‘Super Wi-Fi’ poised for growth in U.S., elsewhere(rawstory.com)
rawstory.com
‘Super Wi-Fi’ poised for growth in U.S., elsewhere
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/02/super-wi-fi-poised-for-growth-in-u-s-elsewhere/
9 comments
Super Wi-Fi is not really Wi-Fi because it uses a different frequency and requires specially designed equipment, but it offers some of Wi-Fi’s advantages, and more.
Uhh, no. Wifi already uses two somewhat-incompatible frequency bands and is going to add a third at 60MHz. And you always have to replace the equipment to upgrade. That's not the reason it's not wifi. It's not wifi because it communicates over its frequencies in a completely different way from wifi.
Uhh, no. Wifi already uses two somewhat-incompatible frequency bands and is going to add a third at 60MHz. And you always have to replace the equipment to upgrade. That's not the reason it's not wifi. It's not wifi because it communicates over its frequencies in a completely different way from wifi.
In an unlicensed spectrum range, with a much greater range than WiFi, will this have a much greater potential for signal interference? Already, the WiFi network in my apartment is very limited in range because of interference from a large number of neighboring WiFi networks.
I presume they mean 802.11ac. It would have been nice had the "journalist" said that.
802.11ac actually is wifi. "Super Wi-Fi" is 802.22
Which is why it would have been really nice if the journalist would have found a way to work in the IEEE designation.
Oh, and thank you :)
Oh, and thank you :)
In many densely-populated US urban areas, Wi-Fi is already completely- (often over-) occupied with contending users. This is to be expected considering the trickle of "public airwaves" which the public can currently access.
Alternative frequencies are already sorely needed. None of this stuff (and plenty of it) can happen fast enough.
Alternative frequencies are already sorely needed. None of this stuff (and plenty of it) can happen fast enough.
Very few companies are even considering jumping in on 802.22.
I am pissed personally as the new unlicensed "Super WIFI" would be a great addition to the currently allocated spectrum.
IF YOU WORK WITH A WIRELESS COMPANY, PLEAD WITH THEM TO @LEAST TRY!
I am pissed personally as the new unlicensed "Super WIFI" would be a great addition to the currently allocated spectrum.
IF YOU WORK WITH A WIRELESS COMPANY, PLEAD WITH THEM TO @LEAST TRY!
If you work with a wireless company you already have a working infrastructure on an existing technology for which hardware can actually be purchased. e.g. the wireless ISP I use does bidirectional 10mbps to me over 9 miles. Maybe in the future, with channel bonding added, 802.22 would beat that.
I think where this makes sense is for a new company that wants to "bring broadband to rural america".
I think where this makes sense is for a new company that wants to "bring broadband to rural america".
If hardware were designed intelligently, switching to another frequency band would be a matter of a different daughterboard.
It's true that the TV band can give longer range which is only useful in rural areas. In places with population density, longer range means that each AP covers quadratically more clients, giving each client a smaller share of the already-low throughput.
Between this and the memristor nonsense, today is a sad day for HN.