Talk:List of LTE networks in Europe/Archive 1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Tango Luxembourg

Hi guys, I've seen band 20 (10 MHz) used by Tango in Luxembourg. Maybe someone can check it and add it with a source? Info on Lux seems outdated. Also in Spain I've seen Vodafone use LTE on band 1 (5 MHz) in subways in Barcelona. Never seen it outdoor yet, seems a way to use existing antenna infrastructure there.

Hi. I'll revise the list shortly. I think Tango is commercial @800 MHz by now. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Checked the GSA "Evolution to LTE Report" (Oct 2015): "Tango launched 225 MBps LTE-Advanced (branded 4G+) on December 15, 2014 using bands 3 and 20." I'll update the list straight away. Thank you for opening this topic. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Overlinking

@Nightwalker-87:

WP:REPEATLINK: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, ..."

In your version the Bouygues link appears 3 times in the same table in 3 directly following rows. Totally unnecessary! The exception from the no repeat rule for tables means, you can repeat it once in a table in addition to other locations. There are many violations of this rule in this article. Bouygues is just an example.

So please edit this article conforming to WP:REPEATLINK. --DrSeehas (talk) 06:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi DrSeehas. Thx for opening a topic to have this issue discussed. I can see your argument which I consider resonable in articles and common tables. In this table here we have a different formatting introduced not too long ago. It is multi-sortable in various columns, what additionally results in a split-up of the country-grouping in the first column. Therefore I think it is better to keep the link duplicates to avoid that users have to search for operator links thoughout the table (as many operators have multiple bands deployed this also results in a mix of various networks thoughout various countries) if they have sorted it for a specific interest. This is not a problem in most of the other tables thoughout wikipedia which are definitely addressed by WP:REPEATLINK in my point of view. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

LTE networks in Croatia

Hello, today I edited a list of LTE network in Europe and I removed some info because it was utterly wrong. I am new so I am sorry if this is wrong way to send a message. http://www.telecompaper.com/news/tele2-croatia-launches-4g-network--1125685 This news is on english if you didnt use translate on Croatian official pages that i linked. http://www.hakom.hr/UserDocsImages/2015/radiokomunikacije/baza%20za%20javne%20pokretne%20komunikacijske%20mre%C5%BEe_20151117.pdf This table shows whose is some frequency in Croatia. This is not bullshit page, just type HAKOM Croatia and you will see that its our telecomunications regulatory agency. So, Cat4 speeds (150Mbit/s in Croatia were launched on Februrary 2015 (http://www.tportal.hr/gadgeterija/tehnologija/368406/HT-udvostrucio-brzine-4G-mreze.html, I can translate any page if you want better translation) But, I entered info about Cat6. Today both Hrvatski telekom and Vipnet offer 225mbit/s speed. [1] [2] Niether of them has 30MHz single block on 1800MHz so its completely impossible to have 225mbit network. Facts that I entered coresponded with info, yes it wasnt completely saying that, but you need to agregate total of 30MHz to get 225mbit, and on Hrvatski telekom that is one block of 20MHz on 1800MHz and they use supplemetary frequency needed from 800MHz. Vipnet has to use carrier agregation with 800MHz band to achieve these speeds. They probably use different combinations in different areas (rural or city) but in most areas its 15MHz from band 3 and 20. Look at HAKOM table and you will see bandowidth allocations, newest news it that vipnet baought around 7MHz that was left in 18800MHz band but that hasnt been accounted for yet in this table. All I want is this be correct and if language barrier crates problems I will translate any page from croatia to show you info about our networks. Exoman121 (talk) 18:48, 1st of February 2016

Hi there. I have checked your sources before I reverted. It does not matter to me if a source is not in English. Sometimes there are no sources available in English language. I've reverted your edit for the following reasons which are sorted by operator:
  • T-Hrvatski Telekom: Adding allocated spectrum licenses (HAKOM) is not a source for a commercial service launch by an operator. An additional source is required here.
  • Tele2: [[3]] dates to 17 November 2015, so if the Network was scheduled to launch in February 2016 this source did not qualify for
    [[4]] lacks any evidence for a commercial launch. Speed demos may also derive from local field test and pre-commercial availability.
    [[5]] is not an announcement for commercial services either, but instead an advertising by Tele2 for 4G (including linked FAQ). Quite few operators start advertising before commercial services.
    Instead the source [[6]] you provided later is much more desireable here as it seems to have all necessary information included. Further it is a secondary source by a global telecom newspaper.
  • VIPnet: The fact that the operator bought additional spectrum is no evidence that the bought spectrum has been immediately put into use. Here the source [[7]]
I understand an share the wish of you that the table of deployments should be up to date, but we should keep in mind that content has to be properly sourced and that all relevant information is provided for the content added (see wikipedia guidelines on this topic verifiable sources). I'd appreciate if you can agree on this.
As a result of this discussion I'll restore the Tele2 entry with the telecompaper source. Further the status of LTE-A by T-HT and VIPnet have to be evaluated and verified. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, but just then remove Jan 2016 for launch of Cat4 network because 44th link in Vipnet Croatia section says "Vipnet uses carrier agregation to launch LTE-A in Serbia." Serbia is not Croatia so that info is incorrect. I would very much like when our telecoms would publish such info but that is not the case. Many fact I know are based on changes of speed when buying additional spectrum was published, and they were calculated but unfortunately no media has done such analysis. Exoman121 (talk) 20:15, 1st of February 2016

