Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wi-Fi Alliance introduces low power, long range Wi-Fi HaLow

wi-fi.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 83 posts

Re: Wi-Fi Alliance introduces low power, long range Wi-Fi HaLow

#31

Post by petra »

tommoor wrote: post #26
blhack wrote: post #10

There used to be a good wikipedia article about LoraWan, which is better than this (for IoT) in just about every way, but it has been replaced with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LoRaWAN LoraWan consumes power at a similar rate that BLE does, except it has a 20km range. You're talking about months (or even years, depending on your interval) of usefulness out of a CR2032 coincell battery. Sidenote: the removal of…

LoraWan is super interesting for IOT but as far as I understand it acts more like a traditional radio transmitter? Great for collecting data from lots of discrete sensors but less for bi-directional data transfer

I think there's also a bi-directional mode for it.

Re: Wi-Fi Alliance introduces low power, long range Wi-Fi HaLow

#32

Post by cookiecaper »

Hello71 wrote: post #20
blhack wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Stolen content (i.e. content not explicitly licensed as GFDL/CC by the author) is stolen content. Do you mean by wikipedia's definition of stolen? Because some things, like for instance: the description of Lora taken from the website that exists to provide descriptions of Lora to people, has an implicit usability. Like I said, this irked me more than it probably should. I totally get sometimes stuff will get caught…

> the description of Lora taken from the website that exists to provide descriptions of Lora to people, has an implicit usability that's not how copyright law works. you may argue that it should work that way, but it does not work that way unless you petition Congress to modify it

Yeah, but it's a relatively safe bet that an organization would rather be represented by their own carefully-reviewed, professionally-crafted verbiage than one hastily thrown together by a volunteer editor, and thus would not pursue action against the publisher.

I'm not saying that Wikipedia should use content without the appropriate licensure, but in practice, copyright is violated as a matter of routine to provide some fairly basic services. Copyright law should be amended to prevent liability for conventional uses.

Re: Wi-Fi Alliance introduces low power, long range Wi-Fi HaLow

#33

Post by tracker1 »

zenir wrote: post #28
Hello71 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the description of Lora taken from the website that exists to provide descriptions of Lora to people, has an implicit usability that's not how copyright law works. you may argue that it should work that way, but it does not work that way unless you petition Congress to modify it

Still wouldn't change much because, thanks god, the US law is not global ^^

The U.S. has trade negotiations which tend to include mutual or compatible copyright law with most of the countries in the world.

Re: Wi-Fi Alliance introduces low power, long range Wi-Fi HaLow

#34

Post by ausjke »

http://www.afar.net/tutorials/900-mhz-versus-2.4-ghz/

900Mhz does not buy much for distance, however it works better under difficult line-of-sight situations comparing to 2.4Ghz. For real long-distance 4xx/3xxMhz might be better, or even the frequency we used for FM/AM radios.

Re: Wi-Fi Alliance introduces low power, long range Wi-Fi HaLow

#35

Post by ausjke »

ausjke wrote: post #34

http://www.afar.net/tutorials/900-mhz-versus-2.4-ghz/ 900Mhz does not buy much for distance, however it works better under difficult line-of-sight situations comparing to 2.4Ghz. For real long-distance 4xx/3xxMhz might be better, or even the frequency we used for FM/AM radios.

TI etc has those decent 9xx/4xx/3xxMhz chips for long time, it's just that they were not wifi-certified.

Re: Wi-Fi Alliance introduces low power, long range Wi-Fi HaLow

#36

Post by rblatz »

Kadin wrote: post #9

It looks neat, but it's hard not to be cynical about yet another competing standard for low-power "smart home" / IoT-type devices, just to muddy the ZigBee vs. Z-Wave vs. BT LE Longrange vs. conventional WiFi waters a bit more. Not saying there's anything wrong with the protocol per se; it's probably perfectly fine. But the lack of widespread standardization in the 900MHz ISM low power space is really crippling what…

I agree, the wink hub already ships with something like 5 different radios. Also this doesn't look like it supports mesh networking. What advantages does it offer over z-wave or zigbee? And will it be better than Insteon's or Lurton's protocols?

Re: Wi-Fi Alliance introduces low power, long range Wi-Fi HaLow

#37

Post by Daneel_ »

MetricMike wrote: post #14

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/33-centimeter_band has more info on the 900MHz band they're using, which is an odd choice because it isn't recognized outside Region 2 (Americas).

900MHz seems a curious choice to me as an Australian, because I know my mobile phone uses 850 and 900MHz to talk to the mobile towers. Attempting to use 900MHz for wifi wouldn't get you very far due to all the interference.

Re: Wi-Fi Alliance introduces low power, long range Wi-Fi HaLow

#38

Post by porsupah »

tjohns wrote: post #27
porsupah wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not exclusively, by the sound of it - the press release notes "Many devices that support Wi-Fi HaLow are expected to operate in 2.4 and 5 GHz as well as 900 MHz".

I interpreted the press release to indicate that WiFi HaLow will be 900 MHz only, but can coexist with traditional WiFi implementations on 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz. (The Wikipedia page seems to confirm this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11ah ) Just like when 5 GHz was added, this means getting a new WiFi card -- but that card could support all three bands at the same time. So this would mean while you're near an A…

Indeed, it does sound like that's the case. Thanks for the clarification.

Re: Wi-Fi Alliance introduces low power, long range Wi-Fi HaLow

#39

Post by TD-Linux »

rblatz wrote: post #36
Kadin wrote: post #9

It looks neat, but it's hard not to be cynical about yet another competing standard for low-power "smart home" / IoT-type devices, just to muddy the ZigBee vs. Z-Wave vs. BT LE Longrange vs. conventional WiFi waters a bit more. Not saying there's anything wrong with the protocol per se; it's probably perfectly fine. But the lack of widespread standardization in the 900MHz ISM low power space is really crippling what…

I agree, the wink hub already ships with something like 5 different radios. Also this doesn't look like it supports mesh networking. What advantages does it offer over z-wave or zigbee? And will it be better than Insteon's or Lurton's protocols?

It supports IP, which is a nice benefit for interoperability and standalone usage (it doesn't require a "smart" hub that understands all of the protocols).

Re: Wi-Fi Alliance introduces low power, long range Wi-Fi HaLow

#40

Post by stouset »

cookiecaper wrote: post #32
Hello71 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the description of Lora taken from the website that exists to provide descriptions of Lora to people, has an implicit usability that's not how copyright law works. you may argue that it should work that way, but it does not work that way unless you petition Congress to modify it

Yeah, but it's a relatively safe bet that an organization would rather be represented by their own carefully-reviewed, professionally-crafted verbiage than one hastily thrown together by a volunteer editor, and thus would not pursue action against the publisher. I'm not saying that Wikipedia should use content without the appropriate licensure, but in practice, copyright is violated as a matter of routine to provide…

Multiply that "relatively safe bet" times the millions of times this would happen if Wikipedia relaxed their stance.
Post reply on HN