Talk:Comparison of wireless data standards/Archive 1

NPOV dispute?
The article says its NPOV is disputed, but I see nothing on this talk page to support this. Is this just a leftover? --207.173.201.99 (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I moved this topic to the top. I agree, nothing in this article seems to violate [NPOV]. I think it should be removed. --Rbenech (talk) 21:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Petzi1969 (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

 * Well, as of yet, there is nothing in it. It is also titled rather badly. J Milburn 04:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see Manual of Style (capital letters), and also, what is already there could be argued to be original research, especially when unsourced. Why has this article been created when there is, as of yet, no content? J Milburn 04:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I have to start somewhere, or must all wiki article appear fully formed? Do I have to do it all myself or can others work on my structure? Also your "original research" concerns are rash and misplaced: The idea is to gather existing information about the different standards in one place - I'm not creating any new information just consolidating it. Is this so challenging to work out? Also I state above that references are strictly required, obviously they will not be unsourced. Is this just your standard knee-jerk response to all new articles? Maybe you should read and consider before you respond. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darkov (talk • contribs) 04:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

No, it is not my typical response. I do not expect everything to come fully formed, I expect it to come with sourced content- yours, if it has content, is not sourced. Also, the content that is there is not actually directly relevent to the subject of the article, it is not actually comparing them. I also expect it to come with a decent title- this does not have a decent title. Perhaps sections? Yeah, you have sections- shame they are empty and badly named. Something else that is nice- copyedited text and formatting. Perhaps original research was the wrong tag, I apologize, instead, I'll put     and perhaps a few others? J Milburn 04:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh please, I create an article with some structure, which you obviously don't understand, and within a few minutes you threaten deletion and tagging. You go on about the title which you seem to think gives you some moral justification for your stance. You also don't like the naming of the sections, although you don't understand them. How are people supposed to collaborate with people as petty as you around? If you're bored or lonely, please go to another forum to take out your frustrations, other than my article. Darkov 05:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there any need to be like that? I am threatening tagging only response to you handling the fact I added one tag badly. There are numerous problems with this article, that is what I am doing- giving input. As you have realized, I know little of wireless data standards, and so, instead of editing the article, I offer my contributions on the talk page. I 'go on about' the title because it does not match Wikipedia policy. I cannot see how I am being petty- the fact that you resolutely stand by the article as it is, when there are blatantly numerous issues, is petty. As you have explained, it is not 'your' article, I have as much right to contribute to it as you have. The difference between what were are doing is that I am criticizing an article, which you happen to have written, and you are attacking me. J Milburn 05:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You showed up here with a bombastic attitude and without taking some care in what you were saying. You made unfounded statements and tagged accordingly. That's got little to do with the article and a lot to do with you. So I took you on because you were the problem at hand. Maybe you should give people who are working in good faith the benefit of the doubt and take some time before you jump to conclusions. Clearly this article isn't vandalism, it's not original research (how can restating specifications that are already known be original?), in fact it's a very good idea. Just as it's not "my article" it's not "your wiki". You should be more circumspect lest you bring attention to your own shortcomings.Darkov 12:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

(Fixed spelling errors, hope you don't mind. --Rbenech (talk) 21:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC))

Strict Reference Policy
Please note that the whole point of this article is to gather reference information about these different standards. In light of that any edits that do not provide verifiable references will be reverted. You have been warned! Darkov 04:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

See below for resources to help with this policy (or probably more correctly goal) Darkov 03:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, as a practical matter it's easier to get information from the Wikipedia entries for each of the standards, but if those articles have a reference please copy it into our reference section, otherwise a reference needs to be found.Darkov 16:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Reference Collection
To encourage strict referencing of data from verifiable sources, I'm putting together a list of reference materials at the bottom of the article. I'm going to try to find at least one major source of information for each of the different standards being discussed. Please consult these, or add your own, as you edit the article. Even if you can't be bothered adding data to the article if you know of a good reference please add it and it will be used. Ideally information should come from multiple sourced becuase there's almost certainly bias in the reporting of some comparative data. Darkov 03:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Table in Spectral Efficiency Article
In Spectral efficiency there is a table that would fit in nicely here. Maybe it would be a good idea to move it and replace it with a reference here. It needs work anyway. Darkov 18:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't contain that much useful information in that most of the standards it lists do not overlap with the data standards this table is oriented towards. I would just clean up the one we have. Two additional columns that would be useful would be System Spectral Efficiency by site and by km2, though the latter may be an issue where there's no reasonable way to determine the approximate number of cells per km2. Squiggleslash 18:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe relating range and spectral efficiency makes more sense. Range is something I'm trying to figure out how to incorporate properly. It affects most performance figures, but it involves several data points at least. Maybe some graphs, but finding reliable data for single data points is hard enough. Darkov 05:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Bandwidth table
This needs a little cleaning up.

