Talk:LTE (telecommunication)/Archive 2

Cleanup

Thanks for the cleanup, guys! Nageh (talk) 11:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Need third person to revert/comment -- edit warring by User:89.150.149.210

I am really tired of continuously reverting the same edits by User:89.150.149.210. Once more, as I have already explained on the IP's talk page: The change is neither necessary nor helpful nor even correct in its formulation, stating that there are "the two" Scandinavian capitals when there are three. It is also a violation of WP:UNDUE. There is no need to specifically point out that Oslo and Stockholm are Scandinavian capital cities of Norway and Sweden, nor is it necessary or helpful to explain that these are two Scandinavian capital cities. The article already says in its previous revision that "[LTE was] launched by TeliaSonera in the Scandinavian capitals Oslo and Stockholm", which is more than enough.

Can someone else watching this article please revert the last edit by the IP? Thanks! Nageh (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Nageh, just letting you know that I declined your third opinion request. 3O is meant for resolving editor disputes that have come to a standstill; particularly, we require prior discussion of the issue at hand, of which there appears to be none here. WP:AN/3RR might be a better venue for preventing edit wars if you can't get the IP to discuss his changes. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

RTT without distance

"The LTE specification provides downlink peak rates of 300 Mbit/s, uplink peak rates of 75 Mbit/s and QoS provisions permitting round-trip times of less than 10 ms."

I beat 10ms easily when I ping localhost. Extremely useless number without the distance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.194.235.99 (talk) 05:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Should probably be taken as meaning the inherent latency in the radio/packet switching layer, to the operator's IP network. I've seen actual ping times (as measured by speedtest.net to a server "fairly near" to the end user) at 36 ms for DC-HSPA+ and 24 ms for LTE (at lowest). 212.149.217.191 (talk) 23:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The result of the proposal was move to LTE declined, without prejudice against moving to Long Term Evolution. Deryck C. 22:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

3GPP Long Term Evolution → LTE – I propose that the article be moved to the name LTE. Rationale:

1) Like GSM, although at first an initialism of a number of words, the initialism has taken its place in all communication (marketing, technical discussion etc.). Very few people refer to LTE by its longer name. It can be said that the term LTE has taken on a life of its own.

2) At the very least, "3GPP" should not be in the name. It is the organisation responsible for this standard, yes, but the article name should not need to include it.

3) Regarding the disambiguation page currently located at "LTE", I did a quick Google search on "LTE" and only on the seventh page did I find something not related to the telecommunications standard so I argue that now and for the foreseeable future the mobile phone standard is what people are looking for primarily. The disambiguation page can be renamed to "LTE (disambiguation)".

Please support my proposal. Dngnta (talk) 09:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment The term "long term evolution" is also used in evolutionary biology, and is more likely to refer to that, so it should NOT be renamed without a more specific specifier. Since this is "4G", that would be the better term to use if not 3GPP. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 07:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • LTE is not 4G. Nageh (talk) 08:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
    • It is however, frequently referred to as "4G", so is a viable qualifier. Regardless, "long term evolution" without a qualifier should not be used. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 03:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Marketing folks refer to it as 4G. That does not mean it is a proper qualifier. Did you read beyond the first sentence? Nageh (talk) 08:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Also note that I have removed your hatnote. The term "long-term evolution" does nowhere appear in the evolution article, so it does not appear to have a technical meaning but rather is only a generic term, like "long-term efforts" or "long-term prediction" and so on. Nageh (talk) 11:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't have a strong opinion on this, but it's probably justified to move this to LTE. If the acronym is also used in biology a hatnote could be added. Nageh (talk) 08:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I added the hatnote when I noticed there wasn't one earlier. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 03:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Most sources prefer LTE and LTE Advanced over "3GPP Long Term Evolution" or "Long Term Evolution Advanced" etc. I would also consider merging LTE and LTE Advanced articles under Long Term Evolution or LTE in the future, as these are now described in the same 3GPP standard since Release 10 and technical content as described in E-UTRA seems to be very much the same. --Dmitry _{(talk•contibs)} 08:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as per arguments made at Talk:LTE#Requested move in February 2012. In addition to those arguments, Google Scholar finds LTE is used in astrophysics for Local thermodynamic equilibrium. -84user (talk) 06:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. At the best, this should be rejected since the nomination would require moving of a dab page and this is not a proper multipage move request. So the nomination is not complete. In the end, I'm not convinced that moving this to LTE and displacing the dab page is reasonable. This is especially true since this term for communications is likely to have a limited lifespan. It will become obsolete as the replacement technology takes hold. I would not object to a move to something like LTE (3GPP) which uses the LTE for the article name with some type of disambiguation. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Well, maybe I am a bit too early with this proposal but I am quite certain that the telecomms standard will be the most common use for the term LTE between the years 2010 and 2030 at least. Take GSM for example, the mobile phone technology has without a doubt been the primary meaning for the term between 1990 and 2010 (and will probably continue to do so for another decade or so). But given that this proposal does not seem to succeed at this stage, I will probably move this page to LTE (technology) or something similar (3GPP in the article title would just be annoying). If anybody has any better ideas than LTE (technology), please speak up now. Dngnta (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
    • LTE (telecommunication). Nageh (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment: Perhaps then we might relist this as a simple move to an article title to be determined, of the form LTE (disambiguator)? This proposal as it stands has two major problems: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and the technicality that it's really a badly formatted multiple move, and as a result there's no heads-up at the target DAB, which is a fatal procedural flaw. Relisting as this alternate proposal would solve both of these problems, and it seems to me that a case could be made. No change of vote Andrewa (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. No case has been made that this is the primary meaning of LTE, and I doubt that one can be made. (To me, LTE is an alternative to LE or .LE. from the days when such operators were common in programming languages. (;-> Showing my age probably.) Andrewa (talk) 12:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem, I recognize that I made a procedural error and was perhaps a little too early in claiming the term LTE for this particular usage. I assume nobody's against moving the page to LTE (technology) or LTE (telecommunication) however? (Personally, I don't like the specifier "telecommunication", I think it's a little too wordy and the standard involves things that fall outside the umbrella of "transmission of information over distances" (per the definition of telecommunication), so that's why I think "technology" is better.) Dngnta (talk) 06:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The standard is concerned with a telecommunication network, which includes the specification of the actual communication and its architecture. Wordiness shouldn't be an argument against clarity. I'm a bit concerned that renaming it to LTE (technology) might require you to rename it again when another name clash turns up. Other than that, I don't care. You could also name it LTE (mobile communications) or whatnot, which seems more meaningful, but it's also more wordy. ;) Nageh (talk) 08:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Biology hatnote

I have restored the hatnote, because

• Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We should not expect that every term and every synonym exist on wikipedia like a dictionary or wordlist, for a hatnote to be effective, only that someone is likely to want the other topic from this particular term
• It is used in biology to designation long-term evolution, as opposed to short-term evolution, such as here [1]
  • and in dealing with effects from epigenetics versus DNA mutation, studies of rapid change, such as moths during the Industrial Revolution in Britain versus slow change.

70.49.124.225 (talk) 06:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Precisely because Wikipedia is not a dictionary the term either doesn't need explanation, in which case we don't need a hatnote, or it does not explanation and should thus be explained in a relevant article. As it seems the former is the case here. Furthermore, long-term evolution seems to be still a rather generic term in biology; there is no indication that it has a special meaning beyond the paper you referenced.

Can others comment on this? Nageh (talk) 08:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The hat note seems reasonable to me. Its a fairly likely search term, I would not be surprised that someone would look for "long term evolution" in relation to many different things. Long Term Evolution does redirect here. Evolution is a good target for anyone not looking for the mobile phone protocol and that page has further hat-notes to guide the reader to where they want to go.--Salix (talk): 10:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I was bold and renamed this article to LTE (telecommunication), and fixed up Long-term evolution and Long Term Evolution to be a disambiguation page to LTE and evolution. Hope this satisfies everyone. Dngnta (talk) 12:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Certainly fine for me. Nageh (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

A two-article disambiguation page should be placed at a base title (i.e. one lacking a parenthetical qualifier) only if neither article is a significantly more likely target.

"Long Term Evolution", which has numerous incoming links, contains specific formatting (title case and the absence of a hyphen) setting it apart as a technology trademark distinct from the biological concept. Someone seeking information on the latter is extremely unlikely to type "Long Term Evolution" (as opposed to "long-term evolution" or simply "evolution"), so a redirect to this article is appropriate (and even a hatnote is of questionable utility).

Conversely, the formatting "long-term evolution" is more likely to refer to the biological concept, so I've redirected it to Evolution. Someone seeking this article can utilize the hatnote to reach Evolution (disambiguation), to which I've added LTE (telecommunication) under the Technology heading. —David Levy 18:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

"Long Term Evolution" still redirects here, so I still think there should be a hatnote. Considering the battles with titles with or without hypens/dashes, the people at large are not likely to know the difference, so a hatnote should still exist, as some people even use title case to search. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 04:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that someone seeking information about evolution is likely to type "Long Term Evolution", but a hatnote is fairly harmless. —David Levy 04:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

David's rationale laid out above is pretty convincing. It is unlikely that someone looking for the concept in biology is going to enter a proper, all-caps name, so I disagree with the hatnote. Nageh (talk) 08:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

So, I take it that long term evolution should not redirect here? The lowercase form currently redirects here, it seems to me that it should do something else, if there is no disambiguation note on this page. 65.92.180.19 (talk) 03:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out this issue. Long term evolution probably should continue to redirect here (as all-lowercase searches are common and the non-hyphenated form appears rare in the biological context), but not without a hatnote in place. I'll restore it. —David Levy 04:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Coverage

its already launched in India by Airtel, its not covered in this article but should be — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.160.150.2 (talk) 07:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Its already launched in Sri Lanka by Dialog & Mobitel, its not covered in this article.
It is already launched in Kurdistan of Iraq, it should be showing in the coverage Website

Commercial service in Switzerland

Hi there

There is a commercial LTE service in Switzerland since December 2012 (swisscom.ch/4g).

Commercial service in Mexico

There a way to update the map and information?

LTE is offered in Mexico under the carriers:

• Telcel [noted here][and here]

In progress:

• Telefonica Movistar (Known just as 'Movistar')[noted here]
• Iusacell
• Unefon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.52.128.4 (talk) 23:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit from 216.227.95.99

That was me adding the parentheses by the way. I was new and didn't know much. I still don't know much and I'm still new but I'm slightly more informed at this point. Anyhow, the minor edit (for readability) was done by me. After doing some reading and some observing of edits to various pages I decided I should return and make sure that I noted the reason for editing the page. I'm making note of it here because I can't go back and re-edit it efficiently.

I should add that said edit was the Revision as of 16:08, May 23, 2013. "So long and thanks for all the fish." (talk) 05:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Old sources

Some sources of this article is outdated, so far I tried the first three, all returns a 404.

131.159.203.157 (talk) 08:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC) Per Halgren, 2014-01-27

LTE slower than Wi-Fi

Why is LTE exponentially slower than Wi-Fi? They both mostly use UHF waves. It seems like there should be a way to drastically increase the speed from cell sites.--Wyn.junior (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Update the map - LTE is now available commercially in South Africa

LTE service is offered commercially by mobile networks in South Africa; MTN[2], Vodacom[3], Telkom SA[4], though Cell C[5] seems to be lagging slightly behind the others. Please change the colour of South Africa on the map. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with LTE timeline

The article is no longer updated, now that LTE is a standard in most of the mobile industry. There is useful information here that can be merged into LTE_(telecommunication), which is still regularly updated. -- mitchsurp -- (talk) 04:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

A drawback of LTE is that it bundles an authentication method with data communication

A hammer is a great tool, but it could also be used for very evil things such as a murder weapon.

A pencil is also a great tool, but again it could be used for very evil things such as sticking it into someones eye and making them blind.

Hardware authentication (sim-cards) is yet again a great tool, but the telecom industry uses it to prevent people's flexibility on the market, which makes it hard for new carriers to enter the market which means one can keep the prices high. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.136.116.124 (talk) 10:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)