Talk:WiMAX
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It would be good if everyone could sign their comments with the 4 twiddle (4 x '~') convention. Comments are thus idenrifiable. ww 20:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 |
This article is being improved by the Cleanup Taskforce to conform with a higher standard of article quality. It is likely to change frequently until completed. Please see its Cleanup Taskforce page for more details. |
[edit] Future use
I note there is a list of current networks using WiMAX.
This press release (18th nov. 2006) describes an planned system which will exemplify a situation where LOS-WiMAX is the "best" solution; lack of (and the risks of installing and maintaining) a copper infrastructure good enough for DSL; high cost of satellite networks... One to keep an eye on for when they finally implement it. Emyr42 22:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
“IRAQTEL selects Redline to establish Iraq’s first WiMAX network” http://www.redlinecommunications.com/news/pressreleases/2006/111806.html (Accessed 26/11/2006)
[edit] statement not true
"Another application under consideration is gaming. Sony and Microsoft are closely considering the addition of WiMAX as a feature in their next generation game console. This will allow gamers to create ad hoc networks with other players."
This statement is blatently wrong, unless we're talking about the next next generation of consoles, which would make this pure speculation and inappropriate for the article. Kevin143 07:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 |
This article has been cited as a source by a media outlet. See the 2004 press source article for details.
|
[edit] too vague -- rephrase!
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.
[edit] Small countries
I live in Bahrain, and it small island country (665 km²).
Is it possible to cover all Bahrain area using WiMAX with ability to provide 100 000 users with internet services at 1Mbit/s. how many antennas will be needed and can GSM antennas be used.
And should we wait for Global Area Network (GAN(IEEE 802.20)) . so we get always-connected devices. --Zayani 21:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Specs?
Specs? -- Toytoy 17:04, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
- What specs, as mentioned in the article, it covers up to 50 KM and at 11GHz.--Jondel 09:49, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] 802.20
The (slowly) evolving 802.20 spec has never been refered to as "compatible" with WiMax. They will likely be incompatible---
Don't agree. It depends on what you mean by compatible, I guess. Let's use the term bridgeable or routable -- and end system attached to a .20 network can communicate with one attached to a .16 network. The technical key is the Logical Link Control which was standardized years ago by the IEEE 802.2 committee. All IEEE 802 networks use the same LLC which means that they can all be bridged together and they can all fit into a routed network.
But even if you wish to broaden the term, there might be more good news ... if you want it. Currently the PAR for 802.20 says that the committee will deliver specs for both MAC and PHY. As the 802.16 standard continues to mature, it is incorporating just about everything that one might want in the .20 MAC. (the d spec, when ratified, becomes the 802.16-2000 standard; the e spec is busy incorporating mesh/mobility features). So it's possible (speculation at this date, of course) that the .20 committee will simply opt to create a different PHY spec and reuse the .16 MAC.
Compatibility has practical concerns: being compatible at a higher level such as link control and IP/SIP is being pursued by every major aspect of wired and wireless networking. But in practical terms this still can leave end users with incompatible devices because the the air-link is not compatible. Even within a standard such as 802.16e-2005 rigorous designs have to be implemented and tested for conformance and compatibility before it can be assured. There is now talk about whether common system profiles for similar spectrum and usage requirements can be 'harmonized' between 802.16e-2005 WiMAX and upcoming 3GLTE/HSOPA cellular. Even though these will use similar basic sets of technology the chances are that harmonization will not happen - at least not soon.
Without end user device compatibility handsets, laptops and other devices must use multiple or multi-mode SoC chipsets and hand-of between one system and another becomes more difficult or drags on. This adds significantly to cost, power consumption and size.
The IEEE 802.22 Cognitive Radio RAN group has shifted toward adoption of 802.16e-2005 OFDMA and MAC as the core or starting point. One reason for doing so is to take advantage of WiMAX chips, development platforms and growing pool of design talent.
802.20 is also shifting to use a broader range of FEC, HARQ, and MIMO technologies.. making it look a lot more like 802.16-2005. The reason? Obviously to broaden out it's applications from a mobile to a 'wireless Ethernet' capability able to serve multiple needs. Of course, that leads to the question of what the purpose is for 802.20 in the first place? To simply provide an industry leader their on playing field?
[edit] link ranges
The 50 km (30 miles) number actually came from the functional requirement document that IEEE 802.16 wrote before embarking on the creation of this standard. It actually relates to microwave links with very heavily directive antennas. At microwave frequencies, there isn't any point to go with lowly directional antennas, because there is no gain from multipath propagation. Systems in the millimeter bands (2-11 GHz) will have lower directional antenna gain to be able to have some gain from multipath components. Typical link-distances (on paper) will be 3-4 km in suburban environments. For mobile systems, where the handset has virtually no gain, the linkbudgets are mathematically similar to those of CDMA, with practical link-distances (using 3G channel models) of around 350 meters.
A similar story holds for the throughput number of 70 Mbps that is often thrown around. Analyses show that for the mobile component, throughput rates of the PHY are only larger than those of the high-end 3G specs for very short ranges (less than 50 meters). Since the MAC was originally written for very high throughput systems where some efficiency could be easily sacrificed for simplicity and structure, it is questionable whether the throughput above the MAC will be competitive with 3G, let alone substantially better.
People who hence expect (per the Intel hype) to be able to run 70 Mbps at 50 km distance with a handset are hence going to be slightly disappointed. Commercially you should expect end users to get symmetrical speeds of up to 10Mbps access if in line of site at over 8Km. If in a NLOS environment the distances will be around 2Km and the speeds may be lower especially on the uplink.
[edit] Understandability
Should have more links in the article to other articles... Examples: amortization? ASIC?
