Talk:Wi-Fi/Archive 1

message: I would like to see something about the effects of either weather or other things that could cause a weak wireless signal to dispell the myth that it is ALWAYS the adapter.
Weather won't have much impact on a 2.4 GHz signal.  I think that the attenuation figure for very heavy rain on a 2.4 GHz signal is 0.01 dB/mile, and other forms of weather would have even less impact.  Would a tornado ripping apart your antenna or a flood covering it count? :) For 802.11a, at 5.8 GHz, I'm not sure what the figure is, but I doubt it's that much larger.  dougmc 21:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its about 0.02 db/km (~ 0.01 db/mile) for 2.4 GHz under very heavy rain conditions (150mm / 5.9 inches per hour). For a 5.8 GHz signal, its about 0.2 db/km (~0.1 dB/mile) for the same conditions. See this graph. Blair - Speak to me 05:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The effects of weather and other factors on a signal 

message: I moved this:
:So far to my knowledge there are no applications that really would benefit of WLAN or be specially programmed to work over WLAN. The same applications would naturally work with desktops too, because WLAN stackwise is only on the two first layers of OSI stack. A special WLAN application would be for example a video stream that adapts to the altering transmission rate.
from the "Disadvantages of WiFi" section, because I'm not sure what the author is trying to say, and I have doubts over it's accuracy (I'm no WiFi expert, however).  At the very least it needs to be clarified and edited.
I also heavily copyedited, NPOVed and removed some of the material in these adv/disadv sections as much of it was written in first-person and was irrelevant to WiFi, consisting of the personal opinion of the author on laptops and operating systems (Windows). -- Lexor 12:20, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed confusion 

message: Is it really true that Apple was the "first" to make commercial use of 802.11b and 802.11g?  I'm skeptical.  I qualified it in 802.11b, and was wondering about g. Fuzheado 13:38, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK, this is true - Apple was first to market with Airport (802.11b), then Airport Extreme (802.11g). In the case of Airport, it was quite a while before there was an alternative available for PCs. GRAHAMUK 04:05, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm going to change it though, since Apple itself only makes the claim, "the first major manufacturer to adopt 802.11g." Fuzheado 00:20, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was Apple first 

message: AnswerMe are WLAN and Wi-Fi the same thing? -- Chris Q 07:45, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope.  There are all sorts of other Wireless LAN implementations.  Wi-Fi is mostly just a marketing term applied to 802.11 (if you really want to be picky, it was originally focused on 802.11b, but 802.11a and 802.11g are starting to fall under the term as well). —Mulad 08:06, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  WLAN vs Wi-Fi 

message: Please expand "an hour of building can get you an antenna that will go much further"
How much further and what do you build?
You can also buy antennas off the shelf for Wi-Fi.  65.161.188.11 01:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antenna range 

message: I've taken a stab at editing the "advantages"/"disadvantages" sections of this page. However, I can't help but suspect that this is another instance of the "pro & con list" anti-pattern.
I'd like to know what other editors watching here would think of reorganizing this into something fitting the following outline. The idea is that rather than having an "advantage" and "disadvantage" listed for each issue (e.g. unlicensed spectrum; encryption) we have a section for each issue which presents it as a whole rather than splitting it into opposing "sides":
# Use of unlicensed spectrum
## Wi-Fi uses unlicensed spectrum in the 2.4GHz band
## Users can deploy it without licensing
## Power output is limited
## There is no effective legal authority over interference
## Many other devices (microwaves, etc.) use the same band
## Difficulties for commercial deployers -- cannot create a local monopoly
# No cabling
## Reduces cost of deploying a LAN
## Can be deployed in places cables can't go (outdoors, historic buildings)
## Unintended or unauthorized use by outsiders
## Roaming
# Diversity of Wi-Fi products
## Different vendors are interoperable
## However, new features are less interoperable than baseline operation
## (Perhaps highlight some "unusual" products)
# Encryption
## Addresses the unauthorized use and interception problems
## "Wired equivalent" privacy was the original model for wireless encryption
## WEP encryption has been thoroughly cracked
## Alternatives -- WPA, WPA2
# Social issues
## Creation of public wireless LANs and MANs
## Wardriving / warchalking
## Recreational mapping of wireless access points
## Unauthorized use for specific criminal purposes -- espionage, spamming
I won't push this if other editors here think it's a terrible idea, but I'm really getting the sense that "pro & con" lists are a bad thing for Wikipedia. --FOo 23:59, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro and con lists -- considered harmful? 

message: Can we get more info about the frequency bands of each system?  "2.4 GHz Wi-Fi band" means what exactly?  2.4 GHz to 2.5 GHz?  2.4 GHz ± 0.1 GHz?  How is this arranged?  Can we link to an article describing which areas of the spectrum are licensed in which areas, etc? - Omegatron 17:14, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
802.11b and 802.11g operate in the 2.4 GHz band.  In the United States, this is from 2.400 to 2.4835 GHz and on channels 1 - 11.  The conversion between channel numbers and frequency is as follows:  F = 2407 + (N*5)  where N is the channel number and F is the frequency in MHz.  However, since the 802.11b and 802.11g signals are 22 MHz wide, there are only 3 non-overlapping channnels - 1, 6 and 11.  In other countries, the channel assignments may be different.
A white paper by ??? of Cironde has suggested that a four channels can co-exist - 1, 4, 8 and 11 with minimal overlap.
802.11a operates in the 5 GHz band.  In the United States there are three allocations: 5.150 - 5.250 GHz (indoor), 5.250 - 5.350 GHz (indoor / outdoor) and 5.725 GHz - 5.850 GHz on channels 36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 60, 64, 149, 153, 157, and 161.  The formula is F = 5000 + (N*5)  where N is the channel number and F is the frequency in MHz.  
65.161.188.11 01:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  licensed and unlicensed bands 

message: I don't understand the relevance of the following statement, above:
"It is alleged that Amateur Radio operators have license to boost the power on their routers up to the legal maximum for their license class, which tends to be 1500 watts (roughly 15,000 times that of a normal router)."
What has the maximum power output on Amateur Radio frequencies got to do with the maximum power output on Wi-Fi frequencies? Different parts of the band have different maximum power outputs. How is this a disadvantage in terms of Wi-Fi?
Also, perhaps the previous author would cite the source of the above statement.
Tony Ryan, EI9FIB.
I totally disagree with the claim of 15,000 times the output power of a normal router.  Hams are licensed to 1 watt in the 13cm band without power control.  With power control to 100 Watts.  Hams still have to use the minimum power for reliable communications and must not willfully interfere with other services.  See part 97 for 2390 - 2450 Mhz.
WA4OSH 01:39, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Disadvantages of Wi-Fi 

message: In the USA channels 1-6 of the 2.4 Ghz bands overlap the 2.4 Ghz (13cm) Amateur frequencies.  There are high power amateur television repeaters, mobile users and link stations in this band.  Some amateurs are now using this band for data communications to enable such applications as Echolink, repeater control and other data-centric functions.  So far it's
not much of a problem, but potential is there.  A bigger problem is non-Amateurs using high power amplifiers and highly directional antennas to attempt to go extremely long distances.  The protocol seems to break down (throughput drops dramatically) after a few miles due to the delay time - the sending side doesn't get a reply within the expected time and it sends again, colliding with the reply it was expecting - and most people don't understand that.  Instead of
adjusting the parameters they just try to add more power or use a higher gain antenna.  Check
www.arrl.org and search for wi-fi for further information.
However, there is even a much bigger disadvantage than the few hams on the band.  Wi-Fi is unlicensed and has no frequency planning.  As more and more users use the 2.4 and 5 GHz bands, the more interference there will be.  Also, there are other users of the bands - microwave ovens, cordless phones, baby monitors, bluetooth... 65.161.188.11 19:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Disadvantages of Wi-Fi 

message: I attempted to make the intro less technical. If others agree is better, perhaps the technical tag can go. --agr 17:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with removing the technical tag. I just read over the article (since I had linked to it from elsewhere) and was puzzled that it's there. MCB 06:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Too technical

message: I use a wireless router including a firewall at home. How can I make the internet outside my WAN connection recognize and distingush all my computers connected and can set up ICQ file transfer to all the computers?
Actually not only ICQ but all peer to peer transfer. What is those method using? UDP? Can anyone explain the relationship between those methods of data sending and a generic wireless router/firewall??
Thanks
--Kenny 21:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer to Peer Data Transfer 

message: I am still confuse
anyway, Nintendo DS is going to support WI FI?
so.. quick brief and details please
does that mean i can play Nintendo DS online? or only at close range, or can i play with people over the world?
><ino 00:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wi Fi!? 

