Talk:List of LTE networks/Archive 2

GTA Guam - LTE-Band

Hi Ecbf. I try to find out which Band GTA Guam uses together with the issued cellular license for quite a while now. Acording to the 4G Americas network list (see article), I think that they use AWS 1700, while all other operators on Guam use band 12. The band 13 license belongs to "Club 42 Ltd" - whoever that is... Can you find out more? Nightwalker-87 (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Nightwalker-87! According to this recent filing (page 2 paragraph 1) and the license search by FRN 0011458999 they have only three licenses: CLR(5), PCS(2), AWS(4). So this definitely rules out 700MHz bands. Here are model numbers for many of their phones One phone they advertise as an LTE phone, Galaxy S3 I747 supports only bands 4 and 17. Since band 17 is out that leaves only band 4. Unfortunately other phones also support LTE band 5 and 2, so there is no overwhelming evidence but that's what I've got :) Combined with 4G Americas network list that should be enough evidence. Here is their AWS license Ecbf (talk) 02:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

You're great! Thanks for the help. I've just updated the list. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

4G Americas list reliability

Although they are industry insiders and some information comes from the operators, it looks to me they just copied "LTE 700" into almost every line in the US and Guam. Ecbf (talk) 23:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I know the GSMA LTE network list is more reliable, but it is not freely accessible, which indeed is a problem. The 4G-Americas list shows some errors (sometimes errors in typo (e.g. marking a network with "LTE700 (AWS)", what obviously should mean "LTE1700 (AWS)") concerning used LTE bands here and there. So far I kept it that way, that I only added the 4GA list as a source, if I was not able to find any other source for the used frequency band. Sometimes it's even hard to find an evidence for the launch of a network in some (remote) countries. From my point of view dealing with this issue in that way seems to be the best for the moment... Nightwalker-87 (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, that sounds reasonable (to use them if no other sources are available). Their typos bring confusion. For example nTelos: "LTE-700 (2,4,25)". Is 700 a typo? nTelos does not have any 700MHz licenses so it's either a typo or it's a sloppy copy-paste from some other line. If they mean LTE-1700 then it does not match what nTelos is doing. nTelos lists three "4G LTE Capable" smartphones (HTC Desire, Optimus F7, Moto X) and all of them list "Frequency: 4G LTE 1900MHZ" http://www.ntelos.com/product-details/HTC-Desire-601. I'm not sure what are models numbers for Optimus F7 and Moto X but HTC Desire 601 (CDMA model) according to the FCC certifications docs supports only band 25. That means 1900MHz frequency is very likely to provide complete coverage otherwise buyers HTC Desire will experience gaps in coverage. It looks like nTelos does not have immediate plans to use band 4. Then why 4G Americas lists band 4? Anyways, enough ranting :) We are on the same page, just use 4G Americas if there is no other info available. Ecbf (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand 4G Americas does in fact lists correct launch date for nTelos LTE: "December 2013". I was able to find the confirmation in the nTelos earnings call transcript: http://seekingalpha.com/article/2055603-ntelos-holdings-management-discusses-q4-2013-results-earnings-call-transcript?page=2 This is the only public source for the launch date I was able to find published after 4G Americas updated their list. So they are actually getting some industry internal data. Ecbf (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

iConnect Guam

I was not able to find a trustworthy reference for their band. It is most likely 12 because they sell only wireless broadband LTE devices however I cannot even see what phones they sell. It is also strange that they would pick band 12 for their network while NTT Docomo picked 17 and now have a lot of LTE phones. It's better to wait until we have more info on iConnect network, I'm downgrading it to "12 or 17" for now. Ecbf (talk) 06:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I agree. Here is another input: I once (likely a year ago) found a band plan for Guam showing the frequency blocks and all the licensees. The problem is: I didn't download it, an now I can't find it anymore on the web. I can remember that the pdf-document was available on a ".gov" site from local authorities. :-/ Nightwalker-87 (talk) 11:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Source

Why do you always need to add additional source to my edit? This feels so much annoying! MrCellular (talk) 21:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I do add references if in consider them necessary or useful. That does not relate to any specific user(s). Concerning the recent edit (and some others as well), I do/did add a TeleGeography source, because I know that their references last very very long on the web (which is useful for an encylopedia like wikipedia). This helps to avoid broken links. Also please keep in mind that neither you nor me nor any other user "owns" any rights on the edits you/they make. (Please see ["ownage"] for details). You should try to assume ["good faith"] as well, when you edit wikipedia. Thanks for your understanding. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 21:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I doubt that so much of my give source are dissapearing that much. So do you have any reasonably examples? I think this is only a reason pushed forward to add "your" source of TeleGeografy. Maybe you're with them? MrCellular (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. I actually think that we had a discussion about this topic, somewhen last year - I don't know if you can remember. As far as I have it in mind, we concluded/solved it with the point that we try not to replace important sources. Since then I continued to add TeleGeography sources, mostly without removing previously added source (by whom ever...). I've pointed out the reason for that above. I did search around in their database and found out that they "conserve" articles at least back to the year 2004, what I consider useful as articles are available longterm. - And no - I don't work for them nor do I have any relations to this magazine. Sometimes it also does happen that the amount of information provided in an article by TeleGeography is lower than the one of another source. So it's not always useful to have a TG-Article cited. What I'm trying to say with this is: It's not an automatism to add a TG source. I do add one if I think it makes sense. Further this is not related to your edits specificly. I don't have any bad intentions nor am I working against you. This is not personal, please don't treat it that way. Regards. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

E-Plus LTE1800 launch

E-Plus already started to activate some LTE cells for public use. This is a soft-rollout where cells are activated gradually, not on a single day. Please read the following press release and all the comments below: http://eplus-gruppe.de/lte-bei-e-plus-ohne-extrakosten/ "Enno Schummers" (E-Plus Group) confirms a gradual rollout there. User "Stefan" confirms some working LTE cells in southern Germany on Febuary 20th 2014. I can confirm some working cells in the Rheinland area (tested last weekend). Hence, the LTE network IS AVAILABLE to customers! (except for iPhone users) Regards A.Boye (talk) 03:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi! First of all: I don't mind if there is something to discuss, but please start discussions about articles on the respective "Talk" page of the article and not on personal user pages (according to the wiki-guidelines). ;-)

