This is an archive of past discussions about List of 5G NR networks. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Please do not make a list containing only one item--it is very likely to be nominated for deltion. If there are more to add, add them as soon as you can. DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi,
Just wanted to ask... why are we keeping the additional bands used for 5G deploment out of the main table, into a secondary table? (n7, n41, n71) These are officially certified bands to use for deployment by 3GPP (see 5G NR frequency bands and the sources therein) ~ Dogojosho (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi. This is, because it would unnecessarily bloat up formatting. Yet I see no reason to extend the table as there are still very few deployments on these bands and there is also no indication which bands will definitely see deployments. This is the same approach as on the 4G network lists. If enough deployments appear for a certain band, it makes sense to add a new column in the main table. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Some primary/secondary band destinations are arbitary. Some frequencies in the main table are alsp not that much used for now yet
Many frequencies will ultimately be used, you just need to look at frequency auction around the world to know that. Changing the table back at that time when sufficient operators started deploying different bands will be more difficult than doing it now.
This separate table format will make it difficult for users to compare information and data, and uaers could get false impression from ot. Like when user scroll down to the first table and see Switzerland there with only one operator, they might have an impression that Switzerland only have one 5G pperator, and omitted the second operator in the second table. Like wise, if the user scroll down to the United States section of the table, they might then leave concluding that there are only mmWave deployment in the United States while in fact it is not.
And what do you mean by saying "The alternative formatting also removes the launch date for each band which is not useful."? From what I see both table formats contain this information.
This table lists networks that have been officially announced to be in commercial service. Here it does not matter whether the deployment is widespread or only local.
Frequency auctions around the, are often called "5G auctions". This is misleading in the way that these frequencies are commonly licensed as technology neutral nowadays. That means that although several bands are beeing auctioned not every band may directly used for 5G short-/mid- or long term. The 3GPP standardisation group that works out and revises new mobile standards usually defines a many frequency bands for use with a certain mobile standard. If you look at the 4G/LTE standard you will see what I mean by that. Although there are about 70 bands specified, only 30 have seen deployments and thereof are only 9 "main" bands with widespread deployments around the globe - and this is altough many devices support quite many of the specified frequencies. At least for the next years we will very likely see a similar uptake for 5G concerning bands. Realizing this from a few years on maintaining the 4G lists on wikipedia, I strongly assume that the present approach for the table formatting is indeed useful and reduces later restructuring work a lot as new major bands come into use.
The second table was a temporary solution as necessary information on deployments listed there are missing. Also there are a few operators that claim 4G LTE-A Pro networks to be "5G". Here one has to be careful. Anyway this table is not meant to be permanent it's present form. Apart from that I dont really see the point that these deployments may not noticed when reading the article. If users tend to only read the upper part of a list or article, I nor anybody else can help it.
The information to have launch dates for not only the initial deployment, but also for bands that have come into use at a later point of time should be preserved. Therefore keeping only the previous, is a loss of useful information.
I am not questioning the inclusion criteria. I am asking about the difference between a band at first table and a band at second table.
"Technology neutral" auction is common but it is not always the case, and just in those cases there are already enough different bands to make such table format unsustainable. Many times carriers have also indicated their intention to build 5G network at those other frequency bands. And 5G will use far more bands than 4G. When standardization organization make 4G, what they wanted to achieve was simplify frequency bands around the world. Now when they are making 5G, what they want is to use as much frequency bands as possible.
A user might not read only the upper part of the list but they might only read one country for the list. Who would expect separated instance for a country or a carrier? As for not meant to be permanent, how will you fix it?
The alternative table format would not lose the information of deployment date of individual bands.
I share some of the concerns expressed by both C933103 and Nightwalker-87, but do not think that the proposed solutions are quite satisfactory. Rather, what if instead of bands broader categories were used, such as low, mid, high and mm band ranges, with the specific band specified inside the cell? Ebahapo (talk)
Please, see rev. 899268880 for a sample of this proposal.
I see and now understand. The point is that I've not done or taken care of the current formatting in the second table as it remains to be a temporary construct somehow, so the formatting there is nothing I've ever seen in comparison to the upper table...
