Talk:LTE frequency bands/Archive 1

LTE EU 700
According to Icelandic Telecommunication document the EU 700 band is 703 - 733 uplink (6 blocks in 5Mhz) and 758 - 788 downlink (6 blocks in 5Mhz). SDL (?) is from 738 - 758 in 4 blocks of 5Mhz. 733 - 738Mhz is not used (guard band). 694 - 703 Mhz is guard band. Upper guard band is 788 - 791 Mhz. This is FDD is 2x30Mhz. See document here, page 18. This is in Icelandic. Jonfr (talk) 05:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, and what exactly is your suggestion concerning this topic? As far as I know we already have a 3GPP-source for the information above in the list. Can you explain? Nightwalker-87 (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The band 67 information is then not correct. Since it doesn't show uplink and downlink frequencies as is the norm for FDD plan. Iceland Communication and Post administration quotes ECC(14)062 (erodocdb.dk) for the 700Mhz. 3GPP is just the standard of LTE for that frequency, since different frequencies have different set-up (5Mhz, 10Mhz, etc blocks). Frequency is organized by ITU (and sub-organisations in respected countries) and not by the people how make the 3GPP standard. When I was searching for the document the Iceland Communication administration says the use, I found the newest version of the ECC decision, it can be found here, http://www.erodocdb.dk/Docs/doc98/official/pdf/ECCDEC1501.PDF . This decision has already entered into force from 6-March-2015. Jonfr (talk) 04:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the clarification. I'll check on that soon. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 10:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I read out a misunderstanding in your recent post. The cite you sourced from Iceland is correct of course, but the 700 MHz band used is Europe is the Lower 30 MHz Duplexer of the APT700 band (Band 28). The upper 15 MHz are not in use. This matches the frequencies for UL and DL from your source. The band ist still referred to APT700 in Europe though. What is named EU 700 is not APT700 but solely the SDL (supplemental downlink) part with a bandwidth of 20 MHz. This additional SDL configuration has been specified for Europe as "EU 700" (Band 67) to make use of the larger duplex gap due to the fact that only the lower duplexer of band 28 is in use. This is completely in line with your source, what results in that there is no mistake. To be honest the band name "EU 700" for the SDL part is a bit stupid and might lead to confusion... Hope to have made things clear now. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

By Region linking to main article of itself?
Why does [] have a link to itself under the title "Main article: LTE frequency bands § Deployments by region"? I'm guessing this might have once been a separate article, or someone might have thought it was worth being a separate article once expanded upon, but right now... 207.172.210.101 (talk) 01:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thx for the note. In fact this content has been outsourced from article E-UTRA. Obviously this link is a relict from the previous article and indeed useless here. I've already removed it. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 09:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

APT700 deployment in France
Band 28 deployment is currently in progress in France, with at least one operator having opened commercial service (Free Mobile). See French National Frequencies Agency website there http://www.anfr.fr/fr/gestion-des-frequences-sites/lobservatoire-2g-3g-4g/actualites/actualite/actualites/lobservatoire-anfr-7/#menu2 and http://www.anfr.fr/fileadmin/mediatheque/documents/Observatoire/1116/Observatoire_2G-3G-4G_1er_nov_2016-2.pdf slide 6 (207 antennas currently in service (2016, November 1st).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:2F0C:9990:9530:B24E:8FF5:A0D6 (talk) 12:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note and the weblink. I'll update the list soon. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 18:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Band 8
In the documents are the bandwiths: 1,4 3 5 and 10 MHz for Band 8. Not 15 or 20 MHz.
