Talk:Mobile country code (MCC)

Montenegro
Now Montenegro is independant from Serbia and Montenegro, do the seperate contries have their own MCCs?


 * Maybe, but according to, not yet. Montenegro has not yet been allocated any new country codes (incl. ISO, ccTLD, etc.) so far, AFAIK. - Keith D. Tyler &para; (AMA) 22:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Gibraltar (UK)
In the MCC list by country Gibraltar (UK) has got MCC 350, but listed by code it has MCC 266. It should 266. 350 is the Country Code, whilst 266 is the Mobile Country Code.

Category
Shouldn't this be in the 'GSM Standard' category? MNC is there but no MCC Kenny D 23:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Merging with Mobile Network Code - the case against
The result was keep separate from Mobile Network Code. -- Debate   木  09:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

As the original creator and heavy contributor to the Mobile Network Code page, I strongly disagree with the idea of merging these two pages. These two pages contain logically separate information. Each table exists in its own right and my decision to include the mobile country code in the mobile network code table was for usability only. The Mobile Network Code page defers to this page as the authoritative source of Mobile Country Codes, and rightly so. If this information were in a normalised database, it would be in two separate tables. David n m bond 21:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. It is almost the same --Dima1 --Dima1 09:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

As of my opinion it is not a good idea to merge these two pages. For example: If I want to see a nice overview of all E.212 MCCs I go to the MCC page - here I can sort the table either by code or by country - I cannot do this on the MNC page. If I go further about pages in MCC and MNC context I must admit that I am not really happy with the current structure of articles: Now we have: 1) Mobile network code ("Mobile Network Code" and "List of GSM Network Codes" redirect to here ... hm), 2) List of mobile country codes ("Mobile country code" redirects to here). So I see an inconsistency that one article is named "Mobile network code" although it is actually a list (and lists have this name in the article title in Wikipedia, don't they) and the other is named "List of mobile country codes" (this seems fine to me ... I would just think about capitalizing the initals of "mobile country code"). And since the article "Mobile network code" organizes the MNCs by country including the MCCs of those it is actually a list of GSM Network Codes - from where a redirection comes to here. For me it would be perfect this article would be named like this. Then we would need two new articles ("Mobile Country Code" and "Mobile Network Code") where one can find a general explanation about those terms (of course with a reference to the lists). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Das-ausgeschlafene-Mammut (talk • contribs) 14:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

GSM/WCDMA is only one case where the MCC is applied. Another mobile communications standard is TETRA (Terrestrial Trunked Radio) which is using the same ITU standard, but, of course, maintains its own list of Mobile Network Codes. Therefore, merging the two Wikipedia entries does not make any sense. Achim Grolman of Willtek Communications on 30 October 2007
 * Against merge. Mathiastck (talk) 20:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Remove detailled 901 list
It really does not belong, and is duplicated info of what is listed in the MCC article, which is an invitation to trouble in future maintenance. Here is the deleted section:

. -- Egil (talk) 19:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Puerto Rico
It appears AT&T (from reports "on the ground" there - I'm in Seattle) and T-Mo (based on the URL below) are using MCC==310 (==US) like is done for Guam. Is that correct? If so, should we update the "Puerto Rico" entry to be 310? http://www.cellmapper.net/map.php?MCC=310&MNC=260&LAC=48813,48814,48816,48822,48898,48922 CharlieArcuri (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)