Talk:Wi-Fi/Archive 1

All upto 11/10/06

The effects of weather and other factors on a signal
I would like to see something about the effects of either weather or other things that could cause a weak wireless signal to dispell the myth that it is ALWAYS the adapter.

Weather won't have much impact on a 2.4 GHz signal. I think that the attenuation figure for very heavy rain on a 2.4 GHz signal is 0.01 dB/mile, and other forms of weather would have even less impact. Would a tornado ripping apart your antenna or a flood covering it count? :) For 802.11a, at 5.8 GHz, I'm not sure what the figure is, but I doubt it's that much larger. dougmc 21:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Its about 0.02 db/km (~ 0.01 db/mile) for 2.4 GHz under very heavy rain conditions (150mm / 5.9 inches per hour). For a 5.8 GHz signal, its about 0.2 db/km (~0.1 dB/mile) for the same conditions. See this graph. Blair - Speak to me 05:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Too much USAcentric
The licensed/unlicensed spectrum depends on where you live. In some european countries you can use wi-fi technology only for personal purposes and (but remember taht I Am Not A Lawyer) should pay a substancial amount of money to the government if you want to broadcast in public areas (or face a fine). There is no mention of that in the article. I think one of those fancy banner should be placed on the page to encourage people in the know to add information. Or at least add a line somewhere indicating that the things could be different outside the USA. If noone replies this talk for a while I will do it myself. Muzzle 09:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Noone replied... Muzzle 14:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I think this is simply because few contributors for this article come from outside US. I myself am from Japan but I don't know much technical details. -- Taku 22:30, August 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * The licensed spectrum certainly differs from country to country (and thus,the number of channels available). For a while, there were fre wifi channels available n france, for example, because of spectrum that was reseved for (but unused by) the military. However, its widely used now with no particular restrictions. --Nantonos 18:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Automatic connection
The bit about Mac OS X and Windows automatically connecting to any wifi network in range is not true. I don't know about Windows, but Mac OS X will not automatically connect to a network unless you manually connected to it earlier and you answered yes when it prompted to add the network to a list of trusted networks.
 * No, that is not the case. In the Network System Preference pane, you can select your wireless device (typically an Apple Airport card), and under "By Default Join:" select the menu item "Automatic". Then the Mac will connect automatically to a new wi-fi net.  MCB 06:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * This used to be true. I've been trying to find the details on the web, but sometime in the upgrade path of 10.3.x, and for all of 10.4.x, Apple changed this behavior so that even if "By Default Join: Automatic" is set, you will still be prompted to confirm you wish to join new / "unknown" wireless networks.  I suspect Apple changed this behavior to dodge the excuse people have used about "accidentally" joining others' networks, but it really frustrates me because I preferred the old behavior.  I really really don't like my computer interrupting me to ask for answers it could solve itself.  I wish there still was a "just join any network ever, always!" preference.

Removed confusion
I moved this:


 * So far to my knowledge there are no applications that really would benefit of WLAN or be specially programmed to work over WLAN. The same applications would naturally work with desktops too, because WLAN stackwise is only on the two first layers of OSI stack. A special WLAN application would be for example a video stream that adapts to the altering transmission rate.

from the "Disadvantages of WiFi" section, because I'm not sure what the author is trying to say, and I have doubts over it's accuracy (I'm no WiFi expert, however). At the very least it needs to be clarified and edited.

I also heavily copyedited, NPOVed and removed some of the material in these adv/disadv sections as much of it was written in first-person and was irrelevant to WiFi, consisting of the personal opinion of the author on laptops and operating systems (Windows). -- Lexor 12:20, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Was Apple first
Is it really true that Apple was the "first" to make commercial use of 802.11b and 802.11g? I'm skeptical. I qualified it in 802.11b, and was wondering about g. Fuzheado 13:38, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * AFAIK, this is true - Apple was first to market with Airport (802.11b), then Airport Extreme (802.11g). In the case of Airport, it was quite a while before there was an alternative available for PCs. GRAHAMUK 04:05, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I'm going to change it though, since Apple itself only makes the claim, "the first major manufacturer to adopt 802.11g." Fuzheado 00:20, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

WLAN vs Wi-Fi
AnswerMe are WLAN and Wi-Fi the same thing? -- Chris Q 07:45, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Nope. There are all sorts of other Wireless LAN implementations.  Wi-Fi is mostly just a marketing term applied to 802.11 (if you really want to be picky, it was originally focused on 802.11b, but 802.11a and 802.11g are starting to fall under the term as well). &mdash;Mulad 08:06, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Antenna range
Please expand "an hour of building can get you an antenna that will go much further" How much further and what do you build?

