Читать книгу Wi-Fi - Ellie Rennie - Страница 10

When Steve Jobs unveiled the iBook laptop, he didn’t talk about Wi-Fi – the wireless networking features were branded with an Apple trademark, ‘AirPort’, conveying the idea that these industry standard capabilities would be ‘first and best’ on Apple’s machines. As other firms began to build those same capabilities into many other computers and base stations, the AirPort name inevitably became one of many used to market wireless networking gear. What became known as Wi-Fi was generally designated as ‘802.11’, the number given to the relevant family of wireless standards developed for local networks within the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, known as the IEEE.

For those manufacturers and developers keen to promote the new standards, several issues were quickly apparent. Jobs emphasized the fact that AirPort used the new industry standard, and therefore would work with a whole array of devices soon to appear. But the 802.11 standards were complex and wide-ranging, with the result that not all compliant devices using the same standard were assured to work together, and the IEEE’s role in specifying the agreed standard did not extend to testing devices for compliance. Further, 802.11 was, as we have noted, a family of standards, with each iteration given a specific alphabetic suffix. The standard used in Apple’s 1999 iBook and other early consumer systems was 802.11b, to be followed in time by 802.11g, 802.11n, 802.11ac, and many others. These different versions of Wi-Fi all involved significant improvements, but the nomenclature was difficult to follow or comprehend for those without specialist knowledge.

A new trade organization emerged, the Wireless Ethernet Compatibility Alliance, to promote the new wireless networking and certify that devices would work together. For this purpose, a new name was required. Interbrand, a transnational marketing consultancy with previous successes including Prozac and oneworld, was commissioned. Interbrand conceived the ‘Wi-Fi’ name, together with a logo that borrowed (or appropriated) familiar yin-yang symbolism. The point was plainly to synthesize a brand, something that could be registered, licensed, and controlled through trademark law. The alliance itself became the ‘Wi-Fi Alliance’. The name ‘Wi-Fi’ was coined in part because it could be readily trademarked – no-one else used it, nor could it be confused with anything else. It was an entirely arbitrary name which meant nothing. The word did play with ‘Hi-Fi’, an abbreviation for ‘high fidelity’ with a certain retro cachet from the world of consumer audio. However, the evidence is that the Wi-Fi name was not intended to signify ‘wireless fidelity’, or be an abbreviation for anything. The Alliance nevertheless confused the issue by adopting for a time the slogan ‘the standard for wireless fidelity’ – a formula that was developed after the name had been chosen, and meant very little. It was noted that no-one knew what wireless fidelity was, and the Alliance was not a standard-setting body (Doctorow, 2005).

The Wi-Fi Alliance currently controls around fifty Wi-Fi-related brands (Wi-Fi Alliance, 2020a). While the trademarked name plays a critical role in stabilizing a complex and evolving group of technologies, it is also surprisingly multivalent itself. Just as Humpty Dumpty once reserved for himself the right to decide what a word meant, the Wi-Fi Alliance can decide what Wi-Fi means in any given context. The Alliance’s current vision is ‘connecting everyone, everything, everywhere’. From hotspots to encryption and set-up systems, the Alliance’s Wi-Fi trademarks cover a remarkable range of applications and uses, as well as the many versions of the main networking protocols. The brands are of two main kinds: those for public use – such as the generic ‘Wi-Fi’ name itself – can be used by anyone to describe or refer to Wi-Fi products. These are licence-free, subject to a small number of requirements and prohibitions, including rules about how the word should be capitalized and hyphenated. Then there are the certification marks, exclusively for the use of Alliance members, intended to function as a ‘seal of approval’ for products guaranteeing interoperability, security, and compliance with relevant protocols. These are subject to strict rules and prohibitions. Meanwhile, the Alliance’s branding strategy has continued to evolve, and the reach of the Wi-Fi brand has continued to expand. For many years it was used alongside the IEEE’s 802.11 alphabet soup of different versions, so products using the Wi-Fi name and logo would also specify compatibility with ‘802.11ac’ or other versions. In 2018, the Alliance began a retrospective rebranding, known as ‘generational Wi-Fi’, requiring the different iterations of Wi-Fi to be rebadged as ‘Wi-Fi 4’, ‘Wi-Fi 5’, and so on. The Alliance’s documentation draws an explicit comparison with the effective marketing of ‘generational’ cellular technologies such as 4G and 5G.

This background underlines the intangible nature of Wi-Fi, but also points to ways in which the Wi-Fi Alliance uses the trademark system to exercise considerable control over the wireless networking ecosystem. While the IEEE’s 802.11 standards are open for licensing, any use of the Wi-Fi name involves an additional layer of control through the Alliance. The Alliance justifies the branding of Wi-Fi on the grounds that it gives consumers confidence and peace of mind regarding the interoperability, safety, and security of networks and devices. It is clearly also a marketing strategy, shaped by a sharp appreciation of the competitive pressures in digital networking.

We can recall here the persistent criticisms from social scientists, cultural critics, and policymakers: brands can be used to raise prices, reduce competition, expand market power, and appropriate common property (see, for example, Coombe, 1998; and the discussion in Lobato and Thomas, 2015, ch. 6). The Wi-Fi brand, and the marketing strategies associated with it, may well be vulnerable to objections along these lines. But in this case the brand also plays an institutional role, mediating between the market and the technical agreements co-ordinated through the IEEE. Further, as a highly successful global tech brand which is not owned by a transnational corporation, the brand also signals Wi-Fi’s double-sided orientations towards both commercial markets and public goods. Those interested can read more than connectedness into the yin-yang symbolism. Despite all that, the success of this brand only goes so far. Wi-Fi’s successful progression from the home into the city streets has been followed by a proliferation of informal Wi-Fi signage, often far more widely used than the licensed logos. In the vernacular, we find Wi-Fi spelt in almost every combination of unauthorized ways, capitalized, lower-case, or unhyphenated. Instead of the stipulated symbol, a generic wireless symbol depicting the radiation of the signal is ubiquitous. The Alliance may have created the name and the logo, but the do-it-yourself ethos of Wi-Fi now extends to its branding.

Figure 1.3 Square at the Centre Pompidou, Paris, France. Source: F1 online digitale Bildagentur GmbH / Alamy Stock Photo.