Concerning the topic: Please keep in mind that you cited a blog in your comment and not an official press release by E-Plus or a news(paper)-source like (for example) I did in my previous edit (Teltarif-source). E-Plus may have activated cells already - ok, but other operators in Europe and in many other countries all over the world did that as well on single cell sites either to test or to demonstrate LTE. We call that a "trial" or a "pre-commercial" service (what is the case with E-Plus as well right now). Personal user experiences may be right, but are not a source that qualifies regarding the wikipedia guidelines (in other words: other users are not able to verify this). If E-Plus releases a public note on let's say the 5th March 2014, then we can mark the E-Plus LTE-network as "active" and I'm totally with you. Please don't see this as a personal dispute between you and me - this is not my intention. I just try to keep up standards we have on wikipedia for many years. Concerning the topic LTE-networks, I must admit that I do contribute to this article for quite a while now and specialised knowledge concerning this topic is not just from yesterday. Regards Nightwalker-87 (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Band fragmentation in the US

I avoided the top US carriers but now that I have finished the small ones I have no choice :) The problem is that the spectrum in the US is actively resold, swapped and sublicensed. How do we keep track of it in the notes and references? Do we even need such details? What is the reason for collecting all this data? Ecbf (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

To break it done into particular issues (feel free to comment under each one): Ecbf (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

a) Why not use the same launch date for all blocks in a band by default? (I'm talking about Leap Wireless 1700 d). There is virtually no public information about block usage. Does it even matter? Why do we need a citation for a particular block? Ecbf (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

b) Band 41 is one giant mess. First of all it's big, there are 33 blocks. Secondly, about half of it cannot be licensed by telecom companies directly from the FCC, it has to be sublicensed from the current license holders. Even if you could find out what blocks are licensed and sublicensed the information would be outdated in a week. Sprint is actively sublicensing more spectrum every week. And again why do we even care what blocks they use? If you really want to see UL/DL Frequencies listed in that entry let's just put upper and lower boundaries of the band and be done with that. Ecbf (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

c) There are way too many entries. AT&T, Verizon and T-mobile license pretty much all AWS and PCS blocks and all three operators are going to use AWS and PCS for LTE. Soon there going to be 30+ lines if we keep breaking down the bands. US Cellular, nTelos and C Spire will add 20 more. All entries for AT&T 1700 blocks reference the same auction file which very likely does not even reflect the reality. AT&T most likely swapped the spectrum. All entries have the same references and almost the same notes. Why not merge them? Ecbf (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ecbf! I think it is indeed necessary to discuss this issue. Maybe we should collect and sum up some facts for the cellular licensing in the US (for everyone) first. Up to now I'm not aware of the complete system as well, but did figure out quite a bit. Let me collect what I found out:

First of all there are different kinds of market areas: The whole US together with the US Virgin Islands, the Gulf of Mexico, Guam and Puerto Rico is split into:

• Cellular Market Areas (CMA) (734 in total) or
• Economic Area Licenses (EA) aka Business Economic Area Licenses (BEA) (176 in total) or
• Economic Area Grouping Licenses (EAG) (6 in total) or
• Regional Economic Area Grouping Licenses (REAG) (12 in total) or
• Major Trading Area Licenses (MTA) (51 in total) [old licensing model, was used for CLR 850 and PCS 1900] or
• Business Trading Area Licenses (BTA) (493 in total) [old licensing model, was used for CLR 850 and PCS 1900] or
• Major Economic Area Licenses (MEA) (52 in total) [used for WCS 2300]

The US-Cellular bands:

• Lower 700 MHz US-Band Plan:
  • Block A: issued in Economic Area Licenses (EA) / Major spectrum holders (top carriers): Verizon (25), US Cellular (via King Street Wireless) (25)
  • Block B: issued in Cellular Market Areas (CMA) / Major spectrum holders (top carriers): AT&T (301), US Cellular (via King Street Wireless) (127)
  • Block C: issued in Cellular Market Areas (CMA) / Major spectrum holders (top carriers): Aloha Partners II (89), Aloha Partners (76) [both assumed to be a bidders for AT&T]
  • Block D: issued in Economic Area Grouping Licenses (EAG) / Major spectrum holders (top carriers): AT&T (5)
  • Block E: issued in Economic Area Licenses (EA) / Major spectrum holders (top carriers): DISH (via Frontier Wireless) (168), AT&T (5)

• Upper 700 MHz US-Band Plan:
  • Block C: issued in Regional Economic Area Grouping Licenses (REAG) / Major spectrum holders (top carriers): Verizon (8)
  • Block D: issued in one nationwide License / License remained unsold in spectrum auction

• AWS-1 1700 MHz US-Blocks:
  • Block A: issued in Cellular Market Areas (CMA) / Major spectrum holders (top carriers): AT&T (274), T-Mobile (93), Verizon (18)
  • Block B: issued in Economic Area Licenses (EA) / Major spectrum holders (top carriers): Verizon (136), AT&T (14), US Cellular (via Barat Wireless) (4)
  • Block C: issued in Economic Area Licenses (EA) / Major spectrum holders (top carriers): Verizon (2), AT&T (93), T-Mobile (23), US Cellular (via Barat Wireless) (1)
  • Block D: issued in Regional Economic Area Grouping Licenses (REAG) / Major spectrum holders (top carriers): Verizon (1), AT&T (4), T-Mobile (4)
  • Block E: issued in Regional Economic Area Grouping Licenses (REAG) / Major spectrum holders (top carriers): AT&T (4), T-Mobile (5)
  • Block F: issued in Regional Economic Area Grouping Licenses (REAG) / Major spectrum holders (top carriers): Verizon (4), T-Mobile (4)

