Wi-Fi signal is not good? Hybrid network architecture is a recommended choice

I’ve worked with many companies that have implemented digital projects, only to have them fail. The concept was right, the implementation was sound, the market opportunity was there, but there was one weak link: the Wi-Fi network.

For example, a large hospital wanted to improve clinician response times to patient alerts by sending telemetry information to mobile devices. Without a telemetry monitoring system, the only way nurses would get patient alerts was through audible alarms. With all the background noise, it was often difficult for medical staff to discern the source of the noise. But because the hospital's Wi-Fi network had not been upgraded for a long time, there was a significant delay in sending the information, which often took 4 to 5 minutes to complete. The long delivery time led to a lack of confidence in the telemetry monitoring system, so many clinicians began to return to using manual alarms.

I see similar examples in manufacturing, education, entertainment, and other industries. Enterprises compete on the basis of customer experience, which is driven by the ever-expanding, ubiquitous wireless advantage. A good Wi-Fi experience doesn’t necessarily mean a business leads the market, but a poor Wi-Fi experience can negatively impact customers and employees. In today’s competitive environment, this is a catastrophic problem.

[[262042]]

Unstable Wi-Fi performance

The problem with Wi-Fi is that it’s inherently fragile. I’m sure everyone reading this has experienced the typical pitfalls of failed downloads, dropped connections, instability, and long wait times to connect to public hotspots.

Before the keynote, we were able to send tweets, email, browse the web, and do other things. When the speaker took the stage, all the audience started taking pictures, uploading pictures, and playing videos. At this time, the Wi-Fi stopped working. This is the norm, not the exception.

How to get to a place with full wireless coverage is a question for network professionals. Some say that simply strengthening the existing network can do it, but in some cases, the way Wi-Fi is deployed may not be accurate.

The most commonly deployed Wi-Fi approach is multi-channel, where each client can connect to an access point (AP) using a radio channel. A high-quality Wi-Fi experience is based on two things: good signal strength and minimal interference. Some factors may cause interference, such as APs that are too close together, layout issues, or interference from other devices. To minimize interference, companies invest a lot of time and money in site surveys to plan channels, but even if the channels are well chosen, Wi-Fi failures can still occur.

Multichannel Wi-Fi isn't always the best choice

Multi-channel Wi-Fi may be solid for many carpeted offices, but in some environments, the external environment can affect performance. A good example is a multi-tenant building where there are multiple Wi-Fi networks transmitting on the same channel and interfering with each other. Another example is a hospital with many campus workers moving between APs. Clients will also try to connect to the AP, causing clients to constantly disconnect and reconnect, resulting in dropped sessions. Then there are environments like schools, airports, and conference facilities where there are a large number of transient devices and multi-channel may have difficulty keeping up.

Single-channel Wi-Fi offers better reliability, but performance suffers. What should network administrators do about this? Is poor Wi-Fi a fait accompli? Multi-channel is the norm, but it is not designed for dynamic physical environments or environments where reliable connectivity is a must.

A few years ago, an alternative architecture was proposed that could solve these problems. As the name implies, "single-channel" Wi-Fi uses a single radio channel for all APs in the network. This can be thought of as a single Wi-Fi architecture running on a single channel. With this architecture, the placement of the APs is irrelevant because they all use the same channel, so they will not interfere with each other. There is an obvious simplicity advantage here, if the coverage is poor, you can just place APs where they are needed without having to do another expensive site survey.

Because only one channel can be used, the aggregate network throughput of a single channel is lower than that of multiple channels. In environments where reliability is more important than performance, a single channel may be fine, but many enterprises need both throughput and coverage.

A traditional multi-channel system may work, but due diligence should be done to understand how it operates under heavy loads. IT managers need to understand the importance of Wi-Fi to digital transformation initiatives and conduct appropriate testing to ensure it is not the weak link in the infrastructure chain and select technology for today's environment.