Talk:Voice over LTE

	Telecommunication portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computing: Networking Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Archives: no archives yet (create)

And what on EARTH is LTE?

Why is the whole world living in the la-la land of acronyms and abbreviations? Are you people short on webpage space??? SPIT IT OUT WHAT IT IS ! As is, this article is useless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.29.185 (talk) 07:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Issues regarding verifiability

A lot of links on this site lead to telecompaper.nl, which does not offer free access to those articles (if you read more than 3 per day). This makes verifiability of such content an issue... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.217.86.244 (talk) April 7, 2015

You raise a good point. The verifiability policy says that such sources are allowed and that you could try asking someone else to access a source on your behalf. Opencooper (talk) 11:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you block cookies from telecompaper.com in your browser, you have unlimited access to content. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 00:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

do both parties need VoLTE?

For VoLTE to work, is it neccessary that both communication partners have a VoLTE device? --2.246.138.179 (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phone behavior with VoLTE

Do typical mobile phones switch between VoLTE and old fashioned phone circuits during a single call, if the data connection becomes degraded? I.e. will a call fail-over to normal switching if VoLTE fails? Does the VoLTE "supplement" and operate in parallel with the old fashioned voice circuit to enhance the bandwidth being used, or is it a totally separate operating mode? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supernova87a (talk • contribs) 16:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

Please redirect VOLTE to this article. —DIV (120.17.35.169 (talk) 04:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC))[reply]

merge duplicate lists of devices

My understanding is that "HD Voice" on a phone is generally synonymous with "VoLTE", and it is supported by almost all new phones. So every time a new phone comes out, it needs to be added to both the "devices with support for VoLTE" table in this article and the list of smartphones with HD Voice support article.

I propose merging these lists. --DavidCary (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New list page

I noticed that in the devices it currently links to "List of smartphones with HD Voice support". I think this should be amended since the article specifically notes that HD voice is a different standard than VoLTE. Would suggest migrating the list put together on this page into a new VoLTE list page. ~~I'll take steps to do so, people can revert the changes out if it radically offends someone.~~ However, having the list on this page makes it very unwieldy (and seems questionable to maintain since it will always be behind / incomplete. Shaded0 (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind.. I got thrown off by the page redirect for HD Voice.. ~~no idea now if they are the same or separate~~. Going to amend previous edit to the lead to reflect this ambiguity. Going off of reddit (though that's not going to be the source for it..) it appears that HD Voice is the audio codec, and is a requirement of VoLTE (sort of..?) https://www.reddit.com/r/tmobile/comments/3f42uq/hd_voice_vs_volte/

CC: @DavidCary:

Requested move 10 January 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Editors did not come to an agreement on whether the abbreviated title would increase or decrease recognizability. It was also pointed out that the current title is WP:CONSISTENT with Voice over IP. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voice over LTE → VoLTE – WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It was likely using the longer name because Volte was about an article about the dressage term. NM 20:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). – robertsky (talk) 01:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this request complies with precedent; see Voice over IP with the fuller article title although most people simply say "VoIP". The current title at Voice over LTE follows the same pattern. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also wondering what is the WP:COMMONNAME. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Telecommunications has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Computing has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning oppose. I think the term is more recognizable as it stands, and not everyone uses the rather awkward disambiguator. — Amakuru (talk) 11:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.