Template talk:Comparison of mobile Internet standards

Help

I've added this so it can be used as a common reference table in the various pages for the various standards it lists. Right now it's added to WiMAX but once it's cleaned up a little I'd like to put it in the others. Any help formatting it would be much appreciated, this is my first template and I know it shows.

For the download and upload speeds for LTE, is it actually necessary to put the specific cat (3/4/5)? Why can't there just be one that is specified? Just wanting to make it simpler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.32.138.21 (talk) 05:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Spectral efficiency

This table is somewhat misleading because it does not indicate the amount of spectrum used in order to achieve the rates mentioned. This is referred to as spectral efficiency. Wimax uses 10 MHz (typically) of spectrum whereas the cdma2000 ones use 1.25 (with the exception of EV-DO Rev B which is scalable). --Lesswire 17:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting comment, and I'll see if there's a quick way of expressing that. However:

This matters from a point of view of deploying a network, whereas the purpose of this table is more general, a quick summary capabilities. Even though CDMA2000 EV-DO Rev A/0 may only need 1.25MHz to provide the proffered data rates, a user of a Rev A/0 network will be limited to those data rates, therefore the bottom line is someone interested in higher bandwidth and lower latencies may be more interested in a WiMAX network. There is another article somewhere (I think it may even be Spectral efficiency where efficiency issues are discussed more in depth.) Remember that spectrum efficiency is only one issue that would effect a decision to deploy that technology and in many cases, it really doesn't matter. WiMAX is generally using cheap spectrum anyway, at the expense of LoS power.

Ultimately networks will decide which to deploy on the basis of the resources available to them. For the rest of us, we'll determine which we use depending on whether the technology meets our requirements, and the over-all quality of the service. The latter is operator dependent. The former is described by the table. Squiggleslash 13:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Additional comment: I'm going to move the Spectral efficiencies table to a new template, as there really shouldn't be two tables in this template (this template is incorporated into various articles, that expect a single table to appear.) The template will be called Template:Comparison of Spectral efficiencies. Squiggleslash 13:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. the following are my responses to the points that you brought up:

You stated above that "WiMAX is generally using cheap spectrum". That is not true and is a myth. Wimax must use the same spectrum than any other cellular system would use. wimax is subject to the same laws of physics as the competing technologies and therefore, it must operate in a regulated spectrum that is regulated. Otherwise, the interference to other systems would be a serious problem. That is why, for example, FCC regulates the spectrum usage in the U.S.. This is why spectral efficiency is important. Spectral efficiency is reflective of the actual efficiency of an air-interface. The peak rate number in the table is not meaningful from the user perspective because those are just rates defined in the standard. As you correctly pointed out, these rates are often not achievable and are introduced to the standards for the PR reasons. I strongly suggest adding the spectral efficiency table back.

You stated above "the bottom line is someone interested in higher bandwidth and lower latencies may be more interested in a WiMAX network": Both CDMA2000 EV-DO rev B (already published) and CDMA2000 UMB (a 4G technology currently being standardized) are able to provide a user with higher practical rates than wimax. They also have QoS provisions that reduces latency and make VoIP possible on EV-DO rev B and UMB.

--Lesswire 17:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you think I meant by "cheap spectrum", but I really did mean it literally, and it's true. Spectrum in the areas WiMAX (and UMTS TDD) is being used is practically being given away in comparison to the tens of billions being charged for PCS and AWS spectrum. I'm not sure how the fact it's regulated nor the fact it's subject to the laws of physics really changes that. It's cheap spectrum, largely because it has poorer NLoS capabilities than AWS/PCS/Cellular frequencies and thus isn't as much in demand.

Your last paragraph also suggests a misunderstanding of what I wrote. Rev B and UMB may be "better" than WiMAX, but in context, the example was about someone making a choice between two standards one of which is spectrally efficient, the other of which has high bandwidth and low latency.

However the issue is dealt with, I strongly recommend against adding a seperate table to include this information. Bear in mind that this is a template: the page is incorporated into other pages. Adding additional tables will break up the structure of those pages and the maintainers of those pages would be more than justified in removing the template altogether. If the information is to be added, it needs to be in terms of an additional column, not a seperate table.

At the same time, this is not a template intended for advocacy, and it's not intended to incorporate every aspect of the various technologies used. The fact we describe the air interface technology used will give some idea to technically knowledgable readers how spectrally efficient the air interface is. I've ensured that the spectral efficiency issue is mentioned. I think it's good enough right now, and expanding the table would be inappropriate. Adding a table is absolutely not acceptable. Squiggleslash 13:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Problems

Just glancing over this table I see it needs some major work and most likely deleted/restarted. There are many falsehoods and misleading numbers. Also, none of these numbers are cited. As far as this table not intended for advocacy... it looks a little like it is (regardless if you meant it or not). This entire page boils down a very very very complicated issue into too small of an area. This ultimately always leads to misconceptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.237.78.40 (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

To the post dated 01:50, 24 July 2008, why delete something educational? Why not leave it be so others can fix it? I think this whole page is a public service and helps to demystify wireless for someone like me. 24.215.190.58 (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)alex

Well it is not educational if it is wrong. There are still many problems. Someone added "fd" after "Downlink" which I think was just vandalism. For that matter, I would say Downstream (networking) is the right term, probably with the link. And of course not "speed" (they all use the speed of light?) but bit rate would be more correct. There is a mix of refs (two raw urls to the same page!) and evil inline links. There are projections of the future which are not encyclopedic (and probably are dated by now). Needs to clarify better the distinction between LAN technologies like Wi-Fi vs. cellular phone based ones (although with iPad etc. those are blurring a bit). For that matter, WiMAX, iBurst, and Wi-Fi are product names, vs. standards that generally have numbers. And what order are the rows? Almost reverse chronological but not quite. W Nowicki (talk) 22:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

broken reference link

the link to the EsLaRed paper "Long Distance WiFi Trial.pdf" is no longer valid. there appears to be many references on the internet to this PDF, but the original is no longer being served by [1] or the english language alternative [2]. should this URL be updated to point to a PDF archive somewhere? Chillywillycd (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC) example PDF archive like [3] Chillywillycd (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)