Talk:List of LTE networks/Archive 3

Info: Technical background on LTE-UE-Categories

Overview of available UE-Categories:

• 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 40 MHz 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 20 MHz 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 20 MHz, SISO, 16QAM (max. 102 MBit/s)

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). [[1]] (page 3).

The following information derives from the specification document 3GPP TS 36.213 [[2]] (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 [[3]]. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

New 4G/LTE networks in Israel

Golan Telecom has just launched their LTE network. Here is their PDF (in Hebrew) that they released showing the frequency and band they use (1800, 3). I don't know enough about the technical side to know what type of duplex mode they are using, if any. Here is their press release that they posted today on their website (still no English) talking about the launch. Gavriel.lazan (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thx for the information. I appreciate your contribution to this article. 1800MHz (band 3) is always used in Frequency Divided Duplex (FDD) mode. This band has not been specified for Time Division Duplex (TDD) operation. The fact that the docs are not in English dosen't matter. Anyway I'll collect the data we desire to have and add a sourced entry for you to the list. ;-) Nightwalker-87 (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Kosovo's IPKO started offering 4G/LTE service in Kosovo this December

Can someone please update the Europe section with the news that IPKO has started offering 4G/LTE in Kosovo? I'm not good at working with maps else I would have done it myself.[4] Thanks! --alchaemia (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem, I'll check this topic. Thx for the note. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The network is listed in the article "List of planned LTE networks" until commercial services are announced. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Sources for List of LTE networks

With regard to "Oceania: Removed source that is not open accessible and therefore does not qualify for public verification. This is not in accordance with the wikipedia guidelines." - Which guideline did I miss? Wikipedia:Verifiability#Accessibility and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Cost seem to say that a source requiring (free) registration is not automatically excluded. I agree that a source without enforced registration would be nicer but in the absence of that I think a harder-to-access source is better than no source. Drahtlos (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I don't mind if you re-edit, but please make sure to have the note added that free registration for access is required. If we find a suitable source without necessary registration for access, we might have the source replaced. Would that be ok for you? Nightwalker-87 (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, replacing a hard-to-access source with a better one (or replacing a non-English source with one in English) is always a good thing. But when there is no better source then I would not delete the source or information simply because it is inconvenient to verify. Drahtlos (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Vodafone Iceland LTE 800MHz

Hi Nightwalker-87, any particular reason why you removed the entry for band 20 from Vodafone Iceland? GSA says: "Fjarskipti (Vodafone) commercially launched LTE using 800MHz on July 4th, 2013." Drahtlos (talk) 14:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have added an extra comment for that. I'm not sure if there is a typing error in the GSA list (missing "1"), as VF Iceland only holds a single 5 MHz block (< 25 MBit/s DL) and Apple indicates that the iPhone 5 (band 3 but no band 20) is compatible with VF Iceland's network. As 1800 MHz doesn't seem to show up in the GSA list, there seems to ba a contradiction... Can we resolve this issue? I also realised that the source for the spectrum auction results has become a dead link in the meanwhile. :-/ Nightwalker-87 (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

At http://www.vodafone.is/blog/2014/03/meira-4g-hja-vodafone/ I found (through Google Translate): "Support Vodafone 4G is powered on two transmitted frequencies 800 MHz and 1800 MHz. Most are sent to the capital today with 800 MHz frequency, which is better in terms of access to the signal from the transmitter, ie more likely you are to reach to connect indoor or down in the basement. 1800 MHz Send this service area of ​​Akureyri and become more of such included in the use of capital in the near future." This sounds like they do use both bands. Drahtlos (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thx for the fast reply! Ok, then we should definitely keep both. We ought to have that source above added as well then (without the google translate)... ;-) Nightwalker-87 (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Too many links?

Does anybody know if there is a limit on how many reference links an article can have? It looks like this article has reached the limit...

• Starting with 19:08, 7 April 2015‎ Nightwalker-87, the last reference (then nr. 904) is garbled.
• Starting with 21:25, 7 April 2015‎ Drahtlos, the last two references (then nr. 903 and 904) are garbled.
• Starting with 21:42, 9 April 2015‎ Sydwuz, the reference list is gone completely.