 * Thanks for the note and the correction. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

US WCS blocks C and D
AT&T is not planning to deploy LTE in blocks C and D. See AT&T Mobility Petition for Limited Waiver of Interim Performance Requirement for 2.3 GHz WCS C and D Block Licenses. Before that they were considering to use the spectrum for ground-to-aircraft uplink. Now they are talking about smart grid utility network. I don't believe it's possible use blocks C and D for terrestrial cellular service so I'm removing them from the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbsail (talk • contribs) 09:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Sbsail. Thx for opening this topic. I agree on that. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 10:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Missing Band 9?
https://halberdbastion.com/technology/cellular/4g-lte/lte-frequency-bands/b9-1800-mhz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.220.152.154 (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This band was a subset of band 3 derived from the former UMTS specification. Never deployed, it is now obsolete and as been replaced by band 3. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 12:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Band 17 is legacy
I don't know what's happening in other regions but band 17 is legacy in the US. T-Mobile never broadcast band 17 frequency indicator. For example Bismark, ND for C block T-Mobile uses EARFCN 5145 which is in band 12. No new carrier aggregation combinations with band 17 has been added to 36.101 for a long time. For example there is no B17+B30 while there is B12+B30. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbsail (talk • contribs) 09:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thx for correcting the table. I also share this idea, but I won't declare B17 as being "legacy" yet, as long as it is not removed from the E-UTRA band list by 3GPP within the technical specification. So far it is only no longer being deployed. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if 3GPP ever removes bands from the list. Band 10 I believe was never deployed and never will be deployed yet it is still in the list. I think a better indicator would be phones not sold by carriers dropping support for band 17. Currently I don't know a single phone designed for open market sales in North America that doesn't support band 17. Sbsail (talk) 04:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well they declared band 6 (in favour of band 19) and band 23 as "not applicable" in the list. The respective note for the latter appeared just recently after FCC reallocated AWS-4 spectrum from band 23 to the new band 70. This should be an indicator that they do so. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Unlicensed LTE
T-Mobile already started operations using LTE-U (is.gd/xWjiq0) and other carriers around the world have at least started trials using either LTE-U or LTE-LAA. The Samsung S8 and possibly other phones already support LTE in the U-NII bands. Shouldn't such bands figure in this page and in related ones again? 3bahapo (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I'm aware of this, but would not suggest to do so. LTE-U is rather a technology than a stand alone deployment, as it is always bundled with a licensed E-UTRA-band. Note also that this information you mention is already covered by List of LTE networks and it's subsidiary network lists. Further it is very difficult to find out which exact E-UTRA band number (252, 255, 46) is used for LTE-U by individual operators. So far I have not seen anything alike. Listing only "LTE-U is deployed" is not precise enough for this list from my point of view. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Now that LTE-U has folded and ceded to LAA, does it make sense to list the defunct bands 252 and 255? Ebahapo (talk) 04:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

EU L Bands
Should band 32 be noted as a subset of both bands 50 and 75? The SDL FDD bands 32 and 75 indeed share spectrum, with the latter encompassing the former. However, how can the TDD band 50 be a superset of the same SDL FDD band 32? Can MFBI work in this scenario? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebahapo (talk • contribs) 20:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Correct. Both should not be mixed (especially as long as the state of MFBI is unclear in this case). Nightwalker-87 (talk) 11:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

LTE question
If I have a device above 700 MHz (band 17).. Would LTE still work as usual? Ajax-x86 (talk) 06:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC) Edit:Digicel says 700mhz (band17) but my smart phone is above 700 ie. 850. Ajax-x86 (talk) 06:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi. Sry, I did not quite understand what you mean exactly. What frequency bands does your device support? What's for sure: If it does not support B17 then you will not be able to connect to a B17 network. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Deployments by region
This table is rather unwieldy and it repeats the information available at List_of_LTE_networks, and often out of date. Unfortunately, some national regulators followed the lead of the FCC early on and then later harmonized their spectrum with the EU regulators, messing up the spectrum allocation within the same region. Rather, it might be better if it just provided a brief visualization of the slicing of the spectrum by different regions and it linked to List_of_LTE_networks for the gory details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebahapo (talk • contribs) 05:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Initially the sole purpose of this table was to highlight common deployments of frequency bands in the three different ITU regions without readers having to go through or sort the whole LTE network lists entry by entry. The intention never was to list too many operators in the fields, as details are all to be found in List_of_LTE_networks (as you already mentioned). In this sense only certain (uncommon) bands which are only deployed by a few operators should remain. Initially the purpose of the additional colouring was to highlight "special" bands like e.g. B11 and B21, which are only allocated in Japan. Unfortunately this information is now lost as the additional colouring has been removed in the meanwhile ... Nightwalker-87 (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Band 22 removal?
