What Wi-Fi Stands for—and Other Wireless Questions Answered

Inside information from the bigwigs of the wireless world

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?


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


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

802.11a: Ratified in 2002. Operates in five GHz band [where it encounters less interference with cell phones and microwaves] and delivers data rate of about 54 Mbps

802.11g: Ratified in 2003. Fifty-four Mbps in 2.4 GHz band, so backward-compatible with 11b

802.11n: Ratified in 2009. Up to 600 Mbps [in most commercial configurations, about 250 Mbps] in both 2.4 and five GHz frequency bands. A dual-band product that works with 802.11a and 802.11b/g products

802.11ac: Coming to a wi-fi-certified device near you in early 2013. About 1.3 Gbps of data [yes, that's gigabits per second].

"While the Wi-Fi Alliance and the wi-fi industry used to point to these naming conventions a lot, now we just call it wi-fi.

"There are many other 802.11 designations. They refer to a wide array of features that ship in products today—but, thankfully, the industry hasn't burdened users with their names and details.

"Some examples include 802.11i, which underpins the wi-fi security we have today; 802.11e, which includes important mechanisms to support multimedia applications; and 802.11u, which makes up part of the forthcoming Wi-Fi CERTIFIED Passpoint program we are developing, which will make getting on to hot spot networks as seamless as it is with a mobile phone on 3G today."

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe