Healthcare Wireless and Device Connectivity

Cisco Medical Grade Network 2.0 DAS Subsection

CISCO MEDICAL GRADE NETWORK (MGN 2.0 Wireless Architectures)

DAS Subsection. November 18, 2009

Cisco Systems, Inc. has most recently upgraded their description of the design and requirements for a "wireless medical grade network".  This has gone into much greater detail than in the past and covers a wealth of information, all of which serves as a baseline for the design and deployment purposes of a healthcare wireless network. For the past many years it has been my opinion that 802.11a/b/g and now 802.11n; should not be integrated into any DAS design and/or DAS implementation. The most recent update of November 18, 2009 via Cisco Systems seems to validate somewhat this from a technical perspective. This is directly from www.cisco.com public document and I will provide some "comments" throughout. The following is "quoted"  and is directly from this design guide and not from Integra Systems, Inc. Integra Systems, Inc. before the end of this year article forthcoming in IT Horizons, part of www.aami.org is in line with Cisco Systems, Inc.design guideline document as stated.

FROM CISCO SYSTEMS (MGN Guide V2.0 Wireless Architecture)

"Prior to deploying Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) or leaky coax systems (Leaky coaxial is traditionally deployed for such environments as tunnels whereby the propagation of the public safety, cellular and PCS signals in this environment does make sense, however in healthcare this not traditionally used.  Passive or non-radiating cable is used.) It is necessary to determine how such alternate antennas affect the collision domain, cell size, cell throughput and the performance of your applications. It is necessary to know what frequencies, antenna types, and 802.11 radios they support. 

When deploying DAS, the access points are centralized in a single location or co-located in a single enclosure or equipment closet. Unfortunately, aggregating access points in one location and using distributed antennas violates several of the technical requirements for optimal WLAN functionality and coverage. When multiple antennas are connected to a single access point, degradation or impairment of most of Cisco’s advanced features in the Cisco Unified Wireless Network should be expected because it is impossible to reuse channels to maximize throughput when the access points are aggregated and the channels are shared across the entire antenna system. In active DAS systems, passive antennas are at the end of regular coax. In passive DAS systems, leaky cable (see previous) is distributed around the floor. When deploying DAS with the Cisco Unified Wireless Network, the signal strength also decreases and creates poor application performance. The use of a radiating cable

or a leaky (see previous) coaxial type of deployment also leads to performance degradation because this introduces loss in the antenna system on both the transmitter and the receiver. To avoid this situation, Cisco recommends the use of one diversity antenna to a single access point radio. And in the case of an 802.11n radio, the antenna needs to be a MIMO antenna solution. This is necessary to provide better wireless coverage and application performance. Outside of this recommended design, only best effort Cisco TAC support can be provided to customers. Such approaches to the use of DAS systems should be carefully considered given the added risk involved in the overall wireless architecture design. The Cisco WLAN controllers enable Radio Resource Management (RRM), which provides advanced and automated management capabilities and enhanced performance. RRM allows Cisco’s Unified WLAN Architecture to continuously analyze the existing RF environment, automatically adjusting the power levels of access points and channel configurations to help mitigate channel interference and signal coverage problems. RRM also helps to increase system capacity and provide automated self-healing functionality to compensate for RF dead zones and AP failures. RRM and the Cisco Location solution are designed around antennas with well-defined RF characteristics. The addition of any third-party antenna results in non-standard (i.e., not tested or validated) results.

Some RRM adjustments may be required to achieve optimal performance, especially

for customers who have deployed the Cisco Location Solution or VoWLAN services. For more technical information, refer to the Cisco Application Bulletin that highlights the limitations of deploying DAS with the Cisco Unified Wireless Network.

