Talk:WiMAX

A section of the possible negative health effects of WiMAX should be listed

http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies-archive.cfm/537044.html http://www.gq.com/cars-gear/gear-and-gadgets/201002/warning-cell-phone-radiation?currentPage=4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.189.143.20 (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. I wanted to read up on WiMAX after reading the last 2 paragraphs of this article. http://www.gq.com/cars-gear/gear-and-gadgets/201002/warning-cell-phone-radiation?currentPage=4

How there is no section discussing the health effects is beyond me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.171.70.190 (talk) 05:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe because it's just fearmongering without any scientific evidence. Scientific testing in tens of tests have actually proven that there are no negative effects... Nasula (talk) 10:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

auchly there are warnings are cell phones about holding to close to your head ... its all in that little book no one reads

too vague -- rephrase!

The article uses at least three abbreviations, OFDMA, PHY and DRM without explaining what they mean. The article also uses abbreviations like these several paragraphs before explaining their meaning.

I've added links for OFDM(A) and PHY, and deleted the DRM section. I used to sell Moto WiMAX gear and I've never heard of it. Please sign your contributions in the talk section by clicking the "signature" icon in the editing toolbar.--Phil Holmes (talk) 13:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The following sentence in the "Technical advantages" section is far too vague and needs to be rephrased:

"What is important for business using this technology is to ensure that it is managed correctly"

Well, of course, but surely this can be said for any business using any technology. What do you mean by being managed correctly? restricted access? ... encryption? ... bandwidth? ... agreements with other businesses? And why is this so important? I would like to rephrase this sentence myself but I have trouble understanding what it is trying to say in the first place, so I'll leave it for the time being.

Clearwire cited the security of OFDM as a huge selling point. I called them to ask about it. They could not explain it, of course.90.135.114.78 (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This article needs reworking

It contains patches of incoherent jibberish and misinformation and is generally poorly structured. There are several problem in addition to the ones mentioned above. Question is, who's brave enough to take it on?

That's because you have Engineering people writing these articles. For the most part, their language only speaks to one another, not the average layman.

It looks like to me like marketing people wrote most of this.90.135.114.78 (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

What it STILL looks like as of right now, is a giant mess of incoherent jibberish and misinformation that must have been copied and pasted from a poorly written online explanation somewhere. I went to do some copy-editing earlier in the month and was dumbfounded at how everything was worded. Acronyms are used so frequently that you often get confused as to what you're reading. For an article as large as this one is, as a layman in the subject myself, I got so lost in what I was reading that I eventually gave up. It's my understanding that the articles here are supposed to be neutral and cut down to the basics so that anyone can look up the subject and learn something about it. This article does the exact opposite... you leave with more questions than you had before. Unfortunaltey, because of the contovercial nature of this subject, and the high-level of practical understanding that's required to edit it, I'm at a loss here.

One thing is for certain though: This article was not written for Wikipedia. It looks like it was written for some other medium and pasted in here without editing.--Poet  Talk  17:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I propose filleting the article. All technical detail should be removed to avoid duplication from 802.16, etc. WiMax can be described as an essentially marketing initiative. Thoughts before I start cutting? Thanks Nelson50^T 17:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I generally agree. However, I think it's wrong to describe WiMAX as essentially marketing. Reading the output of the WiMAX Network Working Group would convince anyone that technical engineering is taking place at the WiMAX forum. Stuff like the WiMAX architecture (which is not covered in 802.16) should remain.--Phil Holmes (talk) 07:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I also generally agree. It's probably not fair to classify it entirely as a marketing initiative, but MOST (all?) of the technical terms discussed in this article already have main articles of their own anyway. I mean this article has 15 sections (not including sub-sections), and most of it drones on and on about technical specifications that can't even be verified, sourced, or otherwise. Cut cut cut. For an article that should only be a few sections large, it's absolutely huge and impossible to understand. --Poet  Talk  04:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is long, and it does need greater emphasis on the (often misleading) commercialization of the term for marketing purposes. But I object to the prospect of wholesale "filleting" and with the recommendation to "cut cut cut". Cut, yes, but what the article mostly needs is a consolidation and restructuring of the more technical material, not just cutting. The sentence in the introductory paragraph that includes a reference to the "last mile" - objected to elsewhere on this talk page - is a good one, but should be moved to a different section since most laymen will need to click the "last mile" link to understand it. My supporting comments in reply to user Billsf in the "WiMax Confusion" section of this discussion page may also be of interest in this regard. Ohiostandard (talk) 04:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Jan 30, 2010 - I found the content to be very useful. There is never exactly two audiences and compartmentalizing this way is misdirection. Readers of varying disciplines come here and want a range of content - directing all engineers to the technical specs negates a large reason for this site. Instead, initial entries should be less technical and become gradually more technical as he article moves on, thus capturing a larger number of readers. Engineers want clear and concise summaries of technical issues just as laymen want clear and non-jargoned descriptions of basic functions. Do not polarize Wikipedia, it can service a large audience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.20.115.215 (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

