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

61–70 of 83 posts

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

#61

Post by cooper12 »

nine_k wrote: post #45
mschuster91 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Here's what an unofficial essay on Wikipedia says and I think it sums it up sensibly:

> The copied material should not comprise a substantial portion of the work being quoted, and a longer quotation should not be used where a shorter quotation would express the same information. What constitutes a substantial portion depends on many factors, such as the length of the original work and how central the quoted text is to that work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Quotations#Copyright...

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

#62

Post by jotux »

bsder wrote: post #49
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.

>Except that I can't buy it

Microchip sells radios that do LoRa: http://www.microchip.com/pagehandler/en-us/technology/person...

They're available on mouser for ~$17: http://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Microchip/RN2483-I-RM095...

>it doesn't seem to have a stack, and doesn't have any open implementations to examine.

Here's the source code for a development board with LoRa: http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/LoRaMotePack...

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

#63

Post by reitanqild »

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.

Didn't vote, but if I could vote for "stay at 1 point" I'd do.

I mean, that comment isn't too bad but sometimes I (we?) get a sneaking suspicion that some of these (I didn't check the commenters comment history so I cannot say in this case) are attempts at "karma farming", which is annoying.

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

#64

Post by eru »

ghaff wrote: post #30
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…

Then the organization should have provided the text under an appropriate free license if they wanted it to be broadly reused. (Which is actually a good idea and more organizations should probably do for boilerplate they'd like others to cut and paste.)

Organizations would put the boiler plate under a "You can copy and paste, but no modifications, please." licence. Wikipedia would need special support (machine enforced or not) for blocks of text that can only be used or removed in their entirety, but not changed.

Come to think of it, that's not too different from how quotations work. So they might be able to deal with them.

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

#65

Post by cookiecaper »

stouset wrote: post #40
cookiecaper wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Like I said, I don't think it'd be a good idea for Wikipedia to start copying and pasting from random websites without the appropriate clearances. I do think it'd be a good idea to revise the law so that normal uses are not illegal anymore.

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

#66

Post by lovelearning »

Daneel_ wrote: post #37
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.

Not to mention all the regulatory hurdles.

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

#69

Post by xorcist »

bsder wrote: post #50

I'd be happy if they just spec'd a 2mW WiFi, thanks. The fact that I can see my neighbor's WiFi is actually a hindrance, not a benefit, nowadays.

Output power is a setting in your wireless driver. Just set it to whatever is appropriate. (Getting your neighbor onboard is probably the bigger challenge.) Getting the power just right is a big part of planning large scale wifi installations. You could also put dampening (basically a resistor-like thing) in line with your antenna.

There's been several proposals how to do this automatically, which would do a lot for the congestion problem you mention, for the IEEE standardization process. But I have no idea if they made it into the newer standards. Unless you actively cooperate with your neighbors, it turns into a tragedy of the commons. The one with the power regulating equipment will have worse performance to start with, but if everyone has it then everyone benefits.

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

#70

Post by sangnoir »

mschuster91 wrote: post #17
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…

Wikipedia's mission is NOT about usability, but to provide an encyclopedia that can be used, edited, forked, reproduced EVERYWHERE without anyone having to fear lawyer attacks. It's not a "free as in free beer" encyclopedia, it's a "free as in truly free" encyclopedia. (Yes I know that this is only valid for the text content, images (e.g. logos) and screenshots are not free but used under different legal regimes in d…

> Wikipedia's mission is NOT about usability, but to provide an encyclopedia that can be used, edited, forked, reproduced EVERYWHERE without anyone having to fear lawyer attacks.

To that, I say [citation needed]. Where in their mission statement do they state this particular stance on lawyer attacks?

Post reply on HN