Slashdot Mirror


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."

6 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...

  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.

  5. 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).