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

'wireless' is generic, wifi is not!

[TheGratefulNet]

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.

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...."

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

[hairyfeet]

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".

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

[jonadab]

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.)

This just in...

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

[Skapare]

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.

More Like...

[Penguinshit]

WiFaux

I see a flaw...

[girlintraining]

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.

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.

Re:Apparently not even compatible?

[billcopc]

Ok then, call it Wi-Far! :)

oh please, there's no problem

[rubycodez]

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

[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:oh please, there's no problem

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[swalve]

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

[AvitarX]

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.

Re:oh please, there's no problem

[Larryish]

Maybe they can change from WiFi to "WyFy".

Then it would appeal to the masses.

Re:Tape for boo-boos?

[king neckbeard]

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.

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]

"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

[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:Summary

[madmark1]

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.

They *will* care when it doesn't "just work"!

[Dogtanian]

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.

Silly article.

[RightSaidFred99]

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?

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[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".

They should be sued for trademark violation

[viperidaenz]

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

[stdarg]

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.

The Most Confusing Service In The World

[MacGyver2210]

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

They should defend the trademark in court

[msobkow]

"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.

Re:802.xx

[InvisiBill]

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).

Tech ignorance is worse than you think

[Anonymous Coward]

[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.

Wi-Fi vs wifi

[denbesten]

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

[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.

Considering the term "WiFi" is a misnomer anyway..

[Red_Chaos1]

...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.

Re:Shocking!

[Canazza]

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.

Re:802.xx

[Attila Dimedici]

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.