Jump to content

Talk:Wi-Fi/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Stop Edit War in Health Risks section

Can I implore all those users who are seemingly engaged in an Edit war of reverts and counter-reverts in the Health Risks section at the moment to stand down and discuss their content issues in this Discussion page? This will increase our chances of finding common ground. I will admit to having done one blind complete revert myself, but have been seeking to move past this to focus on improving the content of the section. Is anyone else interested in joining me in this approach? papageno (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the only solution is to get rid of the section entirely. I am willing to compromise with a See Also to "Wireless electronic devices and health" *If* there is a problem, it would not be related to the Wi-Fi per-se, but to the broadcasting in the 2.4Ghz spectrum. Hence it shouldn't be in this article. And you can't have an edit wars with Anonymous IP addresses that consistently change. -- KelleyCook (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
papageno is now being suspected of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Qui1che for evidence. All the anonymous IPs which have reverted the original version to the version "Unproven Health Risks" are suspected to have been the same person. I do have a username but do not take the hassle to log on most of the time. I only log on when I need to file a report. My ISP changes my IP address each time I log on. But a check on my IP addresses will instantly reveal they all refer to the same host. I have never attempted to deny the different IPs point to the same user and I have never used the different IPs to corroborate each other's edits in an attempt to deceive the rest. This is in contrast to the case of papageno who has explicitly denied any association with the different IPs which have unanimously advocated the same "Unproven Health Risks" version. Also, I note that you have deleted the entire version "Question on Health Risks" without consent of other editors. Are you an administrator? If not, I will take this as wilful vandalism. CleanUpX (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
So your best defense is a bad example of offense, eh User:Spookee? All I really care about is that you both take your duplicated NPOV stuff out of *this* article. Especially, as there is a specific article just for that. Its gone again. -- KelleyCook (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes you are right, my previous username was User:Spookee but I have since changed that when I switched to a new ISP. I have never used these two usernames concurrently to corroborate each other. In any case, I have ceased to use User:Spookee for any edits since I changed to this current one. I am not sure if this is a case of sockpuppetry. All that I wanted was that a neutral point of view be portrayed in the section on "Wi-Fi Health Risks". IT is an established fact now that most of the users who advocated "unproven health risks" were sockpuppets who have ganged up to perpetuate their POV. For example, RDOlivaw and Unprovoked are now banned indefinitely. I have also personally reported 88.172.132.94 and now papageno with good reasons. I am OK with removing this section, if that isn't done in an attempt to suppress info. Finally, I wish to remind you that WiKi is free encyclopedia where anyone can edit. You do not tell other editors to "Get Out of this Article" as you have done in the talk history page, no matter how senior or established you are. No one should be intimidated and it's WP's policy that all WP editors be bold. CleanUpX (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Checking Spookee and CleanUpX's story is easy. Looking at Spookees contributions you can see that he edited WiFi on the 24 April to back his own POV as multiple anons/CleanUpX, and then logged in on the 28th to accuse two users of being sock, who are both already blocked (not very clever!) This is a clear case, by admission, of abusive sockpuppetry, and along with his history, uncivil behavior, editing style, attacks against editors in good standing, and general (lack of) decorum, should result in a full block. "-°91.65.62.200 (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2008

Here's my ref

This ref wouldn't fit nicely into the article. I'm placing it here in order to summarize and justify an "undo". PC's refer to personal computers with operating systems other than Windows.

PC makers ready to throw out the Windows

E_dog95' Hi ' 19:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Origin and meaning of the term "Wi-Fi"

This section contradicts itself. Just because its owners want to discourage the term "Wireless Fidelity" does not mean wikipedia has to kiss up to that marketing angle. The info in that section demonstrates that it does, in fact, come from "Wireless Fidelity". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The peculiar wording of the quote from Belanger begs the question of what it stands for. Saying they hired someone to come up with a name is not an explanation of what it stands for! And the fact that the alliance initially used it to mean "Wireless Fidelity" undercuts the claim that it doesn't! The real question that needs an answer is why don't they like that term? What's their issue with it? Maybe somebody could find out the story on that, and round out that paragraph's "something's missing here" feel. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no-one more authorative than the organisation who came up with the term except perhaps the organisation that owns the brand. It's time to accept that Wi-Fi does not stand for "Wireless Fidelity". Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Except that the facts as stated in the paragraph contradict that assertion. Also, that fails to explain what it does stand for, nor does it explain why they have such a problem with the term "wireless fidelity". Those questions need to be answered in order to provide the full story. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The links actually explain the matter. Would that the author of the section would have done likewise. I'll see if I can futher clear the vagueness of the original writeup. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I came to the article to learn what "Wi-Fi" meant, and now I know, thanks to having had to rewrite it so that the next guy who comes along will also know, without having to wade through linked articles and to put up with the curious defensiveness about the use of the term. There's nothing mysterious about it, and no need to hide it behind layers of obscurity. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Health effects

there should be a section on proposed health effects, i saw in the news today, people in glastonbury are campaigning against the recent city-wide availability. I personally don't believe there are any risks but lots of people do and in lots of places they have chosen to refrain from installing it over the possibility of it. Also i am aware there has been a lot of research into it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.175.184 (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This has already been discussed very recently, and it was decided that a See Also link was enough, with people who want to be able to go there and editors working on that article. The people that are campaigning in Glastonbury have been mislead. See the articles Electrical sensitivity and wireless electronic devices and health. There has also been a lot of lobbying to remove NPOV by the socks CleanUpX and Spookee and his other banned socks on this page, who has made unfounded allegations against established and good editors, which was making the atmosphere on this page a bit poisonous. Hence, the information has been moved (as you can see from the talk above and from the link in the article). It also failed WP:UNDO, and came under WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. -12.207.207.227 (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Seconded, health effects should be a redirect elsewhere. WiFi article should be more on the technology and implementations IMHO Topazg (talk) 09:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

health effects

there should be a short paragraph then a link to the other page with the health effects. that's what would happen on most articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.55.157 (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC) (UTC)°-"

STILL (!) Overlap with Wireless LAN

Someone should move all the general information about wireless networks to the article wireless LAN. Wi-Fi is a trademark of a company and nothing more. For further info there should be a link to W-LAN. 78.42.175.138 (talk) 23:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree. The article starts by carefully explaining the difference between Wi-Fi and WLAN, but then it becomes a discussion of WLANs. I wonder if the people who contribute to this article ever bother to read even the first paragraph of it. Maybe its really because Wi-Fi is frequently used synonymously to WLAN. All the more it is the job of an encyclopedia to clarify the difference. So anybody brave enough: Please move the WLAN parts where they belong! 212.183.121.110 (talk) 18:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is there still such a mess in this article? This is about Wifi and NOT about WLAN! Please someone move the device stuff to the article about wireless LAN. Wi-Fi is just a trademark of a company. Colloquial language using Wi-Fi ans a synonym for wireless internet does not change the facts. 93.128.8.52 (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


What does the population section mean? It's babble

"Population

Many 2.4 GHz 802.11b and 802.11g Access points default to the same channel on initial startup, contributing to congestion on certain channels. To change the channel of operation for an access point requires the user to configure the device. Yet, this default use of channels 1, 6 and 11 gives better performance than "advanced" users choosing channels 2, 5, 7 and 9 as "unused, free"."

This paragraph is babble.

