Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Super Wi-Fi Isn't Really Wi-Fi

Posted by timothy on from the how-can-a-jump-rope-be-wi-fi? dept.

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."

13 of 145 comments (clear)

  1. 'wireless' is generic, wifi is not! by TheGratefulNet · · 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."
    1. Re:'wireless' is generic, wifi is not! by gstrickler · · 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
  2. This just in... by Anonymous Coward · · 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...

    1. Re:This just in... by Skapare · · 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
  3. I see a flaw... by girlintraining · · 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
  4. Apparently not even compatible? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    1. Re:Apparently not even compatible? by billcopc · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ok then, call it Wi-Far! :)

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
  5. oh please, there's no problem by rubycodez · · 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.

    1. Re:oh please, there's no problem by AvitarX · · 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
    2. Re:oh please, there's no problem by swalve · · 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.

    3. Re:oh please, there's no problem by Larryish · · Score: 4, Funny

      Maybe they can change from WiFi to "WyFy".

      Then it would appeal to the masses.

  6. They *will* care when it doesn't "just work"! by Dogtanian · · 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).
  7. Re:Useless article by hawguy · · 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".