Talk:Wireless Gigabit Alliance

	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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Telecommunications Low‑importance

	Telecommunication portal 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.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WP:OTHERSTUFF

Other organizations with similar goals and industry presence also have a wikipage: Wireless HD. 802geek (talk) 22:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more on competition and progress

Also on likely timescales of product availability. - Rod57 (talk) 04:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification needed

In the first paragraph, it says 802.11ad is "50x faster" than the highest 'n' speed, but the second paragraph says it's "10x faster" than 'n' throughput. Which is it? Dan428 (talk) 06:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indoor Propagation Claims Untrue

3rd paragraph states: "Depending on the material of the wall, the 60 GHz signal can penetrate walls similarly to the lower Wi-Fi bands with adequate antenna gain." This may be in some way mathematically true but is extremely misleading. Strictly from personal experience installing WirelessHD transceivers in US homes (sorry no references), I've never managed to get a 60GHz signal (WirelessHD) to pass through a single wall. I've also never managed to get it to pass reliably through a glass-door A/V cabinet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.32.28.113 (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Table for center frequencies wrong?

According to 802.11ad-2012 the centerfrequency is 56.16GHz + Channel*2160MHz 21.3.1 and Annex E, E.1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.206.3.117 (talk) 04:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 16 is a dead link

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=1491267

a more permanent one, albeit behind a pay wall — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.248.233.50 (talk) 13:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, but with the current FCC link. Conquerist (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References to 802.15 and Zigbee without explanation

I would love for zigbee to implement this standard but I dont see any evidence of that or justification for the reference. Also, 802.15 is not in the 802.11 family. If we want to discuss mesh networks in the 802.11 family, I think we should link to 802.11s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.244.221.70 (talk) 06:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from 802.11ad

It doesn't seem right to redirect from a standard protocol to a trade association. It should be possible to describe 802.11ad as a technical standard independently from any company involved in its creation, and to describe a trade association without naming bandwidths of channels in protocols they have created. 2001:A62:1198:8DF1:40BE:5ECE:4A88:2287 (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your concern. The risk, of course, is that your new article might be deleted because of lack of independent sources. Note that Wikipedia articles are "topics", and not just definitions. The burden of proof would be on the editor making the split to show enough sources that are not just the standards themselves, and do not mention the alliance. Otherwise the split-off article would just be deleted eventually anyway. Since the alliance came and went, to me it might be more natural to have an article on the protocol and redirect the alliance to that (since the alliance had no other purpose than promote that protocol). Feel free to get the admin attention needed to do that, but it might not be worth the effort. W Nowicki (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]