Talk:List of LTE networks/Archive 1

Latin America needs Update

What about Uruguay, Brazil, Mexico? Ds77 (talk) 03:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

LatAm has been updated. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Various Issues

Why were the bands deleted? If it was cluttered, better would be if they were moved to another column than just deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.112.71.70 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 2 December 2012

Seems to be solved by now 130.83.72.135 (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I suggest making a sortable table with Country, Operator, Launch date and Band fields, rather than a list. That would be much more convenient.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.160.78.176 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 8 March 2012

Done, I tried my very best to improve the table ... 130.83.72.135 (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Has anyone been able to find out what band(s) T-Mobile USA is using to build out their LTE network on?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gthiruva (talk • contribs) 16:09, 24 October 2012

T-Mobile USA is using AWS-1, known as LTE band class 4, according to ExtremeTech -- Pharaoh Atem: 14:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC-5)

Converted existing data to a table 222.106.173.221 (talk) 03:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

LTE deployments in Romania

We especially need an update for Romania, as requested from (talk) in > February 2013 < already:
List of romanian Mobile Providers LTE Frequency: http://www.idevice.ro/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/compat.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.87.194.82 (talk) 09:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Deployments for Romania have been added to the list together with new references. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Missing European Networks

Can somebody search for more citations for the listed networks? From my point of view it would be appreciable, if there is one cite for each network launch. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The deployments in the "Europe"-Section need loads of cites. I would suggest first to complete citation in this section before "cleaning up" the rest. Thanks for your help. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Apart from Poland and Russia the list now seem's somewhat complete. Apart from a few single deployments every network now has references that provide the launch date and the used frequency band. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Planned networks

If the page states it is a list of "active commercial" networks, why are planned but not active networks listed? Muttster (talk) 05:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

At the moment I try to add references for the single network deployments. During this "extension" at least I handle it the way that I only keep networks in the list with references that are almost "ready to" launch or due to launch shortterm. Any help on this update (Africa, America, Europe, Asia) is highly appreciated! Nightwalker-87 (talk) 18:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

@Nightwalker-87 - Why are there still planned networks in the North America (USA, US Territories & Canada) gape listed? I though it was clear to move all planned networks to planned list? MrCellular (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

There is a simple answer for that: We (Ecbf and me) are still checking if they are active or not. This is not so easy due to complicated licensing structures in the US. This means it is work in progress. Be satisfied or do some research yourself on US issues. We have two users now investing much more time in the quality of this list during the recent months than you have - so please practise the discipline of patience and humbleness. Thank You. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

If the status is unclear it has to be on the planned list. It is that simple. MrCellular (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I can tell you something that is even simpler. Do it YOURSELF - what about that? I'm not having me set under pressure by restless and saucy users. I really try to stay objective here, but must consider this as unreasonable behaviour. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I honestly didn't know about existence of the planned networks page until a few days ago. I mostly concentrated on the US and didn't pay attention to the other edits. The reason non-active networks are listed is because nobody moved them. Wiki doesn't have great communications tools and some minor incoordination is to be expected. Just clean it up. Ecbf (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Additional note: The list of planned networks infact doesn't exist for long. I did start the article in fact and already moved most of the planned networks there section by section. This was also a compromise with MrCellular to have it done step by step. We're not in a hurry from my point of view. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 00:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I finally restored the broken links concerning the frequency block information in the US section that were introduced by the outsourcing. They had not been noticed. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Sources and notes

Why shouldn't the information be complete? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrCellular (talk • contribs) August 2013 (UTC)

First: Yes I agree with you on that point. Further I would like to clarify that I haven't just deleted the frequency-information. As we're quite limited on space in the "notes" section (in favor of readability!), I try to find and add sources which provide the frequency-block information, you've added before in an "outwritten" form (e.g. Detailed results from spectrum auctions published by telco-regulators). Do you agree on that point?

I mean we can always add more and more information, just because we keep finding more and more, but from my point of view we need to draw a line at some point. Why not make use of "space saving"-references? Regards. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 00:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit: When I add sources I try to provide them in English as this is the language of the page. For every deployment I try to provide one reference confirming the launch of the network and a second one for the used frequency band. Sometimes both information is found in a single source. I personally prefer news-updates from "TeleGeography" as they cover most countries and markets (comms update for single countries). I have always been careful with press releases and news directly from the telcos' webpages, as they are likely to vanish very soon, leaving dead links. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 00:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm partial with you regarding to your first point. I also try most of the time to add sources in English but this isn't always possible and I don't think there's is always a second source required. Since when do we keep up planned LTE networks in the list? I’d like to delete some parts because they aren’t commercial and without sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrCellular (talk • contribs) 09:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your point of view. I think can take your point of view ;-) Here are my comments in detail: "I also try most of the time to add sources in English but this isn't always possible and I don't think there's is always a second source required." --> Ok, I agree on that. Concerning the number of sources: That's exactly what I tried to point out above. "Since when do we keep up planned LTE networks in the list? I’d like to delete some parts because they aren’t commercial and without sources." --> For the moment I would prefer keeping all the planned deployments until we've catched up with the missing references. Then I think we should delete the rest, for which no references could be found. By the way - here is a up-to date list with commercial deployments that surely will help to keep the wiki-table updated: http://www.teleco.com.br/en/en_lte.asp Thank You by the way for your participation. I really appreciate to see that others try to help with "extended" editing as well. Regards. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 09:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is a up-to date list with commercial deployments that surely will help to keep the wiki-table updated: http://www.teleco.com.br/en/en_lte.asp

I don't how to clasify this list. The website also includes non commercial LTE networks like T-Mobile in the Netherlands. However, I think the GSA website is more reliable but you have to create an account to get access. Thank You by the way for your participation. Well, thanks very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrCellular (talk • contribs) 14:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

"However, I think the GSA website is more reliable but you have to create an account to get access." --> I agree on that, nevertheless I'm going through the teleco-list in reverse to see if the list matches our wiki-table dates (just to see if the wiki network list is "somehow" complete) I'll post additional networks from the teleco-list in the [--> Talk section of der LTE network wiki-table] (not in here, as my talk page seems to get filled quite rapidly :-D ... ) If further things need to be discussed I would redirect them to that location... Ok? Thanks again ;-) Nightwalker-87 (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice chat! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrCellular (talk • contribs) 18:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Smart Communications Philippines Issue

Please don't modify the details of Smart's LTE network under the Asia table. Their network only operates on the 2100MHz frequency (band 1). A lot of customers has been already mislead by the erroneous edits on this Wiki listing. Source: Experience — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.28.125.208 (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The reference you provided is no longer valid (dead link!). If you can really proof that the TeleGeography source is wrong (meaning that you give at least one thrustworthy "official" reference (Press-release, Newspaper article, etc.)), we can consider a change. If your point of view (erreous edit) turns out to be true, clearly the source "TeleGeography" is to be blamed for this, not Wikipedia itself. Anyway I'll take a closer look at this issue. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I found two new references that seem thrustworthy from my point of view: [[1]] and [[2]]. First: As it seems there really is a (spelling) error in the TeleGeography article. "Smart Communications, the mobile arm of Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT), has successfully deployed Long Term Evolution (LTE) services in the 1800MHz band, making its 4G service tri-band. The cellco was already using the 850MHz band and the higher 2600MHz band to carry the service, launched on 25 August, says PLDT and Smart network and IP systems head Rolando Pena." --> must be 2100MHz. Second: ... BUT: the other deployments 850 MHz and 1800 MHz are correct and therefore remain unchainged. I will use one of these references above for the wiki-table to replace the second TeleGeography reference. Thank You for your advice though and sorry for the "clear words", but next time please comment first before instantly deleting larger content. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 19:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I know, I know. Smart issued several press releases ('praise' releases?) saying that they have 'deployed' LTE on 850MHz and 1800MHz. But that is really NOT true. They have NOT deployed LTE on the said bands and I am yet to know someone who has managed to get LTE working on an LTE device which does NOT support 2100MHz (i.e. the only operational LTE band). Heck, some devices (e.g. BlackBerry Z10 and Q10) that have LTE 1800MHz that is being offered by Smart does NOT come with an LTE service. Why? Because their network does NOT support it. So please, edit those out (band 3 and 5) and save a lot of people from being mislead again. I just want to spread the right info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.28.125.70 (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I will add a note in red letters to point out that issue. I am sure this will solve the problem and satisfy you with your concerns. Thank you for the details given. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 18:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. Appreciate it. It would be better though if you could add another note under the date column and put "(not operational)" next to the dates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.191.59.69 (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Just found this recent update: [[3]] Is this verifiable or just another "praise" release? :-D Nightwalker-87 (talk) 12:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Bro, yes, they are testing LTE-A. But the fact that they can't even distinguish 'megabytes' from 'megabits' makes me want to pull my hair. Oh, please don't add this yet. LOL. [[4]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.28.127.29 (talk) 13:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay... *no comment* :-D I would say, I'll leave this topic to you by now. Would be great though if you could post updates here for everybody if there is a "real" (means: physical) extension of the SMART LTE-deployment(s) and services, that users can also take note of and really benefit from. Thanks again for your efforts! Nightwalker-87 (talk) 09:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Colouring scheme US-networks

What is the significance of the color bands in the North America list? I've looked for a key or explanation, to no avail. Can these be clarified, please? Andrewcr67 (talk) 04:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are totally right there. I forgot to explain them below the table. They mark the nationwide frequencies of the major operators. Therefore I used the colour scheme of their individual branding. Will add a footnote below the table soon. Thanks for your note! ;-) Nightwalker-87 (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. 75.118.111.22 (talk) 17:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I've finally added the desired note. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 22:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Missing Networks (worldwide)

• Saima telecom (Kyrgyzstan) - Dec 2011
• Unitel LLC Beeline (Uzbekistan) - Feb 2012
• Babilon Mobile (Tajikistan) - Sep 2012

--> Networks are now listed, but only with very basic information. More references need to be added over time. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 22:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: LTE

I cited a different source in the actual Rogers article. And I've seen how Rogers promotes it in their material; they use the Max branding to refer to the 2600mhz. Also, please be careful that you do not give the impression that you are asserting ownership over the article. Also, why are the U.S. networks on there colored? You're giving undue weight to U.S. carriers and their branding. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

You pointed out quite a few things there, let me go through them one by one: "I cited a different source in the actual Rogers article. And I've seen how Rogers promotes it in their material; they use the Max branding to refer to the 2600mhz."
--> Ok, no problem, but can you add this source in the deployment list as well?

"Also, please be careful that you do not give the impression that you are asserting ownership over the article."
--> I am sorry, but I don't share this point of view with you. I have never claimed any ownership, nor do I revert edits without giving a comprehensible reason. Up to now there have never been any conflicts with other editors. I have ever since been open for a discussion and also try to see topics from a different perspective. On the other hand I also spend quite some time to really help improve this article concerning new content and formatting. The fact that I receive positive feedback from other editors gives me the impression, that personal efforts are appreciated.