You can also buy antennas off the shelf for Wi-Fi. 65.161.188.11 01:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Pro and con lists -- considered harmful?
I've taken a stab at editing the "advantages"/"disadvantages" sections of this page. However, I can't help but suspect that this is another instance of the "pro & con list" anti-pattern.

I'd like to know what other editors watching here would think of reorganizing this into something fitting the following outline. The idea is that rather than having an "advantage" and "disadvantage" listed for each issue (e.g. unlicensed spectrum; encryption) we have a section for each issue which presents it as a whole rather than splitting it into opposing "sides":


 * 1) Use of unlicensed spectrum
 * 2) Wi-Fi uses unlicensed spectrum in the 2.4GHz band
 * 3) Users can deploy it without licensing
 * 4) Power output is limited
 * 5) There is no effective legal authority over interference
 * 6) Many other devices (microwaves, etc.) use the same band
 * 7) Difficulties for commercial deployers -- cannot create a local monopoly
 * 8) No cabling
 * 9) Reduces cost of deploying a LAN
 * 10) Can be deployed in places cables can't go (outdoors, historic buildings)
 * 11) Unintended or unauthorized use by outsiders
 * 12) Roaming
 * 13) Diversity of Wi-Fi products
 * 14) Different vendors are interoperable
 * 15) However, new features are less interoperable than baseline operation
 * 16) (Perhaps highlight some "unusual" products)
 * 17) Encryption
 * 18) Addresses the unauthorized use and interception problems
 * 19) "Wired equivalent" privacy was the original model for wireless encryption
 * 20) WEP encryption has been thoroughly cracked
 * 21) Alternatives -- WPA, WPA2
 * 22) Social issues
 * 23) Creation of public wireless LANs and MANs
 * 24) Wardriving / warchalking
 * 25) Recreational mapping of wireless access points
 * 26) Unauthorized use for specific criminal purposes -- espionage, spamming

I won't push this if other editors here think it's a terrible idea, but I'm really getting the sense that "pro & con" lists are a bad thing for Wikipedia. --FOo 23:59, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agreed (both specifically and in general) --Anonymous, 12:51, 5 June 2005 (EST)

Agreed -- it's a great idea -- am I the only person who read this who thought it raised many good issues? The original proposal was submitted in December 2004 and one comment made in June 2005. I would say that Wi-Fi would be a hot issue since many people have routers.--TGC55 10:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed — As a wikipedia user I don't want to hear arguments in a 'Wi-Fi or not' war but read facts. SealedSun 21:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Pro/con lists are Bad. — Omegatron 21:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

licensed and unlicensed bands
Can we get more info about the frequency bands of each system? "2.4 GHz Wi-Fi band" means what exactly? 2.4 GHz to 2.5 GHz? 2.4 GHz ± 0.1 GHz? How is this arranged? Can we link to an article describing which areas of the spectrum are licensed in which areas, etc? - Omegatron 17:14, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

802.11b and 802.11g operate in the 2.4 GHz band. In the United States, this is from 2.400 to 2.4835 GHz and on channels 1 - 11. The conversion between channel numbers and frequency is as follows: F = 2407 + (N*5)  where N is the channel number and F is the frequency in MHz. However, since the 802.11b and 802.11g signals are 22 MHz wide, there are only 3 non-overlapping channnels - 1, 6 and 11. In other countries, the channel assignments may be different.

A white paper by ??? of Cironde has suggested that a four channels can co-exist - 1, 4, 8 and 11 with minimal overlap.

