In my Scientific American column this month, I chased down the answers to questions about wi-fi that have plagued mankind from the beginning—at least, the beginning of wireless Internet. Things like "Why do I have four bars but still can't connect?" and "Why do I see a phony hot spot called 'Free Public Wi-Fi' in airports?"

Here's an online special for you: Three more questions—and answers, provided by the people who should know.

Where did the name wi-fi come from?

For this one, I consulted a man who was there at the beginning: Alex Hills, author of Wi-Fi and the Bad Boys of Radio. His answer:

"Way back in 1999 the fledgling wireless industry needed a marketing name for the new products that conformed to the technical specifications called 'IEEE 802.11'. 'IEEE 802.11' didn't have much of a ring to it, and the industry association wanted a catchy name. They came up with wi-fi, and that's what's been used ever since.

"It didn’t hurt that the name rhymes with 'hi-fi,' which was short for 'high fidelity,' a term that, back in the day, referred to high-quality sound systems. Some people even say that wi-fi therefore stands for 'wireless fidelity,' but those who were involved in the industry association's process of selecting a name say it's not really true. They say that the name was always just wi-fi."

Q: Whatever happened to Wi-Max? I thought we were supposed to see citywide wi-fi by this time?

From Glenn Fleishman, tech guru and blogger for The Economist’s "Babbage" blog:

"Wi-Max made sense briefly, during the multiple-year gap between third-generation (3G) and fourth-generation (4G) mobile cellular standards. Wi-Max could make use of otherwise unused spectrum quite efficiently and achieve speeds high above the 3G standards of a few years ago; I remember getting network speeds of eight Mbps [megabits per second] via Wi-Max a few years ago, at a time when AT&T and Verizon Wireless could deliver no more than two Mbps.

"But the Wi-Max companies couldn't raise enough money to build out as fast as was necessary to provide a viable network alternative across the U.S. nor build as densely as needed; meanwhile, time—and worldwide standards—caught up. Sprint, Clearwire and a handful of others pledged to Wi-Max, but no other U.S., European or Asian carrier adopted it. LTE [Long Term Evolution] became the dominant 4G standard around the world; even Sprint and Clearwire intend to move to LTE. Wi-Max was amazing for a brief window, but has been left behind.

"As for citywide wi-fi, Wi-Max turned out to be a poor technology to provide consistent coverage. It was cheaper to build fast cellular networks."

Q: What are wi-fi 802.11a, 801.11n and all that? Was there ever such thing as 802.11c, 802.11m and so on?

I went straight to the source for this one: Kelly Davis-Felner, marketing director of the Wi-Fi Alliance—the consortium of engineers who dreamed up (and continues to enhance) wi-fi:

"The 802.11 alphabet soup is a naming system for various projects in IEEE [the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, the standards organization that defines the technology underlying wi-fi]. The wi-fi industry used to refer to a few of these names to help users know when there had been another performance improvement to the technology, and to navigate the two frequencies in which wi-fi works.

"Here's the timeline:

802.11b: First widely commercialized version of wi-fi, ratified in 2000. Data rate of about 11 Mbps, on the 2.4 GHz [gigahertz] band

6 Comments

1. 1. JamesDavis 01:01 PM 5/1/12

   To me, that information was worthless. Why can't we use wi-fi to connect our desk tops to the internet? And why is wi-fi only in airports and big cities? Where is that little wi-fi box I saw that blind person carrying around their neck saying, "I am a wi-fi connection?

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. jafrates 01:46 PM 5/1/12

   The only thing required to connect a desktop to the Internet via WiFi is a desktop wireless card or a USB wireless adapter. I have a few of both, and they're not terribly expensive. Desktops, though, usually are stationary and thus it's often deemed better to run a cable to them for consistent network performance.
   
   WiFi is available anywhere that someone wishes to put up an access point (AP). They're limited in range, though, usually maxing out at around 30m or less (depending on device and environmental factors), so someone who puts up an AP at a rural farmhouse might serve the yard but not much more than that.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. JatoThed 02:36 PM 5/1/12

   Although i'm not that blind person you saw, I do sometimes carry a 'Wireless hotspot' in my shirt pocket that many cellular carriers now offer, essentially making me a wi-fi connection.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. JamesDavis in reply to jafrates 06:44 AM 5/2/12

   Thanks.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. JamesDavis in reply to JatoThed 06:48 AM 5/2/12

   I reckon the blind guy must had wondered off somewhere or got out of range. So wi-fi isn't the miracle internet connection it was claimed to be. Figures.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. openhacker 12:31 AM 9/21/12

   Regarding open hot spots -- there really isn't much difference between plaintext wifi transmissions and plaintext internet connections -- assume anyone can see it.
   
   If you use SSL you're generally safe from preying eyes.
   
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this