On Jul 8, 9:40, Jules Richardson wrote: it's Yeah, we keep getting asked why we're not putting wireless in our residences, offices, and everywhere else.. The fact is that wired is cheaper, especially given the steel in many of the buildings, which limits wireless range. Many people who've tried wireless see 54Mbps and think it's fine; even if they realise that the true throughput is limited to about half that, they've usually never seen the graphs that show what happens when you have multiple clients (for those who don't know, the total useful bandwidth falls dramatically for every client you add; the net effect is that bandwidth per client falls off approximately exponentially). And when we upgraded our Cisco access points it took us a day or so to realise why the range dropped off -- it turns out Cisco made a small miscalculation, and all our tests done with the old firmware were using illegally high power levels. Someone at Cisco hadn't realised the difference between radiated power and EIRP when you have 2.2dB antennae. Wireless is great for some types of point-to-point, casual use, a very small number of users in a small area, or devices that must remain in contact while moving about. Otherwise it sucks. -- Pete Peter Turnbull Network Manager University of York