Super Wi-Fi Isn't Really Wi-Fi

Shocking! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-28 05:29 · Score: 1

Super WiFi isn't WiFi at all? Shouldn't it have been called wannabe WiFi?

Re:Shocking! by Canazza · 2012-01-28 10:58 · Score: 2

They're worried that "WiFi" has become synonymous with Wireless communication, like Hoover has to Vacuum Cleaners.
If they did get sued, and I were the "Super WiFi" guys I'd come up with another name, it's not that hard. Sprint's 4G is called WiMAX (as stated in the story), so since they're in the White Spaces frequencies, why not take a part of White and Space and get "Wi-Space". Keep the Wi but drop the Fi and drop that stupid "Super" suffix.

--
It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
Re:Shocking! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-28 21:59 · Score: 1

Super WiFi isn't WiFi at all? Shouldn't it have been called wannabe WiFi?
From the article:

"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."

But we're not talking to children, we're talking to adults. And no, when a child or an adult asks me for a Band-Aid, I tell them "Sorry, I don't have any Band-Aids. Would it be ok if I just gave you an adhesive bandage?"
More to the point, when another bandage maker begins running commercials calling their product "Band Aids" they get their ass sued for TM violation.

'wireless' is generic, wifi is not! by TheGratefulNet · 2012-01-28 05:32 · Score: 5, Interesting

for one, I do side with the big corps saying they need to protect their product name or protocol name.

is ham radio wifi? is fm radio 'home transmitters' wifi? is cb radio (gawd, I'm old) wifi?

how about our cordless phones? those are 'wifi' too?

assinine.

now, the other way around is equally wrong. when MS took 'windows' and now they own that word, that was wrong. apple seems to think they own a lot of common words and colors, too.

but wifi is not at all generic and didn't start out generic. it should be respected as its own thing and not name-stolen.

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."

Re:'wireless' is generic, wifi is not! by gstrickler · 2012-01-28 06:22 · Score: 5, Informative

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...."

--
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
Re:'wireless' is generic, wifi is not! by hairyfeet · 2012-01-28 06:42 · Score: 2

Well as someone who has to explain things to consumers all day all i want to know is this: Can my customers fire up their bog standard B/G/N Wifi enabled laptops and netbooks and hook up with as simple and painless a procedure as normal Wifi? if the answer is yes i'm all for it and if its no they need to STFU and get out of here with that shit. From reading TFA it looks like a STFU and GTFO kind of deal, needing new cards and will confuse the hell out of my customers who think (and rightly so since they have backwards compatibility) that "Wifi is Wifi".

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:'wireless' is generic, wifi is not! by Baloo+Uriza · 2012-01-28 08:43 · Score: 1

Now I wanna try wifi over CB.

--
Furries make the internet go.
Re:'wireless' is generic, wifi is not! by Fjandr · 2012-01-28 11:38 · Score: 1

This doesn't act any more like Wi-Fi than Bluetooth or 3G does. There are major differences are in spectrum, protocol, range, and throughput. It probably wasn't the underlying point of your post, but the post implies that all wireless names are interchangeable, because they all act exactly the same if you ignore protocol, spectrum, throughput, and range.
Most people don't ignore those differences as trivial, assuming they know the first thing about wireless communication. If they don't, it still matters because all those different protocol devices are not interoperable without some sort of L2 translation. Advertising them by the same name implies some sort of L2 compatibility, and "Super Wi-Fi" is not L2 compatible with any 802.11 device.
Re:'wireless' is generic, wifi is not! by TheGratefulNet · 2012-01-28 12:03 · Score: 1

modern equiv of 'breaker, breaker!' is when you microwave popcorn and your net connection goes down ;)

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Re:'wireless' is generic, wifi is not! by jonadab · 2012-01-28 16:14 · Score: 2

As a general rule, I tend to agree: if a trademark is genuinely a unique or creative name for the product, competitors should not be allowed to just appropriate it -- they should be liable for the infringement and have to pay (reasonable) damages.

I do *not* think this should apply in cases of an appropriated standard word for the thing, like "Word" for word processing (or "Writer" for that matter) or "One-Click" for an activity that (ostensibly) involves clicking once or "Multi-Touch" for a touch-screen interface that supports multiple simultaneous touches. A trademark, to be enforceable, should have to actually be an original name[1]. Otherwise it should get laughed out of court summarily.

The thing I don't like about current trademark law is the way it actively encourages unnecessary litigation by placing a burden on the mark holder to show that they've defended the mark. That isn't what they should have to show. The law should be changed. The plaintiff should have to show that the mark was originally theirs, a new and unique name when they started using it, and they should have to show that they've used it more or less continuously, for products or services available to the public, since that time. And maybe they should have to show that the registered it within some amount of time after first use (so that there's a definitive place people can check a name they're thinking of using, in order to verify that it's not going to infringe somebody else's mark).

However, my proposed changes are *not* currently the law: under trademark law as it stands right now, you *do* have to defend your mark (and prevent other people from using it, especially in conjunction with competing products) if you want to keep it. It is at least arguable that the "Wi-Fi" mark is potentially in danger of becoming genericized in popular usage. It hasn't gone all the way to fully generic yet (like, say, bulldozer or zamboni or thermos or klenex or aspirin -- all of which have been treated as generic terms by the general public for so long that there isn't even another single-word term in the English language for any of the things they represent, and most folks don't even KNOW that they were originally brand names), but "Wi-Fi" has arguably taken some steps in that general direction.

[1] When I say that a name should have to be original, I mean that it should at least have to be original as regards the type of product in question -- "Epidermis" is not an original word overall, but it might be a sufficiently original trade name for, say, a brand of frozen pizza -- because until now the word "epidermis" has not been generally associated with pizza (or food in general, or frozenness, or anything along those lines). (Whether many consumers would want to buy pizza sold under such a name is an entirely separate question -- a marketing issue rather than a legal one.)

--
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
Re:'wireless' is generic, wifi is not! by axl917 · 2012-01-28 16:50 · Score: 1

Like Xerox?
Like Photoshop?
Re:'wireless' is generic, wifi is not! by gstrickler · 2012-01-28 21:18 · Score: 1

But in that case, Wi-Fi is the correct term. They're not asking "do you have wireless internet?", they're asking "do you have a wi-fi compatible wireless internet connection?" So, no, it's not the generic, it's a specific, compatible technology they're asking about.

--
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
Re:'wireless' is generic, wifi is not! by ewanm89 · 2012-01-28 22:39 · Score: 1

Not to mention Wifi term and logo can only be displayed on Wifi Alliance certified devices that support a specific set of protocols of the 802.11 protocols. A lot of devices are not certified even if they do support the agreed protocols and so will not even mention wifi on the packaging, the idea is that any wifi alliance logo'ed box will be compatible with any other wifi logoed device.
Re:'wireless' is generic, wifi is not! by Coren22 · 2012-01-31 04:39 · Score: 1

I love to Photoshop in Gimp :P

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?

This just in... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-28 05:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

A super nerd explains why super wifi isn't wifi. General population doesn't give a fuck, as wifi means "wireless internet" to them.

More new at 11...

Re:This just in... by Skapare · 2012-01-28 05:44 · Score: 4, Funny

Being as you are "Anonymous Coward", the first user here, you should already know that Slashdot is all about a subfield of Social Steganography where the challenge is to write something meaningful and truthful that is perceived by the reader as the rant of an idiot.

--
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Re:This just in... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-28 06:15 · Score: 1

I thought it was t'other way 'round -- try to write an idiotic rant in such a way that it's perceived by the reader as insightful and informative?
Have I been doing it wrong all this time?
Re:This just in... by TheGratefulNet · 2012-01-28 06:43 · Score: 1

this pipe is diameter of 3.
it should fit your pipe if it also measures 3.
(do not worry if its cm or inches or even fractional yards. its Not Our Problem if this does not fit YOUR pipe).

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Re:This just in... by evilviper · 2012-01-28 10:09 · Score: 1

A super nerd explains why super wifi isn't wifi. General population doesn't give a fuck, as wifi means "wireless internet" to them.
That's not the point at all. The point is that they've started using a trademarked term in a very official way (not just informally saying "It's like super wifi.") such as in trade show names. This is public notice, a prelude to a big trademark infringement lawsuit over the misuse of the term WiFi.
Imagine if DisplayPort was not named DisplayPort, but instead was listed everywhere as "Super HDMI". It doesn't matter if that name helps you understand what it is... you're using someone else's trademark as a semi-offical name for your product. You're massively in the wrong, and should expect the mother of all trademark lawsuits to land on your head in short order, and you won't have a leg to stand on.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:This just in... by gl4ss · 2012-01-28 16:56 · Score: 1

general population starts caring when they'll receive a monthly bill for it though..

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:This just in... by unitron · 2012-01-28 19:35 · Score: 1

this pipe is diameter of 3.
it should fit your pipe if it also measures 3.
(do not worry if its cm or inches or even fractional yards. its Not Our Problem if this does not fit YOUR pipe).
If you've ever worked with plumbing pipe or electrical conduit you know that the one thing that is guaranteed is that no matter what system of units is used, if it says it's a 3 it's going to be either bigger or smaller than 3.

--
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Re:This just in... by gmhowell · 2012-01-30 20:18 · Score: 1

No, AC is the second user. User number one was Cmdr. Taco. He had to create the AC user so when he discovered that logged in posters sometimes posted stuff that was so banal and full of crap that they might want to do it anonymously for fear of ridicule.

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon

More Like... by Penguinshit · 2012-01-28 05:42 · Score: 2

WiFaux

--

I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...

I see a flaw... by girlintraining · 2012-01-28 05:42 · Score: 5, Funny

It could become a real threat to cell phone carriers' 3G data monopoly, and could *snip*

They're deploying this in the US, right? Ok. It's doomed. Move along folks, nothing to see here. Like they'd ever let you have something cutting edge that wasn't owned by a mega corporation. ha ha ha. You're so funny, slashdot.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie

Re:I see a flaw... by gl4ss · 2012-01-28 16:58 · Score: 1

that whitespace techs need _higher_ co-operation between operators providing the service doesn't really bode too well for it cutting down the monopoly..

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.

Apparently not even compatible? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-28 05:44 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

Re:Apparently not even compatible? by billcopc · 2012-01-28 06:28 · Score: 4, Funny

Ok then, call it Wi-Far! :)

--
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Re:Apparently not even compatible? by gstrickler · 2012-01-28 07:35 · Score: 1

I suggest Wi-Space.

--
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
Re:Apparently not even compatible? by deniable · 2012-01-28 11:53 · Score: 1

Wi-Not
Re:Apparently not even compatible? by 6ULDV8 · 2012-01-28 12:46 · Score: 1

Wi-Dass? I'll let you work on the bacronym.

--
Pull my finger for my public key.

Re:Tape for boo-boos? by Skapare · 2012-01-28 05:45 · Score: 1

You were lucky. I always got at least chewed out for a boo-boo, if not worse.

--
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars

oh please, there's no problem by rubycodez · 2012-01-28 05:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

most end users, almost all of them, don't know a thing about radio spectrum, encoding, or protocols for such. The level of understanding is "does it work with this system, or doesn't it'. Therefore "super wifi" is nothing more than a marketing term. It doesn't matter.

