Talk:Wi-Fi

This article was nominated for deletion on 15 June 2006. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

Wi-fi vs. Cellular section moved from article

This section currently reads like OR and needs editing and discussion before it is placed back in the main article - discuss below

Some argue that Wi-Fi and related consumer technologies hold the key to replacing cellular telephone networks such as GSM. Some obstacles to this happening in the near future are missing roaming and authentication features (see 802.1x, SIM cards and RADIUS), the narrowness of the available spectrum and the limited range of Wi-Fi. It is more likely that WiMax will compete with other cellular phone protocols such as GSM, UMTS or CDMA. However, Wi-Fi is ideal for VoIP applications e.g. in a corporate LAN or SOHO environment. Early adopters were already available in the late '90s, though not until 2005 did the market explode. Companies such as Zyxel, UT Starcomm, Sony, Samsung, Hitachi and many more are offering VoIP Wi-Fi phones for reasonable prices.

In 2005, low-latency broadband ISPs started offering VoIP services to their customers. Since calling via VoIP is free or low-cost, VoIP enabled ISPs have the potential to open up the VoIP market. GSM phones with integrated Wi-Fi & VoIP capabilities are being introduced into the market and have the potential to replace land line telephone services.

Currently it seems unlikely that Wi-Fi will directly compete against cellular in areas that have only sparse Wi-Fi coverage. Wi-Fi-only phones have a very limited range, so setting up a covering network would be too expensive. Additionally, cellular technology allows the user to travel while connected, bouncing the connection from tower to tower (or "cells") as proximity changes, all the while maintaining one solid connection to the user. Many current Wi-Fi devices and drivers do not support roaming yet and connect to only one access point at a time. In this case, once you are out of range of one "hotspot", the connection will drop and will need to be re-connected to the next one each time.

For these reasons, Wi-Fi phones are still best suited for local use such as corporate or home networks. However, devices capable of multiple standards, called converged devices, (using SIP or UMA) may well compete in the market. Top-tier handset manufacturers have announced converged dual-radio handsets. Converged handsets present several compelling advantages to mobile carriers:

• Efficient spectrum allocation, as more data-intensive services come online and bandwidth demands increase
• Improved in-building coverage in markets such as the US, where dropped calls are still a major cause of customer dissatisfaction
• Opportunities for mobile operators to offer differentiated pricing and services.

Solaris (SPARC & x86) & Irix?

What is the support level for WiFi in Sun Solaris and SGI Irix? I think we should add something to that effect.

Origin and meaning of the term 'Wi-Fi' section could be improved

It seems like the section on "Origin and meaning of the term 'Wi-Fi'" could be improved to actually reflect the same conclusions as the articles cited in that section. Right now it is a bit muddled.

The basic facts I can see are:

1. Wi-Fi was a made up term punning on 'Hi-Fi' created by Interbrand for what would become The Wi-Fi Alliance
2. Wi-Fi is not short for 'Wireless Fidelity', although many people mistakenly believe it does, presumably based on the fact that it is a pun for 'Hi-Fi' which of course is short for 'High Fidelity'
3. Even though it doesn't stand for 'Wireless Fidelity', The Wi-Fi Alliance themselves used it in a tagline at least once, but now seeks to discourage the phrase

Kelly 20:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Be bold. Make the edit yourself. Feel free to rewrite the whole article, and then nominate it for WP:GA. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 22:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above, except it's not clear that it's a fact that many people mistakenly believe that. Wi-Fi also sounds like Sci Fi, and I've heard people call it Wireless Fiction, especially before the interoperability concerns were addressed, but I doubt that people seriously thought that it was the real name for it. I'll take out "popular" from "popular misconception" and anybody with a citation can put it back if appropriate. --Hagrinas (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I made some changes about the denomination. Just look at, please. Gwalarn 09:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

i'd like to know what is the modulation of the wi fi?i want to construct an amplifier for a wi fi network so my antenna can have the wright signal level.please inform me the above information tnx---- george www.geomariolis@yahoo.com

See Wi-fi: History. algocu 21:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Wi-fi is not short for wireless fidelity, people

Please read this site http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/news/article.php/3674591. You can also confirm this by looking at http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/wi-fi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.33.103 (talk) 17:53, April 28, 2007 (UTC)