I think it is a bit to early to asses on this, as there are always a lot of intentions expressed by various operators. A good example is the 1500 MHz band (L-band). There was a lot of promotion to it of becoming a global SDL band, quite a few devices do support it by now and still there are only very very few deployments - even though the band has been harmonised by CEPT and ITU. So I'd consider for now to introduce a solution that represents the commonly used bands with some single addional bands to remain separate as long as they don't see any common uptake. This design would then still remain scalable and modifiable midterm without greater changes.
Well quite some of the listings in the second table will move to the main table anyway as soon as furte ifo on these is available. So ideally the second table will anyway decrease step by step. This is also a reason why I have not spent much efforts on its formatting up to now.
This is correct, the date moved to the side, as I now realised. Though I believe it decreases it's notability somehow, maybe also because of the missing background colouring.
Thanks, it is good to have the alternate version here as the discussion continues.
Thank you for your responses to my question. I will say this; yes I agree adding every band in 5G NR frequency bands would cause way too much bloating, and some of the smaller scale carrier announcements of certain bands could definitely be unused, however in the case of bigger carriers where said announced bands are one of the only usable spectrum licenses usable for 5G, shouldn't these be included as there is almost no chance these bands will not be used? (More specifically talking about the US where T-Mobile US and Sprint have both laid out drastic plans for 5G in n41 and n71, see sources on main page to see this. Also T-Mobile and Sprint both have extremely large amounts of spectrum in these bands.)
As mentioned before, I still don't believe that we would have all bands 5G NR frequency bands in this table in the near future. I assume that it will turn out to something like this List of LTE networks in Europe concerning size and layout - just to give another impression to what the current layout will likely turn out to. Concerning T-Mobile and Sprint: Yes, there will be deployments, but for now only in the US. When looking at 4G/LTE we found that the US have a faible for neglecting global frequency harmonisation efforts. Pointing at this, I would predict that we don't see much uptake anywhere else for these specific bands. For 2500 MHz we had China and Japan as big mobile markets backing this spectrum for deployments, but apart from a test license in China for 5G in this range, the momentum in these countries has also shifted to the 3500/3700 MHz or even higher mid-range frequencies for 5G. So maybe it is still too early to highlight the upcoming US deployments here. I have always found it to be a good approach and practise to distinguish global deployments in main bands from frequency bands only used locally with respect to a better overview. Table sorting alone would clearly not do the trick, because it mixes through all other columns again. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 09:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Then again, the assumption is incorrect, because when 4G LTE was created and carriers started getting frequency band, they were still working primarily based on the market demand from the feature phone era, where commonality across regions was still the main target (The special frequency band allocation in 4G era for America and Japan was also based on such a concept in mind which at the time they wished to harmonize them in long term future). However, in the modern era of 5G introduction the entire situation have changed and now carriers are going to get every frequency bands available. (Like even in 4G we are starting to talk about carrier aggregation to put multiple different LTE band together to provide better experience in the past few years) Just for your information that as an example of my city, they are even talking about how the city should be segregated into different area for different carriers to operate different frequency bands considering frequency band usage restrictions. The limited amount of frequency band mindset is not going to applies for 5G anymore. C933103 (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Hm, to me that is not selective enough for having columns at all, as there are only 2 (and some time later 3) frequency ranges. Also this layout would leave a lot of horizontal page space unused/underused... Nightwalker-87 (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
@Nightwalker-87:, Perhaps the information on the band, BW and date could be spread across sub columns, yes? At least it would use a common category by the 3GPP and avoid arbitrary choices of bands. Ebahapo (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Please think about the table layout when individual carrier could have up to like five or six frequency band within FR1. C933103 (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
To me this covers too much space in width, especially if FR3 comes into use later. Therefore I would not group per FR at all, also this is already done in 5G NR frequency bands, where this info actually belongs. Why should this be repeated? Nightwalker-87 (talk) 07:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@Nightwalker-87: The point is accommodating all frequencies in one table, instead of just the more common ones. Only one column could be used, but it's just convenient to use the existing ranges. Besides, it scales better than the current format.