message: I read the BoingBoing post, and came to a different conclusion.  Before I explain, I appologize for being pedantic, and I admit that my argument is motivated out of a personal bias against what I perceive as deceptive practices motivated out of greed or snobbery.
The text of the WikiPedia article currently states, "Contrary to popular belief, Wi-Fi did not originally stand for Wireless-Fidelity."  The BoingBoing post explains the source, but not the orginally intended meaning for the term.  Furthermore, I claim that Interbrand designed and suggested the brand with "Hi-Fi" in mind, that the Wi-Fi Alliance chose the brand for the association, and that the alliance's attempts to disassociate these terms are a kind of branding back-pedalling initiated when they realized the association could undermine the integrity of the Wi-Fi brand.
First, Cory Doctorow says:
:It's a pun on "Hi-Fi" and "wireless fidelity" doesn't mean anything.
"Wireless Fidelity" does have meaning to some people.  It means "this device works virtually everywhere", and it derives a large part of that meaning from its association with Hi-Fi.
Tangentially, Cory's statement is a mis-use of the term "pun".  The derivation of Wi-Fi from Hi-Fi would be somewhat better described as word play, but only barely.
Next, note that Phil Belanger participated in the selection, but not the creation of the brand.  From the article:
:"... we chose the name Wi-Fi from a list of 10 names that Interbrand proposed."
This says nothing about what Interbrand was thinking when they put Wi-Fi on the list.  This is my primary argument against the text of the WikiPedia article.
Phil goes on to claim that the assocation of "Wi-Fi" with "Wireless Fidelity" arose from the alliance's decision "... to include the tag line "The Standard for Wireless Fidelity" along with the name." This is clearly contradicted by Cory Doctorow's comment that the term is a "pun".  More importantly, normal people naturally jump to the Wireless Fidelity conclusion without knowing anything about the "tag line".
Phil also says:
:"And "Wireless Fidelity" - what does that mean? Nothing."
This statement itself is too abstract to be true or false.  What does it mean to whom?  Symbols can have no intrinsic meaning.  Humans ascribe meaning to symbols, so without specifying or even implying the context or humans in question, a statement about the meaning of a symbol is incomplete.
The real questions are, what did it mean to Interbrand and the Wi-Fi Alliance when they created and selected it, and what does it now mean to the public?  I've found nothing documenting what the term meant to Interbrand, and Phil's comments actually explain that "Wi-Fi" did mean "Wireless Fidelity" to some people in the alliance:
:"... some of my colleagues in the group were afraid. They didn't understand branding or marketing. They could not imagine using the name "Wi-Fi" without having some sort of literal explanation. So we compromised and agreed to include the tag line "The Standard for Wireless Fidelity" along with the name."
To begin with, I don't believe this story.  I believe the alliance created the story to explain the tag line, its removal, and to justify their campaign to divorce "Wi-Fi" from "Wireless Fidelity" in the minds of the public.  It's believable that some people would have trouble accepting "Wi-Fi" as a brand without understanding its derivation or "meaning" in relation to the "product", but there's no reason why they had to advertise that meaning in a tag line.  In the meetings where members objected to the idea that "Wi-Fi" doesn't mean anything, the other members could have just told them it's like "Hi-Fi" for wireless and left it at that.
But that aside, if the story is true, then "Wi-Fi" did mean "Wireless Fidelity" to some of Phil's colleagues.  This says nothing about the originally meaning intended by Interbrand, but it contradicts Phil's (and Cory's) claim that "Wi-Fi" didn't mean "Wireless Fidelity".
Regarding the question of what "Wi-Fi" means to the public, it's similiarity to "Hi-Fi" is compeltely obvious, as demonstrated by Cory's "pun" comment.  The alliance's initial decision to include "Wireless Fidelity" in the "tag line" shows that the alliance recognized that similiarity as well.
I propose that Interbrand specifically intended the public to associate the "Wi-Fi" brand with "Hi-Fi", and that the Wi-Fi Alliance also chose the brand for that reason and purpose.  I propose that the alliance discovered that this association exposes the brand to the danger of becoming a genericized trademark, and are now doing whatever they can to delay genericide.
Based on my arguments here, I am adjusting the "Wireless Fidelity" wording and moving it below the table of contents.
And to the commenter who posted the boingboing link, please sign your comments.  Failure to observe social convention undermines one's credibility.  Besides, signing is easy.  Four tildes will do the trick every time: Crag 20:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interbrand, being a corporate entity, 'thought' nothing when it submitted the list of 10 suggestions, because it was experienced in the market and was well aware that if WiFi stood for anything it would be a bad trademark, and they're only interested in creating GOOD trademarks.  (What the individual people thought has questionable relevance.)  As for whether it 'means' anything, hifi has a specific meaning, in that fidelity is something of a problem in audio equipment, and high fidelity is therefore a claim about quality.  In that respect, wireless fidelity does not have a clear meaning, as any binary system can arbitrarily use error correction to achieve perfect fidelity.  Thus, wireless fidelity is not a useful term to anyone in or outside the industry.  71.56.57.196 00:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I still think "Wi-Fi" was intended as an allusion to [[Hi-Fi]] 

