Talk:UMTS/Archive 1

USIM and SIM compatibility

The article says a USIM card can be put into a SIM slot on a GSM phone when traveling. Can someone clarify how that works? I thought the USIM had 2 extra contacts, and would not match up. 74.230.23.219 (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC).

Article is correct. Some SIM cards do have 2 extra contacts (not just USIM). Indeed many SIM cards throughout the world also have an extra pair of contacts. Although many earlier phones had matching mating contacts, the extra contacts are, in fact, unused - it may be that there was some future use planned. Bank ATM cards and credit cards may also have the extra 2 contacts and they are also unused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.235.85 (talk) 07:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

why...

...does this article and several others like those on 3g, hsdpa, etc unnecessarily quote apple iphone trivia? i think it should be removed./perryizgr8

Releases 5,6,7

This article only mentions old UMTS features. During 2005 release 5 is rolling out over the world, which simply spells out to VoIP. I added a link to the IMS article, but this one needs some serious restructuring. /Henrik Leion

So is UMTS used for making video+voice calls?

Yep. UMTS-networks deployed (at least in Europe) support video+voice calls and have done so for quite some time now (i have such a phone myself).– Probell (Talk) 09:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

this article is too much around the USA I think. Almost any mobile phone sold in europe is triband because the US have different frequencies from worldwide. 62.48.109.85 (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup Request

This article is choppy and hard to read and does not seem to reflect the current status of the UMTS systems and phones. I also strongly feel that the introduction should be about UMTS and not about how great other standards are. – Probell (Talk) 09:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Also I disagree that this article should be placed underneath the one on WCDMA. The correct order is 3G > UMTS (as a family) > WCDMA, TD-SCDMA (as family members) Alistair9210 14:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

If you're talking about the Mobile phone standards table, I proposed a clean up here but haven't done it yet because it's somewhat radical and I've only had one piece of feedback so far. If you'd like to comment, I'd be very grateful. Squiggleslash 14:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The comment about certain services not working in ireland's UMTS networks has relatively little relevance. I suggest removing it. --193.53.0.59 16:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI: I noticed that this article is mostly unreferenced, so I added the citations missing template. Also, I combined all the templates...about external links, the article needing more and better refererences, etc., under the Articleissues template.

I don't plan on doing any further editing of this article...just trying to help! :-) Took a look at it since I needed some info on UMTS. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Article says"Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) is one of the third-generation (3G) cell phone technologies", while article on 3G says "3G is the fourth generation of mobile phone standards and technology" ... Third ? Fourth ? Clean up please... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.76.228.86 (talk) 06:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

UMTS is 3G system. Offcourse ,A part of similar protocols are used in 4G as the standard body is same for both LTE and UMTS.

Updates

Hello what is UMTS

I've made a stab at making the article more up to date but it could do with more work.

The AWS auctions in the US happened last month. It seems probable that both Cingular and T-Mobile (the latter of whom has announced this publically, see footnotes) will be running UMTS on 2150/1750 nationwide. There doesn't appear to be any move to use the same frequencies as Europe, and personally, I doubt there will be, due to the 5MHz issue and the fact that licensed frequencies in the 2150MHz range may not match up with their equivalents in the 1900MHz area. Someone who knows more about it than I do though should probably clear that issue up.

I've also added a footnotes section, and a clean-up should probably consider moving many of the links to that area.

Over all, I think the article is in need of a clean-up, and possibly a rewrite. There's too much redundancy (I had to fix speculation about the US UMTS roll-out and claims the FCC hasn't free'd any relevent spectrum in three separate sections!), much of it seems to be based upon speculation that I doubt was in question even when the article was written. What do others think? Squiggleslash 13:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It should probably also be noted that Vodafone's Japanese operation was bought by Softbank in March 2006. Vuori 20:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

UMTS in Russia

That little paragraph about UMTS in Russia is total nonsense. Mentioned Skylink is a CDMA2000 450MHz operator that recently launched EV-DO in Moscow with a very fragmented EV-DO coverage still. UMTS is going to be developed by major GSM operators, but to the date it is not. schmalter194.84.64.191 19:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