802.11a operates in the 5 GHz band. In the United States there are three allocations: 5.150 - 5.250 GHz (indoor), 5.250 - 5.350 GHz (indoor / outdoor) and 5.725 GHz - 5.850 GHz on channels 36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 60, 64, 149, 153, 157, and 161. The formula is F = 5000 + (N*5) where N is the channel number and F is the frequency in MHz.

65.161.188.11 01:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: Disadvantages of Wi-Fi
I don't understand the relevance of the following statement, above:

"It is alleged that Amateur Radio operators have license to boost the power on their routers up to the legal maximum for their license class, which tends to be 1500 watts (roughly 15,000 times that of a normal router)."

What has the maximum power output on Amateur Radio frequencies got to do with the maximum power output on Wi-Fi frequencies? Different parts of the band have different maximum power outputs. How is this a disadvantage in terms of Wi-Fi?

Also, perhaps the previous author would cite the source of the above statement.

Tony Ryan, EI9FIB.

I totally disagree with the claim of 15,000 times the output power of a normal router. Hams are licensed to 1 watt in the 13cm band without power control. With power control to 100 Watts. Hams still have to use the minimum power for reliable communications and must not willfully interfere with other services. See part 97 for 2390 - 2450 Mhz.

WA4OSH 01:39, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

"Hams are licensed to 1 watt in the 13cm band without power control." ... actually, that's only true if the hams are using spread spectrum. If they're using another modulation type -- CW, SSB, FM, SSTV, FSTV, etc. -- they can use the full 1500 watts. Granted, they normally don't, but they can if it's needed to communicate.

AD5RH/dougmc Thu Feb 23 14:02:00 CST 2006

Re: Disadvantages of Wi-Fi
In the USA channels 1-6 of the 2.4 Ghz bands overlap the 2.4 Ghz (13cm) Amateur frequencies. There are high power amateur television repeaters, mobile users and link stations in this band. Some amateurs are now using this band for data communications to enable such applications as Echolink, repeater control and other data-centric functions. So far it's not much of a problem, but potential is there. A bigger problem is non-Amateurs using high power amplifiers and highly directional antennas to attempt to go extremely long distances. The protocol seems to break down (throughput drops dramatically) after a few miles due to the delay time - the sending side doesn't get a reply within the expected time and it sends again, colliding with the reply it was expecting - and most people don't understand that. Instead of adjusting the parameters they just try to add more power or use a higher gain antenna. Check www.arrl.org and search for wi-fi for further information.

However, there is even a much bigger disadvantage than the few hams on the band. Wi-Fi is unlicensed and has no frequency planning. As more and more users use the 2.4 and 5 GHz bands, the more interference there will be. Also, there are other users of the bands - microwave ovens, cordless phones, baby monitors, bluetooth... 65.161.188.11 19:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Too technical
I attempted to make the intro less technical. If others agree is better, perhaps the technical tag can go. --agr 17:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I would agree with removing the technical tag. I just read over the article (since I had linked to it from elsewhere) and was puzzled that it's there. MCB 06:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Peer to Peer Data Transfer
I use a wireless router including a firewall at home. How can I make the internet outside my WAN connection recognize and distingush all my computers connected and can set up ICQ file transfer to all the computers?

Actually not only ICQ but all peer to peer transfer. What is those method using? UDP? Can anyone explain the relationship between those methods of data sending and a generic wireless router/firewall??

Thanks --Kenny 21:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Wi Fi!?
I am still confuse anyway, Nintendo DS is going to support WI FI? so.. quick brief and details please does that mean i can play Nintendo DS online? or only at close range, or can i play with people over the world? ><ino 00:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

With the DS you can play with peole arcoss the world (only for WiFi enabled games, like Animal Crossing) who are also connected by WiFi. The service is free of charge. Just think of it like playing a game online on a wireless laptop, it the same thing. --Exult 20:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Wi-Fi versus wireless mesh networks
The reference to wireless mesh networks comes out of the blue. Is Wi-Fi a WMN? If not, what is the difference? The WMN article doesn't help either, since it does not mention Wi-Fi.

