How many people can use a café’s Wi-Fi at once?

I was visiting our HQ the other day and was unable to connect to the Wi-Fi, and I was wondering why, because I could tell the number of people there was no more than thirty.

A colleague told me that the maximum number of connection may have already been exceeded at that time.

Do you normally connect to the free Wi-Fi when at coffee shops? Image source

So, how many people can connect to a cafe’s Wi-Fi at once? Or for that matter, to a single Wi-Fi spot anywhere?

Hardware-wise, most routers will handle 255 simultaneous users, more than enough for the average coffee shop. The main limiting factor is the cafe’s incoming broadband speed. If it has a cable connection offering 25Mbps and wishes to keep its customers happy by offering a consistent speed of at least 1Mbps per user, then the coffee shop’s limit is 25 people.

But with our situation in Malaysia - the 3G connection of 3Mbps to 7Mbps at best effort and fixed line broadband speed from TM of less than 5Mbps - it is far from good to satisfy 15 to 20 customers with decent speed.

You may end up getting a mere 400kbps to 800kbps (0.4 - 0.8Mbps) at a medium sized cafe. Not good enough to surf the internet.

Wi-Fi: What are the health risks related to it?

It is good that most of your computing works today are seamless and done wirelessly, thanks to WiFi technology. But the more you use it the more you'll be wondering if there've been health risks linked to it.

         Radio waves emitted through Wi-Fi technology are at much lower intensities.

What is Wi-Fi

Wi-Fi is the name of a wireless networking technology that allows an electronic device to exchange data wirelessly and it provide high-speed Internet and network connections. It is based on radio waves whose frequency is similar to that of microwaves.


Any ill health effect?

Given what microwave ovens can do to, say, meats, chicken nuggets, it is perhaps not surprising that there has been concern that exposure to Wi-Fi could be unhealthy. Fortunately, however, while they are found to be used everywhere, Wi-Fi waves are emitted at far lower intensities than microwaves in ovens. As a result, they cannot produce anything like the same heating effect.

Even so, some people still worry that perhaps even this far weaker effect could cause damage after years of exposure. To date, epidemiologists have failed to uncover any consistent evidence for even long-term effects.

It does, however, suggest that the health effects, if there are any, are pretty weak, and that we should worry about more hazardous things, such as tripping over all the cables we would need if we did not use Wi-Fi devices.

Technology, as it seem, is something you cannot go without.

References: Sciencefocus and The guardian

Super Wi-Fi poised for growth

Wi-Fi and "Super Wi-Fi".

You'd naturally think of superior performance and far reaching Wi-Fi signal, and quite rightly. Super Wi-Fi is being deployed in the United States and generating interest in a number of countries, including Britain and Brazil. It offers a bigger range than existing hotspots.

Super Wi-Fi is not really Wi-Fi because it uses a different frequency and requires specially designed equipment, but it offers some of Wi-Fi's advantages, and more.

The name was coined by the US Federal Communications Commission in 2010, when it approved the deployment of unused broadcast television spectrum, or so-called "white spaces," for wireless broadband.

Super Wi-Fi could be useful for less dense population over a large area.

Much longer range

Think about covering few lots or blocks of shop. But with Super Wi-Fi we are talking about covering the whole town or city. Or villages.

The long range and use of the broadcast spectrum could allow wireless signals to travel farther than Wi-Fi - in theory as far as 100 miles (160 kilometers) - although for practical reasons the range will probably be only a few miles.

Michael Calabrese, director of the Wireless Future Project at the New America Foundation, said that is an advantage of using the broadcast spectrum.

"Wi-Fi has been booming, but it has been limited by the frequencies it operates on, which go only a few hundred meters," said Calabrese, who has been pressing for the use of "white spaces" since 2002.

In contrast, "television frequencies travel long distances at low power and penetrate through buildings, trees and bad weather," Calabrese said.

This could provide high-speed Internet to sparsely populated rural areas which lack broadband. It could also allow consumers to create their own hotspots, which could be used on devices while away from their homes.


Already deployed in US

The first deployment of Super Wi-Fi came last year by Rice University in Houston, Texas, followed by another earlier this year in Wilmington, North Carolina. A coalition of organizations has announced plans to deploy Super Wi-Fi to college campuses in rural areas starting early next year in a project called AIR.U, backed by Google and Microsoft.

Super Wi-Fi would be on "unlicensed" spectrum, like Wi-Fi, so companies would not bid on exclusive spectrum rights. This can lower costs. And there is often excess capacity, especially in rural areas, where fewer TV stations operate.

Mobile phone companies could use Super Wi-Fi, as they do now with Wi-Fi, to relieve some of the "spectrum crunch" from the explosion of mobile devices like smartphones and tablets.

But in order for Super Wi-Fi to gain traction, manufacturers of PCs and other devices would have to make chipsets that could operate on both systems.

TheGreenMechanics' two cents: Long range capability should benefit rural areas, especially with the government' effort to close the digital gap with urbanites.

For the consumers in general, this should provide alternative and possibly cheaper option in communication.


Source: The Star