Talk:LTE (telecommunication)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Neutrality

eddy (talk) 03:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC) wrote:

Pra lala can you send me your email.i want to do research work on this topic(LTE). email is "abbottoniankhan@hotmail.com":Lonniev (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC) wrote:
The page is not noticeably worse than any of the other pages on wireless cellular Radio Access Technologies and, like all those others, is a convenient reference to information on LTE. Those of us who work on the leading edge of standards well known that our marketing peers often have to promote vaporware for quite some time before the technologies are deployed. So, as long as the content on the page is backed by valid citations, let's not get overly high-minded about appearances of marketing.

Make a different Base Stations for LTE because of radiations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.202.141 (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless an official definition of "3.9G" is cited, calling anything a "3.9G technology" is opinion. Xfrosch (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevance

In the beginning of this article, LTE is said to be not a standard. Later on, it says the LTE stndard has been complete. It seems like an advertisement made in a hurry.Chmyr (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Objectives

What I'm trying to do is give readers a flavour of what the LTE group seems to be thinking. I must admit though I neither have the time to plough through everything referenced on the LTE page, nor necessarily the right knowledge to be 100% sure I'm understanding it correctly. We --98.168.193.145 (talk) 02:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)could ideally do with more information on the various layers of the system, for example the protocols over the AIPN and how they will work. Squiggleslash 19:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of IMS link

I've removed the link to IP Multimedia System on the article page. While the topic itself is relevent, the the article concerned needs serious clean up, for reasons I've given on the associated talk: page, and in its present form is worse than useless. There seems to be general agreement on that point, but no consensus on how to proceed largely, from what I can see, because a group of people (for whatever reason) want to turn standardized SIP into some kind of political issue.

I revisited it today and it's worse than ever. Much of the page is essentially vandalism. In my view, it needs to be deleted. If this were an external link, it would probably never have been linked to, but it seemed worth linking to at the time because it was the "official" Wikipedia page on the subject. What I may do over the next few days is add a (small, summary) section to this article explaining what it is and how it relates to the LTE initiative. --Squiggleslash 14:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Slices of spectrum

Too low a spectrum slice, and the efficiency and maximum bandwidth per handset suffers. Too high a spectrum slice, and there are deployment issues for operators short on spectrum.

This sentence keeps being misinterpreted, so let me try to explain the issues. If someone wants to reword it in a way that keeps the same meaning then I'm all ears (especially as hopefully that'll prevent it from being changed again.)

• Mobile phone operators are allocated blocks of spectrum. For example, they may have 10MHz of spectrum in a particular area.
• Each mobile phone system they operate (GSM, D-AMPS, CDMA2000, UMTS, etc) needs to have a part of that spectrum allocated to it exclusively. For example, if I were running a GSM and a D-AMPS network (which until recently was a common configuration in the US), I might allocate a 6MHz slice of that 10MHz to GSM and 4MHz to D-AMPS. I can't allocate the 10MHz to both systems at once.
• Now, for many GSM operators in the US, they want to operate both GSM and UMTS networks. UMTS uses 5MHz slices. So if the GSM operator has 10MHz of spectrum, they can run both GSM and UMTS by allocating 5MHz of it to GSM, and 5MHz to UMTS.
• This is a problem because many GSM operators actually only have 5MHz of spectrum. UMTS requires the whole of that spectrum be allocated to it, or none at all.

3G UMTS uses fixed sizes of slice (set at 5MHz) because of implementation issues regarding CDMA. It's big so that UMTS can maximize the amount of efficiency and bandwidth (data throughput) per handset. However, this gives US operators the above headache.

So those developing LTE and considering CDMA for LTE have an issue - they can either reduce the efficiency and capabilities of the system they're developing, but ensure it can co-exist with legacy standards by reducing the spectrum slice requirement, or they can make it almost impossible for operators to deploy in countries where spectrum is at a premium.

(LTE does away with CDMA, using an air interface technology that doesn't require fixed sizes. This means that operators are free to decide how big a slice of spectrum to allocate to LTE in each market, making it easier for it to co-exist with legacy standards.)