Wireless What??
An anon has written a longish graf starting "Contrary to popular belief, Wi-Fi did not originally stand for Wireless-Fidelity". However, after several readings, I have trouble accepting that Wi-Fi meant anything other than Wireless Fidelity. If not that, then what did it stand for? -- Mwanner | Talk 15:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I had the same question. My best guess right now is that they just made it up and used it because it sounded good. But that seems weird. A little clarification, please? Twilight Realm 21:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Same here, I found on Wi-Fi alliance Web said ''"Wi-Fi, or Wireless Fidelity, allows you to connect to the Internet ..."--manop 06:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest you have a look at this page, by Phil Belanger, which explains where the mistake originates. Wi-Fi did stand for wireless fidelity at the beginning of its life, but it was a misunderstanding.

I still think "Wi-Fi" was intended as an allusion to Hi-Fi
I read the BoingBoing post, and came to a different conclusion. Before I explain, I appologize for being pedantic, and I admit that my argument is motivated out of a personal bias against what I perceive as deceptive practices motivated out of greed or snobbery.

The text of the WikiPedia article currently states, "Contrary to popular belief, Wi-Fi did not originally stand for Wireless-Fidelity." The BoingBoing post explains the source, but not the orginally intended meaning for the term. Furthermore, I claim that Interbrand designed and suggested the brand with "Hi-Fi" in mind, that the Wi-Fi Alliance chose the brand for the association, and that the alliance's attempts to disassociate these terms are a kind of branding back-pedalling initiated when they realized the association could undermine the integrity of the Wi-Fi brand.

First, Cory Doctorow says:


 * It's a pun on "Hi-Fi" and "wireless fidelity" doesn't mean anything.

"Wireless Fidelity" does have meaning to some people. It means "this device works virtually everywhere", and it derives a large part of that meaning from its association with Hi-Fi.

Tangentially, Cory's statement is a mis-use of the term "pun". The derivation of Wi-Fi from Hi-Fi would be somewhat better described as word play, but only barely.

Next, note that Phil Belanger participated in the selection, but not the creation of the brand. From the article:


 * "... we chose the name Wi-Fi from a list of 10 names that Interbrand proposed."

This says nothing about what Interbrand was thinking when they put Wi-Fi on the list. This is my primary argument against the text of the WikiPedia article.

Phil goes on to claim that the assocation of "Wi-Fi" with "Wireless Fidelity" arose from the alliance's decision "... to include the tag line "The Standard for Wireless Fidelity" along with the name." This is clearly contradicted by Cory Doctorow's comment that the term is a "pun". More importantly, normal people naturally jump to the Wireless Fidelity conclusion without knowing anything about the "tag line".

Phil also says:


 * "And "Wireless Fidelity" - what does that mean? Nothing."

This statement itself is too abstract to be true or false. What does it mean to whom? Symbols can have no intrinsic meaning. Humans ascribe meaning to symbols, so without specifying or even implying the context or humans in question, a statement about the meaning of a symbol is incomplete.

The real questions are, what did it mean to Interbrand and the Wi-Fi Alliance when they created and selected it, and what does it now mean to the public? I've found nothing documenting what the term meant to Interbrand, and Phil's comments actually explain that "Wi-Fi" did mean "Wireless Fidelity" to some people in the alliance:


 * "... some of my colleagues in the group were afraid. They didn't understand branding or marketing. They could not imagine using the name "Wi-Fi" without having some sort of literal explanation. So we compromised and agreed to include the tag line "The Standard for Wireless Fidelity" along with the name."

To begin with, I don't believe this story. I believe the alliance created the story to explain the tag line, its removal, and to justify their campaign to divorce "Wi-Fi" from "Wireless Fidelity" in the minds of the public. It's believable that some people would have trouble accepting "Wi-Fi" as a brand without understanding its derivation or "meaning" in relation to the "product", but there's no reason why they had to advertise that meaning in a tag line. In the meetings where members objected to the idea that "Wi-Fi" doesn't mean anything, the other members could have just told them it's like "Hi-Fi" for wireless and left it at that.

But that aside, if the story is true, then "Wi-Fi" did mean "Wireless Fidelity" to some of Phil's colleagues. This says nothing about the originally meaning intended by Interbrand, but it contradicts Phil's (and Cory's) claim that "Wi-Fi" didn't mean "Wireless Fidelity".