ClearWire?

Anyone know how ClearWire (website) fits into this? I met a ClearWire rep once, and he said it wasn't officially "WiMAX," but a similar technology. Several sites seem to indicate that they either use a pre-WiMAX implementation or that they really are using WiMAX.

Their top-teir plan is only 1.5mbps, though, so that doesn't really fit into the 70mbps potential of true WiMAX, I guess. Just wondering. They offer service in my city, so I've been intrigued. I just signed up for ACS's EV-DO implementation and am satisfied, although not blown away.

If ClearWire really is WiMAX, should they be mentioned in this article? cluth 02:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

ClearWire is NOT WiMAX, see http://www.nextnetwireless.com/products.asp it's a CDMA variant. No, Clearwire uses NetNet/Motorola Expedience 256 FFT TDD OFDM technology that is a propietary precursor. It is not WiMAX. TF, ClearWire must convert to WiMAXm when it is available (wave 2 802.16e-2005 which is the migration path to 802.16m/j and LTE inter-networking)

- Robert Syputa - I made a change in the future technology section and removed commercial link in external links - fair is fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.20.8 (talk) 04:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

To my knowledge ClearWire uses the Wimax Technology in Denmark, but not in the Wimax frequency range, therefore I have added it together with Butler Networks, who uses Alvarion-based Wimax equipment, also in another spectrum.

Clearwire uses expedient but will release a wimax services under the brand of Clear, Clearwire overseas uses 3.5 it is a wimax allotted spectrum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.166.180.133 (talk) 00:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

WiMAX is not a technology

The intro para includes a lengthy statement that starts with "'WiMAX is not a technology". It isn't? Correct me if I'm wrong, but in order to work with a WiMAX system you need to be using a radio, in certain frequencies, with certain power requirements, with certain protocols, with certain signaling requirements. Can someone explain how this is not a technology? Maury 14:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It's something of a fine point. Strictly, the technology is all defined in 802.16E. The WiMAX forum defines how that technology is to be employed, and tests for compliance. My personal view? I can't be too excited about that fine a definition, and I think 99% of the population would see both WiMAX and WiFi as technologies. --Phil Holmes 14:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a problem though because right before the quote saying WiMax isn't a technology, there's a quote that says, "WiMax is a technology...". Uh, yeah, we gotta pick. 68.202.66.211 06:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I find it somewhat amusing that the 802.16 article contains basically no technical detail, which is instead covered here. Perhaps a merge is in order? Is putting the tech section for 802.16 here really that "wrong", considering we all think the terms are synonymous anyway? Maury 22:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

All Wikipedia summaries of technology terms (Ethernet, VoIP, etc.) refer to the collection of standards and protocols that make up the "technology". Technology terms, by definition, always refer to the collection of protocols or specifications that make up the technology. The statement by the OECD is unnecessary and confusing to most people looking for information on WiMax. Coreyem 16:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