Is it saying the default channels give better performance than 2, 5, 7, and 9? If so, needs an explanation of why and a citation. Why is "advanced" scare quoted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.192.193 (talk) 23:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

How about a little blurb on what WiFi means? Does it stand for anything, is it an acronym? 128.183.218.117 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Check out the section Wi-Fi#Origin_and_meaning_of_the_term_.22Wi-Fi.22. Wi-Fi doesn't mean anything, though it has been linked to and is meant to remind you of Hi-Fi. Verbal chat 16:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Too much techno-babble

A large section of this article, especially the section labeled "limitations" is incomprehensible to anyone who doesn't already understand how a wireless network works. This is pretty typical of technology articles in general on wikipedia, and hugely problematic. Somebody with the necessary expertise should remove all jargon. 128.135.224.223 (talk) 21:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Health Effects

Unless I didn't see it, apparently there is no information in this article about the health effects of Wi-Fi / Wireless Internet transmission on the human body. I believe some, perhaps scant evidence or studies exist on this subject--it's certainly important enough to mention. --71.111.205.22 (talk) 20:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Something like that would probably turn into an edit war and I've yet to even see any plausible evidence wireless signals can have adverse health effects (assuming you don't live next to something like a cell tower).

Wi-Fi Inventor

The technology was invented and implimented by arjun boney kuruvilla a genius and expert in computer wireless networking.He had first got this idea when he saw his friend Dilshad Saju tried to access LAN and took hours to access the server. The present condition of the technology was attained by the computer efforts of a group of scientists called "Daredevilz". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.88.230.242 (talk) 07:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

how wi-fi is set within 30 to 40 computer

I am searching for literature how wi-fi is established with 30-40 computers within a building 50 mt long 20 m wide having indepent small brick walled room. What will be router and other components and their source in india/Patna. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.248.75.142 (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Problems with cite#27

Cite #27 in the article says to "See the wikinews article mentioned in this section" but there is no mention of any wikinews articles anywhere near there. Can someone change the cite to link to the proper article? Icestryke (talk) 03:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

"It is now common place."

In reference to free Wi-Fi, I feel that the above portion of the article should be taken out, as I do not agree this statement is accurate amongst most airports. In fact very few airports actually offer free Wi-Fi, JFK, Pittsburgh, etc. are but the exceptions. In many terminals at Dulles, Chicago O'hare, Las Vegas, Dallas-Fortworth, Cincinatti, and numerous others they charge for Wi-Fi, upwards of 9.99 for mere hours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.239.143 (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Wi-Fi vs. 802.11

There is a short blurb in the intro about the relationship between Wi-Fi and 802.11, but the distinction is still not clear to me. Is Wi-Fi specifically applied to LANs implemented using 802.11? If so, then what other kinds of networks can be implemented using 802.11? Or is Wi-Fi just a marketing term for 802.11? If so, then should the two articles be merged? What is the technical difference between being "Wi-Fi certified" vs. being "802.11 certified"? Mgnbar (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The article does mention right away that the two are essentially synonymous in every day speech, however, that is only correct to a degree. There is no such thing as 802.11 certification, 802.11 is simply a set of standards documents by the IEEE. The IEEE does not engage in certifying products. Those things are conducted by industry consortia, to promote compatibility, interoperability, and to develop consumer acceptance (marketing). That is what the WiFi Alliance is and does. The intro to this article states it in the first sentence, it's a trademark. The same sentence also states that 802.11 is the standard that is used as the basis. Kbrose (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
PS: I made some small edits to hopefully make it a little clearer. Kbrose (talk) 17:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Kbrose. I now realize that my question ("What exactly does 'Wi-Fi' mean?") is answered by the Wi-Fi Alliance article; it names specific criteria for a device to be certified Wi-Fi, and clarifies which of those criteria come from the 802.11 standard. In my opinion, this is the key material that should be in the Wi-Fi article. Does anyone object to my putting in a summary of that material? (Or, more dramatically, we could merge Wi-Fi Alliance into Wi-Fi.) Mgnbar (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

These two articles, three actually including 802.11, really have a different focus, 802.11 describes the underlying standards, WiFi Alliance focusses on the organization and what it does, and this article talks about the applications, devices, etc., i.e. practical implications. All separate topics, and worth while to be explored in depth independently. By all means, however, they should refer to each other and summaries of each in the others are more than appropriate to establish proper contexts. Kbrose (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hyphenation

In the article, WiFi (or Wi-Fi) appears both hyphenated and non-hyphenated. Are both acceptable, or should one of them be changed? 193.203.85.98 (talk) 09:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wi-Fi Alliance seems to use the hyphenated version in all cases, so we should too. Mgnbar (talk) 14:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

What does it mean?

Wi is for Wireless presumably, but Fi? If we get some sources, it would be good to have it explained in the lead or an etymology section. Thanks. 118.8.206.14 (talk) 01:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It's explained thoroughly in the "Wi-Fi name" section, but now that you mention it, it should be in the intro. Mgnbar (talk) 01:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Viktor Laszlo (talk) 15:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC) You neglected to say the most basic thing - what is it the WiFi technology uses? Presumably it's electromagnetic waves. Radio waves I suppose?

I've just seen - under the "Bluetooth" entry - that Bluetooth and Wi-Fi are similar. But would you please be more specific about their differences? Is Wi-fi more "wide range" and Bluetooth "short range"?? Do they use different bandwidths? Is one more advantageous than the other, and in what respects/environments? Ideally, the same paragraph, contrasting bluetooth with wi-fi, should be included in the wi-fi entry, for clarification. Thanks.

The article didn't really talk about the similarity beyond the fact that they use the same frequency, however the similarity pretty much ends there, i'm not really against adding a section outlining the differences but that would sorta be like highlighting the difference between a truck and a car in an article about cars simply because they both operate on roads. Also if that difference is added then the differences between the other wireless standards that operate at the same frequencies that were mentioned in the article must be added. I'm not completely against the idea, it just seems to be more effort than it's worth, and would sorta knot up the article. Xerotolerant (talk) 05:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

complete security misunderstanding

Attackers who have gained access to a Wi-Fi network can use DNS spoofing attacks very effectively against any other user of the network, because they can see the DNS requests made, and often respond with a spoofed answer before the queried DNS server has a chance to reply Writing this is both a complete misunderstanding on how you can attack a network and what the source states, this should be removed and there should either be a line about something wireless specific (e.g. how you can actually sniff packets because it's all in the air) or link to something about normal network attacks. 130.225.198.204 (talk) 09:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree topazg (talk) 13:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Embedded systems

I would really like to see this section expanded. I will probably research the topic, and may add here in discussion, but I may not add to the article itself as I am not sure I have the necessary time to invest--74.88.152.221 (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

What Is the new N-technology being used for Wi-Fi?