Now, if you're thinking of changing the above sentence, please read the entire paragraph it's in and consider the context and what it means within that context. It might be better for you to rewrite the paragraph than change the sentence - the sentence means what it says, and it's hard to see how it can be reworded and still carry the same meaning. --Squiggleslash (talk) 19:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Squiggleslash - My sincere apologies; I had indeed read the paragraph, and did not (do not) see the difference in meaning between my revision and the original (which is understandable, since this is far from my area of expertise). The sentences are not grammatically correct as written and are tremendously ambiguous to a non-expert, which is most likely why they are so often changed. I would very much like to work with you to fix these issues, since you clearly understand the nuances better. I think I understand the issues at hand, as explained above - my confusion stems from the phrase "too low/high a spectrum slice." What is changed by rearranging this to "When the spectrum slice used is too low/high"? Would a different verb be preferable? Since "low/high" are referring to the size of the slice (as seems to be the case from your explanation) rather than its location, might adjectives like "large/small" or "wide/narrow" be more suitable? Thanks for your patience. St3vo (talk) 02:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

How about "If the size of the spectrum slice chosen is too small/large" - does that adequately preserve meaning? St3vo (talk) 03:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is the word "chosen" completely throws the meaning of the sentence, implying that this is about decisions the operators make rather than the characteristics of the technology and the consequences of how it is specified. As far as "wide" and "narrow" (or small/large) go instead of "low/high", those seem reasonable changes and I think would help readability. --Squiggleslash 15:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean re: chosen. The changes you made are a definite improvement on readability for layfolk such as myself. I don't mean to nitpick, but for grammatical purposes, there needs to be a verb in the clause - what about "if the spectrum slice is too narrow..."? St3vo 15:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

01:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)01:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.134.170.213 (talk)

re: "Slices of spectrum" - The correct term would be "bandwidth". Earlier in the discussion, the term "bandwidth" was misused when "throughput speed" would probably be a better choice. 98.134.170.213 (talk) 01:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)arri_guy@yahoo.com

There is an error in the article where it states: "While it is commonly seen as a mobile telephone or common carrier development, public safety agencies (and US Intelligence Services) in the US[2] have also endorsed LTE as the preferred technology for the new 700 MHz public-safety radio band." This is only partially correct. LTE is being endorsed as the Public Safety Spectrum Trust's (PSST) technology for use within the broadband public safety block, which is contiguous to the auctionable D block. LTE is not endorsed for the narrowband segment which is under the purview of FCC mandated Regional Planning Committees (RPC). APCO Project 25 Phase 1 remains the standard for use on interoperability channels. Although there is no technology mandated for allotted narrowband spectrum within 700 MHz, the FCC has mandated efficiency requirements. Emissions must be digital and currently meet a 9.6 kbps per 12.5 kHz channel or one talk-path within a 12.5 kHz channel. The Federal Communications Commission has proposed that this be halved to one talkpath within a 6.25 kHz channel by January 1, 2017. There is a petition from an RPC to change this halving of emission to 6.25 kHz to a period of 10 years after digital TV transition (June 12, 2019) before the Commission. Such extension would give many adopters of the technology a 10 year useful life from legacy equipment. There are also several frequencies where analog voice communication is authorized on a low power basis at 11K2F3E emission, ostensibly for fireground and on-scene communication.

Someone may wish to differentiate between the D Block, the broadband spectrum licensed to the PSST (both of these segments would be contiguous and use LTE), and the narrowband segment under RPC authority (which will not use LTE, but rather Project 25, possibly proprietary digital formats on non-interoperability channels, and in some cases analog FM), as it relates to 700 MHz public safety.

Sub-5ms latency for small IP packets. On-line gaming?

Pardon my ignorance, but doesn't this sound like latency dependent real-time applications would finally become feasible on mobile internet? I'm referring to things such as real on-line gaming (the World of Warcraft kind, not Uno), which are currently unthinkable on mobile network infrastructure.84.254.9.136 (talk) 12:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

TCP/IP?

A characteristic of so-called "4G" networks such as LTE is that they are fundamentally based upon **TCP/IP**, the core protocol of the Internet

Shouldn't that be "IP" instead of "TCP/IP"? 81.69.153.168 (talk) 12:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. IP is Internet Protocol, and UDP/IP (datagram) is almost certainly in use, as well as TCP/IP (connection-based). Dave (talk) 03:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there any information regarding the use of IPv6 or IPv4? 216.147.189.122 (talk) 03:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

LTE allows use of either IP standard. Verizon is mandating IPv6 for all devices connected to it's network. See [1]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.56.15.198 (talk) 03:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite necessary

