Talk:Wireless WAN

Security

I removed this line: "The biggest strength of WWAN's is security. These networks incorporate sophisticated encryption and authentication methods, making them faster and more secure."

Security should not be listed as the "biggest strength" of WWANs. They're not necessarily any more secure than other wireless technologies from what I've gathered. In fact, they may be less secure than other forms of encrypted communications because of goverment interference (i.e. NSA tapping AT&T/Cingular without warrant)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xephael (talk • contribs) 2006-02-28T14:00:39 (UTC)

• I added the paragraph back in, the referenced material here [1] supports the statement. Admittedly, it is a white paper from the industry, so if you can find contradictory evidence then we can readdress the issue. Have a great day! --Elipongo 23:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Just my 2 cents, but although WWAN protects against near attackers (compared to Wifi where someone seating across the street can try to hack into your comp), they're less secure by connecting you directly to the internet and not hiding you behind some NAT as most WiFi networks do, thus not protecting you against remote attacks, which, to my knowledge, are far more numerous and effective than attacks on WiFi nets. Also, Xephael point should be taken care of with caution. While I agree with him, you must not forget that, depending on what you do, even if anonymous on a free Wifi net, some actions can ruin that anonymity, like reading your mail on a private server, or accessing a forum with the same username as usual... But I guess anonymity is a completly different problem than what most people are concerned about: not getting viruses. In that case WWAN is no substitute for a decent software firewall Bibi-pov 16:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • My statement still holds true and I've included a reference proving encryption on WWLANs and Cellular networks is faulty. http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/1997/03/2676 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xephael (talk • contribs) 22:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
      • What is a WWLAN?--87.162.50.180 (talk) 00:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Did you check the date on that reference? It's from 1997- eleven years ago. The technology has advanced since then. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 11:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

WWAN examples, anyone?

Cheers 212.143.17.66

Link broken

Sorry, I have no real clue how editing Wikipedia works in terms of editing links and putting up new sources for them but the first link in this document is broken and I'm a bit wary of switching it to some random different source without the hosters approval. (I'm talking about the first external link, just to be clear)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.6.42.192 (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

OK thanks for pointing that out. It's changed now. I removed the text that the ref was supposedly supporting because it wasn't text that really needed a source. Who would challenge the idea that a person typically pays for wireless service? Anyhow, the article could probably use more sources. Dawnseeker2000 20:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. DMacks (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Wireless Wide Area Network → Wireless WAN — As per Wireless LAN. -- Frap (talk) 10:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Support, more concise and recognizable.--Kotniski (talk) 09:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Relationship between wireless WAN and mobile broadband

Some sources regard "mobile broadband" and "wireless WAN" as synonyms. I think they probably are, but I'm not sure. In any case, I think each page should refer to the other page and indicate how the concepts are related, or the difference between them. I'm a linguist, not an expert, so I'd rather leave this to someone who knows more about it than me. Timothy Cooper (talk) 10:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)