Slashdot Mirror
Why isn't WiFi Used for Voice Anymore?
Sonam asks: "Despite the relative cheapness of Wifi cards (available here for US$35) nobody seems to use Wifi for the ultimate killer app: short-range handheld voice terminals -- a.k.a. cordless phones. The competing, lower bandwidth DECT standard is widely used in Europe and elsewhere to provide good quality, digital voice and data links at home and about. Like Wifi, DECT terminals can operate in peer-to-peer mode -- some people even use their home DECT phones as walkie-talkies in camping trips. Does anyone know why Wifi isn't used for voice? Would a biscuit PC with a Wifi PCMCIA card work as a voice+data terminal? (Note, the second cheapest price on the pricewatch page above seems to be for a DECT module)" For the most part, voice is covered, we have cell phones, short wave radios, walkie-taklies with a 2 mile range and more! These things are all entrenched, they work, and they are now fairly cheap. Do we need anything else? Would WiFi voice provide better communication than those voice-based devices we are already using?
This is the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time. WiFi is expensive, and hardware to put the WiFi in is expensive. FRS Radios, on the other hand, are cheaper individually than WiFi equipment, work on UHF, and have a much wider range of features, not to mention being designed for this sort of thing. Really, it's a great idea to go with. Cheaper, less clunky, better range, better signal quality, batteries last longer, easier to set up, and so on. Check it out.
--Dan
As well as the other things already mentioned (complexity, cost, and existing systems for voice) there is also the question as to why you would want to clutter up the WiFi frequencies with voice data? The whole idea would seem to be wastage of everything all round.