Drahtlos (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Drahtlos. Thanks for opening this topic. I've noticed as well that the reference list has disappeared. This has also happened in the "List of planned LTE networks". What can we do? Any constructive ideas? I think we need most of the references to prove the correctness of dates and content. So far I already tried to clean up sources when they became outdated by newer sources to limit the number of sources per entry where possible. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

None of my ideas so far are particularly appealing:

• The article could be split into several articles by region, similar to List of mobile network operators#By region.
• Links could be deleted once the information is duplicated in the GSA LTE list. This would be a lot of work and might not actually help in many cases where the GSA list does not mention frequencies, bandwidths, or LTE-A upgrades.

Drahtlos (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I'm of the same opinion. Even if we save a few sources, this will not last us for long, as new networks keep popping up all the time... :-/ Maybe we should request help from wikipedia itself. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that this article is now in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. It's not necessarily too many references are cited, but that often shows as the symptom of the problem because the references are at the bottom of the page. Also you'll notice that any navigation templates at the bottom don't show either. The problem is that too much content is transcluded, usually templates, but it could be content from other namespaces as well. I'll see what I can do. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks.

MOS:FLAG advises against cluttering up pages with too many decorative flags when they're not necessary. I'll bet that removing the {{flag}} templates and just showing the country names in plain text will fix the problem. I'll see if I can make an AWB edit to try that solution. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed - Removing the flags fixed it. The post-expand include size is now 1,942,979 bytes (the limit is 2,097,152 bytes, so you have some headroom). I'll make the same fix at List of planned LTE networks. Wbm1058 (talk) 04:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, it wasn't absolutely necessary to make the change there, the post-expand include size was 1372873 / 2097152 bytes. So revert me if you really want to keep the flags there. But I think it's nice to keep the two pages having a consistent appearance. Regards, Wbm1058 (talk) 04:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for reverting your edit on the flags issue, but I can remember, that we've had a discussion on this topic already (although it is a long time ago). I also had a look at MOS:FLAG, but can't see any conflict to the guidelines there. Both lists "List of LTE networks" and "List of planned LTE networks" have become very long and detailed lists by now. Apart from the allocation of networks to countries (which does not necessarily require flags), I also see the point that by having flags it is easier for readers to find the county the search for in the list as people ususally have the appropiate flag in mind and they are also an element of raising colour in a long and monotone grey list.
As you mentioned before, you see an improvement by removing the flags resulting in a reduced page size and amount of linked items. The sizes and limits you mention, show to me, that this edit (which I consider to be in the intention of good will) is not going to last us quite long, because there are a lot more sources and references still to come. I suppose that, even though we are trying to replace old sources where possible, the size of the list will still continue to grow. Therefore we should try to find a solution that lasts for long and pushes up the page size limit quite a bit. I hope that you can share this perspective. Anyway: Thanks for your efforts. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I see that flags were first boldly introduced with this 19 March 2013 edit. The only discussion of flags on this talk page is right here in this current discussion. A couple of drive-by IP editors removed flags here and here, while this edit restored missing flags. I'm not finding any real discussion there, or at List of planned LTE networks. I'm fairly sure we could find editors who disagreed with your interpretation of MOS:FLAG if an attempt were made to find a wider consensus beyond the local defacto consensus here, but it is just a guideline for which there may be exceptions. Your point that this would just be a temporary solution is well taken, however, if most of the content at List of planned LTE networks eventually migrates over to here. The most robust longer-term solution will be to split the articles to regions, as there is too much content for a single worldwide article. For example (as I just see was suggested above),

• List of LTE networks in the Americas
• List of LTE networks in Europe
• List of LTE networks in the Asia Pacific region
• List of LTE networks in the Middle East and Africa