Re:oh please, there's no problem by AvitarX · 2012-01-28 05:57 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

--
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Re:oh please, there's no problem by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-28 06:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

Because it would suck if users ever actually knew what they were talking about, thus preventing this confusion next time.
I mean really, are "Wireless-N", "WiFi-N", and such appellations really so much easier to remember than 802.11n? Yeah, I know we're all/mostly computer/network enthusiasts, and it would be wrong to expect the general public to care as much about getting it right, but when I deal with fields where I'm non-expert, I'd know I'd rather learn correct terminology than some brand name -- and I don't see that it's significantly harder, so even people who don't care would be fine learning the correct term, if we could just get rid of all the marketing departments that make these stupid trademarks.
Re:oh please, there's no problem by swalve · 2012-01-28 06:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

Sure it matters. If my device has a WiFi logo on it, I should be able to connect. If it doesn't connect I'm going to be pissed and believe that "WiFi" sucks.
Re:oh please, there's no problem by rubycodez · 2012-01-28 07:08 · Score: 1

If you take your "wifi" device that only does 2.4GHz to a place with 5 GHz wifi, it won't work either. get over it.
Re:oh please, there's no problem by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-28 07:45 · Score: 1

I didn't know anyone even made 5GHz only access points. WiFi devices tend to be backwards compatible and I think people would think less of WiFi if they find something branded as WiFi is incompatible with something else branded as WiFi.
Re:oh please, there's no problem by AvitarX · 2012-01-28 10:02 · Score: 2

With the exception of 802.11a only devices (and it's been a long time since I've seen one), every device I've seen is compatible, all the way back to the first 802.11b card and router I had.

--
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Re:oh please, there's no problem by Zibodiz · 2012-01-28 11:02 · Score: 1

There are actually a lot... Wi-Max devices are actually WiFi, and many operate at 5.0ghz. If you have the SSID & Key and give them your mac address, you could connect right up to a WiMax network, if you're in line of sight and within broadcast distance. Point of reference: I own a couple of Ubiquity WiMax APs. My a/b/g/n laptop can connect with no issues.
Also, 802.11a uses 5.0GHz. If you look (they're rare and old), you can find some 802.11a-only APs.
Re:oh please, there's no problem by Fjandr · 2012-01-28 11:29 · Score: 1

Alright, I will now refer to all Bluetooth, cellular, and baseband radio transmissions as "wi-fi" since they're all just "marketing terms."
Re:oh please, there's no problem by segin · 2012-01-28 12:08 · Score: 1

They now have new 802.11a/n routers that are also 5GHz-only.
Re:oh please, there's no problem by segin · 2012-01-28 12:12 · Score: 1

The 802.11a standard ran in the 5GHz spectrum. 802.11n also optionally supports it. Recently, 5GHz-only routers have been redesigned to be dual mode 802.11a/n. 5GHz has far more channels for use, but nearly half the range.
Re:oh please, there's no problem by thegarbz · 2012-01-28 12:31 · Score: 1

get over it.
The parent raised a real critical point. The answer is not "get over it", as you Mr nerd will be the one that handles your grandparent's IT support calls when exactly this kind of problem pops up.
The Wifi logo is a certification scheme. If two devices with the same logo don't work with each other then what is the purpose of having that logo? Or should we just add the words maybe to everything?
Maybe designed for Windows 7?
Maybe USB3.0?
This disc maybe a CDROM and may work with your computer?
Maybe you just spent a lot of money on something that doesn't work!
If the logo remains unchanged then the system needs to be backwards compatible. (See USB).
If someone releases something that is not compatible then it should be denied access to the logo (See CDROM's with DRM).
Re:oh please, there's no problem by Vrtigo1 · 2012-01-28 14:02 · Score: 1

Well, actually most (if not all, not sure) 801.11b gear isn't compatible with any type of security better than WEP, so it's mostly useless these days, even for those applications where the slower bandwidth differences wouldn't matter. As far as 802.11a, most devices these days are at least a/b/g if not a/b/g/n, so it's not that 802.11a has gone away, it's just that it's not used much anymore.
Re:oh please, there's no problem by sjames · 2012-01-28 14:13 · Score: 1

That ship has sailed. Your 802.11a card won't connect to that 802.11bg router. The 802.11n router is compatible with the 802.11 card unless you put it on a channel in the 5GHz range, then it isn't. I see the lot of it called WiFi all the time.
At least Super WiFi has something to indicate it may not be regular WiFi.
Re:oh please, there's no problem by rubycodez · 2012-01-28 14:44 · Score: 1

jokes on you and my grandparents, I'm old and they're all long dead. hah!
We're talking about "super wifi", and that logo has nothing to do with it. And, as I'm trying to drill into your obtuse head, not everything with that wifi logo will even work together. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to do some super-duper-puper-wifi via packet radio.
Re:oh please, there's no problem by Forever+Wondering · 2012-01-28 17:11 · Score: 1

It matters because the "white space" spectrum guys are poaching the term/trademark "Super WiFi" because they couldn't come up with a word like Bluetooth, LTE, WiMax, etc. How about WiSpace or WiSpectrum?
---
It's as bad as Ethernet calling itself "Super USB" (or vice versa). All of the above have separate standards bodies that set the names/versions (and thus compatibility--or not). The USB people don't have to live in fear that the next version of Ethernet will be called USB 4.0. USB 3.0 operating at its highest speed is called "super speed" mode.
It would appear that the white space spectrum stuff is so much lower speed [and they know it], compared to 802.22 that they are trying to co-opt the name to get some of the glory before 802.22 comes online. However, it's dumb because it's a trademark violation and they can [easily] be shut down from using the term.
I've talked to a number of [only] mildly computer literate people and even they know that:
USB connects mice, keyboards, and backup hard drives to their computer;
Ethernet connects their computer to their home router;
WiFi connects their computer when they're at Starbuck's;
and Bluetooth connects their headset to their cell phone.

