This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was no consensus on new destination, if any. JPG-GR (talk) 05:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I am doing a lot of the disambiguation, so I thought I should ask which instances there is disagreement about in my choice for the bit rate sense (computing/digital) and the frequency range sense (analog/signal processing). I hoped I was doing more good than harm, but if I am causing consternation, I want to work together to come to a consensus. CosineKitty (talk) 00:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
You're definitely doing more good than harm. If there are any you're not sure about, feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll see if they are clearer to me.--Srleffler (talk) 00:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi. It is usually a noun, not an adjective, that is used in parentheses. WP:DAB says the word in parentheses should be "the subject or context to which the topic applies". It also says "Rarely, an adjective describing the topic can be used, but it is usually better to rephrase the title to avoid parentheses." Would Digital bandwidth be better? or Bandwidth (digital communications)? Sam (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
The original suggestion was based on the assertion that computing was too restrictive, and thus was confusing people into disambiguating links improperly. I was doing a lot of this disambiguation, and there has been one case where I definitely did make a mistake. But it was not because I didn't understand the difference between signal processing and computing. Another reason offered for the article move is that computing is too restrictive, because transmitting bits of data over a fiber optic line is not necessarily computing, but it is digital. It is also digital communications, but digital bandwidth also applies to, say, transferring data on a bus between memory and CPU, which is closer to computing than communications. With this in mind, maybe something like Bandwidth (data transfer) or Bandwidth (bit rate) would make sense? There are many other possibilities where we could follow the convention and make it a generic enough noun, and still distinguish this sense of the word from the range-of-frequencies sense. CosineKitty (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2008
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
I noticed an error on this page in regards to the description in the Bandwidth disambiguation page. According to the Bandwidth list, "Bandwidth (computing): a rate of data transfer, or bit rate, measured in bits per second". However, on this page it is noted, "It should also be distinguished from "data transfer", which is the quantity of data transferred over a given period of time." If this bandwidth is a rate of data transfer in bits per second, then the line in the article saying that bandwidth should be distinguished from data transfer is inaccurate, or misleading.
Bandwidth is commonly used to refer to bit rate in computing, but this is technically WRONG! Bandwidth is the size of the frequency range used for a signal and THAT'S IT. This article reads as though the technical definition of "bandwidth" is different when used in the context of computing. Textbooks refer to bit rate or throughput, because THESE ARE TECHNICALLY THE CORRECT TERMS AND BANDWIDTH ISN'T!!! More wikipedia ignorance spreading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 02:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't like the sloppy use of the bandwidth term, but it does not matter what you or I like, this is how it is used since at least 20 year ago. Also as engineers, we must sometimes accept language filled with abstract metaphores. If we have objections, we should contact the textbook authors; don't blame Wikipedia. Wikipedia must reflect established standards in textbooks and other authorative sources.
I have now added sources from five famous textbooks used in computer network university classes all over the world. I would be happy if you could find a single counter example - a textbook in Computer networking that never measures bandwidth in bit/s. In telecom, electronics and wireless communications however, bandwidth is typically still measured in Hertz.
The article is indeed wrong. For example how can one then explain 'Spectral Efficiency', which is used as a measure of the bit-rate that can be transmitted over a given bandwidth, with units of 'bits/s per Hertz', or (bit/s)/Hz, or usually bits/s/Hz. Wikipedia can explain that IT people erroneously/colloquailly (and confusingly for the learner) refer to bit-rate as bandwidth, but it's an informal use of the word. From a consumer's point of view, if they install more (similar) communication lines from the supplier, then they are in a sense getting more data through (more bit-rate) and in a sense "putting in more bandwidth" (but NOT PER line...and each line will use the same part of the frequency spectum - the same band of frequencies). Now, they are just getting more in the way they would get more refrigeration capacity if they bought more fridges, and if they wanted that large refrigeration capacity all in one big fridge, then the fridgeration-system design would be quite different, and to explain the design of the latter one would use fundamental scientific/engineering concepts, and one should also do that when explaining bandwidth and bit-rate. Look at (Hartley-) Shannon's Capacity Theorem, and look at its limits as the bandwidth tends to infinity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I have added a few words in the introduction to help clarify the concept for the beginner. I explained how (in computer networking) the word bandwidth is used in a colloquail non-scientific way to refer to the scientific term bit-rate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 13:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I have edited to remove original research. It has been clearly demonstrated by the new refs that bandwidth is used in the sense described. It has not been demonstrated that this use is considered WRONG. Please find some actual references before restoring any of this POV. --Kvng (talk) 14:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Please read again my earlier paragraph, where I explain the difference very clearly, and I also give an analogy from refrigeration ("..For example how can one then explain 'Spectral Efficiency', which is used as a measure of the bit-rate that can be transmitted over a given bandwidth.."). Concepts should not be made any more difficult for the learner by mixing up terminology from one parameter/concept to another. The width of a band of frequencies is where the word 'bandwidth' comes from, it's as simple as that. The word is unscientifically used by some computer people, but an encyclopedia should explain the scientific term and idea, especially when it's so important, for example in a very famous equation involving it (bandwidth) and the thing you are confusing it with (bit rate). This is the Hartley-Shannon Capacity theorem (some believe it to be one of the most important equations of the 20th century), C = B.Log(base2)[1+S/N] (C = Channel Capacity; B=Bandwidth; S/N = Signal-to-Noise ratio). I suggest you re-phrase it or change it back, because the brief mention of the link to Hartley's work is not sufficient to explain the concept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I have reverted user:Electron9's insertion of misnomer into the lead. Please read my comment immediately above and discuss here before restoring again. ---—Kvng 23:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I imagine there might be a theoretical bandwidth which would provide the perfect digital media and communications experience for a single domestic or small business user. This could be described as a perfect point beyond which any further bandwidth would be superfluous. An account of bandwidth seems as incomplete without a definintion of this perfect point, as an account of geography might be without a mention of the size and circumferance of the Earth. Has anyone calculated the point at which all the dreams of a internet user might be acheived ? Collateral to this would be a timeframe when this might be acheived in developed countries and finally for the whole world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)