• PCS 1900 MHz US-Blocks:
  • Block A: issued in Major Trading Area Licenses (MTA)
  • Block B: issued in Major Trading Area Licenses (MTA)
  • Block C: issued in Business Trading Area Licenses (BTA)
  • Block D: issued in Business Trading Area Licenses (BTA)
  • Block E: issued in Business Trading Area Licenses (BTA)
  • Block F: issued in Business Trading Area Licenses (BTA)

• EPCS 1900 MHz US-Blocks:
  • Block G: issued in Economic Area Licenses (EA) / Major spectrum holders (top carriers): Sprint (176)
  • Block H: issued in Economic Area Licenses (EA) / Major spectrum holders (top carriers): DISH (176)

• CLR 850 MHz US-Blocks:
  • Block A: issued in Cellular Market Areas (CMA)
  • Block B: issued in Cellular Market Areas (CMA)

• WCS 2300 MHz
  • Block A: issued in Major Economic Area Licenses (MEA)
  • Block B: issued in Major Economic Area Licenses (MEA)
  • Block C: issued in Regional Economic Area Grouping Licenses (REAG)
  • Block D: issued in Regional Economic Area Grouping Licenses (REAG)

• BRS / EBS 2500 MHz (not sure if blocks G1,G2,G3 are in BRS or EBS now, that's why ranges are used below)
  • 13-16 BRS blocks: issued in Business Trading Area Licenses (BTA)
  • 20-17 EBS blocks: issued per site / Spectrum holders are educational institutions that sublicense the spectrum

That's how the current situation should be "right now" (including the news about deals and swaps I got to know). Are there any additions from your side? Ok, now let's talk about the suggestions:

a) You are right. We should at least sum the entries up where one operator holds two blocks that are issued with the same licensing model for the same region (e.g. AWS block D and E, both are REAG and operator holds license #10 --> one entry 1700 d e / REAG license #10) Do you know what I mean?

b) Band 41 IS a giant mess, I once saw a band plan... Uh... Of course it doesn't make sense to sum up single licenses here. The intention behind the UL/DL note was that it seemed like Sprint would buy up the few other operators that hold spectrum in that band to combine large areas of spectrum for it's 2500 MHz deployment, but that didn't seem to happen. In front of that I think we can simply delete the UL/DL notes. I don't even think we need the whole band frequency here because it is listed in the table in the Article E-UTRA anyway, which is linked at the bottom of this article.

c) We should talk about this issue again soon. Let me think about the issue again how to simplify this listing in an convenient way. I'll post my ideas here. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry for opening the discussion and leaving right away :) Personal matters took all my time.

While licenses are auctioned in various area types, ultimately any area license can be broken down to county level. Here is for example CMA 002 split by AT&T and Verizon. See Market tab. Here is BEA 160: Verizon and T-mobile. Google tells me there are 3007 counties in the US :)

Since this is the article of active networks we have to look at the current situation not the situation at the time of an auction. While you've been referencing auction results files, it usually works and I don't want to change that but this approach does not scale. Here is a very nice US spectrum map viewer. You can easily see how many blocks each carrier has right now. For example AWS-1 block A:

• your data: AT&T (274), T-Mobile (93), Verizon (18)
• right now: AT&T (169), T-Mobile (98), Verizon (119)

As you can see the situation changed heavily. By the way I used that website to quickly collect what PCS blocks nTelos has: a c e f. I don't know how to reference this fact. Funny thing, later I was considering referencing the spectrum map website but the owner pushed the latest data and now nTelos is gone from the dropdown list. This highlights the fragility of referencing any kind of search results. But only search results reflect the current situation. That's why I don't have much hope in breaking the information into blocks. Ecbf (talk) 03:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ecbf. Thank you very much for the missing information and the links. It is indeed a difficult situation. The original intention for adding the block was that they were issued by areas. The hope was to give the reader a hint in which areas of the US a specific network is available and where not. The intention was not to "overload" the table with more and more info. I also realize that spectrum holdings seem to fluctuate very rapidly.
In front of this fact's we've both collected here about the situation, I suggest the following: We keep all the licensing infos and references for all local and regional providers and remove them for the 4 major US-providers. Along with that we can collect all block usage by the "major 4" to one entry per band. This would on the one hand reduce the amount of entries quite ab it, there are no problems with changing licenses (as local operators don't seem to deal with spectrum that much) and an the other hand the reader still has an idea where which network is available (the "major 4" have national coverage anyway, whatever blocks the use on a band). What do you think about that idea? Nightwalker-87 (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I've done some cleanup to adress this issue. From my point of view we should keep the REAG-License entries seperately here as they cover large areas. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 18:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Multiple frequency band indicators

I was looking at Multiple frequency band indicators feature published in Rel 10 RP-120730. Quotes:

• Since the network can signal only one supported frequency band per cell in SIB5, SIB5bis and SIB6 system information as per the current specification, this CR captures the changes required to signal additional frequency band indicators in SIB5, SIB5bis and SIB6.
• To support the mobility of new UE’s, without affecting the behaviour of legacy UE’s, the inter-frequency neighbour cell list in SIB11/SIB11bis/SIB12 needs to be extended to indicate the additional frequency bands supported by the inter-frequency neighbour cells.

To me it sounds like

• it was not possible to support two overlapping bands before this feature
• just because one band is inside another band that doesn't mean the smaller band is automatically supported. It's up to the operator.

