4 ms·

What's better than Wi-Fi? Super Wi-Fi

11 points by pchristensen 16y ago

lincolnq 16y ago
I'm excited for the possibility that wifi will be able to serve a much larger area, perhaps 100-1000 times the area of current wifi points. I've been trying to figure out how to make micro-ISP businesses super convenient (just buy a router, set it up, and get paid) -- this might just be what that idea needs to get started. Maybe we can simultaneously disrupt the major cellphone providers and the major ISPs... wifi everywhere!
- bobds 16y ago
  A few years ago I was in Athens and some tech guys introduced me to the idea of wireless community networks. I was amazed at what a few people had achieved with just directional antennas and a few ADSL lines, back when broadband was almost non-existant in Greece. They called it the Athens Wireless Metropolitan Network: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athens_Wireless_Metropolitan_Network http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athens_Wireless_Metropolitan_Ne... Today they have 1120 backbone nodes, 2900 client nodes and another 9000+ people that have expressed interest in joining the network. Apparently this is happening all over the world. Wikipedia has an extensive list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wireless_community_networks_by_region http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wireless_community_netw... We need this super wifi thing in the hands of those people.
- johannchiang 16y ago
  The article is a little bit misleading. Serving a larger area and serving more people are actually conflicting goals. The latter is always more important in urban area.
dgreensp 16y ago
Another generic, thin-on-facts hype article about the "whitespace". I'm disappointed in Slate. With all the vacuous pieces around, it's difficult to even find out which frequencies are being made available. Here's an article from 2007 with some facts: http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2007/04/white-space.ars http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2007/04/white-space.ars Basically new mobile devices will be allowed if they can actively dodge TV channels, in the 50-700 MHz range, and use the spaces in between. Truly the only advantage of these lower-than-wifi frequencies, as far as I can tell, is less signal attenuation (over distances and through walls). That means more potential for crowding, too. Plus I assume you need a longer antenna for the longer wavelength. I haven't been able to find any good info about potential data rates. In North America, 900-930 MHz is already unlicensed and used for some cordless phones and wireless transmitters. Remember that big antenna sticking out of your first cordless phone? (Before the fancier 2.4 GHz ones that interfered with your home wifi.) Anyway, new unlicensed bands is exciting, even if no single frequency is unused everywhere in the country, but I just don't get the "super wifi" / "wifi on drugs/steroids" angle without more facts.

11 points by pchristensen 16y ago

I'm excited for the possibility that wifi will be able to serve a much larger area, perhaps 100-1000 times the area of current wifi points. I've been trying to figure out how to make micro-ISP businesses super convenient (just buy a router, set it up, and get paid) -- this might just be what that idea needs to get started. Maybe we can simultaneously disrupt the major cellphone providers and the major ISPs... wifi everywhere!

bobds 16y ago
A few years ago I was in Athens and some tech guys introduced me to the idea of wireless community networks. I was amazed at what a few people had achieved with just directional antennas and a few ADSL lines, back when broadband was almost non-existant in Greece. They called it the Athens Wireless Metropolitan Network: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athens_Wireless_Metropolitan_Network http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athens_Wireless_Metropolitan_Ne... Today they have 1120 backbone nodes, 2900 client nodes and another 9000+ people that have expressed interest in joining the network. Apparently this is happening all over the world. Wikipedia has an extensive list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wireless_community_networks_by_region http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wireless_community_netw... We need this super wifi thing in the hands of those people.
johannchiang 16y ago
The article is a little bit misleading. Serving a larger area and serving more people are actually conflicting goals. The latter is always more important in urban area.

dgreensp 16y ago

Another generic, thin-on-facts hype article about the "whitespace". I'm disappointed in Slate. With all the vacuous pieces around, it's difficult to even find out which frequencies are being made available. Here's an article from 2007 with some facts: http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2007/04/white-space.ars http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2007/04/white-space.ars Basically new mobile devices will be allowed if they can actively dodge TV channels, in the 50-700 MHz range, and use the spaces in between. Truly the only advantage of these lower-than-wifi frequencies, as far as I can tell, is less signal attenuation (over distances and through walls). That means more potential for crowding, too. Plus I assume you need a longer antenna for the longer wavelength. I haven't been able to find any good info about potential data rates. In North America, 900-930 MHz is already unlicensed and used for some cordless phones and wireless transmitters. Remember that big antenna sticking out of your first cordless phone? (Before the fancier 2.4 GHz ones that interfered with your home wifi.) Anyway, new unlicensed bands is exciting, even if no single frequency is unused everywhere in the country, but I just don't get the "super wifi" / "wifi on drugs/steroids" angle without more facts.