I know what the point is, but I can't agree on that latest proposal due to the already mentioned arguments above which still seem reasonable to me. It would be helpful here to hear more opinions (best is: more than less) from other editors on this to help find a concensus which does not rely on statements of only a few. After further options have been heard a pro/con list should faciliate to reach common sense. So I'll jump back into this topic as soon as there is more progress to this discussion. P.S. @Ebahapo: Please don't use the ping-tag all the time, I am notified of changes anyway. This is not a good practise. Some people might feel annoyed by this. - The topic above has no special importance and there is no race in time, so give it the time necessary in the sense of a good wiki practise. ;-) Nightwalker-87 (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree that more ideas by other editors would be very helpful in finding the best way to present this information. In the meantime, I floated this other proposal adding an additional column for other bands: 901446870. PS: I assumed that pinging was acceptable, as it's been used in this thread. My apologies for this misunderstanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebahapo (talk • contribs) 22:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, I think the latter could be at least a good temporary solution as long as the current deployment remains focussed on only a few bands. For now it might be the best way to get rid of the second table below without changing the whole layout. By the way, the info on the Sunrise deployments in the temporary table is wrong. I have found additional info on that to refer to which I'll add soon. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 10:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
No, they are using 1800 MHz SUL (band n80) on the cell edges in combination with their 3500 MHz (band n78) spectrum. In the centre of the TDD cell coverage DL & UL both run @3500 MHz. This is a clever combination, as it does not affect 4G/LTE DL-capacity. Very likely that this will be adopted by other carriers as well. I haven't found out anything about the 700 MHz range yet though, but there will be info on that somewhere as well I presume. Sunrise does not hold any spectrum in B38, the 45 MHz there are licensed to Swisscom. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 18:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Here is some additional info on the technology used for 5G deployments by Huawei: [[1]] (unfortunately only available in German). The technique is called "5G Decoupling". Nightwalker-87 (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Pretty clever indeed. But, if I understand it correctly, in this test the UL is via LTE on B3. So is Sunrise using the UL on B3 or on n80? ebahapo (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
n80 is a band that has been specified by 3GPP especially for use as supplemental uplink and exclusively for 5G, while band n3 is the "normal" LTE B3 consisting of UL & DL. Both can be in use at the same time: B3 for 4G and band n80 simultaneously for 5G UL, as far as I could find out. The reason is that LTE leaves a lot of UL capacity unused in normal operation, so the 5G SUL fills this spare capacity, while at the same time also increasing the cell range for 5G NR, which reduces the amount of necessary basestations and therewith also deployment costs. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but the presentation stated LTE in the UL, not NR, this is B3 and not n80 was used in that test, yes? ebahapo (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
It is to believe that this representation on the slide is not 100% correct from the specs side, but used to explain the decoupling principle to the audience in the form of "5G NR SUL @1800 = 4G B3 UL". This appears to be wrong as it only denotes the same spectrum range. SUL has never been specified for the use with 4G as far as I am aware of. In the 4G specs there is also no band B80 (without NR) due to this reason. In general all n-band numbers n# apply to NR - that is what the "n" stands for in the specification. See also: http://niviuk.free.fr/nr_band.php Unfortunately there is no other source available to illustrate this as of today. Anyhow it is good to have at least one reference, otherwise nobody could even verify that 5G Decoupling is in use. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I've read that the NR deployment @n78 (3500 MHz) is capable of supplying up to 2 Gbit/s per device (obviously by using 64x64 MU-MIMO equipment).
Besides that so called "5G devices" are able to archive 1 Gbit/s where the new radio technology above is not available. This raises thoughts and also concerns that the latter really is "5G" technology, but instead a LTE-A Pro REBRANDING. The substantiation is as follows:
700MHz SDL (B67): BW=10 MHz with 2x2 MIMO & 256 QAM --> 100,4 Mbit/s
800MHz (B20): BW=10 MHz with 2x2 MIMO & 256 QAM --> 100,4 Mbit/s
1800MHz (B3): BW=20 MHz with 4x4 MIMO & 256 QAM --> 402 Mbit/s
2600MHz (B7): BW=20 MHz with 4x4 MIMO & 256 QAM --> 402 Mbit/s
theoretically results in 1004,8 Mbit ~ 1 Gbit/s, declared as "5G-speed".
