This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing: Networking Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

This article contains a significant amount of outdated information and has not been updated to reflect the more recent amendments or that 802.15.4-2011 is the "current" standard (e.g. frequencies and data rates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 I have added the outdated tag.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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

To Cburnett: on the MiWi link, I wasn't clear in my edit summary...that was a conversation with User:Atomsmith, who works for the company that uses the trade name MiWi. I removed the link because it doesn't appear that there can be a MiWi article, yet...there are no links at all on a scholar.google or news.google search that support notability. I've asked him to try to dig up some reliable sources. I'll leave the dead link where you put it for now, but if I don't hear anything positive from Atomsmith for several days, then I'm going to assume there's no MiWi in WP's future and remove the link again. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 06:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is BS (it's a guideline) and WP:V, WP:NOR, & WP:NPOV are policies. And they apply to articles not links to articles. The absence of a link means a random person can't notice the article doesn't exist to look for themselves if it should exist. This is the same argument for any red link. MiWi is a valid link in the context that it is used. User:81.240.250.87

Is wikipedia better for having this red link gone? Absolutely not. Cburnett (talk) 06:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go turn some of my past arguments with admins into essays so that you two (and others) will see I'm "on your side" in this...I think Wikipedia would be a better place if people relied more on expert Wikipedians (and there are lots) for subjects that require experts, and less on rules. (That doesn't put me in the WP:FAIL camp, because I don't see anything that has a hope of competing with Wikipedia ... but it would be better.) For reference, here's the guideline, from WP:Red link: "Sometimes it is useful to create a red link to indicate that an article will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because it is about a notable and verifiable subject. Red links should not be created for topics that will never have articles...". So, if someone wanders along and removes the link, we'll have to come up with at least a plan for how we're going to justify a MiWi article. But, I'm in no hurry, and you two seem to like the red link, let's keep it. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 02:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'd like to see a section comparing 802.15.4 with Bluetooth (and any other low-power low-data rate physical fabric)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]