— See Wikipedia:Splitting. – Wbm1058 (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I have another idea, after noting the section "Use of rowspan within the List of LTE networks" below. Observing that the tables are sorted by country by default, this should be the first column, not the second column in the tables. Switching the country and operator columns and using "rowspan" on the first column, will significantly reduce the number of {{flag}} transclusions, and likely buy a little more time before the split becomes absolutely necessary. I demonstrated this by changing the last table on the page. Clicking on the first column makes it look just like it did before, just with switched columns. – Wbm1058 (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Wbm1058. I like that solution you demonstrated, but would this also allow to sort entries by frequency or E-UTRA band number for examble, resulting in a mix-through of country flags, or would entries for networks in one country always stay together as a block? If the first is the case, I would prefer this solution.
Another possibility would indeed be to split the list. If this remains under further consideration as an option, I would suggest to create a separate list for the section "Europe" only as a first step, as this is the largest part of the list. Further I propose to keep the rest together as long as no other section becomes "oversized". It's much easier to maintain 2 lists instead of 5 or more. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Right, I believe that there would be no effect on the sorting of other columns; i.e. you would see mix-throughs of country flags. And yes, it makes sense to split the largest group out first and the rest can still be kept together at the current title until further splitting becomes necessary. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok then, let's start with your suggested formatting first, and then as a second step we should continue with outsourcing the "Europe" section. I'm with you. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 23:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The post-expand include size is now 1,988,736 bytes – more than the 1,942,979 bytes we had after removing the flags – but still with some headroom under the limit of 2,097,152 bytes. – Wbm1058 (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank You very much for your efforts! I believe that by making use of your idea we have found a very good solution in accordance to the common interest. As a next step I'll outsource the "Europe" section to a separate article. I think you've spent enough personal time on this issue already. ;-) Nightwalker-87 (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I've now outsourced the section "Europe" to the new article List of LTE networks in Europe. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

This directory article has way too much of everything. Please start by following WP:OVERLINK and MOS:FLAG, that'll save some bytes. Mindy Dirt (talk) 03:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

This topic has been closed with the compromise to outsource single section (regions) to separate articles if necessary. So far this happened to the "Europe" section. By now there is no need to take any further action, as we are far off any defined size limits. Previous re-formatting of the flag column have saved a large amount of space as well. It has also been previously decided to keep the flags in the table in concordance with MOS:FLAG. Concerning the WP:OVERLINK issue, we should try to delete sources if they are outdated (doubled) and no longer in place as a source of content in the table. As far as I can see this affects only a few entries where more than 5 sources are cited.
Please start a new topic at the top of this page if further discussion on this topic is desired. Thanks. :-) Nightwalker-87 (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Olleh Rwanda

Hi Nightwalker-87, The GSA document says: "Olleh Rwanda Networks deployed a national wholesale LTE network using 2x20 MHz band 20 available from November 11, 2014 offering 150 Mbps theoretical peak downlink and 95% coverage of Kigali. Airtel commercially launched retail LTE service using Olleh on November 11, 2014. MTN commercially launched retail LTE service using Olleh on November 11, 2014. Tigo commercially launched retail LTE service using Olleh on January 8, 2015." Do you think we need more citations? Drahtlos (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Drahtlos. At first I'd like to thank you for your efforts to improve the list. I really appreciate your work.
Concerning your question: If we take note of some useful sources I think we should have them added, if it's hard to find any further evidence, it shall be ok from my point of view. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

about LTE list

Hello, i dont understand why did you revert both of my edits, i see that i did anticipate with claro and i should hold for that particular part of one of the edit, i did it in advance (because marketing release of 4g LTE for Claro Argentina is in about two weeks from now) so my bad for that. but all the rest (which was the mayor part of the edit) was right.

If you dont want to split the list (for any reason), then join North America with the rest of the America Sub-Continents. if you leave the continent split on 3, at least do it right and split Central and South America on the list too, because those are diferent Sub-Continents, also at least include Mexico at north america, because Mexico is part of that Sub-Continent.

im talking about this reverts you did:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_LTE_networks&oldid=662797996&diff=prev

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_planned_LTE_networks&oldid=662792562&diff=prev