--
Like a good neighbor, fsck is there ...
Re:oh please, there's no problem by Cimexus · 2012-01-28 17:55 · Score: 1

Yeah, my home router is dualband 2.4 Ghz and 5 Ghz. The laptops can all see both APs, as can the tablet (iPad 2 FWIW... I'm pretty sure the iPad 1 only does 2.4 Ghz).
Everything else (phones, game consoles etc.) are stuck on the 2.4 Ghz though unfortunately. It sucks, since the 2.4 Ghz spectrum in my place is very congested. I can see a dozen other networks, all operating on one of the three standard channels (1, 6, 11). I live in Australia so channel 13 is also available for use, BUT unfortunately we bought some of our devices in the US, and so their firmware simply doesn't see channel 13. So we're stuck on channel 1 still. Remind me not to buy WiFi devices in the US again ... that channel 13 is a godsend since 99% of people never both to change their channel (and nothing is on channel 13 by default).
Re:oh please, there's no problem by Larryish · 2012-01-29 07:30 · Score: 4, Funny

Maybe they can change from WiFi to "WyFy".
Then it would appeal to the masses.
Re:oh please, there's no problem by AvitarX · 2012-01-29 07:59 · Score: 1

So it's useless, except for one of the major uses of access public hotspots?
My point isn't that it's great or anything, just that equipment that is wifi will connect to almost all other equipment that's wifi, now we have a new thing called wifi that will connect with none of the existing equipment, it is not an ideal situation.
USB 1.0 isn't used much either, but the equipment still works (actually, with USB it's better compatible than wifi, but it's a similar point). This is like some company making an incompatible system, and calling it USB ultra mega (or is that an official standard on USB already?).

--
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg

Re:Tape for boo-boos? by king+neckbeard · 2012-01-28 05:52 · Score: 2, Funny

That's nothing, when I asked for a Band-aid for a boo-boo, my parents gave me a generic brand plastic explosive. If they had bought the name brand stuff, I wouldn't have elbows anymore.

--
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

Summary by ceoyoyo · 2012-01-28 05:52 · Score: 3, Informative

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 by Theaetetus · 2012-01-28 06:04 · Score: 1

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."
But, if you go to a store and ask for Band-Aids and they give you a generic brand plastic adhesive, that's trademark infringement. Same reason why restaurant servers have to correct you when you ask for Coke, say, and they only have Pepsi.
Re:Summary by spire3661 · 2012-01-28 06:09 · Score: 1, Interesting

"But, if you go to a store and ask for Band-Aids and they give you a generic brand plastic adhesive, that's trademark infringement. Same reason why restaurant servers have to correct you when you ask for Coke, say, and they only have Pepsi." This is some logical diarrhea here. They say 'We only have Pepsi" because alot of people are like me and if I order Coke and it comes back Pepsi im gonna scream loudly. Has nothing to do with trademarks and everything to do with CUSTOMER SERVICE. Also in alot of the US South, Coke is all pop, be it sprite, mt dew, 7up its all coke to them.

--
Good-bye
Re:Summary by ceoyoyo · 2012-01-28 06:21 · Score: 1

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?
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.
Re:Summary by swalve · 2012-01-28 06:24 · Score: 1

What about "Bands-Aid"?
Re:Summary by cellmaker · 2012-01-28 06:43 · Score: 1

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?
There was a period of time where Pepsi and Coke very much minded. Servers everywhere were distinguishing which vendors product they carried ("Coke please". "Sorry, we only have Pepsi".) as if they were each individually monitored at all times. I quite often did not care, so I would ask for a diet cola. The response? "Sorry, we only have..."
Re:Summary by Theaetetus · 2012-01-28 07:00 · Score: 2

"But, if you go to a store and ask for Band-Aids and they give you a generic brand plastic adhesive, that's trademark infringement. Same reason why restaurant servers have to correct you when you ask for Coke, say, and they only have Pepsi."
This is some logical diarrhea here. They say 'We only have Pepsi" because alot of people are like me and if I order Coke and it comes back Pepsi im gonna scream loudly. Has nothing to do with trademarks and everything to do with CUSTOMER SERVICE.
1) That says nothing about the logic involved... if you're going to call something "logical diarrhea," you should explain why the logic is false.
2) You're wrong. Specifically, the statutes involved are 15 USC 1114 (Lanham Act sec. 32) if the trademark is registered, and 15 USC 1125 (Lanham Act sec. 43) if it's not. Coke and Pepsi are, of course, registered, so 1114 is the relevant one:

Any person who, on or in connection with any goods [e.g. selling Pepsi]... uses in commerce any word [e.g. "Coke"]... which--
(A) is likely... to cause mistake... as to the origin... of his or her goods... shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.
It's known as "passing off", and is actionable.

Also in alot of the US South, Coke is all pop, be it sprite, mt dew, 7up its all coke to them.
Yep, and sellers there are supposed to correct it. If they bring Sprite when someone asks for "Coke", then they've infringed the trademark.
Re:Summary by Theaetetus · 2012-01-28 07:03 · Score: 2, Informative

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 by David_Hart · 2012-01-28 07:37 · Score: 2, Informative

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:Summary by madmark1 · 2012-01-28 07:41 · Score: 2

Actually, unless the person giving you the drink TELLS YOU the Pepsi is Coke, it still isn't infringement, just poor service. If the server called it Coke, then its a problem, since the statute states rather explicitly that the person uses a word in commerce that could cause confusion as to the origin of goods, then it's infringement. It says nothing at all about the customer asking for something and being given something else, or not correcting them in THEIR usage.
Your waiter will likely never say to your request for Coke "Sorry, but I am required by law to inform you we sell Pepsi." What they say is "Is Pepsi ok?" Because they know if they don't ask, someone will complain. It has nothing at all to do with being legally required to do so.
Re:Summary by madmark1 · 2012-01-28 07:44 · Score: 1

Still wrong. Unless the merchant tells you it is Coke, then serves you Pepsi, no infringement has occurred. They aren't required to correct you in any way.
Re:Summary by zippthorne · 2012-01-28 07:57 · Score: 1

A rock concert benefiting some charity or another. Frequently, but not always, a worthless one.