UMTS and CDMA

I came to this page to learn what UMTS was and I am still confused. Is it nothing more than a data protocall usually used with W-CDMA over GSM networks? I also found the wording slightly biased. "UMTS over W-CDMA uses a pair of 5 MHz channels. In contrast, the competing CDMA2000 system uses one or more arbitrary 1.25 MHz channels for each direction of communication. UMTS and other W-CDMA systems are widely criticized for their large spectrum usage, which has delayed deployment in countries that acted relatively slowly in allocating new frequencies specifically for 3G services (such as the United States)." If I remeber correctly W-CDMA was a creation of a few European companies to try and not pay royalties by widening the bandwidth, so that they could overlay existing GSM networks with CDMAto get the higher data speeds. Which they lost in court a few years ago. If we are going to talk arbitrary (see arbitrary above)maybe we could discuss the history of this thing some more. Although I believe the FCC is not the greatest institution by a long shot. I still need a good explanation of UMTS to decide if I need to study it more to remain up to date in my field. Thank you for your time Ljgebbia 10:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)ljgebbia

• UMTS is a complete mobile phone standard, like GSM is. It is often described as GSM version 3.
• W-CDMA is an air interface specification. That means it's a standard that explains the part of a mobile phone network where the handset itself communicates with the towers. W-CDMA was originally developed by the Japanese telecommunications giant DoCoMo, for their own slightly different mobile phone standard called FOMA.
• Unlike earlier versions of GSM, which were originally tied to a specific FH-TDMA air interface (though others were standardized later on, like DECT), UMTS is able to support multiple, standardized, air interfaces.
• W-CDMA is one air interface used by UMTS. There's also TD-CDMA (used exclusively by UMTS-TDD), TD-SCDMA (a Chinese standard), and HSOPA (developed as a replacement for W-CDMA, essentially because CDMA is not the fantastic solution to all problems it was claimed to be.)
• W-CDMA was chosen as the air interface for UMTS because it was felt better to handle the kinds of application that UMTS was planned to support (such as video calls) than Qualcomm's implementation of CDMA. It is not true that it was developed to try to dodge Qualcomm's patents and royalties, Qualcomm has many patents covering W-CDMA, and W-CDMA isn't that different from Qualcomm's own implementations. Qualcomm's supporters are infamous for casting FUD on non-Qualcomm initiatives, and that you'd think this isn't surprising.
• You cannot overlay W-CDMA signals and GSM2 because the noise generated by the W-CDMA network would interfere with the GSM2 network; different frequency bands have to be used (and a different tower placement strategy, and a lot of other things...) Indeed, this is much of the reason why UMTS has been slow to roll out in the US, as in many areas GSM operators only have 5MHz to play with, and implementing UMTS means dropping GSM.
• The only connection with GSM is that UMTS is the latest version of GSM, and W-CDMA is the most common air interface used with it. But it's essentially the latest in the same way as CDMA2000 is the latest version of AMPS. You can't overlay one on the other, and the newer system is much more capable than the old system (though it's unfair to compare GSM to AMPS!)
• Because the terminology is confusing, you often here people refer to UMTS as W-CDMA or 3G. These are misleading terms as they encompass different concepts. If you live in a country where the only 3G networks are UMTS, run over W-CDMA, then it kind of makes sense, but it doesn't.

Does that help? --Squiggleslash 13:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

R99?

users in deployed networks can expect a performance up to 384 kbit/s for R99 handsets

The term "R99" is not defined. AxelBoldt 04:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

  Using the term R99 is absolutely fine  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.138.110 (talk) 12:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 

3GSM

"3GSM," which redirects here, is also used to refer to the 3GSM World Congress (in Barcelona next month). Should we reference that? --Miguel 16:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone knows the frequency of Cingular's (AT&T) UMTS service in Puerto RIco?

I talked with one the guys from Cingular's customer service/store and he told me Puerto Rico's UMTS frequency was 2100 MHz. I wish to know if this is true because my HTC Universal supports this and only this frequency. As it says in this article Cingular has only so far rolled out 1900 and 850 UMTS... But Puerto Rico Being another country with different set of spectrum rules I wouldn't be surprised if it was true. Any thoughts about this? Or, at least, some place where I can know this type of info for sure? Thanx in advance.

Yubal 20:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Usable uplink speeds?