"Also, why are the U.S. networks on there colored? You're giving undue weight to U.S. carriers and their branding."
--> It is not my fault that the list becomes that populated as there are so many regional LTE deployments in the US due to a US-specific license policy. The colours were there to help readers to point out the 4 major carriers from the large number of small regional providers in the long national list. Further the coloring scheme was explained above the table.

Further I noticed that you also changed the formatting in the section "General information". The text was in "bold" formatting and some of it also in red colour before to point out how the "roaming definition" is understood for this article (not my idea by the way!). The elevated formatting making it more noticeable seemed to have helped other editors as the number of wrong entries concerning global roaming reduced quite a bit.

I would really appreciate it, if you take another look at the changes you made and the doubts you raised. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 19:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Clarify the meaning of "global roaming possibility"

I don't really understand the meaning of that column. Can someone please clarify this? From my point of view a "no" could mean any of the following:

• The band is not used in any other country.
• The company using this band does not allow visitors from other countries to connect to the network in this band.
• There is some magic / contracts / regulation preventing roaming

Conversely a "yes" could mean:

• The company that operates this band allows visitors from other countries to connect to the network and roam, provided their handset is compatible
• Some magic / contract / regulation forces the operator to allow roaming on that band
• The band simply is used in more than one single country 37.5.193.174 (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. I understand that there is quite a bit of confusion concerning this topic - and it is really not easy to realise. First I'd like to come back to the definition above the table:

• Networks on the global LTE-bands 1, 3, 7, 28 (FDD-LTE) or 38, 40 (TDD-LTE) are capable of future global roaming (ITU Regions 1, 2 and 3).
• Networks on LTE-band 8 (FDD-LTE) may allow global roaming in the future (ITU Regions 1, 2 and 3) (Long-term perspective).
• Networks on LTE-band 20 (FDD-LTE) allow roaming in ITU Region 1 (EMEA) only.
• Networks on LTE-bands 2 and 4 (FDD-LTE) allow roaming in ITU Region 2 (Americas) only.

Capable means that these E-UTRA bands have been allocated for LTE services by the regional, supranational telecom regulation authorities in all three ITU Regions, which creates a "global" roaming possibility. I write global in quotation marks, because ITU-Region 2 is a special case somehow. This region has some bands like IMT-E 2600 or APAC 700 which it shares with regions 1 and 3 (allocated in many ITU-2 countries as well), making these real global allocated bands. In this region (ITU-2) though things are really complicated: Here the IMT 2100 and DCS 1800 bands are mixed with AWS 1700 and PCS 1900 in several countries. Because of these partial deployments of DCS 1800 and UMTS 2100 they are listed as "deployed" in Region 2.

In total this means Yes or No does not give any information on, if:

• The company that operates this band allows/does not allow visitors from other countries to connect to the network and roam, provided their handset is compatible
• Some magic / contract / regulation forces the operator to allow/does not allow roaming on that band
• The band simply is used in more than one single country (<-- Instead, see the definition above)

I hope that this removes ambiguity. From my point of view this complex issue is easier to get across with Yes or No together with the explanation above the table (and here as well), than adding ITU Region numbers to all single deployments. The latter would definitely make this point abstruse to readers. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 21:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I spent some more thoughts on this issue. Another point that came to my mind is to move the "roaming"-information to this place: E-UTRA#Frequency bands and channel bandwidths. First, this could prevent users from spending too much thoughts on "personal" roaming-possiblities on single networks for individual operators and see them instead checking device compatibility only. Second, as the previous explanation I gave is more to be seen from a "regulatoritative" and more common perspective, it would rather fit into the linked article on LTE-bands.
@ all interested readers & editors: What is your point of view? Have your say! I'll not take action straightaway... Nightwalker-87 (talk) 23:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

After waiting for a while and as there were no futher postings on this issue, I finally re-utilised the "Global roaming possibility"-column as a column for the used duplexing mode (FDD or TDD). I hope this satisfies everybody's needs. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 08:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Missing Networks in the United States

Here are missing networks in the US to be added and cited on the list:

• Mosaic telecom (rural deployment) - Jul 2011
• People & Etex telephone Coop - Feb 2012
• Shenandoah Telecommunications (Sprint Nextel Affiliate) - Nov 2012
• Thumb Cellular (rural deployment) - Dec 2012
• Aio Wireless (AT&T Subsidiary)
• Family Mobile (MNVO) --> MNVOs are in seperate wiki-article, referring link has been added in US section.
• Chat Mobility
• Northwest Missouri
• Virgin Mobile USA (Sprint Subsidiary)
• [Alltel (aquired by AT&T) (planned LTE launch)] --> Network will now be part of AT&T infrastructure.
• West Central Wireless

--> Missing networks are now in the list of deployments. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

List of frequency permission in Iceland / LTE deployment in Iceland

It is possible to view all the frequency licence in Iceland for the GSM/UMTS/LTE bands and what company has them here. This does not say if an network is currently active or not. For LTE in Iceland the bands 800/1800Mhz are being used. Currently 2600Mhz are not being used as that band is used for television broadcast.