I have recently learned of this while tring to connect my blu-ray to run on wi-fi. But did not get a good explanation other than its faster. I tried to search for a laymens explanation. sorry this is my first post. 67.11.91.244 (talk) 05:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

WiFi FAQ

I'm interested in putting together a WiFi FAQ of at least decent quality.(I wrote the XviD FAQ many, many years ago) I just checked Google and the top 20 links on WiFi FAQs are quite insufficient. I'm putting a RFC on my talk page if you're interested in contributing. I'll probably find some place to host it. If this is considered advertising, or in some other way inapropriate I apologize, we all know wikipedia isn't the place for FAQs, but we all also know WiFi sure can use a proper, easy-to-read FAQ. Don't Troll, DO help.Crusty007 (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Wi-Fi and fidelity

OK, so almost directly per Wikipedia:Five pillars if you state something and have no sources for that I can change it. So why doesn't it work here? I gave sources that Wi-Fi Aliance says that "WiFi is short for Wireless Fidelity"[1]. So can anyone give me such a direct source on that? --Nux (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Please look through the archive. That FAQ is out of date. Verbal chat
Haven't anything particularly interesting browsing through archive of this page. Don't know if the FAQ is outdated what I know is you won't find any statement on Wi-Fi Alliance page that the term isn't short for Wireless Fidelity, but you can easily find statements that it does [2]. BTW this all strange to me. Typically things are called somehow because someone that made them called them like that or many people call them like that and some organization agrees with them (we have a language council for that in Poland). So if Wi-Fi Alliance says it's Wireless Fidelity why not believe them ;-). --Nux (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
The previous version was perfectly clear and neutrally worded, while your version contains editorializing on the matter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
But the subject is not clear. Doesn't the WP:NPOV says all views should be stated. Find me a direct source that says what the article is saying now and I'll pass. --Nux (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
"Wireless Fidelity has often been used, by the Wi-Fi Alliance itself and is still in it's FAQ, but some still claim that the term Wi-Fi does not mean anything." That's editorializing. The creators no longer support the idea of it standing literally for "Wireless Fidelity". As the previous version made it clear, Wi-Fi was suggested by Hi-Fi, but it does not officially stand for anything. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Jumping in here, So then the article should state: "The term Wi-Fi was suggested by Hi-Fi, but it does not officially stand for "Wireless Fidelity", or anything actually." Usually Wikipedia articles start out by defining the term, telling how to pronounce it, and the term's origin. We now return to your regularly scheduled argument... Friendly Person (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
So if the FAQ is not official enough for how about press releases [3] [4] or documents [5] [6] or even other sources like ITAA [7]. If you claim that "The Alliance has since downplayed the connection to Hi-Fi. Their official position now is that it is merely a brand name that stands for nothing in particular, and they now discourage the use of the term Wireless Fidelity." then I say - where do they say so? There is one site that claim to have talked to the founder. So why didn't this statement go on to wi-fi official site? Even if he said that (the "interview" doesn't seem to be authorized), so even if he did, then I must say it seems like the Alliance doesn't quite agrees with he's views on the subject. That's why the claims that Wi-Fi stands for nothing should be described as claims. --Nux (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


Hi how is this being done, this Editing im talking about —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.15.16.20 (talk) 09:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wifi Group probably got really scared when they checked with their lawyers and were told that descriptive terms can not be trademarked and/or there is a risk of generisizing the term... See Trademark_distinctiveness. If WiFi did mean Wireless Fidelity, then anyone could use it? Dspark76 (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

When the WECA(the origional name of the Wi-Fi Alliance) was formed it decided it needed a better marketing name than 802.11, WLAN, etc. So WECA got in some marketing consultants with the task to come up with some names. The end result was the term Wi-Fi. This was decided upon by WECA as it similar to Hi-Fi - which was a term that people already knew. So it was Wi-Fi that was picked. When the marketing name was launched, WECA we then asked what Wi-Fi stood for. After much internal debate, it was decided that this stood for Wireless Fidelity - which was in reality meaningless. So Wi-Fi really stands for Wi-Fi, not a short form of Wireless Fidelity — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwedgar (talk • contribs) 15:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey c'mon, Nux has got a lot of point in this. It is quite obvious that WECA and Interbrand communicated the ideas about deriving Wi-Fi from Hi-Fi, which implies the association of High Fidelity and Wireless Fidelity. Who should actually care about this, except those worried about protection of the trademark. The defence by claim "meaningless" Wireless Fidelity is meaningless itself, everyone can easily see the idea of fidel WLAN companions building interoperable products, in fidel to 802.11 standards. For a few first years, before the Wi-Fi trademark actually became known, the Wi-Fi Alliance seemed to successfully use this faithful wireless concept. If one person, the writer of the one-and-only source for "Wi-Fi does not stand for Wireless Fidelity" cannot understand the great campaign a billion people around the globe had no difficulties to cope with, it is more a problem of his, not ours. For the billion customers around the globe, Wi-Fi will successfully associate with trust on Wi-Fi standing for reliability, in spite the fact that there have been, there are, and there will be incompatible product combinations with both having Wi-Fi logo, and though someone would claim the logo stands for nothing. Yet, this debate will put mr Belanger into history as the one who does not like the Wireless Fidelity campaign they had. In my opinion, the chapter "The name Wi-Fi" is a bit clumsy, but it tells the essentials, name coming from professional trademark tailors, and the usage of first five years with the slogan; it's not good but it's not bad either. If this was a customer project, id request freeze. Seikku Kaita (talk) 04:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Huge Wikipedia inconsistency

At the Wi-Fi entry, I read: "This proved to be much more difficult than their promoters initially envisioned with the result that most of these projects were either canceled or placed on indefinite hold". However, at the Municipal wireless network entry I read a lot of cities with Wi-Fi deployed and only a few with Wi-Fi cancelled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.153.192.1 (talk) 10:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC) hi i like your info —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.124.22.107 (talk) 05:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

To start, I must remind, the questions are about Wi-Fi, which is proponent of 802.11 set of standards. I'm anxious on the newest ideas about using TV white space, this might work. Then to the pessimism with proven history up to this day.
Of all the bigger WISP projects I know details about, more than 50% are already dead. Some are sound and live their lives. The ones still growing are mainly funded by tax money. Coverage and usability is hard to manage with most of the equipment using noisy ISM band, and resent tendency of trading usability into affordable coverage by MESHing may be the last nail. I am a WISP owner and pretty sad about the quality served by many municipal WISPs, as well as technical knowledge and expertise of the companies planning, installing and operating those networks.
The municipal WISPs most often are promoted by people having political or marketing ideas. There will always be companies offering them wonders and there will always be buyers using tax money to these wonders. Some of these wonders magically follow the 1st law of Disney, when the offering company happens to need a reference customer. Most of the networks will never serve any significant percentage of local people. Of course, if the idea is to build a couple of hot spots for the tourists, budget is in control and service quality can be tolerable, but then we are not talking about municipal coverage. The true municipal coverage may be achieved by some future telephone company network technology, since they have the infra for access control and charging the customers. Even this is far in future.
Seikku Kaita (talk) 05:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
P.S. while talking about municipal coverage, why not expand to nation wide coverage. There are at least two possible "simple" cases: Nauru and Vatican. Which comes first?

Wi-Fi Confusion and Misuse

The use use of the terminology Wi-Fi as a drop in replacement for any 802.11 device is exacerbated by inconsistencies such as this article. The two words are not synonymous in any capacity. It is nothing more than a Mark of certification for compliance to standards. The Wi-Fi Mark, being the certification mark trademarked by Wi-Fi Alliance, should not be presented as what it is not. Moreover, a certification mark should not have it's own article.

