Template talk:United States wireless communications service providers/Archive 1

MetroPCS

MetroPCS does actually own its own network in the PCS band (in the US). I am removing it from the list of virtual providers and moving it to the reg. provider catagory. Please let me know if you have an objection to this. --Wesman83 04:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem :) --Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 05:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Revol & other wireless providers

Do we want this to be a comprehensive selector, or just a link to the largest providers and MVNOs? I notice Revol isn't on the list (see Revol_(Cell_Phone_Operator)) and am willing to do the work if anyone can clarify the situation. :) lilewyn 20:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the largest ones; and I nominated that article for Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, as it is a very very short article at the moment... Admrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 20:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on the article for it now. It was a stub. Terribly a stub. Nastily a stub. Poor stub. Metro has, what, seven cities or whatever it covers, and Revol's a (specialty) regional carrier that's starting to pick up the pace quite a bit around here. I've done some peeking around online, in brochures, and in phone conversations with a company representitive, and am fairly sure I can make something better than a stub. I may need some help though! (wikipedians forgive me! :D ) lilewyn 00:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Major and Minor

The top 5 carriers are major carriers. As of now it is AT&T, Alltel, VZW, Sprint, and T-mobile. The rest fall under minor and other, this makes the most sense especially when you look at the size of each company and financial numbers.....Strunke 19:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Is Alltel to be considered a major carrier? They're not listed as one of the top carriers in most situations. It doesn't provide nationwide coverage in the five highest populated cities in the country. I would list them as a regional carrier. I don't see them as being any different than US Cellular. --Адам12901 ^T/_C 05:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The do provide nationwide coverage, they just do not have a license to serve from the fcc in the major areas like nyc, chicago, and la. Cingular/att, vzw, t-mobile, and sprint do not have licenses to serve the entire nation either, but they do have them in the major cities listed. They should be considered a major carrier. They have 12 million customers, the largest owned geographical network in the US, and it's major competitors are the other top 4 not the smaller carriers (plans-wise, coverage-wise, etc) Financially none of the minor carriers compare to alltel (it's market cap is around 25 billion) compared to the next highest US Cellular which is 4 billion. Besides these facts a "top 5" listing is more appropriate aesthetically. Strunke 06:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Throughout the article for Alltel, they are referred to as a regional carrier. Throughout the United States section of the T-Mobile article, it is called the smallest national carrier. If the previous comment is correct and they have 12 million customers, than T-Mobile has over two times as many with 26 million. In addition, Alltel does not serve seven of America's top ten cities. It also does not serve the BosWash megalopolis, which includes 45 million people, approx. one in six Americans. Alltel can hardly be called a national carrier. --69.123.165.15 02:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not called national carrier, it's called major networks. Which Alltel is given the facts I previously stated.Strunke 07:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

However, the other section is designated "Minor and Regional" which is in contrast to "Major" and which presumably implies national as a contrast to regional. When you don't serve the Northeast Corridor, don't serve the West Coast, and have half as many people as T-Mobile, you are not a Major carrier. About one-third of the country by population is not covered by Alltel... and that's just on the West Coast and in the Northeast Corridor. I didn't bother to do the entire country thinking one-third is massive enough. --69.123.165.15 01:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It does cover more of the United States then any other carrier. Population or not. It is a major network operator in it's purest definition. The next carrier down to USCC is a 20 billion dollar jump in market value. Population covered is the ONLY way that it can be considered a minor carrier. Aesthetically, known network size, and stats wise it belongs in the major network operators.Strunke 06:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Population covered is the most important indicator of network size. You cannot attract enough customers to be considered a major carrier if you don't cover enough people. T-Mobile has twice as many people as Alltel. That's a major jump. Additonally, the article itself calls Alltel the largest regional carrier. Perhaps there should be a new category for carriers such as Alltel and US Cellular separating minor carriers from regional carriers, as Alltel is somewhere in the middle and US Cellular is referred to as "Super-regional." --69.123.165.15 18:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not THE most important factor when considering network size. It is the most important factor when assessing business/profit potential but not network size. Just because it doesn't cover an area where the most people are doesn't make it a smaller network. Having the largest network in overall coverage is far more important. That is what the average person would think of when you say "largest network". It is the very definition of "major network". I changed it to more appropriate titles but it still is not an accurate portrayal alltel's network. What is your motive in moving it down a notch? Pretty much anyone can see that Alltel belongs in the major section and not anywhere else. They compete with the major networks, they have the largest network, the difference between the 5th and 6th networks are very far apart compared to 4th and 5th, and it plain looks better with the top 5 instead of 4. This will likely be a moot point in the next year or two when alltel picks up spectrum in the next government auction (700 mhz) which will make it a "national" carrier. I don't have any stock in alltel, i have used there service, but i do not work there or anything. Just curious what your motive is in anonymously editing this, this way. Strunke 06:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