WiMAX is not a 'technology' because all modern cellular systems have evolved into wireless platforms which incorporate several technologies, many of which are common or similar between systems. In addition, the platforms are designed, as much as can be foreseen and is practical, to be 'evolutionary' rather than task specific and fixed. The field of wireless has been enabled through increasingly software defined and diverse types of base stations and user devices. The software programmability can allow upgrade and, in some cases, multi-mode capabilities using the same core functions. The carriers want 'evolution rather than revolution' with each advance in system design. That has already been seen in current 3G systems but still not to the extent that carriers would like. No system is likely to be designed that won't eventually have to be hardware upgraded. But the fewer years there are between 'fork lift' upgrades, the more operators can recoup capex and return a profit. Operators also want to focus less or less often on hardware and more on software and services. That is why 802.16 has core requirements that are adaptable to many types of applications and ability to extend the platform in several ways, such as higher order MIMO-AAS, without breaking core compatibility. Like LTE, WiMAX strives to be a 'long term evolution' framework platform. So both because these systems use a set of core and optional technologies and because they are fully expected to evolve over time, it is misleading to call WiMAX or LTE 'a technology'. The point is to not confuse by calling WiMAX a technology but rather am alternative path. Robert Syputa (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

clean up

Reduced number of primary sections. Created uses. Got rid of some wording to stay in 32K.

Need to be done: - as mentioned somewhere, the intro is baffling. - need a good uses section: nobody knows how to fill the usages of wimax? Dilane 03:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I deleted mention of C-Band satellite spectrum. This is an interesting detail but is not a determinant for WiMAX, LTE, #G, IMO-2000 or IMT-Advanced as it is just a part of the regulatory environment the competitive developments deal with. Other developments, such as long term potential to use agile/cognitive radio technology for white spaces and, possibly extending across several other spectrums over the next 10-20 years.

Spectrum is entering a new era in which multi-frequency use of spectra on a purpose-use basis will evolve. That is because all of the wireless systems are converging on similar control and networking layers that are highly adaptive and integrated with computer and network virtualization and data structures. This changes the relationship of spectrum and wireless interfaces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.19.101 (talk) 05:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Spectral Efficiency

I've reverted a section added by Lesswire, where he claimed EV-DO rev B was more spectrally efficient than WiMAX, and added a table showing .16e with .45 bit/s/Hz and rev B with 1.05 bit/s/Hz. All the information I've seen shows WiMAX with a maximum efficiency of 5 bit/s/Hz, so Lesswire underestimates it by a factor of over 10. I'd be interested in other views on the claims. --Phil Holmes 11:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you, also because it's not really relevent there except as part of a wider discussion comparing the standards (the sentence pops up with little context and no discussion of other technical characteristics of the technologies.) I know Lesswire considers it a very important issue, and I would encourage him to work on a Spectral efficiency of mobile Internet standards article but be mindful that simply adding claims to related articles needs to be done with care and consideration of context. Squiggleslash 13:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

What's relly needed here is some references. I found this [1] which suggests that WiMax beats the mobile phone standards. See page 8. darkov 14:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Also see here [2] which suggests about 3.1-3.8, but it's from 2005 and may be referencing an older draft of the standard. Darkov 14:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The spectral efficiency of WiMAX/802.16 OFDMA, 802.20, and LTE which proposes to use OFDMA on the down-link and SC-OFDM on the up-link are all similarly heading close to the practical limits for spectral efficiency defined by Shannon's theorem. The majority of advances in effective spectral efficiency and network throughput are occurring in the 'spatial' domain: in the areas of MIMO, AAS beam forming and MIMO-AAS which can adaptively combine the techniques. MIMO takes advantage of multi-path to effective reuse spectrum and enhance signals for higher reliability, sustainability and range. AAS uses beam forming/steering which also is a method to reuse spectrum within a cell or sector. And MIMO-AAS can combine the methods to use one or both depending on the deployment scenario and channel conditions. These can then be used with 'smart wireless broadband network' methods and topologies to reuse spectrum on a localized or tiered spatial domain. That is a fancy way of describing capabilities such as mobile multi-hop relay, MMR, in 802.16j. MMR can be used to hop to remote stations as repeaters, in-building networks, and blocked coverage areas. WiFi MESH is a similar concept: but instead of using entirely different spectrum with course granularity, channel and system management capability, 802.16/WiMAX can use channel sub-sets of the frequency band in a more managed system designed not to cause interference.

