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

41–50 of 83 posts

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

#41

Post by bravo22 »

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…

LoRa has long range but throughputs is extremely low. It is useful for some applications but not for all.

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

#42

Post by andrey-g »

petra wrote: post #31
tommoor wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Isn't one for LoRaWAN specifically, but there are other options like Weightless-W (which doesn't have any hardware released for it yet).

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

#43

Post by mwsherman »

This is about minimizing power-per-range, not maximizing range itself. IoT devices have very local utility, one assumes.

I do like the idea of regular laptop-and-tablet Wifi having better range. But in dense environments, that might be an anti-feature: more interference from more (distant) neighbors. Suburban/rural might be the best use case.

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

#44

Post by obituary_latte »

mschuster91 wrote: post #11
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…

> They're claiming a copyright problem because some of the text of the page was taken from the Lora Alliance's official website. Stolen content (i.e. content not explicitly licensed as GFDL/CC by the author) is stolen content.

I hereby declare "woo only, soon only, double aggrandizingly you bodly - rigatoni" all rights reserved. I am the author of this. I reserve all rights to this phrase forevermore.

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

#45

Post by nine_k »

mschuster91 wrote: post #11
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…

> They're claiming a copyright problem because some of the text of the page was taken from the Lora Alliance's official website. Stolen content (i.e. content not explicitly licensed as GFDL/CC by the author) is stolen content.

I wonder how much text from a public (albeit copyrighted) source can be quoted under fair use, with attribution and all.

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

#46

Post by petra »

andrey-g wrote: post #42
petra wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Isn't one for LoRaWAN specifically, but there are other options like Weightless-W (which doesn't have any hardware released for it yet).

The FAQ says bi-directional:

http://www.semtech.com/wireless-rf/lora/LoRa-FAQs.pdf

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

#47

Post by abrookewood »

roymurdock wrote: post #21
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…

Relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/927/

Are we really downvoting xkcd? I don't see anything wrong with a little bit of humour on HN.

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

#48

Post by MBCook »

abrookewood wrote: post #47
roymurdock wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/927/

Are we really downvoting xkcd? I don't see anything wrong with a little bit of humour on HN.

That comic is a trope at this point. Any discussion of standards includes it.

The comment didn't add anything. If it was a more substantive comment and mentioned the comic you'd have a point.

But the comment might as well be a copy and paste job. It's not really adding to the discussion.

I mean just from the discussion and the letters XKCD I knew which comic it was.

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

#49

Post by bsder »

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…

Except that I can't buy it, it doesn't seem to have a stack, and doesn't have any open implementations to examine.

But, other than that, LoraWan is better.

Uh, yeah. Come back when LoraWan is shipping something other than vapor.

Post reply on HN