Talk:WiMAX/Archive 3

Speed

There is no way WiMAX is that slow. It's supposed to be comparable with LTE which can go up to 100mb/s. Just because a company only offers a speed of up to 3mb/s doesn't mean that that's what the technology is limited to. That was obviously written by a Sprint hater in the US. Someone fix it please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amn12 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

http://gizmodo.com/5174718/exclusive-wimax-uncapped-speed-tests Amn12 (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The speed of WiMAX and LTE are similar - most of the differences can be considered step-wise progressions along the same technology base: the version of WiMAX that is being deployed is based on a 2005 standard development while LTE is based on a 2009 standard. The 'Advanced' versions of these standards, 802.16m & LTE-Advanced are being proposed to meet the ITU framework standard, IMT-Advanced. Claims by any camp that they achieve far different (higher) performance should be viewed with skepticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.65.145 (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

WiMax Confusion

It happens I have a very strong analogue/microwave background. I'm new to this now and wish to get back in. I am BillSF and I hope I can say that.

Jargon: Every industry has that. Do I just define what the terms mean and kick out the bull? Bull is anything there appears to be no reference on. (eg. DRM doesn't seem to have anything to do with WiMax unless it delivers entertainment, something well covered elsewhere.) I see lots of math in this encyclopedia. That is jargon too! Fortunately I've seen most forms of that. Is that to be assumed? Most jargon is simply shorthand for concepts that you don't wish to repeat over and over.

Conflict of interest disclosure: I have much money invested into the "technology". (connecting with microwaves is a technology) I an going to undertake other projects in the rapidly developing world. India and Africa are clearly hotspots. I can't site where I get that from, but I can find it easily. (Don't want to reveal business dealings.)

WiMax is not 4G. I think we all agree with that and there are several references that state that in Wikipedia and elsewhere. 4G is something I'm researching and therefore I'm disqualified? Can I site papers of mine or colleagues? 5G is in the brainstorming stage. 4G is 'complete' when any two people can easily get a 100Mbit/s connection. 5G adds security features that are only just being discovered. I think I'm out of both of those discussions. :) This posting is going over 4G research equipment. The software is very complex and therefore the hardware is extremely affordable. Enough, unless you want research papers to back my areas of research.

The best I can do with the WiMax article is verify the citations and define jargon with citations. One point I like to make is that avoiding the cost of copper and digging, a vastly cheaper product emerges. Sounds like GSM, doesn't it?

Is there a place to post original research? I've been very lucky to have been published on topics of pure science lately. Where can I post ideas of research (outside of letters to the editors) that won't get "ravaged by wolves"? I have over 40 years of radio experience. The real experience is understanding exactly why it works. That can be cited.

One final personal note: We of earth stand to lose analogue technology. No analogue -- no technology. Excuse the opinion but this is serious. In a nutshell 3G is a very organized way to use "spectrum". 4G is much more 'self organizing' and 5G offers security and freedom from interference unheard of today. Most of 4G and all of 5G is theory. WiMax is souped-up (weasel) 3G. BTW, the description of DECT is incorrect: It offers a moderate amount of bandwidth and is more sophisticated than GSM, in modern applications. Its 3G, so is WiMax, a made up name to sound like my most famous invention. Billsf (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to you, BillSF: it's great to see an expert take an interest. Even with my limited familiarity with the topic, I can see that the article is in dire need of informed attention. For example, and as you appear to suggest, I think it would be especially helpful to call more pointed attention right at the top of the page to the term's commercial evolution from its origins in the WiMAX Forum (see article) to its apparent corruption into a buzzword that's often used loosely or incorrectly, presumably for marketing benefit. There are scattered mentions of this throughout the article, in multiple sections, but I believe it would be appropriate and helpful to consolidate them and give them a more prominent page position, given the controversy the term invites. Perhaps this could be done in a new "confusion over usage" section, or at least by including a sort of "see below" mention (right at the top of the article) to such a consolidated section with that or a similar name.