Because of that I think we need citations for the claims that more than one band is supported. Also I propose just put all overlapping bands in the Band column. For example: 9, 3. Ecbf (talk) 04:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, but let me shortly discribe how this entry found it's way into the table: There were continuous IP-edits without sources claiming band 38 would be in use in China. I have referenced the licensed spectrum block, which shows (and this is commonly known as well) that China allocated band 41 in the 2600 MHz area. In Japan we have a similar situation. Historically the licenses were issued for band 9 (1700 MHz) and they are still active. Now band 3 lies almost exactly on top of that frequency range, what makes the network compatible to band 3 devices. There are medium term plans by the Japanese regulator and providers to rearrange the frequency ranges to make them match the ITU-band plan for band 3. This fact is also the reason why the usage of band 9 is still applicable according to the LTE standardization (see 3GPP TS 36.101). You can have a look here as well: E-UTRA. Band 6 for example has already been superseeded by band 19 during the timeframe of LTE standardization. Anyway you are definitely right with the point that additional sources should be added for the two notes. Maybe we can find a good source. Nightwalker-87 (talk)

As you can see above, the Japan band 3 <-> 9 issue has been resolved in the meanwhile. What remains is the device <-> network compatibility concerning TDD band 38 <-> 41. In China the network by China Mobile is supported by iPhone 5S and 5C. As the network is definitely band 41 and these iPhone models only support TDD bands 38, 39, 40, there must be a compatibility. As you mentioned before, the question is if this is the general case. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 12:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

RIP MTS Uzbekistan

MTS Uzbekistan is totally dead. Even the website is not available anymore. Since this is the list of active network I propose the following policy: acquired and merged networks that still serve customers should be greyed out (if there will be many of them we can also create a section at the bottom). Networks that are known not to exists should be removed and the information transfered to their own article (see two sentences I added to MTS Uzbekistan). By the way I don't think they launched LTE on 700MHz. The references just say they got a license. I searched for the confirmation of the actual launch and couldn't find it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecbf (talk • contribs) 06:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I share your thoughts on this topic. Thanks for the edit in the specific article. I think that should do. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Third-party users of Europe’s LTE networks and spectrum sublessees

After I set up the "Third-party users of Oceanian LTE networks and spectrum sublessees" I though about doing the same for the European part as I noticed a few activies in a bunch of countries. But I'm a little 'afraid' that operators like the E-Plus Group in Germany will bust the whole list because they allow all affiliates and aubsidiaries to enter their LTE network. Another question of mine is how to set up the list or lists. All affiliates and aubsidiaries set up in one list or make a list for each country? So guys let me know what you think about this! Thanks. MrCellular (talk) 22:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

There is a seperate article concerning this topic for the U.S.: List of United States mobile virtual network operators. Here it is very important to distinguish between mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) and subsidiaries or affiliates directly belonging to the network operator. As you mentioned it, let's take E-Plus as an example: As far as I know there are 6 "brands" that directly belong to E-Plus. These subsidiaries/affiliates are Simyo, Blau, BASE, yourfone.de, ay yildiz, and Ortel Mobile. All other operators would not belong to "Third-party users" lists as they only offer services over the E-Plus network. These companies don't belong to E-Plus. If there is an intention to have them listed up these should definitely go to a seperate article. Actually we only listed "Third-party users of U.S. LTE networks and spectrum sublessees", because of the Verizon Rural America Programme which is quite relevant for regional markets in the U.S. This goes along with the "special" regional licensing structure in the U.S. and regional operator building infrastructure for Verizon in several regional markets. Later the remaining 3 "major" operators were added to complete the listing. So as you already assume, we now run the risk to put overdue weight to secondary operators that don't provide infrastructure. I suggest to keep everything as it is concerning this topic. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I though you would be more into the (German) wireless market. Except Base all mentioned subsidiaries of E-Plus are MVNO too. So why did you make a difference? MrCellular (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The definition of MNVO is as follows (from the wiki article): "A mobile virtual network operator (MVNO), or mobile other licensed operator (MOLO) is a wireless communications services provider that does not own the wireless network infrastructure over which the MVNO provides services to its customers." Regarding your post: No, the mentioned subsidiaries are not MNVOs, because they belong to "E-Plus Gruppe", which owns the network infrastructure. They are direct retail brands. To be precise, "E-Plus" is a former retail brand as well, that stopped gathering new customers a few years ago. Brands that belong to "Drillisch Telecom" (=provider) for example are MNVOs, because the company Drillisch is a company for itself and without any connection to "E-Plus Gruppe". Now back to the main topic: This article names "List of LTE networks" and not "List of MVNOs offering LTE services". That is why I consider this to be the wrong place for your request. I would agree to kick out the affiliates of AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile in the U.S. section and to name the subtopic "Spectrum sublessees for U.S. LTE networks" instead to have a clear separation here. Surely, you remember your request to outsource planned networks to a seperate list. I think we have a similar situation here regarding name and content of an article. Maybe it's time (again) to start a new article for this issue. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Tre Italia

Hello Nightwalker-87, regarding to Tre Italia's band 7 I'd like to move this band to the list of planned networks because the operator only mention band 3 on his website. So please let me know if you have any concers eg. MrCellular (talk) 01:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi MrCellular, no concerns from my side, that's just fine. I agree with you. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 11:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your fast reply. MrCellular (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

KPN Band 3

Hello Nightwalker-87, I wonder why KPN's Band 3 is missing on the list. The operator is listed on the iPhone 5 LTE list. MrCellular (talk) 03:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Hm, that's a good question, but I didn't notice that they launched a network. I haven't read any articles about it yet. Anyway, if they appear on the Apple's LTE list we should have them added. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I've added the missing entries for band 3 and 7. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Nextel Brasil LTE band and future of 700 MHz spectrum

Nextel Brasil have a new 3G (HSDPA) network in 2100 Mhz and have plains to implement LTE in 1800Mhz and possible in 2100Mhz using license of 3G network. In some months (next year?) Brasil will implement LTE in 700 Mhz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.249.88.33 (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, 3G doesn't matter. It's all about LTE! Check out List of planned LTE networks next time... MrCellular (talk) 23:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I talk about 3G because will use 3G frequency to implement LTE (2100 Mhz), the president of Nextel say on interview they have plans to use 2G frequency (1800 MHz) to implement LTE in Rio de Janeiro because they have some license but don't use the sprectrum (2G network of Nextel is in iDen, 800 Mhz). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.249.88.33 (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

You mean refarming... Please provide source for addition action. MrCellular (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

