The Wi-Fi Revolution (2003)
wired.com
The Wi-Fi Revolution (2003)
1–10 of 95 posts
Re: The Wi-Fi Revolution (2003)
#2Re: The Wi-Fi Revolution (2003)
#3Re: The Wi-Fi Revolution (2003)
#42003 WiFi was routinely awful, though. Generally unstable, poor compatibility and lousy range. A lot better now, but still could be easier for non-techs.
Re: The Wi-Fi Revolution (2003)
#5Re: The Wi-Fi Revolution (2003)
#6It really was revolutionary. Surprisingly the biggest target market for WiFi ended up being phones, which already have a wireless connection to the Internet. 2003 WiFi was routinely awful, though. Generally unstable, poor compatibility and lousy range. A lot better now, but still could be easier for non-techs.
Re: The Wi-Fi Revolution (2003)
#7Re: The Wi-Fi Revolution (2003)
#8It’s true that, unlike other wireless transmission technologies, Wi-Fi allows any company to make a product that can transmit or receive on all frequency bands authorized by a country, whereas for mobile networks, for example, each operator acquires exclusive rights to a frequency band.
That shows that open standards work well and enable healthy competition.
Re: The Wi-Fi Revolution (2003)
#9Re: The Wi-Fi Revolution (2003)
#10Side note, it's interesting how common it is for tech-savvy people to wire their homes for ethernet (more common now than 10-15 years ago) and how it is still common, or at least not rare, for people reliant on wi-fi to suffer from video streaming issues. The underlying technology keeps getting better, so maybe the improvements will outpace the growth in congestion at some point -- fingers crossed that makers of apps…
Though I would certainly not have complained about 50-100mbps throughout in 2003 — 1GBps wired networking was not mainstream then.