Super Wi-Fi Isn't Really Wi-Fi 145
adeelarshad82 writes "As reported yesterday lucky residents of Wilmington, N.C., will be the first in the nation to have access to a 'Super Wi-Fi' network. However, the only issue is that Super Wi-Fi isn't really Wi-Fi: Mobile analyst Sascha Segan explains the difference and also gets into why it's incorrectly being dubbed as Super Wi-Fi."
This just in... (Score:5, Insightful)
A super nerd explains why super wifi isn't wifi. General population doesn't give a fuck, as wifi means "wireless internet" to them.
More new at 11...
oh please, there's no problem (Score:5, Insightful)
They *will* care when it doesn't "just work"! (Score:5, Insightful)
A super nerd explains why super wifi isn't wifi. General population doesn't give a fuck, as wifi means "wireless internet" to them.
General population then bitches when their Super "WiFi" doesn't interoperate with any of their existing WiFi equipment and in fact can't even be used directly in their laptop at present. From the article:-
For now, at least, you can't move a white-space device around. You can't put a white-space radio into a phone or laptop because each white-space device must check its location against a database to determine which TV channels and wireless microphones are being used in the device's area, so they can avoid those channels. [..] It will be a way for wireless Internet providers, especially in rural areas, to zap their network over to a main router in a home, which will then redistribute it to devices over Ethernet or standard Wi-Fi connections.
So you're right that they probably wouldn't care about the technical issues, and nor would they ever likely care if any difference was totally transparent (and thus irrelevant) to the man on the street. But it's not, and that's why "Super WiFi" is a crap and misleading name, even for Joe Public.
Re:oh please, there's no problem (Score:2, Insightful)
Because it would suck if users ever actually knew what they were talking about, thus preventing this confusion next time.
I mean really, are "Wireless-N", "WiFi-N", and such appellations really so much easier to remember than 802.11n? Yeah, I know we're all/mostly computer/network enthusiasts, and it would be wrong to expect the general public to care as much about getting it right, but when I deal with fields where I'm non-expert, I'd know I'd rather learn correct terminology than some brand name -- and I don't see that it's significantly harder, so even people who don't care would be fine learning the correct term, if we could just get rid of all the marketing departments that make these stupid trademarks.
Re:oh please, there's no problem (Score:5, Insightful)
They should be sued for trademark violation (Score:4, Insightful)
Poor helpdesk worker: "That's because Super Wi-Fi isn't compatible with WiFi"
Customer: "Who's stupid idea was it to call it Super Wi-Fi then?"
Poor helpdesk worker: "Someone who thought it would help you understand what it is"
Customer: "But now I'm even more confused"
Considering the term "WiFi" is a misnomer anyway.. (Score:4, Insightful)
...I'll just chalk this up to pedantics. There is no "fidelity" to wireless anyway. HiFi makes sense. WiFi doesn't. This whole things is stupid, now stop taking it so seriously.