i hope this clarifies the problem so you can fix it. kind regards --WiZaRd SaiLoR (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the note: I see your point, but that was not the intention for the sorting of the current list. Here we didn't follow geographical classifications. Instead the intention was to group countries according to the regional spectrum management groups (see for details https://image.slidesharecdn.com/connectinglibya2012technologypresentation-120610070929-phpapp02/95/connecting-libya-2012-technology-presentation-45-728.jpg?cb=1339312299) and the common band allocations (e.g. APT band plan) several countries share in certain regions. So far this worked out quite well, so for the moment I don't see why we should have that changed. What I could see as a improvement instead would be to have the regions "defined" in the headers of the respective sections to make that more clear. Let me think about that point.
One remark in our own interest: For the future I would kindly ask you to discuss article related topics on the respective "Talk" pages of the articles to have content related issues discussed with several users. Thanks. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 20:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello again and thank you very much for your previous very fast reply.
I see that, the technology presentation that you linked does not use geographical regional divisions such as north, central and south america or north and south america, but instead use LAC (Latin America & Caribean), so i belive that was the point, when i splited it on geographical regions (as the group names it had were).
My message was made to your talk page becase was related to edits you did, and not the articles per se, i needed to understand your revert, which now, thanks to you, i do. Thats why i did ask you here at your talk page instead of using an article specific talk page (also beause it was about two reverts on diferent articles).
When someone state "North America" it includes Canada, U.S.A. and MEXICO, leaving mexico when using the term North America, its like if someone use North America and leaves U.S.A or Canada out... that is wrong. As you can see on the image you linked, the NA group have Mexico inside. the same as Latin America & Caribean has it too. i understand both articles should be as simplest and easy to read as posible, but it still need to be correct and use real words. (as example trying to make it clear: leaving mexico outside North America on the current groups at the article, its like leaving Germany outside Europe and place it on Afrika, or leave Egypt outside Afrika and put it on Europe, is just wrong. if the grouping is based on something diferent than geography/continents/sub-continents/real regions and are refered as groups, if those groups parts are not changed, the groups names need to be renamed, correclty to reflect the reality.
Maybe the group names does not sound as important as the article content is. but trust me on this one, if the groups does not carry fantasy names, it has to use correct names. so it does not spread common errors (like leaving mexico outside North America, which is a very common error, but still an error ) you can include Mexico on America(a.k.a. the Americas), on North America, on Latin America, on Hispanic America, on Ibero-America, etc,... but if you use one of those terms to name to a group, you cant leave Mexico outside, because is constituent part of all those groups, and put it into a wrong group it just make it worse.
I do a lots of errors, and since that now i understand the reason behind the revert, i just ask that this error regarding split of groups and/or group names, be fixed because if not, helps to spread a very common error.
I can explain this problem at the talk page of those articles, but i trust it will be better to just let you know it, since you are helping a lot maintaining those articles and are more experienced at the subject the article is about, so now that you know the diference between south+central america vs latin america terms. your edits may be better to suit the interest of those articles.
I will leave those articles as they are, i did repeat and tried to use examples when explaining this to you because my english isnt that good, so just in case i tried to make extra redundant clarificcations. thats the reason behind my "Wall of text".
If you want you can add this to your completed issues group.
I want to tank you for your patient for explaining the reasons to me. -- WiZaRd SaiLoR (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. ;-) I think that it is always very valuable to hear other ideas and opinions. I am very pleased that you started a discussion about this topic. What would you think about the idea to separate the section Americas into "USA, US Territories & Canada (FCC band plan)", "Caribbean" & "Latin-America (APT band plan)" (this would also include Mexico). From my point of view that would be (more) precise (in terms of spectrum allocation, as well as from the geo-political perspective), as far as I understand your reply. How do you think about this? Would this solve the issue for you? Nightwalker-87 (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

LTE FDD in China

China Unicom announced LTE FDD on 1800MHz band, and China Telecom announced LTE FDD on 2100MHz band. I'm not familiar with Wikipedia editor, so could someone add this to the article? Source: http://wenku.baidu.com/view/243aa235c850ad02df80411f.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.222.3 (talk) 23:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

We don't list planned deployments and trial services here - only announced commercial network services. You information has already been added to the "List of planned LTE networks" (where it belongs). Nightwalker-87 (talk) 18:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Mexico is wrongly placed in central/south America

as it is part of NorthAmerica, Mexico is in the wrong section of the Article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arana1 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The sorting does not follow geographical assignment, but the regional ITU spectrum allocation (band plan) instead. The latter associates Mexico with Latin America. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 10:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I've changed the section name to "Latin America" (which includes Mexico) to point this out more clearly. I hope that this is not reverted by somebody else (what was the case before). Nightwalker-87 (talk) 10:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

[sic], List of LTE networks and "tuscon"

That was not vandalism. "Tuscon" is spelled "Tucson", and [sic] means "misspelled in the original". - Richfife (talk) 21:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry for that. With the explanation above I now understand the motivation behind your edit. I've already restored to your last edit. Thx for the note! ;-) Nightwalker-87 (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