I agree with you. This source is misplaced. I will correct that. Concerning your concern of missing official announcements and/or press releases: I suppose that soon there will be further market analysis and further sources available by TeleGeography, Telecompaper and the "Global Mobile Suppliers Association" (GSA) very soon. I expect a new GSA "Evolution to LTE"-Report (quarterly issued) to be released by March 2016, which will provide further information for the Croatian LTE deployments. Anyway I have the plan to revise the List of LTE networks in Europe as soon as I finished the much larger List of LTE networks, but that is quite a bit of work and does take it's time. I hope you understand. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I have revised the Croatian deployments and added everything that is proven by either the GSA report or TeleGeography (which means as much as there is actually nothing new :-D). For further updates we need to wait for ongoing market research. If I come across any news I'll add further updates. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

<br/>-Syntax

List of LTE networks in Europe wrong: <br/>, correct: <br /> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.209.164.142 (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Both can be used: [8] and the wiki-explanation [9]. I will continue to use the <br/>-Tag. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Your link https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1946426/html-5-is-it-br-br-or-br is not an official document. https://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#guidelines is an official document with space:
"C.2. Empty Elements
Include a space before the trailing / and > of empty elements, e.g. <br />, <hr /> and <img src="karen.jpg" alt="Karen" />. ..."
From your link Wikipedia:Line-break_handling#.3Cbr.3E: "... <br /> is preferred ..."
So please don't revert my edits. --92.209.164.142 (talk) 09:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I will continue using <br/> as it is not wrong. A recommendation or preferation is also not a "must". If you have a problem with that and enough time, you can check all wiki-articles you find to replace <br/> with <br />. I don't mind and will not revert such edits. ;-) Nightwalker-87 (talk) 10:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Nice! But why did you revert my edit in the past? --92.209.164.142 (talk) 10:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I still consider it as beeing unnecessary, but I'll now mark this topic as closed as a solution has been found. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 10:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Listing of the territory of Abkhazia in the country / territory column

I am opening this topic to resolve the ongoing content dispute in the related article. My argumentation is that Abkhazia shoul be kept in the list as a territory but not as a country. In fact the given territory is occupied by another country (although not recognized under international law), but the related operators to this entry do not seem to operate in the rest of Georgia. Therefore the previous state should be kept together with adding "and Territories" to the country column. This would fulfill WP:NPOV as well as giving the correct information and also this does not claim Abkhazia to be a country which was not the intention at any time. Actually this would be a very simple solution of this issue. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

territory with its own flag? There is only one Georgian flag. "but the related operators to this entry do not seem to operate in the rest of Georgia." Abkhazia is Georgia!!!!! it is Georgian territory. Abkhazians are Georgian Citizens. both operators must be located in Georgia column. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaquchi (talk • contribs) 12:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your argumentation, but the point still is that the affected operators in the Georgian region of Abkhazia don't seem to operate in other parts of the country. Therefore it is not enough to simply add them to the entry of Georgia without any further explanation. There must be a reference to the region of Abkhazia from WP:NPOV. If this happens via a seperate entry in the list as a territory (together with the Georgia flag for example) for this military occupied territory or not, is not the main point. Do you see the point? It's not about a political perspective, but instead the point "where" (geographically) the network is available. Issues around the political state and background of this region belong to the article Abkhazia. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 12:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

In which country are this companies operating? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaquchi (talk • contribs) 08:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

They are operating in the local region / province Abkhazia which is a part of the country Georgia. This also means that they do not operate in any other regions of Georgia (as far as I could do research), as they are local operators. And the latter is the important. This is the information that is lost with your recent edits. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 09:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Independently thereof I just found this article-section on wikipedia Georgia_(country)#Administrative_divisions which I should consider of beeing WP:NPOV. If this is not the case and there is a dispute between you and wikipedia's point of view about the geographical and or political status of this region, this must be adressed in a discussion at the latter article (Georgia_(country)). I have no influence on the outcome of this discussion and do not adopt a position apart from the common view on wikipedia that should be WP:NPOV. That discussion there maybe should also involve the administrator's board to help find a solution. Whatever is the outcome this will also affect this article here concerning the question under discussion. I strongly encourage you to initiate a discussion there. I have come to the view that the topic we are on about has a much wider extent (affecting several articles) than this table entry. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 10:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

How about including Gibraltar ?

