Considering that unless you use the same generation of homeplugs in your house the speeds you get are low and kind of unreliable I believe people will look at G.hn as if it's another/new generation of homeplug. In which case the huge install base of homeplug wont matter very much. In other words it's a matter of time before G.hn replaces homeplug unless homeplug manages to crank up the speeds and keep issues across generations to a minimum. Which historically they haven't done.
I thought this tech was dead, killed by WiFi. This is the first mainstream article I've seen in years. I've only known a handful of people who tried this tech at home, lured by it's simplicity, and it was always a failure due to unreliability of the equipment and problems with connectivity. I'd much rather recommend investing some time and effort in running network cables or extra access points/repeaters for WiFi (or combination of both).
You really need to catch up on your tech before running off at the mouth like this.
I use a 1 generation back Trendnet kit at home with perfect connectivity. Full internet speed on my office pc (shared from htpc in the living room like 50 feet away) with no latency issues or anything. Completely able to stream HD video, game, etc.
Completely different from my experience with WiFi across the same rooms, dropped signals, bad ping times plagued me constantly...
Yes, dedicated ethernet will always be best, followed by non dedicated wiring, then wireless. Wireless by its nature will be the most unreliable.
Wireless can be very unreliable and very slow in densely populated areas, ie. apts in cities. When tens of different & possibly misconfigured APs are crowding the same channels, good luck.
"The service provider may then request that you call them for permission to install, may provide a portion of the bandwidth available over the power lines, or may even flatly tell you that you can't use the adapters. G.hn equipment providers are working with service providers to encourage a more relaxed stance, but operators reserve the right to do what they want."
Given the alternatives available, I think this my seriously impair adoption.
You say that as if your local cable provider isn't a monopoly on broadband for a huge percentage of Americans. Even if they aren't, it's usually not much of a choice anyways. Where I live, you can get 40/5 cable service through Bright House for $75/month that typically hits the advertised speeds, or 6/1 DSL through AT&T for $50/month that usually only hits about 3/0.5. Even without the massive disparity in service, something tells me AT&T wouldn't be more permissive than...anyone, really.
Irrespective of whether it is G.hn or IEEE P1905 which gets adopted, I think service providers will be able to do whatever is mentioned in the Engadget article with respect to future home networks.
/* Start of rant */ The only solution is to make the service providers into dumb pipe providers. Just use them for the Internet service and don't get any video or telephone service from them. Yes, one may complain about live sporting events and other similar stuff, but it is not difficult to envisage them becoming available online on a subscription basis (you pay directly to the broadcaster and not the middleman like Comcast or AT&T or any other service provider).
I personally believe that the way people watch TV will undergo a sea change in the coming years. While local TV channels (particularly of the news variety) will remain free-to-air and stay socially relevant, linear TV in any other form will be dead (strong words :P). I don't think the current TV service providers (be it cable or satellite or IPTV) are going to be relevant when linear TV goes out of fashion. Consumers must put these providers in the place and just haggle with them to provide bandwidth and access to the Internet in an unfettered manner. Then, there is the whole big issue of the governments supporting the consumers in this aspect, but that is a subject for another rant on another day... /* End of rant */
The G.hn solution offered by Marvell and other vendors will perform better in real life than most wireless N solutions. My neighbors all around me also have wireless N and G routers in their homes that results in interference. Most people have this problem unless they live in the countryside, in which case they likely will have issues just having access to a high speed ISP provider. The level of wireless interference is high in the 2.4GHz range. And 5GHz suffers from lower coverage, which is why it has always been a niche for wireless. The G.hn solution is much better for streaming applications to TVs and other home entertainment services. After all, every flat screen TV needs a plug for power and this plug or the coax that runs through most houses is quite suitable for heavy streaming video applications and does not need to be compressed. Telephone wires are similar, since DSL modems are nearly as common as cable modems. Full uncompressed 1080P and higher future video standards should be possible with G.hn. That is not feasible with wireless. The only pitfall for G.hn is wireless is nice for laptops and other stuff since you do not have a cord, which is good if you are just browsing the internet or running relatively light streaming applications.
I expect we will start seeing people using both wireless and G.hn for their networking needs. Minimizing packet loss is something many people are willing to pay for with streaming applications, whether it is video or lan parties/online gaming. I predict there will be a significant market for this technology in the US. I expect G.hn may become one of the next new features in high end TVs after 3D. In many ways it reminds me of when SSD drives came out over the last couple of years relative to HDD drives in computer storage. Both SSD and HDD drives coexist in more computing systems these days. G.hn will coexist with wireless.
