

‘Super Wi-Fi’ poised for growth in U.S., elsewhere - mtgx
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/02/super-wi-fi-poised-for-growth-in-u-s-elsewhere/

======
wmf
There's nothing super about it. Old Wi-Fi uses 20 MHz channels and the newer
versions sometimes use 40 or 80 MHz. The white space channels are 6 MHz wide,
so that's roughly 1/3 the throughput.

It's true that the TV band can give longer range which is only useful in rural
areas. In places with population density, longer range means that each AP
covers quadratically more clients, giving each client a smaller share of the
already-low throughput.

Between this and the memristor nonsense, today is a sad day for HN.

------
Dylan16807
_Super Wi-Fi is not really Wi-Fi because it uses a different frequency and
requires specially designed equipment, but it offers some of Wi-Fi’s
advantages, and more._

Uhh, no. Wifi already uses two somewhat-incompatible frequency bands and is
going to add a third at 60MHz. And you always have to replace the equipment to
upgrade. That's not the reason it's not wifi. It's not wifi because it
communicates over its frequencies in a completely different way from wifi.

------
ArchD
In an unlicensed spectrum range, with a much greater range than WiFi, will
this have a much greater potential for signal interference? Already, the WiFi
network in my apartment is very limited in range because of interference from
a large number of neighboring WiFi networks.

------
lcargill99
I presume they mean 802.11ac. It would have been nice had the "journalist"
said that.

~~~
Dylan16807
802.11ac actually is wifi. "Super Wi-Fi" is 802.22

~~~
bradleyland
Which is why it would have been really nice if the journalist would have found
a way to work in the IEEE designation.

Oh, and thank you :)

------
teeja
In many densely-populated US urban areas, Wi-Fi is already completely- (often
over-) occupied with contending users. This is to be expected considering the
trickle of "public airwaves" which the public can currently access.

Alternative frequencies are already sorely needed. None of this stuff (and
plenty of it) can happen fast enough.

------
marquis
Has anyone here any real-world experience with this? I'm curious to find out
where I can try it.

~~~
jws
Google Shopping returns zero 802.22 devices. I'd say it will be a while.

You could buy a "book" about it. (Just a dissertation robotted into a book to
dupe you into purchasing it.)

------
awirelesswish
Very few companies are even considering jumping in on 802.22.

I am pissed personally as the new unlicensed "Super WIFI" would be a great
addition to the currently allocated spectrum.

IF YOU WORK WITH A WIRELESS COMPANY, PLEAD WITH THEM TO @LEAST TRY!

~~~
jws
If you work with a wireless company you already have a working infrastructure
on an existing technology for which hardware can actually be purchased. e.g.
the wireless ISP I use does bidirectional 10mbps to me over 9 miles. Maybe in
the future, with channel bonding added, 802.22 would beat that.

I think where this makes sense is for a new company that wants to "bring
broadband to rural america".

~~~
teeja
If hardware were designed intelligently, switching to another frequency band
would be a matter of a different daughterboard.