FDD-LTE in China

Hello, recently you have deleted my addition of FDD-LTE band entries for China Telecom and China Unicom on this page List of LTE networks. Your rationale was that they were yet only for commercial use, but not for common users. However, the fact is, though licenses has been granted and conferred for commercial use, no special (business trial) registration is needed for common users to use FDD-LTE networks for both China Unicom and China Telecom right now. In another word, FDD-LTE bands are, in de facto, available and deployed crossed the country, as TDD-LTE. So I believe it's considerable to update the entry accordingly. [[5]]. Thanks for reading my post. --Andyx96 (talk) 06:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. No, that was not the reason for reverting this edit. What ist meant with "commercial" ist that theses networks have officially gone into service and are no longer just a trial service for users or business customers to test the technology. So far we considered networks as comercial as soon as an operator officially announced the launch of a network either through a press announcement, a report or a newspaper article (secondary source). If a service is made officially available to business customers without beeing available to end customers, we can still consider the networks as launched on a commercial basis, if it has been announced in such a way by the operator.

Generally a license or just the fact that there are base stations available, does not qualify a network to be part of this list. A technical evidence can also derive in a indirect way from the technical background of a announcement. For example: If an operator announces the commercial availability of LTE-A with carrier aggregation (2 carriers) with one frequency-license already in use and a source for a second license, which has not been in use so far, is available, this would obviously inplify that the second mobile license has come into use.

In the case of the Chinese FDD networks you mentioned the point is that an announcement for the commercial launch of FDD services by both operators (China Unicom and China Telecom) is still missing. Maybe there is one somewhere on the net (maybe in Chinese), but I haven't found anything alike yet. For this reason I prefer to keep these deployments on the "List of planned LTE networks" until we have found this source. I hope that you can now follow this intention behind the recent revert. I would agree and support to have both networks listed as soon as such a source is found. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 10:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I tried my best to understand what you meant despite of typos.. Yes, They have already gone into official service. They are already available for end users, not just business partners. End users like me can easily access and use both FDD networks without any extra (business trial) contract with the service provider. Also, I believed there's no English translation of the official doc yet released but it is published in Chinese. Please further refer to them in the Chinese Wikipedia page of China Unicom and China Telecom, as we (Chinese Wikipedia community) had already made an agreement to formally add these FDD bands into formally launched service bands. Please trust our community. Thanks. --Andyx96 (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I did some research on the topic prior to your latest response and decided to add the networks to the list. The reason for that is, that there might never be an announcement of commercial services. Both networks could be considered in a "pre-commercial state" (due to the extraordinary large network coverage) rather than a "network trial" at the time when official FDD-licenses were issued bei MIIT. For this reason one can consider the allocation of official licenses to China Telecom and China Unicom as the start of commercial services. A very important point though is the fact that both FDD-networks run on 1800 MHz. I have found and added sources for that (have a look at the references for the networks). Please make sure that this information matches the information in related articles in the Chinese Wikipedia. If you have further sources there in Chinese language, that prove something different or further deployments, please let me (us) know to keep the English version of the list, but also the "List of planned LTE networks", up to date (I can't directly search for Chinese webpages on that topic, but can check with a web-translator, if someone found anything alike).
At last I would like to thank you for opening this topic as well as for the objective and open discussion on this topic. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your response and I hope we can always have this page updated. Andyx96 (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

LTE Carrier Aggregation - Reorganzation? New Table?

Since it would be a bit of work and because User:Nightwalker-87 has done a significant amount of work on maintaining this page (Looks like nearly 50% of the total edits! Number of Edits by Nightwalker-87) I didn't want to just steamroll and start making massive changes...

Here's my thought: The data looks great and it's very easy to compare networks among carriers (especially w/freq band etc.) I feel like the Carrier Aggregation information is getting a bit lost - I mean, it's there (which is amazing because it's practically impossible to find conveniently anywhere else) -- but it's somewhat hard to compare. It'd be great to be able to compare between carriers, networks, countries, who has deployed CA, how much they've deployed (20, 30, 40, 80(! Australia) MHz) etc.

Thoughts? (I know that *doing* first and asking talking later is sometimes more of the Wikipedia way - but given that this could be a pretty major change...) -- Moogle10000 11:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Moogle10000. Thank you very much for your appreciation concerning my edits, you pointed out and also for opening this topic. I agree with you that it is a bit difficult to compare carriers concerning Carrier Aggregation configurations from this table. I fact I'm not too happy with the current solution, because it uses quite a bit of the "Notes" section especially in the subpages List of LTE networks in Europe and List of LTE networks in Asia. On the other hand I'm not a friend of creating a new table to create a solution for this issue. I feel that there should be one table to cover the complete information, as this is also a very convenient solution for most readers, especially if they are not so familiar with technical topics and want to find the information they are looking for in one place with a clear structure. Also maintenance of one table is much easier than having to keep two tables up-to-date simultaneously. We've seen how well that worked out with UMTS HSDPA HSUPA and HSPA network lists. All of them are outdated by now lacking support and regularly involved editors.

