In case you didn't seen the press release back on May 8th, the Wi-Fi Alliance announced official branding for the Hotspot 2.0 program as Wi-Fi Certified Passpoint (TM).
The initial focus remains on service provider and carrier integration for easier authentication and better security on Wi-Fi hotspots. However, there are provisions for other identification and authentication methods to the network that could enable other web identities to be used, such as common social media usernames and passwords. These other methods will be critical for consumer adoption on non-cellular devices, such as Wi-Fi only tablets and laptops, which are heavily favored today over cellular models due to lack of bundled pricing by carriers and higher expense of data plans.
You can register on the Wi-Fi Alliance's website to download this free whitepaper on the Passpoint program.
Cheers,
Andrew
The initial focus remains on service provider and carrier integration for easier authentication and better security on Wi-Fi hotspots. However, there are provisions for other identification and authentication methods to the network that could enable other web identities to be used, such as common social media usernames and passwords. These other methods will be critical for consumer adoption on non-cellular devices, such as Wi-Fi only tablets and laptops, which are heavily favored today over cellular models due to lack of bundled pricing by carriers and higher expense of data plans.
You can register on the Wi-Fi Alliance's website to download this free whitepaper on the Passpoint program.
Cheers,
Andrew
Hey Andrew,
ReplyDeleteThat was my initial impression as well (that the WFA was rebranding HS2 as Passpoint). However, I'm seeing the WFA continuing to refer to both, apparently using "Hotspot 2.0" to describe the technical specification and "Passpoint" to describe the equipment certification program.
Here's an example from an upcoming WFA-hosted session at a conference I'm attending, "Wi-Fi CERTIFIED Passpoint™: A look at the Wi-Fi Alliance® Hotspot 2.0 Specification"
I find it confusing and think they should use the preferred name to cover the entire program. Perhaps there's some nuance I'm missing.
Best,
Dave
Hi Dave,
DeleteTheir usage of both terms is definitely confusing. I agree that they should use a single preferred branding name for simplicity.
Thanks for reading!
Andrew