What's better than Wi-Fi? Super Wi-Fi
slate.com
slate.com
Here's an article from 2007 with some facts:
http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2007/04/white-space.ars
Basically new mobile devices will be allowed if they can actively dodge TV channels, in the 50-700 MHz range, and use the spaces in between.
Truly the only advantage of these lower-than-wifi frequencies, as far as I can tell, is less signal attenuation (over distances and through walls). That means more potential for crowding, too. Plus I assume you need a longer antenna for the longer wavelength. I haven't been able to find any good info about potential data rates.
In North America, 900-930 MHz is already unlicensed and used for some cordless phones and wireless transmitters. Remember that big antenna sticking out of your first cordless phone? (Before the fancier 2.4 GHz ones that interfered with your home wifi.)
Anyway, new unlicensed bands is exciting, even if no single frequency is unused everywhere in the country, but I just don't get the "super wifi" / "wifi on drugs/steroids" angle without more facts.
Today they have 1120 backbone nodes, 2900 client nodes and another 9000+ people that have expressed interest in joining the network.
Apparently this is happening all over the world. Wikipedia has an extensive list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wireless_community_netw...
We need this super wifi thing in the hands of those people.