Which has its own operators and 2,3,4 G networks, I was hoping to find this. 212.120.246.107 (talk) 12:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Thx for opening this topic. I would have done so, if I had found any sources for the introduction of commercial services. Up to now the latest status of development we can prove can be found here: List of planned LTE networks. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 18:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Vodafone UK LTE 2100 and o2 1800

Considering regular customers can access these and use it as a normal layer across commercially deployed and integrated sites across the United Kingdom can these be updated from Pre-commercial to normal deployment? Pre-commercial suggests to me personally that they're trialling it in a Faraday cage somewhere or having it on masts and not authenticating the users for that layer in the HSS. Lightspeed2398 (talk) 10:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Lightspeed2398. "Pre-commercial" defines the state between user accessability and announcement of commercial oparation by the respective operator via an official public announcement. Trials, tests and technology evaluations are not listed here but at List of planned LTE networks instead. This implies that the note for "pre-commercial services" should be removed as soon as widespread commercial availability to all users on the live network is announced for the (sub-)network running on the mentioned frequencies. Here a citation by either the operator or a telecoms news site would be preferrable. I hope this helps a little further. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 11:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Vodafone UK 2x10MHz 2100MHz 4G

I previously updated the Vodafone UK listing for 2100MHz 4G stating 10MHz for 4G instead of 5MHz, with the cite http://pedroc.co.uk/vodafone_4g_2100_1800mhz.htm. However, the revision was undone with the statement "No source for the rest" despite the cite showing screenshots with 10MHz as Bandwidth for LTE 2100MHz. Furthermore, Vodafone owns 2x14.8MHz 2100MHz spectrum, so if using 2x5MHz for 4G, that leaves 2x9.8MHz for 3G services. Pedro c tech (talk) 21:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Pedro c tech. Thanks for the note. I've checked the source, which is obviously indicating that 10 MHz of bandwidth are in use at some cell sites. I will correct the entry in the list, but strongly suggest to maintain the "pre-commercial" service status until there is an official announcement on commercial operation @2100 MHz by Vodafone. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Turkey's removal from the list

Two weeks ago, Nightwalker-87 moved deployment in Turkey to List of LTE networks in Asia "because the country's territory is geographically mainly situated in Asia." Soon afterwards, he "moved Turkish deployments to List of LTE networks#Middle East which is the appropiate place." I take issue with Turkey's removal from this list. It is true that most of Turkey is geographically situated in Asia, so is most of Russia, and so is the entirety of Cyprus; however I don't see how it is relevant. On geography-related lists, it makes sense; e.g. a mountain in Cyprus or in Asian parts of Turkey or Russia should be listed at the Asia list, that's where most people would expect to find them; however, on articles relating to politics, economics, sports etc, as well as other human endeavours, most people would expect to find that Cyprus, Turkey and Russia in the Europe list.

In any case, the fact that Russia and Cyprus remains on the list shows that Turkey's removal doesn't have much to do with geographics (as it shouldn't anyway), but more with the perception that Turkey is no longer considered in Europe politically and economically, in a change from previous years. It can certainly be argued that Turkey is moving away from Europe and to Asia/Middle East, however such a change in direction is is no way completed as of now; e.g. in any given field, a Turkish organization would likely be a part of the European supranational union of its counterparts rather than an Asian one, or in any technological or economic issue Turkey would normally follow the European standard rather than the Asian one, etc. In those regards, Turkey can be considered more as a part of Europe than Russia is; and if we are to look at it geographically, it certainly is more a part of Europe than Cyprus is. A day may come that will no longer be the case, and with the way things are going it is a serious possibility; but I don't think we are there yet.

I noticed this and took the time to write it, because I frequently use this page to check both Turkey's and other European countries' frequency bands. (And let me also use this opportunity to thank Nightwalker-87 for keeping the page up-to-date, it is immensely useful to me.) I don't know if there are people who are in the exact opposite place of me, i.e. they look for Turkey in the Asia or Middle-East lists, and get frustrated when they can't find it there. I suspect there aren't many, as in such lists it is customary to list Turkey under Europe, like Cyprus and Russia; however, if there are, maybe a row can be added to those two lists that links this article so they know where it is. I think that would be a better solution than moving Turkey to those lists.--5.46.95.17 (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi there and thanks for your comment. Sorting of countries into groups is not always an easy topic on wikipedia. I have taken note of that before. In general wikipedia has committed itself to a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV). Therefore I tried to find to group the countries with a view to common interest. I believe that the "geographic" sorting however is the most uncritical, as long as readers do not see a political intention behind it. I can say that I never had the intention behind my edits to link both. However there are some points such as regional spectrum allocation, that should be (indirectly) adressed within this list.
This is the reason why there are no sections "North America" and "South America" for example, but "Latin America" "Caribbean" and a seperate section for the USA incl territories and Canada. This holds information on Roaming possibilities for single frequency bands. Here we had the complaint before why Mexico is not listed in the "North America" section that was previously part of the list. Here the reason for grouping the Latin-American countries together (with exception of Bolivia) was that they have similar spectrum allocations.
Coming back to the specific point of your comment: I see your argumentation for Russia which should be moved to the "Asia" section what would draw a clearer line of the original intention and argumentation. I have not taken note of this before. Apart from that I believe it would indeed be a good thing to link (inter-wiki-link) Turkey and Russia in the "Europe" table of deployments to help readers along, as some "feel" that certain countries are missing which have landmasses on two continents. I believe this to be the best way of solving this issue and adressing your concerns. Please share your thoughts.
Generally speaking, I am happy to hear that the list helps you along and that you use it frequently. This is one of the intentions that drive me to keep the list updated and maintained. Thank you very much. :-) Nightwalker-87 (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I have adressed this issue in the meanwhile, following the idea of your proposal. Thanks again for your contribution on this topic. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 11:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Austria