message: I believe there should be a note on the correct pronounciation. I do not live in an English speaking community and I do not know how to pronounce it correctly. --landroni 11:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure there is a correct pronounciation.  I suspect that most people say "wye fye" by analogy with "hi-fi".  You're probably safe with that.  But some might prefer to call it "whiffy", by analogy with skiffy.  :)  Xtifr 07:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: "Why-Fye", Fye said the same as why, but with a F instead of W. JayKeaton 18:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  correct pronounciation 

message: A sentence from one of the introduction paragraphs reads:
It enables a person with a wireless-enabled computer or personal digital assistant (PDA) to connect to the Internet when in proximity of an access point. 
Should this not be updated to include mobile phones or cellphones that have inbuilt Wi-Fi adapters?
Example of a mobile with inbuilt Wi-Fi adapter: i-mate SP5
81.208.165.224 22:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of Mobile Phones/Cellphones 

message: I read several articles that some are concerned about wi-fi increasing the risk of or causing cancer in a similar manner that cellular phones have an area of concern as increasing the risk of brain cancer. Does anyone here think this is worth mentioning? There was a university in Canada that rejected wi-fi over health concerns  --Ted-m 12:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  carcinogenesis 

message: I was bold and removed two statements:
* “Wi-Fi is now so pervasive, and the term so generic, that the brand is no longer protected and it appears in Webster's dictionary.” There is no evidence I can find that the brand has undergone genericide. Appearing in the dictionary is not evidence of genericide; in Marriam-Webster Online it is still described as a certification mark. Also, there are many different dictionaries marketed under the name Webster’s.
* “although the true meaning of the term remains a mystery.” The “true meaning” of the term, if there is a such thing, is that it is a certification mark used by the Wi-Fi Alliance to indicate that products meet certain standards. Where did the word “Wi-Fi” come from? That is answered by the referenced BoingBoing article: a branding consulting company coined it.
Let me know if you think this was out of line.--Clipdude 02:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  two changes 

message: Editors regularly clean out undiscussed links from this article.  Please discuss here if you want a link not to be cleaned out regularly.  (You can help!)
I am concerned that some of the external links comprise WP:WPSPAM and "me too" websites that are not notable.  This wireless article is by no means alone in this.  Certainly, there are enough external links right now.  I propose that we do not add more unless a good case is made here for new links. Nelson50 16:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've deleted a bunch of spammy and irrelevant external links.  Articles don't need external links to "interesting" resources.  They need references.  Wikipedia isn't a search engine, nor a directory. Lists of links are an invitation to linkspam. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 22:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discuss links here 

message: Removed an unsourced claim about Wi-Fi configuration being complicated. I have no idea about other distributions, but my Kubuntu Dapper offers a convenient GUI tool which is, in my opinion, on par with Windows. I wonder if it's a standard part of the KDE Control Center. - Sikon 10:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linux 

message: Changed "Microsoft Windows clearly has the best driver-level support for Wi-Fi" to "Microsoft Windows has comprehensive driver-level support for Wi-Fi, the quality of which depends on the hardware manufacturer". The former seems too opinionated a statement to make with no reference. Comprehensive seems like a word that better fits the writer's intentions.
*Indeed, it was "clearly" POV. - Sikon 18:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows Support 

message: Can anyone explain to me the different between HiFi and WiFi!
J. Simon
:I'm still trying to figure out the difference between HiFi and SciFi!  Seriously, the terms are pretty much completely unrelated; the only thing they have in common is their origin in a marketing department   Xtifr 07:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: WiFi vs HiFi