Why was Band 22 removed? At least 3GPP TS 36.101 15.7.0 (https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/136100_136199/136101/15.07.00_60/ts_136101v1507) still lists it as a band.

Also, even if a band was once spefiied for some [significant] amount of time and later removed, I would argue the band shouldn't be removed from this Wikipedia list of bands. There may very well still be equipment around that implemented that band, and it's confusing if it simply vanishes from this table. HaraldWelte (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Along with bands 10, 27, 33, 35, 36, 45, band 22 is de facto obsolete or has never been deployed or added to UEs. Specifically, interest on FDD band 22 moved to TDD band 42 in the same frequency range. Of note, none of these bands is part of any CA scheme, which places them outside of the current and future LTE-A and LTE-A Pro deployments. More recently, this frequency range is being widely used in 5G NR deployments on TDD band n78 worldwide. ebahapo (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * These bands should be put back. They're available on many COTS cell phones and many people (myself included) still use them and need access to this list now and then. I used to use this list all the time as it was a nice complete easy to use list, now I'm going to have to go elsewhere. Please turn Wikipedia back into the most useful resource here. Thanks! 155.98.60.58 (talk) 02:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with ebahapo, as this is a reasonable explanation of which I also became aware of. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So to be clear you're only going to list bands in use by the big four carriers? That seems to violate NPOV as you're biasing to the major carriers and you're doing (flawed) original research to come to the (erroneous) conclusion that no one uses these bands 2604:C340:AC:3:25E2:7D49:30C4:2BF7 (talk) 02:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no idea how you reached this conclusion, but perhaps it would be more helpful if you could provide evidence that such bands are deployed and that UEs support them per WP:VER. ebahapo (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed. That would be preferrable. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 01:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, even if a band never got implemented it should still be in the table, though with an indication about its status. An added column with previous and current status of a band might be nice. Gah4 (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added a formatting proposal for such obsolete bands. However I'd not list them in the deployment table below, as it obviously does not make any sense. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, even if a band never got implemented it should still be in the table, though with an indication about its status. An added column with previous and current status of a band might be nice. Gah4 (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added a formatting proposal for such obsolete bands. However I'd not list them in the deployment table below, as it obviously does not make any sense. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Columns?
Does the first column (band number) have a significance? Who numbers them? Otherwise, the third column (frequency) seems to have an uncertain relation to the actual frequencies. Somewhere in the center of the frequencies in use might be usual, but sometimes it is below the bottom and, or above the top end. Gah4 (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is all predefined by the 3GPP-standardisation group in TS 36.101 (see cited reference above the table). Thus there is very likely no scope for interpretation. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 10:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

800MHz ESMR
If you'd like some more proof that Band 26 is 800MHz/ESMR, here's a few more sources, including the FCC and 3GPP (who standardizes these bands). Dnywlsh (talk) 19:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * https://www.phonescoop.com/glossary/term.php?gid=480
 * https://www.beyondtelecomlawblog.com/sprint-scores-a-spectrum-windfall/
 * https://www.engadget.com/2012-05-25-fcc-clears-sprint-to-run-cdma-and-4g-lte-on-800mhz.html
 * https://transition.fcc.gov/bureaus/oet/receiver-workshop1/Session4/SESSION-4-1-Krevor-Sprint.pdf
 * https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2007/07/20/E7-14099/improving-public-safety-communications-in-the-800-mhz-band-et-al
 * https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2012/06/08/2012-13872/channel-spacing-and-bandwidth-limitations-for-certain-economic-area-ea-based-800-mhz-specialized


 * The SMR band is not the same as the CLR band, extended or not: https://us-fcc.app.box.com/s/mwzlyo2f8hvt1zmxer9kkdwmqxt1cx3a ebahapo (talk)