DREI uses LTE900

H3G currently uses: LTE900, LTE1800 and LTE2600 at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.114.155.127 (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

As long as there is no source (I haven't found one either) this is not verifiable according to WP:VER meaning that we should not have it added to the list. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

DREI uses LTE2100

Hi (talk), Is it only verifiable if there is a source on their website? I went through austria and detected the LTE2100 cells via network monitor, see https://www.pic-upload.de/view-33994032/IMG_3594.png.html and https://www.pic-upload.de/view-33994031/IMG_3596.png.html. As you can see they are 10 MHz cells (dl_bw = 50). I'm new to wikipedia but wanna contribute to this page :-) What can I do? daniel.gruber

Hi there. Thank you very much for your interest in contributing to wikipedia. Before getting started, it is reasonable to take note about the wikipedia's principles and guidelines: Wikipedia:Five pillars. Adressing your question: To achieve good quality and a well documented state of this list, one should try to edit in the sense of WP:CS, WP:SPS, and WP:VER. These guidelines have so far always been very helpful to editors. Please note, that a personal speedtest alone is in general not a verifiable source (WP:SPS). Instead official sources like operator's announcements, newspaper articles or news sites etc. have proven to be well suitable. Also, one should be aware of that many operators test new frequencies on local cell sites without further notice. These are mostly not considered to be commercial deployments as listed here. If additional sources indicate wider deployment this may also be a reason to list a deployment here. If in doubt I consider it a good idea to add a notification for readers that respective content is "pre-commercial" (red colour) or a "tech demo" (blue colour). Also this gives other editors the chance to identify open points and to do further research. Additionally we have List of planned LTE networks which is also a good place to list networks if unsure (maybe also in this specific case). This list is also actively maintained and revised. I hope this helps you along and adresses your needs. If there are any questions please don't hesitate to refer to my personal talk page. :-) Nightwalker-87 (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Drei has LTE 900MHz with 3MHz Bandwidth and LTE 2100MHz with 10MHz Bandwidth, as I have put on my website: Austria Mobile Networks: Drei AT B8 4G, B3 4G, B1 4G, B7 4G Cellmapper also has substantial LTE 900MHz and LTE 2100MHz samples on their database, Drei AT B8 4G sites and Drei AT 4G 2100MHz sites — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro c tech (talk • contribs) 23:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

This (Drei AT B8 4G, B3 4G, B1 4G, B7 4G) is an example for a WP:SPS. The other sources do not seem to prove any commercial state of deployment - at least the latter is not verifyable from this source. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: Please also refer to the topic below which addresses the same point. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

EE Third Band 7 Carrier EARFCN 3029

EE has commenced deploying a third Band 7 carrier at EARFCN 3029 with Bandwidth of 15MHz. This increases their total Band 7 LTE deployment to 50MHz paired. Time will tell if a press release of sufficient citation quality will appear to substantiate for the main page. Just a thought, could entries with evidence, but below evidence quality threshold, be added to the list but with a marker, such as an asterisk, to demonstrate that they do not meet the normal evidence quality? I suggest this because I find it highly misleading, in fact outright incorrect, to state that, for example, Drei AT is not operating LTE on 900MHz when, in reality, they are. I do understand the need for good quality citations, but I consider there needs to be a balance because otherwise entries will become factually false simply by virtue of there being no adequate evidence to support the current deployments.

Hi Pedro c tech. Yes, I believe that this could be a way to address this issue. In fact pre-commercial (although together with a verifiable source) deployments are already marked in red colour. I propose to continue this formatting and to use an asterisk together with a wiki-subnote: {{refn|group=A|name=SPS|Selfpublished source [[WP:SPS]]}} as long as this is in the sense of the wiki-policy WP:SPS. In other words this would mean that such source can serve as a placeholder as long as no official source is available for evidence. However this should not imply predominat use thoughout the respective lists. Can you agree on this proposal? Please let me know if I can help or assist. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nightwalker. I perceive this as the most mutually satisfiable method to proceed for all parties and for ongoing content accuracy and trustworthiness. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro c tech (talk • contribs) 21:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Pedro c tech. Ok, let's continue then. As soon as there is time I'll also proceed with the new table formatting in List of LTE networks in Europe. However this should not prevent you from doing a UK update in the old part of the table, although there might be some temporary editing restrictions during the content move to avoid editing conflicts. A respective template will occur to notify about this. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

