Who needs RF transmission training?
The question at hand: Do vendor specific certification programs need the radio frequency (RF) transmission training or is that more important to the guys who are installing it?
Paul Stewart wrote, in a comment on my last post, that certifications have too many requirements. He added that you don't see Ethernet or T1 certifications, yet wireless certifications are there in the market. Now I'm not saying that Paul is wrong, and I suppose that we are not talking about certifications for cabling like BISCI (which is the only one I am familiar with).
Paul sparked my interest, so I headed on over the the BISCI site, and to my surprise I found yet another Wireless Certification Program. Courses include:
- WD100: Introduction to Wireless
- WD110: Designing Wireless Networks
- WD200: Wireless Design Specialty Review
Looking at the course description I notice that their introduction to wireless looks similar to the CWNA. I can safely say that much of the Introduction to Wireless is in fact covered in my new book, CCNA Wireless: Official Exam Certification Guide, however my book is geared towards Cisco Certifications and the Cisco Unified Wireless Network Architecture.
Which brings me back to my opening question: Who needs to know how RF works? The guys maintaining the network? The guys configuring the Controllers and Access Points (APs)? Or the guys who are wearing a tool belt and rack mounting and hanging APs? My opinion? All of the above.
I mean, who cares where you get certified. BISCI for the installers, Certified Wireless Network Professional (CWNP) for the vendor neutral folks, Cisco CCNA Wireless and CCIE Wireless for those in a Cisco environment. I think that no matter where you get it the information is the same on how RF works and it puts engineers of all sorts on the same page. Installs are done properly, configurations are correct, and troubleshooting will follow suit.
Sound off! What are your thoughts? What certifications do you hold? Do they really matter?
Sign up for ITworld's Daily newsletter
Follow ITworld on Twitter @IT_world
jfruh
Apple syncing patent can't come soon enough
pasmith
New Twitter features borrow from 3rd party clients
Esther Schindler
Open Source Changes the Software Acquisition Process
mikelgan
How to set up continuous podcast play on the new iTunes
David Strom
Five important Windows 7 mobility features
sjvn
Guard your Wi-Fi for your own sake
Sandra Henry-Stocker
Grepping on Whole Words
Sidekick: The Good News & the Bad News
Either way you look at it Microsoft Data Center management did not follow standards or best practices in this failure. In which case it makes me wonder more about the outsourcing of corporate data much less personal data.
- mburton325
Join the conversation here
Quick, practical advice for IT pros. Made fresh daily.
Want to cash in on your IT savvy? Send your tip to tips@itworld.com. If we post it, we'll send you a $25 Amazon e-gift card.
Wireless is overly complicated
I believe that the current wireless standards and products are so complicated that they are almost unusable. By the time that the physical aspects of RF and installation are completed, the security and integrity issues require a further enormous investment both in capex and opex.For this reason, wireless will continue to be a 'niche' technology until something that is more acceptable can be developed.
Wireless is a waste.