1. I'm concerned about the "typical downlink" column. Yesterday at some point an editor added his or her own experiences of Sprint. While this is useful, it also violates Wikipedia's "No original research" policy, and I can see it being hard to keep that column free of original research as it pretty much encourages it through it's existance. Original research is also a problem because more congested networks will show up a technology as being poorer than it is. We probably should delete the column until a neutral third party actually does quotable research, and then add it with heavy emphasis on that (and other) reports.

2. The Major Users column is redundant (the information is available at the various pages relating to that technology) and strikes me as more PR than useful information. Why "Cingular and T-Mobile"? How are they significant compared to, say, Vodafone?

I think both columns should be removed. What do others think? --Squiggleslash 13:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed with point 2. Column has been removed.  Oli Filth 23:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "Typical Downlink throughput" Data seems unreliable.67.167.106.3 (talk) 23:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Where is IEEE 802.15 on this page?
Is the 802.15 PAN covered somewhere in this page without using the term? I think perhaps the whole page may be in need of a bit of WP:cleanup.

How local is Local? How wide is Wide?
I came to the article because I am investigating what wireless standard to use for a point-to-point mesh covering a city of one million people. This is for use as part of a wireless community network. I believe the article would be improved if it explained the difference between Local and Wide. Obviously Wide is wider, but how wide? I lack the knowledge to add this. HairyWombat (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Presumably, anything with a cellular architecture is a wide-area system. Campus and hotspot networks of 802.11 protocols may qualify them for being called wide-area, but that's not how they are usually used or what they were designed for. Forgotten futurist (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Local and Wide can be interpreted to mean different 'distance from antennas' depending on the situation. In all cases, Wide implies a large distance (kilometers) whereas Local implies smaller distance (meters).  It would be helpful to have a table like the following added to the introduction (primarily adding the units of measure and the common 'ranges' that would be used to describe them. --Rbenech (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * {| class="wikitable"

! Name ! Range ! Units ! Standards
 * Wide (WAN)
 * regional, city wide, urban
 * kilometers/miles
 * CDMA,3G, LTE...
 * Local (LAN)
 * immediate area, yelling distance,
 * meters/yards
 * Wifi (802.1x)...
 * Personal (PAN)
 * line of sight (indoors), not thru walls, in the room
 * centimeters/inches, meters
 * Bluetooth, Zigbee, Wireless USB...
 * }
 * centimeters/inches, meters
 * Bluetooth, Zigbee, Wireless USB...
 * }

Suggestion for plots and additional columns
The tables should be extended with a column showing when the first commercial product or commercial service was available, and/or a column showing when the standard was ratified.

Next step would be to create a plot showing data rate vs time for various standard families. Mange01 (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Peak bit rate and throughput -- metricate
I have removed metricate from this section for several reasons:

First, it is not clear to me what the SI units are for bit rates. The linked SI page does not have the word "bit" on it. Bits per second and, by extension, megabits per second seems pretty basic to me. "Second" is an SI unit and I can't see how you're going to derive bits from other SI units.

Second, if in fact there is some SI usage that is different from megabits per second, then we should consider that the data communication industry uses that term almost exclusively. "Bits" is spelled out to avoid confusion with "bytes", since a megabyte is also a common measure in the computer industry.

Therefore, I think that Mbits/sec is an entirely appropriate usage here, being consistent with industry use. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 14:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree. With bytes there is often a confusion between the "binary" megabyte (1024x1024) used by programmers vs the more SI milion, but since there were megahertz for example before computers, bit rates were always decimal million. W Nowicki (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

RFID, NFC, or CIR
Why no mention of either RFID, NFC, or CIR? - Topher67 (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Added to "See also" section Topher67 (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thread (network protocol)
In July 2015, a new wireless standard called Thread (network protocol) was introduced, somewhat as a competitor to ZigBee, etc. Uses same 802.15.4, but is IP addressable with security features. Somebody more knowledgeable than I should enter this into the comparison. Nerfer (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Comparison of wireless data standards. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.wimaxforum.org/news/downloads/Mobile_WiMAX_Part2_Comparative_Analysis.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070203051933/http://www.btdesigner.com/pdfs/KenNoblittComparison.pdf to http://www.btdesigner.com/pdfs/KenNoblittComparison.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)