The Wi-Fi Alliance, who owns the brand, differs with you. I'd be inclined to believe the primary source here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.10.111.38 (talk) 22:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that the wi-fi alliance actually agrees with him. The term was mistakenly used a few times in 2000 - before they became the wi-fi alliance. I don't think this message or the debunking deserves to be in the header, as it's dealt with later, is of little importance, is verbose, and is uninteresting. --88.172.132.94 17:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. It's in the header with a reference to stop the tit-for-tat introduction and removal of the term - will look at making this an endnote instead. Socrates2008 20:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Wi-Fi phones

I think we need a seperate article discussing phones that use wifi, for voice and or data. Mathiastck 21:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Powerwatch and Spooky actions (of wi-fi on health) at a distance

Firstly, sorry about the pun :) Secondly, powerwatch is a lobby organisation that sells unproven gizmos to people who believe they have an illness which scientific studies suggest doesn't exist. See the electrosensitivity page. They cherry-pick data that supports their hypothesis, engage in fallacious reasoning, and are generally involved in poor science and have a closed mind to new ideas. For these, and other reasons (also discussed on the ES page) they do not meet the standards for wikipedia links. The other edits spookee has added, repeatedly, change the slant of the article to an anti-scientific viewpoint, hence are removed, and involve trivialities that adds nothing to the "debate" (eg. the Canadian university story). If you want to put your edits back, please discuss them here first to reach a consensus. Thanks! 88.172.132.94 —Preceding comment was added at 18:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Powerwatch is not a lobby organisation, nor does it sell unproven gizmos, and you have no justification for your smears on fallacious reasoning, cherry picking of studies or poor science. As this is entirely your POV you cannot use it as justification for link removal. Topazg (talk) 12:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

WPA security and Amateur Radio deletions

I reverted two edits, one that dropped the Amateur Radio section without explaination and the other that said WPA2 is considered "government level secure." I'm not sure what the last term means; as far as I know WPA2 is not approved for classified information, for example. And the edit drops mention of WPA which is also far more secure that WEP.--agr (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Arnold R I removed them and added the comment. The amateur radio section has nothing to do with WiFi, how an amateur radio operator can use one of the bands in one of the countries is not wifi... This belongs under amateur radio. Also while I am at it, where does this RF connector stuff come from, it is wrong information for most products (the conectors are permanently affixed)and it has nothing to do with WiFi either... and is actually a severe regulatory problem/illegal as it seems to imply to users that they can change the antennae which in most countries is illegal and in all countries violates the regulatory certification. An amateur radio professional may get away with it... but it is not something for the average wifi user to do.

AES encryption is one of the most secure encryption methods known and is used by several nations for encryptions, amoung cryptologists is considered superior to basic DES which was previously used by NATO/US military but today is not in use. There is a US FIPS level that a company can submit to NIST for goverment level certification. Roger D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.191.206 (talk) 01:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The Amateur Radio section discusses potential conflicts between that service and WiFi. That seems appropriate for this article. As for the claim that WPA2 is considered "government level secure," while it is true at AES is highly regarded cipher and a US Government standard, there is more to WPA2 security, or that of any communication protocol, than the cipher that it uses. I am not aware of any government approval of WPA2 as a whole. If you know of such approval, please cite a source. As for connectors, if you think the information is incorrect, fix it or add a { {fact} } tag. We don't delete factual information on the theory that someone may use it inappropriately. See WP:NOT#CENSORED--agr (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, A WPA2-shared key is just a simple AES encryption (this is one of the WPA2 selections and the focus of the comment) and nothing more. Do not to be confused with an EAP method like TLS along with a RADIUS server which is orthogonal ( and not the focus of the comment). My revision which someone else mucked with before you changed it was only to communicate the brute force superiority of WPA2 over WPA1 or WEP. In essence, to communicate to the common user to set up WPA2 shared key when they can so that they can feel secure relative to the problems that plagued WEP.

