Super Wi-Fi Technology Isn't Really Wi-Fi(pcmag.com)
pcmag.com
Super Wi-Fi Technology Isn't Really Wi-Fi
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2399447,00.asp
8 comments
Pass me the kleenex, I'm going to cry for the loss of protected trademark status. (I had to google for the technical bits. Beats having to xerox them at the library.)
While I agree that deliberately marketing a new product with the name of an old one (that you don't own) isn't kosher, the public is going to use the terminology that it uses. Pretty much all that's left is to remember that this means you won mindshare.
While I agree that deliberately marketing a new product with the name of an old one (that you don't own) isn't kosher, the public is going to use the terminology that it uses. Pretty much all that's left is to remember that this means you won mindshare.
It may not be that super either, since you're not going to get much throughput in a 6 MHz channel, and increasing range tends to also reduce per-customer throughput because they have to contend with more other customers.
This is basically a turf-war between wifi (802.11) and cellular (802.22) people. I think this announcement was to pre-empt 802.22 from taking over tv white-space band and making it popular, because there is a TV-whitespace standard being developed (802.11ah) from the 802.11 folks (aka wifi folks) but is a couple of years away from production.
"Wi-Fi" is a dumb name anyway.
Well, it's accessible to aging Boomers for whom "Hi-Fi" actually means something. I suppose in that sense it helps them get on board.
For the younger generation, I'm noting a thing where wireless internet is perceived as the standard nowadays, and you actually have to be specific when talking about "wired" internet.
For the younger generation, I'm noting a thing where wireless internet is perceived as the standard nowadays, and you actually have to be specific when talking about "wired" internet.
"What speed of internet do you have?"
"Wireless!"
sigh
"Wireless!"
sigh
Sounds like Scott Kargman doesn't take trademarks too seriously.
In other words, from a technical perspective this is no more "super Wi-Fi" than Bluetooth is "mini Wi-Fi" or Sprint's 4G WiMAX is "mega Wi-Fi."
They cleverly named Wi-Fi after the universal audio term Hi-Fi. Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, it's perfectly appropriate to apply Wi-Fi to any wireless TCP/IP networking device.
They cleverly named Wi-Fi after the universal audio term Hi-Fi. Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, it's perfectly appropriate to apply Wi-Fi to any wireless TCP/IP networking device.
> it's perfectly appropriate to apply Wi-Fi to any wireless TCP/IP networking device
Until you try to explain to your Uncle Ed why his laptop can't access the eBay even though they just rolled out the Super-WiFi in his region.
Until you try to explain to your Uncle Ed why his laptop can't access the eBay even though they just rolled out the Super-WiFi in his region.
Uncle Ed's laptop may not get 802.11 n or 802.11 ac (maybe not even g) either even those are all official "Wi-Fi" protocols.
An n-only device probably wouldn't get certified as Wi-Fi™; AFAIK Wi-Fi devices have to have b and g for precisely that compatibility reason.
The problem is the confusion it causes. When someone calls a photocopier a 'xerox', it doesn't matter much because it still works as they expect regardless of brand. When someone calls something that's not 802.11 compliant Wi-Fi, it still won't work with their laptop's Wi-Fi card even though "They're the same thing!"
I believe the fastest airspeed I've seen claimed is 16 - 20Mbit/s using these devices. Although, this is using pretty basic 802.11-style signaling, and with a signal antenna. Multiples of this airspeed via dual adjacent channel modes, comparable to HT modes in 802.11n are technical possible, although likely unfeasible due to the licensing situation. Fortunately, the spatial multiplexing done right now with the fancier 802.11n radios is quite possible with TVWS, with the non-negligible drawback of then having to deploy 2 or 4 identical antennas at critical spacing b/w each other. (And these antennas are comparable in size to old UHF TV aerials.)
That said, deploying TVWS in an urban area doesn't make much sense right now. 10 to 20ml of range is quite nice, but the tradeoff is that you will either have to severely limit your subscriber density, or severely reduce the bandwidth allotted to each subscriber.