The effect of starting with high core air-link spectral efficiency, building granularly and with MIMO/MIMO-AAS so that signal strengths are enhanced, thus allowing higher order modulation (to 64 QAM), and reusing the spectrum up to several times over, multiples the effective spectral and network efficiency.

A basic driver is the move to higher bandwidth per user which requires more back-haul, which, in turn, necessitates building networks more densely. That has driven 3G cellular networks to deploy more densely as well. As long as that is the trend, then design of the system to be 'smart wireless BB networks' that take their advantage increasingly in the spatial domain becomes by far the most cost effective and efficient way to go. Robert Syputa, Maravedis, Feb, 2007 - Bringing this full circle to the discussion of link spectral efficiencies, network operators have measured average link efficiencies of early deployed WiMAX systems: they come in 2.8 b/hz. This compares favorably with similar real-world deployments of HSDPA cellular which reportedly come in at 2.2 b/hz. Both are far off the theoretical efficiencies as one would expect. And neither shows a particularly case for adoption when taken by itself. But when combined with MIMO-AAS and granular network topologies that allow spectrum reuse within and between cells, the theoretical limits are multiplied... and system designs made more complicated. That has pushed development of channel measurement and estimation, quasi-orthogonality, and numerous other methods to reduce co-channel and other interference, 'smart network' allocation of sub-bands/sub-channels etc. In turn, this is a major reason for NOT combining WiMAX and 802.16 into one section: WiMAX and LTE will use multiple developments including cognitive radio being developed within 802.22 and other efforts and evolution of 'smart wireless broadband networks' that include MESH and ad-hoc networks.

The discussions over spectral efficiency have varied and are complicated by introduction of increased use of MIMO and AAS methods and use of various frequency bandwidths. The technical research paper discussions comparing OFDMA, WCDMA show a slight advantage in spectral efficiency for OFDMA. However, this is of minor interest in choice of OFDMA as the basic method for next generation networks. The link spectral efficiency is amplified through the use of various MIMO, AAS, adaptive MIMO-AAS, collaborative MIMO (Co-MIMO, Multi-user MIMO (MU-MIMO), virtual MIMO-AAS aggregations and more granular network topologies that help increase SNR and, thus, higher modulation rates. The comparison between OFDMA and SC-FDMA/OFDMA is highly dependent on channel characteristics which in turn depends on network topology/deployment objectives. The frequency of the spectrum band will be one of the factors that helps determine the nature of the topology and modulation scheme that is best. Lower frequencies, such as 700 MHz can't achieve high reuse factors and network granularity. And the deployments can be expected to favor broadcast, messaging and other applications. MIMO and AAS are not as beneficial.

The 'old way' to look at network performance was in improvement of spectral efficiency. The more appropriate way to judge systems today is how well they are leveraged by smart antenna, smart network station/node design, and self configuration/self-healing capabilities that more significantly impact network throughput and user experience. Shannon's law has been practically reached.

References of tests comparing OFDMA and SC-FDMA show little difference in spectral efficiency. This citation was chosen because the parties propose the use of SC-FDMA in IEEE 802.16m so would be unlikely to bias the results in favor of OFDMA: www.ieee802.org/16////tgm/contrib/C80216m-08_169r1.doc. Several independent or otherwise unbiased research papers that support this can be googled. What is perhaps more difficult to quantify are the relative improvements that can be achieved by the combination of SOFDMA, MIMO-AAS and advanced network designs due to the adaptive nature assembled capabilities. comment added by 67.183.23.74 (talk) 04:47, 31 August 2008 Robert Syputa (talk)

Robert Syputa Robert Syputa (talk) 06:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.23.74 (talk) 05:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Latency

If anyone have some latency info please add to the article.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.138.199.114 (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

As with bandwidth and other details, latency will depend on how it is measured and generation of the standard, which continues to evolve. Robert Syputa (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

What is it?

