Talk:Wi-Fi/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

WiFi and Wireless LAN need to be combined?

It seems that WiFi and Wireless LAN are used interchangebly, with WiFi more common in the US, and WLAN in Europe. If that's true, two pages need to be combined, or at least clearly cross-referenced. Fdavis99 02:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Inverse Square Law

I hear a lot of claims on how inverse square laws affect the amout of power/radiation output by a wifi router at a given distance. Is it possible to find out the exact formula?

It depends what you mean by 'exact'. If we assume that a Wi-Fi router is a point source (in reality it's not) the relationship is very simple - doubling the distance reduces the signal strength four times (2 x 2), trebling the distance reduces the strength nine times (3 x 3). Four times as far, one sixteenth the strength (4 x 4) and so on.

If you stay more than, say, five yards from the router, this calculation will be pretty accurate. If you're within a few inches it will be very inaccurate.--Chris Jefferies 16:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of Wi-fi vs. Cellular

Please discuss here what to be done with the above section. --Charlesknight 22:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Wi-fi business models - needs new article.

I have removed all of this content from the article (don't worry it's still there in the history, ready for moving!). As it was written, the article was too big and unfocused.

This article needs to be about the technology, the business model material needs to go in an article called.... em... what shall we called it? Let's try and come to some concensus and get that article up and running as soon as possible.

--Charlesknight 22:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC) --203.190.164.114 03:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Comparison of Different Operating Systems

The article seems to endorse Apple's implementation of Wi-Fi over Windows, especially this sentence in the Mac OS X section: "The built-in configuration and management is integrated throughout the operating system. " Besides sounding like an advertisement, it does not convey any meaningful information. It has been removed.

Sbenton 05:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

That's because Apple's implementation is inarguably better. It may sound like an endorsement because MacOSX's implementation of WiFi is so far ahead of all other major operating systems. "The built-in configuration and management is integrated throughout the operating system." that you speak of is true. Many of the included utilities and applications are aware of and directly tied to control of AirPort. For example, the sharing preference pane allows one to control how the integrated WiFi adapter can act as an AP. I do not understand how you can not beleive it to be a meaningful statement. It is. I am adding it back in. --65.24.117.190 11:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Wifi measurement

I have red a lot of article on Wifi but nothing on signal measurements. Is there a way to qualify and quantify the RF signal propagation. I have an application (Network Stumbler) running on my laptop to indicate the strength of the signal How reliable is it? what is the characteristic of the "antenna" on my laptop (where is it located? I suppose it is omnidirectionnal! what is the acuracy of the receiver?), I also use an HP iPaq PDA, accuracy does not seems to be too high when I compare between different units. An other solution would be to use a spectrum analyser with a directional antenna (quite expensive...). What I am trying to do is to find dead spot during an installation of Wifi networks. Any solution? Normy59 18:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What you're doing is usually known in the industry as a site survey. Wikipedia doesn't have much on it, but web searching on that term should net you some more comprehensive information.

As far as "signal strength" (more properly, RSSI), Network Stumbler is only reporting a value given to it by the device driver. This value is affected by the radio hardware and the antenna in addition to the actual radio signal hitting the antenna, and is usually scaled to a vendor-dependent range. So you certainly will see wide device-to-device variations.

Besides, the absolute strength of the signal isn't really what you want to measure--you really want to know how good your network connection is at a given location, which is affected by more than signal strength. For that, you need higher-level measurements like goodput. Tlesher 22:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed Ad from See Also Links

This:

• How to install Long Range Outdoor Wifi

... is just an ad, not a useful resource. Removed it. --Kynn 19:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Frequency

How many hertz is the average wi fi signal??? I linked here from a physics article, and it says nothing about the frequency. My cordless phone screws up my wireless internet, so this information would be useful.

From the article "Except for 802.11a, which operates at 5 GHz, Wi-Fi uses the spectrum near 2.4 GHz" --agr 13:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Wi-Fi have two module, 802.11a is used 4.9 to 5.9GHz, and 802.11b/g is used 2.4 to 2.485GHz.

Would perhaps be worthwile to mention in the article, that cordless phones and Wi-Fi can/will interfere when both use the 2.4GHz band 199.74.98.202 05:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews links

What's up with the {{wikinewshas}} template near the bottom? It doesn't render with any relevant links, and the Wi-Fi category on wikinews only has one article in it (even though I found other Wi-Fi related articles on the site.) I'm not familiar with how things work over there but this seems kind of sketchy. -Fadookie ^Talk 23:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge?