 * ESMR is not the same as SMR. The ESMR band was reconfigured by the FCC to allow Sprint to use it for CDMA and LTE services after 2012. Feel free to read the numerous sources I provided. It's all explained very clearly there. Dnywlsh (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * According to your own source at the FCC, the ESMR spectrum is between 817-824/862-869. It only overlaps partially with the much larger ECLR spectrum covered by B26 between 814-849/859-894, which added 10 MHz below the beginning of the CLR band B5.  The LTE frequency bands page once listed the B27 band, per the 3GPP TS 36.101, covering the full SMR spectrum between 807-824/852-869, but it has never been used and is considered obsolete. ebahapo (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Read the sources. Literally everyone, including the FCC and 3GPP, calls Band 26 800MHz ESMR. It really seems like you aren't even reading the numerous sources I provided. You haven't provided any sources indicating that Band 26 is 850MHz/CLR. Dnywlsh (talk)
 * Nowhere in your sources does it say that B26 is called ESMR. In your first source, it says that ESMR is part of B26. Not even the non reliable sources you cited do.  Your sources do not state what you state that they do.  Enough said. ebahapo (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC) ebahapo (talk) 20:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, they do. Here is the 3GPP band list. As you can see, band 26 is called 800MHz ESMR. The FCC and 3GPP refer to Band 26 as 800MHz ESMR. I provided numerous sources confirming this. Dnywlsh (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Additional evidence here. Sprint themselves refers to B26 as 800MHz ESMR. The band was reconfigured by the FCC a few years ago. Quote: "the Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio (“ESMR”) portion of band is 813.5 – 824 MHz paired with 858.5 – 869 MHz)." Sprint, the FCC, and the 3GPP refer to all of B26 as ESMR, since it has been reconfigured. Dnywlsh (talk) 23:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that Specialized Mobile Radio is not part of this article. I suppose if bands overlap, that could be mentioned. Now, it seems that iDEN confuses things, but other than that. Gah4 (talk) 01:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ESMR is just the name of the band, dating back to how it was originally licensed by the FCC. It was originally used for Nextel's iDEN network, and later Sprint's CDMA and LTE networks. It's a superset of Band 5 (CLR), but is not the same. Every source I can find refers to Band 26 as 800MHz ESMR. I haven't found even one source that uses the term "E-CLR". I'm not sure where it came from, and it was not sourced in this article. Dnywlsh (talk) 02:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with ebahapo. Band 26 includes all of the frequencies of band 5 plus an additional 10 MHz block. The United States is the only country that refers to the band as ESMR and the links you provided do not provide proof that the band is officially called "ESMR" as the actual document from the 3GPP does not assign names like CLR, PCS etc to bands. Since band 26 includes all of the frequencies of band 5 plus an additional 10 MHz block and is a superset of band 5 (just like band 2 & 25 and 4 & 66), it is better to leave the name of the band as Extended Cellular / E-CLR. Joshua Shah (talk) 06:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC) Joshua Shah (talk) 06:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I found out some time ago that fcc.gov is not a WP:RS. The question was related to which channel a TV station broadcast on, and they were wrong. I did once have a phone that could do iDEN, but never tried it. It was a little expensive, as they charged by the day. That is, any day that yuo used it, even once, you got charged. But as well as I understood it, it was more like the subject of this article. Any service that goes directly between two stations, not to a tower, probably doesn't apply here. Gah4 (talk) 11:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is that this name is unsourced. I'm not sure who came up with the name "Extended CLR". The 3GPP does not refer to the band this way. The source document from the 3GPP does not refer to the band as "E-CLR" or "Extended CLR". It's not acceptable to make up your own name without a source. Sprint, the FCC, and every source I have provided refers to B26 as 800MHz ESMR. I've provided 8 sources stating this already. The United States is the only country that uses Band 26, and it's exclusively used by Sprint, and soon Dish Wireless. Dnywlsh (talk) 15:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how it could get any more clear. The FCC directly refers to this band as SMR. I have 9 sources supporting me, you have 0 sources supporting you. No one has presented any evidence of "E-CLR" anywhere. Why is this even a debate? Nothing you've said is sourced anywhere. You've provided no sources. Dnywlsh (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Joshuarshah has a history of posting incorrect, unsourced information. It appears that they didn't even read the 3GPP source they referred to. The 3GPP does not refer to B26 as "E-CLR". There is no such band called "E-CLR". Dnywlsh (talk) 17:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It is clear that you do not read. I said that there is NO OFFICIAL NAME for band 26 as the 3GPP does NOT assign names to frequency bands. As for sources
