Super Wi-Fi Vs. Wi-Fi - What's the difference?

Kaustubh Katdare

Kaustubh Katdare

@thebigk • Oct 22, 2024
It looks like most of the US University Campuses will have Super Wi-Fi, a long range wireless network that extends to over 5 kilometres, as compared to the traditional Wi-Fi, which is unable only within a range of about 350 ft. I quickly searched for the difference between Super Wi-Fi and Wi-Fi and landed on Wikipedia page that isn't very useful. What it says is that the unlike the 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz frequencies used by Wi-Fi signals; the Super Wi-Fi uses the white spaces between the television channel frequencies.

I've several questions which I couldn't find answers to on the Internet.
  • Is the data carrying capacity of the Super Wi-Fi lesser than that of regular Wi-Fi?
  • What allows for the longer range and better penetration power of super Wi-Fi?
  • IEEE 802.22 has been proposed; but not not final yet. If that's the case, how are US Universities implementing them?
  • Can the existing Wi-Fi routers be modded to support Super Wi-Fi?
  • What else should we know about Super Wi-Fi?
Like 0 Replies 7

Replies

Welcome, guest

Join CrazyEngineers to reply, ask questions, and participate in conversations.

Sign up Log in

CrazyEngineers powered by Jatra Community Platform

  • J Biswas

    J Biswas

    @j-biswas-SBo0im • Nov 15, 2013

    What you read is correct. Everything going wireless now a days, people have find empty freq. bands to operate. Now they are occupying TV guard band. Jokes apart.
    US TV bands are a little different that in India. Ours is around 470-580MHz.
    - Data carrying capacity might not vary too much 5-15Mbps (somewhat), as bandwidth is restricted, but applications will decide, uplink/downlink speeds
    - Lower frequencies by nature has longer range and penetration power. (Hence, alarm light is RED, and line clear light is GREEN). Check with friis equations.
    Let me tell you one thing here: penetration means through air. Though thick concrete, wood and household surfaces, higher frequencies have better penetration power. We made 5.8GHz and 1200-1300MHz Audio Video wireless machines. Later one give much long range, but once it comes to clarity of signals INDOORS, former (high freq.) is cleaner and better. Check how X-Rays/Gamma Rays work (with penetration power).
    - IEEE body - no comments.
    - Present day WiFi works at 2400-2483MHz (appox). It can fit well with other bands via a freq converter. Some packet level changes and freq. change, all it needs to be compatible with existing ones.
    - What else we need to know......well it depends how deep we want to go. Implement / RnD / Manufacture / Sell ...... every step we cross, newer things we learn. Scientists are sitting somewhere experimenting on it......let them finish their job 😀

    - JB -
    0
  • J Biswas

    J Biswas

    @j-biswas-SBo0im • Nov 15, 2013

    By the way, even 2.4GHz, 5GHz or any freq. per say can have PA (RF Power Amplifiers), to boost the transmission signal strength +30dBm - +36dBm or even more. That enhances the range of communication to more than a Km. Even directional antennas / high gain omnidirectional antennas can play good role there. But FCC wont allow. Present day WiFi machines have +15,+18,+22dBm etc. depending on manufacturers. Many industrial machines @ 2.4GHz (not WiFi) use PA for longer range of communication. PAs are costly.
    Super-WiFi can be a substitute to those machine designs and still talking to the Gateway. It would be a boon.
    Low freq. 400-600MHz around +10 to +12dBm gives same range.
    0
  • Kaustubh Katdare

    Kaustubh Katdare

    @thebigk • Nov 16, 2013

    Thanks a lot for the answer and explanation, @#-Link-Snipped-# . So my concern about the data carrying capacity is correct. 5-15 Mbps may by usable for Internet but not for networking.

    It looks like LASER may be the next big thing in long distance communication. NASA recently achieved 622 Mbps link between Earth and a satellite revolving around moon - <a href="https://www.crazyengineers.com/threads/from-earth-to-moon-622-mbps-nasa.71348">From Earth To Moon @ 622 Mbps : NASA</a>
    0
  • ABCD ABCD

    ABCD ABCD

    @abcd-2NEyMb • Nov 19, 2013

    Super Wifi should be obviously very slow compared to Wifi. They're speed is much lesser than the ethernet we use at out homes.
    0
  • shaikh1973

    shaikh1973

    @shaikh1973-kENOKT • Mar 14, 2016

    Super WiFi related standard references:
    <a href="https://www.rfwireless-world.com/Tutorials/WLAN-802-11af-tutorial.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer">IEEE 802.11af Tutorial | WLAN 802.11af basics | White-Fi</a>
    <a href="https://www.rfwireless-world.com/Terminology/IEEE802_22_WRAN.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer">IEEE 802.22 WRAN system basics | 802.22 features | Physical,MAC layer</a>
    0
  • Kaustubh Katdare

    Kaustubh Katdare

    @thebigk • Mar 14, 2016

    Here's one realted discussion on the same topics - <a href="https://www.crazyengineers.com/threads/802-11ax-wi-fi-because-802-11ac-is-so-2013.75487">802.11ax Wi-Fi - Because 802.11ac Is So 2013!</a>
    0
  • Jackie Lo

    Jackie Lo

    @jackie-lo-cjkulV • May 2, 2016

    Hi, i would like to ask, how is the typical setup of a wi-fi system for in-building?
    0