Someone nominated this article to be merged with Wi-Fi. Please discuss here Ka5hmir 07:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Relevant link removal

Hi, I got some nastygrams here because I posted a highly-related link -- which has been considered spam. the link in question is to WiFiMaps.com, which is a public-access map of where actual Wi-Fi has been deployed, as seen from wardriving. This is highily related to wi-fi in the existing context. Drew from Zhrodague 20:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yup, and just as I thought, even after finalizing a discussion with one of the moderators, the link is now removed. Would someone please put the external link to WiFiMaps.com back? I am apparently not allowed to do so, since that is my project. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.23.102.249 (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC). Oops! Drew from Zhrodague 22:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There are already similar links under Hotspot (Wi-Fi), if I'm not mistaken 199.74.98.202 05:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, please refrain from repeated linkspamming or else your account may get blocked, after several warnings. Wikipedia is not the place to promote your website, nor is Wikipedia a comprehensive directory of every relevant website. The other links you mentioned have also been removed. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 06:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There is also a music band in the UK called Wi-Fi.

That's probably notable.--Occono 11:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Gui manager in unix

I would just like to add that kde has got an application called kwifimanager which allows the user to see connection and signal information on display as well as give dialogs for selecting networks and entering keys

under the kdenetwork package, under wifi

kde website Weecol 23:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

There's also KNetworkManager; NetworkManager is already mentioned, but if you want to mention KWifiManager, go ahead. Guy Harris 00:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Health Concerns

The section on health effects is very slim ... it also only shows research that shows harm to health ... hasn't there been any that has shown it does nothing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.146.113.66 (talk) 10:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

The section is slim because it was created earlier today, it will grow if and when Wikipedians feel there's a need for more information. It's also worth mentioning that doing research to 'show it does nothing' is impossible, science is based partly on the premise that a negative cannot be proven. You can demonstrate an effect caused by something, but not a lack of effect.--Chris Jefferies 13:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The same research that applies to Cell Phones actually can be applied to Wi-Fi. Also, I am removing that Australian plug. Problems with it include that it does not say who called it the cigarette of the 21st century, and that no mention of the harmful radiation coming off power lines is 14 times greater than Wi-Fi signals. Yet, people are scared of Wi-Fi. Signed Scryer_360. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.154.215.57 (talk) 20:11, April 26, 2007 (UTC)

Dr. George Carlo lead an intense 5 year research study, funded by the cell phone industry - google his name to see what he's saying about all this. imarainbow@hotmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.119.47.205 (talk) 15:12, May 2, 2007 (UTC)

The issue has caught the attention of the UK media. Despite the lack of evidence mentioned above (and also in the IT Week article mentioned below), there have been calls for a government enquiry into the health effects - not only by the media but a minor teaching union and a scientist (apparently the same one who recommended that mobile phones advertise their SAR, and no base stations should be built near schools). Links are in the articles referenced below. Hence I've renamed this section from Health Effects to Alleged Health Concerns

A link to Mobile phone radiation and health might be useful as an interim measure - although Wi-Fi radiation levels are much lower than mobile phones, concerns have been raised over the length of exposure (access points emit radiation continuously) and the amount of exposure in school classrooms, where a combination of notebook PCs with Wi-Fi transmitters and several access points can produce higher radiation levels.

And the UK Media coverage:

Most recently: BBC Panorama

15th May: IT Week examines the lack of evidence.

28th April: Independent on Sunday

23rd April: A minor teaching union joins the bandwagon: BBC News

22nd April: The Independent on Sunday appears to spearhead the campaign: Comment, Article 1, Article 2.

And not forgetting the Canadian University that decided to limit the number of Wi-Fi networks it installed because the technology was "unproven": The Register article.

There's plenty of information there - hopefully someone may be able to spare the time to extract something meaningful from this for the main article...

Mittfh 07:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I have made an addition based on yesterday's article in the Independent. I also figured some mention of the health issue needs to be presented in the introduction also, so I did. elaborations could be made, for instance with what Mittfh suggests above. __meco 17:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I'm removing the health concerns from the intro as it's mentioned in the body of the article, where it is debunked. 82.10.214.10 18:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Everything in the introduction should also be mentioned in the body of the article, the intro is a summary. So 'as it's mentioned in the body of the article' is not a valid argument for deleting it from the intro. And 'debunking' is not relevant either. The only thing that matters is whether it's information that someone reading the introduction alone might want or need to see. In my opinion the brief statement you have just removed 'does' need to be included in the introduction, particularly as it mentioned there was no proof.--Chris Jefferies 19:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

