Has a customer ever insisted to you that their entire system be wireless? How did you handle it?

I imagine that people in theory want wireless—like, they don’t want to see the wires—but could care otherwise how it’s actually done (as long as it looks good).

We avoid wireless for the Windows Media Center infrastructure at all costs.

I think it would be prudent to qualify “wireless.”  There are some great low-power standardsfor home control devices and/or remotes.  Additionally, most clients want “wireless” for data connectivity from notebooks, which is a different set of requirements.

  =D-

Once, I had a prospective client ask us to put together a proposal for a home he was building using all wireless instead of wired technologies.  We had no interest taking on that job.  The guy was clearly nuts.

There really shouldn’t be much debate on this.  If you can run wires, you should.  It’s more reliable, more secure, and always faster.  If you can’t run wires, then go wireless.

I agree with Ed!  If you can run a wire do it!  With more technologies becoming wireless it’s going to be something we will have to deal with it.  BUT, until it becomes more reliable and I don’t have to reset it more than my directv box, I will pull a wire at almost any cost!

We have a few clients in Manhattan who are enjoying Media Center based systems with 2-3 extenders - all connected via wireless.

I agree that setting up a wireless network for HD streaming is not as simple and strait forward as wired, however if you know what you are doing, once you set it up correctly using industrial strength equipment (as opposed to LinkSys and such), it works flawlessly.

Wireless is definitely the future of digital media streaming accross the house and it’s only a matter of time before most of your clients will demand wireless. In the last CES, some speaker manufacturers offered wireless speakers.

We would be more than happy to take on wireless jobs - in the NY area

I couldn’t help comment on Jason’s “teaser”.  The myth that someday everything is going to be wireless never seems to die.  I love wireless and it is a necessity for may applications such as using portable equipment.  But, there is no known RF technology (including UWB) that will eliminate the need for signal wiring in the home for the foreseeable future.  There are three limiting factors:  physics, bureaucracy (the FCC), and cost.

Bureaucracy first.  There is just not enough unlicensed bandwidth available to do what we have now, much less anything else.  There are only a few bands that allow any power:  902 MHz band, 2.4 GHz band, and 5.1 GHz band.  Other than 902, they have very limited range in the home and are already a bit crowded. The FCC also limits the power to less than 1 watt.  Recently I’ve read about the wireless HD stuff (in the little known 59-64 GHz unlicensed band, using a form of Ultra-Wide Band).  Anything above 10 GHz is essentially worthless with range at only a few feet.  The FCC is not likely to open up anything more in the next decade.  Any new bandwidth available will be auctioned off to pay for Mr. Bush’s debt. 

The physics is another issue.  To handle the distribution of A/V RELIABLY would require a LOT of bandwidth and power to overcome the attenuation of water in the atmosphere (in the home) and building materials.  Even if we could get it, the interference with neighbors would make it unusable.  To convert just the applications we have now to RF would require about the following bandwidth:
• home data networks - 1 GHz
• cable service distribution - 1-2 GHz
• In-house generated video - 200 MHz min.
• Control (lighting, security, HVAC, etc.) - 3-4 MHz
I could go on, but the point is the bandwidth is simply not available.

Lastly, the cost…well to convert everything over to RF would be simply cost prohibitive for the consumer.  Maybe in 2030.

There is even complete “new"buildings in New York based on wireless. We try to go wired if we have the chance!

Grayson - 20 June 2008 08:48 AM

I couldn’t help comment on Jason’s “teaser”. 

The FCC is not likely to open up anything more in the next decade.  Any new bandwidth available will be auctioned off to pay for Mr. Bush’s debt. 

Grayson,

I think it best that you keep your political views in your head.  This site and this forum have nothing to do with your views or mine, and can quickly escalate into a stupid e-shouting-match.  If you feel the need to post political views, go to a political site.  By the way, the correct way to address the position, whether you agree with, or voted for him, or not, is President Bush.

To get the focus back on track about wireless vs. cabled systems, I always recommend very strongly that any system be hardwired any time it’s possible. I have worked through many different wireless systems, in an effort to meet previous Clients’ “requests”.  It usually ended up in a situation where they were told “That’s as good as it will get, unless you want to spend a LOT more money.”

Whether you install a wireless system in a smaller 2k square foot home, or a large 10k square foot estate, there are way too many variables that can impact the performance of virtually any wireless system.  RF noise from line voltage alone can cause terrible problems.  Now, we have to worry about fluorescent bulbs, with this whole green movement.  These bulbs scream with their own frequency of really horrible RF noise; just hold your powered toner wand next to a bulb to see what I mean. 

On top of that, most smaller to moderate-sized homes are basically poured into neighborhoods now, with very little clearance between the homes.  This opens a whole new concern about cross-talk of RF noises from other homes.  Example: I live in a 2500 sq. ft. home, built about three years ago.  I run a WiFi sniffer program on my laptops.  From the middle of my living room downstairs, I can ping eight different wireless networks, and two print servers.  These are just the ones that broadcast the SSID.  Here’s my trick: I installed an amplified WiFi antenna that gives me about another 6dB of signal, enough to wash over the other WiFi surrounding me. 

Now, imagine trying to compensate for Z-Wave, X10, or any one of dozens of other wireless technologies that you can’t really amplify or control the signal on.  Now throw that gear into a home in a neighborhood where you have ZERO control over what the neighbors use.  Couple that with cell antennas, emergency responder radio service, CB radio, private two-way radio service, microwave ovens, solar flares, fairies farting in the wind, and all the other things that can occur. 

Again, why do anything wirelessly, when you can run a cable?

Just my opinion…

I love it when this question comes up.  When someone brings it up and suggests that our industry is short lived because, well, everything is going wireless… I walk that person over to the nearest TV and show them the back.  Or better yet, the back of the source equipment.  Wireless, ya.

Now then, I have had fun showing customers the benefit of sending music wirelessly using systems like Sonos or even the Apple Airport.  Clearly just for back ground listening, but it scores some coolness points.

Morgan Harman
The Tech Source