My real, top secret motive is this... I find their commercials irritating. Very hackish and annoying. Really irritating. --69.123.165.15 22:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so compromise the integrity of Wikipedia? Awesome.Strunke 03:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Mmm... the nuances of being facetious are completely lost on you. And the nuances of responding promptly are completely lost on me. --69.123.112.18 (talk) 03:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Alltel

It seems to me most believe Alltel should be with the top 5 as major (judging by the edits). I will place it back there if more people feel the same. That argument I laid out below is substantial enough to warrant it being moved. The anonymous editor below is one person who seems to not get that the facts outweigh their argument. If editing continues by other users to move it to the area with the other top 5 carriers I will edit it again to reflect more accurately. Strunke 19:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought the creation of the Super Regional tier for it was a good compromise to be honest (and most of the arguments I've seen support that view.) Alltel is comparatively tiny compared to the other four; and it has serious coverage issues (even if on paper it looks good, but it's the example to use when comparing geographic vs population coverage.) I don't see the logic for including it with T-Mobile, Verizon, et al. --Squiggleslash 20:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC) But Alltel is America's Largest wireless network.

What coverage issues? The title major network operator has nothing to do with whether a company has a contiguous network (which none of them really have). Alltel has the largest network out of all the carriers in the United States. That is a major network no matter what way it is spun. The "major" carriers rely on Alltel to provide coverage in areas outside of major roads and cities. The only argument that makes any sense not to call it a major network operator is population covered. Which doesn't mean much besides assessing business related issues, such as investing in the cell phone company, growth opportunity, etc. The facts are all below, 1) They have the largest owned and operated coverage area/network. 2) Competing directly with the top 4 carriers in every market served, pricing, advertising, etc. 3) Size of the company, Alltel's market cap is almost 25 billion. The next highest carrier is USCC with 4 or 5 billion. While T-Mobile (USA) would garner about 30-40 billion. The gap is too large between uscc and alltel, and much more comparative between alltel and t-mobile. 4) Aesthetics, a top 5 listing looks far more appropriate then top 4. 5) semantics, by definition a major "network operator" would include the operator with the largest network., Those are just 5 reasons that Alltel should be listed with the top tier compared to 1 reason not to. Strunke 03:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Alltel does not have the largest by population, as I said above Alltel is a textbook example of the difference between population and geographic coverage. In real terms, population coverage is the only coverage that matters. The other points you raise really aren't in Alltel's favour, as you mention all four *major* operators are substantially larger (as in order of magnitude) in every metric save for geographic coverage.

Most of the replies in the discussion below do not agree with you that Alltel is in the same league as the big four. It appears to be the consensus that Alltel doesn't really fit with them. I support the creation of the "Super Regional" Tier which I think is a reasonable compromise, clearly Alltel is substantially larger than, say, MetroPCS, but in practical terms it doesn't have the ability, yet, to compete with the big four on anything approaching a level playing field.

