Talk:List of LTE networks

Network shutdowns

What do we do with LTE networks that have been shut down? Gray them out or delete them? This is specifically about the Syringa Wireless shutdown. Drahtlos (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Drahtlos. Thank you for opening this valuable topic. I propose the following:
-> if an operator merged with another one: Remove networks that have been shut down or integrated into other networks. A (very) short note should be added in the last column of the network that remains in operation.
-> if an operator shuts down completely: gray respective entries out and add a note to the last column with the date of shutdown. I think we should not give a reason in written form (limited space available), but add a source that describes the background.
By proceeding this way no information is lost. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

New table format

I like the organization of the new table format by bands. However, the cells are too crowded IMO. For example, the license areas are perhaps overkill and they don't even reflect the reality that licenses are later negotiated down to the county level among carriers. I question how relevant such information is in this page. Also, perhaps resorting to notes might help decreasing the clutter. Ebahapo (talk) 14:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ebahapo. I'm glad to hear that you like the new formatting. (Especially as it has been quite a bit of work to get it done.) I tried to break that licensing topic down already exactly due to this reason, as there was much more detail before (WP:TMI). What could be done further is to move the license types into the related subnotes but that would not make too much difference when looking at the size of the cells. The license types have been kept seperated so far as the smaller regional carriers in the table below (which will likely remain in its form) use single references to license subnotes, which indeed do make sense in this case. Any further ideas on that? Nightwalker-87 (talk) 15:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

As you can see at https://specmap.sequence-omega.net, license areas are pretty fragmented. And this site doesn't map the break up of the original area licenses into smaller fragments for clarity. I do think that mentioning the license areas is too much information and not fully accurate because of the deals that happen after the auction. Later I'll try to edit the table to demonstrate what I mean and may then agree or not with the changes. Ebahapo (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I mean, the similar table in List_of_LTE_networks_in_Europe is not as cluttered.

This is solely due to reason that licenses are available nationwide. We have to deal with this as a fact. Not to mention any license types does not seem an option, as they can indicate the bandwidth if someone wants to do further investigation (e.g. at https://specmap.sequence-omega.net). That itself is a good reason to keep basic info on licensing (as is also the case for Canada, India and Australia by the way, with the difference that the new formatting is not in use). You have to die some death regarding this issue. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

However, the information as is in the table is not accurate, neither the amount of spectrum nor the area licensed. The maintainer of the website above stated as much (v. https://specmap.sequence-omega.net/blog/map-notes). IMO, it suffices to allude to the spectrum and area generically, since then it errs on imprecision rather than on pretending to be accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebahapo (talk • contribs) 22:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll revise licenses and BWs where possible soon, anyhow in most cases a spectrum range seems reasonable to avoid too much detail. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Digicel Saint Lucia band.

I think, the band is 17. Ajax-x86 (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Is there a source (not WP:SPS) for that we can link? Nightwalker-87 (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

DirectTV Colombia

@Nightwalker-87: DirectTV Colombia has licenses for both band 7 and band 38. How do we know which is used for 4G and which for 5G? The 2015 TeleGeography article specifically mentions TD-LTE, so that would be band 38 for LTE. Drahtlos (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I know, but as history can tell, they are not always right. :-D DirecTV seems to have launched 4G on B7 back in 2014. [1] As their 5G network appears to base on a 5G core network, one may make an educated guess that this is the right way round. Maybe there are some further additional sources out there as well, what would turn out to be helpful indeed. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Ultravision Mexico

@Nightwalker-87: why remove Ultravision? TeleGeography says that they sold spectrum to Telcel in 2019 but kept their own FWA LTE-A service running. Drahtlos (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

In fact the information was not removed, but is now part of the AT&T b38 listing, with the additional source indicating that Ultravision was either bought by AT&T or at least sold it's license(s) to them. According to the source above, the b7 licenses were sold to Telcel with the LTE-A FWA service on b38 remaining in operation at that time. Unfortunately I couldn't find an additional source for the spectrum transfer to AT&T yet, apart from that SMTA source I've added recently. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The SpectrumMonitoring source talks about what they have seen on one cell tower. How does this imply that the spectrum across Mexico was transferred? I could not find anything about a transfer from Ultravision to AT&T either. The Ultranet website says that they are running a 4.5G network. Here is a website showing where Ultravision owns spectrum. Drahtlos (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, fair enough, your reference shows that this is not a nationwide operator and that they only hold a limited amount of regional licenses - what is interesting actually, as [2] seems to be proven wrong, hence there are no nationwide licenses @2500 MHz then... Against this background we should restore Ultravision, but keep AT&T @b38 as well. Thx for opening this topic. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Logic Cayman

@Joshuarshah:, if you look at the table later in the OfReg document, it states that both band 41 and band 71 have been assigned to Logic for internet use. On the Logic site itself it says that 2.5GHz is used for the internet service. Presumably, band 71 will brought into use later to extend coverage. Drahtlos (talk) 12:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Venezuela

Do bands 2, 3 and 66 really coexist in Venezuela?

As far as I could gather from the sources provided, the local carriers use:

• Digitel
  • Band 3: 15 MHz (1715-1730/1810-1825 MHz)
• Movilnet
  • Band 2: 10 MHz (1865-1875/1945-1955 MHz)
  • Band 66: 10 MHz (1730-1740/2130-2140 MHz)
• Movistar
  • Band 2: 10 MHz (1850-1860/1930-1940 MHz)
  • Band 66: 10 MHz (1745-1755/2145-2155 MHz)

According to [3], the IMT spectrum is thus allocated locally:

• Band 2: 1850-1910/1930-1990 MHz
• Band 3: 1710-1730/1805-1825 MHz
• Band 66: 1730-1770/2130-2170 MHz

It looks like it's a reasonable way to use a bit more of the spectrum at the beginning of the 1700 and 1800 MHz bands. ebahapo (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

My last state of information was that band 66 has not been allocated there yet, only the band 4 subset. Where does the b66 info come from? Nightwalker-87 (talk) 12:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

As you can see above, though B66 has been allocated, the only deployments thus far are in B4. ebahapo (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I think this general spectrum allocation plan dates back to a time when b66 was not defined. By that time the extended AWS spectrum beyond b4 was still referred to as b10. Also note, that all allocations above still lie within the spectrum range of band 4. So with b66 not explicitly mentioned this alone would very likely not serve as an evidence for a b66 deployment. I shall say we would need additional references for that. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 07:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Mexico

Mexico is geographically located in North America, so listing it under Central and South America is incorrect. Perhaps the motivation is to include it as part of Latin America, but this cultural split should be germane to this article. Though some North American countries are listed as part of the Caribbean, given the several band plans adopted in this region, it should be justifiable to list them apart. However, Mexico is not unlike Canada as a country that uses mostly the FCC band plan with local variations. As such, it should be listed alongside Canada, and not alongside Central and South American countries. Alternatively, the United Nations geoscheme for the Americas, which would support the current organization, is explicitly used. ebahapo (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I recently tried to address this topic, which was up on the agenda before. If the useful separation following regional frequency band allocation shall be preserved, there seems no other way than the proposed. Obviously there is no possibility to combine geographical and regional separation following allocated bandplans. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Verifiability of network band deployment

I am not entirely clear what sources are considered good enough and how many of them need to independently concur in order to satisfactorily verify existence of a network band deployment on this page. I wonder if it's possible to come up with a set of rules specifically for this as the guideline provided by WP:V is very general. Thank you. Supergloom (talk) 11:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)