EE cat11+ Carrier Aggregation

Hi Nightwalker, although YouTube is not always to be considered a reliable source I sourced a video from the direct source (EE). Pedro Clarke's website is also used as a source for other edits of the lte page, so why not this time? Many carrier aggregation examples are not sourced for other networks yet are deleted when I post for EE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.7.62 (talk) 17:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. Citing YouTube videos on wiki is not a problem in general. Please see WP:CITEVIDEO as long as they can be considered beeing a primary source (published commercial media content) (e.g. published by the network operator itself). Selfmade videos by individuals such as the videos by Pedro Clarke are of different character and are therfore very likely to be adressed by WP:NOYT. Citations on other wikipages as you mentioned them seem are not the measure of scale. Looking at wikipedias efforts for quality assurance editors should develop a sense for providing good content in common interest. If you have further questions regarding this topic, please let me know. ;-)
Regarding the EE-Video: The description of the video: "Here we are in our mobile test laboratory showing the XZ Premium hitting 979Mbps, using our full range of live 4G spectrum and 4x4 MIMO technology. The Sony Xperia XZ Premium on the EE network – the fastest smartphone in the UK." indicates to me that this is a tech demo ("in our mobile test laboratory") that is used for advertising. I propose to have this source restored, but with a note thas this is a field test or tech demo, etc. (see other comparable entries in the list), but not a commercial state of deployment on the network yet.
Further, may I ask you to retain old notes on categories and carrier aggregation schemes if higher speeds become available, to avoid that this information is lost. This is also because higher CA schemes or categories do not replace the previous ones. Thank you very much for your cooperation. :-) Nightwalker-87 (talk) 18:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Nightwalker for the response, I now understand a little better :) Although the EE video is a tech demo, at the end it does state"we're rolling out the capability to support these faster game-changing speeds throughout 2017", along with Peter Clarke's screenshots in March and EE previously stating the aim for a cat11 network I'd have though this counted as live deployment.

I'm also not aware of deleting any notes about carrier aggregation, I've added 3A_20A, 3C, 7C, 3C_7A and 3C_7C and have kept 3A_7A, 3A_7C. I'd be grateful if you could show me my errors, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.7.62 (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

There is certainly no doubt that EE will roll out Cat11 on its network, but yet it has just not reached the state of the operator announcing public availablity in a certain area consisting of serveral basestations and not only a few single pilot basestation. The latter is what I find in Pedro C's videos, which are interesting to watch/follow, but seem to be comparable with people posting screens of speedtest apps on their smartphones showing certain configurations they claim to have realized. These might be correct in lets say 90% of the cases, but it's not a verifiable source of official character like a newspaper article or an official press release by an operator itself. Against this background I'd like to encourage you to reedit assuming good faith WP:AGF, but as I mentioned before in a way that clearly indicates that Cat11 is an upcoming deployment state.
Concerning the second point, I looked here again and found that the information on carrier aggegation in fact did not vanish but moved somewhere further downwards after your edit due to the introduced formatting. I believe that this was not intentional from your side but resulted in line-spacing (see here). For any future edits you can simply just place new content directly at the end of the existing information. This would help a lot. This also goes along with new higher categories beeing always added at the bottom of an existing entry. I have been trying to arrange/sort sources in an entry from the newest to the oldest, resulting in new cites added in front of the existing. This makes it easier for readers to search for a specific source within a listing. However this is not always possible, as sometimes automatic bots rearrage some sortings due to cite numbering. I hope this explanation helps along and gives an idea of the intentions behind the LTE network listings. If you have any further ideas or comments, please let me know. Thanks. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 08:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'm still confused about your recent edit to the page. What's the difference between pre commercial and demo?

My second point is about the CA pairs that are live in the network and in no way under trial. 7C is a subset of 3A_7C which is stated offically on this wiki, so why isn't 7C? 3A_20A is a bit more difficult to officially confirm but as the source is the same for O2s I'd have thought it could at least gain a pre commercial label if not a commercial label.