Clarity and Examples;

Certification mark
NSF International
Underwriters Laboratories


--sckirklan (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm with you dude. Unfortunately there's a lot of WiFi=802.11 out there in the secondary sources on which Wikipedia relies. Strictly speaking, we're not here to make things right; We're here to summarize what others are reporting. --Kvng (talk) 02:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I think the WiFi alliance is on the hook for making sure that their Trademark doesn't get Genericized through this kind of misuse. Or is it already too late? Dspark76 (talk) 14:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This article is outrageously incorrect

This article is way off; the CSIRO invented WiFi. Furthermore, the introduction should define WiFi as a "wireless network" or something along those lines, rather than "a trademark of the Wi-Fi Alliance". wtf is the Wi-Fi alliance? It's a bunch of scammers who ganged up against the scientists and copied the technology from the CSIRO. The article is in serious need of some major work. (Huey45 (talk) 04:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC))

Wi-Fi is the marketing name for 802.11 networks. I think 802.11 is the article you were expecting to find here. --Kvng (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I am of the belief that this whole page needs a COMPLETE REWORK in view of the complete crap dished out by the cabal known as the WiFi Alliance. Firstly they STOLE the technology from CSIRO (http://www.csiro.au/science/wireless-LANs.html) and this deception went on for many years, until CSIRO got the evidence to take them all to the courts (and the cleaners). The whole market is fooled by just who is responsible for this technology. I might agree that the WiFi Logo belongs to the Wi-Fi alliance, as a bunch of manufacturers of said stolen technology, but all else is based on false premises. 121.44.233.119 (talk) 07:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Mitchell Duncan

This article is actually a bit off-topic, there is quite a lot of stuff about WLAN and even politics around the usage, which should have nothing to do with Wi-Fi, which is the trademark ot the Wi-Fi Alliance, which is what this article should be about. So it's a "hear, hear" to the complete rework, but I'm afraid we would make quite different looking rewrites for the Wi-Fi page.
There are readers, writers and even critics on this page that have lost the scope, or, do not understand what they read. Anything not concerning the Wi-Fi Alliance in this article might be better off in WLAN article. Maybe cleaning this article and moving the generic WLAN stuff to WLAN could help the readers to see that Wi-Fi, though well marketed trademark, is not equal to WiFi, WLAN or 802.11.
The Alliance does not own the patents, neither does it directly tell the 802.11 group what the standards contain. No-one claims here that CSIRO would not be one of the inventors of today's WLAN technology.
Seikku Kaita (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

CSIRO content

There there have been numerous edits recently removing and restoring, without explanation, the CSIRO information in the History section. Rather than continue the edit war, I thought I'd set up a place here to discuss inclusion of this material. I believe the information is correct and I personally don't feel strongly one way or the other about its notability. --Kvng (talk) 13:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

As an Australian, I feel VERY STRONGLY about the exclusion of CSIRO's contribution to this technology. I quote directly from their website:

"CSIRO's invention was granted a US patent in 1996. There are corresponding patents in 18 other countries."

"The technology was first embodied in an industry standard in 1999 (called IEEE 802.11a) and later in other standards (IEEE 802.11g and IEEE 802.11 draft n)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.233.119 (talk) 07:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a good, neutral idea. Give CSIRO a sandbox of it's own. I mean really. Though it's quarter of a century the invention was made, the burden of current patent system is still the sword of Damocles above our heads. Yet, I think there are a zillion inventions today's WLAN technology relies on, so mentioning some ten of the most obvious would not hurt anyone. Someone must have invented the semiconductor component and transfer line architecture needed to operate at several GHz. Encoding and decoding schemas for FEC and 2/3 CODECs and layering systems did not come out-of-nowhere, there might be mathematicians to give the credits. Building upon the 802 main group could be worth recognition, too. Name the one part which you could take off without breaking the WLAN connection?
Seikku Kaita (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Wifi Risks

http://www.hollandsentinel.com/opinions/x1658504378/U-S-should-study-wifi-health-impact Please add a section regarding the newly discovered risks associated with Wifi. -BRNCAKEMORE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.8.205.42 (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.172.0.195 (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Every now and then there are these writings of panicking people, who should have their medication checked. The only valid part in the 'article' is about sufficient funding of studies in non-ionizing radiation, almost too much of my money (yes, I am European). For anyone who was not sleeping during the Physics 101 lessons, it should be obvious the writer of the mentioned article has no means to assimilate the physical environment he/she lives in. I would rather tell the people the current commonly accepted view of the science community, which is happy to work in buildings well covered with WLAN networks, accompanied with proper 2G/3G/4G coverage, and using heath radiators during the winter, happily reading in electric light (of about million times more powerful per room than WLAN), while not leaning over the screen radiating at about 300 cd/m2.
Busted? Seikku Kaita (talk) 13:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Well there's nothing like comparing apples to bananas to further an argument. UHF radio waves and light waves, although both Electromagnetic waves, are sufficiently different in wavelength that their characteristics are nowhere near the same. UHF radio waves, in great enough power, cause heating of exposed body parts (this is how a microwave oven works - coincidentally using exactly the same wavelength as Wi-Fi). Visible light at high powers has no effect whatsoever on the body (though if powerful enough can cause eye damage). If the wavelength becomes shorter still, you can get a nice sun tan!
The powers currently used in Wi-Fi are too low to get excited about. 86.178.176.77 (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Comparing bananas to apples might be fruitful again! What I said about Physics 101 still holds, and to bust the microwave oven vs "visible light at high powers has no effect whatsoever" claim: go find a 750 W red laser (the same power as a common microwave oven) and put your hand into a shoe box size chamber of mirrors and a couple of rotating prisms with the laser for a minute and tell me it had "no effect whatsoever".
Yet, the power levels we are talking about with WLAN, I wouldn't be worried about it. Maybe this should be compared to starting a car engine: if you give a couple of kilowatts or more to the starter, the engine will start. Yet, with a "dead" battery, you can let the one watt keep on trying for a week, and nothing happens. Same goes for energy absorption on human skin: as long as the temperature does not rise for several degrees, nothing permanent happens. This is physics 101. There is nothing peculiar about 12 cm band in human physics, and the main reason for both microwave ovens and cheap WLAN devices using this band is this ISM band being globally available. Funny, but light band is also globally available, with some limitations, like needing a licence for laser of more than 4 mW, or not being allowed to attatch red-and-blue flash lights on the root of your vehicle...some for heath, but most for other reasons.
Summa summarum: Don't worry, be happy (with WLAN, too) Seikku Kaita (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge 802.11

I originally presumed that this article deserved a separate life apart from 802.11 describing Wi-Fi alliance initiatives. But discovery of the Wi-Fi Alliance article deflates that. A three-way re-balancing of content seems desirable to me. WiFi content would be merged into 802.11 and Wi-Fi Alliance as appropriate. --Kvng (talk) 20:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I now think Wi-Fi would be the better final title for the article. I have added merge banners to help readers who are having trouble finding complete information. --Kvng (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

  • agree in part - I don't disagree that the pages should be reorganized. I also agree with the sentiment that a normal user searching on 802.11 would probably better be served with the content that is at Wi-Fi. So perhaps 802.11 should redirect to Wi-Fi. Then the IEEE 802.11 page could be renamed the "IEEE 802.11 workgroup" or something like that. That page has a vastly different focus than this page, it talks about the process and the various flavors/committees of IEEE 802.11 group. -- KelleyCook (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Take a look at IEEE 802.1 or IEEE 802.3. Do either of these represent a good model for where IEEE 802.11 should go? --Kvng (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

these should not be merged. they may be the same but 802.11 is the standard and has alot of un-needed material for wi-fi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.47.125.166 (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