This is a typical LTE-A Pro deployment. The only thing which is "new" here, is that the so called "5G device" has to support B67, BUT B67 is a 4G frequency band and has not been specified for 5G NR (yet). Due to this fact this can not be a 5G deployment itself. Only the NR part 3500 MHz in combination with Supplemental Uplink (SUL) @1800 MHz would count as a 5G deployment when taking into account the 3GPP specs. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 22:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Table formatting
Methinks that micro managing the formatting by using line breaks in the middle of sentences results in poor results in small screens. Myself favor letting the browser decided how to best break up sentences when laying out tables. What do y'all think? ebahapo (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Second guessing the text formatting by inserting line breaks wreaks havoc in table formatting. For example, this row is taller than it has to be. Rendered textebahapo (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Info about infrastructures provider(s)
Good afternoon everybody,
I do have a question: could the information about the infrastructures used by each operator/carrier be relevant or useful ? Thank you in advance for your replies. --BOSS.mattia (talk) 13:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi BOSS.mattia. Thank you very much for opening a topic here. ;-) I am not so sure if this is a noteworthy information (WP:NOTE) for this list as this infomation is largely irrelevant for the devices in use on the network. Besides that it may also be subject to change over time rather than the deployments themselves. Some operators use equipment of several network suppliers, some even in different regions of a country. It would be almost impossible to cover that properly. Another point that comes to my mind is that it would be difficult to gain wider coverage for this info as many operators don't communicate this information open to the public. We currently already face some problems in finding out about technical upgrades (deployed network categories) that have taken place in some networks without any further notice. It would be more desireable to keep up with that being a relevant information... :-/ Nightwalker-87 (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
DSS Column
Removing the sorting for the DSS column (as changed today) doesn't provide any value, but removes value. sorting the column makes sense for example to list all Networks with DSS (which after the fix to sorting-datatype text iorked fine). I suggest to re-add the sorting parameter.--RScheiber (talk) 18:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree that finding the networks that sport DSS through sorting is helpful, but sorting alphabetically is confusing. However, carriers will add more DSS bands, when sorting in a more meaningful way is more difficult. For the same reason, @Nightwalker-87:, this column should maintain the same formatting as the Other Bands column in order to accommodate several bands per table cell. ebahapo (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
No, I still oppose to use the same formatting as in the "Other Bands", this counteracts any efforts to keep the table compact which is also desirable for use on mobile devices. However I agree with @RScheiber: to introduce a way to sort this column. The latter should not sort per band, but per availability of DSS in general (column-field filled or not). Nightwalker-87 (talk) 13:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Mobile devices are typically used in portrait mode, so they have more vertical real estate than horizontal. Therefore, the current formatting is harder to read on mobile devices than the "Other Bands" column. However, I agree that sorting this column by being filled in or not is a good idea.
1. Regarding sorting: If alphabetically sorting is not what seems best then there is the option to add a sortkey via Template:sort to the Data entry. For example we could add "DSS" as a key to each entry with DSS (or any other meaningful value like the number of frequency bands used for DSS).
|{{sort|DSS|n123 bla bla bla}}
That would avoid the sorting by the (first) freqeuency band stated in the cell.
2. Regarding formatting: I get the point of the cells-in-cells formatting of the "Other" Column, but i don't find it has .. particularly good user experience ;) So i would not recommend it to be format pasted onto the DSS column.--RScheiber (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
So looking at this a good solution could be to go with the {sort|DSS|<listed DSS bands per operator in small font size>} and try to avoid the box in box formatting. I have been considering the current formatting in the column "other bands" as a temporary solution anyway. However I would leave the latter present for now until further 5G-only bands have become common, as I don't expect it to be populated on a larger scale. We may find a suitable solution for that at a later point in time. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
I added some sort of sorting to this column. However, I wonder if this information should actually be moved to the Other Bands column with a footnote. ebahapo (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't think there's a quickfix for the latter, my perspective would be to either make either n260 or n71 its own column - both have more than one entry in Others, and there are only two providers with 2 "Others" networks. But a) i'm not sure about your view and b) that would just open a - probably lengthy - discussion of which networks to include as separate columns - currently it's inconsistent, with n40 having a column but only one entry and several others with more than one entry but without Column - n71:3, n38:2, n40:2, n77:2, n258:2, n260:2 - and once we discuss columns we'll discuss display on mobile phones - which is broken anyhow for most wikipedia tables)
