Now, thanks to research from North Carolina State University, your prospects at that crowded Starbucks may be brightening in the near future. They’ve created new software that they say can improve data throughput by at least 700%.

It’s called WiFox, and it works by monitoring the traffic on single Wi-Fi channel and managing it by giving priority to access points with the most backlog of data.

If every Wi-Fi access point is a one-lane road, and every user has their own car, you can see how there is the potential for traffic jams. WiFox deals with the jam by acting as a “traffic cop” that allows data to move more smoothly in both directions.

From NCST:

WiFi traffic gets slowed down in high-population environments because computer users and the WiFi access point they are connected to have to send data back and forth via a single channel.

If a large number of users are submitting data requests on that channel, it is more difficult for the access point to send them back the data they requested. Similarly, if the access point is permanently given a high priority – enabling it to override user requests in order to send out its data – users would have trouble submitting their data requests. Either way, things slow down when there is a data traffic jam on the shared channel.

Now NC State researchers have created WiFox, which monitors the amount of traffic on a WiFi channel and grants an access point priority to send its data when it detects that the access point is developing a backlog of data. The amount of priority the access point is given depends on the size of the backlog – the longer the backlog, the higher the priority. In effect, the program acts like a traffic cop, keeping the data traffic moving smoothly in both directions.

This sounds great if it works which, according to NCST’s lab tests, it does. Incredibly.

The research team says that on a Wi-Fi system load of 25 users, WiFox improved data throughput by 400%. Increase the number of users to 45, and they saw a 700% increase in performance.

The nice thing about WiFox is that it’s all software, so there’s no need for a massive hardware overhaul. Sounds good. The only question that remains is when we’re likely to see this in use.

[via Phys.org]

Now, a new program from Facebook is allowing small businesses to trade their Wi-Fi for check-ins.

The very small test was first unearthed by Tom Waddington, who has a history of rooting Facebook tests and secrets out of code. What he found was a new category for “like sources” among the page insights. The new source was called “Social Wi-Fi,” and the description reads as follows:

“People who liked your Page after checking in via Facebook Wi-Fi.”

“Facebook Wi-Fi.” Facebook confirmed the small test to Inside Facebook:

“We are currently running a small test with a few local businesses of a Wi-Fi router that is designed to offer a quick and easy way to access free Wi-Fi after checking in on Facebook. When you access Facebook Wi-Fi by checking in, you are directed to your local business’s Facebook Page.”

So – check-in, get access to Wi-Fi. Pretty simple. Facebook provides the router and the business provides the internet. Facebook’s statement makes it clear that this is not a “like-gated” wi-fi program. Hopefully, for small businesses, the checking-in will lead to likes, but customers wouldn’t have to like the page to receive the wi-fi.

Of course, Facebook runs tons of tests all the time, many of which never see primetime. But this seems like a logical evolution of the Facebook check-in. Do you think small businesses could benefit from a check-in gateway that directs wi-fi-seekers to their Facebook pages?

[Lead Image Courtesy erikadotnet, Flickr]

We know many of you love to watch Netflix on your Android smartphones and tablets. We just launched a new feature where you can select to playback on Wi-Fi networks only. This means that while you can search, browse and enjoy all aspects of the Netflix app on a mobile data connection or Wi-Fi, you can choose (via a “Settings” feature) to playback on Wi-Fi networks only. Download the new Netflix app and enjoy Netflix!

Netflix launched a similar feature in an iOS update back in May. Android has always been further behind when it comes to Netflix, but things have certainly improved in that regard over the past year or so.

This data comes from over fifty countries. Conversely, the number of folks who viewed an online video increased to 84%. That means, at this current point in time, more people are watching online videos than preprogrammed television shows. It’s definitely a shift, especially considering that television has been viewed as a staple in evolved societies, much like running water and electricity.

The data from Nielsen suggests that many people are choosing to watch video content online instead of channel surfing and searching for something to watch the old fashioned way. Of course, this means a decline in subscription for the local cable providers. Perhaps some folks have traded the expense of cable for faster internet connections and wi-fi capability.

With such a rich variety of choices online, many consumers choose to spend their time doing things other than watching traditional television programming. Whether it’s watching streaming videos, social sharing, networking, or just plain surfing the web, people are choosing the internet over television. I think it’s a positive trend.

The pay-as-you-go hotspots will be set up by Virgin Media, near ticket booths, escalators and platforms by the end of July, in preparation for the 2012 London Olympics. Up to 120 stations are planned to be added by the end of the year, and Virgin Mobile subscribers can log on for free.

London Underground’s strategy director Gareth Powell states, “The first stations include some of our busiest and most well-known destinations and we’re on track for a successful launch this summer, all delivered at no additional cost to fare-payers or taxpayers.”

