Talk:IEEE 802.15.4

message: This article contains a significant amount of outdated information and has not been updated to reflect the more recent amendments or that 802.15.4-2011 is the "current" standard (e.g. frequencies and data rates allowed for by 802.15.4g and other newer updates). I have added the outdated tag.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.136.125 (talk) 13:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated Information 

message: 802.15.4 only defines the MAC and PHY in the Data Link, up to layer 2 not the networking layer
i'm currently working to fix that issue, and to add the three revisions to the standard  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinvilu (talk • contribs) 19:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Networking layer 

message: Can someone add the alternative UWB PHY added in http://www.ieee802.org/15/pub/TG4a.html ? I don't feel comfortable enough with the topic so far to do this myself. UWB mentions this as well already. Noleti 09:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  alternative UWB PHY 

message: Error: See on IEEE 802.15.4 specs, page 29:
There is only one channel, not three as mentioned in this wiki page. I corrected it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.240.250.87 (talk) 10:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is only one channel 

message: Xbee wireless programmable sensor modules for $20+ sound interesting, but for many situations that cost is still too much.  Worse, to get started you must purchase at least two modules, the remote and a base unit for your computer.  But if 802.15.4 and 802.11 can both use 2.4GHz, than it seems like common existing computer wireless interfaces should be physically capable of communicating with 802.15.4 remotes.  Is this possible?  Can any 802.11 hardware inter-communicate with any 802.15.4 sensor?
Are there any cheaper programmable wireless sensors than Zigbee/Xbee?
-96.237.12.99 (talk) 12:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can 802.15.4 and 802.11 inter-communicate at 2.4GHz? 

message: Is that a typo on line 1? If so, what's it supposed to say?92.235.14.191 (talk) 23:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo on line 1? 

message: Should there be an explanation of what LoRa is?  It appears to be IEEE 802.15.4g  I came to Wikipedia hoping to find a concise, neutral explanation. Example: https://www.seeedstudio.com/item_detail.html?p_id=2672  Example: https://www.adafruit.com/products/3072    Rcrowley7 (talk) 12:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  LoRa? 

message: I've updated this page to be less out of date but someone undid my edits.  Most of this information is either wrong or obsolete.
The current revision of the standard is IEEE Std 802.15.4-2020, it contains 10 PHY clauses and has undergone substantial change since 2006 including 21 amendments and 3 revisions. 
I strongly suggest this page NOT be used for any purpose.
Also, "too many primary sources" is not a problem for a page about a standard. ONLY primary sources should be used when describing the standard. I do not understand this policy which places opinions ahead of fact.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.143.92.123 (talk) 00:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you point out your changes in the history? I can't see these changes you talk about.  Stepho  talk  10:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  And efforts to fix it have been undone by someone