Jump to content

Talk:Clearwire

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Public company

[edit]

The part on the top right of the article should be updated to show Clearwire is now a public company. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.168.180.49 (talk • contribs).

I updated the article including the infobox you mentioned for the March 8, 2007 IPO. --Brianhe 01:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Only about 14% of the company's shares went public. Clearwire is still 86% privately owned.

Clearwire's performance as a public company should be updated from 2011. Retrospector87 (talk) 19:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising Claims and Controversy

[edit]

I'm wondering if we should add a section about advertising and controversy. Based on my experience with Clearwire reps in Seattle (mainly at Pacific Place downtown), I have some serious concerns about Clearwire's marketing. They claim, among other things, that the service is mobile (it's not - the modem is AC-powered), secure (though no one with the company can explain how), and fast (user reports vary quite a bit, as with other broadband services). See numerous comments on my blog entry here. I don't know if this warrants a separate section by Wikipedia standards, but the company is very marketing-heavy, and that marketing hinges on some very tenuous claims. Since Clearwire markets to the less-Internet-savvy, I think it's important to acknowledge these issues. Thoughts? JustinBaeder 05:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like original research to me. Brianhe 05:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to agree with Brianhe, Justin, but the class action lawsuit (and related legal action) that has been initiated since you posted includes a complaint concerning exactly the sort of advert/marketing practices you appear to object to. If you'd like to research that legal action more fully, and introduce any properly cited findings into the Criticism and Legal Action section of the article, that would certainly be a permissable and helpful addition to that (currently) rather terse section. Ohiostandard (talk) 08:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is mobile, assuming you buy/lease a USB Modem from them. Andy5421 (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linking introductory rates to Tying (Razor and blades business model)

[edit]

I do not feel that Clearwire's introductory offers fit into the category of tying. By Wikipedia's own definition "Tying is the practice of making the sale of one good (the tying good) to the de facto or de jure customer conditional on the purchase of a second distinctive good (the tied good)." There is no second distinctive good with this intro offer, it is merely an increase in price. I would like thoughts on this subject before I change it.

--Johnncyber 02:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's closer to bait and switch, but the bait is delivered. See False advertising#Introductory offers. 216.152.208.1 02:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Ok, I thought I would open up discussion on why it was tagged as Advert. I do not see how this is an advertisement. I explains the company from a financial prospect and explains the services that the company provides. It does not attempt to sell the reader on anything. Please discuss. MarkRomero 03:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the cause for this either. -- Brianhe 02:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from a very rose-colored view of the company, I see no blatant advertising going on here. Still, I think it should be balanced with some opposing views. I've kicked that off with the Criticism section. 216.152.208.1 02:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removed {{Advert}} tag since there was no opposition. Brianhe 22:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It reads like an advertisement to me. The Advert tag should be added in my opinion, or at least an NPOV tag. Fatla00 03:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McCaw is not the "Founder" of Clearwire

[edit]

I corrected the misinformation that Craig McCaw was the founder of Clearwire. It was "reverted" without any discussion in Wiki terms, as best I understand it. The idea that Mr. McCaw founded Clearwire is incorrect information, and information that is frequently mistaken in the press. He bought into Clearwire long after the company got its start. For some reason the company continues to promote the idea that Mr. McCaw founded Clearwire. He did not. Clearwire was formed from a spin-off by Dallas investors led by Rusty Rose, former owner of the Texas Rangers. Clearwire operated out of Dallas for at least five years prior to Mr. McCaw's involvement with the company. Does someone have other information showing how Mr. McCaw was involved with Clearwire back then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.35.174.247 (talk) 00:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found two confirmations of founding by McCaw in the existing article references. Added these citations to the appropriate sentence of the article. If there's some source for the assertion above, please present it. -- Brianhe 02:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, in other words, no discussion. Citing the company's internet site as fact is comical when Clearwire, for some reason, is the one promoting the idea that McCaw founded the company. Second, citing an article in the press as gospel is usually ok, but in this instance the press has mistakenly repeated that McCaw is the founder. So you are asking me to provide evidence to prove a negative. This is exactly the sort of stuff that gives user-generated content a bad name. So what would you like me to show you? Would you like me to send you some email from Clearwire officials long before McCaw was ever connected to the company? If I had a Lexus/Nexus account we could do searches on old press articles?? Or, did you want to discuss, or simply leave it wrong the way it is? I have not gone back in to change the misinformation again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.35.174.247 (talk) 20:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to take such a negative tone, 247. I've only asked for some evidence of what you're saying is true. A lexis/nexis search would be great. Or maybe an old newspaper article or anything else. So far we have two published sources saying he was the founder, and your word that he was not. Show us how you know what you say you know, that's all. You might want to review Wikipedia:Reliable sources for guidance. -- Brianhe 22:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source: 1999 Dallas phone book, published by Southwestern Bell. Clearwire listed. 2000 Hoovers Online Directory. Profile of Clearwire, no mention of Mr. McCaw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.35.174.247 (talk) 20:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can also try looking through the archives at news.google.com. There appears to have been a number of Texas based Clearwire entities prior to 2003 (one example). A corporate history section would be a good development for this article. – Zedla 02:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Found a Dallas Business Journal article on this, created "Company origins" section. Bottom line, it's anyone's opinion whether he founded the current company or not, since there was a forerunner company with a similar but non identical name. Brianhe 04:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, how can it be "anyone's opinion whether" McCaw founded the company? Your revised history---congratulations for finally getting this right---clearly states the company was founded by investors led by Edward "Rusty" Rose, then acquired by McCaw in 2004. So if he acquired Clearwire in 2004 how did he "found" Clearwire in 2003? Thanks for the changes.....and would appreciate some additional common sense being applied here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.35.174.247 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 18 November 2007

Clearwire Corporation was founded by McCaw and is totally different then Clearwire Technologies, as the article states. They are two separate business entites, and this article is about the former, therefore the article is correct in stating that McCaw is the founder of Clearwire CORP. MarkRomero (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://clearwire.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.75.98.118 (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three recent additions to the Criticism section that I deleted

[edit]

Since all three paragraphs were cited, I wanted to justify my changes, and there wasn't enough room in the edit summary, since all three have something wrong with it.

http://www.clearwiresucks.com is a blog, and is therefore not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia standards.

The youtube video demonstrating the lower-than-advertised bandwidth is considered original research and is also not allowed by Wikipedia standards.

The class action lawsuit is more interesting and I almost left it in. However, the citation is from the law firm that is launching the suit, which makes it a primary source, and those are also discouraged on Wikipedia for reasons of undue weight and verifiability. I did a little Googling for "Clearwire class action" and the only relevant hits were for blogs and for the law firm, i.e. no reputable news outlets have covered this lawsuit, so I cannot yet say that it is notable. If and when third party reputable news sources cover the class action lawsuit against Clearwire, it can be added to the article at that time.

I don't want to give the appearance of whitewashing. Based on the numerous blogs and the lawsuit, it does appear that maybe Clearwire is not that hot of an ISP. But to avoid legal implications we need to be very careful about where all the information comes from and that we are confident in standing by our sources. And a blog, a YouTube video, and a statement from a law firm, sorry, those are not sources I can stand by. --Jaysweet (talk) 12:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Legal issues" are a non-issue. 128.205.75.121 (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to the class action complaint filed on April 23, 2009: http://www.scribd.com/doc/14574423/Clear-Wire-Complaint-class-action —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.64.54 (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what should go in a "Criticism" section: information verifiable via articles from reputable news sources. If for example Walt Mossberg reports on unreliability and a high rate of user criticism, that would be acceptable. Or a wire service report on a lawsuit. What should not go in are user-created sites, comments to articles (even if there are a LOT of comments), and a sampling of user reviews that is scientifically insignificant (or as on DSL Reports, in direct conflict with an overall positive rating for the ISP!).
I understand that some people may want to warn others not to use an ISP for various reasons. You'll find that all ISPs have some very rabid detractors - and they all probably should. But only truly newsworthy criticism should appear in Wikipedia. HelpnWP (talk) 00:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of these earlier remarks were valid, in my opinion, except the sweeping assertion that "legal issues are an non-issue". In particular, I think Jaysweet was right to delete any reference to a class-action suit when he did since at the time it had not yet been filed! But since it has now been filed, and has been reported on by Reuters and many other mainstream outlets, I've summarized it in a few lines. Ohiostandard (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

In light of lawsuits filed since the "Criticism" section was first created, I've changed the section name to "Criticism and Legal Action". Anyone interested in expanding the section re in-progress lawsuits, btw, might want to use the official Washington State case search site to search for "Clearwire" in the Superior Court section for "King County", although I understand that Clearwire has requested a removal of at least one of the cases to U.S. District (i.e. Federal, rather than State) court. Ohiostandard (talk) 08:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the information in the criticism section may not meet NPOV criteria because it states an opinion without any sources to back that up. The wording of that section needs to be carefully edited to avoid weasel words and editorial opinion. The contract terms have probably changed a fair amount by now as well. I'd try to clean this up, but I have a conflict of interest and shouldn't make significant changes to the article. 184.76.29.74 (talk) 01:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the criticism of Clearwire based on their contract language that allows them to contact their customers even if the customers are on the National Do-Not-Call Registry. This is in the contract as a courtesy; since the customers and Clearwire have a business relationship, the National DNC registry would not apply anyways. The contract language simply makes it explicit, rather than using the implicity implied right to call.

Shareholder data

[edit]

The second paragraph states "On May 7, 2008, Clearwire and Sprint Nextel's wireless broadband unit Xohm announced their intent to merge...". Did they actually merge? Some articles I've come across, like this one: http://www.unstrung.com/document.asp?doc_id=179798 portray some of the companies listed as competitors. The article mentions Comcast and Sprint as moving into the same market as Clearwire, even though they both will be using Clearwire's network. Seems like an odd thing to do if Sprint owns half of Clearwire and Comcast also owns some smaller portion. The citation seems to be an article from before the actual merger (if it happened), and it's now a dead link to Forbes.com. 66.56.15.76 (talk) 02:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leading "Citations" template

[edit]

I removed the cite template that user Ernestvoice had placed at the top of the article on 7 April 2009. It's my opinion that it was a bit of an overkill for a generally well-documented article that has only two inline "citation needed" tags. If Ernestvoice or any other user disagrees, however, and chooses to restore it, I'll not object. I've informed Ernestvoice of this change on his talk page, btw. Ohiostandard (talk) 09:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comcast

[edit]

Comcast is not only reselling the 4G service in Portland. I am in Philadelphia and they are aggressively advertising it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.117.20 (talk) 07:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In 2009, when the post above was submitted, Comcast was also selling mobile internet services in the Atlanta, GA, area. I believe that, through its partnership with Sprint/Nextel, Clear/Clearwire was sharing the WiMAX system in this market with Sprint/Nextel; Comcast was then reselling services from one of these two, but had equipment identical to that being offered by Clear/Clearwire which makes me believe it was Clear/Clearwire's service. Whether both were then reselling Sprint/Nextel's service, or Sprint/Nextel was reselling Clear/Clearwire's, I'm not sure. 67.191.186.24 (talk) 05:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)bbump[reply]

Listing "Terms of Service and End User License Agreement"

[edit]