User:Ebahapo's questioning of where to put the DSS info: For people in the industry like me its super interesting, on the other hand from an encyclopedic point of view it might be the wrong level of detail. But also here i'd vote for keeping the current structure until we come up with something clearly better, which might not be today. --RScheiber (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
@RScheiber: To give you a short idea on why some bands have own columns and some haven't: The principal idea of it was to have columns for TDD-bands that will likely see larger scale deployments, as this spectrum is already widely allocated in some regions. The market trend seems to be that initial deployments mostly start on n78 (3500 MHz) with additional TDD capacity layers in midband-spectrum like n41 (2600 MHz) and n40 (2300 MHz). Additionally DSS will come into use for FDD on low(er)-band spectrum to provide coverage layers in a 4G/5G dual-use scenario. This appears to be the most efficient way to make use of existing spectrum (TDD is also more efficient on higher frequencies). Though I have no idea by now if this will also pave the way for a re-allocation of b7/b38 bandplans to n41 (TDD-only) allocations in the future. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
I changed sorting of the DSS column from numeric to alpha with Level of Service (Commercial, etc.) as primary sorting criterion. Please provide feedback if this makes sense. The numeric sorting not only had less level of detail but also might be more error prone. --RScheiber (talk) 16:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
CA / DC
What do you think of adding Info in regard to Carrier Aggregation / Dual Connectivity (with LTE) ? To muvch info ? Would there be sufficient input data ? --RScheiber (talk) 10:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
We should follow WP:NOT and WP:TOOMUCH. The amount of detail in List of LTE networks in Asia, List of LTE networks in Europe, etc. is already quite edgy IMHO. We can not help it that mobile standards become more and more complex and detailed as they evolve. At some point in time we need to realise that we can't keep up with such level of detail. This progress also leads to less and less technical details published by operators that can be referred to. To me it would be not satisfiable to see a rarely populated list in the end with lots of question marks due to missing information. Besides that it appears quite challenging to densify information in such a way to keep tables compact and recognisable at the same time. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
The test results confirmed that 5G SA is now available commercially for AIS Thailand.
Here
The service was available since 8 July as the news stated.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.183.46.62 (talk) 03:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
This is not a verifiable public secondary source such as a newspaper article, tech review, telecoms news database, etc. More specifically the latter need to provide the technical details that are necessary to identify the technical configuration and distinguish commercial services from network trials or test-sites. Therefore this does NOT comply with WP:VER and WP:RS. As this appears to be in conflict with several wiki contribution guidelines the content under dispute should not be added until additional research is done and further secondary sources become available. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 07:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
There are several public secondary sources (local newspapers), however, it's not in English, but the local language. Is it still fine to use those? Here's some of those.
Despite looking like ads, they actually announced 5G SA to be available on 8th July with the sales of Huawei P40 Pro to go along with the improved network. However, seems like local news have no idea about 5G SA and there's no international newspaper covers the news.
One may wonder why no professional research database or consultancies like CommsUpdate, Halberd Bastion Pty Ltd or MobileWorld Live report about it. There is likely a reason to it, as they are usually up to date and have proven as quite reliable sources. The provided source more or less copy paste the operators advertising or use it as a primary source which looks strange to me somehow. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 20:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Not available anywhere on the Big Island of Hawaii, via any brand. Can someone add that to the chart?
5G is not available anywhere on the Big Island of Hawaii (aka County of Hawaii). Citation: [5]. I was going to add this information to all of the brands in the U.S. on the chart, but the chart is a bit hard to edit what with all the boxes and codes. Could someone add it to all six of those fields for me? Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 08:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
All major carriers provide 5G coverage in all of Hawaii using frequencies below 6 GHz, the same ones used by previous generations of mobile phones. ebahapo (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Then is that technically 5G NR, if the access is simply to previous-level frequencies? On the Island of Hawaii, aka the Big Island, aka the County of Hawaii, per the source July 23, 2020 source [6]:
The Hawaii County Council resolved Wednesday to forestall any development of 5G infrastructure on the Big Island ... [T]he council voted 8-1 to approve a resolution calling for “telecommunication companies and public utilities operating in Hawaii County” to halt any 5G development until independent research and testing concludes it is safe for humans.