We have two sources so far that prove planned deployment via band 3 @ 1800 MHz and that's it for the moment. As MrCellular mentioned: No source --> no entry. ;-) ... and by now you also know where planned networks are supposed to end up. Thats why I propose to move this section to the Talk page of the article List of planned LTE networks. As far as I can see, MrCellular was busy again and has already added their 3G network in the List of UMTS networks. Thanks for that by the way! Nightwalker-87 (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Nextel Brasil use 800Mhz for 2G iDen, maybe in near future it's allow to refarming this for LTE [[1]]. Translate by Google: [[2]]. Like the sprint did after shutdown of iDen network — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.249.88.33 (talk) 21:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Algeria Telecom

Why did you removed the operator without note?! MrCellular (talk) 01:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I restored the large amount of content deleted by DeSou27 and checked the intermediate changes after this destructive edit. In fact there were some restore actions already, but quite a bit of content remained deleted at that point. This was the intention for the major restore action. As I just realized, unfortunately your edit was inbetween and I didn't notice that the network got "lost", while trying to restore the missing content. I'm really sorry for that. :-/ I will readd it for you. Thanks for the note! ;-) Nightwalker-87 (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. MrCellular (talk) 20:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

AWS-3

AWS-3 is not a correct moniker for band 10. AWS-3 specifically refers to the ranges of 1755 - 1780 MHz and 2155 - 2180 MHz, see http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-sets-stage-auction-65-mhz-spectrum-mobile-broadband. Band 10 is neither a subset nor a superset of that range, so it should not be used in this context. There's a row in the table that indicates the proper ranges for AWS-3 with a TBD band number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.49.82 (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Chunghwa Telecom LTE900

According to their press release and their promotion website (both in Chinese) the operator is currently only using Band 3. So in my opinion TeleGeography is wrong and this band should be removed from the list as long as there is no further evidence! MrCellular (talk) 22:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, but then we should have that press release added as a source @ the Chunghwa 1800 MHz entry in the list. Please also restore the 1800 MHz entry for FarEastTone in the "List of planned LTE networks". TeleGeography seems to be right here. Thanks in advance. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

As Sydwuz has recently added a source to prove that LTE on 1800 MHz is not available yet with FarEasTone and Taiwan Mobile and moved the entries back to the List of planned LTE networks. I mark this topic as "solved/completed". Thank you very much for your contribution. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 11:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Orange Poland

How do we deal with this operator? According to this article from Telecompaper they have a lot of sites running. MrCellular (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi MrCellular. Their network is definitely commercial as of March 2014. The question is if this really is the commercial launch date. Maybe their network got commercial even earlier... Nightwalker-87 (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't anwser my question! MrCellular (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure, it does answer your question:

1) "How do we deal with this operator?" --> We add Orange to the "List of LTE networks". It's an operator just like all the others.

2) "According to this article from Telecompaper they have a lot of sites running." --> that (together with the source I added above) indicates, that their service is commercial and not a trial. Any more questions? If there are any further concerns, you need to point out what you mean. I can't read your thoughts ;-) Nightwalker-87 (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I saw that you've added Orange to the list. If you meant the launch date with your question above: We should leave that open until we find an appropiate source for it. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Information added without source

In my opinion the list should be limit to registered users only because a lot of people are adding information without a source and/ or are not familiar with the wiki templates. MrCellular (talk) 09:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Philippines Cat.4 / LTE-A

I wonder how did you find out that Smart provides LTE-A with the full frequencie range? In my opionion this needs further evidence because non of the given sources refer to the used frequencies. MrCellular (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed further references are needed here, but to which frequency shall I set the cited LTE-A source, if it does not mention any of the three bands on which Cat.3 services launched earlier? ;-) I should have set a red question mark behind the Cat.4 date. I'll catch up on this straight away. Thanks for the note. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

LTE-Categories

Hi MrCellular. I'm starting this topic to shift the discussion away from the edit history of List of LTE networks. You mentioned: "E-Plus didn't launch a Cat.4 LTE network. 10 MHz @Cat4 -> max. 75 MBit/s is wrong. That's still Cat.3. Given source ≠ evidence for that"

E-Plus indeed did directly launch with Cat.4. The (indirect) "evidence" is in the source which you deleted. There speeds much higher than 50 MBit/s were achieved in DL. That is NOT possible with Cat.3 in combination with a spectrum bandwidth of only 10 MHz. The situation is comparable to the 800 MHz Digital Dividend band (b20) with the German spectrum allocation (3x 10 MHz). Here every operator (Telekom, Vodafone, O2) picked up 10 MHz each. All launched with Cat.3 and could therfore each only offer 50 MBit/s in DL. Telekom also uses 20 MHz @1800 MHz (b3). Here they launched with Cat.3 resulting in 100 MBit/s. Later they upgraded to Cat.4, which allowed them to offer 150 MBit/s with this 20 MHz block. If Telekom only had 10 MHz @1800 MHz they would only be able to offer 50 MBit/s with Cat.3 or 75 MBit/s with Cat.4, because the number of subcarriers contained in the 20 MHz exactly halves. Further Telekom plans to offer Cat.6 in the countryside by combining band 20 and band 3. They will offer 225 MBit/s what also means Cat.6 (less than 300 MBit/s, but Carrier Aggregation). This is how that works: This aggregation consists of 75 MBit/s from band 20 (10 MHz @ Cat.4) + 150 MBit/s from band 3 (20 MHz @ Cat.4). All mentioned values are theoretical maximum speeds. I have sources for this as well: [[3]] [[4]] [[5]]. I agree that the source for e-plus doesn't mention Cat.4 directly, but by reaching 67 MBit/s > 50 Mbit/s this can definitely not be Cat.3 with only 10 MHz available. To be precise, the category only gives the information how much speed can be achieved per carrier. This is done by improving coding schemes (or by increasing the number of simultaneously used antennas). When a 20 MHz carrier is used this results in the numbers you know and mostly read: Cat.3 100 MBit/s and Cat.4 150 MBit/s. For 10 MHz, each is devided by two. I hope you see the point and that this helped. I must admit I'm 100% sure that this explanation is correct, because I've read this in literature. Would you be so kind and restore the e-plus source, at least preliminary until we found a better one? Thanks. ;-) Nightwalker-87 (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