--
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Re:Summary by Theaetetus · 2012-01-28 08:11 · Score: 1

Actually, unless the person giving you the drink TELLS YOU the Pepsi is Coke, it still isn't infringement, just poor service. If the server called it Coke, then its a problem, since the statute states rather explicitly that the person uses a word in commerce that could cause confusion as to the origin of goods, then it's infringement. It says nothing at all about the customer asking for something and being given something else, or not correcting them in THEIR usage.
Sorry, not true. And yes, there have been successful lawsuits over this.

Your waiter will likely never say to your request for Coke "Sorry, but I am required by law to inform you we sell Pepsi." What they say is "Is Pepsi ok?" Because they know if they don't ask, someone will complain. It has nothing at all to do with being legally required to do so.
They don't have to inform you that they're complying with the law. Asking if Pepsi okay corrects the misunderstanding and thus avoids any chance of confusion, removing any possibility of trademark infringement.
Re:Summary by madmark1 · 2012-01-28 14:44 · Score: 1

I eagerly await the citations of successful lawsuits against Applebees for not making sure I understand they sell Pepsi.
Re:Summary by jones_supa · 2012-01-28 22:13 · Score: 1

But, if you go to a store and ask for Band-Aids and they give you a generic brand plastic adhesive, that's trademark infringement. Same reason why restaurant servers have to correct you when you ask for Coke, say, and they only have Pepsi.
That's why I these days always ask for "cola"...
Re:Summary by Coren22 · 2012-01-31 04:47 · Score: 1

The episode name is Darmok. Just watched it yesterday.
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Darmok_(episode)

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?

They *will* care when it doesn't "just work"! by Dogtanian · 2012-01-28 06:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

A super nerd explains why super wifi isn't wifi. General population doesn't give a fuck, as wifi means "wireless internet" to them.

General population then bitches when their Super "WiFi" doesn't interoperate with any of their existing WiFi equipment and in fact can't even be used directly in their laptop at present. From the article:-

For now, at least, you can't move a white-space device around. You can't put a white-space radio into a phone or laptop because each white-space device must check its location against a database to determine which TV channels and wireless microphones are being used in the device's area, so they can avoid those channels. [..] It will be a way for wireless Internet providers, especially in rural areas, to zap their network over to a main router in a home, which will then redistribute it to devices over Ethernet or standard Wi-Fi connections.

So you're right that they probably wouldn't care about the technical issues, and nor would they ever likely care if any difference was totally transparent (and thus irrelevant) to the man on the street. But it's not, and that's why "Super WiFi" is a crap and misleading name, even for Joe Public.

--
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).

Re:They *will* care when it doesn't "just work"! by ryanw · 2012-01-28 10:28 · Score: 1

A super nerd explains why super wifi isn't wifi. General population doesn't give a fuck, as wifi means "wireless internet" to them.
General population then bitches when their Super "WiFi" doesn't interoperate with any of their existing WiFi equipment and in fact can't even be used directly in their laptop at present. From the article:-

For now, at least, you can't move a white-space device around. You can't put a white-space radio into a phone or laptop because each white-space device must check its location against a database to determine which TV channels and wireless microphones are being used in the device's area, so they can avoid those channels. [..] It will be a way for wireless Internet providers, especially in rural areas, to zap their network over to a main router in a home, which will then redistribute it to devices over Ethernet or standard Wi-Fi connections.
So you're right that they probably wouldn't care about the technical issues, and nor would they ever likely care if any difference was totally transparent (and thus irrelevant) to the man on the street. But it's not, and that's why "Super WiFi" is a crap and misleading name, even for Joe Public.
Ya whatever. We have constantly been living within different wifi standards such as 802.11a/b/n/whatever. Non techies understand the differences, but joe blow just listens to whatever the bestbuy guy at the store says. Bestbuy guy hands him a router and a card or whatever and pats him on the head and moves along to the counter. Same thing with 3G compatibility for iPads or what have you. People understand that not all 3G is compatible. People don't even know what 4g is yet. But it's all just marketing crap and at the end of the day people ask the techies what to do and hopefully they tell the consumers to get the correct stuff.

Silly article. by RightSaidFred99 · 2012-01-28 06:37 · Score: 2

It contains a brief admission that they're actually using it in conjunction with... you guessed it..wifi. So the solution they're rolling out first literally uses wifi. It acts as basically an extender to provide...wifi. I shall dub it "Super Wifi".

Granted they probably won't always use this topology, but my bet is it will be very popular. So literally it provides extended range wifi. What the fuck is this guy in the article on about, exactly, then?