The arbitrary insertion of line breaks, in an attempt to manage how the content is rendered to the user, is a futile exercise that does not work well on all screen sizes. All such line breaks, except when they organize the information logically, should be removed in order to improve rendering in general and minimize the maintenance effort. ebahapo (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
They are, if too many cites make it difficult to overview - not only for reading, but even more for editing during maintenance, that's why they are grouped by five - if that is what you mean. Note that there are editors who fancy not to rely on tools like visual editing due to their limited set of functionalities. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
In this way one can preserve the obviously compact layout for this column holding various band entries in single fields to make it more readable. However as this does not apply to the other columns the width is not limited there, which does seem to make sense indeed from this point of view. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
I tried removing it and experimented with several browser fonts and screen sizes using the editor preview and the column remained compact. Methinks that the use of line breaks and small text achieves this goal without this attribute, making it unnecessary. ebahapo (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
If anything, it helps keeping the band and the bandwidth in the same line. However, that would be better accomplished by adding a non breaking space between them. ebahapo (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't mind on which technical way we may achieve this, but I'd prefer the one that adds the least additional characters to the page in order to keep the formatting overhead most compact. However before one continues to take action here, it would be nice if we could put that on hold for a short while so that I can continue to work up some maintenance tasks. I'll give a short feedback here as soon this is completed. Thanks. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 13:00, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
However, in the process, you removed the references to auction results which provided the evidence for unreleased spectrum. ebahapo (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Not always. In some cases, like Brazil and Canada, I found that it's wrong or out of date and that the auction results are better references then. ebahapo (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Taking a closer look underlines your argumentation. In such cases it indeed appears reasonable to proceed like this. However we may remove such additional references if the main source is updated or corrected. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
I think we shouldn't set the reference by country because this would introduce significantly more cites and thus increase the memory footprint (kB) of this page for no reason and value. Instead one may think about merging the three present spectrum monitoring sources into one to reflect the mentioned change. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Since there are only four operators included in the table that have either deployed or have spectrum holdings in the n40 band, should this information be moved to the "others" column to reduce clutter? Joshua Shah (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Looking at 5G evolution in Asia and LatAm especially, it should be kept, as ths band has already been allocated there not only for 4G but also for 5G deployments. It is expected to come into use e.g. in South Korea, Sri Lanka, India, Brazil and a few other countries. It is also one of the 5G core bands, as mentioned here ([[7]]). Thus we should avoid to remove and later re-add this column against this background. There is not much to win, but additional work. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
However true, n40 is mostly still being set for auction over the next months and shouldn't be widely deployed for at least a couple of years. On the other hand, where n28 has been just auctioned or slated for auction, it's mostly intended for 5G. As the table shows, it actually has far more single connectivity 5G deployments than n40 will have for many months. If anything, rather than removing the column for n28, it should replace the one for n40 to reflect the actual situation, rather than forecast. ebahapo (talk) 02:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Maybe in Europe but in other parts of the world n28 has been used for LTE for many years and the majority of future 5G deployments within this band would most likely be deployed using DSS as we are seeing now so it is better to not include the column to prevent confusion. Joshua Shah (talk) 22:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I can confirm, the observations by Joshua Shah. Even in Europe some operators decide to use DSS though the spectrum was commonly intended for and referred to as a 5G coverage band. As issued licenses are now no longer linked to a single technology. Operators are free to decide and thus aspects like coverage obligations and network capacity reflecting the current device ecosystem appear to be stronger arguments for DSS deployments. As mentioned before, I also share the point on possible confusion, especially