No they did't launch Cat.4 and your mentioned article isn't evidence for that. You also get more than 50 MBit/s on 800 MHz LTE. You better get some field experience... So it's still Cat.3 and they didn't launched Cat.4 by March. I don't know were you get the 75 MBit/s Cat.4 stuff. Still wrong. Cat.4 = 20 MHz or CA = up to 150 MBit/s. I wonder why you put in the Cat.6 stuff. No need for that. MrCellular (talk) 14:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

"You also get more than 50 MBit/s on 800 MHz LTE." --> Yes, exactly it is 51,024 MBit/s with Cat.3 according to 3GPP. I'm sorry for not beeing precise enough... But following your explanation I could now argue, that the E-Plus deployment is not even Cat.3 because it is not possible to achieve 100 MBit/s with 10 MHz (as far as it is known they only use 10 MHz) in combination with 64QAM, 2x2 MIMO. Therefore a 20 MHz carrier would be necessary. It would still be the same like with the deployments at 800 MHz, as there is no 20 MHz carrier possible (because of the current spectrum allocation at 800 MHz). In Austria for example operator A1 indeed achieves 100 MHz because they have a contigous 20 MHz block at 800 MHz. What is your explanation for E-Plus achieving 67 MBit/s with 10 MHz? Nightwalker-87 (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

You really don’t get it, do you? How would you explain that I achieved 68 MBit/s on a LTE800 site of Telekom and Vodafone with a Cat.3 device? And please don't put words in my mouth. MrCellular (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Obviously it is possible, that's not what I'm concerned about right now. I also don't doubt that you did achieve these speeds (although I don't have any evidence for it), but how does that work on a technical basis (2x2 MIMO, QAM, bandwidth, code rate) ? So far I have found several sources, but following this discussion I'm no longer sure if they provide correct information. I haven't found a good 3gpp source yet, what would be ideal of course. I would like to really get an idea HOW this is achieved technically. Understanding this would also improve our work here. Maybe we should collect some trustable information and sources together. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi MrCellular, I'm back on this topic due to the recent mistake at the Beeline Russia entry. I don't think it is that easy really... I have the strong impression that the relation between device categories and the LTE category supported on network side should be clarified. I think can by now contribute to this topic as well:
For both networking and UE this should be the case: [[6]] & [[7]]
This would result in the following:

• Cat.6: DL 40 MHz, 2x2MIMO, 64QAM / UL 20 MHz, SISO, 16QAM (max. 301,5 MBit/s)
  • Cat.6 can also be archieved by CA as long as the 40MHz are available for DL and a contiguous 20 MHz block is available for UL
  • All Cat.6 UE support CA

• Cat.4: DL 20 MHz, 2x2MIMO, 64QAM / UL 20 MHz, SISO, 16QAM (max. 150,8 MBit/s)
  • Cat.4 can also be archieved by CA as long as the 20MHz are available for DL and a contiguous 20 MHz block is available for UL
  • Cat.4 UE is available with and without CA capability
  • Cat.4 UE without CA results in less achievable max. speeds if network equipment uses CA to achieve Cat.4 (10+10 MHz) (case for LG U+ in South Korea)

• Cat.3: DL 20 MHz, 2x2MIMO, 16QAM / UL 20MHz, SISO, 16QAM (max. 102 MBit/s)

Ok, so far, but the question I raise (e.g. concerning the Beeline deployment) is: How can spectrum be aggregated with Cat3? As far as I know CA was defined in "3GPP Release 10", but first introduced (in South Korea) with Cat.4 (and higher) UE that had been defined in "3GPP Release 8" already. I other words: The feature of CA from Rel.10 was added to the existing UE Cat4 defined in Rel.8 (there without CA). You can see this in the report you recently added for South Korea [[8]] (CA for LG U+ b1_b5). According to "3GPP Release 10" the first and only combination was just this single combination of b1 and b5. All other possible CA-schemes were introduced from Release 11 onwards with Release 12 beeing the first to introduce 3-band CA schemes. Your source for South Korea (see above) also indicates that 225 MBit/s is also Cat.6 if CA is utilized though the theoretical max. of 300 MBit/s is not achievable due to less than 40 MHz available. This also implies that Cat.4 devices are able to archieve 75 MBit/s with only 10 MHz available, just as Cat6 UE does. With Cat.3 it is possible to use 64QAM. See explanation below.
I consider it useful to have the correct explanation posted and clarified somewhere on wiki. This may also help users to "do the right thing". Can you or may I move this topic to the Talk page of the article "List of LTE networks"? Nightwalker-87 (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, and after this here is now the detailled technical explanation and conclusive evidence for the UE categories and their achievable throughput: The calculation of the theoretical DL throughput in MBit/s according to the largest available carrier bandwidth of 20 MHz is as follows: A 20 MHz carrier consists of 100 Ressource Blocks (RB). Each RB consists of 12 Subcarriers (SC), which can be divided into 2 time slots (TS) each that carry 7 ODFM-Symbols each. Further we have a QAM modulation scheme. The maximum QAM specified is 64QAM, which means there are 6 bits/symbol. Additionally we have 2x2 MIMO antenna technology which allows two parallel data layers (L). In total this results in: 100 RB * 12 SC * 2 TS * 7 ODFM-Symbols * 6 bit/Symbol * 2 L = 201,6 MBit/s (Absolute theoretical technical maximum DL data rate per 20 MHz carrier). [[9]] (page 3).

