Talk:LTE (telecommunication)

Text and/or other creative content from this version of LSTI was copied or moved into 3GPP Long Term Evolution with this edit on 03 March 2012. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

LSTI was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 02 March 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into LTE (telecommunication). The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Telecommunications High‑importance

	Telecommunication portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives: 1, 2

Proposed merge with LTE timeline

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Formal request has been received to merge: LTE timeline intoo LTE (telecommunication); dated January 2016. Discuss here. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 12:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Rationale: @Nightwalker-87: After the merger I propose a cleanup and proper integration of the existing content. In my opinion the article LTE (telecommunication) will not become too long and bloated by performing this changes if outdated content and not noteworthy content from LTE timeline is removed.

Requested move 29 February 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago14 comments6 people in discussion

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus that the acronym is the common name here. (non-admin closure) — Amakuru (talk) 11:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

LTE (telecommunication) → Long-Term Evolution (telecommunication) – The old name is only an acronym for the technology. The new name corrects this issue. The acronym should link to the full name. – Nightwalker-87 (talk) 13:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

This is a contested technical request (permalink). older ≠ wiser 20:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia naming conventions prefer common usage over official terms. LTE by far the more common usage. I expect most folks wouldn't even recognize the spelled out version. older ≠ wiser 20:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I don't expect people to recognise the full name when searching for the mobile standard. If a search for "LTE" would link to "Long-Term Evolution (telecommunications)" clearly visible on top of the list that would be fine also from my point of view. I also see no opposition to the wiki naming convention here. The poposal targets the structuring and logical construction of articles around modern and widespread mobile communication standards within the wiki teleommunications project. Contribution to a logical structuring including the setting of useful #REDIRECTS has already been done in mos parts where necessary. I've created a table to visualize this structuring on a personal userpage (here). It is not fully complete by now, but I suppose one can see the idea behind it already. I really consider it necessary as there are to many articles (about similar topics that actually belong together. Readers can't easily navigate around, orientate themselves and finally sheer trees do not see the forest. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 21:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Question – are we sure that Long-Term Evolution is even the official name? From looking at sources, it appears that it may to the motivation for the standard initialism, but perhaps not the official name. It is variously styled in sources, sometimes without the hyphen, sometimes without caps; not very official-name-like, it appears. The official site seems to say the LTE is the name; it doesn't mention what it stands for until the second section, and then only parenthetically. So I think the premise of this move request may be wrong. Dicklyon (talk) 22:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Looking at UMTS we have the same situation just from the other perspective. Here "UMTS" is the common use, but the article is named "Universal Mobile Telecommunication System". (This would by the way also oppose to the naming convention according to User:Bkonrad's point of view.) Regarding you comment: If the official name differs (slightly) from the proposed new title, of course this should be the choice. I don't question that. The more general message is that the naming scheme for the main articles GSM, UMTS and LTE at least should be the same. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 22:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Some terms have greater popular currency than others. I'd never heard of UTMS before. I had some awareness of GSM as the other of two options compared to CDMA for a long time which made big difference in which phone models worked with which carrier. I don't actually care that much about GSM (which is also being discussed) as it is somewhat more obscure than LTE, which most anyone looking at phones these days is bombarded with. It is never (or extremely rarely) referenced as Long Term Evolution in most common contexts. older ≠ wiser 01:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Oppose. The current title seems to be the WP:COMMONNAME. Changing the title or converting the current title to a redirect elsewhere will most likely be a WP:SURPRISE for most readers. Steel1943 (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
Oppose. As discussed above, this request contradicts Wikipedia's naming conventions, wherein common usage outweighs official designations. Nightwalker-87 appears to be under a mistaken belief that articles "belong to" WikiProjects (the wording used here), whose decisions trump those of the Wikipedia community at large. This is not so.
Additionally, I don't know why the proposed title retains parenthetical disambiguation. —David Levy 00:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@David Levy: So, you believe that this article is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term "LTE" over all other subjects listed at LTE? That very well may be true... Steel1943 (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Steel1943: Perhaps so, but I meant that "(telecommunication)" needn't be appended to "Long-Term Evolution". I don't know why Nightwalker-87 isn't proposing that the article be moved to that title, which currently redirects to the article. (To be clear, this wouldn't affect my opposition to the request, which is based on the common usage of "LTE".) —David Levy 01:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

