Talk:IEEE 802.16/Archive 1

Archive 1

Basis

Previously, this page re-directed to the WiMAX talk page. While significant commonality exists, IEEE 802.16 is a WG producing a series of standards while WiMAX is a trademark/brand of an industry forum. I feel the topics and discussions should be separate. Nelson50 22:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

If these are as distinct as you claim, the articles surely don't reflect it. This article states that the 802.16 standards "have been dubbed WiMAX", which would mean that WiMAX is just another name for these standards. The WiMAX article uses WiMAX and 802.16 interchangably. Information about the spec is spread between the two articles. I intend to merge them. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 18:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Basically I don't have an issue with this (it did bother me when 802.16 redirected to WiMAX, it would be preferable if if it were the other way around). I also agree that the two articles have a lot of commonality. I would make the following point: Wi-Fi and IEEE 802.11 would have had the same issue but nowadays are separate things - WiFi a phenomenon and 802.11 a series of standards. By the time WiMAX is a year or two older, this may also happen. What do you think? Let me know. Nelson50 21:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree; the meanings of commonly-used terms, such as Wi-Fi, tend to get twisted by layman usage over time. When that happens to WiMAX, we can split it, but for now I see no usage difference to split. As for which article title to use: I don't have much of an opinion. We generally try to go with the more commonly-used term, right? ~ Booya ^Bazooka 05:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough - go ahead. Let me know what you'd like me to do, if anything. Thanks Nelson50 13:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep them separate. They are different forums. IEEE provides the base standards, WiMAX the IOT. Keep summary of IEEE specification on this page and overall industry info under WiMAXUser:Nymble

Keep them separte, just like Wi-Fi and 802.11 article. Also, this article lacks a lot of technical information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.40.10.247 (talk) 22:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

802.16e

I have reverted edits on 802.16e for reasons of clarity. One change caused a re-direct from 802.16 to WiMAX while others mixed tense, etc. I have retained the statement on the similarities between the objectives of 802.16e and 802.20 Nelson50 22:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

OFDM system comparison table

Feel free to add for example an 802.16a column to the OFDM#OFDM system comparison table. Mange01 11:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Difference between ertPS and rtPS?

The table states:

ertPS -- Real-time service flows that generate variable-sized data packets on a periodic basis rtPS -- Real-time data streams comprising variable-sized data packets that are issued at periodic intervals

What the difference? Does "service flow" in the description of ertPS has anything to do with the concept of service flow used in the 802.16e IEEE standard? I guess not, so it is weird.

The difference is in how they are implemented. The IEEE Std 802.16e-2005 says about rtPS:

"The rtPS is designed to support real-time uplink service flows that transport variable size data packets on a periodic basis, such as moving pictures experts group (MPEG) video. The service offers real-time, periodic, unicast request opportunities, which meet the flow’s real-time needs and allow the SS to specify the size of the desired grant. This service requires more request overhead than UGS, but supports variable grant sizes for optimum data transport efficiency."

For ertPS it says:

"Extended rtPS is a scheduling mechanism which builds on the efficiency of both UGS and rtPS. The BS shall provide unicast grants in an unsolicited manner like in UGS, thus saving the latency of a bandwidth request. However, whereas UGS allocations are fixed in size, ertPS allocations are dynamic."

and

"The Extended rtPS is designed to support real-time service flows that generate variable size data packets on a periodic basis, such as Voice over IP services with silence suppression."

As you see, some of the words in the table are taken directly from the specification. A "Service Flow" is a data stream with a pre-defined scheduling class, along with other parameters. Its use in the table is the same as in the rest of the documents and in the standards. Hope this helps. In future, it would be helpful for you to sign your comments like this: --Phil Holmes (talk) 09:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Mbit/s?

I'm missing a lot of technical details in this article. For example number of Mbps or Mbit/s of each IEEE 802.16 version.

Why not merge with the WiMAX article? Mange01 (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

See above. Yes, this needs to include the details of the technology and history of standards, while WiMAX is the product brand name trademark, so should talk about products using this family of standards.W Nowicki (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Beware of dated statements

Is this out of date? Is says "current" is 2009, but then cites a press release that says 802.16m came out in March 2011. Best to just never say "current" since that tends to go stale in this business. Also the "P802.16m" needs to get the "P" dropped since it is no longer a proposal but ratified. W Nowicki (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1