed dialup modems, which practically never deliver the top speed that the manufacturer lists on the box. By experience, I can tell you that you can count on 150 feet and even less if a number of intervening walls stand between you and your network, or if you’re a victim of interference. Oh, didn’t I mention the interference? 802.11b networking uses the 2.4 GHz broadcasting spectrum, which unfortunately is now being used by a regular horde of devices, including cellular phones, cordless phones, Bluetooth devices (which I cover in a bit), and even microwave ovens. Therefore, 802.11b wireless networks can slow down significantly because of interference from other devices. It’s not likely that your entire wireless network will shut down completely, but you will definitely be able to tell when your teenage daughter is using your cordless phone. The misfit: 802.11a Why is 802.11a such a misfit, and why did I list it after 802.11b? Well, you’re going to love this:  

-  The numbering is wrong. Believe it or not, 802.11a is a more recent standard. (Can someone please explain to me why this select group of engineers decided to number successive standards in reverse order?)

 -  It has a shorter range. Although it’s officially rated at 150 feet under perfect conditions, in the real world, 802.11a can only reach a distance of 60–70 feet your wireless world shrinks even further.  

-  It doesn’t play well with others. 802.11a is completely incompatible with both 802.11b and 802.11g, so you’re effectively limited to 802.11a equipment. (And there’s not all that much out there.) So why did folks develop 802.11a, anyway? It has two advantages:  

-  It’s speedy. 802.11a was the first speed demon in wireless networking, delivering up to 54 Mbps (over five times as fast as 802.11b).

 -  It uses a different broadcasting spectrum. 802.11a uses the 5 GHz spectrum, which prevents it from working in the 2.4 GHz range needed by 802.11b (hence the incompatibility). Because there’s a lot less activity around most homes and offices in the 5 GHz spectrum, you get less interference and a better chance of achieving the best reception. Here’s a bit of trivia that no person should be without: 802.11b networking uses a modulation scheme called Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum (DSSS). On the other hand, 802.11a networks use the Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing scheme (OFDM). Why the heck is this important? Well, DSSS uses less power than OFDM, so yes, there’s actually a point 802.11b networking hardware uses less power than 802.11a hardware, and that translates into longer battery life for your laptop if you use a 802.11b Wi-Fi card while you’re traveling. The darling child: 802.11g I know you’re probably thinking to yourself, “Self, I sure wish someone would get off their duff and produce a standard that’s both compatible with 802.11b and provides speeds as fast as 802.11a.” Good news; your wish has been heard! The latest wireless standard 802.11g does precisely that, combining the best of both worlds. If you (or your company) have already invested in 802.11b wireless hardware, you can continue to use it on an 802.11g network. Naturally, you won’t get 54 Mbps, but at least it’ll work at 11 Mbps. New 802.11g hardware will transfer packets at that magic 54 Mbps. The downside? Aw, geez, we’re back to the 2.4 GHz spectrum again, so once again, your buddy in the next cubicle who loves microwave popcorn is going to introduce interference. It just goes to show that nothing’s perfect . . . except, perhaps, a 1964 Cadillac two-door coupe.

The strangely named: Bluetooth

Okay, now here’s a wireless standard name that sounds like some scriptwriter or concept artist in Hollywood was working overtime . . . but at least it does break the 802.11x mold. Unlike the other three standards, Bluetooth is not designed for full-scale wireless Ethernet networking. Instead, it was developed in 1995 as a specialized wireless technology for short distances to be used with cell phones, PDAs, laptops, palmtops, printers, and other external devices. The maximum distance for a Bluetooth network is about 30 feet. The Bluetooth wave is even supposed to reach household appliances, like your TV and your stereo system. I’m sure there’s a Bluetooth toaster out there. If you’ve seen it, drop me a line at mark@mlcbooks.com and tell me all about it. Anyway, unlike the other standards that I discuss here, Bluetooth requires very little power to use (befitting its design, which concentrates on batteryoperated devices). It’s also painfully slow compared with 802.11b only about 1 Mbps but that’s not supposed to affect the small fry as much as it would your desktop PC. No base station is required for Bluetooth communications between devices. For example, after your laptop gets within 30 feet of your cell phone, they can update each other’s telephone number directories. Eerie. Oh, and Bluetooth also uses the you guessed it 2.4 GHz spectrum, so it will actually conflict with existing 802.11b and 802.11g networks! (The airwaves are getting so overpopulated that tin cans and string are starting to look attractive again.) I should note here that you can buy an external wireless antenna for your base station or WAP. An 802.11b directional antenna is typically about $40 or $50, and it can boost your existing signal quality as well as extend the range of your wireless network into every nook and cranny of your home or office. Check your station/WAP to see whether it can accept an external antenna.

AC and phone line networking

Although wireless hardware has become very popular over the last four years, here’s another alternative to a traditional wired network: You can also build a network by using either the existing AC power wiring (a power line network) or the telephone wiring (a phone line network) in your home. If running packets across your AC power lines sounds a little dangerous, let me put your fears to rest: Both of these alternative wired networks have been around for several years now longer, in fact, than 802.11b and they’re perfectly safe. (If you’re wondering, you can continue to use your telephone or your AC appliances with no changes.) The advantages of an alternative wired network over a wired or wireless network are clear:

-  No wires at least, no Cat 5 cables: Your home or office is already set up with all the “cabling” you need, and you likely have “ports” in every room.

-  Better security than a wireless network: Although a wireless network can be made quite secure I cover how to do this in the next section you’re still beaming a signal that can be picked up outside in the street. On the other hand, the network packets transferred over a phone line or an AC network stay within the building and are practically impossible for anyone outside to intercept.

-  Very easy to install: A wireless network might be the easiest to install, but a phone line or an AC network is still much easier to set up than a traditional wired network. So why aren’t phone line and power line networks more popular? Unfortunately, compared with wireless, both of these network solutions leave much to be desired:

-  They’re slower than wireless. Both the latest phone line standard (from HomePNA, at www.homepna.org) and the HomePlug power line standard (www.homeplug.org) deliver approximately 10 Mbps. An 802.11g network will wipe the floor with either alternative wired network when it comes to raw file transfer speed.

-  They’re less convenient than wireless. Even though you don’t have to string Ethernet cabling all over your office, your networked PCs and peripherals are still tied down to certain areas (either around your telephone jacks or your AC power sockets). A wireless connection works wherever you are as long as you’re in range.

-  You can connect fewer computers. A wireless network can accept twice as many users (or stand-alone network devices) as either a phone line or power line network. When readers ask me to recommend a network solution for their home or small office, I almost always recommend either a traditional wired (Cat 5) network (for the fastest speeds and the best security) or a wireless network (which offers convenience and easy installation). The drawbacks of phone line and power line networks (along with the explosive popularity of wireless hardware) will likely doom them to gradual extinction.