89

Cisco Medical-Grade Network (MGN) 2.0—Wireless Architectures

Environmental and Physical Considerations

The motivations for DAS architectures and the main benefit is the ability to offer services via multiple, discrete wireless systems for more pervasive coverage. Healthcare providers deploy DAS solutions to manage several wireless services, including clinical data, computerized physician order entry (CPOE), paging, public cellular services, nurse-call systems, patient telemetry, and future monitoring applications. The system can also distribute two-way radio for security and maintenance, as well as Wi-Fi and cellular phone access for patients, visitors, and staff. Hospitals are also looking to centralize management of these wireless systems. Hospitals are also delivering Wi-Fi from the DAS architecture

to limit ceiling penetration as they may have infection control mechanisms in place, making access above the ceiling tiles cost prohibitive. 

DAS Benefits

• Convergence—Ability to carry multiple wireless access technologies, such as cellular and Wi-Fi, simultaneously and allow the building planner to provide coverage for many diverse services, such as cellular phone, two-way radios, paging, Wi-Fi, Medical Telemetry systems, etc.

• Time savings—IT managers can deploy both wireless technologies with a single cabling at the same time.

• Physical security for network equipment—The access points are secured in a locked wiring closet rather than in ceilings or walls near users’ desks, reducing the likelihood of damage or theft.

• Network maintenance—Easier configuration, maintenance, and replacement of access points since they are located in a single, easily accessible location.

• Potentially better compliance with JCAHO ICRA requirements during access point replacement if mounted above ceiling tiles.

DAS Limitations

• Unpredictable performance—Performance, such as capacity and throughput, are highly dependent on site design and installation and output power. Connecting antennas to aggregated access points with coax cabling significantly reduces the output power at each antenna. For example, a long coax cable that runs between access points and antennas introduces loss in the antenna system on both the transmitter and the receiver.

• Performance degradation for 802.11a and 802.11n—Performance is degraded network wide, however the edge of the network may provide acceptable performance because it is impossible to reuse channels to maximize throughput when the access points are aggregated and the channels are shared across the entire antenna system. The reduced output problem is worse with 802.11a or 802.11n installations because the 5GHz frequency attenuates much more quickly. The signal strength to transmit large files or support voice quality of service may also be lower.

• Performance degradation for MIMO 802.11n—The 802.11n standard uses multiple antennas with MIMO technology. It is unclear how newer technologies that rely on multiple antennas can be leveraged with a DAS system since this limits user capacity. There is currently no upgrade path to support 802.11n because most DAS solutions are based on one antenna. Also, the high attenuation caused by the coax DAS system and distortion issues created by aggregating access points makes it difficult to provide even acceptable capacity.

• Radio Resource Management—RRM may not perform as expected due to the change in access point site design and increased network complexity. Some RRM adjustments need to be made to achieve optimal results.

• Location—Effectively Location Based Services is either not supported or significantly degraded with most DAS solutions. Without additional hardware such as ZigBee sensors, DAS and RTLS are typically mutually exclusive.

• Voice—Voice QoS may be lower due to lower signal strength and lack of diversity antenna support. VoWLAN deployments also require a denser population of access points than most data-oriented application deployments and therefore must be designed properly to maintain QoS and minimize delay and jitter.

Note Cisco does not certify, endorse or provide support for Wi-Fi deployments over any distributed antenna system. The DAS vendor or integrator is solely responsible for the support of the DAS products and for any RF-related issues. This includes location accuracy, RF coverage, roaming issues related to RF, multipath issues, and scalability. While Cisco Technical Assistance Center (TAC) and Cisco field teams do not provide support for RF issues that arise in a Cisco WLAN used over a DAS, they will, however, provide support for non-RF related issues if they arise.

 

 

 

802.11n and Transmit Beamforming Cisco ClientLink

802.11n provides remarkable performance improvements in the areas of throughput, link reliability, and predictability. The move to 802.11n provides significant benefits, but most hospitals will move forward in a transition strategy. Most 802.11n solutions offer improvements in the up-link communications from the access point. Cisco ClientLink technology is unique in that it offers improvements as well as downlink communications from the access point to the client. Cisco has also added advanced signal processing into the Wi-Fi chipset. Multiple transmit antennas are used to focus transmissions in the direction of the 802.11a/g client, increasing the downlink signal to noise ratio and the data rate over range, thereby reducing coverage holes and enhancing the overall system performance. This essentially learns to optimize a way to combine the signal received from the client, and then uses that information to send packets in an optimum way back to the client.