[[5]] This link is in Icelandic and all documents on this website. The list is this in terms of frequency bands:

Nova - 800/1800Mhz Vodafone 800/1800Mhz Note: Shares network with Nova. Síminn 1800Mhz Note: Síminn has not yet started its LTE service. 365 Miðlar 800Mhz Note: I am not sure if it is active currently.

Jonfr (talk) 03:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. Thank you very much for the information! I just added everything to the list and cited the link. What remains unclear is, on what frequencies (out of the licenced frequencies) LTE is initially (currently) deployed on. Did Nova and Vodafone launch on 800 MHz or 1800 MHz only, or was there a dual frequency deployment straight from the beginning? Nightwalker-87 (talk) 10:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Nova and Vodafone have started there service on LTE1800 in Reykjavík and Akureyri. For other areas they are most likely using LTE800 due to low population and difficult terrain that needs to be covered with LTE service. Nova has coverage map here for it's 3G/LTE service. It roams into Vodafone GSM network and on certain locations in to Síminn GSM network.

Nova coverage map (It's in Icelandic): https://www.nova.is/aspnetweb/content/thjonusta/thjonustusvaedi/Innanlands.aspx?startpage=true Vodafone IS coverage map (It's in Icelandic): https://www.vodafone.is/simi/frelsi/svaedi Jonfr (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks - that's the same deployment strategy like in most countries. I initially thought that it would be this way, I had to ask for a reference though to be sure. (In Germany for example Vodafone at first deployed LTE 800 in cities as well, before they launched networks on higher frequencies there much later to add more capacity.) I'll update the list soon. Thx again. ;-) Nightwalker-87 (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I found a new reference for the LTE-frequencies currently deployed (active). I've updated the list referring to this information. If you get to know any new developments regarding this topic, please let us know. Thanks again for your help. :-) Nightwalker-87 (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

"LTE in Rural America": carriers don't lease Verizon network

I propose to put "LTE in Rural America" participants into the main table. Here are two reasons:
I've recently investigated Galaxy S4 model SCH-I545L that uses band 13 (it is sold by Bluegrass Wireless in the US). It turned out Bluegrass Wireless is leasing only spectrum from Verizon Wireless but not the network equipment. Bluegrass runs their own network on band 13. The article says that Verizon Wireless would not build out LTE services in the markets of partners of "LTE in Rural America". So all US carriers lease spectrum from the FCC but Bluegrass also leases band 13 from Verizon. There is no much difference. They all lease. Ecbf (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The second reason is that all entries are sorted by the carrier name so the readers (myself included) would not expect additional entries somewhere else. Ecbf (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I've created an anchor in Verizon Wireless article: Verizon Wireless#LRA Ecbf (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. First: Thank you very much for opening a Talk on this issue. :-) I know that only the spectrum is leased from Verizon and the network infrastructure is built by the local operators. In detail this means: As a result of the FCC auction Verizon solely received a "nationwide license" (without Alaska (local license was bought up later by Verizon), Puerto Rico and Guam). The program LTE in Rural America was introduced to spread LTE in rural areas. From the Verizon perspective this is to save costs, as they just lease their spectrum to the local operators, who build up the network infrastructure themselves. De-facto (and also from the users perspective) these small regional networks are "part" of Verizon's network. As far as i know a LTE-phone doesn't distinguish between the "native" verizon-network and the rural partner's network - it appears as Verizon 4G/LTE (band 13) all the time. This is one reason for "outsourcing" these rural deployments in seperate section. The second reason is that there are quite a few of these smaller rural deployments with some more to come. If we re-add these deployments to the main table we need a note for > every one of these deployments < that it is part of the "Verizon LTE Rural America Program". From my point of view it would be much better to add one common note above the US-table noting that the program exists and that these local networks are listed in a seperate table below with a link to it. This would address your concern with not expecting additional networks. I'm looking forward to your response. I'm sure we can find a solution that suits everybody's needs. Can we shift the final decision to let's say the mid of the first week of October, to give others the chance to have their say? By then I'll be able to re-respond on this issue as well. Thanks. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 20:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, the chief editor of the article :) There is another reason why Verizon is subleasing the spectrum to the rural carriers: phones. The rural carriers do want to be independent that's why they bought band 12 licenses. But few manufacturers want to make phones for that band. Rural carriers will be seriously hurt unless they get all these shiny new phones. Since the rural carriers use CDMA networks and Sprint coverage is often not available adjacent to them they have no choice but to go to Verizon. The rural carriers wanted the FCC to force Verizon and manufacturers make handsets that support both bands 12 and 13. Verizon and manufacturers refused citing technical difficulties. Verizon instead suggested LTE in Rural America as a solution. Ecbf (talk) 23:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The reason some phones don't distinguish between Verizon and the rural carriers is most likely poor reconfiguration of Verizon models by the manufacturers (Verizon is also known to mess heavily with Android phones). See this iPhone image. It says "Bluegrass LTE." Apple is properly configuring their phones even though it's the same model for Verizon and Bluegrass. Ecbf (talk) 23:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The reason I want to improve this article is because I link to it from phone articles: LG G2#Network_compatibility. Recently I'm considering writing a special article for phone compatibility in the US. It will take care of CDMA, MVNO, T-mobile 1900MHz network, explain that band 17 is really necessary to be compatible with AT&T, LTE in Rural America, etc. And if I have time may be another article for the rest of the world explaining how to check compatibility. Still I think this list of LTE networks should be easy to use. I think notes at the top or the bottom are equally hard to see. Because this article is so long I suspect people just search rather than read it (that's what I do). My suggestion is to keep all LRA participants in the small table but put a short note (like you put recently to Bluegrass) "Additional deployment available (see table below)" to each operator that has two networks. Ecbf (talk) 23:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I would also rewrite the current title "Third-party users of U.S. LTE networks" as "Third-party users of U.S. LTE networks and spectrum sublessees." Ecbf (talk) 23:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ecbf. Thanks for the detailed explanations. I think your ideas are very resonable and I agree with you. An additional article on the topic "Phone compatibility in the US" would definitely make sense as this LTE network list tends to become overloaded in the US section, just because of the ("weird") US band plan and the necessary band compatibility explanation. It would be much easier to link to a seperate article dealing with this issues. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 10:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I kind of run out of enthusiasm to write such an article :) It needs a lot of references and some of the facts are hard to backup with trustworthy references. I'll just continue improving the existing Wikipedia articles.Ecbf (talk) 04:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I understand that ;-) Concerning hardware support it is indeed a stupid situation that developed in the aftermath of the US-band plan following frequency allocation to the single US-Operators. I think we should concentrate on the FCC-licenses (spectrum blocks) and bands for the US-section instead, what then allows the reader to find out if a phone supports the individual network of interest. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