if FDD bands are highlighted by separate columns. One may also compare this to the issue with CA-combinations and bands we've seen at 4G networks - these are so diverse that we wouldn't want to reflect that in a table and as we have learned from 4G deployment listings as well, splitting up into several tables does not really help in such a case, but does introduce even more issues. This is always the case if things become too detailled and granular. We should keep an eye on WP:DIRECTORY as well and strive for a good compromise between coverage, maintenance affort and completeness (otherwise spent efforts become useless). Nightwalker-87 (talk) 10:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Since there is no page for planned NR networks yet, would it make sense to record auction results as unused or non active spectrum of the respective winning bidders? If so, it would make it easier to edit the entries when they are released. If not, would it be nigh time to create such a page? Would such a page still make sense? ebahapo (talk) 22:26, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
I believe it is neither necessary, nor compliant with WP:NOT (more precisely WP:CRYSTAL), well knowing that there is an equivalent page for LTE networks (I created it.). However the same actually applies to the latter; so apparently it is there now and we likely leave it declining in content over time. Against this background we should not take the same steps a second time. The sole compromise I see would be to continue listing unused spectrum holdings for operators that already offer commercial services in List of 5G NR networks. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Early on, many carriers were listed for merely turning a 5G NR radio somewhere at some time. Methinks that pre commercial operations are when a carrier makes the RAN available for at least some of its regular customers. Should it include trials? If not, should the list be sanitized of them? ebahapo (talk) 02:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
As far as I am aware of, we intended to distinguish tests/trials under laboratory conditions and on single base-stations from field trials covering larger metropolitan or regional areas and/or wider parts thereof including public accessibility by customers with commercial available devices. This rules out modified devices (firmware or hardware) handed out to selected customers for testing purposes. However I do well know that this information is not always present or available, but my feeling is also that this sense and intention did mostly work out well throughout various contributions by several authors since this article was created. How do you think about it? Nightwalker-87 (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, but I came across cases here and there where temporary or single antenna trials ended up in the list. Over the next few days I'll comb the list for such cases and edit them out when I find them. ebahapo (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Apropos, Optus launched an SA trial open to retail customers. [9] Methinks that it qualifies as a pre commercial deployment, yes? ebahapo (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I saw that you removed Dish but I saw that they have started beta testing in Las Vegas last month so should we add them back or leave it for the time being?
I have the impression that this so called beta test is not unlike the previous trial. Before, customers had to sign up and wait to be selected and, since the sign up website is still up, it seems to still be the case. However, other pre commercial deployments typically allow users with a capable phone to connect to the 5G network seamlessly, albeit in limited areas. Therefore, I'm inclined to wait until there's more information available or Boost customers can connect if they happen to be in the area. ebahapo (talk) 03:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Currently, of the 51 deployments in n28, only 8 are using DSS. The remaining 43 deployments are for, or are earmarked for, NR. Would n28 deserve an additional column of its own? ebahapo (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Well, as a matter of fact it may now appear more reasonable to do so, compared to the result of the previous discussion on this topic. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Teletalk Bangladesh Limited launched 5G NR service
Teletalk Bangladesh launched 5G NR service in Bangladesh on 12.12.2021. Teletalk started it's 5G NR service on 3.5 GHz band. Please update this authentic info at your earliest. Bangla Sky (talk) 08:47, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
As far as I can tell from several sources, it is a trial not open to the public. Since this page captures only commercial or pre-commercial deployments, understood as open to the public, even if in a restrict area. [10]. If you have sources that state that the general public can access TeleTalk's 5G network, please, let us know. ebahapo (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Pre commercial SA
Should existing deployments gain the SA colors when there is only NSA commercial operations and SA operations are still pre commercial? ebahapo (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
The network information for Malaysia is inaccurate. I made the correction but it was reverted.