The radio signal in a healthcare environment rarely takes the most direct or shortest path from the transmitter to receiver because walls, doors, or other structures obscure the line of site. That is why telemetry systems use diversity. 802.11n takes advantage of multipath by sendintg radio signals at the same time. 802.11n also specifies how MIMO technology can be used to improve the SNR at the receiver by using transmit beamforming. Transmit beamforming as specified in the 802.11n standard requires cooperation from both the receiver to feedback training and/or channel information about the received signal to the transmitter - so both the AP and client need to support this capability. Due to the complexity issues, the first generation of mainstream 802.11n chipsets neither the AP nor client chipsets implemented 802.11 transmit beamforming.

Cisco realized that for many networks the performance of the installed 802.11a/g client base would be a limiting factor on the network. To take advantage of capacity in the second transmit path for 802.11a/g clients, and to enhance overall network capacity by bringing 802.11a/g clients up to a higher performance level; Cisco created an innovation in transmit beamforming technology called ClientLink.  ClientLink uses advanced signal processing techniques and multiple transmit paths to optimize the signal received by 802.11a/g clients in the downlink direction without requiring feedback. Since it does not require any special feedback, it works with all existing 802.11a/g clients.  Another step is taken to improve performance in the downlink direction, making the client better able to hear the access point. The Wi-Fi  channel is reciprocal, meaning the transmissions between access points and clients happen on the same frequency and use the same antennas. Thus, the access point can use the adjustments calculated by the MRC (maximal radio combining algorithm), to optimize the reciprocal signal transmitted back to that specific client using the APs two transmit antennas.  These enhancements are made in hardware with minimal overhead on the AP platform and no performance is lost due to signal processing.  ClientLink effectively enables the access point to optimize the SNR (signal to noise ratio), exactly at the position where the client is place. Improved SNR has benefits such as reducing the number or retries, provides higher data rates, and increases the overall capacity of the system.  Several companies will be talking about "beamforming" in the next few months.  Here are some interesting test results for review. Any questions or feedback about this would be welcome. The world of Wi-Fi with 802.11n and beamforming is going to get quite interesting in 2010.

 
 

Download Miercom_Test_Report_Cisco_ClientLink

Download FarpointWLAN_strategies_wp
 

Integra Systems Inc as a Healthcare Visionary for Point of Care Connectivity

Integra Systems, Inc. www.integrasystems.org is a forward looking visionary boutique firm firmly implanted in the wireless and medical device space that is based upon two decades of field integration experience. 

 
That will not stop us at nothing to advance the quality of the modern wireless healthcare delivery model.  We have been instrumental at driving this forward looking with vision over five years ago with Anyware Network Solutions, of which now is a part of www.gtri.com. Our original out of the box model was demonstrated with www.draeger.com and OneNet. This is our passion and mission of which is always pushing the envelope to take current technology offerings and to wrap them around perhaps non-proprietary solutions to move decision makers to the next level with the goal to save costs and manage risk.  From this mission as described it is coupled and tested to ensure that all caregivers have the best user experience for the patients and their families. This is as described also saves huge costs and decreases overall risk at the point of care and with medical devices on a wireless or wired network. Separate proprietary medical device networks are legacy. Go to www.linkendin.com for  our full profile. We have completed consulting and design work on a global basis with the leading medical device companies. (patient monitoring, infusion therapy, ventilation/anesthesia) whereby Integra Systems, Inc has been front and center in 2008 and 2009.  www.integrasystems.org  Download Edit Post - Healthcare Wireless and Device Connectivity TypePad Patents pending on RFID and wireless integration point of care devices of which are pending clinical trials will define the new avenue in the point of care space.  Just some messaging to put things into perspective will follow. We certainly can help in this perspective.  www.capsuletech.com of which we (David H. Hoglund) share a combined IP through a licensing agreement.

