[Macworld]

Post your comments for Understanding Wi-Fi's two spectrum bands here

[SamGumgee]

Great article!
May I suggest that another article be made about Link Aggregation since all the Pro Macs now comes with at least 2 Ethernet ports. Include requirements and sampling of Apple & 3rd party devices that's 802.3ad compatible.

[leicaman]

Funny this should come up. I just bought the new Airport Extreme base station on Monday. It's not the easiest thing to set up, but it went well and now it works flawlessly. But this is interesting information to have. Very useful article.

[Inkling]

This is a great article, but it doesn't address my situation or that of others. All the discussion about b/g versus n is pointless for those whose Airport Express is, like mine, an older model without n.
Both my iMac and MacBook are n-capable, and I use n with the MacBook away from home. AirRadar even lets me force a connection on to a fast & clear 5 GHz channel. But I've yet to find a way to configure the two, so they talk with each another on 5 GHz with all the bells and whistles you discuss. I can't get the Airport Utility to see either Mac's internal Airport.
Did Apple cripple Airport Utility to push us into buying more gadgets or is there a way to make it work with a Mac's internal WiFi?

[Glenn_Fleishman]

Inkling said:

This is a great article, but it doesn't address my situation or that of others. All the discussion about b/g versus n is pointless for those whose Airport Express is, like mine, an older model without n.

Both my iMac and MacBook are n-capable, and I use n with the MacBook away from home. AirRadar even lets me force a connection on to a fast & clear 5 GHz channel. But I've yet to find a way to configure the two, so they talk with each another on 5 GHz with all the bells and whistles you discuss. I can't get the Airport Utility to see either Mac's internal Airport.

Did Apple cripple Airport Utility to push us into buying more gadgets or is there a way to make it work with a Mac's internal WiFi?

Let me give you a little background on this; you're right about what won't work, but let's define terms

In Wi-Fi, you have two kinds of devcies for wireless LANs: stations and access points. A station is an adapter that can connect to an access point. In effect and in design, the 802.11 standards make wireless work like Ethernet, so a station is like an Ethernet NIC (adapter), the RF signal is a cable, the access point is a hub (not really a switch since it's a shared medium in which only one device can talk at a time on a given channel).

The Wi-Fi built into Macs is the station kind. Apple offers a way to create a software access point (once called "software base station") by using the Sharing system preference pane, and configuring the Internet Sharing service. When you select to share to computers via AirPort, and click AirPort Options, you have a limited set of ways to turn your station into an AP.

Now the reason you're frustrated (as am I and many others) is that Apple hasn't updated this feature in years. It's ridiculously out of date. In conversations with Apple, I've expressed my irritation at this.

The Mac OS X Wi-Fi base station option relies on WEP, a broken security method, and only allows sharing in 2.4 GHz, as you mention. There's no good reason for either. In the Linux world, there's a full software AP package that handles WPA and other standards, and works with a huge variety of adapters. Apple could very easily add this support if they thought it was important.

The way to make them think it's important is to get folks to write to Apple via its feedback methods and explain precisely why it's useful to you and why it makes you think Apple isn't listening to customers or solving problems.

All that said, the new AirPort Express with 802.11n is $99, and it's more full featured and cheaper than nearly any similar product I'm aware of from other companies.

[Inkling]

Thanks for clearing up something that's long troubled me. For those who'd like to add their voice to mine and Glenn's, Apple's OS X feedback is at:
http://www.apple.com...ack/macosx.html

This brings up an idea that a clever independent developer might want to create. It'd be designed to use the 'station' WiFi in Macs, iPhones and iPod touches to create an easily established but highly secure, on-the-go, station-to-station network.
As I visualize it, it'd be easy to set up. Users would place the two or more 'stations' next to one another and enter the codes that appear on one station on the others. That'd set up a link that could be saved and used at any time. Do it in the office before you leave for a convention and at that convention you could talk, perhaps iPhone to iPhone or MacBook to MacBook, with no risk of eavesdroppers.
Once established, the linking software would use every trick imaginable to making cracking the communication hideously difficult, including breaking the usual WiFi rules. It'd add new encryption on top of the standards, and change the encoding often and at random. It'd switch station ids and channels, paying particular attention to odd 5.6 Ghz channels. At times, it might even broadcast random noise to confuse hacking software. The more WiFi traffic around, the larger the crowd for it to hide in. And all this complexity would be invisible to the users.
It wouldn't be just for people in convention halls. Those in hotels could use it to exchange files room to room, the same for airport lobbies, a particularly dangerous locale for WiFi, as well as coffee shops. Those in medicine, law and banking who need more security than standard WiFi allows could also use it.
Later versions could include instant messaging and drag-and-drop file transfer. You might call it 'collaborative WiFi" to distinguish it from station to access point WiFi.
Those who'd like to learn more about the advantage of breaking the rules, might want to read an interesting article by Malcolm Gladwell, "How David Beats Goliath" in the May 11, 2009 issue of The New Yorker. You should be able to find it online.
--Mike Perry, Seattle

[mrhoni]

I followed the information and created a 5ghz Network and told my Apple TV to use that specific network. I also told our Macbook Air to use that same 5ghz network. Both devices show in the Airport Utility - Advanced - Wireless Clients as using that network.
However, the Apple TV only shows a rate in the range of 130, while the Macbook Air does show about 270 for the rate. The 2 devices are downstairs from the Airport Extreme and are within 5 feet of each other.
Is it possible that my Apple TV - and this is version 1 of Apple TV - while it can run 801.11n it does not run at 5ghz?