E-UTRA Band 9 in Japan

Hi 121.101.100.164. "It isn't said in the MIC article that eAccess and docomo deploy BAND 9 on LTE, UMTS1800 (band 3) is called "1.7GHz band" in Japan." --> It's not as easy as this. I know that this shows up in media quite a few times. To be correct we need to look at the perspective of the 3GGP Standardization Group that standardized the frequency bands for LTE. Here I'd like to show you a official source: http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/136100_136199/136101/11.05.00_60/ts_136101v110500p.pdf (Page 22 - Table 5.5-1 E-UTRA operating bands) Apart from this I've added an additional source explaining the band 9 issue in the wiki network-list. Further I'd like to state clearly that devices that support band 3 automatically support band 9 as it is a subset of band 3. The difference is that some (former) UMTS bands in Japan (band 9,11 and 21) have a different spectral grid compared to the other E-UTRA bands. They run from x.9 MHz to x.9 MHz (as can be seen in the source above). Concerning your other change in the wiki article "E-UTRA": As well you can clearly see in the table cited above, that band 9 is NOT "not applicable". This is only the case for band 6. The fact that MIC issued the LTE license in the 1700 MHz band from x.9 MHz to x.9 MHz and not in the 5 MHz-block-grid (x.0 to x.0 MHz) used in band 3 around the globe indicates that the license is for band 9. I know that for the "normal" reader this discussion makes no difference, as band 3 device work here anyway, BUT from the technical perspective the wiki-tables in the article "List of LTE networks" and "E-UTRA" must be correct. From my point of view this is not a discussion of the kind "I think this is correct with the other person saying but I think that is correct". We need to stick to official standized LTE documents such as the one from above and official documents from MIC as well. Please have your say as well. I'd love to see a solution at the end that is correct from the technical perspective, but that on the other side can also be understood by everybody that reads the article without raising further questions. Thank you for your participation. :-) Nightwalker-87 (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't find the any official article that says emobile and ntt docomo roll out band 9 or band 3, but all of lte-band-3-compatible devices (e.g. iPhone 5/5s) indicate "band 3 networks" when you are in emobile or ntt docomo LTE networks. There is also AXGP/TD-LTE compatible problem. In Japan, WCP(Softbank group) rolls out AXGP networks. You can use band 41 compatible devices in AXGP networks, and devices indicate "band 41", but it seems some technical differences between TD-LTE band 41 and AXGP. but there's few articles which refers to this differences. I hope if you have any idea.126.205.153.156 (talk) 10:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I do not question what you wrote above, but please take a look at the last source of the entry "emobile 1800 MHz" (cite 226): [[6]]. This strongly indicates what I wrote before. Therefore I will readd the note on compatibility but will keep the band number "3" for the networks. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 12:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The recently added citation clarifies the topic together with the 3GPP-specification TS 36.101 in the background. I think that solves the issue. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 12:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

2100 support on MTN South Africa

MTN South Africa does not support LTE 2100. Can someone please remove that entry in the Africa deployments table? If you are looking for validation, you can view the MTN LTE site (https://www.mtninternet.co.za/getit/Pages/LTE.aspx) and look at "Getting Started with LTE" tab. I don't want to remove it myself, as I'm not experienced enough at Wikipedia and I don't want to make a mess of things. Thanks Ryan.vandenBergh (talk) 09:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi there! :-) Thanks for your note. I'll take care of this issue as soon as possible. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 21:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Alaska Comm / GCI band