What are the typical uplink speeds for UMTS/HDSPA networks?

Uplink speeds with 3gpp R6 (called HSUPA) can go up to 5.76 Mbps on Physical Layer. Also, the 21 Mbps theoretical speed of HSDPA mentioned in this article is totally wrong. HSDPA can go up to 14.4 Mbps on a single cell with certain configuration. To reach 21.6 Mbps (the correct speed), a dual-cell HSDPA (kind of MIMO) configuration is required. Faris.mismar (talk) 06:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It will reach 28 Mbps with 64 QAM and MIMO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.138.110 (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Power emission unspecified

Hi, I saw there is no specification for power consumption for UMTS, so it isn't informational enough. There is also nothing about ecological, health and biohazard concerns in UMTS nor GSM articles.

This link says UMTS runs 2W peak power, but it is not clear whether it is peak power of a pulse, or averaged power of pulses and silences together. I suspect the former, otherwise the battery would go empty very quickly, but IMHO it needs clarification. Thx -- Mtodorov 69 13:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The DBm article says 125mW. but this is unlikely. can someone look up the spec sheets or is it a closed standard? Towel401 (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

At the antenna the TX delivers 400mW average, maximum. While the standard is NOT closed, but the proper peak power is strongly dependent on the capabilities of the network. Based on professional experience I can confidently say that for HSUPA applications the ratio of peak power to average power can be as high as 7.5 dB, or almost 6 to 1. Mtodorov's information ( 2W Tx ) above is not representative of release 5 or 6 requirements, though. Aside from the HSUPA requirements, UMTS PAs such as Anadigics AWT6276 are designed to provide reasonable linearity at slightly below 1W, not 2W. Hope that is helpful. --Rp79 (talk) 13:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

UMTS pilot channel runs 2W peak power (and it is always at maximum power). There is no theory behind it. It is a pure planning preference. 5%-15% of the maximum NodeB transmit power (which could be 40W). Taking 5% of that 40W, you are left with 2W for the pilot channel. Faris.mismar (talk) 05:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

pda/smartphone

Why is this section in this article? I believe it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.127.171 (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree and will take responsibility for the removal. --Chrismiceli (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Confusion surrounding multiple access terminology

moved from ← Talk:W-CDMA (UMTS)

This entire article is a clusterfark now. W-CDMA isn't more than a multiple channel access technique. Just because people incorrectly call standardized implementations as being equivalent doesn't mean they are. The introduction makes absolutely no sense now, as well. Here's an equivalent argument you're making... GM motors invents a "rotating gizmo". This rotating gizmo is used in their new engine designs, which they call the Whamo 5000. They put the Whamo 5000 in all their vehicles. GM leases rights to the rotating gizmo to Ford. Ford put it in their new engine design, the Whacko 3000. They put the Whacko 3000 in all their vehicles. Therefore, a rotating gizmo is a Whamo 5000 and a Whacko 3000. As you can tell, your logic makes no sense. W-CDMA is an channel access method. UMTS is a standardization network that uses W-CDMA for particular standardized air interfaces. Go read every single 3GPP spec on UMTS. After you're done, come back and read the article and realize how retarded it sounds.Mojodaddy (talk) 04:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

*sigh*

W-CDMA is both a proper name and a descriptive term.

• As a proper name, it denotes UTRA-FDD, sometimes all UTRAs or UMTS as a whole.
  → That's what the W-CDMA (UMTS) article talks about and that's what, according to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, should live at W-CDMA.
• As a descriptive term, it denotes any CDMA-based scheme that spreads its signal over a wide band. However, this usage is mostly limited to technical articles and there's no clear definition. (NB: It's not “a channel access method“ as W-CDMA currently says. It's a term describing a number of distinctive channel access methods.)
  → That might be handled with a disambiguation page (prototype here)

