[Macworld]

Post your comments for Is it time to cut the Ethernet access cable? here

[leicaman]

Well, it would be a disaster where I work if I were to lose Gigabit ethernet (on real expensive switches that give a direct gigabit connection to the company backbone to each port) because I'm throwing around 500-800 megs with of files at a throw.
We just increased our storage to 10 terabytes to accomodate not only our online multimedia assets for streaming, but my photographs shot on 16.7 and 21 megapixel cameras. And I need to often process groups of these photos over the network rather than copying them to my computer and moving the results back. WIth gigabit that's doable. With Wifi that would be a nightmare.
I'm lucky our IT department considers WIFI a security risk. And with the assets we have on campus, it makes sense to me. We'll often have 20 million worth of them at a time. Any security break would be disastrous, and we'd lose customer confidence.

[terrencebrown]

Yes but, the majority of users do not need gigabyte throughput. They just need access. Not to mention it is possible to firewall off and limit the wifi clients. If you need greater access just plug in.

[Peter Cohen]

terrencebrown said:

Yes but, the majority of users do not need gigabyte throughput.

Today. But can Wi-Fi speed improvements continue apace with Ethernet speeds? Gigabit Ethernet is already ubiquitous across the Mac line, and PCs are starting to follow suit. And data set sizes continue to increase, year after year. It's not inconceivable that even average users will need huge bandwidth.

[MorrisTheCat]

[quote name='Peter Cohen']
>

terrencebrown said:

> Yes but, the majority of users do not need gigabyte throughput.

Today. But can Wi-Fi speed improvements continue apace with Ethernet speeds? Gigabit Ethernet is already ubiquitous across the Mac line, and PCs are starting to follow suit. And data set sizes continue to increase, year after year. It's not inconceivable that even average users will need huge bandwidth.

Excellent comment, and I suspect the answer to that question may turn out to be much the same as we've seen between SSDs and HDDs. Solid state drives have not kept up with the growth in capacity that we've seen on the old fashioned spinning platters hard disks. I'm not sure it ever will overtake it in terms of capacity, but certainly at some point in the future SSDs may reach a size that is "good enough" for most users. Large server farms will probably continue to use hard drives for the foreseeable future.
WiFi will probably get to a point where the bandwidth is "good enough" for most users. Its almost there now, but as Leicaman says, users who need the speed of Gigabit networks are not going to be clamoring to go wireless.

In that sense, I think the premise the article starts out with is a little silly. Both techs are still very viable and valuable, so there's little reason for companies to start considering dropping wired Enet altogether. Better security, better speed, more reliable- these are all good reasons to keep it around a while longer.

[terrencebrown]

Good points. My only point is that if you need ethernet access now you can plug in at a central hub. Universities and business have to plan far in advance for wired access. Configuring a campus for wired access can prove overwhelming for many budgets. If you do need to transfer at such high rates then perhaps you can plan to get closer to the server. This decreases the cost for wiring remote users.

As for average user data there will be a terminal velocity for this eventually. Data use will not increase ad infinitum. It will eventually taper off and networks will accommodate the higher data users while still maintaining throughput for the average user. I just don't see the average user needing the entire library of congress/sec.

[alansky]

I'm not a networking expert, but it looks to me like the most important requirement (next to security) that any network has to satisfy is the ability to handle enormous quantities of streaming multimedia content, which is already growing exponentially and will only increase. It only makes sense that the tv generation would eventually turn the internet into something similar, which is exactly what's happening. YouTube and Hulu are just the beginning.

Then there's the issue of plain old-fashioned flakiness. Again, I'm no expert; but I know that wireless networks in homes and small businesses are flakey (that is to say, don't always work when everything appears to be perfectly in order). I also know that the flakiness of wireless cellular networks is legendary. So it seems to me that it wouldn't be any easier to make large-scale wireless corporate networks substantially more reliable than the wireless networks everyone is already familiar with.

[BikerFunJoe]

Wi-Fi is convenient and fast enough for those who only manipulate Office documents and surf, but fewer and fewer users fit into that category. We rolled out Gb ethernet three years ago to 95% of our site, leaving only isolated pockets of 100 Mb and now everyone is spoiled rotten. Now, I can't get anyone to use wireless (even 802.11n) after spending time in the [gigabit] fast lane. With virtually limitless, cheap network storage becoming a reality, I think higher bandwidth will be even more desirable [if not necessary] in the very near future. Copper is still king in my book.

[terrencebrown]

The original issue is expense. Businesses can't just keep increasing costs without justification. The users need to justify downloading at these rates. If campuses and businesses can justify gigabyte ethernet everywhere and sustain it then very well. Those facing budget cutbacks need to think about wireless access if they haven't already.

[bastion]

Aside from the concerns over throughput and security that have been raised in the article and comments, there's a practical issue that I haven't seen mentioned yet.

The enterprise-class UPS units that medium and large companies use throw a LOT of EM. Easily enough to disrupt 802.11 communication.

[EdBoutros]

All I say the current wireless spectrum is too crowded. Try basic wi-fi in San Francisco. Try it at WEB 2.0, try it at macworld. I can not even have a reliable system in Ithaca NY ( a lot less crowded. ) Cordless phones kill connections and microwave ovens too. Wireless technology is way too unreliable compared to wired connections Need I even bring up the AT&T network with an Iphone. Maybe a mesh network would improve things but not the current wi-fi standards.

[Link33]

Part of my concern over forgoing wired connections is the cost of new wired technology. The cost for bleeding edge ethernet tech will likely remain high as adoption becomes less widely spread. It was nice seeing hardware prices drop like flies a year after introduction as demand became higher and higher a few years ago. How cool is it that everyday machines got gigabit ethernet so soon after adoption?

[jsnowbordr47]

Heck, I don't even really like using wi-fi on my home network. I'm always transferring large InDesign or PDF files between my computers, and when you have an InDesign package over 500mb and sometimes up to 40GB, wi-fi just doesn't cut it anymore.
I need Gigabit, and I'm sure most design firms and advertising agencies also appreciate having Gigabit. It makes sense for some businesses to get rid of it, but it's still not dead yet. If they can create a Gigabit version of Wi-Fi, then we're talking.
At my school it would be a problem mainly because not every dorm room is covered well by wi-fi, Not to mention, it would put a damper on all the filesharing on campus.lol

[tewha]

Peter Cohen said:

Today. But can Wi-Fi speed improvements continue apace with Ethernet speeds? Gigabit Ethernet is already ubiquitous across the Mac line, and PCs are starting to follow suit. And data set sizes continue to increase, year after year. It's not inconceivable that even average users will need huge bandwidth.

If I ever need bandwidth like that, sure. But right now, it's far more important to me to have fewer cables that can be caught, tripped on, or otherwise yanked while some very expensive hardware is plugged into them.