My third point is about the CA pairs under demo. 3C and 3C_7A have been deleted even though they are both subsets of 3C_7C, why is this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.7.62 (talk) 08:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello there. :-) Let me explain how this is roughly being distinguishing here so far.
Demo: Preview / demonstation with hardware performed under laboratory conditions (this can also be seen in the YouTube video you came up with. A laboratory BTS eNodeB is used creating a test network utilising licensed spectrum, this is clearly not "live", meaning outdoor in a test area).
Field test: Local outdoor test area on the live network utilising one or more live basestations with new services within the area BUT mobile end users can not utilise these with devices. Sometimes operators select a group of users providing them with special handsets to test the new services. There usually is an announcement by the operator that new services are beeing tested on the live network. Very often keyphrases like "will be availble soon" or "is currently deployed" or "starting in ..." indicate this stage of deployment.
Pre-commercial deployment: Local outdoor test area on the live network utilising one or more live basestations, mobile end users can already detect, use and benefit from the new services within the area, BUT there is < no official announcement > by the operator that the tested speeds/functionalities are available.
Official launch: An operator announces that new services are available to all users with compatible handsets/modems from now or starting at a fixed date. Usually this comes along with these beeing offered by the operator from that date. Alternatively there is a official publication by a newspaper or any other news agency preferably focussed on the telecoms sector.
Regarding CA: It would be new to me if a CA deployment "automatically" implements a subset CA. If you can verify this from the technical side I would be very interested to read about it - please let me know. My state of knowledge is that CA schemes are being configured by individual operators taking into account traffic load balance and individual commercial interests. It is very hard to verify such subset CA availablitiy from a public source. If there is one, common practise has been to list them. This should equally apply to tech-demos, field tests and pre-commercial deployments.
I hope this adresses your concers, please let me know if you have any further questions or ideas to improve the quality level of this list that have not been mentioned so far. Thanks. ;-) Nightwalker-87 (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Red/Yellow/Green coloured cells - can someone please explain what these are supposed to depict?

Hi, can someone please explain the difference between red/yellow/green cells? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyrex (talk • contribs) 09:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Following common association, it's as follows:

  • red: not (yet) in use for LTE, but for other services (UMTS/GSM)
  • yellow: partially in use (as can be seen in the table)
  • green: exclusively used for LTE

Nevertheless, I've added a legend holding this description to the article header. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 12:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

New table view

Hi! I have a suggestion. Maybe instead of one large table is better to use a few tables by country? It will be easier to edit.

Hi. With respect to fragmentation this is not a good idea. There are already separate lists for Asia, Europe and the rest of the world. Also this list has been rated by the wiki project telecommunications as "mid-important". In this context it should not be split apart any further as long as the list does not become too large, which is not the case on the mid-term scale. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
OK, I understand. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ja.michal (talk • contribs) 01:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Ja.michal. However, if there should be any problems with editing or formatting issues, please let me know on my personal talk page. I can assist any time. :) Nightwalker-87 (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

New tables for LTE networks

Nightwalker-87, I am not very versed on editing tables, but the new table format is horrible. If I want to know what LTE bands are in use in a certain country, I have to scroll 100 positions down to the country, but the actual bands are on the top of the header, another 100 positions up. The old style had the bans right there next to the each operator/country. Can you make the header floating, so the list of operators will scroll "inside"? I know that is supposedly discouraged due to some mobile renders issues, but I am sure that this format is un-usefull on those mobile also. I would try to make that change, per this link but I might mess things up, by using trial and error.

The new table format was introduced for List of LTE networks in Europe as the used bands are harmonised across the Europe (CEPT). Therefore this format reduces article size significantly due to the more compact layout. Anyway I'll look what I can do about the scrolling issue as soon as I find some time. Maybe it is possible to lock the header on top while scrolling while maintaning the new layout. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 15:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
I tried my very best... Please refer to List of LTE networks in Europe again to verify. I am looking forward to your feedback. Thx. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! It's much, much useful this way! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoNic67 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Back again to the table format. Because of the small width of the symbol for sorting added inside some of the table columns, now the header fields are miss-aligned with the scrolling table below. I have tried to change the width of the header, but... it didn't work for me. Can you take a look at this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoNic67 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thx for the note. Indeed I've tried that before as well, as it is not very nice to look at currently. I haven't found a satisfying solution yet, but will address the issue as soon as possible. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 23:11, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Can you add the 4x4 MIMO, 256 QAM for Verizon Wireless in USA? Thanks, I don't want to mess up the tables :) https://www.verizon.com/about/news/verizon-continues-industry-leading-lte-advanced-network-deployments

Sure. Will do that soon. Just found an additional source. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 11:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Nightwalker-87, I can't scroll the table from List of LTE networks in Asia in my iPhone 6. Please fix this.  SoonSoo90 (talk)

Hi SoonSoo90. I can reproduce it on an iPhone, but can not on an iPad and other devices. Unfortunately this won't fix due to a bug with iOS on iPhone (obviously). The current formatting uses is the dedicated approach to address the scolling feature within wiki-formatting. Sorry for this, but we need to maintain readability on the majority of devices rather than focussing on specific ones. Please address the issue more generally on the administrator's board or any other other place of general assistance on wikipedia to find a solution or use the wikipedia iOS app instead. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

B40 Column?