I'm not dissing Alltel, I'm sure they're a fine operator, but they're not up there yet with T-Mobile and Sprint, let alone Verizon or AT&T. --Squiggleslash 15:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not a consensus at all, I was not the first person to put them with the top 4 I merely provided perspective to stop the edit wars by many many different people a few months ago because they realize what I do. How are the other points not in Alltel's favor? That doesn't make any sense at all. They compete directly with the national carriers. Even the JD powers assessments put their network in most markets above and some equal to verizon in the places where both carriers were, above sprint, att, and t-mo in all markets studied where alltel is offered (other regional carriers didn't make the top 5, except for uscc in one market). Besides population there is no other benchmark. A major network operator, means, a Major Network operator. Alltel fits that by it's purest definition. This isn't about opinions on what is meant by major network, this is about true facts and definitions, it's an encyclopedia, that is yet another reason to put alltel with the top 4. It makes no sense to have alltel as a regional carrier with carriers that aren't in the same league as alltel. I don't know, let's see 6 or so reasons to maybe 2 (with one being a complete disregard for the actual title of the listed carrier, "major network operators"), let's use logic and reason here. It's 5v1 or 6v2 in points of interest in this debate...Strunke 23:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Claro

Why is "the fourth largest mobile phone network operator in the world, with more than 130 million customers" listed in "Minor-regional network operators" and not in "Major network operators"? The fact that it has no presence in the USA shouldn't matter, the number of customers does. Pmbarros 19:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

See the article title, "American mobile phone companies". We're only talking about the US portions of the operators listed. An operator with absolutely no presence in the USA shouldn't even be on the list. And if we add operators who have some kind of involvement in the US, but using their international subscription numbers, then AT&T and Verizon will end up dropping down to where nobody expects them, Sprint will virtually disappear, and as for poor old Alltel, we'll probably have to create a whole new category for it (again.) --Squiggleslash 20:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

So this is "American" as in "From the United States" and not "American" as in "From America"? In this case, Claro was added in error. Pmbarros 19:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the two terms are synonymous. America refers to the country, North America and South America refer to the two continents. (And Central America refers to the bit in-between.) Yeah, looks like we should remove Claro, unless they have an MVNO presence --Squiggleslash 21:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, "America" refers to the whole continent, from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego (even more because Americo Vespucci has never been anywhere near the USA when he discovered that America was a new continent. As far as I know, Claro has only presence in Latin American countries, so it should be removed. Pmbarros 17:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move. Lack of opposition = consensus :-) Duja► 10:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Judging from the comments about Claro above, and the fact it's been added a couple of times, it's not clear to all that this template is talking about the US, rather than the American continents. A simple change to "Template:US mobile phone companies" would fix that, but it also means ploughing through all the pages that use this template, so before moving/renaming, I wanted to verify there is a consensus supporting this change first.

Any thoughts? --Squiggleslash 14:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support - American is ambiguous, especially among non-English speakers. US is not. The Evil Spartan 19:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Discussion of Claro and Puerto Rico (was Requested move)

América Móvil currently treats the Puerto Rican Claro unit as a separate unit from it's United States operations, especially if you read through their Quarterly reports. I do understand that Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States, but América Móvil doesn't treat their Puerto Rican unit as competitive to any other US carriers, just the Puerto Rican carriers, (which for the most part are carriers that have US operations also.) I feel that until América Móvil renames Tracfone, their US operation, to Claro, or makes some other attempt to compete in the United States, then Claro should be kept off of this list. -- Rossi27530 12:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think being somewhere that's "a territory of" the US is enough for something to be considered operating in the US. So for now Claro needs to be off the list, at least until something called Claro operates somewhere in the 50 states. This is a little off topic, so I'm creatinga new heading for this. --Squiggleslash 14:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