 * https://powerfulsignal.com/cellular-frequency-bands/ and https://www.rfwel.com/us/index.php/4g-lte-frequency-bands . The United States is not the only country that uses this band and you have not provided any proof that the U.S. is the only country that uses this band. Furthermore none of the links that you've provided or that I have provided serve as any proof that ESMR or E-CLR is the official name of the band as the 3GPP has nothing to do with the information posted on those websites so please I would ask you again to STOP fighting down this issue. Also stating that I have a history of posting incorrect, unsourced information violates Disruptive user and I would please ask you to stop. Joshua Shah (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it's not "disruptive". It's factual. I've had to revert several of your edit on several pages for factual errors or unsourced edits. Dnywlsh (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Again I would ask you to stop as your claims violates Disruptive user Joshua Shah (talk) 05:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I suspect that https://powerfulsignal.com/cellular-frequency-bands/ and https://www.rfwel.com/us/index.php/4g-lte-frequency-bands are not WP:RSs. One seems to be selling signal boosters. In any case, band frequencies seem not so well defined as they could be. Tradition would be to give a center frequency, but they don't seem to do that anymore. Saying 800MHz means anything in the range from 800MHz to 899MHz. Since the transceivers use digital tuners, they can cover a wide range without special electronics. It looks like 800MHz and 850MHz are about as good descriptions for the band. Gah4 (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Who decided that the FCC is not a reliable source? Surely that's not up to you to decide. The FCC says that B26 is called SMR/ESMR. Dnywlsh (talk) 01:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yup that was my point lol. None of the links that he provided nor the links that I've provided are WP:RSs as the 3GPP doesn't officially assign names to bands. Joshua Shah (talk) 23:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you're still incorrect. The US is the only country that uses B26. You have not provided any proof of B26 being called "E-CLR". Not one source. You can't just make up whatever name you feel like, and then revert anyone who disagrees with your unsourced edit. There's no such band as "Extended CLR". It doesn't exist. The band is called SMR/ESMR. I literally just provided a link to the FCC's website. Here it is again. Dnywlsh (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As User:Gah4 mentioned above, the FCC is not a reliable source per WP:RS. Sprint and the other carriers won't be classified as reliable sources either. The sites you listed either aren't reliable sources either just like the 2 sites that I provided above. Joshua Shah (talk) 05:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Joshuarshah, User:Gah4, User:Ebahapo - Just an FYI that I started a dispute resolution here to hopefully get some clarification on which of these sources (if any) might be considered reliable. I might also create a post on Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I agree that most of the sources are probably not reliable, however, neither are the sources stating that the band is called Extended CLR. I agree with the other user that the article should not have listed a name for the band to begin with without a source. Looking at the article's edit history, it seems that the Extended CLR name has been there since the page's creation, and it never had a source supporting that name. That was an oversight by whoever originally created this table years ago. Dv42202 (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Joshuarshah, User:Gah4, User:Ebahapo - See discussion here: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. The consensus so far is that the FCC is a reliable source for band names. Unless a reliable source for E-CLR can be found, I think the name should be reverted back to the way that the FCC and everyone else refers to the band, which is 800MHz SMR/ESMR. No one has been able to find a reliable source for E-CLR. Dv42202 (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , See MrOllie (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think the issue is that these names aren't official. These are "common names". The 3GPP who assigns these band numbers do not assign them names. It's the FCC and the wireless carriers who use them who assign them common names. Sprint, Dish, and the FCC all refer to this band as 800MHz SMR/ESMR:, , , , . Dv42202 (talk) 17:55, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , You're the one who asked for a reliable source. MrOllie (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , We have already determined that the FCC, a federal government agency, is a reliable source. I have no idea what that book is that you referenced, or what makes it a reliable source or not. Feel free to ask at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Dv42202 (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a misreading of the sources. Telecom engineers usually refer to the SMR band as the 800 MHz band and to the CLR band as the 850 MHz band (e.g.). The SMR band referred to in the sources above is between 809-824/854-869 MHz.  