Super Wi-Fi Isn't Really Wi-Fi

adeelarshad82 writes "As reported yesterday lucky residents of Wilmington, N.C., will be the first in the nation to have access to a 'Super Wi-Fi' network. However, the only issue is that Super Wi-Fi isn't really Wi-Fi: Mobile analyst Sascha Segan explains the difference and also gets into why it's incorrectly being dubbed as Super Wi-Fi."

Comments

Apparently not even compatible?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think if something is to be called Wifi, it should at least work with most of the Wifi devices out there.

If it is yet another compatible implementation of the 802.11 family of protocols using the same spectrum, it is okay.

If it is 802.11 on a different part of the spectrum, calling it wifi is a stretch.

If it is 802.22, then it isn't wifi at all. Calling it so can cause user confusion.

Summary

[ceoyoyo]

Why can't the summary just say that "super wifi" isn't "wifi" because "wifi" isn't a trademark, and not for any actual meaningful reasons?

Although this quote was well worth skimming the article for:

The term 'Super WiFi' is a verbal tool for conveying a thought or concept in an easy-to-understand way, such as when a child asks for a Band-Aid for a boo-boo, and you give him or her a generic brand plastic adhesive," a Wireless Innovation Alliance spokesperson said in a statement."

Re:Summary

[Theaetetus]

The reason restaurant servers tell you (they don't correct you) when they don't have Coke is because Coke and Pepsi apparently taste different and some people get very upset at the substitution. I guess you didn't grow up in the 80's hey?

It's also so that they can avoid a lawsuit under 15 USC 1125 from Coke or Pepsi.

I've never been to a store (or anywhere else) where anyone cared the slightest bit about the difference between actual Band-Aids and other brands, or between Kleenex and other tissues for that matter.

You should probably make a note of them. Companies like Johnson and Johnson or Kimberly-Clark will frequently pay a bounty for information about retailers infringing their trademarks through passing off of generics.

Re:Summary

[David_Hart]

It's incorrect to use the Band-Aid analogy as both Band-Aids and generic bandages do exactly the same thing.

In this case you have a technology being referred to as Super-WiFi when none of the existing, or upcoming, WiFi branded devices will work with the technology. So there is a real meaningful difference.

It's more like going to the store and asking for a shovel and being given a garden hose...

Re:oh please, there's no problem

[AvitarX]

But wifi used to mean it worked with wifi, it wasn't just marketing.

They created a user friendly term so users didn't need to know 802.11g. If they lose the trademark, they'll need to come up with another new term, and retrain users.

Re:'wireless' is generic, wifi is not!

[gstrickler]

Agreed, even ignoring the obvious trademark issues and lack of compatibility, Wi-Fi has never been the generic term. Wi-Fi didn't exist until the Wi-Fi Alliance created the term specifically to promote inter-operable 802.11a/b/g products. Wireless is the generic term.

Wi-Fi, WiMAX, LTE, Bluetooth, and other such terms are specific implementations of wireless data communications. None of those inter-operate with the others, but they don't interfere with each other either so they can be used concurrently. If the "Wireless Innovation Alliance" doesn't know that, then they're ignorant. If they do know it, then they've deliberately violated a competitor's registered trademark and opened themselves to a lawsuit that could potentially end their group before they really get started. It's unlikely that will happen. The appropriate response when called-out on it would have been something like "We're sorry, we will use another term.", not the insolent BS response claiming "The term 'wifi' has always been a general term for the family of 802.11 protocols...."

Useless article

[methano]

So the real question is, if I go to Wilmington, can I hook up to their wireless network with my WiFi enabled iPad, PC, Phone, whatever? The article doesn't say. I kind of think not, but the article doesn't say. And that's the real difference. Most of us think it's OK to call it WiFi if we can connect with our WiFi enabled devices. If we can't, it's not WiFi and they shouldn't be using the term. So I still don't know the answer.

Re:Useless article

[hawguy]

So the real question is, if I go to Wilmington, can I hook up to their wireless network with my WiFi enabled iPad, PC, Phone, whatever? The article doesn't say. I kind of think not, but the article doesn't say. And that's the real difference. Most of us think it's OK to call it WiFi if we can connect with our WiFi enabled devices. If we can't, it's not WiFi and they shouldn't be using the term.

So I still don't know the answer.

The answer is no, you can't.

But in many places you can't connect to their Wifi network using your 802.11b-only Wifi device because they restrict it to 802.11g only (because they don't want 11b devices slowing down everyone else). And you can't connect with your 802.11a-only Wifi device because their network only supports 2.4Ghz. And some places may keep you from connecting to their 802.11n enabled network with 802.11bg-only devices. And even if you connect with an 802.11n capable device, you may or may not see any 802.11n speeds depending on whether or not your device supports dual-band 802.11n.

Even "Wifi" is not always "Wifi".

Re:Wi-Fi vs wifi

[Attila Dimedici]

Except that the organization that coined the term "Super WiFi" is the FCC. If you don't see the problem for the Wi-Fi Alliance with suing them over this, you might want to think about what makes the "Wi" in Wi-Fi and who regulates who gets to sell such devices.