Wi-Fi as defined by the WI-Fi Alliance is a subset of 802.11 PLUS other specifciations for protocols that include new operating modes (like WPS and WFD). The topics should NOT be merged ... people just need to reorganize the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nymble (talk • contribs) 22:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Wi-Fi is a trademark. This article should be split at least three ways. 1) One for average reader, actually looking for WLAN layman's introduction (but not knowing the name WLAN to look for), and referring for further reading in other parts: 2) Wi-Fi, telling it is a trademark of 3) Wi-Fi Alliance and again, giving the links to WLAN, 802.11 and Wi-Fi. Someone looking for WIFI should be redirected to WLAN, or if we are to be nice to Wi-Fi Alliance, to their trade mark Wi-Fi. Wi-Fi should under no circumstances be the place to explain about anything else but the trade mark. Or then we should consider some other rearrangements of article naming in Wikipedia as well: Soft_drink should be renamed Coca-Cola, Car should be renamed to Ford, and Internet should be renamed Facebook. Seikku Kaita (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same article here? has the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi artical already been altered?, seems to me things are fine as they are Wi-Fi covers most of the main areas of interest to regular people, whilst this artical contains information relevant to networking students and technicians, perhaps just add a pre-amble redirecting to Wi-FI, something like "This artical is highly technical, if your looking for consumer relevant information about Wi-Fi *add link here*" JavaByte (talk) 15:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the Two should be merged, however in the reverse order than what is proposed. WiFi, is a trademarked term for a certified IEEE 802.11 a/b/g/n wireless connection. Wifi is part of the subject IEEE 802.11 not vice versa. As far as the term WLAN that cloud refer to any standard winch allows devices to communicate as a network without wires, this cloud be Bluetooth, infrared, or satellite. --Charles E. Keisler (talk), Network+ 16:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Wi-Fi is a trademark used to identify (usually public, but also private) wireless network connectivity. 802.11 is a collection of wireless standards. I feel that the two are not synonymous and thus should remain separate. My $0.02, Dmarquard (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Right now we have a bunch of repeated material. The merge would remove the repetition. If we're not going to do the merge, please feel free to WP:BOLDly remove the repetition from one article or the other. --Kvng (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Wi-Fi needs a simple derivation

I believe there is a link between the Wi-Fi Alliance's name and the term Hi-Fi (meaning high fidelity) with the last 2 letters 'Fi' referring to the word fidelity which then makes the term 'Wi-Fi' esentially an acronym for wireless fidelity. 75.48.22.132 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC).

Have you considered reading the talk page you are writing to? You can start from the top. Then, finally come back here to think again if this section was needed. BTW, how's the weather in Sacramento? Seikku Kaita (talk) 15:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I can understand , so much new word . As a chinese it it too hard for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.20.207.83 (talk) 09:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The simple English version of the article could definitely use some attention. --Kvng (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Health issues

I suggest most of this new material should be moved to electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Less than half of it is WiFi specific. --Kvng (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The issues in this section are adequately covered in the that page. Furthermore, this section is currently a bit of a mess. None of the supplied references actually support the claims. I suggest we prune this section to a minimum and link to the details in electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Frnknstn (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Stupid Wifi Tricks

Some Wifi devices are sensitive to metal in near proximity. A common trick for improving Wifi reception is to create a tinfoil parabolic reflector, mounting it on or near an omnidirectional antenna. In some instances this results in a paradoxical effect, where performance is seen to fall off dramatically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 15:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Photo confusing

Figure 1's caption describes a rooftop antenna (singular tense), but two types of antennas are pictured. I assume the white vertical element is the WiFi antenna, whereas the multi-element directional one is a microwave or RF link to a central station. Somebody pls clarify the caption. Casey (talk) 01:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Improper spelling of Wi-Fi in several places

The Wi-Fi page contains alternate "spellings", to wit: wifi, Wifi, WiFi. Shouldn't these all be "Wi-Fi"?

Apologies for being newbie, hope I've done this right.

- Peter

yes, I think it's fixed now but they should all be the same Wi-Fi. Try changing it yourself if you find other mistakes Bhny (talk) 17:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

alternatives

i am a newcomer to the computer world. Is my understanding correct that wifi is only the means to get to the internet if you currentley have a internet provider wifi will not change that

thank you

gene — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.103.186.46 (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

article should probably mention alternatives such as Ethernet Bhny (talk) 17:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Australia

I'm coming late to this battle, but it looks like there's been back_and_forths regarding the Australian issue.

Here's a link to an article that describes the patent and intellectual property concerns. Plenty more are at the click of a button:

http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php/200917/3520/Australia-s-CSIRO-wins-big-Wi-Fi-patent-battle

wiki-ny-2007 (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The patent issue is already in the article Wi-Fi#History and it has references to the Age and SMH articles. The text I deleted said that the technology behind Wi-Fi was invented by the CSIRO, without mentioning all the other technologies used. It seems like Wi-Fi uses one of their algorithms for reducing interference. Obviously important but there's a lot of other things involved. Also a patent dispute doesn't belong in the introduction. It's not explaining what Wi-Fi is.

How it works

This article is seriously missing a "how it works" section. That could include stuff like this CSIRO algorithm Bhny (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes a "how it works" section would be very useful in this article, it has every other section imaginable except on this.Millertime246 (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I added a stub "how it works" section. hopefully this will encourage someone Bhny (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Do not agree with this. There already is an article on IEEE 802.11 which should cover the technical aspects. This article is about the "brand" name for the products (or should be). There is also the history section. Maybe just a {{main}} or something is called for, pointing to that article. It also needs help, but keeping an article focused on one aspect would help. W Nowicki (talk) 18:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes there's a lot of technical stuff on both pages, but neither actually says how it works. I think a plain "how it works section" belongs here on Wi-Fi because this where most people will look Bhny (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I changed the template to empty section. anyway please feel free to write something there. there's an editor who keeps deleting and refusing to discuss Bhny (talk) 01:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Nothing I can find in WP:MOS or any of its subpages supports the notion of adding an empty section to an article. As far as I can tell from its talk page, the "empty section" template exists not to support the creation of empty sections but to provide a way to tag empty sections that you happen to find. It is also used on "template" articles (not the same as WP templates) that show how to build certain types of WP articles or pieces of articles, and as such serves as a reminder to the user of the template article to fill in all of those blanks. If you want to encourage people to add to the article I've always found that a section on the article talk page does that, without cluttering up the article itself. Accordingly I have deleted this empty section. Additionally, I find "How it works" to be highly non-encyclopedic. Jeh (talk) 07:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

This article completely fails on explaining wifi, and so fails at being an encyclopedic article. It's a bunch of technical stuff for people that already know the basics. Whatever the explanatory section is called it needs one. Other articles call their sections such things as Wankel_engine#Design or Radio#Processes Bhny (talk) 15:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not the section is needed is not the point. The point is that an empty section is not the way to get there.
Think of how the reader will react. Everything the reader sees when they look at an article should add to the article's value and quality, and thereby to WP's value and quality. An empty section head does not do that, but rather the opposite: it screams that you thought of something to do to improve the article, and then walked away from it. What would you think of a book, or for that matter a blog post, that included a section heading with only "I'll fill this in in the next edition" or "I'm going to come back and finish this later" under the heading? Do you see a lot of this sort of thing in other WP articles? No. It doesn't belong in this article either, no matter how much the section itself is needed. The article talk page (here) is the place for a to do list. Look, there's even a template for it, {{todo}}. Notice that the description says it goes on the article talk page. Jeh (talk) 16:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm curious. Just what would we say about "how it works" ? The 802.11 standard is quite a large set of documents, plus you'd have to explain protocols, modulation methods, etc. It would be quite a tutorial exercise to explain "how it works" in any but the most patronizing "Golden Book" level of prose. Once you say "it sends signals by radio" you get into an infinite regress of "what's a signal? what's radio? what's "sends"? "--Wtshymanski (talk) 22:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Well that is what wikilinks are for. But seriously, there is an art ot doing a summary, which is what is needed. I still think that this article should talk about the "products" since Wi-Fi is a trademark, and 802.11 is the technology. But a two or three sentence summary here, e.g. saying it is wireless, uses frequencies of about X, is packet-based, range of about n Meters, etc. would make sense. W Nowicki (talk) 00:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not "how it works", but rather the operational parameters. To use a car analogy, that's like quoting the fuel economy, range, top speed, and 0-60 time, instead of describing how the innards of the car work. Jeh (talk) 04:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Father of Wi-fi?