None of the sources refer to the range that includes the range between 824-849/869-894 MHz, the cellular or CLR band (source), as such. ebahapo (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The band that the FCC refers to as the SMR band, between 809-824/854-869 MHz, is not the same as the LTE band B26 and the NR band n26, between 814-849/859-894 MHz. Arguably, this band is the extension of the original CLR (source) LTE band B5 and NR band n5, between 824-849/869-894 MHz, since it comprises the whole CLR band and part of the SMR band.  A band that wholly covers the CLR band and partially covers the SMR band can arguably be called the extension of the CLR band partially into the SMR band, but not the extension of the SMR band.  Note also that the "E" in "ESMR" does not stand for "extended", but for "enhanced", and that ESMR refers specifically to the range between 817-824/862-869 MHz, while SMR refers to the range between 809-815/854-860 MHz. FWIW, this is the technical report TR  37.806 to the 3GPP which proposed the existing LTE band B26, where it refers to as the "upper E850 band", and the obsolete LTE band B27, where it refers to as the "lower E850 band", including the use of the 800 MHz worldwide.   Moreover,  since telecom engineers usually distinguish them simply as 800 MHz for the SMR band and as 850 MHz for the CLR band (e.g.), it became common to refer to GSM operation  between 824-849/869-894 MHz as GSM850 and CDMA operation in the same range as CDMA850.  Therefore, it is defensible to refer to the E850 band as the ECLR band. ebahapo (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with User:ebahapo, the 3GPP allocated band 27 for SMR services between 807-824 MHz which includes ESMR between 814-824MHz. Band 26 is different from this as it includes 814-824 MHz plus the entire cellular band (band 5). Joshua Shah (talk) 20:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * - Without a reliable source for "Extended CLR", you can't just make up whatever name you want. Every source I can find refers to this band as 800MHz SMR/ESMR. We have already determined that the FCC is a reliable source. Whether or not it's "defensible", you still need to provide a source. You can't just make any edit you feel like without a reliable source. Dv42202 (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , Am I typing with an invisible font or something? I listed a reliable source for you above. MrOllie (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * - Who determined it's reliable? You and you alone? Certainly seems that way. I doubt you even purchased or read it. Dv42202 (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I happen to have access to a good library. At this moment I am looking at table 5.1 'FDD frequency bands for LTE', which lists '26 Extended CLR (850)' Consensus on Wikipedia is that books from reputable academic publishers like Wiley are reliable. MrOllie (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * - You don't find it strange that literally everyone outside of Wikipedia refers to this spectrum as 800MHz ESMR, including the FCC, Sprint, Dish, and every media organization? Everyone is wrong, including the wireless carriers who own this spectrum? I literally just linked to a Dish press release where they referred to it as 800MHz spectrum, not 850MHz. Dv42202 (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , Not it all. I also understand that British people call French Fries 'Chips'. They're not wrong, just different. MrOllie (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * - So why is your different name more correct than the way that the vast majority of people (including the carriers who own the spectrum) refer to it? If they're both correct, why not list both names on the page? Dv42202 (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , You're the one that said the name should be changed 'Unless a reliable source for E-CLR can be found'. Are you moving the goalposts? MrOllie (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * - You agreed that both names are correct. If both are correct, and we have reliable sources supporting both names, why not just list both names in the chart? I really have little interest in continuing this, and it seems like that would solve the problem. 800/850 ESMR/E-CLR seems like it would make everyone happy, while still being correct. Dv42202 (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , No, I agreed to no such thing, I just said that I don't find it strange. MrOllie (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * - We have two sources saying two different things. What do you suggest? I am trying to compromise. You aren't, and seem more interested in wanting to be correct. Dv42202 (talk) 21:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , Tell you what, apologize for implying I'm a liar, and I'll consider working on a compromise. MrOllie (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * - I'm focused on correcting the article. I'm not interested in dragging this out any more. If you're more interested in bickering instead of correcting the article, I'm going to invite the admins into this discussion, which may end up with the entire article being locked, and users being banned, such as for WP:WAR. Dv42202 (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , Go for it, but I'd read WP:BOOMERANG first. MrOllie (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * - The difference is that