Regarding the London Summer Olympics, organizers of the games have established some guidelines for volunteers, relating to their use of social media. Essentially, they don’t want the 70,000+ volunteers tweeting about big name athletes, or disclosing the locations of politicians and celebrities.

The 802.11ac Router operates in the 5 GHz spectrum and offers transfer speeds up to 1300 Mbps. With the super high speeds, Buffalo is hoping that the next generation of tablets and portable devices will feature the technology which will dramatically reduce battery usage due to increased download speeds.

“5G WiFi will improve the HD video streaming experience with its higher speeds, enhanced range and increased reliability,” said Michael Hurlston, Broadcom’s SVP and GM of the Wireless Combo Connectivity line of business. “Buffalo Technology’s products using Broadcom’s chipsets give consumers the fastest, most robust wireless networking solutions available.”

The router is now available at select retailers and goes for $189.99 on newegg.com. This is pricey, but with the reality that more and more homes have refrigerators and microwaves that are connected to the internet, the need for a high capacity router becomes more and more necessary.

The wifi-blocking wallpaper looks like any wallpaper that you can pick up at a local store; however, beneath its pattern (snowflakes) is copper lining that helps to keep wifi signals on one side of the material. If you are not happy with the snowflake pattern, you can add/layer your own preference of wallpaper over the top of it.

Benefits of utilizing this wifi-blocking wallpaper have been provided below.

• This wallpaper will be extremely useful in places like hospitals, where wifi signals could be harmful to the other equipment around the hospital.
• Prevents hackers and wardrivers from accessing your network outside your living space.
• If you live in an apartment community, only your network will be listed rather than everybody else’s as well.

An evident downside to the wifi-blocking wallpaper is that it will not block the signal flowing through windows and doors.

You’ve always heard these bogeyman stories about how you should always, at a minimum, secure your Wi-Fi network with a password. I’ve been hearing about it since the nascent days of Wi-Fi networks: using an unsecured network is basically the internet version of leaving the front door of your house open while you’re not home. You never know who could be lurking on your network, siphoning off the password to your email account or waiting for you to enter your credit card number to order that cat litter on Amazon. In short, it’s not safe; it’s the economic way to invite somebody to steal your personal information.

And yet, even as somebody who definitely falls into the category of Should Know Better, I still use unsecured Wi-Fi networks. I use them a lot, actually. Sometimes it can’t be helped, say if you’re at the public library or at a coffee house. Sometimes it can be helped. Me? I usually throw caution to the wind and never think about the risks whenever I need to use a public Wi-Fi network. I don’t think I’ve ever once paused before connecting to one and though, “Wait, on second thought, I shouldn’t do this because someone could swipe my information.” Even though I should know better, I ask myself, why do I still do it? I really don’t know. Sometimes I’m just that stupid, I guess.

Part of that illogical reasoning comes from the fact that I don’t do anything important, at least, anything important to petty cyberthieves. It’s naive, but I always think that if somebody really wants to steal my identity that badly, go ahead – I’m nobody of consequence and, really, I could certainly use the help paying back my student loans if anybody else wants to take on that debt with me.

My weird rationalization for suspending my disbelief only functions if I picture some meddling 26-year-old in the next room of the coffee shop eavesdropping on the Wi-Fi network. I can’t imagine anything more boring than watching the average person browse the internet. You’re not going to secure any confidential trade secrets of Wall Street or stumble upon somebody’s ingenious yet unpatented idea to solve the energy crisis. You probably wouldn’t even learn how to fold a winning paper airplane, let alone instructions on how to make a bomb. For that ostensible Wi-Fi spier, I don’t really see how anything on a general network could be of much use.

I wish I could say the same about the Google Street View Wi-Fi eavesdropping story. These are not middling twentysomethings in a coffee shop just being nosy. This a corporation for whom personal information is a mountain range of Martian blood diamonds. Google makes untold millions of dollars from crunching your personal information into advertising revenue. That kid in the coffee shop with the Jimmy Neutron haircut and an Ubuntu-powered PC might not have much use for what trivia I happen to be browsing in the middle of the afternoon, but the same can’t be said for Google.

That said, I’m not opposed to the general concept of Google having my information (we won’t get into the specifics regarding how long they hold onto it or any other aspects I do have a problem with). I realize that’s how I’m paying for some of their really great services, like Gmail, search (which is sometimes great), and Chrome, to name a few. If that’s what keeps those services top-rate and free, I think I can agree to the simple terms that they collect my data and use it for advertising.

I don’t mind that because it’s a mutual agreement wherein I know when they’re collecting it and what information they’re collecting. What I do mind is Google cat-burglaring people’s information by driving a vehicle around that’s siphoning off personal information from people using an unsecured Wi-Fi network. What I do mind is Google picking the locks on people’s browser security settings so that it can still track user data.