Regarding the question of what "Wi-Fi" means to the public, it's similiarity to "Hi-Fi" is compeltely obvious, as demonstrated by Cory's "pun" comment. The alliance's initial decision to include "Wireless Fidelity" in the "tag line" shows that the alliance recognized that similiarity as well.

I propose that Interbrand specifically intended the public to associate the "Wi-Fi" brand with "Hi-Fi", and that the Wi-Fi Alliance also chose the brand for that reason and purpose. I propose that the alliance discovered that this association exposes the brand to the danger of becoming a genericized trademark, and are now doing whatever they can to delay genericide.

Based on my arguments here, I am adjusting the "Wireless Fidelity" wording and moving it below the table of contents.

And to the commenter who posted the boingboing link, please sign your comments. Failure to observe social convention undermines one's credibility. Besides, signing is easy. Four tildes will do the trick every time: Crag 20:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Interbrand, being a corporate entity, 'thought' nothing when it submitted the list of 10 suggestions, because it was experienced in the market and was well aware that if WiFi stood for anything it would be a bad trademark, and they're only interested in creating GOOD trademarks. (What the individual people thought has questionable relevance.)  As for whether it 'means' anything, hifi has a specific meaning, in that fidelity is something of a problem in audio equipment, and high fidelity is therefore a claim about quality.  In that respect, wireless fidelity does not have a clear meaning, as any binary system can arbitrarily use error correction to achieve perfect fidelity.  Thus, wireless fidelity is not a useful term to anyone in or outside the industry.  71.56.57.196 00:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Wireless Routers
"Wireless Router" redirects here, and the article on routers doesn't even mention wireless routers. Don't wireless routers deserve their own article? Twilight Realm 21:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You all talk about LAN and routers and all manner of things that are so obivious to your circle that you ignore this simple fact. The overwhelming vast proponderance of the human race has no idea what you are talking about.
 * And some humans have no idea who, or what, a "vast proponderance" is supposed to be.

Please understand, this is not an insult. What it is however, is an appeal to at keep intorductory articles to "Wi-Fi" written, at least in the first few lines, to explain what you are talking about. Myopia, shortsightness is often born of supercilliousness. A belief that the "Techno-cool" or "Cyber Intellegensia" do not seem to have as a goal, even in introductory texts, an attempt to explain the matter to the other 99.99% of the human race.

Community Wi-Fi Routing Software
The text states that Wireless Leiden relies completely on OSPF. This is not true, because they developed their own router software (although building on the previous work done by OSPF), named LVrouteD, after its author Lodewijk Voge. More information can be found in their wiki entry on Dynamic Routing. You can find the source code here (under a BSD-like license).

Wi-Fi gaming section
What is "Many games have their own servers for gamers..." on about? Is it supposed to mean the Nintendo and Sony have these servers for these games? Otherwise it sounds like the games themselves somehow have Wi-Fi access (rather than the DS/PSP devices). -Duey

correct pronounciation
I believe there should be a note on the correct pronounciation. I do not live in an English speaking community and I do not know how to pronounce it correctly. --landroni 11:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I am also wondering about the pronounciation --Kissson 13:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure there is a correct pronounciation. I suspect that most people say "wye fye" by analogy with "hi-fi".  You're probably safe with that.  But some might prefer to call it "whiffy", by analogy with skiffy.  :)  Xtifr 07:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "Why-Fye", Fye said the same as why, but with a F instead of W. JayKeaton 18:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Addition of Mobile Phones/Cellphones
A sentence from one of the introduction paragraphs reads: It enables a person with a wireless-enabled computer or personal digital assistant (PDA) to connect to the Internet when in proximity of an access point.

Should this not be updated to include mobile phones or cellphones that have inbuilt Wi-Fi adapters?

Example of a mobile with inbuilt Wi-Fi adapter: i-mate SP5

81.208.165.224 22:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Alpine Zero

carcinogenesis
I read several articles that some are concerned about wi-fi increasing the risk of or causing cancer in a similar manner that cellular phones have an area of concern as increasing the risk of brain cancer. Does anyone here think this is worth mentioning? There was a university in Canada that rejected wi-fi over health concerns --Ted-m 12:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is the article about the univeristy http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060222-6235.html

two changes
I was bold and removed two statements:


 * “Wi-Fi is now so pervasive, and the term so generic, that the brand is no longer protected and it appears in Webster's dictionary.” There is no evidence I can find that the brand has undergone genericide. Appearing in the dictionary is not evidence of genericide; in Marriam-Webster Online it is still described as a certification mark. Also, there are many different dictionaries marketed under the name Webster’s.