ALLTELl

I have put Altell into the National Network Category. Alltell owns spectrum and is now avalaible in all 50 states making it a nationwide candiate. Any opbjucetion please post on my talk page Jdchamp31 (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If you look below you'll see this has been discussed to death, and insofar as there's a consensus, it's that it's the largest super-regional operator, not a national operator given it only covers about 60% of the US population. Alltel is a very large operator, and is the reason why the seperate "super-regional" category was created. Squiggleslash (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I am reverting and as I said it is time to get a delibrator in to discuss this issue and make a decision. You have no more control over this matter than I do Jdchamp31 (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Will you PLEASE stop screwing around with the page? If you are serious about believing that Alltel belongs in the National carriers area, you would at least have the decency to discuss this issue and respond both to the comments I've made and address why you believe the consensus shown below is no longer applicable. While I have no objection to you getting a "delibrator", I can't help but feel you're wasting his or her time if you're not willing to discuss controversial changes before making them and calling such a person in. It's very bad form to repeatedly make edits that are controversial, to refuse to discuss them, and to immediately call in administrator help. Please discuss this first and don't make your changes until there's been more discussion: I can't help but feel that such deliberate changes made fully in the knowledge that they're disputed count as acts of vandalism. --Squiggleslash (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Then report me for vandalism I am not violating rules you have violated the 3RR —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdchamp31 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits twice. That is not a breach of WP:3RR. And again I ask you to show good faith and perform the basic minimums here: respect the consensus, discuss controversial changes before making them (and remove them now that you've put them back a third time), and call in administrator help only after you've discussed the issue. I cannot for the life of me fathom why you're approaching this the way you are, even attacking me on my Talk: page and inserting a bogus claim of edit warring there. --Squiggleslash (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Third opinion - Having read the entire talk page below, I strongly agree with Squiggleslash. Based on the discussions below, it's clear that for the purposes of this industry, "nationwide" is not being used literally. Tanthalas39 (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I belive that these two users have previously interacted and am seeking an additional third opinion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdchamp31 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That is not true. Why are you doing this? --Squiggleslash (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• That is patently ridiculous. An extensive search of both of our contributions would reveal absolutely ZERO correspondence prior to my opinion edit above. I know I am supposed to stay civil and nonjudgmental when contributing third opinions, but in light of being accused of meatpuppetry, the other user is, frankly, unreliable. Extremely poor grammar, false accusations of 3RR, disregard of Wikipedia tradition and culture, and now blatant lies (or, at least, extremely poor judgment) cloud any credence that could possibly be given to his/her arguments. Tanthalas39 (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering where we proceed from here. Jdchamp31 never gave his reasons for why he thinks Alltel should be moved to the National Operators subsection, and the previous consensus (which I've stated the reasons for, and see nothing that's changed) was that it should be in the Super-regional area. Right now the article's locked to '31s version.

My view is we need to revert to the original version of the article, prior to Jdchamp31's changes, until a real discussion (participated in in good faith) has taken place. What do we need to do to go ahead with that? --Squiggleslash (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There's been no further discussion here since I posted this. What I suggest, if anyone wants to add their 2c, is that if the conversation doesn't continue by 19:00UTC today (roughly 24 hours after I asked the question), we put in a request to revert the page to the state it was before the disputed edits. (That would be this version.)

Comments? --Squiggleslash (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Sounds good to me. Tanthalas39 (talk) 17:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

The request is to revert to this version of the page. This is the version immediately prior to the disputed edits and reflected the prevailing consensus. The editor who made those edits, Jdchamp31, has not participated in the discussion since Thursday, and both the editor who reverted those edits (that would be me), and the editor who provided the "third opinion" sought by Jdchamp31, Tanthalas39, believe this version is correct, as well as the most appropriate version to display until any further discussion occurs, should that Jdchamp31 re-join the discussion. --Squiggleslash (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

First off there has been discussion that is what this whole"discussion" page is about. The revision in place is the revision that should remain. If you want to change it to National and then other regional that is up to you. But based on Alltell's customer numbers and the amount of network coverage they deserve to be up there with the top names like ATT and VZW Jdchamp31 (talk) 13:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion means discussion, not asserting things without justification. I made my reasons clear above, and I see nobody (until today) making any comments refuting the reasoning or coming up with alternative rationale for moving it to the "Major" category. And as I've said elsewhere, it would have been nice to see a gesture of good faith given what happened last Thursday, and support for at least a temporary move back to the version of this page before the controversial changes. I would like to see a constructive discussion: despite my best efforts to give reasons you can either agree with or knock down, I'm not seeing one. (Nor an apology for what happened on Thursday, but I assume that's not going to happen) --Squiggleslash (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