Instead I would propose to create a new column in the existing table especially for CA schemes which is sortable to allow the comparison of carriers concerning this topic. To keep the table small and well viewable on 15 inch screens, which are most commonly used a possible solution to gain more space could be to combine band and frequency in one single column as they are always related to each other. Here solely the band number could appear with the frequency in MHz only showing up if the cursor is moved on the band number (or a similar solution, of which I am sure exists in wiki-formatting). For the case that this is not preserving enough space a second suggestion could be to find a similar solution for the Category launch dates, but I would just keep that in mind for the future.

Please comment on this suggestion and have your say. I believe a convenient solution can be found that suit all needs. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Dominica LTE listing removal

So, Rootmetrics and Opensignal have both confirmed no LTE in Dominica. The lack of an LTE presence is further corroborated by Digicel doing a network study in Dominica and these results are reflected on Rootmetrics. Rootmetrics only confirms up to HSPA+ in that region. Also, FLOW/LIME and Digicel have not received 700 MHz licences from ECTEL (Dominica's presiding body for Telecoms). I believe TeleGeography did not do much research on the country's telecoms scene but as a Caribbean national, I'm more aware of what goes on there as most telecoms related matters in the region are made in Jamaica, where Digicel is headquartered and FLOW's Caribbean headquarters is nearby (in Miami).

Once again, according to Cable and Wireless (FLOW/LIME's parent company), they only operate LTE networks in the Cayman Islands, Antigua, Bahamas, Panama, Anguilla and the Turks and Caicos Islands with the only territory gearing for LTE launch being Jamaica at the moment.

Lastly, Digicel has naming conventions in how they market their wireless products. Digicel labels their HSPA+ network as 4G (as per North American conventions) and explicitly labels its LTE networks as 4G LTE in any branding it has. Digicel markets its Dominica network as "4G" and not "4G LTE" as is the case with Digicel Antigua for example.

Hope this helps you in seeing my rational for removing the listings :) Habe einen guten tag jetzt! JamaicanEditor (talk) 17:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi JamaicanEditor. After taking a closer look at the operators' respective websites, I come to the conclusion, that there is not any evidence for an active LTE service in both cases. On the other hand I could not find a source that either proves or opposes your statement concerning HSPA+ beeing marketed as "4G". Therefore I conclude that the source <ref name="LTE Bands"> is wrong and the TeleGeography sources falsely lead to the association that the recently awarded LTE-licences @700 MHz have come into use, which does not seem to be the case. Because of device compatibility concerning frequency bands I suppose that either 850 or 1900 MHz are in use for UMTS/HSPA+. Can you find out about that and add new (sourced) entries to [of HSPA+ networks]? That would be great. I will move the two entries under question to List of planned LTE networks until the commercial launch of LTE services is announced by each of the two operators. Do you agree on that? ;-) Nightwalker-87 (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the response Nightwalker-87, nevermind the '4G' naming conventions, I was simply referring to networks like AT&T and T-Mobile referring to HSPA+ as 4G and operators like Digicel and FLOW following that convention. You can refer to that iOS 5 update that made the iPhone 4S into a 4G phone despite it being only Cat. 10, 16QAM HSPA capable phone rather than it being LTE-A or LTE-U capable. North American '4G' naming conventions are also evidenced by iOS having overrides in the AT&T and T-Mobile carrier bundles that tell iOS to display a UMTS connection as 4G whether it is 42 Mbit/s HSPA+ or 3.6 Mbit/s HSPA. 700 MHz licences were not up for tender by the ECTEL, they only spoke of how they would divide the spectrum for auction. None of the territories governed by the ECTEL have LTE service, only UMTS/HSPA+ (on the usual 850 MHz and 1900 MHz). I'll add the networks to [of HSPA+ networks]. I would, however, recommend not putting them in List of planned LTE networks as the operators have not purchased any LTE spectrum or proposed any LTE upgrades. Cable and Wireless/FLOW is concentrating on core upgrades in Panama and Jamaica and Digicel is focused on Fibre rollout but LTE is not out of the question. Regards :) JamaicanEditor (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thx for the information. Following your proposal I'd also recommend delete for this case. Concerning "with references for you": You're not editing "for me", but "for wikipedia = everybody" and hopefully it's interest. I only try to keep an eye on the quality and verifiability (WP:VER) of information in this list - no more, no less. ;-) Nightwalker-87 (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