 * “although the true meaning of the term remains a mystery.” The “true meaning” of the term, if there is a such thing, is that it is a certification mark used by the Wi-Fi Alliance to indicate that products meet certain standards. Where did the word “Wi-Fi” come from? That is answered by the referenced BoingBoing article: a branding consulting company coined it.

Let me know if you think this was out of line.--Clipdude 02:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Discuss links here
Editors regularly clean out undiscussed links from this article. Please discuss here if you want a link not to be cleaned out regularly. (You can help!)

I am concerned that some of the external links comprise WP:WPSPAM and "me too" websites that are not notable. This wireless article is by no means alone in this. Certainly, there are enough external links right now. I propose that we do not add more unless a good case is made here for new links. Nelson50 16:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've deleted a bunch of spammy and irrelevant external links. Articles don't need external links to "interesting" resources.  They need references.  Wikipedia isn't a search engine, nor a directory. Lists of links are an invitation to linkspam. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 22:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Linux
Removed an unsourced claim about Wi-Fi configuration being complicated. I have no idea about other distributions, but my Kubuntu Dapper offers a convenient GUI tool which is, in my opinion, on par with Windows. I wonder if it's a standard part of the KDE Control Center. - Sikon 10:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Windows Support
Changed "Microsoft Windows clearly has the best driver-level support for Wi-Fi" to "Microsoft Windows has comprehensive driver-level support for Wi-Fi, the quality of which depends on the hardware manufacturer". The former seems too opinionated a statement to make with no reference. Comprehensive seems like a word that better fits the writer's intentions.
 * Indeed, it was "clearly" POV. - Sikon 18:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

is it just me or does the apple section seem bias... --60.224.15.144 11:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

To get on-line.
I bought a laptop and was happy to stick a cable in it and carry on using the internet. Now, my life is dictating that I need a wireless connection. I have tried to get advice from various techies who give me different info each time.

My laptop is an acer travelmate 2303lm and has a 'wifi certified' sticker on it. I have been told that I need to buy a plug in card to enable wifi. Then I was told that if it has the wifi sticker, it was built with the card alread inside. I went with USB stick in hand to starbucks to try out the free wifi, and could not get conneced. I also tried at my local library who advertise free wifi - again no.

Please help, I beg of you.

Starbucks uses T-Mobile Hotspot subscription, charging for their radio waves. You can uses their Wi-Fi for a fee, which many wardrivers think is ridiculous. -F. Dove

Hello everyone,

I find this webpage to be very interesting - I hope everyone will agree with me. Keep it up!!

Re: WiFi vs HiFi
Can anyone explain to me the different between HiFi and WiFi!

J. Simon
 * I'm still trying to figure out the difference between HiFi and SciFi! Seriously, the terms are pretty much completely unrelated; the only thing they have in common is their origin in a marketing department   Xtifr 07:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Radiation Health Hazards
My Wi-Fi transmitter mentions, on a little scrap of paper in the plastic packing bag, that according to the FCC I will die a gruesome death -- cooked like a microwave dinner -- if I get within 8 inches of it. Well... at least some vague warning about a safety hazard anyway.

I also occationally see comments on the Web about it not being safe to work within 3 feet of a WiFi transmitter (or 10 feet for 400mW units).

None of this is ever mentioned anywhere in industry promotion materials or manuals etc that I have seen (other than that little scrap of paper with the FCC warning).

It's also not mentioned in this Wikipedia article.

I wonder how many people have a powerful Wifi transmitter sitting on the desk next to them?

Some research and writing on this subject please, for a major section: "Established and Possible Wi-Fi Radiation Hazards"/"Guidelines for Safe(r) Use".

DS doesn't have WAP or WEP built in edited
The games are the ones that put that in. So it CAN use WPA if the online compatible game allows it.