I am under the impression there was an important freezing of the specifications in March 09. But there is no mention of it in Current State or Time Table. Also in Frequency Bands, the 700 portion might need clean up? There are overlapping frequencies between XI to XVII. Maybe populating Region would help? And what is called ATT Block B is really A & B, and not all ATT. It looks to me like someone reversed uplink and downlink. Lower frequencies are usually uplink, and should be listed first, shouldn't they? But the beginning statement says it comes straight out of the tables!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.167.39 (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It's been speedily deleted as advert, then restored because it has "too much history". It reads like a giant advertisement and fails to meet almost all guidelines in the manual of style. I suggest a complete rewrite following proper style, tone and everything to avoid an AfD.--Boffob (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This WAS a good article, until you proposed that something that described a developing mobile phone standard was some how a "giant advertisement". You never justified your comment, you never gave examples of how it "failed to meet almost all guidelines in the MOS", you just made the claim without a scintilla of justification, encouraging everyone and their brother to reword the easy to understand facts that were a part of it.

Now the entire article is bullshit. It's one of the worst articles on Wikipedia. It's completely impenetrable, a jargon filled mess that fails to convey anything useful about the standard at all. What's LTE? It's a successor to UMTS based upon a new air interface (OFDMA) and Internet (VoIP) protocols. The old article made that obvious. The current one? What the hell? Seriously? Can someone tell me what it's supposed to mean?

Look at the introduction! There are FIVE paragraphs (LONG paragraphs, full of jargon) before you even get to the table of contents! Take a look at this gem:

Unlike other latest deployed technologies such as HSPA, LTE is accommodated within a new Packet Core architecture called Enhanced Packet Core (EPC) network architecture. Technically, 3GPP specifies the EPC to support the E-UTRAN. EPC is designed to deploy TCP/IP protocols thus enabling LTE to support all IP-based services including voice, video, rich media and messaging with end-to-end Quality of Service (QoS). The EPC network architecture also enables improved connections and hand-over to other fixed-line and wireless access technologies while giving an operator the ability to deliver a seamless mobility experience.[

Really? Does anyone else understand what this actually means? What's it doing in the summary? What is it summarizing? How does that quickly convey to the reader the nature of what LTE is?

Thanks a lot. Thanks a *#@!ing lot. Next time you think something's an advert, either keep it to yourself, or propose actual, concrete, changes that explain how the article could be improved. BS AFDs complaining about vague (and entirely wrong) faults of an article are a great way to screw things up. And that's exactly the process you've started. In its present form, the entire article needs to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.152.231.254 (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Jargon and Buzzwords

this article is almost unreadable due to the proliferation of unexplained and often unlinked jargon, and meaningless buzzwords. I reaalize it's hard to write an article about something that's still being planned, but that's no excuse for the technobabble in this article. --98.168.193.145 (talk) 02:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

A second

If Wikipedia is to be relevant for everyone, and not just a toy for those enamored of each new technological whiff, we have to find a way to write these articles that a non-tech-journal-subscribing reasonable adult can understand. It is not just a matter of looking up a few words that are unfamiliar, this article is so full of argot it will serve well a goal of excluding those who aren't "in the know." Isn't that headed in the wrong direction for Wikipedia and its expressed vision?

Aren't there enough well-read techie sites that eagerly coo out an echo of each new trembling rumor from Redmond, or Cupertino, or Helsinki? Whatever the strategy of Verizon or AT&T or Apple might be, the discussion of it does not belong in an encyclopedia article about a new technology. What is left of this article after the technospeak is removed? I like the Wikipedia project, and continue to have hopes for it. But with the number of hi-tech articles exploding, and the vocabulary of those sites so far removed from what one would read in a major newspaper, or hear on a news network, the sheer volume of the argot starts to become a serious impediment for real people to use this amazing resource.

If the article has no chance of being understood by a reasonably intelligent reader with only an occasional hint or other help from a real-talk-to-ejargon dictionary then it just should not be here. Consider the alternative: If Wikipedia strove to include several hundred changing-as-we-speak argot-loaded articles from every specialty, every hint of some new product someone might be introducing, the project will collapse under its own weight.

This is not a complaint of this one article; tautologically so. I was directed here by a story that made a reference to Verizon Wireless phone upgrades. I do not believe this is an issue with inappropriate references--Wikipedia strives to be a source of knowledge for a broad audience. It would, in fact, be sad should other sites start cutting the Wikipedia references because the tenor and timbre of tech-oriented articles within Wikipedia have ceased to offer much value in explaining concepts for a lay audience.