ok, what I meant was it is unimportant and dealt with in the article. Should we put unimportant nonsense ate the top of all articles? How about putting at the top of all star trek articles that "some people think it's real, but it isn't". The "health fears" are of limited concern and are complete rubbish. To put them in the summary gives these unfounded, unproven, and just plain wrong claims undue weight and respect. By all means leave it in the article, where it can be debumked, but do not place it in the intro. Why do you think it "does" need to be included? Because it was the scare story of the week? Should we put banners on every food article that the Mirror claims causes cancer each week? Thanks for your contribution :) 82.10.214.10 23:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, now I'm not too well versed on the British newspaper fauna, but in this case it was the Independent who ran a story, backed up by BBC's current affairs magazine Panorama. One may of course take issue with the story, but these do constitute reliable sources. And since these do seem to give the impression that this is a lasting, if indeed not a growing, concern among consumers, I find it both proper and pertinent that a mention should be included in the opening paragraph – with reference to the health concerns section further down in the article. Now I do realize that with Wikipedia being one of the most popular sites on the web this is going to cost the consumer electronics industry some tens of millions of dollars, or some such figure, but that we cannot concern ourselves with. Anyway, at least not those of us who care so much about the integrity of this project that we have bothered do establish an identifiable online presence. __meco 07:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It is your opinion that it is 'unimportant nonsense'. I agree with you that there appears to be no provable health risk, but that's hardly the same thing. It may or may not be 'nonsense', however it is most certainly not 'unimportant'. The safety of Wi-Fi is a matter of public concern and debate, visitors to Wikipedia wanting to know more about the subject deserve a lead section that briefly mentions the main facts. One of those facts is that there's debate about safety. I therefore propose putting the brief and balanced statement back. Please don't remove it again without support from other editors and a more cogent discussion first. Thanks.--Chris Jefferies 09:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Chris and Meco, in a controversial subject so full of POV pushing from either side, it is important I think to make Wiki appear open yet neutral in covering issues that seem to be generating genuine concern, whether the concern itself is founded or not. Topazg 10:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE does not require us to be open and neutral to every unfounded health scare.--agr 12:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

That's true, but it's also a non-argument. It's equally true that it doesn't prevent us being open and neutral on an unfounded health scare. The article needs to mention (and does mention) the fact that some people are anxious about health issues and that there is no proof of harm. Neither is there proof of safety. But this discussion is about whether this merits a mention in the lead section. In my opinion it does merit a brief mention for the reasons already given.--Chris Jefferies 15:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the section title - people are not allegedly concerned, they are concerned. Perhaps wrongly concerned, but the concern itself is real.--Chris Jefferies 15:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

From WP:NPOV "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. " Also there is proof of safety. The U.S. and, no doubt, the UK have detail guidlines for exposure to electronic radiation. Those guidelines, which Wi-Fi meets, are based on extensive research. There is no difference between the radiation from Wi-Fi and that from cordless phones, say, which are been ubiquitous for years. The standed formula for this sort of health scare is to get some media attention based on emotional, anecdotal claims and then say that while there are no confirming studies "so far", there is no proof of safety either. Even the use of the word "radiation" is intended to alarm the public. The public hears all this as "it's very bad and the power structure is trying to cover it up." Wikipedia should not lend support to this sort of scare story.--agr 16:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I thik I added the term radiation when I made the addition to the health concerns section recently. I agree that a more innocuous term could be used, I just didn't think of one as I wrote it. __meco 16:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I've put back a very brief mention of the fact that concern has been expressed and the fact that there is no evidence. Despite what agr writes above, there is no proof of safety, nor can there ever be. Science doesn't work that way, experiments can indisputably demonstrate harm (if it exists) but not lack of harm.--Chris Jefferies 22:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Removing the mention of the health concerns was unwarranted. There are adequate references to sources in the article. Please discuss your reasons here after reading the earlier discussion--Chris Jefferies 23:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

See my comment below. This longwinded debate is totally unnecessary if you can find a good source.Jehochman ^Talk 23:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted this edit [1] because it is original research and uses weasel words. If there are health concerns, say by whom and cite a reliable source. Otherwise, keep this out of the article. Thank you! Jehochman ^Talk 23:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I've combined the comment above with the existing section on health concerns. It's difficult to see why a duplicate section would be necessary. This is not a matter of original research, the sources given explain the background perfectly well. Please explain what you mean by 'weasel words', the text was 'Concern has been expressed about possible health risks from Wi-Fi, but scientific studies suggest this is unlikely'. And now to cap it all you've slapped an edit war warning on my talk page! I am well aware of the three-revert rule and I am not in breach of it having only reverted once.--Chris Jefferies 23:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Which sources? Your edit doesn't include a reference.
2. Who has concerns? Name some names?
3. Which scientific studies are you talking about?