In Malaysia, the government is forcing a SWN (Single Wholesale Network) model for 5G. The ownership of the 5G spectrum was granted to DNB which is a government-linked company (GLC). Yes and UniFi are leasing 5G bandwidth off DNB.[1] Naturally, the other telcos (and general citizen, who are fed up with monopolies and corruption) are opposed to this and demand a switch to either a consortium-based model or a dual wholesale network (DWN) model, correctly stating that countries like Mexico had tried implementing SWN and failed. RAM (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Since there is no page for planned NR networks yet, would it make sense to record auction results as unused or non active spectrum of the respective winning bidders? If so, it would make it easier to edit the entries when they are released. If not, would it be nigh time to create such a page? Would such a page still make sense? ebahapo (talk) 22:26, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
I believe it is neither necessary, nor compliant with WP:NOT (more precisely WP:CRYSTAL), well knowing that there is an equivalent page for LTE networks (I created it.). However the same actually applies to the latter; so apparently it is there now and we likely leave it declining in content over time. Against this background we should not take the same steps a second time. The sole compromise I see would be to continue listing unused spectrum holdings for operators that already offer commercial services in List of 5G NR networks. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Kindly follow the correct formation while making an edit (the one used in this article) i.e {{cite web |url= |title= |publisher= |date=dd-mm-yyyy |access-date=dd-mm-yyyy
If it's something you're unable to handle then use talk page to discuss about the change you wanna make Akshadev (talk) 16:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Then I'd prefer everyone to use talk page who is full of ideas. Nightwalker-87 will make sure to consider everyone's suggestions. :) Akshadev (talk) 02:14, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
I already thought that the Visual Editor might be the actual cause here. As long as the information matches correctly to the source-tags, I'm totally fine with fixing the formatting every once in a while. However, of course help is always appreciated. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 11:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Pray, tell, why bother with the reference formatting? As long as the typical fields on this article are used correctly, why should their order matter, especially when the Visual Editor uses its own conventions? Could this be too much trouble for something that's not visible except to editors, whose time is better used in contributing to the content of this article? ebahapo (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
But in my opinion, It would be better if people share the information here in the talk page first rather than making any changes in the article all by themselves. It would be way more easier for you to review them and then add them (depends on the information/suggestion is correct or not). Fixing the formatting every single time doesn't sound good to me at all. By the way this whole thing was just a suggestion as well. It's all up to you. Akshadev (talk) 05:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
As long as this list is frequently maintained and several authors keep an eye on it, we should be fine. It is good to see that there are several interested editors that help to improve. Most edits in the recent weeks and months were indeed very helpful, especially regarding content. This is more valuable, than the need for some minor fixes every once in a while. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 17:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
If a successful network trial is not a pre-commercial service then what is the definition of a pre-commercial service? Akshadev (talk) 03:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
From my understanding a pre-commercial service would be a limited availability of a new service to a certain, well defined (by the respective operator), group of users with commercial available hardware. This group could either be business customers, users with premium contracts, or residential users with fixed wireless access (FWA). Also network coverage is not limited to single base stations, but available at least in a wider area, like a metro centre, district, a whole region or several non-connected areas in a country or territory.
This is in contrast to a trial-service in which an operator would either equip a small user group with specially modified hardware to test new technologies or a limited, (pre-defined) timespan and as well in a strictly limited area, covered only by one or a few single cell sites and/or uses test-frequencies with no official license granted.
One may be aware of that there may be occurrences where it could be more difficult to apply this definition (such cases should be discussed on the talk page of the network list), but for most cases this appears to be a reasonable distinction. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 11:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Well I'm not sure that I get 100% of all of that complicated explanation but still it's helpful (for real). Thanks for your precious time. Akshadev (talk) 03:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Three various examples based on existing sources:
Tele2 Kazakhstan --> Test frequencies, limited area --> pre-commercial
Telekom Germany --> third source: "in main [...] cities" --> several non-connected areas --> commercial service
AT&T Mexico --> second source: "launches 5G", "has announced that it has activated 5G technology" --> official public announcement by the operator --> can be assumed to be a commercial service by the time of the announcement
As you can see, it is not always precisely declared as "commercial" "trial-service" "field-test" or whatever, but classifying the respectiv case in the sense of the above turned out helpfully (at least for me). One may check existing entries in the list sometime, but as to my knowledge this should fit for the most. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 16:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Which 5G band is Vodacom (TZ) using for their commercial 5G services? Please have a look and update the data if you find something Akshadev (talk) 07:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't have a direct source for this, but as they state to offer 400 Mbit/s, with 800 MBit/s soon and a perspective up to 1 Gbit/s one may assume that they use their spectrum holding at 2300 MHz to achieve this without CA (which is obviously the case). (See also: https://www.spectrummonitoring.com/frequencies.php/frequencies.php?market=TZA) This would be a comparable scenario to Telefonica/O2 Germany when looking at the possible spectrum efficiency in form of bandwidth to throughput ratio. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 11:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Macau's Spectrum chart
Nightwalker-87
Would you have a look on 'Global Spectrum Chart Macau' because the existing data (in this article) doesn't match with that chart's data, and sorry to bother you Akshadev (talk) 06:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
In this case the Spectrum Monitoring Chart for Macau seems to be out of date, when looking at the other references already available. However, I agree that there is no source for the used frequency band and the bandwidth of 100 MHz (yet). Nightwalker-87 (talk) 10:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions about List of 5G NR networks. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