[edit] Intro paragraph
Could someone please rewrite the opening paragraph in plain English? The information about "IEEE 802.16" and "working group number 16 of IEEE 802" tells me nothing about what WIMAX actually is. How about something like "WIMAX is a technology standard for delivering broadband Internet over wide areas" (I'm not sure if that's actually what it is.) The cryptic IEEE stuff should be pushed down (way down) into the article. --Lee Hunter 20:22, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] WiMAX in New Orleans
Here’s an interesting link [2]. Someone may want to put it in the article. -- Thorpe talk 10:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] WiMAX in Estonia
15. sept 2005 - near Tallinn, Estonia a WiMAX area was launched with range ~30km. Provided by Norby Telecom [3] (web page in estonian or russian).
[edit] Second Para - Reference to WiFi
It's unclear to me why the article starts out its description of WiMAX with what appears to be an obscure reference to WiFi:
"Wi-Fi also extends to all flavors of wired ethernet..."
- Tony Close
[edit] This article needs reworking
It contains patches of incoherent jibberish adn 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.
[edit] real world tests
From the Register's article; Behzed Nadji, AT&T's Chief Architect [said] range of 3 to 5 miles and 2 Mbit/s then one site rarely saw throughput rise above 500 kbit/s.
Does anybody have access to the actual test report? It wasn't linked from the article unfortunately. Mozzerati 10:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] 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.
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.
[edit] Removing irrelevant links
I've just removed numerous links to manufacturers of devices and test equipment, since they provide no insight into the technology. Moreover, Wikipedia is not a link farm or web directory. If anybody disagrees with this, please let me know your reasons. Mindmatrix 21:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Corrected a typo
Changed specrutm to spectrum
Amit 203.187.132.68 07:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WirelessMAN
Although WiMAX seems to be becoming the more common term, I find it odd that nowhere does this article mention that 802.16 is officially called WirelessMAN (see http://www.ieee802.org/16/).
[edit] Simplification
As a reader, it seems to information needs an improved structure of organization. It should start with creating more and better titles and subtitles for someone who needs specific information. Examples are "The Spectrum" "Hurdles" "Advantages" "Pros/Cons" "Use In Today's World" "Coverage" "Competing Technologies" "Goals or Achievements" "Specifications" and many others. Some are duplicates but I think a better structure of headings and a more plentiful amount of them would help me find out what I need to know quickly. Very sepecific and technical terms are used, therefore, references after the word is used on the page would make it helpful. The text, as I stress, should be much better organized and simplified for my understanding.
[edit] Rewrite
I've given this a fairly substantial re-write. I've tried to get rid of some of the contentious stuff, given it a slightly better flow, and got rid of the product announcements, since these seemed to be getting out of hand. I think it's better now, but YMMV. --Phil Holmes 16:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 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 unneccessary and confusing to most people looking for information on WiMax. Coreyem 16:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] spectrum used
the article says that
"The original WiMAX standard (IEEE 802.16) specified WiMAX in the 10 to 66 GHz range. 802.16a, updated in 2004 to 802.16-2004 (also known as 802.16d), added support for the 2 to 11 GHz range."
I understand that therefore WiMax can use the 2 to 66 GHz range. Later the article says that
"Wi-Fi is a Wireless Local Area Network (LAN) technology that works in unlicensed spectrum, using the 2.4GHz and 5 GHz bands. Wi-Fi is a cheap and easy way of providing local connectivity at high speed. WiMAX uses licenced spectrum and has strong authentication mechanisms built in."
If Wi-Fi operates in the 2.4 and 5 GHz bands and WiMax can use the 2 to 66GHz range, then there is an overlap. WiMAx has even been deployed in London in the 5.8 lightly licensed spectrum.
Theoretically, WiMAX can operate in any of the spectrum you point to (2 to 66 GHz). However, there are practical restrictions on that. In licensed spectrum, the use of that spectrum has to be licensed for that purpose, and just because the IEEE designed a system to be able to use some spectrum, doesn't mean that it's licensed to do so. It can definitely be used in the same spectrum as WiFi, since this is unlicensed and (AFAIK) there are no restrictions of which applications can use that spectrum. However, there are restrictions in terms of power, etc., which make unlicensed spectrum less attractive. As a result, most 802.16e deployments are expected to be in licensed bands, in particular 3.5 GHz, 2.5 GHz and 2.3 GHz. HTH. --Phil Holmes 12:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] UMTS/HSOPA/LTE
I cleaned up the HSOPA thing (the author named the section for the committee that's developing UMTS, and there were a lot of confusing switches in terminology that were probably wrong. Also it suggested HSOPA (which, apparently, is what it was referring to) was a done deal, whereas it's actually a proposal before the LTE (which deals with a lot more than just air interface standards...)
At the risk of sounding hypocritical given I added the UMTS-TDD part, it strikes me that there's way too much information in that whole area. The UMTS section should really, in this context, encompass UMTS, UMTS-TDD, and UMTS over HSOPA, and should probably be about a third as long. This article is primarily about WiMAX, not WiMAX's competitors. It shouldn't be split into two independent parts as it is now. I'll not do it yet, because I fear I may have offended the original author who I saw put a lot of work into it last night and I've already made a huge number of changes; I'd be interested in feedback though and maybe I'll work on it next week. Squiggleslash 17:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Absolutly agree Dilane 03:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok. I just rewrote the entire "Competing standards" area. I tried to ensure all the core points made under each heading were included, and moved the bulk of the information to the attached template. I hope I haven't offended anyone, as I've removed a lot of stuff that I know a lot of people worked on, but I honestly don't think the competition section should have been anything like as long and specific as it was. Squiggleslash 14:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] clean up
Reduced number of primary sections. Created uses. Got rid of some wording to stay in 32K.
Need to be done: - as mentionned 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)