I didn't do anything wrong. I have repeatedly tried to correct this article and compromise. You are not willing to compromise. We've both found sources saying different things. It makes the most sense to just use both names in the list, since it's clear that both names are used. Dv42202 (talk) 21:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just noting for the record and for other page watchers that Dv42202 got blocked for edit warring about 8 minutes after making this comment. - MrOllie (talk) 22:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It is true that the FCC also refers to the cellular band as the 800 MHz band and the SMR band as the 800 MHz band too, but they are different bands. ebahapo (talk) 23:41, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * - No one has provided a reliable source for "Extended CLR". Find a reliable source that supports this name, and the edit will be allowed. You can't just make up any name you feel like, regardless of how correct you feel it is, without a source. In fact, the majority of this article is missing reliable sources. I may need to put a notice on the entire article. Dv42202 (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It is clear to me that you (User:Dv42202) and User:Dnywlsh are the same person and according to your Special:Contributions/Dv42202 you created User:Dv42202 in order to act as a 2nd person in support for your argument. It has been made clear in the discussion above that the SMR band - band 27 (which you are mistaking for band 26) and band 26 which includes frequencies from 814-849 MHz are two different bands. Joshua Shah (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, what a pain. :-/ The funny thing actually is that the opening post already provided a valid reference (https://www.phonescoop.com/glossary/term.php?gid=480) with the correct answer. One would only have had to click on the Link "BC10" which leads to the following quote: "For LTE service, band numbers are used instead of "band classes". Band 27 covers the same frequencies as BC10 (CDMA2000). However Sprint uses band 26 for its 800 MHz LTE service, which is a larger band definition that includes all of the frequencies of both BC10 (band 27) and BC0 (band 5)." Additionally we find : "The Cellular band is sometimes referred to as the 800 band, 835 band, or 850 band. It is important not to confuse the Cellular band with the different, older ESMR band, which is also called the 800 band. Although both bands are near 800 MHz, the exact frequencies are different and incompatible. Band 26 is an extended version of the cellular band that includes the frequencies of band 5, plus some of the lower frequencies that were previously part of the ESMR band. This extended cellular band is used by Sprint for LTE service." --> End of story. Thanks to all who have participated constructively here. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 23:41, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ,, , - This is all incorrect. It's disappointing that no one here is interested in correct information. This is why Wikipedia is widely considered inaccurate, unfortunately. There is no such thing as "E-CLR". Literally no one calls it that. The FCC, Sprint, and Dish all refer to the band as "800MHz ESMR". You are incorrect. Fortunately, the very knowledgeable users over on Cellmapper have created their own, accurate spectrum chart. Everyone will be referred to these accurate Cellmapper charts, instead of these inaccurate and unsourced Wikipedia charts. We already posted this information on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, and the consensus there was that the FCC is in fact a reliable source. The FCC refers to the band as 800MHz ESMR. Ironically, Wikipedia agrees that they are not a reliable source for information. You are the reason why. Dv4200 (talk) 03:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * : In order to close this discussion: Here is another reference from the cellular module manufacturer FIBOCOMM which is BTW also referenced by the FCC . Also Rohde & Schwarz  appears to rely on wikipedia here, so one can assume they, as a major company, have checked the fact for themselves before doing so. So blaming wikipedia and participating users in this discussion, who are spending honourable efforts to improve this encyclopedia, appears inappropriate from my point of view. One may consider putting this up @ WP:RUCD if accusations should continue including all possible consequences. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 12:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , Dv4200 is obviously evading blocks on their other accounts, there's no real reason to respond. I've reported the sock. Dnywish (or dv42202, or Dv4200, or whomever): If you want to contribute here, you need to go get your original account unblocked. MrOllie (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * : Thanks for the note. Anyway, it appears the right thing to have this statement here. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 12:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This guys is obsessed lol. I've had to report multiple IP Addresses linked to him as well. He also attempted to harrassing me on reddit. Joshua Shah (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)