Talk:IEEE 802.11g-2003

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as High-importance).

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Electrical engineering Low‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electrical engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electrical engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electrical engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Electrical engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Electrical engineeringelectrical engineering articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Telecommunications Low‑importance

	Telecommunication portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Radio Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Create: Missing years and articles in radio, National Association of Radio Distress-Signalling and Infocommunications (Hungary)
Assess : Unassessed Radio articles; Unknown-importance Radio articles
Cleanup : Radio articles needing attention
Expand : Midweek Politics Bob Crane
Maintain : Portal:Radio
Stubs : Expand: Radio stubs
Verify : Unreferenced BLPs
Other : Collaboration of the Week:
Requests for Radio peer review:

Table and image are incorrect[edit]

This table and image are incorrect, as IEEE 802.11g uses 20 MHz channels, not 22 MHz ones as IEEE 802.11b/IEEE 802.11-1997.

Also where the 16.6 usage comes from? the other page on non-overlaping channels the SVG show a transition on the guard band which overlap (20 - 16.25 mhz), so what is the rule on guard bands and how about the 16.6mhz ocupancy in this page?

Also the spectrum starts at 2400mhz ends at 2500; but a 1mhz guard is made on channel 1 so this applies to the end of channel 11 or 13 ??? why channel 14 is so far and not channel 15 or so keeping the 5mhz spacing? Also why 5mhz spacing?? channel 2 or channel 10 or 12 are bound to interfere !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.187.90.172 (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

external link question[edit]

I think that the following link is relevant and helpful to understand the risk involved and why most businesses prefer wired connections for most of their PCs. I am proposing that the following link be added. Thoughts?

Pros and Cons of 802.11 G in a Business Network Discusses the issues with wireless computer connectivity as verses wired at a business setting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Networkingguy (talk • contribs) 17:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Data transfer rate[edit]

I have a WLAN with the 802.11g standard, and I was wondering about the speed or data transfer rate: if the typical throughput is 19 Mbit/s, that should be equivalent to 2,375,000 Byte/s, which is equivalent to about 2.65 Mbyte/s. I can't really comply with that number, as 2.65 MB don't load in a second on my computer. Did I not understand something or what? 2.65 MB/s would mean that a song in "normal" 128 kb/s mp3 quality loads almost immediately, that definítely isn't the case. 91.15.217.66 (talk) 09:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind, if you're downloading for the internet, your external internet connection is the lowest common denominator. It's slower than your LAN. However, you're right of course that these speeds can only be achieved in labs under perfect conditions. Superm401 - Talk 23:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added some theoretical stuff regarding throughput to clarify why 54 Mbps is NEVER 54 Mbps in practice. Hope this helps someone! /Fredrik fb35523 — Preceding undated comment added 15:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Putting a space in the title[edit]

It's purely aesthetic and for the sake of readability but would there be any reason against editing the title as such:

New way: IEEE 802.11g - 2003

Old way: IEEE 802.11-2003 (seems unecessrily cramped and somewhat unlclear) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnmacward (talk • contribs) 19:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clean as MUD[edit]

"802.11g is the third modulation standard for wireless LANs. It works in the 2.4 GHz band (like 802.11b) but operates at a maximum raw data rate of 54 Mbit/s. Using the CSMA/CA transmission scheme, 31.4 Mbit/s[1] is the maximum net throughput possible for packets of 1500 bytes in size and a 54 Mbit/s wireless rate (identical to 802.11a core, except for some additional legacy overhead for backward compatibility)".

That is the beginning of the description.

 I suggest that a better description be written for those who are not computer science students or grads.

 I came to this wiki page to see which was "better" n or g, and a simple, easy to read description that I could use. Thanks 23.242.128.58 (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Packet size and benchmark[edit]

"1500 bytes is the usual limit for packets on the Internet and therefore a relevant size to benchmark against". Citation? AbhimanyuVS (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]