Exceptional, potentially fringe, claims require exceptional sources. Unless you can provide solid references, this statement doesn't belong. I really want to help you, so please take this in stride. WP:3RR does not entitle an editor to three reverts per day. You've re-added this same statement four times in the last 25 or so edits to this article. That is slow-motion edit warring. I've left a note at WP:AN/3 to request an administrator provide us with further guidance. I am a member of the Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club, so I will only revert once. This means I have to call for help when I see a problem like this. Jehochman ^Talk 01:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I am really trying to understand your position. I agree that something in the lead doesn't need a cite if it summarizes material properly cited within the article. However, placing this fact in the lead gives way too much prominence to a fringe view. We are talking about a pseudo-scientific health scare affecting a few schools in the UK. Unless this scare is much more widespread that I understand, it just doesn't belong in the lead at all. Jehochman ^Talk 04:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The references really are there in the article already, the cited BBC article gives names of real people on both sides of the debate. This discussion page makes it clear that a Canadian University is also concerned (and yes, I know that's not mentioned in the article). As Mittfh wrote, 'There's plenty of information there'. We have already agreed that it's not necessary to put citations in the lead section provided they're given in the body of the article, and they are. Repeatedly telling me to include citations is unhelpful, perhaps you could explain why you think the existing citations are inadequate. I do believe the section in the article needs further work, not necessarily extending but copyediting and clarifying for sure, it could give more and better information in a more concise style.

I have not 're-added this same statement four times' as you will see if you look more carefully. The new statement was shorter and, I had hoped, more neutral in tone. It stated two facts supported by the references given in the article - 1/ Some people are worried about the safety of Wi-Fi - 2/ There is no scientific evidence that Wi-Fi is unsafe.

What we have here is a straightforward difference of opinion between me and several others on the one hand, and you and several others on the other. That is clear from the discussion above. My position (which you are trying to understand) is that anyone consulting Wikipedia on the subject of Wi-Fi might like to know from the lead section that the article gives some details about health concerns, ie that some people are worried and that there's no evidence of danger. A short sentence to that effect in my opinion is justified. Your opinion is clearly different. We are both entitled to our opinions I think, maybe we can reach agreement.--Chris Jefferies 08:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I've reworked the statement to see if we can be more definite, and I also added links to your references. There's nothing wrong with using references in the lead. Jehochman ^Talk 14:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I'm entirely happy with your reworking and I hope everyone else will be too. We still need to make some improvements to the health section in the article, I might be able to look at that this evening (UK time).--Chris Jefferies 15:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I am glad we sorted that out. This article needs some work, but I think we get it up to WP:GA. At least it is fairly comprehensive at this point. Jehochman ^Talk 02:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I've rewritten the the health section in the light of a document from the UK Health Protection Agency. It seems the report came first, Sir William commented that it would be wise to keep the subject under review, and the public reaction began before anything appeared in the media.

Probably we should rename the section. 'Media reports of health risks' no longer seems ideal. Any thoughts? How about the non-POV 'Health risks'. Basically the text explains that none are known but some users are anxious anyway.--Chris Jefferies 12:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup June/July 2007

I suggest we clean up this article so it qualifies as either a good article or featured article. The most obvious problems I see are, in no particular order:

1. Bloated table of contents needs to be relieved by selectively deleting subheads - partially done.
2. Over use of lists. Convert long list items to prose.
3. Unsupported statements should be marked with {{fact}}. Those tags should then be replaced by references. Controversial, unsupported material should be removed on sight.
4. Spam needs to be removed.

Please help by working on these items, and list items to the 'to do' as you find them. Jehochman ^Hablar 15:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Wireless Standards (A, B, G, N)

There is no mention of any wireless standards in the whole article The wireless-B, G, N or any other. I was looking for the latest one and its transfer speeds or range, so I had to go to the Best Buy website to find out. WOW! Shame. --Turbinator 05:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

No, you just needed to go to IEEE 802.11. HTH. Guy Harris 06:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

test

test —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.85.76.18 (talk) 05:40:17, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Someone put several vulgar words into the articles, concurrant with the appearance of this "test" I did my best to remove them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.113.112 (talk) 05:43, 7 September 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)