 Declined. Sadly, if there is a dispute over the content of the template and the page gets fully protected due to it, it is our policy that we leave it at whatever version it is at when it is protected except in extreme cases (e.g., BLP violations and vandalism). Check out m:The Wrong Version for a bizarre take on the whole thing. It looks like there is continuing discussion/disagreement below, so until consensus is reached or someone unprotects the page, there's not much else that can be done. --slakr^\ talk / 01:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected the template in response to a RFPP request which attracted my attention. When consensus of what should be included is apparent, get in touch and we'll proceed from there. Regards, Rudget. 21:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Poll

Should Alltell be placed in Super Reigonal, or Major Network Operator? Please place results below this statement.

• Major Network Operator Jdchamp31 (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Super Regional --69.123.112.18 (talk) 03:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Major Network Operator - (technically it operates the largest covered network in the US (bigger the vzw, att, t-mobile, sprint), but it doesn't have national licenses, which is where the confusion is coming about.) But at this point I don't care about the consensus and am "voting" major network operator Strunke (talk) 09:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Super Regional, though I'd be comfortable with a rename of "Major" to "National" and "Super regional" to "Other Major". I was avoiding this poll because it was put up without discussion (indeed, with an apparent refusal to discuss the issue) on the part of the person making the edit, but seeing as it's being taken seriously: Strunke's comment about "not having national licenses" is not actually the issue, and I'm not sure why he thinks that: no US operator has a "national" license because there's no such thing. The issue is that Alltel's licenses and operations do not cover anything like the vast majority of the population. Whereas the big four have coverage of over 90% of the population, Alltel doesn't have anything close to that, being a largely rural operator restricted to operation in 35 states. Alltel has to rely upon roaming coverage, and doesn't sell service directly, in cities such as New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston, Philadelphia, and Washington D.C. There is an argument, perhaps, for renaming the "Super-regional" section, but there is no serious argument for putting Alltel in the same league as Verizon, AT&T, Sprint or T-Mobile. There are very few people in the US unable to obtain service from those four operators. Alltel cannot claim that. --Squiggleslash (talk) 13:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes (what I was referring to are what people consider national license(s)), but the original claim is network operator, major, super regional, regional. Alltel has the largest network for coverage (sq. miles of ground covered) in the US. More then Verizon, At&t, Sprint, and T-Mobile. Just because you have a large amount of population covered doesn't mean you have a major network. MetroPCS, Leap, Cricket, all cover a very large population in NYC, LA, etc. etc. But they should never be considered a major network operator. It's just that in Alltel, you have the largest operated network in the US, being in a category that is called super regional network operator instead of major network operator. It just doesn't make any sense because population covered has nothing to do with how big a network is. I could put up a few towers in the top 50 markets and cover a lot of people, but does that mean I have the largest physical network? No not at all. It just means I have the best locations for my cell sites/towers. You cannot say there is no serious argument for putting Alltel in the same league as those other four, I know a few million people that would disagree. To be honest you seem to just not understand or are not listening to what i am saying. Because that is the only way that you could consider population covered more important the definition/categories of the template (major/minor network operators), this isn't a popularity contest it is an encyclopedia and facts should be paramount. Population covered does not equal large/larger network. I don't really know how serious this poll is but a vote never hurt anyone I guess.Strunke (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of anyone who's arguing that Alltel doesn't count as a national operator because it doesn't have a "National" license, the only person to bring that up was you. It's a strawman argument and is not why we don't refer to Alltel as national.