The article lists Vic Hayes as the "father of wi-fi", but John O'Sullivan has been called this title.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/10/28/2726708.htm http://thenextweb.com/au/2009/10/29/father-wifi-finally-recognised/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarrisani (talk • contribs) 11:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The Vic Hayes reference is much older. John O'Sullivan's recognition has come since the recent patent resolution. I've yet to see a technical article explaining how important this CSIRO patent is. There's hundreds of patents in WiFi, and the CSIRO patent seems to be for a chip (or algorithm?) used to optimize the received signal. From the articles I get the impression that this was a general thing for speeding up WLAN bandwidth not specific to WiFi. WiFi is a particular WLAN specification covering a very broad range of issues and Hayes I think did the first draft of this. Vic Hayes still wins on a google search "father of wi-fi". Anyway we have to go along with whatever is published, so it seems in Australia, O'Sullivan is sometimes known as "father of wi-fi" for the patent Bhny (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Use of term "Station"?

Could there be clarification on the use of the term "Station" for functions that describe a Wireless client? On what basis was the term station used repeatedly? There are no references and I also cant find anything remotely related to what was described when I google "Wi-Fi Station" the only thing that comes up is base station which is not what the OP meant.

I propose that it is all changed to "client" as that is what it is referring to. Station typically refers to a transmitter of sorts...BaronVonchesto (talk) 05:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Wi-Fi = brand name like BluRay, and not a "popular technology"

AFAIK the actual "technology" is already defined in the IEEE 802.11 standards-family. Wi-Fi ist just some certificate-like thingy (similar to Vista Ready at al.) you can get from the Wi-Fi alliance. Why does the wikipedia spread so much crap? Doors5678 (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Wi-Fi is the WP:COMMONNAME for the technology Bhny (talk) 15:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Wednesday?

>The metropolitan government said three telecommunications companies agreed in memorandums with Mayor Oh Se-hoon on Wednesday to provide the service.

Wednesday? Misterakko (talk) 13:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

fixed Bhny (talk) 15:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Does this mean what it seems to mean ?

re range: "... 32 m (120 ft) indoors and 95 m (300 ft) outdoors. IEEE 802.11n, however, can exceed that range by more than two times." Gramatically this means that the range is at least 96m (i.e. the excess is 64m). Is this intended ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.50.178 (talk) 09:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

reference said more than double, so I changed it to that Bhny (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Speed / bandwith

Would it be usefull to add some typical speeds or bandwith of different WiFi specifications? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.71.112.233 (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The file 'wifi-logo.jpeg' is inserted with the caption 'wifi signal logo' which I have never seen or heard of, is there a verification of the authenticity of this logo? NotinREALITY 02:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've seen it before. I can't speak for it's authenticity/prevalence, however. TippyGoomba (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I've replaced it with a photo of an actual logo in the wild, and added a sourced caption to say that "point with radiating curves" is a common symbol for wifi. --McGeddon (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Privacy concerns

Although it certainly does a good job of introducing the Wi-Fi technology to readers, especially from harware/security perspectives, I did not find what I was looking for in this article (maybe I read it too fast): namely facts that would help me establish what are the privacy issues involved especially concerning geolocation, like the way 2 Wi-Fi so-called "stations" establish communication with each other at a basic software level, assuming they ARE reachable through the waves, and BEFORE security protocols (WEP,WPA,etc.) kick in. In other words WHAT happens under the hood: there must be a kind of broadcast mechanism so that one station knows about the other, but WHAT is broadcasted exactly, is that information more protected if encryption is enabled (WAP/WEP), and if that constitutes a "protocol" what would be its name and basic circumstances of that (for example I remember studying "OSI networking" a long time ago and certainly before any notion of WI-Fi existed but there is no mention of that in the article)? I then migrated to the "WLAN" article which gave me these equally puzzling phrases: "the BSSID, which is the MAC address of the access point servicing the BSS" and "Each ESS has an ID called the SSID which is a 32-byte (maximum) character string". Since the notion of MAC address seems to be at the basis of that geolocation business, in the end I could not answer my basic question from the article: can Google Location Services and/or Skyhook know where is located my router without my explicit authorization and if so can I take technical measures to circumvent that in the future (like buying a new router and disabling broadcasting)! AlainR345Techno-Wiki-Geek 20:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they can triangulate the wifi signature, determining it's location, and "uniquely" identify it using the MAC address, name, etc. Do you have specific privacy concerns/threat model? or just find the whole thing creepy? TippyGoomba (talk) 04:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Abbreviations

There are many undefined abbreviations throughout this article, (or perhaps they aren't initialisms?), especially in the introduction. It would be helpful to define them. Sorry for not doing it myself, but I may come back later. Aakrum (talk) 20:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean the 4th parag WEP, WPA etc? That's a pretty ugly and over-technical paragraph. I think it should be moved to the network security section. Bhny (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Niue (first WiFi nation)

A section about this should be added. Please refer to Niue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.135.235 (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

So WPS allows easy hacking?

< The use of WPS greatly reduces the time required to gain access by the use of so called "brute force" attacks. >

Is this a feature or a bug? Or is the statement backwards?

50.53.6.135 (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC) billgus at teleport dot com

I'm not happy with that section but I think it's correct. WPS actually makes it less secure than not using WPS at all. Bhny (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Bhny is correct, it's a bug. WPS has a pin, it should be hard to brute force. It turns out it will tell you when part of the PIN is correct, so it's easier to brute force. oops. TippyGoomba (talk) 01:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

So WiFi is a certifiation by the WiFi-alliance

Then let's move all the other content, that has nothing to do with the WiFi-Alliance to another article. Maybe to IEEE 802.11 or WLAN or whatever such. Or clearly distinguish between the certificate and all the other WLAN-/802.11 content. The implicitly means the WiFi logo. Echinacin35 (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The article is about wi-fi not the alliance. I don't understand your point Bhny (talk) 21:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Much is about issues that belong into an article called IEEE802.11 or WLAN or whatever. WiFi a brand name for a certificate by the WiFi Alliance. I cite: "A dot with curved lines radiating from it is a common symbol for Wi-Fi" It's rather a symbol for a WLAN or even an WNIC operating in AP mode ;-) Echinacin35 (talk) 12:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, there already are several other articles covering the technical issues. IEEE 802.11 is a large family of standards, some of which even have their own articles. The Wi-Fi Alliance also has its own. The issue is that the "Wi-Fi" name is what sticks in people's heads (even losing the hyphen?), and thus become somewhat a slang term for any kind of wireless Internet access that does not come from a phone company. See Super Wi-Fi for example. You can see from the vandalism how popular this page is, making it the most common name to refer to both the protocol and family of products. As noted far above, the general hope was to keep this page mostly a summary of the other related articles and put details in those. Please help if you can. W Nowicki (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

"Free WiFi" does not mean an Internet connection

I don't see any mention of this in the article currently, but many commercial establishments have a sign out front that reads "Free WiFi" to lure in customers who assume that means a wireless connection to the Internet is available, which in most cases it does, but it does not mean a connection that is any good. My local Panera Bread restaurant in the U.S. has such a sign in the window, and suspiciously the initial log-in connection is fast, but then from the home page, the Internet connection chokes and drops to near zero. They want to lure people in, but they actually don't want laptop users hanging around. So, a "Free WiFi" sign may just mean your laptop can connect to a signal, but that's all. But everyone assumes it means "Free Internet here!" 5Q5 (talk) 16:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