G.hn is simply more versatile than 1905.1. Nobody wants to have multiple different types of phy/macs and have to add network processors if you are a system provider since it adds to the cost to products. And 1905.1 is like the wireless B standard. Ultimately I don't see it as competitive with G.hn in terms of performance and reliability.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
11 Comments
Back to Article
Anosh - Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - link
Considering that unless you use the same generation of homeplugs in your house the speeds you get are low and kind of unreliable I believe people will look at G.hn as if it's another/new generation of homeplug. In which case the huge install base of homeplug wont matter very much. In other words it's a matter of time before G.hn replaces homeplug unless homeplug manages to crank up the speeds and keep issues across generations to a minimum. Which historically they haven't done.Zak - Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - link
I thought this tech was dead, killed by WiFi. This is the first mainstream article I've seen in years. I've only known a handful of people who tried this tech at home, lured by it's simplicity, and it was always a failure due to unreliability of the equipment and problems with connectivity. I'd much rather recommend investing some time and effort in running network cables or extra access points/repeaters for WiFi (or combination of both).Denithor - Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - link
You really need to catch up on your tech before running off at the mouth like this.I use a 1 generation back Trendnet kit at home with perfect connectivity. Full internet speed on my office pc (shared from htpc in the living room like 50 feet away) with no latency issues or anything. Completely able to stream HD video, game, etc.
Completely different from my experience with WiFi across the same rooms, dropped signals, bad ping times plagued me constantly...
Zoomer - Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - link
Yes, dedicated ethernet will always be best, followed by non dedicated wiring, then wireless. Wireless by its nature will be the most unreliable.Wireless can be very unreliable and very slow in densely populated areas, ie. apts in cities. When tens of different & possibly misconfigured APs are crowding the same channels, good luck.
akedia - Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - link
Years? How 'bout three weeks ago on this very site: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4695/handson-powerli...akedia - Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - link
Or two days?: http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/25/switched-on-no-...kolepard - Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - link
The control ceded to service providers is very anti-consumer and a huge negative if this report is correct:http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/25/switched-on-no-...
The most bothersome section is:
"The service provider may then request that you call them for permission to install, may provide a portion of the bandwidth available over the power lines, or may even flatly tell you that you can't use the adapters. G.hn equipment providers are working with service providers to encourage a more relaxed stance, but operators reserve the right to do what they want."
Given the alternatives available, I think this my seriously impair adoption.
Zoomer - Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - link
One could just cancel the service.lowlymarine - Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - link
You say that as if your local cable provider isn't a monopoly on broadband for a huge percentage of Americans. Even if they aren't, it's usually not much of a choice anyways. Where I live, you can get 40/5 cable service through Bright House for $75/month that typically hits the advertised speeds, or 6/1 DSL through AT&T for $50/month that usually only hits about 3/0.5. Even without the massive disparity in service, something tells me AT&T wouldn't be more permissive than...anyone, really.ganeshts - Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - link
Irrespective of whether it is G.hn or IEEE P1905 which gets adopted, I think service providers will be able to do whatever is mentioned in the Engadget article with respect to future home networks./* Start of rant */
The only solution is to make the service providers into dumb pipe providers. Just use them for the Internet service and don't get any video or telephone service from them. Yes, one may complain about live sporting events and other similar stuff, but it is not difficult to envisage them becoming available online on a subscription basis (you pay directly to the broadcaster and not the middleman like Comcast or AT&T or any other service provider).
I personally believe that the way people watch TV will undergo a sea change in the coming years. While local TV channels (particularly of the news variety) will remain free-to-air and stay socially relevant, linear TV in any other form will be dead (strong words :P). I don't think the current TV service providers (be it cable or satellite or IPTV) are going to be relevant when linear TV goes out of fashion. Consumers must put these providers in the place and just haggle with them to provide bandwidth and access to the Internet in an unfettered manner. Then, there is the whole big issue of the governments supporting the consumers in this aspect, but that is a subject for another rant on another day...
/* End of rant */
glad2meetu - Thursday, September 29, 2011 - link
The G.hn solution offered by Marvell and other vendors will perform better in real life than most wireless N solutions. My neighbors all around me also have wireless N and G routers in their homes that results in interference. Most people have this problem unless they live in the countryside, in which case they likely will have issues just having access to a high speed ISP provider. The level of wireless interference is high in the 2.4GHz range. And 5GHz suffers from lower coverage, which is why it has always been a niche for wireless. The G.hn solution is much better for streaming applications to TVs and other home entertainment services. After all, every flat screen TV needs a plug for power and this plug or the coax that runs through most houses is quite suitable for heavy streaming video applications and does not need to be compressed. Telephone wires are similar, since DSL modems are nearly as common as cable modems. Full uncompressed 1080P and higher future video standards should be possible with G.hn. That is not feasible with wireless. The only pitfall for G.hn is wireless is nice for laptops and other stuff since you do not have a cord, which is good if you are just browsing the internet or running relatively light streaming applications.I expect we will start seeing people using both wireless and G.hn for their networking needs. Minimizing packet loss is something many people are willing to pay for with streaming applications, whether it is video or lan parties/online gaming. I predict there will be a significant market for this technology in the US. I expect G.hn may become one of the next new features in high end TVs after 3D. In many ways it reminds me of when SSD drives came out over the last couple of years relative to HDD drives in computer storage. Both SSD and HDD drives coexist in more computing systems these days. G.hn will coexist with wireless.
G.hn is simply more versatile than 1905.1. Nobody wants to have multiple different types of phy/macs and have to add network processors if you are a system provider since it adds to the cost to products. And 1905.1 is like the wireless B standard. Ultimately I don't see it as competitive with G.hn in terms of performance and reliability.