Talk:SIM card

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merger proposal

There is a separate article for micro-SIM that replicates some of the text and images from this main article. Is there any opposition to merging these two articles? --Rubena (talk) 00:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that they should be merged. So far as I can see the only thing that separates a "micro-SIM" from a "SIM" is the physical size. (After the articles are merged, I might be sufficiently motivated to add appropriate references to ISO/IEC 7810 for the sizes.) Mitch Ames (talk) 01:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
It turns out that the table of sizes is a template, included in both articles, so I've added the 7810 sizes. If SIM and micro-SIM are merged, the template should probably be deleted and its contents moved into the merged article. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Disagree The differences between the 3FF (micro-SIM) and the previous SIM, the Mini-SIM, are much more than just making the physically card smaller. I could do that with a pair scissors. One of the main additions is the ability to authenticate the cellular towers that it's connecting to where as previously only the tower authenticated the SIM card; (ex: unregistered Femtocells like magicJack's, cell network spoofing attacks, or GSM SIM card unlocking) beyond that, there are many other underlying changes to the chip, which should go into its article. I expect the mico-SIM article to have a strong up-tick as the iPad is released in the coming weeks and people coming to wikipedia for info are interested mainly in what the micro-SIM is and why it's different from the SIM currently in their cell phone and therefore deserves its own article. Justin Ormont (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
If the articles are kept separate I suggest that the Other SIM sizes section be deleted from micro-SIM, because it is not relevant if all micro-SIMs are the same size (15x12mm). Mitch Ames (talk) 09:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I support the merge proposition... Justin, i'm sorry but a 3ff card is exactly the same as most uSim cards. in the only source used to justify the differences, all so-called "new features" described are on the UICC, i.e. the smartcard circuitry which equips uSim, as you can see in or ... And i think GSMA is a reliable source in the SIM card domain, isn't it ?
3FF card size is defined in ETSI 102 221, available at no cost online on http://etsi.org/ and, as you can see, UICC is not limited to 3ff card. Zeugma fr (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the ETSI 102 221 reference. I've updated {{SIM Card sizes}} to include it. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
One more point : Micro-SIM real name is 'Mini-UICC'... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeugma fr (talkcontribs) 16:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Good point. I'm thinking about updating {{SIM Card sizes}} with the names from ETSI TS 102 221 (ID-1 UICC, Plug-in UICC, Mini-UICC) but that should really be done at the same time that all references in the articles (including the title) are updated/merged. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Should the UICC article be merged with SIM/Micro-SIM as well? Mitch Ames (talk) 02:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't know for sure, even if i work in the smartcard/telecom domain (i've been working for Ingenico, Gemalto, now working for Xiring). The naming subject is a mess, even inside well-known industry actors. The general convention is that the general subject you're working on helps you to pinpoint what you're talking about.
For example, the acronym SIM originally describe the circuitry used for subscriber authentication, and does not necessary need to be a smartcard. UICC is more precise, it contains CC, which tells that it is a circuitry on something removable.
Usage have made the terms recovering multiple subjects, for example, SIM can now be replaced by SIM-circuitry, SIM-Card format, SIM-application toolkit (API), ...
the good practice, when writing specifications or norms, is to describe precisely what you are talking about, for example "UICC module on ID-000 card, with UMTS masks". But this is not correct for general public or common acceptance.
If i was responsible for a reorganization, i would do this :
  • SIM would describe the original SIM card, format ID-1 and ID-000, limited to GSM/GPRS, and would point to a uSIM_(telephony) article for UMTS/CDMA/3G matters
  • UICC should be a link inside the uSIM article,
  • UICC should still be a separated article, as the UICC circuitry can be found in different forms (usb key, micro sd card... see http://www.gemalto.com/uicc_role/form_factors.html).
  • Mini-UICC or Micro-SIM would be a paragraph inside the uSIM article.
I just saw that the disambiguation page uSIM is correct...
This is just my NSH opinion.... Zeugma fr (talk) 13:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions to "Usage in Mobile Phone Standards" section

Sim cutter

IMSI vs. ICC-ID

ICCID is not the same as IMSI

Possible errors in section: Authentication Key?

Requested move

Removal of SIM adapters

Nano SIMs

Sic transit gloria mundi

Duo Sim card

The company MicroSim

Which field corresponds to the 'user-known' number for the SIM?

Universal SIM by Apple

Ki vis-à-vis Ki

Dual-SIM section

NFC-SIM section

M2M search redirects here instead of the "Machine to machine" page.

Double SIM ?

CPU

Proposed merge with Overlay SIM

Volume of a SIM?

Requested move 24 January 2019

In the US, the initialism BYOD is used instead of SIM-only

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

Location Area Identity

Add a pure software SIM as a development?

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI