Talk:WiMAX/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

"Comparisons with WiFi" section innaccurate

This section is simply incorrect and/or biased. The implication is made that WiFi 802.11 only works inside a building. The current statement "This represents the real extent of its ability to provide commercial or mobile Internet services. It is not easy to use Wifi to provide Internet access outside of the "provider's" own property." is just plain wrong, since wireless mesh products are being used to provide Internet connectivity to dozens or hundreds of square miles of mamy cities around the US and the world. Revised the page for NPOV re: Wi-FI and added information on the related and complementary technology of wireless mesh. 71.6.14.105 22:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Wireless mesh networks only join different networks. They're not a way for someone to extend the range of their own network into the properties of others far away, without those others being actively involved. So I don't really see the problem with the wording.

Realistically, you can only reliably use 802.11 to provide network access to property you own (or have direct permission to mount an AP upon)

There's no implication that 802.11 only works inside a building, and I'm not sure why you would be reading that into what is written. --Squiggleslash 02:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I am making that inference because of these words: "[Wi-Fi] is frequently used to provide Internet access to third parties within a single room or building". It is apparent that there is some reason you do not wish to have an accurate description of the use of Wi-Fi outoors, such as a reference to wireless mesh networking, in this article. WiMAX has precisely the same limitations as Wi-Fi as a practical matter, in that one must own towers or have permission to use existing towers to set up the network.

Your statement above "Wireless mesh networks may only join different networks" is hard to understand, but whatever it means, is proved false by the dozens of metropolitan wireless mesh networks in operation today across the US and around the world using Wi-Fi and wireless mesh networking.

Bottom line, I won't waste my time getting in a revise/revert duel with you. I attempted WP:Assume_good_faith, but it's not working in this case -- as is so often my experience on Wikipedia.71.6.14.105 22:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The assumption that WiMAX networks must use owned/leased towers is partly correct. WiMAX is more like cellular wireless in that it is prescribed for licensed spectrum, it is a managed network, and it is designed to cover wide areas. But WiMAX also is architecturally designed as a 4G network as defined ITU: it is highly scalable from fempto scale base stations that use low power and have limited range similar to a WiFi access point. But WiMAX is being designed to have several levels of management and self configuration capability built into the various scales of base stations.

A basic difference between WiFi and WiMAX and 3G cellular networks stems from their use of licensed spectrum: WiFi is user adopted and can be 'virally deployed'. WiFi can have managed network capabilities but most deployments are ad hoc user deployments with 'planning' being done in a gross manner and adjusted in the field. WiFi MESH that have been deployed thus far are not part of 802.11 standards. 802.11s may have an impact to standardize WiFi MESH but that remains to be seen. Right now, it remains a no-mans land of incompatibility. The vision of MESH networks in which users take part in the mesh is not feasible for contention based networks such as 802.11. WiFi must either redefine the MAC considerably or forget about ever doing viral MESH networking... people close to this have already conceded.

However, the contention that WiMAX cannot be deployed by users or must use towers for deployment is just dead wrong. While wide area coverage will typically require the use of 'macro' cellular base stations deployed on towers, prominent geographic features and buildings, WiMAX can also be deployed as intra-building, campus-wide, tiered VPNs and specialty purposed networks by independent companies and users. This all depends on the service providers. Some have already initiated programs to sell services to business, government and education organizations that are deployed and owned by the user. The service providers maintains control of the spectrum.

WiMAX is being adopted to the semi-unlicensed 3.65-3.70 GHz spectrum in the U.S. and some systems are available for 5 GHz unlicensed. The 3.65 systems will use a different MAC which meets FCC requirements for shared access. liaison groups within 802.11 & 802.16 are working on interference/co-habitation between systems: WiMAX will be used to some degree in unlicensed spectra but, of course, still must obey rules for power and interference.

The key point is that vendors have developed ICs, RFICs, antennas and other components that that are common between the various system profiles. The system and device vendors still must develop that into systems that provide seamless handover but there are no road blocks.

Robert Syputa, WiMAX Pro, LLC

Housekeeping: I added a short paragraph in this section and don't know if my identity was automatically recorded... Robert Syputa

It wasn't. If you use the 4 twiddle method of signature (or click the signature icon on the toolbar above the edit window) then your username and the date are automatically added. This makes tracking changes much easier for other users. --Phil Holmes 08:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

quoting "However, the contention that WiMAX cannot be deployed by users or must use towers for deployment is just dead wrong" , you mean that is possible a point-to-point (Ad-Hoc mode) between two wi-max dongle , for example? 88.149.167.45 15:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Intro Change

I have added the following line to the intro as it was too techy before: "The standard aims to provide wireless data in a similar fashion to WiFi but on a larger scale and speed , hence making national wireless networks possible." If you think it should be paraphrased please do , but I think its link with wifi should be done right from the beginning —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.35.33.103 (talk) 01:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Removed repeated section

The section "Broadband access" followed by "limitations" was repeated in the article.

Current developments section

I removed the part:

"On May 1, 2007, FCC Approves First WIMAX-class Laptop Card. FCC Approves First WIMAX-CLASS Laptop Card to be Offered by Clearwire."

because this approval was for the NextNet/Motorola Expedience OFDM 256-FFT TDD card. This will never be upgraded to WiMAX-16e or WiMAXm. Clearwire will deploy WiMAX mobile staring at the end of 2007 but must decide whether to replace or deploy side-by-side with their existing NN Expedient networks. I talked with their head of strategic development this last Wednesday at WiMAX World in Vienna.

Robert Syputa, Maravedis, WiMAX Pro, LLC.

OFDM system comparison table

Feel free to add WiMAX/802.16 columns to the OFDM#OFDM system comparison table. Mange01 12:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Legal Issues

I currently own a WiMAX device that boasts the connection radius of 30 miles. I have verified this by going to my friends house, and using my laptop to connect to the device. But I have stopped using it because, I want to know, Is this legal? Can I broadcast such a network? Do I have to obtain a license or such to gain the ability to legally broadcast such a signal?

WiMAX is not 4G

The way we call 3G then 4G just fashional. The main feature of generation to generation is Compatibility. So does WiMAX compatible with 3G? Can we use WiMAX with NodeB?

3G is used coding technique to carry data, while WiMAX is pure IP already, just step down to carry voice. They are difference world.

By conclusion, we cannot say WiMAX is 4G, the idea of Generation happen when we are going to 3G, then 0G, 1G and 2G are defined.Sypaseuth 08:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

WiMAX is just as compatible with 3G as LTE is likely to be or it needs to be. Compatibility is being achieved at several different interface and system management levels but neither WiMAX, UMB, LTE or other future OFDM systems will be compatible with 3G wireless air interfaces. You or I don't decide what these terms mean; we look to industry groups such as NGMN group and ITU to set standards and goals that end up being adopted to mean the next and next generation of wireless. WiMAX is pursuing IMT-Advanced and NGMN is devising guidelines for devising 4G and has just as legitimate a right to be called 4G as any other wireless system. Sprint, calls WiMAX 4G already. I think it's more appropriate to say WiMAX is on the path to becoming 4G by ITU definitions of IMT-Advanced.

Robert Syputa

Note: I made changes to the spectrum section. The statement <One of the significant advantages of WiMAX is spectral efficiency. For example, 802.16-2004 (fixed) has a spectral efficiency of 3.7 bit/s/hertz, as compared to similar technologies that often are less than 1 bit/s/hertz efficient such as WiFi.> is misleading Qualcomm, for example, claims nearly eh same spectral efficiency for EVDO rev A as for WiMAX.

Australia

No mention of Australia's WiMAX project

Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Deployed_WiMAX_networks and I think you'll find it there. --Phil Holmes 10:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

WiMAX as a service?

Would calling WiMAX a "service" help to clear up the ambiguity between WiFi and WiMAX? WiFi is most definitely not a service, at least not one provided by a retailer. It sounds like WiMAX will be operating much more like a telephone. <spetz>.71.187.179.213 18:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

WiMAX Architecture

A WiMAX architecture section was recently added.

<clip>I added this to the section: It's important to note that the functional architecture can be designed into various hardware configurations rather than fixed configurations. For example, the architecture is flexible to allow various scale and functionality of remote/mobile stations and collaborative aggregations of femto, pico, and mini RS/MS.</clip>

Architecture is becoming increasingly important for 3G, LTE and WiMAX as more services are being delivered over wireless broadband. IMS is another example of the attempt to organize approaches to building a multi-service environment. The 'WiMAX architecture' is not burdened directly by the need to fit into incumbent networks and is, therefore, able to be devised more as from a clean sheet of paper.

Divining a long term strategy for systems architecture is not an easy task: 1) Difficulty in determining all types and impacts of services likely to influence system design needs. 2) Making the architecture flexible, highly scalable, and still quantifiable so that systems can be tested and certified to specific system profiles and compatibility requirements with the goal of providing an open systems architecture is difficult. This has proven to be a tough goal for IMS - several vendors have said that IMS has not achieved early penetration and compatibility between vendors is still uncertain. Defining of systems architecture while many applications are rapidly being developed for wireless environments is overall a difficult task. There is pressure to define architectures so that vendors can move on in development of systems but also pressure to allow significant flexibility that allows for rapid advances and evolution of smart distributed network topologies.

-Robert Syputa, Sr. Partner/Analyst, Maravedis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.23.74 (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

New one in Sderot

http://www.govtech.com/dc/articles/147054

worth mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.93.87 (talk) 07:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

A section of the possible negative health effects of WiMAX should be listed

http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies-archive.cfm/537044.html http://www.gq.com/cars-gear/gear-and-gadgets/201002/warning-cell-phone-radiation?currentPage=4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.189.143.20 (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. I wanted to read up on WiMAX after reading the last 2 paragraphs of this article. http://www.gq.com/cars-gear/gear-and-gadgets/201002/warning-cell-phone-radiation?currentPage=4

How there is no section discussing the health effects is beyond me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.171.70.190 (talk) 05:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe because it's just fearmongering without any scientific evidence. Scientific testing in tens of tests have actually proven that there are no negative effects... Nasula (talk) 10:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

too vague -- rephrase!

The article uses at least three abbreviations, OFDMA, PHY and DRM without explaining what they mean. The article also uses abbreviations like these several paragraphs before explaining their meaning.

I've added links for OFDM(A) and PHY, and deleted the DRM section. I used to sell Moto WiMAX gear and I've never heard of it. Please sign your contributions in the talk section by clicking the "signature" icon in the editing toolbar.--Phil Holmes (talk) 13:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

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.

Clearwire cited the security of OFDM as a huge selling point. I called them to ask about it. They could not explain it, of course.90.135.114.78 (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This article needs reworking

It contains patches of incoherent jibberish and 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.

It looks like to me like marketing people wrote most of this.90.135.114.78 (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

What it STILL looks like as of right now, is a giant mess of incoherent jibberish and misinformation that must have been copied and pasted from a poorly written online explanation somewhere. I went to do some copy-editing earlier in the month and was dumbfounded at how everything was worded. Acronyms are used so frequently that you often get confused as to what you're reading. For an article as large as this one is, as a layman in the subject myself, I got so lost in what I was reading that I eventually gave up. It's my understanding that the articles here are supposed to be neutral and cut down to the basics so that anyone can look up the subject and learn something about it. This article does the exact opposite... you leave with more questions than you had before. Unfortunaltey, because of the contovercial nature of this subject, and the high-level of practical understanding that's required to edit it, I'm at a loss here.

One thing is for certain though: This article was not written for Wikipedia. It looks like it was written for some other medium and pasted in here without editing.--Poet  Talk  17:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I propose filleting the article. All technical detail should be removed to avoid duplication from 802.16, etc. WiMax can be described as an essentially marketing initiative. Thoughts before I start cutting? Thanks Nelson50^T 17:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I generally agree. However, I think it's wrong to describe WiMAX as essentially marketing. Reading the output of the WiMAX Network Working Group would convince anyone that technical engineering is taking place at the WiMAX forum. Stuff like the WiMAX architecture (which is not covered in 802.16) should remain.--Phil Holmes (talk) 07:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I also generally agree. It's probably not fair to classify it entirely as a marketing initiative, but MOST (all?) of the technical terms discussed in this article already have main articles of their own anyway. I mean this article has 15 sections (not including sub-sections), and most of it drones on and on about technical specifications that can't even be verified, sourced, or otherwise. Cut cut cut. For an article that should only be a few sections large, it's absolutely huge and impossible to understand. --Poet  Talk  04:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is long, and it does need greater emphasis on the (often misleading) commercialization of the term for marketing purposes. But I object to the prospect of wholesale "filleting" and with the recommendation to "cut cut cut". Cut, yes, but what the article mostly needs is a consolidation and restructuring of the more technical material, not just cutting. The sentence in the introductory paragraph that includes a reference to the "last mile" - objected to elsewhere on this talk page - is a good one, but should be moved to a different section since most laymen will need to click the "last mile" link to understand it. My supporting comments in reply to user Billsf in the "WiMax Confusion" section of this discussion page may also be of interest in this regard. Ohiostandard (talk) 04:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Jan 30, 2010 - I found the content to be very useful. There is never exactly two audiences and compartmentalizing this way is misdirection. Readers of varying disciplines come here and want a range of content - directing all engineers to the technical specs negates a large reason for this site. Instead, initial entries should be less technical and become gradually more technical as he article moves on, thus capturing a larger number of readers. Engineers want clear and concise summaries of technical issues just as laymen want clear and non-jargoned descriptions of basic functions. Do not polarize Wikipedia, it can service a large audience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.20.115.215 (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems the most important thing about WiMAX right now is: it's dead, in the marketplace. Am I right? Maybe there's some small holdouts in Korea or Japan... not sure, the article isn't clear. But this Talk page had only 3 changes in all of 2014. If it's defunct, that should be in the introductory paragraph! instead of all of this technical stuff. OsamaBinLogin (talk) 15:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

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. No, Clearwire uses NetNet/Motorola Expedience 256 FFT TDD OFDM technology that is a propietary precursor. It is not WiMAX. TF, ClearWire must convert to WiMAXm when it is available (wave 2 802.16e-2005 which is the migration path to 802.16m/j and LTE inter-networking)

- Robert Syputa - I made a change in the future technology section and removed commercial link in external links - fair is fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.20.8 (talk) 04:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

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.

Clearwire uses expedient but will release a wimax services under the brand of Clear, Clearwire overseas uses 3.5 it is a wimax allotted spectrum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.166.180.133 (talk) 00:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

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 unnecessary and confusing to most people looking for information on WiMax. Coreyem 16:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

WiMAX is not a 'technology' because all modern cellular systems have evolved into wireless platforms which incorporate several technologies, many of which are common or similar between systems. In addition, the platforms are designed, as much as can be foreseen and is practical, to be 'evolutionary' rather than task specific and fixed. The field of wireless has been enabled through increasingly software defined and diverse types of base stations and user devices. The software programmability can allow upgrade and, in some cases, multi-mode capabilities using the same core functions. The carriers want 'evolution rather than revolution' with each advance in system design. That has already been seen in current 3G systems but still not to the extent that carriers would like. No system is likely to be designed that won't eventually have to be hardware upgraded. But the fewer years there are between 'fork lift' upgrades, the more operators can recoup capex and return a profit. Operators also want to focus less or less often on hardware and more on software and services. That is why 802.16 has core requirements that are adaptable to many types of applications and ability to extend the platform in several ways, such as higher order MIMO-AAS, without breaking core compatibility. Like LTE, WiMAX strives to be a 'long term evolution' framework platform. So both because these systems use a set of core and optional technologies and because they are fully expected to evolve over time, it is misleading to call WiMAX or LTE 'a technology'. The point is to not confuse by calling WiMAX a technology but rather am alternative path. Robert Syputa (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Clean up

Reduced number of primary sections. Created uses. Got rid of some wording to stay in 32K.

Need to be done: - as mentioned 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)

I deleted mention of C-Band satellite spectrum. This is an interesting detail but is not a determinant for WiMAX, LTE, #G, IMO-2000 or IMT-Advanced as it is just a part of the regulatory environment the competitive developments deal with. Other developments, such as long term potential to use agile/cognitive radio technology for white spaces and, possibly extending across several other spectrums over the next 10-20 years.

Spectrum is entering a new era in which multi-frequency use of spectra on a purpose-use basis will evolve. That is because all of the wireless systems are converging on similar control and networking layers that are highly adaptive and integrated with computer and network virtualization and data structures. This changes the relationship of spectrum and wireless interfaces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.19.101 (talk) 05:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Spectral Efficiency

I've reverted a section added by Lesswire, where he claimed EV-DO rev B was more spectrally efficient than WiMAX, and added a table showing .16e with .45 bit/s/Hz and rev B with 1.05 bit/s/Hz. All the information I've seen shows WiMAX with a maximum efficiency of 5 bit/s/Hz, so Lesswire underestimates it by a factor of over 10. I'd be interested in other views on the claims. --Phil Holmes 11:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you, also because it's not really relevent there except as part of a wider discussion comparing the standards (the sentence pops up with little context and no discussion of other technical characteristics of the technologies.) I know Lesswire considers it a very important issue, and I would encourage him to work on a Spectral efficiency of mobile Internet standards article but be mindful that simply adding claims to related articles needs to be done with care and consideration of context. Squiggleslash 13:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

What's relly needed here is some references. I found this [1] which suggests that WiMax beats the mobile phone standards. See page 8. darkov 14:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Also see here [2] which suggests about 3.1-3.8, but it's from 2005 and may be referencing an older draft of the standard. Darkov 14:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The spectral efficiency of WiMAX/802.16 OFDMA, 802.20, and LTE which proposes to use OFDMA on the down-link and SC-OFDM on the up-link are all similarly heading close to the practical limits for spectral efficiency defined by Shannon's theorem. The majority of advances in effective spectral efficiency and network throughput are occurring in the 'spatial' domain: in the areas of MIMO, AAS beam forming and MIMO-AAS which can adaptively combine the techniques. MIMO takes advantage of multi-path to effective reuse spectrum and enhance signals for higher reliability, sustainability and range. AAS uses beam forming/steering which also is a method to reuse spectrum within a cell or sector. And MIMO-AAS can combine the methods to use one or both depending on the deployment scenario and channel conditions. These can then be used with 'smart wireless broadband network' methods and topologies to reuse spectrum on a localized or tiered spatial domain. That is a fancy way of describing capabilities such as mobile multi-hop relay, MMR, in 802.16j. MMR can be used to hop to remote stations as repeaters, in-building networks, and blocked coverage areas. WiFi MESH is a similar concept: but instead of using entirely different spectrum with course granularity, channel and system management capability, 802.16/WiMAX can use channel sub-sets of the frequency band in a more managed system designed not to cause interference.

The effect of starting with high core air-link spectral efficiency, building granularly and with MIMO/MIMO-AAS so that signal strengths are enhanced, thus allowing higher order modulation (to 64 QAM), and reusing the spectrum up to several times over, multiples the effective spectral and network efficiency.

A basic driver is the move to higher bandwidth per user which requires more back-haul, which, in turn, necessitates building networks more densely. That has driven 3G cellular networks to deploy more densely as well. As long as that is the trend, then design of the system to be 'smart wireless BB networks' that take their advantage increasingly in the spatial domain becomes by far the most cost effective and efficient way to go. Robert Syputa, Maravedis, Feb, 2007 - Bringing this full circle to the discussion of link spectral efficiencies, network operators have measured average link efficiencies of early deployed WiMAX systems: they come in 2.8 b/hz. This compares favorably with similar real-world deployments of HSDPA cellular which reportedly come in at 2.2 b/hz. Both are far off the theoretical efficiencies as one would expect. And neither shows a particularly case for adoption when taken by itself. But when combined with MIMO-AAS and granular network topologies that allow spectrum reuse within and between cells, the theoretical limits are multiplied... and system designs made more complicated. That has pushed development of channel measurement and estimation, quasi-orthogonality, and numerous other methods to reduce co-channel and other interference, 'smart network' allocation of sub-bands/sub-channels etc. In turn, this is a major reason for NOT combining WiMAX and 802.16 into one section: WiMAX and LTE will use multiple developments including cognitive radio being developed within 802.22 and other efforts and evolution of 'smart wireless broadband networks' that include MESH and ad-hoc networks.

The discussions over spectral efficiency have varied and are complicated by introduction of increased use of MIMO and AAS methods and use of various frequency bandwidths. The technical research paper discussions comparing OFDMA, WCDMA show a slight advantage in spectral efficiency for OFDMA. However, this is of minor interest in choice of OFDMA as the basic method for next generation networks. The link spectral efficiency is amplified through the use of various MIMO, AAS, adaptive MIMO-AAS, collaborative MIMO (Co-MIMO, Multi-user MIMO (MU-MIMO), virtual MIMO-AAS aggregations and more granular network topologies that help increase SNR and, thus, higher modulation rates. The comparison between OFDMA and SC-FDMA/OFDMA is highly dependent on channel characteristics which in turn depends on network topology/deployment objectives. The frequency of the spectrum band will be one of the factors that helps determine the nature of the topology and modulation scheme that is best. Lower frequencies, such as 700 MHz can't achieve high reuse factors and network granularity. And the deployments can be expected to favor broadcast, messaging and other applications. MIMO and AAS are not as beneficial.

The 'old way' to look at network performance was in improvement of spectral efficiency. The more appropriate way to judge systems today is how well they are leveraged by smart antenna, smart network station/node design, and self configuration/self-healing capabilities that more significantly impact network throughput and user experience. Shannon's law has been practically reached.

References of tests comparing OFDMA and SC-FDMA show little difference in spectral efficiency. This citation was chosen because the parties propose the use of SC-FDMA in IEEE 802.16m so would be unlikely to bias the results in favor of OFDMA: www.ieee802.org/16////tgm/contrib/C80216m-08_169r1.doc. Several independent or otherwise unbiased research papers that support this can be googled. What is perhaps more difficult to quantify are the relative improvements that can be achieved by the combination of SOFDMA, MIMO-AAS and advanced network designs due to the adaptive nature assembled capabilities. comment added by 67.183.23.74 (talk) 04:47, 31 August 2008 Robert Syputa (talk)

Robert Syputa Robert Syputa (talk) 06:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.23.74 (talk) 05:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Latency

If anyone have some latency info please add to the article.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.138.199.114 (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

As with bandwidth and other details, latency will depend on how it is measured and generation of the standard, which continues to evolve. Robert Syputa (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

What is it?

Despite having heard this term many times and reading some of the article I have no idea what WiMAX really is. Better WiFi? I think this article suffers from overused jargon. What does "last mile" mean? 71.209.251.81 (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Last mile can be better understood by clicking on the link to last mile in the WiMAX article. --Phil Holmes (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

What is radiation power and is it safe? Could you add this data to the article?

Hi, I've read that WiMax client station emits 1000 milliwatts, and this is 10 times more than Wi-Fi do, and is about the same as cell phones HF radiation. Unlike cell phones WiMax and WiFi links transfer data almost constantly (say, 50% of time). Moreover, WiMax hubs will have few channels, which can transmit data and radiate alltogether - one have to multiply 1000 mW by number of channels. This HF radiation may be dangerous.

Could please somebody add to the article info about exact emmiting powers and its conformance to various health safety standards?... Both for WiMax clients/terminals and for hub solutions? What is a safe distance from Wi-Max hubs, if it is supposed to "strike" to 30 mi/50 km ? Thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.157.117 (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Should drop 802.20 UMB

Since Qualcomm has dropped 802.20 UMB efforts in order to focus on LTE, this should be dropped from the article: http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/qualcomm-drops-umb-development-focuses-lte/2008-11-14

I am deleting this from the article. Robert Syputa (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Comparison Table

Comparison table in this article seems to give the impression that LTE is superior to WiMAX. WiMAX for "mobile Internet" is not a correct description, since this WiMAX is for 4G general as well as LTE. This comparision table needs to be deleted. LTE has not reached any agreement on any standards on its deployment schemes and designs for Base Stations as of January 2009. Release 8 for LTE standards is yet to be announced. Chmyr (talk) 04:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Definitions

The definitions stated in this section are not true. They suggest that Mobile WiMax is the same as 802.16e-2005 which is not true. IEEE amendments define only physical and data link layers. WiMax is and ent-to-end technology BASED ON 802.16 family amendments. However, suggesting that WiMax and 802.16 is the same is a misunderstanding. Besides, 802.16e02005 is an improvement of 802.16-2004 and it contains a number of features included in the older standard. However, the text in main article suggest that these amendments have nothing common which is not true. 802.16e-2005 has additional features like SOFDMA and MIMO but it also supporrts for instance PUSC nad FUSC as 802.16-204 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.21.78.177 (talk) 10:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think if you read it correctly you'll see that what this is pretty much what the definitions say. To quote:

802.16-2004 is often called 802.16d, since that was the working party that developed the standard. It is also frequently referred to as "fixed WiMAX" since it has no support for mobility.

This is accurate and succinct.

802.16e-2005 is an amendment to 802.16-2004 and is often referred to in shortened form as 802.16e. It introduced support for mobility, amongst other things and is therefore also known as "mobile WiMAX".

Ditto. It does not say "Mobile WiMax is the same as 802.16e-2005", it says 'it is therefore also known as "mobile WiMAX"'. This is true - it's what many people in the industry (incorrectly) refer to it as, in the same way many people regard 802.11 as interchangeable with WiFi. It also makes very clear that .16e is an amendment of .16d, and so it must inevitably share features, unless every feature was amended. --Phil Holmes (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Too many "unreferenced" tags added

Just looked at the article and noticed that just about every single section on the page has a {{Unreferenced}} tag. The worst problem is that it's not even a {{Unreferencedsec}} tag. Rather than go through the entire article placing unreferencedsec templates on just about every single section, why don't we just put a helpful {{Refimprove|article|{{subst:DATE}}}} tag at the top of the article instead? I do see that citations are very badly needed however and will be working on improving this after some research. Hopefully I can find a few articles or discussion somewhere to confirm some of the claims I see. --Poet  Talk  02:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

this is sreeraj nair could u please explain me the difference between wi-fi and wimax also it would be better if u explain me wimax in a bit simpler way.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sreegemini (talk • contribs) 13:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3