In that case wouldn't you still technically be connected to the internet, just with very slow speeds? I wouldn't object to a sentence or two about slow speeds, and maybe security risks, associated with free wifi being added to the internet access section. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
And sometimes there's too much baking powder mixed in with my coke. False advertising. Big whoop, it's still coke. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, the internet connection is the ONLY reason why anyone would be interested in free WiFi, so having one that fails to do so is false advertising. Public understanding of what an advertisement means is legally recognized as important. Algr (talk) 11:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Hardly relevant to the article. Andmark (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Wireless Fidelity

It should be noted in the first paragraph that wi-fi is short for Wireless Fidelity.--Wyn.junior (talk) 03:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

WiFi isn't short for "Wireless Fidelity" [8]. There is already a section about the name- Wi-Fi#The_name. Bhny (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2014

223.204.233.208 (talk) 11:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. LittleMountain5 17:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2014

Add the full form of WIFI that is "Wireless Fidelity" at the starting of the article. Gmodi94 (talk) 12:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done

If you read the article you will find that Wi-Fi is not an abbreviation Bhny (talk) 13:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Wi-Fi versus 802.11

The first citation, the Wi-Fi alliance's definition of Wi-Fi, is to an unreliable source that itself provides no sources. I have found this quote repeated all over Google search results, never with a reliable source. Can we find a source for this quote, or else come up with a better definition of Wi-Fi? 66.189.105.217 (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Reference question

Can this be used as a reference?--Wyn.junior (talk) 01:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Relationship to wireless router?

Could someone please add a brief mention of the term "wireless router" with an explanation of how that term relates to "Wi-Fi"? This mention should link to the separate wireless router article. To me, Wi-Fi and WLAN refer to a "network", while "wireless router" is a piece hardware used to create a "wireless network". However, I don't know well enough to be sure.

The two terms are often used interchangeably. If they are are synonyms, then the two articles should be merged. I think there are subtle differences in the meanings of the two terms, and the articles should reflect that. I did not find a clear explanation of the difference between the two terms in skimming the two articles and some apparent interchangeable use of the terms. Could someone fix that?

Example: I have two wireless routers with different passwords in a LAN. Do I have one Wi-Fi or two? Should I program the two with the same password, and would that convert my LAN from two Wi-Fis to one? Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Wi-Fi Safety

 Done

Surely the third and fourth paragraphs should be removed? The first two cite decent sources indicating that there is no real danger. Then after that, the third and fourth paragraphs talk about specific examples of organizations that believed it was dangerous. It doesn't seem to flow sensibly, and there are no links. I mean, what even is the "Progressive Librarians Guild"? Copying it into the search bar, I see that it's a recently-founded American association for libraries not following the status quo. Great sources on Wi-Fi safety, then. Vanhedrarn (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I removed them. Bhny (talk) 00:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

What is it?

While specifications define communications protocols such as the IEEE 802.11-family, Wi-Fi is, AFAIK, something like a brand name (like Centrino). Sure as hell, Wi-Fi is NOT a technology, though some morons keep writing that. Though the adherence to the specifications should result in hard- and software that simply works together, somehow, Wi-Fi is supposed to additionally guarantee that hardware of different manufacturers works together (actually, that is what the protocol is design for...). I think this is also supposed to be tested. So Wi-Fi would be a brand-name/certification. But it ain't! Anybody who tested (or read about tests, e.g. http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/) knows that hardware of different manufactures, on a regular basis, do not work as well together as should be expected. Sometimes even of the same manufacturer... in other words: Wi-Fi yet another creation of the various over-funded marketing departments. User:ScotXWt@lk 23:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

here you go: Wi-Fi Alliance. Anything technical belongs into IEEE 802.11. User:ScotXWt@lk 23:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Wi-Fi is a WP:COMMONNAME for a technology. Bhny (talk) 02:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

History of the name unsupported

The link cited to support the assertion of the date for the name being first used commercially goes to a document that is completely irrelevant. In fact, the owners of the registered trademark asserted the "first use in commerce" by its certified members as August 1999. It's not clear why they waited until 2001 to file the official "allegation of actual use" for the trademark registration. I will attempt to amend the cite to reference the TSDR record of the USPTO for that registration. If anyone can document an earlier usage, i.e., prior to the initial release of 802.11b, please feel free to chime in. Lupinelawyer (talk) 16:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Orthoghraphy of name

According to the Wi-Fi Alliance, the trademarked name is rendered as "Wi-Fi", no more, no less, with capitalization exactly as shown. The article should not state "... also spelled Wifi or WiFi, ...", or any other variations. Wikipedia is increasingly being used as a reference by various news outlets and it should not be in the business of disseminating misinformation. — QuicksilverT @ 19:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not "misinformation" to state that "Wi-Fi" is commonly spelled as "WiFi" or "Wifi"; that is easily verified. Yes, it would be misinformation to claim that either of those is an approved name per the Wi-Fi alliance, but the article never did that. My recent edit to the "The name" section makes it more clear that the alternate renderings are not official. Wikipedia does not ignore facts of common usage, even in prominent places such as article titles: See WP:COMMONNAME. Jeh (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I added back WiFi as per WP:COMMONNAME. I wasn't sure about re-adding Wifi as I think just capitalizing the "W" is unusual. I've see all lower-case "wifi". Bhny (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Problems with the History section

The History section of the article has no particular structure; it's just a grab bag of facts of varying relevance. Frequency-hopping spread spectrum technology was not a "basis" of OFDM, which does not do any form of frequency hopping. The connection to ALOHAnet is legitimate but of minor importance, and WaveLAN is only relevant insofar as it inspired the 802.11 effort; the technology it used is unrelated. As the referenced Ars Technica article[1] explains, the O'Sullivan patent was not considered during the development of Wi-Fi; it was only later successfully asserted as having anticipated that work, which logically means that O'Sullivan's work is not part of the history of Wi-Fi.

This section needs to be thoroughly rewritten, at least. I agree with some of the comments in other sections of this talk page that suggest recasting this article as a description of the Wi-Fi brand and its commercial significance. That would make all the technical material unnecessary. 71.197.166.72 (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Wi-Fi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Wi-Fi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Good to note

Hi,

A user has removed "Wireless Fidelity" expansion for Wi-Fi. Perhaps the explanation is offered here http://techterms.com/definition/wi-fi :

However, "Wi-Fi" is not short for "Wireless Fidelity," but is simply a name chosen by the Wi-Fi Alliance.

--Muzammil (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

EEG and children?

What about this? http://wifiinschools.org.uk/resources/wifi+brain+July+2011.pdf Important? debunked? Worth noting on the the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.176.228.45 (talk) 14:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

If not fidelity

Then what is Fi short for?