But yes, it's a mess. It's as if everyone calls the Whamo 5000 (UTRA-FDD) from your example a Rotating Gizmo (W-CDMA) and most of the time, people talking about a Rotating Gizmo (W-CDMA) mean the Whamo 5000. Some mechanics use the term rotating gizmo to refer to the engine or any engine where the gizmo rotates (fortunately, they have capitalization). The Whacko 3000 (UTRA-TDD HCR), which uses a slightly different engine design (spins anti-clockwise), is usually called Spinning Gizmo (TD-CDMA) but some people also call it Rotating Gizmo (W-CDMA). Then, Ford makes a new engine to avoid license fees and puts it into the new Whacko 5000 (UTRA-TDD LCR), which is called Vibrating Gizmo by everyone (TD-SCDMA). (My head now rotates, too.) — 3247 (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

moved from ← Talk:TD-CDMA

If you think this page should be merged, perhaps you should discuss it here, first. There's a lot of confusion on Wiki with regard to standardized 3G telecommunication implementations and generic channel access concepts. They are not synonymous.Mojodaddy (talk) 03:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they are. It's just that different standard bodies use different names: Most users use the common names W-CDMA, TD-CDMA, TD-SCDMA, which look like they are channel access methods. However, that's just a misleading name; the best example is W-CDMA, whose channel access method is DS-CDMA. ETSI/3GPP uses the UTRA anything names and ITU uses the IMT anything names. Just look at the references, e.g. http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-d/opb/stg/D-STG-SG02.18-1-2006-PDF-E.pdf pp. 4 and 25—28. — 3247 (talk) 09:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

PS: I had not seen that you reverted all of my edits when I undid TD-SCDMA. So, thinking it was just that article, I reverted it before I discovered the other instances. However, I think that a discussion, if at all necessary should be concentrated in one place, e.g. Talk:W-CDMA (UMTS). — 3247 (talk) 10:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

moved from ← Talk:TD-SCDMA

Please note that despite its name suggest otherwise, TD-SCDMA is not just a channel access method. Instead, it's a whole air interface specification. This is blurred by the fact that it is known by different names: the common name TD-SCDMA used by the developers, the name UTRA-TDD LCR used by ETSI/3GPP and the name IMT-2000 TDD used by ITU. Please look at the references for details. — 3247 (talk) 09:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not. "Something that uses TD-SCDMA" does not equal "TD-SCDMA". I agree with you only insofar as there are multiple air interface specifications that utilize TD-SCDMA. Just because air interface XYZ uses TD-SCDMA doesn't mean air interface XYZ is synonymous with TD-SCDMA. For instance, I could create a TD-SCDMA system that uses different frequency bands than the UTRA-TDD LCR standard. My system isn't equivalent to UTRA-TDD LCR nor is it equivalent to TD-SCDMA. Perhaps the TD-SCDMA article should discuss the actual multiple access method concept. While articles (or subsections) discuss standardized implementations that utilize TD-SCDMA and the differences between the standardizations. TD-SCDMA is not limited to use in a system that has the requirements imposed by the aforementioned standardized versions.Mojodaddy (talk) 04:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You seem to assume that TD-SCDMA is the name for a channel access method. If you make that assumption, then of course TD-SCDMA != UTRA TDD LCR. However, I don't think that assumption is correct.

Etymologically, the term TD-SCDMA clearly derives from a channel access method that mixes time division and synchronous CDMA, that's right. However, that's not how the sources I could find use the term: The sources, some of which I also added to the article, clearly use it as a synonym—or “common name” (→ WP:COMMONNAME, BTW)—for the air interface standard that got into UMTS as UTRA TDD LCR. The same has been true for the actual body of the article (w/o the disputed lead).

However, you could easily proof your point by finding reliable sources that use the term TD-SCDMA as a term describing the channel access method. — 3247 (talk) 13:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

originally started here (Universal Mobile Telecommunications System)

There seems to be a lot of confusion between the terminology surrounding multiple access techniques, 3GPP defined air interfaces, ITU defined air interfaces, etc. I believe the correct position should be to distinguish between the three. Because multiple access techniques can be patented, the use thereof is very limited. And, most of the time, only one standardized version exists. This standardized version typically defines requirements further than just which multiple access technique is being used (ie, the duration of frames and # of time slots on each frame). For example, 3GPP defines an air interface called UTRA-TDD HCR. As defined by 3GPP, this UTRA uses TD-CDMA with 10 ms frames each containing 15 time slots. This UTRA uses certain defined frequencies. However, TD-CDMA isn't limited to being used in a system with 10 ms frames each containing 15 time slots.Mojodaddy (talk) 13:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The confusion seems to spur from one or more references that glossily assert that certain multiple access techniques are "common names" for standardized versions. The reference is found here http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-d/opb/stg/D-STG-SG02.18-1-2006-PDF-E.pdf However, if you actually go through and look at the asserted "common names" of the standardized air interfaces, you'll notice that the common names are not synonymous and are distinguishable on their own. For instance, pg 25 of the report (39 of the pdf) states that "IMT-2000 CDMA Direct Spread" has the common names "UTRA FDD", "WCDMA", and "UMTS". However, WCDMA and UMTS are entirely different. UMTS is an entire, standardized network infrastructure while the other is a channel access method. I'm only familiar with 3GPP terminology and not with IMT terminology, so I'm not sure what they mean by "common names". To me, however, it would seem they are really saying "IMT-2000 CDMA Direct Spread uses these equivalent technologies commonly referred to as:". Therefore, in order to prevent confusion to the reader, I think it would be best if we clarify between the standardized implementation of a multiple access technique, and the multiple access technique.Mojodaddy (talk) 13:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The main source for confusion is probably that the terms TD-SCDMA, TD-CDMA and W-CDMA end in CDMA, the name of a channel access method. Many sources also talk about the “TD-SCDMA”/“TD-CDMA”/“W-CDMA technology” without making it clear whether technology refers to a radio access network, an air interface or a channel access method. The ambiguous meaning of the term W-CDMA, combined with inconsistent usage, does not help, either.

Firstly, there's no difference between the air interfaces standardised by different bodies: 3GPP is the interest group who develops them, ETSI then gives them their blessing. They're then submittet to ITU where they get another blessing. However, they're the same specs—just known by different names. As Wikipedia is not a dictionary, they should certainly be merged.

Further, TD-SCDMA is never used as anything other than the name for the air interface (standard). I haven't found any source that does use it to name just the channel access method. The best reference is the TD-SCDMA whitepaper, written by those who co-developed TD-SCDMA. The channel access method is referred to as “TDMA … with a CDMA component”. The whitepaper also makes clear that TD-SCDMA is the same standard that's been adopted by ETSI in UMTS Rel. 4 and by ITU in IMT.

The same is mostly true for TD-CDMA. However, I'm not as confident as with TD-SCDMA; some people might use the term to describe and TDMA/CDMA scheme.

The problematic term, however, is W-CDMA, which is used in different ways. In the most common usage (IMO), it refers to the UTRA FDD air interface. Unfortunately, it is also used as a descriptive term to denote any CDMA scheme that is wideband. Yet another usage is where W-CDMA denotes wideband UTRAs, yielding terms such as W-CDMA FDD and W-CDMA TDD (for UTRA FDD and UTRA TDD HCR) and W-CDMA/TD-SCDMA for all UTRAs. So one document says that UTRA FDD is W-CDMA, whereas another one says that UTRA FDD uses a (not the) wideband CDMA (W-CDMA) channel access method. Both are correct but use the term in different ways.

air interface standards				classifications
common names		3GPP/ETSI	ITU	bandwidth	channel access	duplex
W-CDMA	W-CDMA FDD	UTRA FDD	IMT DS	wide	CDMA, W-CDMA, DS-CDMA	FDD
TD-CDMA	W-CDMA TDD	UTRA TDD HCR	IMT TDD (HCR)	wide	TDMA, TDMA/CDMA, W-CDMA, DS-CDMA, W-TDMA	TDD
TD-SCDMA	TD-SCDMA	UTRA TDD LCR	IMT TDD (LCR)	narrow	TDMA, TDMA/CDMA, N-CDMA, DS-CDMA(?)	TDD

As one can see, the term "W-CDMA" is spread (no pun intended) over multiple columns and lines.

What complicates matters further is that many sources don't clearly make the distinction between UTMS and it's air interfaces. Then UMTS = FOMA = W-CDMA (nb: FDD and TDD, second column, pre-Rel.4) or W-CDMA/TD-SCDMA (Rel.4+).

So, what that means for Wikipedia is that the article should be organised like this:

1. W-CDMA describes the air interface also known as UTRA FDD/IMT DS; WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC
2. W-CDMA (disambiguation) describes other uses of W-CDMA.
3. TD-CDMA describes the air interface also known as UTRA TDD HCR/IMT TDD (HCR); WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC
4. TD-SCDMA describes the air interface also known as UTRA TDD LCR/IMT TDD (LCR); WP:COMMONNAME

Alternatively, if you argue that there's no primary use:

1. W-CDMA is a disambiguation page.
2. W-CDMA FDD describes the air interface also known as UTRA FDD/IMT DS; WP:COMMONNAME w/ WP:PRECISION
3. W-CDMA TDD describes the air interface also known as UTRA TDD/IMT TDD (HCR); WP:COMMONNAME w/ WP:PRECISION
4. TD-CDMA is a disambiguation page, linking to TDMA/CDMA and W-CDMA TDD
5. TD-SCDMA describes the air interface also known as UTRA TDD LCR/IMT TDD (LCR); WP:COMMONNAME

Appropriate redirects are left as an exercise for the reader. ;-) — 3247 (talk) 09:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: I've posted a pointer to this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Telecommunications. — 3247 (talk) 11:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone, please, rewrite the intro.

Hi, All. This article has the most jargon-laden first three paragraphs of any I've seen at Wikipedia. Take "GSM", for example: it may go a bit far in touting GSM's dominance, but at least it gives the layman a basic idea of what GSM is, even if not in a very technical sense. The starts of encyclopedia articles are essentially definitions (or they should be)—and remember that the goal of dictionary-writers is that the reader learn what a word means without having to look up the words used in the definition. I like lots of cross-references, but having to click perhaps up to fourteen different links to other articles just to decipher the first paragraph is a bit silly. Who will clarify this? — President Lethe (talk) 04:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you give it a try? — Dgtsyb (talk) 04:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Spelling mistake on image in Technology section

In the Technology section of the article there is an image (File:UMTS structures.svg) captioned "UMTS Network Architecture". This image has a label on it with the wording "Paquet Switched", this is spelt incorrectly and should read "Packet Switched". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.30.31.36 (talk) 17:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

lowercase according to MOS

Please see MOS:CAPS. Since at least some of the foremost experts use lowercase, the MOS says to use lowercase. --Espoo (talk) 08:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:NAMECAPS. Since the 3GPP call it the "Universal Mobile Telecommunications Subsystem" on their Web site, the MOS says to capitalize each word. The opinion of the people responsible for UMTS outweighs by a huge factor even the opinions of people claimed to be "some of the foremost experts". If some "expert" were to refer to the "transmission control protocol", would that magically make the Transmission Control Protocol page incorrectly capitalized? Guy Harris (talk) 09:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. Can you imagine if all of the technical terminology in this article was suddenly lowercased? The capitalised terms are so with good reason. Chris W. (talk) 22:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

kljoij — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.30.185.146 (talk) 09:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

UARFCN

Regarding that UARFCN does not pertend to North America, it does, it is used there for UMTS with WCDMA and HSPA as well as LTE. I think the confusion is because back in the days in the PCS 1900 band ARFCN was used from the GSM standard. Problem with it was that PCS 1900 in US and DCS 1800 in Europe largely overlapped in terms of channel numbers. The same for Cellular 850 services etc, it is with the use of the 3GPP standards that UARFCN has become widespread.

This also goes for Canada and Mexico as well as some South American countries which also tend to stick to the same band plan as the US.

It should also be noted that the UARFCN is not automatically paired between uplink and downlink, instead the UARFCN is used separately which should be added to the article. If I can get time to do so. Ichimusai (talk) 07:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with UARFCN

People searching for UMTS-related matters are faced with a range of articles which do not have a great deal of consistency between themselves and should be placed in a central location. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 00:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you and merged UARFCN into this article. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposals

Several proposals received at Proposed Mergers noticeboard requesting mergers into this article, including: UMTS-FDD, UMTS-TDD, W-CDMA (UMTS), TD-SCDMA, TD-CDMA. Discussion here. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 22:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it's wrong to merger with TD-SCDMA and TD-CDMA. MrCellular (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Nightwalker-87, I see that you are behind the 6 month old merging proposals on this page. I see no discussion here, but read your justifications for the merger on your User Talk:Nightwalker-87 as: "we need: Less articles, Clear distinguishing between different variants, More clarity." I couldnt agree more with that. I see that only one other editor commented, MrCellular, objecting only to one particular merger at that time. Note: His response implies a consensus to merge, except for the latter objection.Bold rewriting is needed, because the majority of the UMTS page is unsourced and violates a WP cornerstone, WP:verifiability. I am no content expert, but can help occasionally, for example with copy editing. --Wuerzele (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

3247 and Mojodaddy had a good discussion in 2009, see Talk:Universal_Mobile_Telecommunications_System/Archive_1. They haven't been active on the page for years, but maybe they can input a bit on merging and rewrite?--Wuerzele (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Thx for your appreciation. I love to see that there are other editors here that are really interested to improve things and take action as well. Since starting to edit wikipedia, I've mainly focussed on articles concerning wireless-technologies - especially maintaining lists (e.g. LTE networks, spectrum bands and device categories) and keeping technical background information of mobile standards up to date. I noticed that there is a huge amount of lists and articles that actually belong together concerning content. Some of these could simply be combined without any loss of any information, but instead creating efforts in maintaining these pages.
I sometimes have the feeling that nobody seems to be willing to implement major changes that are for the better and which do not only affect one single article. As I experienced a lot of reverts, direct opposition and accusations in the past, I reduced any efforts in such direction. I'd love to take action again on this mentioned topic(s) together with others that share the same thoughts and perspectives. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I've had a look at the old discussion you linked above. I didn't know that a similar discussion initiated on this topic before. I see strong parallels to my proposal as well. Maybe we can continue from the point where 3247 and Mojodaddy halted. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 19:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Consensus on merger proposals & further steps

Merge UMTS-FDD, UMTS-TDD, W-CDMA (UMTS) with Universal Mobile Telecommunications System; discussion of merging TD-SCDMA and TD-CDMA can be dealt with at a later time. GenQuest, any objections?--Wuerzele (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

None. It sounds like a good game plan; details can be worked out by you and the other knowledgeable editors, such as those discussing the mergers here. Thanks for a responses. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 05:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Strong support from someone who often needs to find information on UMTS-related matters and is faced with range of articles with little consistency between themselves and lots of repeats. kashmiri ^TALK 21:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I've started with the "big merge" on the other end by merging

• UTRA-TDD HCR into TD-CDMA and
• UTRA-TDD LCR into TD-SCDMA

including all necessary wiki-remarks and redirects on affected articles and talk pages.
I propose to continue with the "cleanup" as follows (and already proposed by Wuerzele (talk)):

• Merge UMTS-FDD and UMTS-TDD into UMTS
• Move sections "Competing Standards" and "Deployment" in the article UMTS-FDD, to respective sections of UMTS.
• Group air-interfaces W-CDMA (UMTS), TD-CDMA and TD-SCDMA into one wiki category "UMTS 3G air-interfaces (UTRA)"
• Remove the "(UMTS)" tag in the article name of W-CDMA (UMTS) which is misleading from my point of view. W-CDMA, is an air-interface (UTRA) used by UMTS, but is not "UMTS" itself.
• Merge List of HSDPA networks and List of HSUPA networks to new article List of HSPA networks. Here I suggest to create a combined table for both of these UMTS-Extensions as they are mostly deployed together.

To sum it up these steps would improve maintenance and reduce efforts for all authors. From my point of view less articles result in more frequent editing by multiple users and therefore are more up-to-date than several orphaned articles somewhere on the encylopedia.

Any comments on these proposals? Nightwalker-87 (talk) 13:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I've been just reading the articles about W-CDMA and UMTS to find out the differences between the meanings of the two. If they mean the same, merge and please clearly state that they mean the same. If the do not mean the same, please clearly state the differences (and maybe merge, I can not say because it depends on the difference that I do not know about). --109.53.197.245 (talk) 08:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Folks, what's the holdup here? That page us ugly as hell with those 7 merge-banners at the top. That's not how a encyclopedia should look like. Get your act together! 77.57.122.240 (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I've finally taken action and merged in (most of) the articles. I tried to arrange the content in a useful way, but still major improvements are to be done with focus on organising or rearranging content in a logic way that a reader can clearly see and understand the content. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)