Despite having heard this term many times and reading some of the article I have no idea what WiMAX really is. Better WiFi? I think this article suffers from overused jargon. What does "last mile" mean? 71.209.251.81 (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Last mile can be better understood by clicking on the link to last mile in the WiMAX article. --Phil Holmes (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

What is radiation power and is it safe? Could you add this data to the article?

Hi, I've read that WiMax client station emits 1000 milliwatts, and this is 10 times more than Wi-Fi do, and is about the same as cell phones HF radiation. Unlike cell phones WiMax and WiFi links transfer data almost constantly (say, 50% of time). Moreover, WiMax hubs will have few channels, which can transmit data and radiate alltogether - one have to multiply 1000 mW by number of channels. This HF radiation may be dangerous.

Could please somebody add to the article info about exact emmiting powers and its conformance to various health safety standards?... Both for WiMax clients/terminals and for hub solutions? What is a safe distance from Wi-Max hubs, if it is supposed to "strike" to 30 mi/50 km ? Thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.157.117 (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Should drop 802.20 UMB

Since Qualcomm has dropped 802.20 UMB efforts in order to focus on LTE, this should be dropped from the article: http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/qualcomm-drops-umb-development-focuses-lte/2008-11-14

I am deleting this from the article.

Robert Syputa (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Comparison Table

Comparison table in this article seems to give the impression that LTE is superior to WiMAX. WiMAX for "mobile Internet" is not a correct description, since this WiMAX is for 4G general as well as LTE. This comparision table needs to be deleted. LTE has not reached any agreement on any standards on its deployment schemes and designs for Base Stations as of January 2009. Release 8 for LTE standards is yet to be announced. Chmyr (talk) 04:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Definitions

The definitions stated in this section are not true. They suggest that Mobile WiMax is the same as 802.16e-2005 which is not true. IEEE amendments define only physical and data link layers. WiMax is and ent-to-end technology BASED ON 802.16 family amendments. However, suggesting that WiMax and 802.16 is the same is a misunderstanding. Besides, 802.16e02005 is an improvement of 802.16-2004 and it contains a number of features included in the older standard. However, the text in main article suggest that these amendments have nothing common which is not true. 802.16e-2005 has additional features like SOFDMA and MIMO but it also supporrts for instance PUSC nad FUSC as 802.16-204 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.21.78.177 (talk) 10:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think if you read it correctly you'll see that what this is pretty much what the definitions say. To quote:

802.16-2004 is often called 802.16d, since that was the working party that developed the standard. It is also frequently referred to as "fixed WiMAX" since it has no support for mobility.

This is accurate and succinct.

802.16e-2005 is an amendment to 802.16-2004 and is often referred to in shortened form as 802.16e. It introduced support for mobility, amongst other things and is therefore also known as "mobile WiMAX".

Ditto. It does not say "Mobile WiMax is the same as 802.16e-2005", it says 'it is therefore also known as "mobile WiMAX"'. This is true - it's what many people in the industry (incorrectly) refer to it as, in the same way many people regard 802.11 as interchangeable with WiFi. It also makes very clear that .16e is an amendment of .16d, and so it must inevitably share features, unless every feature was amended. --Phil Holmes (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Too many "unreferenced" tags added

Just looked at the article and noticed that just about every single section on the page has a {{Unreferenced}} tag. The worst problem is that it's not even a {{Unreferencedsec}} tag. Rather than go through the entire article placing unreferencedsec templates on just about every single section, why don't we just put a helpful {{Refimprove|article|{{subst:DATE}}}} tag at the top of the article instead? I do see that citations are very badly needed however and will be working on improving this after some research. Hopefully I can find a few articles or discussion somewhere to confirm some of the claims I see. --Poet  Talk  02:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

this is sreeraj nair could u please explain me the difference between wi-fi and wimax also it would be better if u explain me wimax in a bit simpler way.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sreegemini (talk • contribs) 13:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

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)