O2 UK has commenced deployment of 4G on 2300MHz with 60 sites on launch day: https://twitter.com/ChrisGillmore89/status/984406975617421317. O2 are using all 40MHz with two carriers of 20MHz, one at EARFCN 39250 and one at 39448, all with 4T4R: https://pedroc.co.uk/content/o2-2300mhz-4g-b40 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro c tech (talk • contribs) 10:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I know about that. It's a formatting issue: The problem is that the page-width currently optimised for 15 inch screens. I am thinking about a solution for that. Currently such networks are listed in the table List of LTE networks in Europe#Deployments on additional frequency bands below. (Note: Don't forget to cite your postings with ~~~~. ;-) ) Nightwalker-87 (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Just tried to figure out the formatting. It is possible, but only when the additional space needed is gained from the CA column (resulting in more linebreaks). Looking at this, it seems to imply that no further bands apart from b40 can be added to this table under the condition to maintain a proper appearance to readers. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 12:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Vivacom Bulgaria

Adding this topic which should have actually be opened by User:Cvdr as it implies a change under discussion to to the current article.

As I mentioned before there is no official source available to prove that commercial services habe been launched on band 8 by Vivacom Bulgaria. The info on Cellmapper is usergenerated data and therefore includes collected data from the field. It also includes inofficial field tests and tests so it does not fulfill the aim to serve as a source in the sense mentioned above (WP:PUS). The coverage map by vivacom does not state any frequency used and therfore does not help along either. Again I propose to simply move the content to List of planned LTE networks where similar cases have been listed before. In this context the proposed content does not seem to meet the quality standards aimed for this article yet. This may be subject to change until futher info becomes available. I have not found any yet.

Up to now such cases have not been listed in this table and I currently can't see any reason why this unwritten policy that served us for years should be changed now, with this single edit. So far content discussions have always been solved in concensus which I can not see here. Assuming good faith at first (WP:AGF) with stating the reasons for a revert above as well as pointing to a initial solution was neglegted as vandalism which is clearly not applicable as a reason was always provided. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 10:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The aim of this article and Wikipedia in general is to provide accurate factual information. While referring to official announcements is the preferred approach such are not always available. Bulgarian MNOs tend not to disclose much about frequency use and hence there are no official announcements available from the operator in question, Vivacom. However there is clear evidence that Vivacom has deployed LTE Band 8 on a large scale as part of their commercial operation:
From the facts that according to the official coverage map there is LTE coverage in the respective areas, that cellmapper shows only band 8 eNodeBs in the very areas and the mere number of eNodeBs we can safely assume that these eNodeBs are in commercial operation. Further to that cellmapper contains recent data collected in the topographically challenging and sparsely populated Balkan mountains (see the overlay linked above) where LTE deployments in band 3 are unlikely. Lastly I have personally performed a survey of the area in question including locking one of my phones to band 3 which is why I can rule out concurrent coverage on band 3 that would provide an alternative explanation for the coverage shown on the offical coverage map. That said we have valid information that justifies my edit. Also when setting standards here we should also keep in mind that official announcements published by marketing departments don't provide absolute certainty either. --Cvdr (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Cvdr. Thank you very much for the detailled statement which seems resonable to me in most parts. I see that it is difficult sometimes to find official sources or articles in some case. Nevertheless we also need to respect WP:SPS on the other hand. I can remember some single editors in earlier days which posted screenshots from their mobile devices or cellmapper maps trying to prove deployments that were definitely not in commercial state of operation. This can not be a solution with the view to ensure a certain level of quality for this list.

As the discussion about this topic without a solution is unsatisfiable to me, I have been searching the web for additional information as well. After intensive search I finally found this official source: [10] As it follows your explanation above I propose to add it to the list. As far as I understood only 3 MHz are refarmed for LTE on band 8. Also commercial rollout seems to have started in December 2017.

I will add it to the list soon together with the info provided. To me it seem to be the missing part to resolve this topic. Please have your say. Looking at this I hope you also understand my point of view. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your efforts. I also searched for sources but didn't find that article which brings clarity. It actually says that they "freed up some additional 3 MHz" which does not necessarily say how wide the LTE carriers became in the end but on cellmapper I found some nearby (and so geographically overlapping) 2G, 3G and 4G cells all detected during the last two weeks which occupy the following channels/frequencies (for simplification only listing DL frequencies here):
GSM: ARFCN 997 (DL 929.6MHz)
UMTS: UARFCN 2981 (936.2MHz)
LTE: EARFCN 3516 (931.6MHz)
As a 5MHz wide LTE carrier would occupy the range from 929.1-934.1 MHz it would interfere with GSM while a 3MHz wide carrier (930.1-933.1MHz) would not cause any collisions with GSM or UMTS. From this we can safely assume Vivacom operates their band 8 carrier with only 3 MHz. --Cvdr (talk) 00:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, fine - I'll update the listing then. Thanks for the contribution.
Looking into the future I propose the following for contributions which run into a challenge: After the first, but latest after the second revert (which each should always be commented) a Talk topic should be opened no matter by whom the editor or the contestor, always in the sense of WP:AGF. Looking at this discussion for example shows that a few more words clearly help to find concensus and bring together more quickly. This should avoid quarrels which hinder to make progress. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 09:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

