Why Do We Accept Bad Wireless Clients?

We recorded a fun roundtable discussion last week during Mobility Field Day that talked about the challenges that wireless architects face in their daily lives. It’s about an hour but it’s packed with great discussions about hard things we deal with:

One of the surprises for me is that all the conversations came back to how terrible wireless clients can be. The discussion kept coming back to how hard it is to find quality clients and how we adjust our expectations for the bad ones.

Driven to Madness

Did you know that 70% of Windows crashes are caused by third-party drivers? That’s Microsoft’s own research saying it. That doesn’t mean that Windows is any better or more stable with their OS design compared to Linux or MacOS. However, I’ve fiddled with drivers on Linux and I can tell you how horrible that experience can be1. Windows is quite tolerant of hardware that wouldn’t work anywhere else. As long as the manufacturer provides a driver you’re going to get something that works most of the time.

Apply that logic to a wireless networking card. You can buy just about anything and install it on your system and it will mostly work. Even with reputable companies like Intel you have challenges though. I have heard stories of driver updates working in one release and then breaking horribly in another. I’ve had to do the dance of installing beta software to make a function work at the expense of stability of the networking stack. Anyone that has ever sent out an email cautioning users to not update any drivers on their system knows the pain that can be caused by bad drivers corrupting clients.

That’s just the software we can control. What if it’s an OS we can’t do anything about? More and more users are turning to phones and tablets for their workhorse devices. Just a causal glance at Youtube will reveal a cornucopia of using a tablet as a daily driver machine. Those devices aren’t immune to driver challenges. They just come in a hidden package during system updates. Maybe the developers decided to roll out a new feature. Maybe they wanted to test a new power management algorithm. Maybe they’re just chaotic neutral and wanted to disrupt the world. Whatever the reason you’re stuck with the results. If you can’t test it fast enough you may find your users updated their devices chasing a feature. Most companies stop signing the code for the older version shortly after issuing an update so downgrading is impossible. Then what? You have a shiny brick? Maybe you have to create a special network that disables features for them? There are no solid answers.

Pushing Back

My comment in the roundtable boils down to something simple: Why do we allow this to happen? Why are we letting client manufacturers do this? The answer is probably more elegant than you realize. We do it because users expect every device to work. Just like the Windows driver issues you wouldn’t plug something into a computer and then expect it to not work, right? Wireless is no different to the user. They want to walk in somewhere and connect. Whether it’s a coffee shop or their home office or the corporate network it needs to be seamless and friction-free.

Would you expect the same of an Ethernet cable? or a PATA hard drive? Would you expect to be able to bring a phone from home and plug it into your corporate PBX? Of course not. Part of the issue is a lack of visible incompatibility. If you know the Ethernet cable won’t plug into a device you won’t try to connect it. If the cable for your disk drive isn’t compatible with your motherboard you get a different drive. With wireless we expect the nerds in the back to “make it work”. Wireless is one of the best protocols at making things work poorly just to say it is up and running. If you had an Ethernet network with 15% packet loss you’d claim it was broken. Yet Wi-Fi will connect and drop packets due to bad SNR and other factors because it’s designed to work under adverse conditions.

Why do we tolerate bad clients? Why don’t we push back against the vendors and tell them to do better? The standard argument is that we don’t control the client manufacturing process. How are we supposed to tell vendors to support a function if we can’t make our voices heard? While we may not be able to convince Intel or Apple or Samsung to build in support for specific protocols we can affect that change with consumption. If you work in an enterprise and you need support for something, say 802.11r, you can refuse to purchase a device until it’s supported.

But wait, you say, I don’t control that either. You may not control the devices but you control the network to which they attach. You can tell your users that the device isn’t supported. Just like a PATA hard disk or a floppy drive you can tell users that what they want to do won’t work and you need to do something different. If they want to use their personal iPad for work or their ancient laptop to connect they need to update it or use a different communications method. If your purchasing department wants to save $10 per laptop because they come with inferior wireless cards you can push back and tell them that the specs aren’t compatible with the network setup. Period, full stop, end of sentence.

Tom’s Take

The power to solve bad clients won’t come from companies that make money doing the least amount of work possible. It won’t come from companies that don’t provide feedback in the form of lost sales. It will come when someone puts their foot down and refuses to support any more bad client hardware and software. If the Wi-Fi Alliance won’t enforce good client connectivity it’s time we do it for them.

If you disagree I’d love to hear what you think. Is there a solution I’m not seeing? Or are we just doomed to live with bad client devices forever?

  1. If you say Winmodem around me I will scream. ↩︎

4 thoughts on “Why Do We Accept Bad Wireless Clients?

  1. Seriously, is there a reason you had to trigger me by reminding me of winmodems? As for the wireless client issue, I’m not sure what the answer is, even Apple has terrible client driver choices. Cisco and Apple have a great working relationship for wireless, but they still can’t convince Apple to make their clients prefer 5GHz. The official best practice from Cisco is to have a separate SSID that is 5GHz only for Apple devices.

  2. Pingback: My first MFD8 Experience – Part 1 – artofrf.com

  3. Pingback: My first MFD Experience – Part 1 – artofrf.com

  4. Pingback: Why Do We Accept Bad Wireless Clients? - Tech Field Day

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s