|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mobile broadband article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
This sounds like a commercial. Granted, there is some good info here, but there seems to be too much emphasis on branding, ie Mobile Broadband, Office Broadband....
- I came in to say the same thing, this is an advert and not what i came to find out which was the reason all these services have unreasonable download limits. I'm not an editor so don't know how to flag this but this seems like a commercial to me rather than what i was looking for. --18.104.22.168 (talk) 12:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to chime in with my two cents. This article does not have any useful information and the information given is unsourced or vague. I do not know if changes have been made since the previous comments, however I thought it was more of a rant against carriers marketing than anything. Ex: "A misleading vendor tactic is to quote the peak speed as the user speed. This is like quoting exchange total speed for DSL or total cable bandwidth for Cable users. It has little resemblance to real world performance" amongst other lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 05:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
All the comparisons at the bottom link to UK pricing. There should be links to US and other coutries' prices on Mobile Broadband. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacfalcon (talk • contribs) 20:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Moving (renaming) this page to Cellular broadband
"In 2009 actions were taken by the telecommunication industry that led many to believe that price fixing was taking place." Which people? I came here looking for info about possibe price fixing, but I can't find anything anywhere else that refers to possibe mobile broadband price fixing. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC) Dee Mann (talk) 14:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC) what about the assertion that one outage indicates that the same network is being shared? Innacurrate - all carriers would have suffered the outage - but only one did.
- The section about the United States is POV. It also has no secondary sources cited. But it should. ~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
The entire US section is completely useless. It has no sourced data and reads more like a conspiracy theory rant than an informational section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 05:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
IPSec across IPv4 to IPv6 domain
My research is studies the incompatibilities issues on deploying IPSec ESP in providing end to end security between heterogeneous IPv4 and IPv6 networks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 01:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
For anyone wishing to improve this article EDGE, HSPA and LTE: The Mobile Broadband Advantage has a LOT of information and is very well sourced, though the title strongly suggests bias I couldn't really find any, seems to stick to the facts and VERY technical. (hosted by AT&T, but not authored by it) TimL (talk) 02:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
African/South American Opportunity
I am an educator in a distance learning class.
One of my associates is from Zimbabwe and is writing a paper on implementing distance learning in his country.
I sent him this article and asked him what he was going to use as infrastructure. He sent me the link to Econet Wireless in Zimbabwe.
I've created two links in the table ... one that points to Econet which indicates that Econet is a wired protocol and an external link to Econet Wireless.
I don't have the time (I'm learning something else ...) or the expertise (Please give me credit for realizing that Econet and Econet Wireless are different subjects, but may be related).
I believe that Africa and South America might be investment opportunities for Socially minded investors ... and that this article would stand a good chance to get people thinking in that direction. Those of you monitoring this article may want to consider writing a narrative framing this opportunity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the thought. It looks like Econet has nothing to do with Zimbabwe, so I changed the wikilink to Econet Wireless. We normally do not put external links inline, so I took that one out. Looks like someone also added Shouth Africa in the wrong place too, so I moved that into the table. W Nowicki (talk) 16:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Really "Internet access"?
- strictly speaking Mobile Internet as the QOS doesn't meet international Broadband definitions
As per my work on the broadband article, part of that it clearly true: the word "broadband" is just a marketing buzzword to mean Internet access, it has no technical meaning. I have no idea however what is meant by the "QOS" (presumably Quality of Service?) meeting any "international Broadband definitions". As far as I can tell, the definition is whatever the company marketing the products wants. Independent of if this gets moved to, say, Mobile Internet access, the article clearly needs sourcing and formatting work. Also I noticed that Mobile Internet redirects to Mobile Web which might not be right. Wireless Internet goes to Wireless Internet Protocol while Wireless internet goes to Wi-Fi which might not be right either. Wireless Internet access goes nowhere yet. Wireless broadband internet goes to Wireless WAN which is mostly unsourced and not clear. I would say most of the Wireless X should go to Wireless broadband (perhaps renamed to Wireless Internet?). That would then talk about mostly fixed wireless, and then keep mobile into this article. W Nowicki (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I would like to address the "confusing" tag as well by having more introductory text after the lead, instead of jumping right into alphabet soup. Most readers will not care which acronym they use, so that can be moved later. It is already in a list at the end, but needs better prose with all the buzzwords and acronyms spelled out. W Nowicki (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Partly done. I expanded the lead a bit. Hopefully this at least partly addresses the "confusing" tag. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Done. Over the last several days I did quite a bit more work on this article. Hopefully it is better. It would be good for someone with a fresh pair of eyes to review it. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 05:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I'd not merge with Wireless Broadband. Wireless Broadband is not Mobile. It is outdoor Fixed aerials. It has controlled contention and can use nearly any protocol, even Cable DOCSIS, Wireless Broadband usually has no live mast handover or Mobility. Most are not Nomadic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Also oppose a merge. It looks like it was proposed two years ago, with no rationale given. As I said above, "Wireless" should concentrate on the fixed technologies, with a referral to this article for the plethora now of mobile technologies. Both need to be beefed up with sources and updates. Much has happened over the past two years. W Nowicki (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I removed the outdated stuff that says some stuff will happen by the end of 2010 but "NellieBly" put it back on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditingAlert (talk • contribs) 02:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
The article ends with several sections that are just lists of wikilinks: "Types of devices used", "Service providers", "Device manufactures", and "Technologies". None of them include references. Some repeat information given earlier in the article. Some are quite long. I suspect that some are currently incomplete. Some seem like they will be hard to keep up-to-date over time. Are these lists really necessary? Do they make a valuable contribution? I'd suggest merging some of this information into the earlier parts of the article ("Types of devices used" into "Description", "Technologies" into "Generations") and then deleting all four sections. What do others think? --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 14:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Done. I went ahead and deleted the lists after merging some information into other sections. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
2G vs. 3G coverage?
There are two seemingly contradictory statements in the article. Which one is correct?
From the "Development" section:
- The global Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) family of standards - which includes GSM, EDGE, WCDMA, HSPA and LTE – is the most widespread way to deliver mobile broadband. 3GPP standards are serving about 90 percent of the world’s mobile subscribers.[when?]
From the "Generations" section:
- In 2011, 90% of the world's population lived in areas with 2G coverage, while 45% lived in areas with 2G and 3G coverage.
- "The World in 2011: ITC Facts and Figures", International Telecommunications Unions (ITU), Geneva, 2011
- Done. I went ahead and deleted the first and unsourced statement from the development section. Confusingly 3GPP includes some 2G and 4G technologies in addition to 3G, so it is possible that both statements were correct. Still, I think that saying this just once is less confusing. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)