This article does need a major rewrite. Or perhaps--and I am certainly not the person to make this call--the article should wait until there is something that can be written about, instead of people's conflicting guesses about what might happen sometime later.

I really don't want to pick a fight. I am afraid the tone of this comment is too inflammatory. I just want to know that I can click on a link to a Wikipedia article and be better equipped to understand the story as a result.

Vagabundus (talk) 00:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. It doesn't help that half the content of this article is bulleted lists. Devourer09 (t·c) 16:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Revert necessary

Thanks to the idiotic, unsubstantiated, "It's an ad! OMG1!!!1! Delete it" crap, this page has become completely unreadable. I tried to fix it last week WP:BOLD by reverting to an earlier version that cannot be described as an ad in any way. This is the version. Unfortunately, someone promptly reverted. I appreciate a revert to an older version isn't a perfect solution, but right now the page is completely unusable. I don't want to get into a revert war with Gollomboje, so I'm posting here first. Can we get a consensus that the page needs to go to that earlier version, and then updated to reflect the latest information? --208.152.231.254 (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Removal of LTE Consortium external link

@ Oli Filth

Can you tell me why you consider the link to the LTE Consortium spam? Software simulation models enable users to design network equipment, ensure interoperability with existing technologies, develop efficient scheduling algorithms, etc. before they can go-to-market with it. The link I posted talks about a simulation model being developed for LTE.

I haven't reverted to the original version since I would like to hear your reasons.

Akshaygs (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed the link because it was to a page which contains very little actual information (literally one sentence that would actually be of interest to the typical reader of this article), and seems to be commercial in nature. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 20:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

So what's LTE?

What's "Long Term Evolution"? Why is this expression being used around these new technologies, new capacities, new communications? Is 4G expected to be so futureproof that it will be the standard for a long, long time? Is the development of 4G itself supposed to take a long, long time? What's the phrase "Long Term Evolution" supposed to communicate? THANKS --76.254.85.70 (talk) 04:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you asking because you want to know? Or are you asking because you think these questions should be answered in the article and are not?--TheBigZzz (talk) 15:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

As if there's a difference. BOTH, thank you. 76.254.85.70 (talk) 03:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, none of those questions are within the scope of the article. Wikipedia is not meant to be a forum for companies to market their products and tout the potential benefits or capabilities of their products, even if the companies and consortiums have no hand in the creation or maintenance of the articles. Why does any company or consortium name things the way they do. Long Term Evolution is a common-sense name, but they could have just as easily named it The Next Thing.

It's impossible to predict when someone will build a better mousetrap. Almost every element of electronic devices follows Moore's law to some extent, and wireless technology is really no different. While Moore's law specifies a doubling in capacity every 18 months, wireless technologies tend to grow in larger leaps and bounds over longer periods of time, but it averages out to 2x over 18 months. I am fairly convinced that in 10 years, 1 gigabit wireless connections will be possible where 100 megabits is possible with LTE. The last 30 years of computer development has taught us that nothing...nothing is futureproof.

--TheBigZzz (talk) 04:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

What's LTE? It's the next step in an ongoing standards development, in this case being planned both for the public telephone network and (in the US anyway) the public safety communications system, which is still largely 1950's analog FM. I wonder why we need a "future product" tag -- this is not a product, it's a developing standard that a number of stakeholders have signed on to (see references 2 and 3 that I added today).Altaphon (talk) 22:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I added future-product a while ago beacuse at that point, there was only talk by Verizon that they would roll out LTE in limited locations. Now it could be removed, since Verizon already has some LTE towers in use and has completed data and voice calls using the new standard. And, yes it is a standard, but I wasn't able to come up with a future-standard template so I used future-product.--TheBigZzz (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

"none of those questions are within the scope of the article" Oh, come on: those questions are about the meaning of the phrase which is the title of the article. That's somehow out of bounds? The article says what LTE is (refers to), but not what it means (other, less inscrutable phrases can refer to the same phenomenon). Again, the question was why that particular term is used, where it came from, etc. "Wikipedia is not meant to be a forum for companies to market their products" - oh, is that what it is? A marketing phrase? Why didn'[t you say so? Why doesn't the article identify it as such? "even if the companies and consortiums have no hand in the creation or maintenance of the articles" - fine, company flacks don't get to shill here, but whoever did create and does maintain the article shouldn't just ignore these questions saying "I didn't name it and I can't tell you what it means". If it's really not appropriate, re-name the article. If it's not inappropriate to keep the name, then don't argue against talking about the name in addition to talking about the phenomenon. Even if it's just to say "The term LTE originated in the marketing department(s) of (a) telecom compan(y|ies), specifically XYZ (and ABC)". --76.254.85.70 (talk) 11:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

After reading extensively about LTE from many different sources, I am no closer to a reason why 3GPP named this particular technology 'Long Term Evolution.' The truth is that I *cant* tell you what it means anymore than I can say what the name Verizon is supposed to mean, though I will point out that the meaning of the name could be inferred from the name itself. Unfortunately, a WP article is not a forum for speculation or opinion, only factual knowledge which is verifiable.

