This article was nominated for deletion on 5 October 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Indexes This alphabetical index of Wikipedia articles falls within the scope of the WikiProject Indexes. This is a collaborative effort to create, maintain, and improve alphabetical indexes on Wikipedia.IndexesWikipedia:WikiProject IndexesTemplate:WikiProject IndexesIndexes articles Telecommunications High‑importance 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 articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Lists High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Companies High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the ((portal|Companies)) template Tag company talk pages with the ((WikiProject Companies)) project banner Answer requests for comments

I don't see how *IDT really fits in this list. Niteowlneils 06:16, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

shouldn't telcel be lited under mexico as well?

But network operator shouldn't redirect here, it should go to it's own article, with a prominent link here. Mathiastck 13:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the external links should be removed per WP:EL, WP:SPAM, & WP:NOT#LINK --Ronz 03:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. --Ronz 19:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose all entries that do not have their own article be removed per WP:LIST, at least until we come up with better list inclusion criteria. --Ronz (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the fact that these companies are in business is a strict enough criteria to provide some limit to length. Most countries have oligopolies in the telecom industry. I agree that external links aren't helpful most of the time and wouldn't mind having them removed for reasons previously stated. —Tokek (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay, apparently the list can be long for some companies, e.g. List of Canadian telephone companies, but long ones can be made into sub-articles. I think this article can serve a purpose as a catch-all for countries whose lists are are too short to warrant an article of its own. Basically, I don't think we should apply your list inclusion criteria (must have a Wikipedia article) just yet. —Tokek (talk) 01:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've started cleanup. --Ronz (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's bugging me that incomplete data with .... in them are listed. Could someone please hook up the ITU Operator code numbering so we know who the operators are (at least GSM/Mobile/CDMA/AMPS)

thanks Dr R Azrin (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to countercheck the details on ITU GSM Codes to ensure the GSM, CDMA and 4G services are added on properly.

Dr R Azrin (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being a service provider only, should Mobile virtual network operator companies be listed? I'm leaning toward removing them. --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. JFDI. --Biker Biker (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going ahead with removing them and the fixed virtual operators, which I assume are similar enough. --Ronz (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about VoIP providers? --Ronz (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to keep subsidiaries of notable operators as I did with Nedjma. Any objections or alternatives? --Ronz (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of telephone operating companies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore)) after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot)) to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130304164953/http://wimax.irancell.ir:80/ to http://www.wimax.irancell.ir

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These statistics for each country are outdated (from as far back as 2010) and unsourced. I'll give these a few weeks, if nothing is improve they should all be removed. Ajf773 (talk) 04:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is common to rate relative size of companies in any industry by annual revenue, that causes problems with this list. First, probably biggest problem is, the revenue data for all these companies in all these countries are not reported regularly in respect to each other. That makes keeping this list nearly impossible to maintain accuracy. Second problem is comparing companies based on revenue when services offered are different and monetary values from country to country are different. A better way to gauge size and lend to accuracy is to count number of subscribers of specific communication types. For instance, a telecom that has more landline subscribers is not necessarily larger than a company with more VoIP or Broadband subscribers. The list would be more accurate if it were subdivided by service type and then size comparisons by number of subs in that service type. My guess is, in that case, China and India might move up on the list significantly while AT&T might move down significantly. Thoughts??? TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 04:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TadgStirkland401 - I realize you posted this last year but I just read your comment now. You make great points but getting that kind of reliable data is even more challenging than revenues, and since the services and technologies are changing so fast in this industry (landline, mobile, cloud, etc.) it that trying to rank them by below-the-line attributes would ultimately lead to dead-ends or stats that are not meaningful. Especially since the perceived value is no longer so much the connection itself as what you do with it but there remains undeniable real-world value in those connections (there's still much consolidation happening to capture them). The markets sort these companies by revenues because it's a tried-and-true summary measure of all the chaos, jockeying and services underneath. If you can figure out how to hunt it down reliably, perhaps the kind of data you're thinking of could be on other Wiki pages... e.g., a listing of leading UCaaS/VoIP players in that page/section, etc.??? Just my two cents. Technutt (talk) 17:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tata Teleservices is the telecom company, Tata Group is the name of the larger conglomerate company with presence in steel, automobile, energy, hospitality and whatnot.

There were two companies in the list of prominent US telecom companies that did not have wiki profiles. MegaPath in the $100M+ carrier set and Granite in the $1B+ carrier set. I have been working on a page for Granite that I should have up soon and came back to look at MegaPath. The company was acquired by Fusion, which was acquired by Birch (which already is in the listing), so I deleted that entry. Technutt (talk) 16:46, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added Granite to table and realized a lot of other data in the table is dated as well. Starting an update on the table. Technutt (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

• To address currency exchange fluctuations, any entry that could not be found translated to US dollars by a reliable source was translated to $USD based on the closing exchange rate on December 31, 2018 - this is noted at the bottom of the table.
• Telefonica's revenues in the original table entry were incorrect - hence, the large change in revenues between the two entries — Preceding unsigned comment added by Technutt (talk • contribs) 18:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Singapore Telecom - the original table had a revenue double-count for Singapore Telecom that both consolidated revenues for Singtel and Optus under Singtel and broke Optus out separately as well. It should be either-or to avoid counting twice. An argument could be made to eliminate Optus and show on the combined revenues under Singtel, however, since the spirit of this article is aimed at identifying the largest players by region as well as total revenues, the two are broken out as part of this update, separating Singtel's results from those of Optus so Optus is reflected properly as a major provider in Australia.
• Belgacom is now Proximus (name change) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Technutt (talk • contribs) 16:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptcl was removed from the table for revenues. PTCL revenue is <US$600M and the table lists companies at ≥ US$1 billion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Technutt (talk • contribs) 19:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Since the table cutoff is $1B+ companies, and some were added in the article below but not transferred to the table, I did quick audit against the table and then quick revenue verifications (sources provided). When revenue as confirmed providers that belong in the table were added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Technutt (talk • contribs) 21:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• A slow crawl is underway to find other very large providers missing from the table. This will take time - the US providers were easier because someone had broken them into tiers (making it easy to see the table errors). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Technutt (talk • contribs) 22:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]