While both of these vampiric practices are irksome, the Street View/payload collecting issue irks me even more because Google has consistently misled the public about it, as if equivocating just enough will satisfy investigators and inquisitors so that they’ll all go away and Google won’t ever actually have to come clean about the what they’ve been up to. After saying it wasn’t collecting payload data but then it actually was, Google blamed it on a “rogue” engineer. After blaming it on said engineer, a Federal Communications Commission report shows that, in fact, several people at Google knew about the payload collection, therefore sinking the “rogue” engineer alibi. After all of that, nobody except Google still knows what data was collected in the Google Street View payload.

Given that kind of duplicity, no wonder so many people were cautious if not accusatory when Google Drive was launched last month: people aren’t so comfortable trusting Google these days.

Beyond all of this, Google already gets loads and loads of information via user consent. What is there to possibly gain from side-stepping security and possible legal protections to acquire even more? It’s like Google’s a data zombie that just can’t ever quite satiate that hunger for more brains.

As mentioned, Google’s bread and butter is information. I get that. I also realize that Google’s habit of holding its cards close to its vest in order to not reveal what it’s doing with the information is probably more indicative of the competitive industry than sincere malice (at least, I hope that Google doesn’t have some Skynet future planned for all of us). However, Google needs to scale back the intensity with which it goes after personal information of people on the internet.

It is not Google’s manifest destiny to pursue your personal data and it has done nothing to really earn any rights to it by misrepresenting its respect (or lack thereof) for privacy. If the company wants more personal data than it already has, it should be approaching the public directly instead of using some under-handed method that nobody knows about until after Google gets caught.

Sorry, Google, but when we shook hands and I agreed to use Google services in exchange for you to use my information, I didn’t realize you had your fingers crossed behind your back. Not cool.

In the end, there’s not really much else that can be done about the Google Street View eavesdropping. The FCC delivered its ceremonial slap on the wrist and Google still gets to keep the info it collected, so all in all, after a cost-benefit analysis at the day’s end, Google did pretty well for itself with the Street Car ordeal.

Google has this irresistible habit of making people feel like it’s Google’s world and we’re just lucky to live in it. Such an approach creates this incredible cognitive dissonance with users, myself included, because I think Google does do a lot of great stuff. But this isn’t a zero-sum game and doing a good thing here or there shouldn’t mean that Google gets some credit to spend on breaking bad.

But if this is indeed Google’s world, the lesson here is to protect your little corner of it and do common things like keep your Wi-Fi network secured. Anymore, if you’re savvy enough with encryption, you should probably limit what devices have permission to access the network, too. It sounds like it could be a pain for allowing visitors or neighbors access to your network, but hey – just assume that companies are spying on you and protect yourself according to your levels of fear. Better to be safe than sorry, really.

And that’s the beast stalking between the lines of every story that comes out about Google’s sponging up of payload data via Wi-Fi networks: better to be safe than sorry because, anymore, it’s obvious that random upstart hackers are no longer the biggest concern for whenever we’re using unsecured connections. They’re still a concern, sure, but now we have to worry that enormous tech companies like Google are out there spying on us, which could have much greater ramifications. And if Google’s already spying on us, that begs the question: just how many other huge corporate (or even government) entities are out there spying on us, too?

It’s probably a safe bet to assume all of them are.

In 2009, the NAB sued the FCC over white spaces, stating that the program “will have a direct adverse impact on NAB’s members because it will allow harmful interference with reception of their broadcast signals.” The white spaces have been historically used as a buffer to prevent interfering signals. But then on Thursday, NAB withdrew its own lawsuit, citing that the FCC had adjusted to the interference concerns. The Wireless Innovation Alliance calls the legal green light a “major step forward,” and states that the “NAB should be congratulated for withdrawing its court challenge to the FCC’s white space order.”

The remaining white spaces hurdles are primarily technical – a method of tracking where and when white spaces are available for internet use is being put together, on a market by market basis. Databases are presently being built to coordinate the locations.

I’d recently reported on a new patent that was secured by Google, surrounding the ability to auction wireless network services. Perhaps the new patent pertains to the white spaces network, to where broadband signals would fluctuate in availability in regards to time and place.

According to a study performed by Hotels.com, 38% of hotel guests chose free wi-fi over any other amenity provided by the hotel they were staying in. This amenity succeeded at the top, where free breakfast (25%) and free parking (18%) fell right below it.

This premise makes perfect sense, because the common medium that helps people stay connected to their business, family, and friends is the Internet. This is even more validated with the use of smartphones and tablets dominating the tech industry.

I do have to say, when I travel around the country, a hotel that offers free wi-fi is definitely part of the criteria where I stay overnight.

To show how important free wi-fi is at hotels, I provided some tweets from the Twitter community that are microblogging about their hotel’s wi-fi connection.

Is free wi-fi a priority for you when choosing a hotel? Let us know below in this post’s comments section.