This article says it standing for "wireless fidelity" is a misconception, but it states earlier that it is a play on the term HiFi which is short for "high fidelity" so it does not sound wrong at all to say it stands for fidelity. 64.228.88.84 (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it does not stand for anything. It is a "nonsense" moniker conjured up for sole purpose of creating a "catchy" slogan for this new technology product. --Guyver (talk) 08:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I suspect it originally did stand for "fidelity", but was dropped for trademark reasons; just look at the term light fidelity (Li-Fi), which adapts pretty much the same technology to a different part of the spectrum. The term makes perfect sense too - signal fidelity is an important concept in networking (a 50% retransmission rate will cut your speed by more than half), and 802.11 was the first standard that was able to achieve an acceptable level of it in wireless LAN. -Mojace (talk) 11:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Quoting one of the sources ("Securing Wi-Fi Wireless Networks with Today’s Technologies") given as evidence for the misconception: "The association created the Wi-Fi (Wireless Fidelity) logo". Clearly that is what Fi stood for, and the article should be corrected OrangeDog (τ • ε) 16:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Quoting one of the other sources, " there are only two documents in the Wi-Fi Alliance online knowledge base that use it. They are press releases from the spring and summer of 2000, historical documents that preserve a regrettable phase, much like the photos that preserve our most unfortunate hairstyles or wardrobe choices long after we've moved on." The document you reference, OrangeDog, is another example; but it is simply an updated version of one of the earlier ones. It is evidence that some in the organization once thought to call it "Wireless Fidelity", but the non-preponderance of use of the term at the Wi-Fi Alliance knowledge base is clearly evidence that that was considered a bad idea, and dropped. As it has been dropped here at WP. Jeh (talk) 09:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Freedom Towers

I would like to address the technology of the "Freedom Towers" mentioned by the Free Network Foundation for Americans in tent cities. Specifications may be a bit of a project, anyone interested in helping? Twillisjr (talk) 19:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Monitor Mode

Some reference about technical details of different operating modes such as Monitor mode is missing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.4.179.65 (talk) 06:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

11 Wireless Security

The final sentence outlines one example of a network intrusion and appears to be an odd inclusion. Should it be reworded or removed? Andmark (talk) 00:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

WiFi 6 (new designation naming scheme)

FYI - the Wi-Fi Alliance has announced a new designation naming scheme.

  • Wi-Fi 6 to identify devices that support 802.11ax technology.
  • Wi-Fi 5 to identify devices that support 802.11ac technology.
  • Wi-Fi 4 to identify devices that support 802.11n technology.

https://www.wi-fi.org/news-events/newsroom/wi-fi-alliance-introduces-wi-fi-6

https://www.wi-fi.org/news-events/newsroom/wi-fi-alliance-introduces-wi-fi-certified-wpa3-security

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 18:31, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2019

156.217.76.73 (talk) 20:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done - unclear what you want changed Nimaex (talk) 20:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

WiFi 6E is new version

Please add — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.176.57 (talk) 01:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Already covered at IEEE 802.11ax. pandakekok9 (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to work some details from the Wi-Fi#Versions section where this is covered into the lead. I'll also point out that Wi-Fi 6E redirects to IEEE 802.11ax so a search should give readers some satisfaction. ~Kvng (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

"WiFi" not to be used as an alternative to "Wi-Fi"

In the Wi-Fi#Etymology section:

The name is sometimes written as WiFi, Wifi, or wifi, but these are not approved by the Wi-Fi Alliance.

But at the very beginning of the article, we synonymize Wi-Fi with WiFi, even though the latter is not conformant to the trademark. We should only endorse the official spelling rather than the popular (incorrect?) spelling. Longbyte1 (talk) 14:32, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

The article doesn't even mention 'WiFi' but everywhere except Wikipedia currently I'm seeing 'WiFi' and 'Wi-Fi' NOWHERE. Overwhelmingly I'm only seeing WiFi. There may even be a strong case for renaming the entire article, it's that bad. GliderMaven (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I’m overwhelmingly seeing the hyphenated ‘Wi-Fi’ in online media (from both vendors and journalists) and on physical signage in Australia. Unpackgonzo (talk) 09:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

While Wi-Fi is the official spelling from the alliance, but in reality worldwide, from the evidence I've collected, it's MOSTLY written WiFi. Even Microsoft spell it 'wifi/WiFi' for example everywhere. Wikipedia is not supposed to be trying to enforce arbitrary standards. We're not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. GliderMaven (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
The "correct" spelling depends upon your purpose. If you're describing the specific 802.11b and related technologies licensed by the Wi-Fi Alliance, then it's "Wi-Fi." If you're the owner of a coffee shop advertising wireless ethernet connectivity with Internet access to your customers, it's whatever you want. You're not describing the technology. Rather, you're advertising your services. You can't argue confusion, either, as everyone recognizes Wi-fi, wi-fi, WiFi, Wifi and wifi to be Wi-Fi. Finally, TourTech makes some very good arguments as to why language belongs to the people using it, and not the company who trademarked it. Precisely the same issue exists with Coca-Cola. Sure, they would love it if everyone used their trademark, but the use of "cola" and "soft drink" abounds. In fact, even though Coca-Cola has several hundred trademarks, it doesn't mean the world bends to their will and strictly adheres to their use. We are people, after all, comprised of various societal collectives, but also individuals. Preserving individual freedoms is paramount to good mental health of the individual as well as society as a whole. Clepsydrae (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Is Wi-Fi short for Wireless Fidelity

The latest edit changed the wording of the article so that it now implies that Wi-Fi is officially a shortened form of Wireless Fidelity. This does not seem to be supported by the Wi-Fi Alliance website. I can't find any information on Wi-Fi officially being short for Wireless Fidelity, or anything else for that matter. All I can find is one early press release that mentions the name in passing. Is there any official document from Wi-Fi alliance that states this? Their brand guide only says "Wi-Fi". 99.103.33.28 (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

WiFi isn't short for "Wireless Fidelity" Thirteenangrymen (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ How the Aussie government “invented WiFi” and sued its way to $430 million | Ars Technica

Dr John O'Sullivan

I'm just noting, at least one source (worldatlas.com - clearly not the best) indicates the Australian scientist, John O'Sullivan (engineer) as one of the key inventors of Wi Fi. Its not mentioned in the article text at all. He was the main man at CSIRO who made Wi Fi more reliable and practical, which I think is the grounds the CSIRO use to state they invented it. They didn't invent the concept of wi fi, but arguably, it seems, they got it to work in a practical sense. [1] [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathlibrarian (talk • contribs) 12:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/who-invented-wifi.html#:~:text=Dr.%20John%20O%27Sullivan%2C%20an%20Australian%20engineer%2C%20is%20credited,other%20people%20who%20also%20contributed%20to%20its%20development
  2. ^ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/04/how-the-aussie-government-invented-wifi-and-sued-its-way-to-430-million/2/ 
Wi Fi has been developed in Russia in 1991-1993 years by ELVIS+ company by order of Sun Microsystems, not by "Australian scientist" lol =)) After sold to US government.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.198.89.220 (talk) 12:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

[1] [2]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Galitsky#ELVIS+
  2. ^ https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/1-st_in_the_world_Wi-fi_by_Galitsky.JPG

URI for QR might be wrong

The "Common format" for QR/URI is shown ending with one semicolon. But the "Sample" is shown ending with two semicolons. I suspect one of these is wrong. 67.169.166.36 (talk) 01:48, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

".. In Australia, Wi-Fi is seen as an Australian invention .."

This inflammatory statement goes against the Neutral Point of View policy and should be rewritten. The associated reference firmly lands in questionable source territory as it links to slapdash filler article full of claimed inventions.

Bobzy (talk) 08:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Error in example

In the section headed Antenna, the following example is given:

an 8 dBi antenna used with a 100 mW driver has a similar horizontal range to a 6 dBi antenna being driven at 500 mW

Surely this is wrong?

The 6dBi antenna will radiate 3.15 times the EIRP of the 8dBi, & given path loss is proportional to distance squared it would have ~1.78 times the range of the 8dBi system?

Spud 31.111.106.48 (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Great online service

best side @Great online service 103.186.219.1 (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wi-Fi/Archive_4&oldid=1188684550"