3 ms·

What's the reason for using 3G/4G then? What are the downsides of Wi-Fi in comparison?

Adirael 14y ago
From my experience, to get the best performance on WiFi you need direct visibility of the point you're trying to reach. The signal weakens very fast and can't get very far if there are walls, buildings or other obstacles between points. 3G/4G/HDSPA/WHATEVER can penetrate easier and use less towers to transmit. Disclosure: I have no idea of what I'm talking about.
- HarshaThota 14y ago
  Does anyone know how using empty/unused TV spectrum plays into this? Seems like you would have far better success since they would be able to penetrate walls and other obstacles better than regular Wi-Fi signals can. I know there was some research being done at Microsoft at using this as sort of a long-range wi-fi network but short of an installation at their corporate campus, I haven't heard any news about it lately. 1: http://whitespaces.msresearch.us/ http://whitespaces.msresearch.us/ 2: http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/knows/ http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/knows/
Things2B 14y ago
Unencrypted management packets... General Security.
untog 14y ago
Range, for one. I also imagine that switching networks is considerably more painful- you can switch from cell to cell and not even notice, but switching between wireless networks can take up to 10 seconds, in my experience.
- w1ntermute 14y ago
  Wouldn't a lower range simply result in switching happening more often? The amount of time it takes for the actual switching to occur is an attribute of the protocol, not the frequency/nature of the signal.
PaulHoule 14y ago
3G/4G access is licensed and regulated so you know there won't be interference. Nothing stops other people from setting up hotspots that interfere with your hotspot. 3G/4G offers better range and official coverage for moving platforms (cars, trains, etc.) Although the hardware is expensive "carrier grade" stuff, generally this infrastructure has weak points and fails in a disaster. Wi-Fi hardware is mass produced and much cheaper as a result. Wi-Fi can only cover densely populated areas (airports, coffeeshops, etc.) but if you want to use your tablet when you're driving you should lose your license. I think smartphones would never have taken off if Apple hadn't strong-armed carriers into offering unlimited data contracts. Metered billing at any price that would be "reasonable" to the carriers would have been way too high for mass adoption.
potatolicious 14y ago
WiFi saturates quickly. Throw a few dozen users in the same airport lounge and watch as everybody throws their phones against the wall in frustration. Handoff between hotspots is also pretty crappy. I can walk and talk from one end of the terminal to the other on 3G/4G. On WiFi if I'm not sitting still I'm going to lose my connection fairly soon. WiFi really is only good for one thing in a public space context: someone sitting down.

From my experience, to get the best performance on WiFi you need direct visibility of the point you're trying to reach. The signal weakens very fast and can't get very far if there are walls, buildings or other obstacles between points. 3G/4G/HDSPA/WHATEVER can penetrate easier and use less towers to transmit. Disclosure: I have no idea of what I'm talking about.

HarshaThota 14y ago
Does anyone know how using empty/unused TV spectrum plays into this? Seems like you would have far better success since they would be able to penetrate walls and other obstacles better than regular Wi-Fi signals can. I know there was some research being done at Microsoft at using this as sort of a long-range wi-fi network but short of an installation at their corporate campus, I haven't heard any news about it lately. 1: http://whitespaces.msresearch.us/ http://whitespaces.msresearch.us/ 2: http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/knows/ http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/knows/

Things2B 14y ago

Unencrypted management packets... General Security.

untog 14y ago

Range, for one. I also imagine that switching networks is considerably more painful- you can switch from cell to cell and not even notice, but switching between wireless networks can take up to 10 seconds, in my experience.

w1ntermute 14y ago
Wouldn't a lower range simply result in switching happening more often? The amount of time it takes for the actual switching to occur is an attribute of the protocol, not the frequency/nature of the signal.

PaulHoule 14y ago

3G/4G access is licensed and regulated so you know there won't be interference. Nothing stops other people from setting up hotspots that interfere with your hotspot. 3G/4G offers better range and official coverage for moving platforms (cars, trains, etc.) Although the hardware is expensive "carrier grade" stuff, generally this infrastructure has weak points and fails in a disaster. Wi-Fi hardware is mass produced and much cheaper as a result. Wi-Fi can only cover densely populated areas (airports, coffeeshops, etc.) but if you want to use your tablet when you're driving you should lose your license. I think smartphones would never have taken off if Apple hadn't strong-armed carriers into offering unlimited data contracts. Metered billing at any price that would be "reasonable" to the carriers would have been way too high for mass adoption.

potatolicious 14y ago

WiFi saturates quickly. Throw a few dozen users in the same airport lounge and watch as everybody throws their phones against the wall in frustration. Handoff between hotspots is also pretty crappy. I can walk and talk from one end of the terminal to the other on 3G/4G. On WiFi if I'm not sitting still I'm going to lose my connection fairly soon. WiFi really is only good for one thing in a public space context: someone sitting down.