" The Pain in life Happens. It may last a minute, or an hour, or a day, or a year, but eventually  it will subside and something else will take it's place. If I quit, it lasts forever." Lance Armstrong. http://www.lssmn.org/

The message is:  "Just keep on a going"

What do you think is at present and forward looking; do you think that the days of proprietary medical device networks are over..why or why not?

Why should a hospital install a separate WMTS telemetry system, a separate stand alone patient monitoring network?  Why not converge them onto a single enterprise designed and managed WLAN?

How is the risk lowered by using enterprise tools for design and management?

Who is going to be responsible for the management of a life critical network if enterprise management tools cannot be used?

A goal here as described is to provide and enable the healthcare enterprise to provide the quality of healthcare wireless experience in a proactive fashion for 2009 and beyond that everybody needs.

Medical Device Connectivity and What is the Right Strategy?

It seems that these days everybody is jumping into the medical connectivity space; however there are a lot of issue to look at. This will simply explore a bit what needs to be front and center - that is the core business model.

Overall Design -First determine if the connectivity solution is patient centric. Second, how does this actually help the care giver, or does this just add more layers of "things to do" for the nurse at the bedside.  The reason I bring this up is when I was at Symbol Technologies (now Motorola), caregivers had initially a lot of push back on the use of hand-held scanners, but mostly surrounding PDA(s). Application specific PDA(s), seemed to wane and hunting and pecking on a tiny screen added a lot of frustration. Caregivers, simply want technology solutions that work. Several companies in this space have taken different approaches and are pursuing various business models. Not all of these make sense - let me know if you agree here?

Cerner - Cerner a software company by definition has chosen to enter the medical device connectivity space with CareAware and MDBus to add to their portfolio of other solutions to include iCommand, among other previous acquisitions as Bridge Medical.  Why move away from their core business?  It is going to take a tremendous amount of work and effort to keep these connectivity solutions going and supported. Meanwhile, I do not feel that hospitals want a medical device connectivity solution that is tied to a specific vendors EMR application. Most hospitals have multiple EMR solutions, so it is not quite clear how open other competitive EMR solutions will be playing with Cerner and MDBus.  Any contextual patient connectivity needs to be a part of the patients continuum of care.

Hill-Rom - Navicare Bed as a Hub. Driving efficiency at the Point of Care with Navicare Device Connectivity. It is not quite clear how this fits in with Hill-Roms core business which is hospital beds and nurse call. You have to ask yourself if making your hospital bed a medical device integration hub is the right approach?  What if you hospital does not have all Hill-Rom beds?  And what if your hospital decides to switch from Hill-Rom to Stryker beds?  it would appear that you would also have to re-assess your hospital's medical device connectivity strategy at the same time - which makes no practical sense to me. Finally, is this solution able to be patient centric and follow the patient throughout the continium of care?

How much more R&D money does Cerner and Hill-Rom want to throw at "medical device connectivity", when this is not centric to their core business?

Capsule Technologies - The business model that makes the most sense to me is vendor-neutral. A company like Capsule does not make medical devices, hospital beds, a nurse call system, or an EMR application. Medical device connectivity is their core focus and they have been at this for over 12 years. In this space, I believe experience counts for a lot. Capsule does not care what bed, monitor, or ventilator is in the room and can connect all of those to any EMR on the market.  This advantge for the hospital is that they can switch out any of their medical devices and even change EMR's - without having to redesign their MDC strategy.

Also regarding a patient centric approach for connectivity, their new Neuron platform will automate the association and disassociation of medical devices to the patient - which is really the right model for data identification. It also does not create extra workload for the caregiver. Finally, by moving away from room centric or bed centric, it provides a platform that is enterprise enabled for the patient's total continuum of care.