EE 4G 2100MHz (United Kingdom)

EE has started to deploy 4G on 2100MHz in the Welsh city of Cardiff, alongside 35MHz on 2600MHz, 30MHz on 1800MHz and 5MHz on 800MHz. Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZwoCUohNa8 Hopefully will be popping up elsewhere soon! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro c tech (talk • contribs) 19:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Pedro c tech. Thx for your contribution. We'll have that added soon in the way we've discussed before. Can you add this info to your homepage in a summarised form as well? I would prefer to cite it from there, if possible. ;-)

Sure: https://pedroc.co.uk/content/ee-4g-2100mhz-refarm :) I am happy to cite as per the usual format or you can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro c tech (talk • contribs) 10:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Thx. Good to see that. How do you identify the technical equipment? Is there any reference for it? Nightwalker-87 (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

LMT

Cited sources for LMT included also information about operating cell towers. Also information is verified by me using Cellmapper.

Hi there. :-) Please note that information does not need to be verifiable by the editor himself but also for every reader or other editor. You can find additional information on that at WP:VER and WP:CS if you are unsure regarding your edit. Cellmapper alone is not a reliable source (WP:RS), as it turned out in previous discussions.
It would be great though if you can find additional sources, articles either from the operator itself or newspapers or technews pages on that content. I propose to open a topic on the article Talk page to find a way to get missing content in that can be verified from official side. Should you need any help with editing, please let me know. ;-) Nightwalker-87 (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Deployments on identified 5G frequency bands

I feel like this section should someway fit better in a new page on planned 5G NR networks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebahapo (talk • contribs) 15:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Eh, no - not really, as long as these mentioned networks are 4G only and in commercial operation, later (if upgraded to 5G) they should go to List of 5G NR networks directly. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 17:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Then I don't quite follow why it's important to list them at all. Care to clarify its purpose, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebahapo (talk • contribs) 21:05, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I renamed the section, though I still can't see any problem / potential misunderstanding concerning the old title. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 09:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I think that the new name clarifies the purpose of the table much better, without mixing 5G in a page about LTE. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebahapo (talk • contribs) 17:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

What happened to the old list that was way more comprehensive?

what happened to the old list that was way more comprehensive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.170.133.254 (talk) 17:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

No it's not broken - it has been requested to be optimised for display on mobile devices. The table is now scrollable. In fact there is now even more info available than before. Please verify. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

What happened to the comprehensive list of european LTE networks?

what happened to the comprehensive list of european LTE networks? in Jan 2018 it appears you broke the table listing? please fix — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.170.133.254 (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

No it's not broken - it has been requested to be optimised for display on mobile devices. The table is now scrollable. In fact there is now even more info available than before. Please verify. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Fixed header scrolling

Apparently the current applied hack of showing the "Commercial deployments" table in a div with scrollbar "[was] requested by tablet users before and this is a concensus of that discussion". There is, however, no trace of this discussion in the history of the talk page. If there was than it must have been before May 2015 somehow. With more than 3 years of advancements in technology and software, both on the tablet as on the wikimedia front, I wonder if the same arguments would still hold up today. Can fixed header scrolling not be done in a cleaner way in Wikipedia nowadays? If that was the goal to begin with --Forage (talk) 11:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Forage. Thanks for coming back to this issue here. In fact I found the previous discussion on my persoanl talk page where it actually does not belong as it is article related... However, please have a look at it as it is quite recent. If there is any nicer way to achieve such scrolling technically while holding the table header in place and without splitting content apart, we should be open to that. So far I have found no other way to address this issue. If you come across anything please let me know. Thx. :-) Nightwalker-87 (talk) 11:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Fixed wireless networks in Spain (Murcia4G)

Hello @Carlitoscarlos: As far as I know, beside the four national mobile networks, there is a number of companies that use LTE to provide fixed (none-mobile) wireless internet access. For the purpose of this article, these are LTE networks as well. I know of Alta Tecnologia en Comunicacions SL, Consorcio de Telecomunicaciones Avanzadas, S.A. (Murcia4G), and Aire Networks del Mediterráneo, S.L.U. that use TD-LTE 2600 (this band is not used by the national operators). Xfera appears to also provide such a service in the TD-LTE 3500 band (which they acquired from NEO-SKY 2002, S.A.). Do you have information that any of the networks have shut down? Drahtlos (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I can confirm that COTA, which operates the fixed wireless access (FWA) service "murcia4G" is NOT a MVNO, by referring to Global mobile Suppliers Association (GSA) in their "Evolution to LTE report" as of Jan 2017. This source is also cited in the list. As this proof is given and I am not aware of any evidence that this service has been shutdown in the meanwhile, I currently see no further demand for any discussion on this topic and restored the previous state. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Who ruined this table?

who ruined this table?

how hard is it to list by country then band, then a separate table by band then country?

absolutely ruined - on the verge of vandalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.170.133.254 (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_LTE_networks_in_Europe/Archive_1"