I see that Alaska Communications (ACS) and GCI are listed as using the 700 MHz B block for their LTE. This is incorrect. ACS nor GCI owns any spectrum in that band. They use band 4 (AWS) for their LTE. This can be verified via the FCC's website, but I'm unsure how to reference that as a source as it's only available as a search that ultimately times out. The source listed for band 17 doesn't make any sense; the only thing one can infer from Apple's website is that ACS/GCI use one of the bands supported by the device. GCI owns lots of PCS spectrum. ACS owns a bit of PCS and a good chunk of Cellular (850 MHz), as well as AWS. Since AWN (Alaska Wireless Network) now owns all spectrum by both companies, they both have access to AWS, which is a main LTE band and supported by most, if not all US GSM-LTE devices. I do use GCI and can confirm that there is only band 4 available for LTE, but this obviously doesn't qualify as a source. Thanks. koolman2 (talk) 03:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi there! Thanks for the valuable info. I'll take care of this issue as soon as possible. The FCC provides lists with the sucessful bidders for mobile licenses on their homepage. This may qualify for a source, but it would be better if there would be an article or a news report. Sometimes finding one of these is indeed very difficult... Nightwalker-87 (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I've changed the frequency band. Can you give a direct link to the search-website where you found it? That would make it possible to (reverse-)look up the license and the spectrum blocks in the auction results, which can be cited as a document. The problem here is that the spectrum holder does not always match the mobile operator that offers the wireless service... Nightwalker-87 (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Lower Block B is licensed to AlasConnect in Fairbanks: http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/leaseMain.jsp?licKey=3009163. They deployed SCDMA using this block over Fairbanks borough: https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsEntry/attachments/attachmentViewRD.jsp?applType=search&fileKey=1094586070&attachmentKey=18857856&attachmentInd=licAttach So that means they are not subleasing spectrum or network to AlaskaComm or AT&T. I found a solid reference for band 4 usage: Form 8-K for GCI INC: http://biz.yahoo.com/e/130726/756798-k.html Ecbf (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey Ecbf! That's good to know. The 8-K source does qualify for the moment. I'd still like to see the direct FCC-license No. though, just like I've added them to most of the other local networks in the US-section (Something like AW-BEAxyz-B or AW-CMAxyz-A)... I tried to find out about this here: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1882A2.pdf but I couldn't figure out what license block is actually licensed to AlasComm or GCI. They must be sublicensees or must have bought the spectrum licenses in the AWS-band from another company after the auction... Any ideas? Nightwalker-87 (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I did find this on the FCC website showing AWS block B for AWN. I'm not sure if it has the rest of the information you're looking for, but it might steer you in the right direction. http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/license.jsp?licKey=2867777 koolman2 (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Koolman2. Awesome! That's exactly what I was looking for: "BEA171-B". Having the licensee details I can now have a more detailed look @FCC if GCI holds even more licenses in Alaska. Will update the list as soon as possible. Thanks! Nightwalker-87 (talk) 19:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Nightwalker-87! I see that Koolman2 and you have already found the license. Just wanted to add this FCC search tool:

http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/searchAdvanced.jsp You can limit the search to service(AWS, PCS, CLR, 700MHz(WU,WX,WY), etc), state, zipcode, subfrequencies within the band, etc. Ecbf (talk) 23:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Other rural deployments in the US - yet missing cites and references (as of 23.10.2013)

• Adams Networks (May 2013)
• Evolve Broadband (Jun 2013)
• Enhanced Telecommunication Corporation (Sep 2013)
• Panhandle Bonfire (Mar 2012)

--> Networks are now live and in the list of deployments. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 15:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Planned networks (Slovakia)

I don't get it. Why in hell? Just because of the auction? Why do we need to add such information and do not/ can't wait until there're more information from operators e.g.? Someone should rename the list as "list of planned LTE networks". Sounds better... --MrCellular (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but where shall we collect all the information on granted licenses. Would you invest the time to maintain a seperate list or a special talk section, just for upcoming launches and the MANY sources??? I'm not going to da a reverse search in a telecom news archive, would you?

Further I point to the fact that there will be hundreds of more networks > commercially < launched midterm, which will be listed here as well, so it can't be an issue of readability... Further they are printed in light grey - but hey, what do you think about having these greyed out as a whole line, not just the date? Nightwalker-87 (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

First of all I do apologize for coming to you this late.

I suggest to rename the list because for most of the freuquencies there's no soon deployment. Another question is why you’ve been so inconsequent and didn’t add frequency from other countries like Austria or Germany (TDD) e.g. too? (Hopefully you don't pick up my idea) I guess I’m damn wrong. However if you follow the (European) mobile market you would detect that the operators won’t deploy TDD LTE in the next years.

It is not a readable issue it is a general issue. That’s the reason why am I suggested a separated list with unknown date of the LTE deployment. Don’t get me wrong I really appreciate your work and the time you invest to keep the list updated but I don’t think it is that necessary to add networks/ frequency with unclear deployment status. MrCellular (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi [User:MrCellular|MrCellular]]. Thank You very much for the response and your constructive input. I like your idea to start a separate list with upcoming deployments and currently unused licenses. We should outsource all the grey entries with launch dates later than 2014 or "TBD" entries to the new list. I will continue editing from next week. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Nothing happen so far. No visable changes. Do you try to trick me or something like that? MrCellular (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, listen: I don't know what you do in life, but for me I can say that I edit wikipedia as a hobby. This means that sometime there is time and sometime there isn't. Recently the latter was clearly the case with time only left for smaller edits. If you are so extremely annoyed about the actual state of the list - why don't you take action then instead of trying to put pressure on others??? For my part I think I clearly suggested a reasonable change to the list and also stated that I would contribute on this issue. I would kindly suggest you to think about your comment again and maybe take a look in the wiki-guidelines of gentle behaviour ;-) Thank you for your understanding. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Why are you so angry? You're the person who said "I'll will outsource such entries next week". I just asked after two weeks... You better don't place any date of change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrCellular (talk • contribs) 11:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I understand your note with "Nothing happen so far." and "Do you try to trick me or something like that?" quite provocative. In the way you formulated it, what seems to have meant "I haven't seen any progress on the topic so far, is your suggestion still current?" (if I try to see it in the perspective of your last comment). You should be careful with the way you formulate (say) things to avoid misunderstandings. Concerning your last reply: The statement "I will continue editing from next week." is quite open and meant "Editing on Wikipedia in general" otherwise I would have written "I will adress this topic by next week." As you can see there is a clear difference in the meaning. Ok, enough for this point...