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 Health Risks

Seems 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 such that it appears conspicuously biased) that there is really nothing wrong with using Wi-Fi, even by children for a prolonged period. However, there has been much ongoing debate among scientists as to whether Wi-Fi really harms our health. Extensive and in-depth research has just only begun and it's still too early to say that it is completely harmless to human 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))

See the article on Electrical Sensitivity. This section is balanced, going by WP:UNDUE, WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE, and WP:NPOV. This has also previously been debated. --88.172.132.94 (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Spookee/Sevenneed, I will also add that you should look at WP:SOCKS. You both make very similar edits, edit the same articles, have the same style, and make the same accusations using the same words --RDOlivaw (talk) 14:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I now realize these people can use all sorts of tactics to suppress information. Perhaps too many careers are at stake and too much vested interest is involved. I maintain that extensive research into the adverse health consequences of Wi-Fi has only just begun and it's premature at this stage to claim that it is completely harmless. Spare a thought for our children ... our future generations. (Sevenneed (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC))

Have you read all the articles above? Including the ES article and and the wikipedia policies? --88.172.132.94 (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The article claims "Consensus amongst scientists is that there is no evidence of harm, and the continuing calls for more research into the effects on human health remain limited." Where are the sources and links? What studies are these? Who were the scientists involved? Are they backed by the Wi-fi/ mobile industry or are they independently conducted? Once again, the {neutrality} and {Incomplete} notices have been removed from the article by 88.172.132.94. Maybe he has some links to the industry and that explains why he has so vehemently defended Wi-Fi. (Spookee (talk) 12:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC))

Wasn't me. Do you really believe that paranoid stuff?? Got any good references for this massive conspiracy? I wish I was paid for this. You should look at homeopathy to see how to make these kinds of arguments properly... --88.172.132.94 (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Question of health risks - Germany Environment Ministry Advice

"However, in September 2007, Germany's Environment Ministry announced that its citizens should minimise their exposure to radiation from Wi-Fi by choosing conventional wired connections, ..."
Can anyone find the source document or press release that the German Environment Ministry issued that may have prompted The Independent to write its article, used as the current reference for the above text? Using the source document would improve the reference. The Independent's article is from 2007-09-11, but I cannot find something at the Environment Ministry or the subsidiary German Radiation Protection office (German acronym BFS) from roughly the same period. I only find a release from the German government published 2007-07-23 in the Bundestag "Strahlenbelastung durch drahtlose Internet-Netzwerke (WLAN)" (my translation of title: "Exposure to Radiation from Wireless Internet Networks (WLANs)"). Question and Answer 5 in the document are relevant. My summary of a portion of the answer is: "The government suggests as a general recommendation that exposure to high-frequency fields be kept as low as possible, in the WLAN case, for example, to prefer wired connections when they are available." My POV is the BFS, with regards to mobile telephony, wireless LANs, etc., has generally stated that science does not support serious health effects, but that it also recommends prudent precaution when possible. papageno (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You can refer to German Federal Government warns of WLAN use (Sevenneed (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC))

You could do, but that is an even worse source than The Independent --88.172.132.94 (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This link and the links to which it refers only give the Bundestag document as a source.papageno (talk) 09:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If no better source can be found, and this is the source the independent used, then this whole statement should be removed as it is unverifiable --88.172.132.94 (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

At least, if no corroborating original source can be found, the text will have to be edited to reflect any actual sources found. papageno (talk) 09:53, 22 January 2008 (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)

Amateur radio simply doesn't belong on this page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.19.37.102 (talk) 14:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

To repeat: Amateur radio and the RF connecotrs simply doesn't belong on this page. It is not WiFi anything —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.19.37.102 (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now you're talking on the talk page, you're moving in the right direction. Please understand that we get both vandalism and some uninformed editing, so there are rules to follow...at least read WP:Tutorial before getting in an edit war. On the current topic, I found it quite helpful to know that amateur radio uses the same frequency and is governed by some of the same U.S. laws as WiFi...I don't see any reason to pull this paragraph, and others seem to agree with me.

P.S. It's a little annoying trying to talk with a number...please consider getting a username. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

 I agree with user 81.19.37.102 this is not informative relative to WiFi it isn"t WiFi and it should not be on this page. Amateur Radio belongs on an Amateur radio page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.191.206 (talk) 13:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC) 

I think it's useful, as it shows frequency is not exclusive to Wi-Fi. I have first hand experience of a baby monitor operating on 2.4 GHz that causes Wi-Fi connectivity to drop out. Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above users this isn't wifi and it is also is not a section about sharing the frequency/band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.72.57.15 (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

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.