The fact Alltel covers a large land area does not put it in the same league as, say, T-Mobile. From a commercial and practical point of view, if an operator is largely rural, as Alltel is, it doesn't fall into the same category as T-Mobile et al. Alltel is unquestionably large, but as 40% of the US population are excluded from even subscribing to it, it's not up there with operators like T-Mobile who are accessable by 95% of the population at the last count. Population figures count: I can blanket the Sahara desert in cellular towers, but it wouldn't make me the largest cellular operator on Earth.

Your comment that I don't understand or am not listening to what you're saying seems especially odd given your comments about "national licenses": but even so, yes, I am addressing your comments about the fact Alltel is covering a large land area. I've addressed them specifically: I don't consider that metric alone to be enough to put Alltel in the same category as the big four, and few in the industry would either. In all metrics bar land area coverage, Alltel falls far short of all of the four operators. Population coverage is the most serious metric to consider. It determines whether an operator is available to a customer; it makes a difference as to how large the operator can grow in revenues and share of market; it determines the usefulness of the network to customers. With Alltel woefully deficient in that, and deficient in all other metrics beyond land area coverage, it's unreasonable to place it in the same category. Now if you want to rename "Super regional" to something else so you don't feel your operator of choice is slighted, I'm happy with that, but it's painfully obvious an operator unavailable to 40% of the population shouldn't be in the same category as those available to 95%. --Squiggleslash (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't bring up national licenses. I merely mentioned them as being a factor that you are using in your own argument but don't even realize it, as you did above, in fact you used them interchangeably. BTW T-Mobile is NOT available to 95 or even 90 percent of the country that is simply false. THE ORIGINAL CATEGORY IS MAJOR NETWORK (network) OPERATOR, I REPEAT MAJOR NETWORK OPERATOR. NOT major cellular phone company or major cellular provider. But a side note, yes there is such thing as national licenses, it's a certain number of the top 50 markets. How is population covered more important then the ACTUAL size of a network when the category is major network operator. Which by the definition of major network operator (you know the whole NETWORK part) Alltel operates the largest one? Is that just not major enough for you? Population covered is NOT the most important metric when comparing major network operators. It may be when you are comparing the size of the company and corporate structure but that has very little to do with the network that they operate. And it has nothing to do with my carrier of choice, this is about accuracy and integrity of Wikipedia. This is really a waste of my time to argue this with you. This is so simple it baffles me how you don't understand it...by definition of major network operator, Alltel is a major network operator. By your definition Metro PCS, and cricket should be a major network operator.Strunke (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You were the person who brought up national licenses, by claiming I was using it in my argument. I didn't. Why are you insisting I did?

Additionally, I didn't say T-Mobile was available in 95% of the country - no operator is. I said that some of the operators in the Major category are available to 95% of the population. That's a different metric.

MetroPCS and Cricket are not available to 95%, 90% (or any other high figure) of the population or anything close to that. My metric for inclusion has to do with market share and availability. I've made that clear multiple times, so it's very, very, hard to understand why you would claim those two operators fit my criteria.

If you want to challenge my reasons, by all means do, but I'm not hearing you tackle them directly. You're claiming those opposed to Alltel being considered an operator in the same league as T-Mobile, Verizon, et al are talking about National Licenses - we've never used the term. You're claiming that our arguments would elevate MetroPCS and Cricket to that level - they don't cover any significant portion of the population. Are you going to actually address the fact that Alltel does not cover anything like the same population as the big four, or are you going to keep putting words into my mouth and continue to pretend I'm arguing something else? --Squiggleslash (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