I see you have discovered that I started to outsource non-active deployments yesterday. I will continue with this in smaller steps. (Don't expect it to happen all at once!). I suggest to leave out the section "North America" (=US,CA,US Territories) for the first, as some deployments are not clear so far (we're talking about single frequency blocks here with complicated licensing structures covering different regions). Maybe we can cone back to this special topic at a later date. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

A1 announced commercial service for LTE800 source removed

Why did you removed my source unnecessarily? Please don't do this again. -

The intention behind this was, that the source you provided was in German while a equal English source was available and this "List of LTE networks" is on the English version of Wikipedia. You should be aware of that most readers of this article may not speak German, what is a reasonable explanation for dealing with this issue in that way.
Anyway I will restore your source, but please keep in mind you may re-redit yourself at anytime and give a short summary for the edit (as you usually do). If a re-edit leads to further concerns a topic in the talk-section of the article should be started. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Band 12 and 17 interoperability @ 700MHz

After looking at the issue, as far as I understand it affects (a) VoLTE roaming between band 12 and 17 networks and (b) device availability for small rural carriers. For example I don't think it affects Adams Networks fixed wireless broadband service (or any other FWB operator). It also does not really affect U.S. Cellular and Nex-Tech Wireless as they managed to get band 12 phones (I don't think they care about VoLTE at the moment). It only affects operators that are providing wireless phone service but not able to utilize band 12 for phone services such as BlueGrass or nTelos. Therefore I propose to remove band 12 references [99] and [100] from the unaffected entries. Objections? Ecbf (talk) 04:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ecbf! Good point, but instead of just removing the references it may be a good idea to add a footnote linked with the headline of the US-section of the table explaining the issue in one or two sentences together with sources [99] and [100]. This removes all single cites in the table, but preserves the (old) information for the reader on the other hand. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Nightwalker-87! I don't want to remove all references. I only want to remove them from FWB networks. They don't seek interoperability with other networks since you are not supposed to move FWB modem around and I'm not aware of any LTE roaming services provided by these networks. They only serve their own devices.Ecbf (talk) 03:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is another problem. When a provider has licenses in 700MHz lower blocks b and c but not in block a, maybe they are using band 17? Apparently this is the case of BendBroadband. According to http://www.4gltemall.com/blog/band-17-700-mhz-lower-b-operators-and-ues/ they used band 17. Looking through their website I see that they used Bandluxe R505 Router http://help.bendbroadband.com/sp_kb_detail.asp?kb=100177&adct=3&pageID=bbbs&subID=hsi which according to the specs supports only bands 4 and 17. As a side note according to the FCC licensing database BendBroadband have just sold the 700MHz block b and AWS licenses to AT&T. But when I check Adams Networks I see that they use R500 modem that supports band 12 and 17 so it's not clear what equipment they support. I plan to use "17 or 12" for these networks. The same issue with BlueGrass: they use Bandluxe R529 Router for FWB, it supports both 12 and 17 bands according to the user manual (http://mygetsetgo.com/content/uploads/BandLuxe_R529_User_Manual_20120905.pdf). BlueGrass have licenses for blocks b and c but not a. The referenced rcrwireless article is not correct. See the pdf file with the auction results. Block a in that area is owned by Cavalier Wireless who are spectrum squatters from my research. I cannot find any evidence that they allow BlueGrass to use block a. Ecbf (talk) 03:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ecbf! Your explanations and research work seems reasonable to me. I'm with you concerning that topic - go ahead as intended... ;-) Additionally I suggest to "grey-out" inactive networks (Bend Broradband and also MTS Uzbekistan in the Asia section). Nightwalker-87 (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I was looking for an example so that we use the same style but MTS Uzbekistan just has a note. I opened a discussion below. Ecbf (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't bother too much about the BendBroadband issue. I Think we should leave it as it is for the moment. ;-) Nightwalker-87 (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, I extended the 700 MHz auction article and added "700 MHz spectrum interoperability issues" section (I also created an anchor to make it easier to link). I think this problem is pretty complex and what I wrote explains the issues and the current status better than two references we use next to '12'. I think it would be better to summarize how each provider is affected by the interoperability issues in one sentence in the "Notes" column and link to the article I wrote for more information. Ecbf (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

To summarize: telecom providers that never offered phones are not affected (no need to write notes), other block A license holders either didn't deploy network(C Spire), resorted to FWB (Syringa, Bluegrass, etc) or suffer from limited device support (US Cellular, Nex-tech). Ecbf (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I now consider 700 MHz spectrum cleaned up :) Ecbf (talk) 06:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

How do we mark networks being shutdown or totally shutdown?

