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.
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".
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.
There's nothing super about it. Old Wi-Fi uses 20 MHz channels and the newer versions sometimes use 40 or 80 MHz. The white space channels are 6 MHz wide, so that's roughly 1/3 the throughput.
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.
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.
14 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 48.5 ms ] threadYou could buy a "book" about it. (Just a dissertation robotted into a book to dupe you into purchasing it.)
Oh, and thank you :)
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.
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 think where this makes sense is for a new company that wants to "bring broadband to rural america".
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.
God says... Zzzzzzzz I'm_off_today Mars I'm_done Enough don't_you_love_me scum
Alternative frequencies are already sorely needed. None of this stuff (and plenty of it) can happen fast enough.