No problem. We are contributing for everyone's benefit and should be viewed as such. Thanks Nightwalker-87 for dealing with this issue as amicably as you did, quite a few contributors should take a page from you on how to deal with seemingly questionable attributions. JamaicanEditor (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank You very much for the warm words. I really appreciate it. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Digicel Cayman Band 13 discrepancy

Hey! So according to this TeleGeography article, I was led to believe that LIME Cayman acquired Band 17 & 13 in 2013 (I know, how silly of me) but this document from the ICTA convinced me otherwise. Despite this, I was informed that their LTE network is on Band 3 but given their claim to a max speed of 150 Mbit/s (It could be 20x20, because no word of LTE-A from Digicel has ever come forth & knowing them, I would know), I still have a few questions..... Cheers! JamaicanEditor (talk) 05:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi JamaicanEditor. Thank you very much for the new source. Taking a closer look I conclude the following:

• FLOW 10MHz b17 (used) (LSMH Block B & C);
• Digicel 20MHz b3 (in use) (1710-1730MHz / 1805-1825MHz is very likely to be a 20MHz LTE carrier), the rest seems to be in use for GSM.
• Digicel 10MHz b13 (USMH Block C) (unused License) (actually 11MHz, but 1MHz will be unused anyway due to uneven FCC channel allocation, equal to Verizon b13 in the US)

As you can see, I've already added the source to the entries in the respective wiki-lists. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 21:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification on the spectrum allocations to the Caymanian operators. I'll go ahead and make the necessary adjustments to their respective pages. Regards, JamaicanEditor (talk) 23:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Missing info on lower Categories

What I'm missing here is information of network support for Cat. 1 & Cat. 0 user equipments. I know Cat. 1 is in theory backward compatible to higher Categories, but in practise it needs some SW update or configuration by the network/operators. So AFAIK, you can't say that Cat. 1 devices work in every Cat. 3 or higher networks automatically and that way it would be practical to see the support (or the lack of it) from the same list too. F. ex. while asked from Finnish operators Elisa & Sonera, Elisa said that they are already supporting Cat. 1 while Sonera said that they are not.

Also new LTE Categories M and NB1 should have at least a place holder too, I think.

And this same concerns 'List of LTE networks in Europe' and 'List of LTE networks in Asia' articles too. Wipe2000 (talk) 06:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Cat1, Cat0, CatM and NB1 adress non-commercial services for IoT. These categories are designed for industrial applications and non-mobile device usage like sensors etc. optimized for (extremely) low datarates. This is the reason why these categories are not listed here. They are not designed for and do not adress the mobile consumer market. Relevant devices for the mobile consumer market are at least capable to support Cat3. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 18:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

B7 (2600) also used by Zain Kuwait!

And "nightwalker-87" have to add it by himself.

Another thing that VIVA Kuwait is referred to wrong company called "STC" which is not even located in Kuwait!!! Check it out at viva.com.kw Bluevx (talk) 11:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Bluevx. I would have added Zain Kuwait @2600 MHz to the list, if I had found an official announcement by the operator or an official telecoms news site on the web. Regarding the second point, please refer to article Saudi Telecom Company: "Saudi Telecom Group, (STC; STC Group; STC International) (Arabic: مجموعة الاتصالات السعودية‎‎) is a Saudi Arabia-based telecommunications company that offers landline, mobile, internet services and Computer network. In Kuwait and Bahrain it is named VIVA." which suggests that VIVA Kuwait is a subsidiary of STC. --> If this information is wrong please feel free to correct it (preferrably along with a reference). Nightwalker-87 (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

