Excellent point. When the 1100's series came out, we quickly moved to them from the 1200 series for that exact reason (plus cost/performance).
We had to hide the 1200s on special brackets above the ceiling tiles in many cases to avoid negative comments. In one area during our early deployment, we had a physics prof threatning to take a baseball bat (!) to the surface mounted 1200 because he was so concerned about the antennas. We resolved the issue with diplomacy and numerous meetings but it was clear that if something is highly visible, it's highly questionable in some environments. When you deploy thousands of these, it becomes an issue. We had absolutely no problems with the 1100's, most people don't notice them for the reason you state. They look like some health-safety device (which one could argue they are deploying on what they are used for :-) My guess is if Cisco deploys the 11xx's (full?) 802.11n devices, they are going to be popular for the majority of these more "sensitive" visible spaces. But... I'll restate my concern with Cisco 802.11n wireless strategy: Hopefully it's not too late for Cisco to reconsider providing an the option to bond two 802.3af ports to get dual radio capable 802.3at power at the switch... I can't think of any large existing POE deployed site that would consider going from a well managed POE environment to unmanaged injectors. I know that's the "official line" at this point but it doesn't make sense. And, forcing an large switch (or blade) upgrade on customers will make possibly make these customers look elsewhere for a centralized/controlled-based wireless platform that *can* use the existing 802.3af POE infrastructure... Good news for non-Cisco vendors (which seem to be very present on this list!) People generally look at a whole picture when doing large upgrades. Jonn Martell, PMP Past UBC Project Wireless Project Manager Wireless Certified Intructor (CWNT), CWNE and Wireless Consultant. www.martell.ca On 1/17/08, Lee H Badman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > At risk of sounding silly- is anyone wrestling with the appearance of early > 11n products? Contrast any of the current offerings with the MIMO antennas > versus the likes of the Cisco 1130 (integrated antennas) from an aesthetics > perspective, and the 11n stuff seems ugly and utilitarian. For us, we often > need to get the architect's blessing on "fixtures" like this in new spaces, > and the 1130 has been an easy sell because it's not more obtrusive than a > smoke detector. I don't see any of the current crop off 11n APs being > considered visually appealing to anyone other than us geek types. > > > > I wonder if 11n future APs will be able to do MIMO but still be "pretty"? > > > > > > Lee > > > > > > > > Lee H. Badman > > Wireless/Network Engineer > > Information Technology and Services > > Syracuse University > > 315 443-3003 > > ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE > Constituent Group discussion list can be found at > http://www.educause.edu/groups/. ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