And T-Mobile doesn't cover 95 or 90 percent of the population either. That is what I said and you know that is what I meant even if I said country. Above you use national carriers as a requirement, just look above you'll see it. This template is title network operator. A network operator, would mean someone who operates a cellular network. The adjectives of "Major" and "super regional" are indications of a networks size. NOT how many people they are covering. I've addressed all your issues and their relevance to the actual subject of this template and you choose to ignore it. I haven't argued anything about national licenses besides the fact that it is one thing to consider. You are arguing that and do not even realize it. Maybe you just don't know the wireless industries lingo like I do (the four you mention are considered national carriers and in such hold what is considered national licenses, even if it is a collection of msa's and rsa's). MetroPCS and criket will eventually have a network over a large portion of the US population. Which you would then have to call them major network operators. even though there networks are small in size. Just because they are over the majority of the population does not make the network and bigger then one in "the Sahara". Just because a network is in the Sahara doesn't mean it isn't a major network. In fact that would be a very very major network. Strunke (talk) 05:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Super Regional. And I'm taking this page off my watch list. Tanthalas39 (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Responding to the Third Opinion request – strikes me that it's in the same league at AT&T and Verizon in that it (theoretically, at least) provides coverage for the whole of the US. In my opinion, it should be placed in major network operator. Also, to quote Wikipedia:Consensus: "So in summary, Wikipedia decision making is not based on formal vote counting". You should try and establish a consensus — alex.muller (talk • edits) 15:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Super-regional. Coverage is missing in Northeast and Californian markets where 1 in 3 American live. We discussed this to death over a year ago; Alltel is the reason the "Super-regional" category was created. --69.123.112.18 (talk) 03:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, to whomever stated that Alltel serves all fifty states, this is untrue. It serves 34. National licenses are irrelevant; potential population served is most important. If a carrier cannot reach 40% of the market, especially the two biggest segments by far, the Northeast and Southern California, then it cannot be considered a major carrier. --69.123.112.18 (talk) 03:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Tie

It seems that the poll is in a tie. We either need one person to agree that it is major or someone else to come in and vote. I may request a third opinion just as a step but not the ultimate deciding factor. Jdchamp31 (talk) 13:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• I've never seen this article, or edited anything about cell phones or telephone companies. Based on my review of the article, the definitions, and this talk page, I would have to say major network operator. MilesAgain (talk) 05:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

The poll is 4v3 in favor of making it a Major Network Operator

The third opinion (3O) also came back in favor as a Major Network Operator

Since the poll has been up for quite some time I have determined that there is enough evidence for a consensus and that it is to be kept as a Major Network Operator

I will have the page unprotected once I am assured that Squiggleslash will no longer revert the page. Jdchamp31 (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus here, a four to three majority is not in any way a "consensus"; and the three third opinions (all three of which were counted in the vote, there is no "also") offered oppose one another. Given previous discussion, done in an atmosphere in which nobody engaged in a campaign of harassment as you did to me, I certainly don't, at this stage, intend to leave Alltel in the "Major" category. If you want to have a reasonable discussion in which you present reasons why Alltel should be in the same category as AT&T et al, as Strunke has, and challenge directly the reasons for not doing so, then that's fine. But that hasn't happened yet. As for your comments on my talk page: I reverted an edit by you twice because it went against previously accepted consensus and asked you to discuss it. Instead of discussing it, you immediately called in third parties, you made bogus claims of 3RR on my talk page and Wikipedia abuse reporting pages, you followed up with bogus complaints I'd refactored discussions, you repeatedly, five or six times, added bogus abuse warnings to my Talk: page even after an administrator intervened (one you yourself called in) to remove them, and you accused a person who in good faith offered his third opinion, despite not needing to, of meatpuppetery.

Can you tell me what I did do deserve that, and how my "behaviour" in reverting a controversial edit and asking for it to be discussed first was, in anyway, deserving of that harassment? --Squiggleslash (talk) 13:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you did not deserve that kind of harrasment. I think that as a fair compromise we should rename the categories so that as Strunke demonstrated Alltell can be in the same league as ATT and VZW. Please advise Jdchamp31 (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

As demonstrated with this evidence "I didn't bring up national licenses. I merely mentioned them as being a factor that you are using in your own argument but don't even realize it, as you did above, in fact you used them interchangeably. BTW T-Mobile is NOT available to 95 or even 90 percent of the country that is simply false. THE ORIGINAL CATEGORY IS MAJOR NETWORK (network) OPERATOR, I REPEAT MAJOR NETWORK OPERATOR. NOT major cellular phone company or major cellular provider. But a side note, yes there is such thing as national licenses, it's a certain number of the top 50 markets. How is population covered more important then the ACTUAL size of a network when the category is major network operator. Which by the definition of major network operator (you know the whole NETWORK part) Alltel operates the largest one? Is that just not major enough for you? Population covered is NOT the most important metric when comparing major network operators. It may be when you are comparing the size of the company and corporate structure but that has very little to do with the network that they operate. And it has nothing to do with my carrier of choice, this is about accuracy and integrity of Wikipedia. This is really a waste of my time to argue this with you. This is so simple it baffles me how you don't understand it...by definition of major network operator, Alltel is a major network operator. By your definition Metro PCS, and cricket should be a major network operator.Strunke (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)" I am going to request a consensus. Why are you fighting this im not sure. I will turn this situation around on you as you did to me. Why are you fighthing this and harrassing me on the discussion page? Jdchamp31 (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Squiggleslash/Consensus Determination

Since Squiggleslash has left wikipedia there is no one left to fight that we have determined consensus based on the Poll and the 3O's that were provided. If anyone has an issue with consensus being established please post it in this section and I will work it out on a one by one basis. Please advise. I will leave this discussion open for 7 days and it will close on Feb. 11th, 2008 at 00:00 UTC Jdchamp31 (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe he has left, I believe he had a temporary ban for some reason. He/she will likely be back by the time the ban is up.Strunke (talk) 05:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I just looked at his page. Apparently he has decided to leave. Huh, strange. Well never mind then.Strunke (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of content

I am requesting that STi Mobile and Voce be removed from the list, since STi no longer has a page and Voce is defunct.Jmoz2989 (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Please add Page Plus Cellular to MVNO

{{editprotected}}

Please add Page Plus Cellular to the list of MVNOs on the template. They are a MVNO of Verizon, notable for having among best prices in prepaid wireless, both for emergency use (current minimum cost $30/year), and for moderate usage (6c/minute), they also have much broader coverage than other companies with comparable low yearly cost.[1][2] Although there is currently no wikipedia page for them, that is not clearly a reason to exclude them from the template - there are other links to non-existant pages on the template, and Page Plus Cellular is listed on the Verizon page and elsewhere as an MVNO.

Good prices aren't a source of notability, grand as they may sometimes be. Could we demonstrate whether this passes WP:CORP, by chance? – Luna Santin (talk) 22:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Mooting the request for now, pending some further response or comments addressing notability. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I phrased that poorly. - The prices and coverage were what motivated me to mention them (i.e. why they seem worth bothering with), the fact that they were listed on the comparison sites was what might make them notable. (The sites seem to provide reliable information - matches information on other sites, etc., though certainly their significance and/or independence may be up for debate.) PagePlus also mentioned on various other places that review prepaid plans (cnet, about, etc.); a few other citations (again hard to say for sure how independent/significant they are.): http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2006/03/25/1488592.htm, http://www.prepaidreviews.com/pageplus.html, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2006_Nov_13/ai_n16838869 I don't know if that makes the grade or not. Thanks either way.

Also, if one wishes to be careful about notability, might want to remove some of the other items on the list - e.g. Lucky Wireless, Liberty Wireless, KDDI Mobile, and Movida Wireless. At this point the entry on them cites nothing besides the company websites and press releases from their business partners. Zodon (talk) 08:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

extra line break

{{editprotected}} Can the extra line break included after the last </noinclude> tag be removed? IE can:

<noinclude>
{{pp-dispute|small=yes}}
{{pp-dispute}}
{{POV|date=January 2008}}</noinclude>

{{Navbox

be changed to:

<noinclude>
{{pp-dispute|small=yes}}
{{pp-dispute}}
{{POV|date=January 2008}}
</noinclude>{{Navbox

This will prevent the unnecessary line break from being included with this template; particularly annoying when there are a list of navboxes at the bottom of an article's page. ~ Paul^T+/_C 21:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Y Done - Revolving Bugbear 21:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)