Let me know what you think?  Are their advantages to any of these business models that I am missing?  What models have you seen  - good or bad?

 

 

 

 
 

Motorola and Aruba Networks Announce Collaboration on the All Wireless Enterprise and Resolution of Patent Dispute

This definitely shows how far the wireless industry has come. 

Aruba Networks and Motorola Inc, together with it's subsidiaries Symbol Technologies, Wireless Valley Communications, Inc. and AirDefense decided on November 06 to settle all outstanding intellectual property disputes between the two companies.

 Additionally they are actively exploring technical and business opportunities of mutual interest associated with the all-wireless enterprise. It is interesting to see the market converge in the WLAN space. Aruba Networks is definitely the number #2 player.

 Motorola with the acquisition of Symbol Technologies has a commanding lead in the mobile computing and Auto-ID industry. I joined Symbol in 1999 and rode the wave of 802.11b becoming real with the healthcare application convergence as well as the use of bar-code scanning at the point of care. Several good companies were formed in the WLAN space that did not manufacture (APs, or controllers).  Wireless Valley is considered one of the gold standards for WLAN planning, while AirDefense provided a comprehensive enterprise approach to IDS 24/x7x365 monitoring. The other gold standard AirMagnet, was most recently acquired by Fluke Networks.  Motorola then acquired Symbol then both Wireless Valley and AirDefense. In a similar fashion, Aruba Networks made a brilliant move to acquire AirWave. AirWave provided the industry a standard management platform that allowed for a true multi-vendor approach to WLAN management. I think that this could have a very positive approach for healthcare in general and may really force hard competitive price pressures.  First on the Motorola side, they have with the acquisition of Symbol, the mobile computing and Auto-ID (bar code), situation (BCMA), covered. With Wireless Valley and AirDefense, a comprehensive planning and IDS strategy can be provided. Oh, yes forgot they (Motorola) too have WLAN controllers, APs, indoor/outdoor, point to point, etc., two way radios, etc. of which Motorola has a huge heritage.  Second on the Aruba Networks side, AirWave can provide a true enterprise management platform for the management of legacy 802.11a/b/g from Cisco, Symbol, HP ProCurve, Trapeeze, (which was purchased by Belden) you name it together with Aruba Networks and provide a comprehensive management strategy for QoS and security. Finally, a lot of medical device manufactures like Aruba because of it's patented quality of service on a packet by packet level, without a need of implementing any specific proprietary extensions. Sounds like these two companies have resolved things and are combining forces; which makes good business sense. All the win for healthcare.  My web based event on 802.11n for Aruba Networks in case it was missed, is now posted on www.arubanetworks.com 

How will these two major players teaming together in the wireless space effect both the "largest player" and whole slew of minor players in the WLAN space?

   

Saving Costs on Networks and Medical Device Connectivity

With the advent of 802.11n it does not make sense to "wire up" or run ethernet anymore.  Actually, I would say that 30-40% of wired ports are not being used anymore.  So maybe the network could be right-sized and an overall switch count could go down. Since "patient worn" telemetry is now moving away from WMTS and going down the Wi-Fi route, it makes also good business and financial sense to not move forward with an expensive whole-house WMTS coverage. Just limiting WMTS to one area, may not give you the true overall business and clinical advantages. When looking to improve cellular and public safety coverage it also is more economical to implement a stand-alone DAS. So in summation, the move from the wired side to the wireless side, has eliminated the need for some of the wired ports, WMTS has become legacy as patient monitoring has been proven over years to work on Wi-Fi, 802.11n is negating the need for running ethernet, and in-building coverage for cellular is much more economical if the DAS is kept stand alone. 