What are your ideas when you compare the titles "GSM" , "Universal Mobile Telecommunication System" and "LTE (telecommunication)"? These are currently the article names of these three major telecommunication technologies on wikipedia and I consider them all beeing WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the respective fields. There are now 3 different ways of naming these. Alltogether they don't comply either with WP:COMMONNAME (which is only the case for GSM) nor with any fully outwritten name (WP:OFFICIALNAME), which is solely the case for UMTS. Referring to WP:COMMONNAME this is not desireable, as the common name is "UMTS". LTE instead is adressed with the addition (telecommunications), that does make sense as well to allow distinuging links between LTE as the mobile standard and the disambiguation page of "LTE". This should also be taken under consideration equally for "GSM". What I am adressing here is less the proposed topic but more that there is a unique way according to applicable wiki rules and a logical structure for article naming in the three technology fields, which is mostly the case already (see here). Maybe it is also a solution to keep the title for "LTE" and adress the other two instead, so that all follow the same naming scheme in the end. I hope to have made things clearer now. From the evolution of this discussion I believe that there can be a common solution to adress this issue without dismissing any wiki-rules. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 10:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Steel1943: this would have been an option indeed, but I do believe that it is a good idea to keep the supplement for direct clarification from the title. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 10:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

What the chip manufacturer that makes the chips (that do it) calls it, is its name.

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In Document Number: LTEPTCLOVWWP Rev 0 10/2008 FreeScale semi conductor, a producer of the chips that do "LTE" defines the names you require. There is a software protocol that is independent of carrier and very much frequency independent. People lookign to learn about the LTE Protocol may look for it under that name. A separate article about this protocol might make sense since this article tells little or nothing about it. The E-UTRAN is the entire network, which is the “official” standards name for LTE. https://www.nxp.com/files/wireless_comm/doc/white_paper/LTEPTCLOVWWP.pdf Scottprovost (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

This information can be found in the article E-UTRA. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Royalty Rates

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article has a Patents section with an "announced royalty rates for LTE patents" table citing analyst firm WiseHarbor. That table implies the total advertised royalty rates for mobile phone patents is about 15 percent of the cost of a mobile phone, however the very same analyst firm says the actual royalty rates paid are "no more than around 5% of mobile handset revenues." Meaning, on average the actual price paid for the patents is about one-third of the advertised price, making listing the advertised price seem pretty arbitrary and counter to WP:NOPRICE. I am a layperson, but my understanding is that the reason for this discrepancy is most patent licensing agreements involve cross-licensing and other discounts. I suggest we replace the table with something like the following:

“Independent studies have found that about 3.3 to 5 percent of all revenues from handset manufacturers are spent on standard-essential patents. This is less than the combined published rates, due to reduced-rate licensing agreements, such as cross-licensing."^[1]^[2]^[3]

As mentioned before, I am a layperson, so I appreciate any clarification/correction if I am misunderstanding something. I am requesting this change on Talk, because of my affiliation with Qualcomm, who is listed on the table. Someone within the company noticed this and asked that I request a correction.

References

^ Galetovic, Alexander; Haber, Stephen; Zaretzki, Lew (September 25, 2016). "A New Dataset on Mobile Phone Patent License Royalties". Stanford University: Hoover Institution. Retrieved January 23, 2017.
^ Mallinson, Keith (August 19, 2015). "On Cumulative mobile-SEP royalties" (PDF). WiseHarbor. Retrieved January 23, 2017.
^ Sidak, Gregory (2016). "What Aggregate Royalty Do Manufacturers of Mobile Phones Pay to License Standard-Essential Patents" (PDF). The Criterion Journal on Innovation. Retrieved January 19, 2017.

Seems reasonable. Done. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on LTE (telecommunication). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on LTE (telecommunication). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

The words "Long Term Evolution"

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article does not seem to readily define why this name is applied. It seems to me that it may refer to an extended development of the 3G protocol. However, what does it refer to? ~ R.T.G 20:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

LTE UE Categories

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I see some coverage of UE categories at Evolved_High_Speed_Packet_Access#User_Equipment_(UE)_Categories_2 but that appears to be different. This is the sort of information I'm looking for. ~Kvng (talk) 21:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Misspelling.

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The discussion of 3d video mentions processing in "the special domain". It should be "the spatial domain" Whitcwa (talk) 12:27, 25 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Fixed. ~Kvng (talk) 02:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Add topic

[1] Galetovic, Alexander; Haber, Stephen; Zaretzki, Lew (September 25, 2016). "A New Dataset on Mobile Phone Patent License Royalties". Stanford University: Hoover Institution. Retrieved January 23, 2017.

[2] Mallinson, Keith (August 19, 2015). "On Cumulative mobile-SEP royalties" (PDF). WiseHarbor. Retrieved January 23, 2017.

[3] Sidak, Gregory (2016). "What Aggregate Royalty Do Manufacturers of Mobile Phones Pay to License Standard-Essential Patents" (PDF). The Criterion Journal on Innovation. Retrieved January 19, 2017.

[1]

[2]

[3]