Thanks for disclosing your involvement in the industry. The roles you disclose that are germane to the topic of this article do NOT present any problem in themselves, although to be very strictly correct you may wish to create a user page for yourself and then copy the above role-disclosures to that page (rather than to your already-existing talk page) as is suggested by the conflicts of interest page. That page also answers your questions about the propriety of citing one's own research where that research has been published in well-accepted, independent media. One needs to tread lightly in such a case, of course, but such citations are not disallowed by the no original research policy. Work that has been published by legitimate, independent media outlets, including mainstream scholarly journals, does not qualify as "original" in the sense that the term applies to the "no original research" Wikipedia policy. Please see the conflicts of interest page, for more details.

You'll learn more about this as you go along, but I'll just state here that no original research is just one of three core content policies on Wikipedia, along with neutral point of view and verifiability. Because these policies determine what is acceptable in articles, it's very helpful for editors to become familiar with them. That familiarity is especially necessary when contemplating edits to a controversial article like this one. But despite its controversial nature, and possibly excepting the prospect of citing your own research, I'd nevertheless encourage you to be bold in editing to improve this article, always provided you're able to adhere to the spirit and letter of those three core guidelines. That's the principal way articles get improved, in my opinion. I'd also suggest that you carefully review the comments above, e.g. under the heading "This article needs reworking". Finally, please note that your comment and my reply are together quite long, and will probably be archived at some point, to decrease the overall length of this talk page. I'm not myself sure how to do that, but when someone else causes it to happen you shouldn't take it as an affront, or as being in any way personally motivated. Thanks again for your participation. I very much look forward to seeing your edits to the actual article. Ohiostandard (talk) 04:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Deployment

A rapidly developing technology area, (I use technology loosely here!!) needs more updates. Some of the arguments are childish, as the standards clearly indicate the exact capabilities under well defined conditions. Clearly there are no clear boundries and there is overlap - and greed! A better chart needed. I really like the graph on page 4 of the Intel white paper (http://www.rclient.com/PDFs/IntelPaper.pdf), wish somoene more talented included it here. What is missing though is who and where are the users if any? Industry has been going crazy and spending tons of $ on infrastructure and (actual) technology. Does anyone know the status of actual deployment, players, number of users etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.229.112.98 (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

WiMAX logo

Is there a logo for WIMAX as there is one for WiFI? I'm sure you know that classic wifi logo. Is there a similar logo for WIMAX?? Can we put that logo in here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhcpy (talk • contribs) 22:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Citations Needed - Rapid Deployment Section

The Rapid Deployment section has a few issues:

• There are no citations
• How was WiMax utilized in 2004?
• Is this a theoretical application?

If anyone could provide more info on this it would be much appreciated!! Therablueray (talk) 13:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Minor grammatical correction

I added a couple necessary commas in the WiMAX Mobiles section. - 12.29.2010 / 04:02 -

Range?

I was trying to find some information about the range of WiMAX, but this article doesn't contain very much. I think that range is a fairly basic topic and one that should be covered. The only comment in here so far is under "Inherent Limitations" where it mentions 50 KM and assumes the reader already knows this. The information I wanted was eventually found at http://www.wimax.com/wimax-technologies-standards/what-is-the-range-of-wimax which states "the average cell ranges for most WiMAX networks will likely boast 4-5 mile range". Can someone with more knowledge update this article with a section discussion WiMAX range? 144.36.24.78 (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Telecommunications Industry Association Logo.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Telecommunications Industry Association Logo.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Update needed

I'm told as of 2012 that WiMAX has been pretty much obsoleted by LTE which is faster. Accurate? Referenceable? -- Beland (talk) 01:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• At the present time I don't think you'll find any reliable reference that says that clearly, as local availability is the main issue. In Korea, WiBro (mobile WiMax) is apparently very widely used and widely available. In Japan, apparently WiMax is presently more widely available than LTE—but WiMax has not been strongly promoted. There are also mobile hotspots that can use WiMax; I think that LTE costs more. Several makes of notebook PCs come with WiMax built in (on the other hand, there are mobile phones and tablets that can use LTE where it is available). LittleBen (talk) 02:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• According to the WiMAX section of the Wikipedia article on Sprint (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_Corporation#WiMAX), Sprint seems to be phasing out WiMax. "Sprint Corporation is currently working on migrating WiMAX customers into using LTE compatible devices in order to begin transitioning the WiMAX bands to TDD LTE." I was rather surprised there is no mention of the apparent EOL of WiMax mentioned here. Rcrowley7 (talk) 19:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)