Relative to the Amateur radio section, this potential conflict only applies to a portion of the 2.4 GHZ band this might be better placed in a section focused on interference issues for 802.11b/g and placed over on the 802.11 page. This would not apply to the 5 GHz bands. Relative to rules I question your interpretation as being valid. Relative to interference enforcement this ISM band is already a junk band. In a populated environment this is right in the center of residential microwave oven emmissions along with dozens of other known interferers that are also using the band (video cameras, baby monitors, bluetooth etc...) all at very low pwoer levels so by the very nature of the existing band this prevents/limits its practical use in the manner described in this amateur radio section, but it might have a place in an unpopulated rural location. Clearly, these long range up to 100 watt transmissions are not in any way wifi (so why put it here)as the base protocals have packet acknowledge time limits that limit the range. Does anyone actually do this or is this just an argument without a purpose? Hundreds of millions of wifi products have been sold (worldwide) and operate in this band they are being installed in most laptops and they will search/probe for access points. The amateur use of the band has nothing to do with wifi.

Relative to the connectors, yes you can buy products with these connectors (especially true before 2003) but you have to search for them and it is getting harder and harder to find product as more product is built to save a few cents. The connecor itself has nothing to do with wifi or any wifi certifications.

WiFi has a specific meaning in the commercial marketplace today for the common user. The comon users should be able to come to this page and get meaningful information that is relavent to wifi...

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a help desk, so it is ok for the Wi-Fi article to contain information that most users don't need. That said, it seems we have three overlapping articles, Wi-Fi, 802.11 and Wi-Fi technical information. That maybe calls for some reorganization. It might make sense to move the Amateur Radio section to Wi-Fi technical information and replace it with a more general section on shared use of the 2.4 GHz band, mentioning amateur radio among others.

As for security, WPA2-shared key is not just a simple AES encryption. There is a hierarchy of keys and AES is used in a novel mode called CCMP. There are non-trivial message integrity and authentication issues that have to be dealt with. It's a quite complex design and while it has been carefully reviewed by the IEEE 802.11i committee, it has not received government certification as far as I know. WPA2 certainly is the best Wi-Fi security choice, but it's not clear that there is a huge benefit to average users over WPA. Both are lightyears better than WEP. Both have the same major weakness in PSK mode: dependence on the user picking a strong passphrase. The only practical weakness in WPA that I am aware of which WPA2 prevents is a jamming attack.--agr (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You have confused WPA TKIP with WPA2 AES relative to key hierachy and integrity checks. You have confused EAP (Extensible Authentication Protocals) functions with a RADIUS server relative to indentity with how a pre-shared key works (there is no identity question and there is no RADIUS server). There are many modes of operation that are capable to be configured within WPA/WPA2/ and several EAP extensions, you seem to be confused into thinking there is only one setting or that only the most complex configuration must be implemented. Now I understand why these pages are all confused! I have been a voting member of 802.11 for several years, I doubt you can say the same? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.191.206 (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm well aware that WPA2 does not use TKIP and that key management in WPA2 is simpler in PSK than in EAP modes. None the less, WAP2 PSK generates a new temporal key (TK) per session for AES encryption. See http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-97/SP800-97.pdf page 4-12. The TK is generated during the 4-way handshake. (page 5-18 ff) Also WPA2 still requires an integrity check mechanism. This is provided by CCMP, a novel AES mode. See p. 4-10 ff. I am not criticizing the WPA2 design--I think it is quite good--but it is far from simple and has not been certified by the US government to date. It is certified by IEEE and the article should say that.--agr (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wi-Fi Health Risks

Seemed to me that the section on 'Question of Health Risk' is incomplete. It does not present a balanced viewpoint. It reassures the reader (perhaps the editor(s)has overdone it so much as that it appears conspicuously biased) that there is really nothing wrong with using Wi-Fi, even for a prolonged period. However, there has been much ongoing debate between scientists as to whether Wi-Fi really harms our health.

Germany did not advise its citizens to avoid Wi-Fi for no reason.

Pressure for investigation into Wi-Fi health risks

Germany Warns Citizens to Avoid Using Wi-Fi

School wi-fi radiation levels ‘three times that of phone masts’

Cloud of worry gathers over wireless health risks

I discovered that this section has been edited many times with some users trying to present the other side of the argument but their contributions were subsequently deleted. Seems to me some sort of information suppression is going on here. It's the job of all wiki editors to present an article in a state that is as neutral and as complete as possible.

(Sevenneed (talk) 11:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC))