Template talk:Cellular network standards

message: Extreme care should be made when referring to channel access methods.  Channel access methods are not synonymous with a particular network's standardized use of a channel access method.  For instance, UTRA TDD-HCR is a standardized version (by 3GPP) of a TD-CDMA using TDD. Lots of times, though, a channel access method is patented and is therefore used exclusively by a particular network/standardizing group. This makes it seem as if the two are synonymous, but in reality they aren't.  I'm almost tempted to pull the "channel access methods" section out of this template and make a template for just them. Mojodaddy (talk) 04:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Channel access methods 

message: I've noticed on a lot of pages the word "phone" is being used instead of the word "telecommunications".  For example, an article might say "mobile phone network" instead of "mobile telecommunications network".  Given that the standardizing organizations (3GPP, 3GPP2, OMA, ETSI) specifically do not define the word "phone", do not refer to generic user equipment as "phones", and the telecommunications networks support a variety of end user devices that are not "phones", per se, I suggest that we use the word as sparingly as possible.  As such, I believe that this page should be renamed to "Mobile telecommunications standards". Mojodaddy (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using consistent terminology 

message: Under "frequency bands" in the "mobile phone standards" template it shows GSM and PCS... GSM is not a frequeny band, its a technology, and other systems can be employed in the cellular (800-900mhz) band. I think it should say SMR, Cellular, and PCS, as those are the current band division names according to the FCC. I am making the change, if there is dispute because of standards in other countries we should discuss and expand the template. --Wesman83 17:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the only problem is that other countries have different ranges for each mobile band, as well as, presumably, different names. I certainly think its fair that all countries systems are represented... this should certainly be discussed more.  I will look into it and I hope there will be more feedback in the meantime. --Wesman83 18:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frequency bands 

message: Should 3G standards really be broken up into 3.5G, 3.75G, etc? The g.xx numbering made some sort of sense for the 2G categories (2G = circuit switched, 2.5G = 2G with packet switching, 2.75G = "Packet switching at so-called 3G speeds but still, essentially, a slow packet switched bolt-on to a 2G network"), but here we seem to just be saying "Oh, this is slightly faster than the former ones."
What do you do with something like EVDO which is the same name, but subject to revisions that make it faster, with a system like that? If UMTS is still UMTS, but HSDPA makes it faster, is it really a new system simply because you have a name for the enhancement?
If the 2.xxG terms were used, surely 3.5G would be 3G with VoIP, and 3.75G would be a 4G system supporting VoIP but using an underlying 3G standard?
They come across as a little arbitrary and subjective. Perhaps something based upon speed might work better and be more informative, eg:
Mobile phone and datastandards	
0G
* PTT
* ...etc...          	
3G
* Families of standards
** UMTS (3GSM)
*** UMTS-TDD
** FOMA
** CDMA2000
* Air interface standards
** W-CDMA (UMTS, FOMA)
** TD-CDMA (UMTS-TDD)
** 1xEV-DO/IS-856 (CDMA2000)
** TD-SCDMA
* Improvements
** GAN/UMA (WLAN access to GSM/UMTS) 
** HSDPA, HSUPA (Faster W-CDMA)
** 1xEV-DO Rev. A (Faster EV-DO)	
4G                            	...etc...
I admit a bias against "3G" as a term anyway, given it's more marketing than anything else, but at the same time I could see the logic of the 2.xxG categories which I don't think applies here. Arguably the 2G section could usefully be reorganized along similar lines, except people in real life are using terms like "2.5G". Squiggleslash 16:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After reading this, and employing careful consideration, I've merged the inter-generational groups together. What do the rest of you guys think? InternetMeme (talk) 00:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  3.9995G - No fractional generations, please! 

message: HSOPA is only a part of 3GPP Long Term Evolution (or 3GPP release 8). Indeed it's only a proposal not yet accepted by 3GPP. HSOPA is never mentioned in any 3GPP document. HSOPA name is often incorrectly used for HSPA+, a new high speed standard that will be published next months under 3GPP release 7. HSPA+ name is used on many 3GPP official documents. I know there is not an article on HSPA+ but template is correct deleting HSOPA (subject to be covered by 3GPP Long Term Evolution) and adding HSPA+ that is to be standardized soon in 3GPP release 7.
Comments are welcome. Armando82 13:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: HSOPA / HSPA+

message: I think WiMAX should have a sub-node for "WiBro" as it's a different standard that is being harmonized with WiMAX. Thoughts? JackSeoul 06:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WiBro 

message: I changed the link in the title of the table. Earlier, it was redirecting to the Mobile phone article. I changed it to link to List of mobile phone standards. I think that's more  relevant. On the other hand, I guess that's basically just this table, in the form of an article. Feel free to change it again. Navigatr85 20:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title link 

message: HSCSD has speed of up to 38.4 Kbps and GPRS up to 114 Kbps . By speed, position of HSCSD would be after GSM, instead of after GPRS. --Mac (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HSCSD and GPRS 

message: This infobox-based template is very disturbing in the articles. Let us base it on  instead...--Kozuch (talk) 10:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, this would be a pretty intrusive box to slap in a page. I would really agree with User:Kozuch that a nav box would work better, something similar to Template:Aircraft components in shape. - Ahunt (talk) 13:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be perfect if you could make a proposal for a new navbox-based version! You have lots of experience with that, it would take me ages to get it done myself :(.--Kozuch (talk) 13:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I've created several navbox versions seen below. Please identify which is the most appropriate and/or provide suggestions for changes in this section. Thanks. Mojodaddy (talk) 18:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Personally I like #2, the callapsible subsections are just really cool! But #1 seems to be easier for the average Joe Wikepedian to use, which is desirable here probably. As I am obsessed with badly-designed templates, I found another candidate -  slowly needs some navboxing too, in case someone is interested ;).--Kozuch (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I'll switch it over to #1, then.Mojodaddy (talk) 02:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for very fast help with navbox transition!--Kozuch (talk) 10:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navbox 

message: I have now merged  into  according to a discussion at WP:TFD in October.   was only about mobile system generations, and not about other wireless systems. However, I used mobile standard generations as categories, and standard families as sub-categories instead of the oposite. This gives it a chronological order, which makes it more clear to follow. Next step is to remove all occurences of , or replace them by . Mange01 (talk) 14:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Debresser (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Should "Ultra Mobile Broadband" be included? Adammw (talk) 13:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: UMB is a.k.a. CDMA2000 1x EV-DO Revision C, correct? It was worked on by Qualcomm and/or the CDMA Development Group but abandoned. Was it abandoned before a standards body like the TIA, ETSI or the ITU etc. accepted/approved it as a standard? If it was never actually accepted as a standard, then I wouldn't be in favor of including it here. (I couldn't find any references indicating that it did become an accepted standard, but I didn't look very hard, either.) Ch Th Jo (talk) 23:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should "Ultra Mobile Broadband" be included? 

message: In my opinion this template should be expanded by default. At least on pages about cellular network standards. See also
Talk:4G#Infobox. PizzaMan (♨♨) 21:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autocollapsed