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)