The Future of Wireless Internet

These articles are all related:

Radio frequency is just light outside of human visible range. Light does not interfere.

The myth of interference.

Mapping light does not require a lens.

Compound eyes

Phased Array Optics

Researchers develop lens-free, pinhead-size camera.


Wireless, single antenna, data technology that does not “interfere” with neighboring signals on the same frequency is already in early stages of development.

DIDO: snake oil or wireless salvation?


Each wireless “access point” can also serve as a core router.


Commotion Wireless



The Internet does not belong to the corporations.

In Defense of the Internet Craftsman


The US Postal Service is failing in its core mission: affordable national communications.



3 thoughts on “The Future of Wireless Internet”

  1. Interesting articles, but your comment on the first one is wrong.

    Light *does* interfere. Next time it rains, take a look at a puddle in the street with a thin film of oil floating on it. See the shimmering rainbow effect? You’re seeing interference between the light reflecting off the top of the oil, and the light reflecting off the bottom of the oil. You see different colors because different film thicknesses viewed at different angles cause either constructive or destructive interference of any given wavelength; where thickness and angle cause red photons to constructively interfere, you see red; where they cause blue photons to constructively interfere, you see blue.

    Just because the interference takes place in the detector (your eye) doesn’t mean it’s not happening!

    It’s true that “interference” has been used as a buzzword by the owners of entrenched technologies to fight potential newcomers, but that doesn’t mean there’s no such phenomenon.

    1. Edit/TLDR: Light rays do not directly interfere with each other, but light detectors are subject to wave interference, and even then most often only at limited points in space. A simple solution is detector arrays that eliminate point-dependent interference in signal detection, in part by separating signals according to their discreet light ray source or reflection directions.


      Thanks for your reply Jeremy, but I think you understand that “interference” claimed in radio communications is more akin to the term’s use in football, than it is to actual wave or particle physics. Their claim is that because there are red (same frequency) lights (radio emitters) in two places, and all are visible from a single point in space, then those two red lights must always “interfere.” For the FCC, interference is not an effect that coincides with rare physical events like half-wavelength diffraction, but is instead a fundamental state of radio wave propagation. We know that is not true, because our eye can discern two lights of the same color from each other, due to the fact that their light “waves” can pass through the same point in space (our small aperture pupil) undisturbed on their path to our detector arrays (retina). Their claim is akin to this: because a translucent bacteria with only a single light detecting element (let’s say a rod) exists, then no one should ever be allowed to have a more than one light of the same color turned on in any given visible area, regardless of the evolution of biological camera obscura (eyes).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.