Enterprise Wireless Mobility versus Departmental

Years ago when I worked for VitalCom (now a part of General Electric), I designed VHF antenna systems to cover the entire hospital. This was a radical departure from antenna coverage just in "limited" step down areas for telemetry coverage. The idea was to provide "flexible patient monitoring" where the patient was. It also allowed capabilities for moving the patient out of costly ICU beds, allowed real time monitoring throughout transport and helped decrease ER diversions. The only issue was the cost involved with the antenna infrastructure and to think of "not unit" based patient monitoring, but enterprise patient monitoring. Now we have moved from VHF/UHF to WMTS. So in reality it makes good sense to provide WMTS antenna coverage across the entire hospital. The same business issues for improving care are present and this provides a better quality of patient monitoring. However as stated, there are costs of the infrastructure, that is whole house WMTS antenna coverage. It is even more complex and costly if you try to provide WMTS whole house coverage with a DAS, the costs at least go up by a factor of 3. So, the solution is present today. Use 802.11a/b/g "whole house" coverage. Today it just makes sense to provide complete Wi-Fi throughout the entire hospital as you can use this for not only data, but voice (voice over IP), and medical devices. Both Draeger Medical and WelchAllyn have 'traditional telemetry, now the term "patient worn monitoring", but do not use WMTS, but 802.11a/b/g.  So when you converge this on the existing Wi-Fi network you save huge costs involved in not having a separate WMTS infrastructure. Enterprise tools are available for the design and management of this Wi-Fi infrastructure, but nothing is available for WMTS. WTMS was often promoted as "safe" spectrum, but in essence it is still RF and drop-out is drop out. A properly designed Wi-Fi network especially with 802.11n coming out works just fine. 

WLAN Convergence on a DAS and IEC 80001

Medical devices of which includes infusion pumps and patient monitoring and also other monitoring modalities as pulse oximetry, are in an increasing fashion moving their applications across the WLAN (Wireless LAN).  As a result of this there will be an increasing need to develop the correct deployment model to scale the x number of medical wireless enabled devices (no matter the bandwidth); and further how they will establish the correct QoS, and also to exist within the right quality of service (QoS) for all applications. Also has to be factored into how these life critical applications will exist with other needed data and voice requirements on the WLAN, i.e. quality of service, as stated.

All medical device manufactures with WLAN client adapters do have to be tested and validated not only the described quality of service or should; but have to submit their testing data to internal regulatory, and finally pass muster with entire FDA process.  This testing and design process of the WLAN has been based upon the well established and proven micro-cellular or proven (WLAN) architecture.  Many of these medical device companies have relied upon www.veriwave.com as Veriwave is the gold standard in the industry for this type of testing  Oh yes, the majority of WLAN companies use Veriwave for testing their internal radio designs.

Their seems to be discussions regarding the use model of these regulated WLAN devices that were validated on a industry best of designs for the WLAN industry to be utilized in a DAS infrastructure (Distributed Antenna System) architecture.

Several caveats need to potentially looked at or evaluated.

• Will the end hospital client or infrastructure provider assume the risk for the deviation from the approved and regulated model, that is the micro-cellular architecture (WLAN)?
• How will this infrastructure impact the proven quality of service model, and how acceptable will this be the the end user?
•  What is the overall initial cost and total cost of ownership to go against a proven industry standard micro-cellular architecture (WLAN) of those companies that control a plus 85% of the WLAN industry?
• End users should get several quotes of which includes a converged design, a stand alone WLAN cost model, and a stand alone DAS model.  They will be surprised at the cost deltas regarding a converged model, that is WLAN with a DAS.
• If the end client or infrastructure provider decides to drive this model, they should assume the costs of the additional infrastructure and any changes going forward, and yes what risks are involved?
•  Finally, one has to ask themselves how a DAS will ever support 802.11n or MIMO, and what implications this has for cost of changes of DAS infrastructures that were originally designed for 802.11a/b/g. Not that medical devices are incorporting 802.11n now, but this is the natural migration.
• DAS designs are normally non-diversity, so how will this impact the S/N (signal to noise ratio) or help negate multi-path occurences that can be overcome with a diversity or MIMO micro-cellular infrastructure.

