The reason that wifi is better than cellular is because you don't have to fight with a carrier to use it. if AT&T starts pushing everything onto wifi, it won't make AT&T better, it'll just make wifi worse.
We already use Wi-Fi more than cellular; Why not continue the trend?
11–20 of 51 posts
Re: We already use Wi-Fi more than cellular; Why not continue the trend?
#12> “For example a cellular picocell costs from $7,500 to $15,000 whereas a much higher capacity carrier-grade Wi-Fi access point costs around $2,000,” Thanki wrote. “The cost of a Wi-Fi chipset for a consumer device is around $5, whereas 3G cellular chipsets costs around $30. Won't a cell tower cover at least a couple orders of magnitude more area than a wifi access point? Is this analysis silly or am I missing someth…
[deleted]
Re: We already use Wi-Fi more than cellular; Why not continue the trend?
#13I almost never use wi-fi on my phone. It drains the battery too much. edit: I'm not familiar with cellular hardware tech. My observation is true for my phone, necessarily, because my 3G reciever is active 100% of the time, and turning on wifi is just turning on another component. If this isn't the case for you, do you turn off your 3/4G while you're in a wifi spot? Does it manager this all automatically? Do you have…
Unfortunately I almost never use cellular data on my phone. It drains my bank account too much.
Re: We already use Wi-Fi more than cellular; Why not continue the trend?
#14I almost never use wi-fi on my phone. It drains the battery too much. edit: I'm not familiar with cellular hardware tech. My observation is true for my phone, necessarily, because my 3G reciever is active 100% of the time, and turning on wifi is just turning on another component. If this isn't the case for you, do you turn off your 3/4G while you're in a wifi spot? Does it manager this all automatically? Do you have…
It seems to me to actually be the opposite. Having a working wifi connection will increase my battery-life by at least a factor of 2
Re: We already use Wi-Fi more than cellular; Why not continue the trend?
#15> “For example a cellular picocell costs from $7,500 to $15,000 whereas a much higher capacity carrier-grade Wi-Fi access point costs around $2,000,” Thanki wrote. “The cost of a Wi-Fi chipset for a consumer device is around $5, whereas 3G cellular chipsets costs around $30. Won't a cell tower cover at least a couple orders of magnitude more area than a wifi access point? Is this analysis silly or am I missing someth…
Well he said a picocell which is around an order of magnitude greater range. I am not sure that range is the most important thing as towers become more and more congested I am pretty sure we are moving to smaller and smaller ranges.
Re: We already use Wi-Fi more than cellular; Why not continue the trend?
#16I almost never use wi-fi on my phone. It drains the battery too much. edit: I'm not familiar with cellular hardware tech. My observation is true for my phone, necessarily, because my 3G reciever is active 100% of the time, and turning on wifi is just turning on another component. If this isn't the case for you, do you turn off your 3/4G while you're in a wifi spot? Does it manager this all automatically? Do you have…
That seems unlikely. WiFi should certainly drain your battery less than cellular. (I have yet to jump on the smartphone train but my iPad gets consistent 7 hours with 3G, 10 hours with WiFi.)
Re: We already use Wi-Fi more than cellular; Why not continue the trend?
#17I almost never use wi-fi on my phone. It drains the battery too much. edit: I'm not familiar with cellular hardware tech. My observation is true for my phone, necessarily, because my 3G reciever is active 100% of the time, and turning on wifi is just turning on another component. If this isn't the case for you, do you turn off your 3/4G while you're in a wifi spot? Does it manager this all automatically? Do you have…
I wish the new 802.11 ac standard would've gone the "battery efficiency" route, rather than doubling the performance. Technically, they could choose either doubling the performance or cutting the power consumption in half, but I'm pretty sure they will go the performance route, which really isn't necessary on a mobile phone right now (500+ Mbps).
Re: We already use Wi-Fi more than cellular; Why not continue the trend?
#18> “For example a cellular picocell costs from $7,500 to $15,000 whereas a much higher capacity carrier-grade Wi-Fi access point costs around $2,000,” Thanki wrote. “The cost of a Wi-Fi chipset for a consumer device is around $5, whereas 3G cellular chipsets costs around $30. Won't a cell tower cover at least a couple orders of magnitude more area than a wifi access point? Is this analysis silly or am I missing someth…
I think the argument is that a given amount of spectrum has a maximum capacity of data that can be transmitted. Using one cell tower to serve a large area (which means a large number of devices and a large amount of data) caps the amount of data that can be transmitted within that area. There are two solutions to that: use more spectrum or serve smaller areas. If you're serving smaller areas, there are cheaper technologies available than 3G, and they also don't require dedicated spectrum.
Re: We already use Wi-Fi more than cellular; Why not continue the trend?
#19I've been using Republic wireless (hyrbrid wifi phone) for about 6 months now. 99% of the time I forget it's anything other than a regular cell phone. For me it works better than a regular cell phone, because it works in my basement workshop where I can't get reception from most carriers.
How does it work in the car?
Re: We already use Wi-Fi more than cellular; Why not continue the trend?
#20I almost never use wi-fi on my phone. It drains the battery too much. edit: I'm not familiar with cellular hardware tech. My observation is true for my phone, necessarily, because my 3G reciever is active 100% of the time, and turning on wifi is just turning on another component. If this isn't the case for you, do you turn off your 3/4G while you're in a wifi spot? Does it manager this all automatically? Do you have…
That seems unlikely. WiFi should certainly drain your battery less than cellular. (I have yet to jump on the smartphone train but my iPad gets consistent 7 hours with 3G, 10 hours with WiFi.)
WiFi also kills my phone's battery.
It appears that for newer devices, wifi uses a lot less power.