Now let's take a look at the UE categories. This information derives from the specification document 3GPP TS 36.213 [[10]] (page 25 to 34): Let's take a look at table 7.1.7.1-1:

• Cat.4 Devices use coding schemes up to MCS28 for DL and MCS23 for UL. This leads to TBS Index 26 for DL and 21 for UL. Looking at table 7.1.7.2.1 we now look at N_PRB (# of Ressource Blocks) = 100 (corresponds to 20 MHz carrier). For the TCS indices above we find 75376 and 51024 respectively. This results in 51,024 MBit/s for the UL. For the downlink we have 2x2 MIMO, so there are 2 Layers. Corresponding to table 7.1.7.2.2: The available number of ressource blocks 75376 (SISO) translates to 149776 for 2x2 MIMO resulting in 149,776 MBit/s ~ 150 MBit/s. As can be seen this ist a bit less than the 2*75,376=150,752 MBit/s which are stated in the 3GPP UE table Table 4.1-1 in TS 36.306.
• Cat.3 Devices use coding schemes up to MCS23 for DL and UL. So with the explanation above we find: 51024 resulting in 51,024 MBit/s for UL again and with 2x2 MIMO for DL 101,8 MBit/s or simply 2*51,024=102,048 MBit/s (Table 4.1-1 in TS 36.306).
  

Cat.3 supports up to MCS28 for DL as well, but there is a restriction: Only for a single 10 MHz carrier it is possible to use the amount of 75376 ressource blocks. It is not possible to adress 2 x 10 MHz = 20 MHz with 2x 75376 ressource blocks (RB) - this would end up in 149776 RB like in Cat.4. Instead with Cat.3 it is only possible to use a 20 MHz block with 75376 (@ MCS28) + 25456 (@ MCS14) = 100832 RB resulting in 100,832 MBit/s. This configuration uses two non equally coded MIMO layers. Alternatively as stated before, two equally coded MIMO layers with 51024 RB each can be combined to 20 MHz with 102048 RB @ MCS 23 respectively 102,048 MBit/s [[11]].

I hope this clarified the issue so far. This also explains why you can achieve around 73 MBit/s with a Cat.3 device on the E-plus LTE network utilizing only 10 MHz of spectrum. I doubt, that the development group is wrong here in their own specification. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 20:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Geez, quite a lot to read. I thought we introduced those new gaps in order to separate achievable speed classes? MrCellular (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

... it would have been much easier. :-/ But as you can see the UE classes mainly depend on modulation, coding schemes and the number of adressable ressource blocks, the different ways of combining the latter (with 2x2 MIMO) and not only on achievable speeds. Another good example is that you can reach 100 MBit/s with only 15 MHz and Cat.3 UE. Before I thought that this was solely possible with a 20 MHz carrier. I'll try to sort the whole stuff somehow. I think we WILL need it as soon as it comes to carrier aggregation of special block sizes for certain operators that don't have enough spectrum ressources to combine 20 MHz. Believe me - it will become even worse from the technical side... :-( Nightwalker-87 (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Adressing the columns for Cat4 and Cat6 in the table: We should keep everything as it is. The only thing that is going to change is that we will have to take a closer look at the size of the aggregated spectrum blocks when an operator introduces CA, and we should provide the amount of aggregated spectrum for every case. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 23:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I checked the amount of spectrum all the time... MrCellular (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Whatever... Nightwalker-87 (talk) 23:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Nice try :p MrCellular (talk) 23:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

This discussion has become very long and as it is about to conclude it is desireable to extract the results. I'll summarize the essential information here as soon as I find time for this task. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I've collected the useful information from this discussion in a seperate section. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Globe Telecom Philippines deployment in 2,5 GHz range

It is NOT POSSIBLE to combine band 7 with band 41 simultaneosly according to the ITU band plans. For the 2,5 GHz range either band 41 or a combination of bands 7 and 38 can be utilized. According to the source a mixed FDD/TDD seems to adress the network infrastructure as beeing capable of simultaneously serving a FDD LTE deployment @ 1800 MHz (band 3) together with a LTE TDD deployment in the 2,5 GHz range. As the TDD deployment replaces a prevoius Wimax deployment in the 2,5 GHz band it is likely that for the TDD deployment within this frequency range band 41 is used. Anyway there is no source yet that defines the band number for this TDD deployment. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 12:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

First of all you still didn't provide any evidence for your claims so far and please don't use such lousy sources as you did for your E-Plus cat 4 claim. Anyway, how do you explain that they refarm 1.8 GHz FDD-LTE out of 2.5 WiMAX?? I just quote some parts of the article I provided which you obviously didn't read.

“ for the upgrade of Philippines operator's mobile network infrastructure in the Visayas and Mindanao regions, from WiMax to LTE-TDD and LTE-FDD ultra broadband access technologies. ”

They refarmed WiMAX in two different areas it's likely that they used FDD in one area and TDD in another. MrCellular (talk) 22:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

P.S. How dare you revert my edit in the first place without a valid reason?

I think this is not the right place for (personal) accusations, so please keep it technical and unemotional!
The quote for the upgrade of Philippines operator's mobile network infrastructure in the Visayas and Mindanao regions, from WiMax to LTE-TDD and LTE-FDD ultra broadband access technologies. in the source you provided could also mean WiMax is replaced by LTE-TDD @2,5 GHz and 1,8 GHz is also deployed (with the latter not having to do anything with the previous WiMax deployment). Commonly speaking: Service A is replaced by a new service B in the same frequency band together with an additional service C in another frequency band. It is not unambiguous from the source itself. This has nothing to do with your further explanations. Maybe you haven't realized this so far.

They refarmed WiMAX in two different areas it's likely that they used FDD in one area and TDD in another. This is unproved as well (so don't blame me for anything such alike). It is possible, but it is also possible that the deployed basestations use Single-RAN technology serving both frequencies (1,8 GHz and 2,6 GHz) simultanesously. There is no way around it, we need better sources to find a suitable solution. I will provide a general source for you concerning 2,6 GHz band plans and their compatibility here as soon as possible.

