Talk:Wireless broadband

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Telecommunications (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Computing / Networking (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Networking task force (marked as Mid-importance).
 

Link to http://www.wirelessbroadband.ru/[edit]

Link doesn't seem important enough to be here unless you show me some news coverage of the event. All we know is that could even be some small group of foreign cell phone companies talking about something unrelated... especially since the page isn't in english. Thanks! Kopf1988 16:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I found this to be written poorly[edit]

It's not very clear what's being said here.

In general because this technology is much newer than DSL or cable, it has reached a point where its reliability can be far exceeding the older technologies. Unfortunately this is not quite true across the board because of so many operators providing this service and the different technologies that each may deploy in their network. It can be said that their network is only as good as the equipment they use to provide service.

I've removed the paragraph to improve the readability of the article. E_dog95' Hi ' 08:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The whole claim of being "fairly new" is dubious since it was written in 2008. Someone left a comment on the page instead of a talk discussion. Three years later, there are much newer technologies. In particular, should the focus of this article be on connections to homes and businesses? With smart phones, pad computers, and the plethora of mobile technologies, this niche might be considered mostly historical now. That is, many home and business users might just use the mobile technologies instead of unique ones. W Nowicki (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

A fundamental change in the nature of TV[edit]

Maybe it won't happen but if it does, it could be bigger than the DTV transition in the United States. And all that equipment you bought could be worthless.

Since it's happening because of wireless broadband, I put the details here. The DTV transition article is too wordy and the fact that people who prepared for that transition could end up having done it all for nothing has nothing to do with the transition itself. On the other hand, some mention should be made somewhere in a DTV-related article.

I also put those details relevant to a multichannel video programming distributor in that article, though to simplify things I just duplicated a lot of the content. That may not be the way to do it, but I'd appreciate input about any coverage of this issue in any of the related articles.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Web site change has messed me up[edit]

Months ago, I was unable to find Broadcasting & Cable's updates on wireless broadband. The web site added a new search function. I checked a library database which was of no help.

Furthermore, the library database EBSCO has now intentionally put up a wall keeping anyone from finding anything. It needs to be regarded as useless.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Good news. I tried another librarian who pointed out I could read Broadcasting & Cable using EBSCO as if I was reading the real magazine. That should work, though I'll have to do it at another library and their system may be different.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

WiBro[edit]

==Abbreviation==
The acronym "WiBro" is entering the vernacular as a contraction of "Wireless Broadband", in much the same way as "WiFi" refers to 802.11 or similar wireless networks.

This was tagged for six months. WiBro is a product that seems to implement this in Korea. Should be mentioned as such with a cited source. W Nowicki (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Much work needed[edit]

Wireless networks can also be Symmetrical, meaning bandwidth traveling in both directions (download/upload), which is most commonly associated with 'Fixed Wireless' networks. A Fixed Wireless network link is a stationary terrestrial wireless connection (similar to satellite, but with far superior speeds), rather than mobile, which allows for greater speeds.

For example, many technical issues with above. Only proper nouns should be captialized. But link to fixed wireless. And use bit rate, since "speed" of all is the speed of light in air, the same in each case. upstream and downstream are the terms relative to provider/subscriber. Hard to tell what the last sentence is saying. I would guess that with the same power, fixed systems (or point to point vs. broadcast, for that matter, should be explain that?) can get higher data rates than mobile ones? Although depends on other issues like frequency, antennas, etc. and certainly needs a citation.

Caption of the first picture[edit]

"Three 45 Mbit/s wireless dishes on top of 307 W..."

Technically, this is quite misleading (and wrong!). Dishes size doesn't correlate well with speed. Better to fix "Three wireless dishes of 3 (?) meters of diameter on top of..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.149.177.18 (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Good point, the data rate describes the signal, not the dish. (As above, "speed" is the speed of light to be accurate too.) Also the dishes themselves are covered up, so we only see the covers. Looking at the upload history, the photo was uploaded September 28, 2005, with the claim the signals were 155 Mbit/s and then uploaded again the next day saying 45 Mbit/s in the upload comment, but not updating the description? So not clear the rate nor size, actually. It does say circa 2001, and this is supported by the metadata so probably we should say that. I will give it a try. W Nowicki (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Misconceptions about Wireless Broadband[edit]

Most of the Internet Service Providers create misconception among consumers about - What kind of Wireless Internet they are offering. Are they giving a CDMA mobile broadband device or 3G USB modem that gives way to higher speed consistently compared to CDMA wireless broadband.
Check Wireless Internet Providers – 10 Things You Want To Know - Which enlightens more about the same confusion.

This text was also was confusing. I think they are talking about mobile not wireless in general. And please use complete sentences with citations, not inline links with opinion. W Nowicki (talk) 18:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Overlap - move?[edit]

Note there already is an article Wireless network that talks about the general concept. So it seems this focus is on Internet access? So why not rename it to, say, Wireless Internet access? Wireless Internet redirects to a stub Wireless Internet Protocol which does not seem right (probably not what people searching would like to find). While Wireless internet redirects to Wi-Fi, a trademark for a family of LAN protocols. Does not seem right either. Or maybe we could merge some. W Nowicki (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)