GSA Evolution to LTE report

Following the re-design of the GSA website, GSA had decided to make any new reports only available to GSA members. Meanwhile, GSA has somewhat seen the light: New reports are initially only for GSA members but after a month available to all registered users. Note that if you were registered before the re-design then a new registration is required to gain access. Drahtlos (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I see, but that would still require readers to register to an external service, which is likely not in the interest of wikipedia (open access). :-( Therefore I think we should keep the old version for the moment, well knowing that we also desire the content of the updated version. Here it would be great if the document would be hosted elsewhere with free accessablity. This would maintain public access without registration. Any further ideas on that? Nightwalker-87 (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I have added a second link to the registration-required document for info that is not in the older, public version. Drahtlos (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Movistar Mexico bands

Another observation: The Evolution to LTE report lists band 4 (rather than 2) for Telefonica Movistar Mexico. Drahtlos (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Here I'm not sure if referring to http://www.spectrummonitoring.com/frequencies/frequencies2.html#Mexico a.k.a. (ref name="SM Frequencies ITU 2"), but this source might be outdated. I suggest to follow the Evolution to LTE report here and remove (ref name="SM Frequencies ITU 2") until there is further information available. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

FLOW UKVI... LTE-A or not LTE-A

Taking a look at FLOW UKVI's website, it makes mention of an LTE Advanced network and a list of compatible devices in addition to speeds up to 100 Mbit/s. Though not Category 4 LTE speeds, it involves aggregating Band 2 and 17 or 13. Would this not be Category 4 LTE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamaicanEditor (talk • contribs) 21:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I found an additional source [here] in the meanwhile that supports your original information (although it was not clear from the given source, what led me to the previous edit). I'll update the entry partially. What remains unclear are the used frequency bands. I suppose that it is 700 and 1900 MHz, but without a source that's not enough to list it as beeing a fact. I hope to find additional sources on that. Can you search for additional information as well? Thx. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I found [this] source which gives details on the spectrum won by FLOW BVI. I'm unsure as to whether the 700 MHz channel is 5 or 10 MHz due to reports in areas not covered by LTE-A getting 43 Mbit/s (see their [coverage map]). I will update the page as soon as more information becomes available. JamaicanEditor (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

They seem to use a 5 MHz-Block on the whole network for basic islandwide coverage [Link]. As the 850MHz-coverage does not match the LTE-coverage map, this block seems to be on 700 MHz. This would indicate that 10 MHz from 1900 MHz are aggregated in selected cities where LTE-A is offered. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

“APT band plans”

Hi Nightwalker! In the article, List of LTE networks, with the exception of Bolivia, all of South America is listed under “APT band plans”, notwithstanding that none of those Latin American countries are affiliated in any way with the Asia-Pacific Telecommunity. So, just so I can get this into my oftentimes thick head, is this grouping just a shorthand way of netting together all those countries by bands used, rather than international organization affiliation? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 00:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct - it is a grouping that should outline that these countries have adopted the APT-700 band plan (identified by APT) and also the IMT-E 2600 band plan used in ITU Regions 3 and 1 contrary to the FCC-700/EBS_BRS-2500 allocation deriving from the US. Apart from that there is no relation to the organization itself I am aware of. Hope that helps along. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

It does. Thank you! It’s just a bit confusing at first. One does wonder why only Bolivia saw fit to mesh with North America and the FCC plan in its choice. — SpikeToronto 11:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Spectrum allocation is indeed a very complicated topic. Apart from political influences this also derives from multiple wireless mobile standards and their individual development in the past (which are now phased out). As countries and economies have finally realized that development and progress is accelerated if all ideas, know how and efforts are brought together to form a global standard. This has finally taken place with LTE. A hangover of this is that this standard indends to make use of all mobile spectrum allocated in different parts all over the globe. That is why there are so many defined LTE bands. Device and infrastructure vendors are propagating to focus on some main bands with wider regional allocation (such as APT-700, EUDD800, GSM900, LTE1500, GSM1800, IMT2100, IMT-E2600). Apart of refarming this also results in reallocation of spectrum (such as in Japan and South Korea with the old PDC and CDMA spectrum for example). For the future and with the view to 5G development and specification I'm pretty sure that we will see further progress in this development, what will result in fewer band plans with wider coverage across the globe. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 12:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Orange Morocco

I have seen this network run on band 7 (20 MHz) and band 3 (10 MHz). This was of August 2017. I have not seen active CA. What would be a good way to add this (also without an external source). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.217.85.88 (talk) 04:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. Following WP:VER and WP:CS, I don't see a reason to add unsourced content to the list. Also one should be aware of that WP:SPS is not in the sense of wiki. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 17:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)