Finally let me propose something more general: I would find it a good idea (also with respect to the wiki guidelines), if we moved away from the practise of adding stuff were we consider "... it is likely that". Right know I have the impression, that we both make that same mistake. At some points we add information with or without a reference and the actual "core information" is stil left open to prove.
Here are some recent examples of what should be avoided:

• a reference is not precise and everybody can understand it in a different way
• somebody has experienced something in personal what also does not qualify from my point of view because it is nor verifiable by others
• coming to wrong conclusions from sources that do not adress the relevant issue (and in the end everything turns out to be different)
• everybody persists on his point of view (if something (technical) is unclear sources are needed that explain the issue)
• lack of (personal) understanding for another point of view (if something has to be discussed in the "Talk" section in an open manner and critisised points should be left out of the article until a solution has been found that is correct and provable)

We should see us guided by these points. Without this in mind we can not claim to provide good work and the quality of information here. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 10:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Please learn how to read the history

Referring to your false claim that I placed a dead link on the List of LTE networks I suggest you read the history more carefully next time and make better comparison in the future as well. So this will be highly appreciate by me. MrCellular (talk) 23:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Let me say it again: At the time I checked the source the link showed an error on a white page explaining that a website element was not available. I tried it many times. Later (after you reverted) I checked it again and the press release did then load correctly again. I'm really sorry, but this was not my mistake, it would have been the same situation for every user... So please behave and by the way: Are you familiar with courtesy and respect? Just think about it for a moment. I would appreciate that too. ;-) Nightwalker-87 (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

See that's why replaced the link... MrCellular (talk) 21:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Use of rowspan within the List of LTE networks

So it looks like this:

Operator	Country
Telstra	Australia
	Australia
	Australia

and not like this anymore:

Operator	Country
Telstra	Australia
Telstra	Australia
Telstra	Australia

Let me know what you think. MrCellular (talk) 04:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. I think it looks good and improves readability, BUT it also introduces a problem: With this formatting you can't sort the wiki table anymore, because the alternative formatting is in conflict with the single row sortability. I'd rather like to keep the wikitable type "sortable" as a feature for readers. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 10:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point. Didn't think about that. Thanks. MrCellular (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Bell LTE700

So you added Vodafone UK's LTE2600 to the List of LTE networks because of the rollout but has no commercial launch been announced. Further more you moved Bell's LTE700 the other day back to the List of planned LTE networks. I think you need to explain this. MrCellular (talk) 21:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Uh, you are absolutely right here. The TG source for VF states: "With the operator saying it will roll out LTE-A in the three aforementioned locations this month, it is reportedly aiming to extend coverage to other cities ‘during the rest of this year and 2015’." This is indeed just a rollout announcement. No need for further explanation. I didn't take note of that. One point for you ;-). I'll move the VF 2600MHz entry back as well. Thanks for the note! Nightwalker-87 (talk) 21:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

T-Mobile Hungary's LTE networks

Hi! I added a new source that states "Magyar Telekom received today the licenses that enable the use of the frequency blocks won in NMHH’s tender" proving that they are already using the *new frequencies*. They started using Band 7 and 20 on Oct 18. They confirmed 800 MHz on Twitter, and we confirmed 2600 MHz by using an American and a European iPhone 5s in the same place (American models support Band 20, but not 7). I hope this is enough evidence for you. This information can be crucial to tourists and for people who want to buy cellphones in Hungary, so do not delete these two bands, please. Best, ebi. (talk) 23:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I read the first source. That doesn't qualify as well. Please link/cite the Twitter source for band 20 instead. I'm not happy with the latter, but it's better than nothing... Will keep the band 20 deployment in the list, but please keep out band 7 there isn't even a confirmation on Twitter for it. A European iPhone 5S supports band 20 as well so it's likely both booked into 800 MHz. You can't see the used frequency on a phone. We're an encyclopedia with sourced content here and not a "...but I've seen it on my device user web-blog". :-/ Nightwalker-87 (talk) 23:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The Telekom.hu source *clearly* says that the new frequencies are in use, and it is super-easily confirmed if you are in an area with three phones, one that only supports 1800 MHz (iPhone 5), one that supports 800 MHz (5s US) and one that supports 2600 MHz (5s EU). Telcos will not disclose which cells broadcast in the different bands. If you decide to delete band 7 from the list, the encyclopedia entry will not reflect the truth, and you are destroying the whole purpose of this article. And I really don't think that the presence of that one line in the table is all that is wrong with that page – it could use a lot of work. But I really don't care anymore. :) Have a nice day! ebertek (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The Telekom.hu source does neither name "800 MHz" nor "band 20" nor "Digital Dividend Spectrum" nor "2600 MHz" nor "band 7". Also they say that they use "new frequencies" (=some) and not "the new frequencies" (=all) won in the previous spectrum auction. To sum it up, the source therfore remains unprecise. A appropiate source would be an article or press release with a content like "as publicly announced by T-Mobile HU, 800 MHz spectrum (or whatever frequencies, bands) is/are used". Let me say again that the iPhone 5S (EU-Version) supports 2600 MHz (band 7) >> AND << 800 MHz (band 20). You can verify this here: [[12]] The EU-version is model A1457-es modell: LTE (sávok: 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 20). I appreciate that you accept this fact and the wiki guidelines Wikipedia:Verifiability as well. Please don't take it personally this is not my/our intention. Have a nice day as well. ;-) Nightwalker-87 (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Movistar Cat.6 LTE-A

Ok, here we seem to have the first of the discussions on spectrum use:
Movistar holds 20 MHz in band 7 and 20 MHz in band 3. Both are combined with carrier aggregation to provide Cat.6 LTE-A with 40 MHz and so 300 MBit/s is achieved. Band 3 is active because the iPhone is listed as compatible with Movistar in Spain (though the launch date is unclear). Alternatively only band 1 would be possible. This is unlikely because Movistar only holds 15 MHz on band 1 and it is still in use for UMTS. LTE usage would only be possible via partly refarming these 15 MHz refarming. This would definitely result in less than 15 MHz which is to small in combination with the 20 MHz from band 7 to provide 300 MBit/s. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)