Re:Silly article. by InvisiBill · 2012-01-28 07:53 · Score: 1

In Wilmington, the white-space network will initially provide backhaul to public Wi-Fi routers in two parks and connect four Webcams in a local garden, according to Forbes.
This new technology is used to link individual Wi-Fi LANs. The technology itself has as much to do with Wi-Fi as does your home cable/DSL internet connection because it's hooked up to a router with Wi-Fi.
Re:Silly article. by RightSaidFred99 · 2012-01-28 11:03 · Score: 1

And probably anal retentive dweebs really care about that distinction. People using hear "you can connect to a wifi network all over the city" and think "Super Wifi, that totally makes sense".
This seems about as meaningful a thing to get upset about as the fact that "hacker" now means "malicious hacker/cracker" to most people. Quick, call in the pedantic nerds!
Re:Silly article. by unitron · 2012-01-28 19:48 · Score: 1

It contains a brief admission that they're actually using it in conjunction with... you guessed it..wifi. So the solution they're rolling out first literally uses wifi. It acts as basically an extender to provide...wifi...
So they should just call it Wi-Fi Helper!
I'm sure General Mills's lawyers won't mind.

--
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

Useless article by methano · 2012-01-28 06:39 · Score: 2, Informative

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 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-28 07:15 · Score: 2, Interesting

the answer is NO. if you had actually RTFAed :
You can't put a white-space radio into a phone or laptop because each white-space device must check its location against a database to determine which TV channels and wireless microphones are being used in the device's area, so they can avoid those channels.
Re:Useless article by hawguy · 2012-01-28 07:16 · Score: 4, Informative

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:Useless article by InvisiBill · 2012-01-28 08:05 · Score: 1

No, this new technology uses a completely different range of frequencies. At first it will only operate in fixed-location devices even.

You can't put a white-space radio into a phone or laptop because each white-space device must check its location against a database to determine which TV channels and wireless microphones are being used in the device's area, so they can avoid those channels.
Re:Useless article by gstrickler · 2012-01-28 21:38 · Score: 1

True, but...
... there are few b-only devices still in use, and most places don't restrict them.
... there were very few a-only devices sold. A never had much success prior the the introduction of a/b/g devices.
... there is no reason to restrict a publicly accessible network to n-only, that's just plain foolish. Most of the installed base of devices don't support n, and allowing g doesn't materially hamper the performance of n devices. This is one instance where it might make sense to disallow b-only devices.
A more common issue is improper setup of WEP/WPA/WPA2 keys such that some clients can't connect.
In short, while you can experience compatibility problems with Wi-Fi, most are problems created by someone deliberately changing settings thereby causing a problem. For most instances, a Wi-Fi client (with the correct password) can connect to a Wi-Fi network.

--
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false

802.xx by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-28 06:50 · Score: 1

One of the confusions here is that "Super Wi-Fi" is the colloquial name for the 802.22 WRAN standard, while "Wi-Fi" is the slightly-less colloquial name for the 802.11 WLAN standard. People see 802 and think Wi-Fi.

Re:802.xx by viperidaenz · 2012-01-28 07:26 · Score: 1

When someone says 802.3 I think Ethernet, not Wi-Fi.
WiFi is 802.11a/b/g/n
Re:802.xx by InvisiBill · 2012-01-28 08:20 · Score: 2

People see 802 and think Wi-Fi.
They shouldn't. IEEE 802 defines LAN/MAN standards. Ethernet is 802.3, Bluetooth PAN is 802.15, and WiMAX is 802.16. "Wi-Fi" is a trademarked brand name for products using the IEEE 802.11 family of standards. This new technology has as much in common with Wi-Fi as Bluetooth and WiMAX do; there's no reason for it to mooch off the Wi-Fi name rather than using its own (perhaps the "Wi-Far" suggested above, along the same line as WiMAX).
Re:802.xx by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-01-28 12:46 · Score: 2

One of the confusions here is that "Super Wi-Fi" is the colloquial name for the 802.22 WRAN standard, while "Wi-Fi" is the slightly-less colloquial name for the 802.11 WLAN standard. People see 802 and think Wi-Fi.
"Super Wi-Fi" is not colloquial at all. It is a term coined by the FCC to refer to a specific implementation of the 802.22 WRAN standard (although it appears that the FCC would not mind it being applied to all such implementations). A colloquial term is one that has arisen in general usage to apply to something. This is a term that the FCC is attempting to push into general usage and it is likely to generate significant confusion. To make matters worse, while "WiFi" has become a colloquial term for 802.11 WLAN connectivity, it is a trademark for that devices that use that standard. If any organization other than a branch of the U.S. government had introduced the term "Super WiFi" for the type of usage the FCC is proposing, they would have faced a very serious lawsuit. It is very problematical to sue the FCC for infringing on your wireless communication trademark, since you need FCC approval for the devices that you build.

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison

Re:Tape for boo-boos? by hawguy · 2012-01-28 07:07 · Score: 1

You were lucky. I always got at least chewed out for a boo-boo, if not worse.

At least your parents didn't cover it with Mecurochrome. Putting organic mercury compounds on a child's open wound is probably not the best idea (though I don't think any studies definitely proved that mercury was absorbed into the body from Mercurochrome). Plus it left your skin indelibly dyed a bright orange color.

They should be sued for trademark violation by viperidaenz · 2012-01-28 07:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

Customer: "I was told my new ***** has the latest WiFi in it, but its not working"
Poor helpdesk worker: "That's because Super Wi-Fi isn't compatible with WiFi"
Customer: "Who's stupid idea was it to call it Super Wi-Fi then?"
Poor helpdesk worker: "Someone who thought it would help you understand what it is"
Customer: "But now I'm even more confused"

Re:They should be sued for trademark violation by stdarg · 2012-01-28 10:41 · Score: 2

No chance -- I think part of the thing for trademarks is you're supposed to protect them. Well look at this article from 2007:
http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/columns/article.php/3674591