Now, because there is some built-in futureproofing within the LTE standard (i.e. support for 2x2 and 4x4 MIMO antenna configurations, thereby increasing bandwidth capabilities when the hardware can be made small enough to fit mobiles), one could infer that Long Term Evolution means that this is a standard that is meant to evolve over a long term, and not the relative short term of EVDO or HSDPA, but because I am only inferring (speculating), it can't be included in the article. The only answer to the question is that LTE's name originated from the 3rd Generation Partnership Project.TheBigZzz (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Cell Size

Optimal cell size of 5 km, 30 km sizes with reasonable performance, and up to 100 km cell sizes supported with acceptable performance

A cell size ought to be an area or perhaps volume yet these sizes are given in units of length. Perhaps each is a radius. DHR (talk) 20:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

a cell is generally round, therefore a radius should be enough..Igor Mortis (talk) 06:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Standard, not trademarked project name

I replaced the first sentence by the definition I found in the Motorola white paper. A telecommunications standard is not a trademarked project name. --Remind me never (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Link the EUTRAN part to the EUTRAN page

I think it would be sensible to link the "E-UTRAN Air Interface" part to the EUTRAN article and maybe just leave a short summary in this article. If any of the guys who is normally editing this page feels like it makes sense feel free to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crati (talk • contribs) 19:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC) => Done, the EUTRAN article contains all the physical layer details, and for this LTE article I think it didn't make to go into all the low level details. If you think is not correct feel free to comment it or revert. Crati (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup

Excellent article with lots of detail, due to the hard work of the previous contributors. Thanks! The details about what has been done and where are very intense and I think it would make the article much more readable to have either some timeline diagrams or maybe consolidating the examples a little bit. I think the reqdiagram and example-farm links may be helpful in encouraging others to add diagrams and/or make the timelines clearer. Hijklmno (talk) 10:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Current devices

I'm wondering whether the section "Current devices" is needed. I don't think that this article is the correct place to put specifications of devices. Also do we need to list all the LTE devices? We don't do that for other access technologies. Ffirmin (talk) 11:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, the section about power consumption is utter nonsense. "For example, 2G mobile phones were shipped out with one battery, whereas 3G ones are shipped out with two batteries." What the ffffff? The whole article needs a serious rethinking IMHO. We don't need a list of every technical demonstration performed nor do we need a list of mobile network operators that have adopted the system. 109.108.25.125 (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the two-batteries part. It's true that the power consumption section should be modified. As regards the current devices, maybe we can just explain that the first LTE devices were USB dongles (no mention to any brand/model). This is a fact which was discussed frequently within 3GPP: for instance, about the need to get voice/SMS from day 1 in Rel-8 if the devices are not "phones". We need to find some sources but that shouldn't be too difficult. Ffirmin (talk) 07:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• delete Wikipedia is not a sales guide. Anything not cited can be removed at any time without discussion. Also avoid dated words like "currently" or "latest" or "now". They quickly become out of date. Just say when things happened, usually using the past tense. W Nowicki (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Please, go ahead! Also, someone should move sections "Timelines", "Technology demonstrations", and "Carrier adoption" to a separate space. Increasing the signal-to-noise ratio. Nageh (talk) 22:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

LTE is not backwards compatible with 3G systems

Second paragraph. LTE is 3G. Was this meant to say 2G? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.79.79 (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

No, this was meant to say 3G. LTE is a "beyond 3G" technology but it doesn't meet the requirements of IMT Advanced of ITU (which were defined as 4G). It is therefore referred to as 3.9G. Maybe it would be clearer to say "not backwards compatible with earlier 3G systems".Ffirmin (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://wireless-watch.com/2008/04/06/nortel-and-lg-electronics-demo-lte-at-ctia-and-with-high-vehicle-speeds/
  • In E-UTRA on 2011-03-17 18:44:24, 404 Not Found
  • In 3GPP Long Term Evolution on 2011-06-19 07:10:59, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 07:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Carrier adoption section