Someone has deleted several times clearwire's Terms of Service and End User License Agreement, Including this Agreement is allowed as is puts out in the open how Clearwire treats people 'Copyright' is NOT a factor as any party to the agreement may post it unless there is a clause in the agreement otherwise —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.242.14 (talk) 02:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am the editor who is deleting this, as it is a copyright violation to cut and paste the agreement (which is copyrighted, I checked) into Wikipedia. Also, Wikipedia is not the place to air your grievances with a company - see Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. We try and maintain a neutral point of view. That is not to say criticism is not allowed, just that it must be referenced from a reliable, third party source. Personal experience or forums are not considered reliable, but articles in established newspapers or magazines would be. I hope this helps you. SeaphotoTalk 03:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

an agreement between two or more parties cannot be copyrighted without the concent of ALL parties to the agreement, also I dont have a dispute with clearwire, I was trying to show how Clearwire does not allow phone over internet (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality ) so there should be a link between the Network_neutrality article and the issue about Clearwire's blocking phone over internet 184.76.242.14 (talk) 03:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The proof is on their website, with the copyright notice at the bottom of each page. I am trying to guide you so that you don't get banned for copyright violations. The best way to make your point is to find a verifiable, third party source for your assertion. Posting the entire agreement is simply not acceptable. I urge you to read What is tendentious editing? before you continue along this path, as I think you can make your point without this addition. SeaphotoTalk 04:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a link to the Net Neutrality to the Clearwire page and/or a short section in the Net Neutrality about the Clearwire/Vonage issue would satisfy what I am trying to add to the two articles as the Clearwire/Vonage issue is one of the reasons for the Net Neutrality laws 184.76.242.14 (talk) 04:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And so what you are saying that parts of the agreements cant be used, and would not that cause a bait-and-switch issue if people cant see the agreement, and what happened to using short sections of the copyrited agreement that is relevant to an article under fair-use ? 184.76.242.14 (talk) 04:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, this (contributing to your articles) is a waste of my time 184.76.242.14 (talk) 04:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Issue resolved then? You could use inline quotes or block quotes from the Agreement to support any relevant claims instead of copy-pasting the whole text . -- ErnestVoice (User) (Talk) 06:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Vonage

[edit]

Since Wikipedia has no info on this I thought I'd leave a note. I ran a few network dumps. Wireless works differently than DSL or DOCSYS devices where your connectivity is based on authorization of the hardware device. Samsung, maker of tower base station equipment, has descriptions of 3G and 4G authentication and connectivity. Radio packets, tagged with device ESN, from your phone travel via cell tower to company equipment. ESN gets translated to user than account is accessed to determine if access is valid. If access is valid then translation to POTS number or IP address takes place. Depending on system and provider, this authentication occurs repeatedly. (I abbreviated the process described on their website, the standard is linked at UMTS.) Clearwire servers authenticate access to every IP address accessed by user which can lead to considerable latency. Watching a stream from one IP address (Netflix, Youtube) or Skype/Yahoo (one IP address) Phone works OK but Bittorrent (or web pages linked to multiple IP addresses) can experience delays. Shjacks45 (talk) 02:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4G

[edit]

This article throws around the "4G" term without really explaining it. What it looks like is that the WiMAX they provide might be IEEE 802.16e-2005? Technically this did not meet the IMT-Advanced requirements so should not be called 4G according to the ITU-T. IEEE 802.16m came out in March 2001 but no idea how far it has been implemented (probably not?) In fact, 4G is supposed to apply to mobile phones, and this service seems more of a computer access service. However, it seems 4G is not trademarked (probably too simple) so anyone can call anything "4G" - it has no technical meaning, just like calling everything "broadband". Their web page says they also offer "CLEAR 3G" service, but that is not described here. These are nits but would benice to be specific. On the other hand, such details as the GigaHertz in the band is put in the lead, which most people probably do not care about either. W Nowicki (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:CLEAR LOGO.png Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:CLEAR LOGO.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Clearwire. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:50, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Clearwire. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Clearwire&oldid=1206717942"