See of which is attached a most excellent article touching on several of the aforementioned topics by Dr. Steve Baker. Steve and I have authored an article before and I consider him one of; if not the most respected authority on challenging the correct use model of medical devices in the WLAN industry.

 

Download Wimd2225-baker1_authors_version
 

802.11n MIMO is the threshold reached with convergence on a DAS?

While I have never been an advocate of overlaying WLAN on a DAS, in theory and some practice this could be done with 802.11/b/g and even (a); however everything comes with a price.  Engineering to -85dB for data for 802.11a/g, while not diversity  this may or could be done. Adding capabilities for voice (voice over IP), and you have another dimension such as an increased signal strength requirement of -65dBm. Then when you add 802.11a, amplification of the signal is needed either at the antenna element or in the IDF (to meet the link budget.  DAS systems work well for what they were intended to do. That is transmitting broadband signals such as traditional cellular at 850MH and PCS at 1900MHz. At these frequencies you have a approximate coverage pattern of 10,780 sq. ft. per antena element. At the VHF or UHF range this dramatically increase to 34,375 sq. ft. However to to meet the link budget requirement when WLAN is combined on a DAS, this decreases coverage to 3,520 ft per antenna element.  Adjustments also have to made for 1/2" coaxial cable loss.  Going back to 850MHz and 1900MHz, you will have 2.5db of loss for every 100ft at 850MHz and 4.0 db of loss at 1900MHz.  At 5.750GHz, this loss increases dramatically to 8.0 db for every 100ft.  Now moving to 802.11n and the use of MIMO. The race is on between Verizon and LTE oer 700MHz and Sprint with WIMAX.  Not doubt LTE will probably take the edge because of Verizon's major footprint and the fact that a huge build-out is not required as required for WIMAX.  DAS companies tend to claim support of 802.11n because of the inherent portended support of MIMO for WIMAX. Again, the question begs to mind how the heck will this work?  Oh yes, and how much will this actually cost? Remember MIMO needs multiple antenna pathwyas (in and out x 2). If the AP(s) are in the IDF, will you need four independent runs of coaxial cable or do you extend the AP(s), out on the floor and then come up with a way to run ethernet over coaxial? MIMO should be preserved as it takes advantage of multi-path to increase throughput in theory up to 600MB/sec, realistically 300MB/sec. My suggstion for any enterprise customer that is looking for 802.11n and a DAS is pretty simple.  Get a DAS quote for all the broadband services, i.e. cellular, PCS, UHF/VHF, etc. Then get a quote for a discrete (stand alone), WLAN, i.e. 802.11a/b/g/n.  Then get a quote from the DAS supplier for broadband services and WLAN services (to include 802.11n). Compare pricing of all quotes two discrete systems versus combined. Finally get in writing as a part of the contract documents that 802.11n will be fully supported in all it's features and functionality. In addition, contact your WLAN provider of 802.11n, and obtain in writing that they have tested and that they approve the use of their specific 802.11n AP and controllers with a DAS.

 

Aruba Networks Web Event or WebinAir

This was the first web event held today with Integra Systems, Inc. content for Aruba Networks, inc. The content will be provided online in the next few days; but overall this was a resounding success. It was all about 802.11n, rightsizing the network and helping the healthcare delivery model or IDN save $$ on capital expenditures immediately; while looking long term to implement 802.11n and save additional CAPEX and large OPEX overall savings over the implementation life cycle care process. However, this could occur simply with the roll-out of 802.11b/g/a over the past several years. Up to it is estimated 30% of wired ethernet ports are simply not being used anymore. Not only could these ports be reduced, but a now rightsizing of the L2/L3 IDF. 802.11n throughput exceeds the wired desktop and the value of increased channels and MIMO combined with the QoS of what Aruba Networks provides, simply makes this bullet proof for data, voice, and medical applications.