I'm wondering if the section "Carrier adoption" is still needed since there is a list of LTE networks available on Wikipedia. Is it worth to maintain two lists? Any views? Ffirmin (talk) 14:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Relation between LTE and EPS

Very nice article! Question: Seems there is a redirection from term EPS to LTE but no explanation what is relation between these two. Are they perfect synonyms ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dixiecko (talk • contribs) 08:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, EPS is the complete system and LTE is the work item code that was used to specify the radio side. In practice though, LTE is often used for the entire system. I will add this clarification when I have time. Ffirmin (talk) 10:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Timelines

The three "Timelines" sections should be cleaned up. For instance, there are lots of non-standards-related facts in the 3GPP standard development section. I don't have much time right now, volunteers welcome! Ffirmin (talk) 06:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

File:LTE-CSFB-E-UTRAN-UTRAN-GERAN-Interfaces.svg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:LTE-CSFB-E-UTRAN-UTRAN-GERAN-Interfaces.svg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

4G or not 4G, that is the question...

Unless I'm completely mistaken, the page in question does not refer to a 4G technology. While it may indeed be incompatible with 2G and 3G, there are certain specifications described on the 4G page and also on the LTE Advanced page that necessitate certain capabilities that basic LTE does not have (LTE Advanced is in fact a 4G technology).

There was a great paragraph in the introduction a few months ago that explained this confusion nicely. Could it be reinstated?

The current generation of mobile telecommunication networks are collectively known as 3G (for "third generation"). Although LTE is often marketed as 4G, first-release LTE does not fully comply with the IMT Advanced 4G requirements. The pre-4G standard is a step toward LTE Advanced, a 4th generation (4G)[3] standard of radio technologies designed to increase the capacity and speed of mobile telephone networks. LTE Advanced is backwards compatible with LTE and uses the same frequency bands, while LTE is not backwards compatible with 3G systems.

Calumbus (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I definitely see your point that LTE is not a true 4G technology. The reason why that paragraph was removed is that it's (for the most part) not about LTE but is instead about what is and is not 4G. I'll insert something that briefly states how LTE release 8 is not 4G. --Mblumber (talk) 04:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I hear LTE sometimes referred to as "3G transitional". Anyway, I agree it is definitely not 4G, no matter how it is marketed. --Muhandes (talk) 09:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

4G is a marketing term.

Read it again: it's a marketing term. Is LTE 4G? That's a fuzzy question. You might just as well ask whether D-AMPS is 2G.

There is no official definition of "4G". The ITU doesn't specify one. Nor does ETSI, the 3GPP, or any other telecommunications standardization bodies.

When T-Mobile in the US started advertising their network as being "4G", there was much gnashing of teeth, and the Very Serious People demanded the ITU smack them down. Not only did the ITU not smack them down, they said it was OK by them.

What the ITU has defined is a standard set of requirements called IMT-Advanced. It's second generation of ITU standards in this arena, and follows IMT. In terms of "generations", well, think about it. If the ITU has only specified two then that means... (well, it means GSM would be "pre-historic", UMTS would be "1G", and LTE Advanced "2G".)

In practical terms: 1G referred to the original analog wireless phones with transparent handover. 2G refers to digital versions thereof. 3G was a combination of broadband Internet and circuit switched voice, a marketing term that happened to overlap with the IMT requirements. 4G... 4G is only IMT Advanced if (a) your numbering system starts at 3, AND (b) you have no problem with the fact that only one of the prior generations had an ITU spec.

98.254.202.225 (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

This is not quite true. 3GPP does refer to LTE Advanced as a 4G technology. In other words, it equates IMT-Advanced with 4G. So it is not just a marketing term. Nageh (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't follow. 3GPP may refer to LTE Advanced as "4G", that doesn't change the fact it's marketing. T-Mobile, AT&T, Verizon, and others all refer to non-IMT Advanced technologies as 4G. 4G has no specific meaning, beyond "Generation after 3G". It's demonstrably a marketing term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.254.202.225 (talk) 15:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't help you if you are not even reading the reference I added to the paragraph in the article. 3GPP is the technical body for the mobile standard LTE and not just a marketing organization, and 3GPP does refer to LTE Release 10 and beyond, fulfilling the IMT-Advanced requirements, as a 4G technology. Nageh (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2