Frank Hanzlik, the current managing director for the Wi-Fi Alliance, was not at the meetings where the Interbrand names were discussed, but he was a member of WECA and he is now entrusted with protecting and perpetuating the Wi-Fi brand. He confirms that "wireless fidelity" has no meaning, is not part of the trademark, and is not used or encouraged to be used by the Wi-Fi Alliance. However, he feels no need to aggressively correct those who use it, since what's most important to his organization is simply that "Wi-Fi" continues to be a household name.
"In the very early days of building the brand, there was a linkage to the hi-fi chronology," says Hanzlik. "It was successful in creating a positive connotation of what that could mean to a user. Over the last seven years, the term Wi-Fi has become quite ubiquitous in the developed part of the world. We just try to keep it simple and use only Wi-Fi."
"We declared victory when we made the Merriam-Webster dictionary," says Hanzlik. "Now we encourage everyone to use Wi-Fi versus 'wireless LAN,' because it resonates more with folks -- but we do enforce the Wi-Fi Certified and the Wi-Fi Alliance brands and logos."
So they had no problem with people using wi-fi incorrectly, assigning it an incorrect meaning, or any desire to prevent it from becoming a common word in the dictionary, or a household name (which I think is pretty close to saying generic). I mean he's even saying "just use wi-fi instead of wireless lan." Okay... that's like kleenex saying "Just say kleenex instead of tissue paper" and then getting mad when people use kleenex to refer to tissue paper. All they care about was "wi-fi certified" and "wi-fi alliance". Well, nobody called it super "wi-fi certified".
As for their victory in the dictionary:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wi-fi

Definition of WI-FI
—used to certify the interoperability of wireless computer networking devices
Doesn't even mention 802.11a/b/g/n.. just wireless. Based on that definition, any wireless networking standard can call itself wi-fi. That's just plain English at this point, and that was endorsed by the wifi alliance just a few years ago.
Re:They should be sued for trademark violation by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-01-28 12:48 · Score: 1

Customer: "I was told my new ***** has the latest WiFi in it, but its not working" Poor helpdesk worker: "That's because Super Wi-Fi isn't WiFi and is not compatible with WiFi" Customer: "Whose stupid idea was it to call it Super Wi-Fi then?" Poor helpdesk worker: "Someone with the government" Customer: "Oh, no wonder it doesn't make any sense" My personal take on that.

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison

Don't encourage ratting by PReDiToR · 2012-01-28 07:32 · Score: 1

A snotrag by any other name ...
Why get some kid (or other underpaid clerk) fired or hassled with retraining for not kowtowing to a megacorp's attempts at being monopolistic over a term that has, for all intents and purposes, entered the common vernacular to mean "tissue"?
Ratting on people is just sucky. If you personally want a Kleenex branded thin piece of paper to wipe your nose/mouth/ass on, do the decent thing and tell them to their face that they must have misunderstood your request. The other 50 (imaginary) people in the queue behind you probably don't give a crap.

--

Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger

WiFi? by CurryCamel · 2012-01-28 07:34 · Score: 1

Who cares? I've never heard anyone speak of "WiFi". IEEE 802.11 is called WLAN, except by some marketing guys.

Or is this a local issue?

The Most Confusing Service In The World by MacGyver2210 · 2012-01-28 07:41 · Score: 3, Funny

I don't always use WiFi, but when I do, I use SUPER WiFi.

--
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits

They should defend the trademark in court by msobkow · 2012-01-28 07:50 · Score: 2

"WiFi" may be a common term, but if it's a trademarked common term, the trademark holders should be suing for it's infringement by "Super WiFi".

I'm quite certain if you started talking about your "Super Kleenex" product, you'd have some lawyers on your butt, no matter how "generic" the term Kleenex may be in public usage.

--
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.

Re:They should defend the trademark in court by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-01-28 12:51 · Score: 1

The problem is that the organization that coined the term "Super WiFi" is the FCC. I hope you can see the problems a company (or organization of companies) that sells devices using radio waves might have with suing the FCC.

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Re:They should defend the trademark in court by msobkow · 2012-01-28 13:48 · Score: 1

So they can bend over and take it like good corporate sheep, or they can stand up to the government.
Too many people and companies are afraid of their own government.
The government exists to server US, not the other way around.

--
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Re:They should defend the trademark in court by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-01-28 14:15 · Score: 1

While it is all well and good to say that they should stand up to the government, this is not just about standing up to the government (which has more resources than the company) this is about standing up to the department of the government that can make your business very difficult day in and day out by interpreting every rule in the way most disadvantageous to your company.

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Re:They should defend the trademark in court by msobkow · 2012-01-28 22:08 · Score: 1

Cowards get the government they deserve.
And I DO, I don't TALK. I'm in battle with ISC (Information Services Corporation) of Saskatchewan to demand that they deliver on their published service level agreement of 1-2 weeks processing time for a paper-filed incorporation submission instead of the 7 weeks they're now trying to claim it's going to take.
THEY mismanaged my expectations and published the erroneous estimates for MONTHS. Their bad, their problem, and it's up to them to figure out a way to resolve the issue.
Were I a coward, I'd have said "Oh, no, I can't complain, or they'll take even LONGER than 7 weeks."
Fortunately for me and my business, I'm not a wuss.

--
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Re:They should defend the trademark in court by fa2k · 2012-01-28 23:42 · Score: 1

I hope you can see the problems a company (or organization of companies) that sells devices using radio waves might have with suing the FCC.
I'm quite sure that being vengeful is not part of FCC's mandate. FCC is required to evaluate all products fairly, based on their merit. If they deny your product because you are suing them, you can probably sue them again for thta...
Re:They should defend the trademark in court by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-01-29 00:14 · Score: 1

So, does your livelihood rely on decisions made by the ISC on matters only peripherally related to the matter you are fighting them over (I am completely unfamiliar with the ISC)? Will decisions the ISC makes on matters unrelated to what you are fighting them about effect your ability to make your living? That is not to say that the battle you are fighting is not an admirable one, just that if the answers to those questions are not "yes", then the situation you are in is not comparable to that of these companies.
Also, I am not sure if the FCC can be sued over this. Sovereign immunity may apply (and it may not, I do not know).