[Glenn_Fleishman]

mrhoni said:

I followed the information and created a 5ghz Network and told my Apple TV to use that specific network. I also told our Macbook Air to use that same 5ghz network. Both devices show in the Airport Utility - Advanced - Wireless Clients as using that network.

However, the Apple TV only shows a rate in the range of 130, while the Macbook Air does show about 270 for the rate. The 2 devices are downstairs from the Airport Extreme and are within 5 feet of each other.

Is it possible that my Apple TV - and this is version 1 of Apple TV - while it can run 801.11n it does not run at 5ghz?

130 is one of the possible speeds for wide 802.11n 5 GHz channels. The Apple TV, all versions, can use the top 270 Mbps data rate and wide channels in 5 GHz. It's odd that it won't bump up to that rate, but the only thing you can do is make sure there are no obstructions between the Apple TV and the base station. I know this is frustrating! Radio frequency stuff is black magic.

[mrhoni]

I have the Apple TV and Airport Express next to each other and both set to the 5ghz network. Both are in a corner and both are 130 speed and below. I placed the Macbook Air next to them and the Air slowed down. Moving the Air much futher away and it is up to 270 speed.
So I decided to move the Apple TV and Airport Express, however I could not move but 5 feet and under. Airport Express moved the furthest and it's speed is now over 200. Apple TV is still at 130. I really want to get it up to much faster but not sure what else do since I don't have a good place for Apple TV and the wired connections it needs to make.

[Glenn_Fleishman]

mrhoni said:

So I decided to move the Apple TV and Airport Express, however I could not move but 5 feet and under. Airport Express moved the furthest and it's speed is now over 200. Apple TV is still at 130. I really want to get it up to much faster but not sure what else do since I don't have a good place for Apple TV and the wired connections it needs to make.

That's very odd. I can understand that it's possible that being too close brings with it its own problems.

However, if the Apple TV is within 5 feet, I am not sure why you wouldn't use a cable instead of Wi-Fi. Is it across a doorway?

[sea_probe]

Thanks, Glenn, for another great article. I've also purchased a few of your Take Control books and find them quite useful.
One point you mentioned only in passing is range on 5 GHz being quite sensitive to construction. I live in an older unit, and one I move more than one room away (or down stairs) from the airport, 5 GHz falls off dramatically in speed (BTW, holding down "option" while clicking the AirPort menu item shows the transmit rate) if not dropping altogether.
I just verified that the AirPort chose a higher channel number, so that doesn't do it. I've come to accept that my older house's construction materials just doesn't pass signals well.

[Glenn_Fleishman]

sea_probe said:

Thanks, Glenn, for another great article. I've also purchased a few of your Take Control books and find them quite useful.

Thank you! A new edition of the Take Control of Your 802.11n AirPort Networks is due out in just a couple weeks, covering the new simultaneous dual band units.

> One point you mentioned only in passing is range on 5 GHz being quite sensitive to construction. I live in an older unit, and one I move more than one room away (or down stairs) from the airport, 5 GHz falls off dramatically in speed (BTW, holding down "option" while clicking the AirPort menu item shows the transmit rate) if not dropping altogether.

I just verified that the AirPort chose a higher channel number, so that doesn't do it. I've come to accept that my older house's construction materials just doesn't pass signals well.
[/quote]
I know this is frustrating, but sometimes Wi-Fi is the wrong answer. The right answer in a case like that (although money is an object, I know), is to use powerline networking if you can't run Ethernet and put base stations in the two more distant/unreachable parts.

[mrhoni]

Glenn,
I think you are wondering why I don't just plug the ethernet between the Apple TV and the Airport Express. I can't because the ethernet is already being used by my satellite receiver. Both of these items are on the 1st floor of my house and the Airport Extreme is on the 2nd floor.
When I moved the 2 items from their original location - about 5 feet for the Airport Express and 2 feet for the Apple TV, I saw the change in speed for the Airport Express and not really a change for the Apple TV.

[celtdkey]

Glenn,
"For a one-band-at-a-time 802.11n base station, hold down the Option key and then click on Channel in step 3, and then select the channel from the pop-up menu that appears."
I have my Airport Extreme set to 802.11n only (5GHz), yet when I follow these instructions, I get to choose from only four options: 36, 40, 44, and 48. I'm in Europe, and according to Apple's sepcifications, I should have channels 1-13, 36-64, and 100-140 available. Any ideas as to what the problem might be? Thanks.