First of all, regarding BendBroadband: it's strange that there is no public notice but the licenses are sold and the most telling evidence is that the provider's web site simply does not offer wireless broadband. I'm not sure how to link to something that does not exists :) Note that after the license was sold, AT&T temporary leased it back to BendBroadband because the wireless customers are still being migrated according the application attachment. Ecbf (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Now how do we mark networks being shutdown? I entered the license transfer date into the "Launch date" column and grayed the provider name. Ecbf (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Also what about networks that are clearly defunct? Remove them eventually? The articles "List of USA MVNO" and "List of USA wireless communication companies" have tables at the bottom to collect acquired, merged and defunct networks. Ecbf (talk)

Hi :-) I would appreciate it to collect these in a table at the bottom (at least for a while). If their number should increase someday it is easier to outsource this bottom-table to a seperate article. Also I suggest to add a note in the header "General Information" of this article that defunct and shutdown networks are listed at the bottom. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Associated Carrier Group (Nex-Tech and other CDMA carriers)

From Nex-Tech (NTW) filing:
In 2006, Nex-Tech Wireless joined forces with 36 other rural carriers who formed a buying consortium called Associated Carrier Group to strengthen buying power and offer greater volume to handset vendors. Group has held numerous meetings with handset vendors. ACG solicited equipment to no avail. Told small scale too unattractive to vendors. ... Band Class 17 devices fall back to the GSM standard, whereas Band Class 12 handsets revert to CDMA. NTW is currently on a 3G network, and has not deployed LTE. Therefore, Band Class 17 GSM devices could not be used on NTW’s Band Class 12 CDMA network. Ecbf (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

My thoughts: The group members have licenses for 700MHz lower blocks a, b, c so they need handsets supporting band 12 that encompasses all these blocks. Including C Spire the group has 1+ million customers. Nex-Tech (and other CDMA carriers) cannot piggyback on AT&T device orders because AT&T band 17 devices do not support CDMA. Nex-Tech explicitly say they use band 12 so I think it's reasonable to assume that other CDMA carriers are in the same position. Ecbf (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

In the filing (Dec 2012) Nex-Tech complains that they considered US Cellular handsets but found that the phones have branding on the hardware and in the software. When they launched their LTE network in Nov 2013 they used (according to their website) LG F7 AS780 and Motorola Moto X. LG F7 AS780 is the same hardware as US Cellular LG Optimus F7 US780. On page 162 of AS780 manual: SAR information on this model phone is on file with the FCC and can be found under the Display Grant section of http://www.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid/ after searching on FCC ID ZNFUS780. According to the certification filing the device supports LTE band 2,4,5,12,25 but not 17. Moto X also appears to be a US Cellular variant of Moto X. Nex-Tech manual for Moto X. On the last page it says "(Model XT1053/XT1055/XT1058)". Since XT1053 and XT1058 are GSM models that means Nex-Tech picked XT1055 which is a US Cellular variant. Ecbf (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The point of this long investigation is that besides Nex-Tech saying they use band 12, the other members of the group are very likely to follow the same approach: piggyback on US Cellular LTE band 12 device orders. Ecbf (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Claro Puerto Rico 700MHz spectrum

Looking at the phones they sell it's pretty clear to me they cannot use band 12. See "band 12 vs 17" section above. They don't have enough subscribers to order so many band 12 phones from various manufacturers. The specifications of the phones they sell pretty much confirm they use band 17. The phone model numbers are missing for most of the phones they sell but three phones have the models specified: LG G2 D801, Nokia Lumia 1020, Nokia Lumia 925. All these phones do not support band 12 but support band 17. Ecbf (talk) 05:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

As a result they cannot use their 700 A block spectrum. I looked through their USB dongles and it does not look any of them support band 12 so I'm graying out "700 a" line. Ecbf (talk) 05:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, that does make sense to me, but I would mark the A-Block as "TBD (planned)" instead of graying out this line. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Band 13 and GSM/UMTS networks (Digicel Cayman, others?)

I believe as of Feb 2014 only iPhone 5S/5C support GSM/UMTS and LTE band 13. Verizon devices support band 13 and GSM/UMTS but they are designed to work on Verizon's network and have branding, I don't think Verizon is able and willing to share SKUs. iPhone 5S/5C support band 13 but Apple blocks LTE on uncertified networks. Sony Xperia Z2 soon to be released supports band 13. The bottom line: Digicel Cayman and other license holders that run GSM/UMTS networks cannot use band 13 right now. Ecbf (talk) 09:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I suppose that they are in the process of building the infrastructure for 700 MHz at the moment as they secured the spectrum. They are likely to launch as soon as more devices are available. Concerning the iPhone 5C/5S band 13 capability: I think that Apple will certify the band 13 network as well for iPhone 5C/5S as they sell the Verizon-US-Model in other American countries as well (e.g. Colombia, Mexico, Venezuela). This version seems to use the same SKU like iPhones sold by Verizon (although there are no 700 MHz b13 deployments in these countries). ( https://www.apple.com/iphone/LTE/ ) I don't think that Apple is willing to adjust SKUs for every provider. So far they seem to have the following SKU-Versions: US & Americas (CDMA+GSM) / US & Japan (CDMA+GSM)/ Europe & Middle East / Asia (+ South Africa) / China (special version?) - To sum it up: It's complicated and stupid enough with 5 SKUs :-/ Nightwalker-87 (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

If you are saying that they may have already installed or installing band 13 equipment, yes, that's possible. But we don't have any evidence. The flyer that I found only mentions 1800 MHz. I don't want to mislead people so we'd better keep "TBD (planned)" in the launch column until we have some evidence. Ecbf (talk) 03:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I just answered on your comment. I never mentioned that I disagree with your edit, setting 1800 MHz as "active" together with graying out the 700 MHz deployment. I do welcome this edit - that's all just fine and reasonable to me. ;-) Nightwalker-87 (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, OK. I totally misunderstood your comment, my bad :) Ecbf (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)