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Re:They should defend the trademark in court by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-01-29 00:31 · Score: 1

"Oh no, we did not deny XYZ Corporation's application because they sued us. We have not denied it at all. It is just that they have not completed all of the necessary paperwork. They filed a form 1337. They need to file a form 1337a for this type of device."
"Yes, they have all of their paperwork in, but now they need to complete an environmental impact statement as to what impact deployment of this device will have."
"Oh yes, they completed the environmental impact statement, but it fails to take into account how this device will affect the Blightsworth Bee, which has been shown (in this study we commissioned two months after they started the application process) to be sensitive to radio waves at that frequency."
It would not be a matter of denying the product. It would be a matter of interpreting the regulations in the manner most disadvantageous to the company. There are lots of subtle ways that a bureaucracy can make a companies business difficult without doing anything that would be actionable.

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison

Re:Whats the real difference? by drkstr1 · 2012-01-28 07:52 · Score: 1

Remember those rabit ears on old TVs? That's "super WiFi." At least that is what I gathered from TFA. I am no expert on the topic.

--
Fanboy Status: Apache Flex, C#, Eclipse, KDE, Pirate Party, Ron Paul, Slackware, Windows 7

Re:Tape for boo-boos? by freshfromthevat · 2012-01-28 08:14 · Score: 1

You were lucky. I always got at least chewed out for a boo-boo, if not worse.

At least your parents didn't cover it with Mecurochrome. Putting organic mercury compounds on a child's open wound is probably not the best idea (though I don't think any studies definitely proved that mercury was absorbed into the body from Mercurochrome). Plus it left your skin indelibly dyed a bright orange color.

you were lucky. At last your parents didn't just cut off the damaged limb.

--
.. Blub falls right in the middle of the abstractness continuum. -- Paul Graham

WiFaux by freshfromthevat · 2012-01-28 08:15 · Score: 1, Redundant

WiFaux

Followed closely by WiFumm

--
.. Blub falls right in the middle of the abstractness continuum. -- Paul Graham

Tech ignorance is worse than you think by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-28 08:29 · Score: 2, Funny

[Posting AC, for semiobvious reasons....]
Overheard in a local McDonald's (TM) restaurant:
Customer: I want my free wiffee.
Clerk: Your free what?
Customer: My free wiffee.

[....iterate four or five times....]

Clerk: Can you show me where we have a 'wiffee' on our menu?
Customer, pointing to 'Free Wi-Fi' sign: See! A Free wiffee! Does it come in small, medium, and large?
Clerk: Oh, that's WiFi, rhymes with SciFi, and it's used to get to the Internet.
Customer: Oh. Thanks.

Re:Tech ignorance is worse than you think by TheGratefulNet · 2012-01-28 12:02 · Score: 1

approx half of everyone on the street is of below-average intelligence.
'nuff said?

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Re:Tech ignorance is worse than you think by jotaass · 2012-01-28 13:52 · Score: 1

Which means the other half is above average?
Re:Tech ignorance is worse than you think by unitron · 2012-01-28 19:26 · Score: 1

No, they're mostly a bunch of idiots as well.

--
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

Wi-Fi vs wifi by denbesten · 2012-01-28 09:34 · Score: 2

Seems like a lawyer either will be explaining the concept of trademark to his client or will be defending the claim that "Wi-Fi" and "wifi" are not "confusingly similar" to a judge.

The Wi-Fi Alliance's only real next step is to defend their trademark in an attempt to prevent it from becoming genericized.

Re:Wi-Fi vs wifi by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-01-28 12:54 · Score: 3, Informative

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.

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison

Considering the term "WiFi" is a misnomer anyway.. by Red_Chaos1 · 2012-01-28 09:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

...I'll just chalk this up to pedantics. There is no "fidelity" to wireless anyway. HiFi makes sense. WiFi doesn't. This whole things is stupid, now stop taking it so seriously.

wifi implies you wouldn't need operator to join by gl4ss · 2012-01-28 11:13 · Score: 1

or operate. thus gaining goodwill.

marketing whitespace as wifi is just piggypacking on wifi's success that comes with the ease of just being able to join a network in starbucks or wherever.

4g sounds expensive, especially if you're in the states.

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.

Re:Whats the real difference? by Fjandr · 2012-01-28 11:54 · Score: 1

This tech operates at a much lower frequency (54 - 890 MHz), while WiFi operates at either 2.4GHz or 5GHz. Ground-based broadcasting stations can transmit the previous frequencies omnidirectionally at significantly longer ranges without line-of-site between transmission sources. Long-range WiFi transmission requires directional antennas, so wide area coverage requires a much greater investment in equipment as well as direct line-of-site between transmission points.

Re:Whats the real difference? by unitron · 2012-01-28 19:43 · Score: 1

This tech operates at a much lower frequency (54 - 890 MHz), while WiFi operates at either 2.4GHz or 5GHz. Ground-based broadcasting stations can transmit the previous frequencies omnidirectionally at significantly longer ranges without line-of-site between transmission sources. Long-range WiFi transmission requires directional antennas, so wide area coverage requires a much greater investment in equipment as well as direct line-of-site between transmission points.

So then they should just call it "Where our television channels used to be-Fi".

--

I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

Re:am I the only one by unitron · 2012-01-28 19:53 · Score: 1

that pronounces it wee-fee

Just you and my French maid, Fifi.

--

I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

Slashdot Mirror

Super Wi-Fi Isn't Really Wi-Fi

111 of 145 comments (clear)