Talk:E-UTRA/Archive 1

Clean-up
Ok, I did a clean-up, and I still don't like it.

1. I don't like the Rationale section. Too much of it assumes the thing is a done deal. Do you know how many hits the 3GPP website gets if you search for HSOPA on it? 0. That's how official it is. It's a set of proposals from Nortel/TI that isn't ratified into a single, coherent, standard, from what I can figure out. 2. The features thing needs more information. 3. MIMO means two antennas and two radios. That's going to have certain consequences, correct? What are the known downsides of the technology?

Squiggleslash 22:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, HSOPA is not used at all in 3GPP. A more correct name is Release 8 of the 3GPP UMTS standard --Mattew 12:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

OFDM system comparison table
Feel free to add a HSOPA column to the OFDM. Mange01 12:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Renaming of HSOPA to E-UTRA
User Retroneo renamed the HSOPA article to E-UTRA on the 16 April 2008, and every mentioning of HSOPA and "Super 3G" were removed from the article. This is a problem, since 73 other wikipedia articles still links to HSOPA or "High Speed OFDM Packet Access", but only one article links to E-UTRA today. Should all the 73 links be renamed? I beleive it is not possible to automate that, but someone has to rename the links manually.

Retroneo argues that "there are no refs to hsopa any more on 3gpp's site" in the edit summary. Sure, but HSOPA and Super 3G are mentioned in many scientific publications, see and. So the article must somehow mention HSOPA and Super 3G as well! See the article version before the renaming:. Mange01 (talk) 09:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with this. Especially as the "HSOPA" page redirects to this one without explanation. One of the most frustrating aspects of Wikipedia today are the number of unexplained redirects. If a page redirects to another page, The Target Page ****MUST**** Directly Refer To The Concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.149.58.8 (talk) 13:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge with EUTRA Network
now I know why there were two separate articles on e-UTRAN/eUTRAN

before 2008 this article now known as e-UTRA has a title HSOPA, by some naming convention of 3GPP HSOPA has been lagging in the terminology section by late 2007 and the specifications previously assigned to it has been applied to e-UTRA (apparently) so tha the old HSOPA wiki article has been Moved to e-UTRA (23 May 2008)

meanwhile, eUTRANetwork has also been started (15 August 2008)

I believe these articles pertain to one and the same technology in development and so must be MERGED in wikipedia also, the older article although very detailed and well-developed is out of date on the moving target of 3gpp, while the younger article is very weak and incomplete, after the merge we can better address these issues, as well as number 2 above

I therefore propose to MERGE the content of the two articles e-UTRA and eUTRAN —-— .: Seth_Nimbosa :. (talk • contribs) 13:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Full refactoring done
So, I tried to improve the article describing what i considered the most relevant points of EUTRAN trying to keep it still as a divulgative article, still tons of things could be said, but i have my doubts about the use of telling them here. Comments are welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crati (talk • contribs) 20:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Cell sizes?
Under E-UTRAN Air Interface, the article states: "Support for cell sizes from tenths of metres radius (femto and picocells) up to 100 km radius macrocells". A tenth of a meter is 10 cm so that seems like a mistake, most likely the editor confusing tenths with tens. However, as I don't know anything about the standard, could someone with better knowledge confirm that this is indeed a mistake? If so, 3GPP Long Term Evolution also needs correction. Silver hr (talk) 13:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Fixed, thanks. 192.100.124.219 (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Maximum datarates and UE categories
the 17th of oct. an anonymous user expanded the first note on UE categories: "Note: These are L1 transport data rates using 20 MHz of bandwidth, not including the different protocol layers overhead. With 10 MHz of spectrum, maximum downlink data rates are 73 Mbps with 2x2 MIMO and 147 Mbps with 4x4 MIMO, and upstream 36 Mbps. With 5 MHz of spectrum, downlink is 37 Mbps and 72 Mbps respectively, and upstream 18 Mbps." A UE category says nothing about the bandwidth, and though certainly the maximum datarate a UE can achieve will depend for higher category UEs on the BW, I would think that, unfortunately, that phrasing used leads to confusion: It assumes a cat 5 UE, but never mentions it, and I would guess it assumes a certain network configuration or maybe is based on measurements of some UE in a certain network or against a certain tester. The article it refers to contains a table which claims those datarates are for cat. 4, which is incorrect, with no mention on the table data origin. Also the article has a few quite incorrect staments related to LTE. Therefore I take the liberty of removing that edit and reference and trying to clarify in a more generic though correct sentence the matter. Crati (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Band 44
Only 10 MHz channel, 703-803 MHz, but supporting 15 & 20 MHz carriers? What is wrong with this picture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.165.246.10 (talk) 14:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Introduction
This first paragraph needs some work:


 * e-UTRA is the air interface of 3GPP's Long Term Evolution (LTE) upgrade path for mobile networks. It is the abbreviation for evolved UMTS Terrestrial Radio Access, also referred to as the 3GPP work item on the Long Term Evolution (LTE)[1] also known as the Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA) in early drafts of the 3GPP LTE specification.[1] E-UTRAN is the initialism of Evolved UMTS Terrestrial Radio Access Network...

First off, the name of the article is E-UTRA, yet it's introduced as e-UTRA. The second sentence is where E-UTRA is introduced. That sentence also defines "Long Term Evolution (LTE)" for a second time. LTE doesn't need to be defined in both of the first two sentences, unless, that is, "3GPP work item on the Long Term Evolution (LTE)" is a quoted term, in which case it should be shown as such.

If the article refers to e-UTRA, then the title should explicitly start with a lowercase 'e'. Otherwise, E-UTRA should be introduced before e-UTRA. The case issue also impacts the third sentence. E-UTRAN uses the definition of e-UTRA, but is then stated to be a combination of E-UTRA, "UEs and EnodeBs"

If, on the other hand, the case of these abbreviations doesn't matter, then they should all use the same case, to remove the current implication that the case is relevant.

Finally, the wording needs a little work. The use of "also referred to as...also known as" is somewhat difficult to follow. I've changed the use of "abbreviation" in the first sentence to "acronym". e-UTRA is an acronym or initialism (as in the third sentence). It is not, strictly speaking, an abbreviation.

I don't personally know enough about this topic to fix this myself. I simply know that, the way it's currently written, this first paragraph was very confusing. Ge0nk (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)