T-Mobile gets ready to launch LTE and HD Voice

[kckid]

T-Mobile gets ready to launch LTE, while HD voice and unlimited 4G with no contract available now

 

http://www.pocketables.com/2013/01/t-mobile-gets-ready-to-launch-lte-while-hd-voice-and-unlimited-4g-with-no-contract-available-now.html

[Madfelon]

Sounds good, hopefully they give Sprint a run for their money here in Chicago. Competition is a good thing and if the speeds are comparable it's a win for all of us.

[ericdabbs]

I'll be monitoring to see how fast Tmobile starts deploying LTE markets this year. So far they have said they would launch LTE in Las Vegas within the next 2 weeks. I wonder if any other markets are scheduled to launch by the end of this month.

 

If Tmobile starts deploying LTE out like gangbusters that doesn't look good on Sprint who has been at least a quarter behind schedule in LTE/Network Vision deployment.

[Paynefanbro]

The thing is, I believe T-Mobile has been actively deploying already in large cities, so I think they'll try to slap LTE on large cities first and make Sprint look stupid. I'd like to see what they advertise about their LTE above other carriers. They'll probably talk about speed because they definitely can't about coverage. But after we start getting Clearwire enabled phones, that'll end pretty quickly.

[lilotimz]

The thing is, I believe T-Mobile has been actively deploying already in large cities, so I think they'll try to slap LTE on large cities first and make Sprint look stupid. I'd like to see what they advertise about their LTE above other carriers. They'll probably talk about speed because they definitely can't about coverage. But after we start getting Clearwire enabled phones, that'll end pretty quickly.

 

The point is T-mobile is only "good" in large cities and metro areas... go out of it and you're GG'd with 2g Edge speeds. They're not upgrading any 2g areas to my knowledge.

[S4GRU]

I'll be monitoring to see how fast Tmobile starts deploying LTE markets this year. So far they have said they would launch LTE in Las Vegas within the next 2 weeks. I wonder if any other markets are scheduled to launch by the end of this month.

 

If Tmobile starts deploying LTE out like gangbusters that doesn't look good on Sprint who has been at least a quarter behind schedule in LTE/Network Vision deployment.

 

It won't make Sprint look stupid. They are only installing LTE at sites where they have HSPA+ and backhaul already in place. They aren't deploying network wide. It better go fast for them as easy as it will be. It will be comparable to how fast Sprint's LTE 800 will deploy on already completed sites.

 

Robert via Nexus 7 on Tapatalk

 

 

[milan03]

It won't make Sprint look stupid. They are only installing LTE at sites where they have HSPA+ and backhaul already in place. They aren't deploying network wide. It better go fast for them as easy as it will be. It will be comparable to how fast Sprint's LTE 800 will deploy on already completed sites.

 

Robert via Nexus 7 on Tapatalk

 

I don't think any other carrier except Sprint has such a granular plan on deploying to almost all sites, nationwide. That alone is quite remarkable.

The other three carriers are more about pops covered, and then in the future slowly adding density. Not sure if that's good or bad, as their PR teams are all over this method and certainly banking.

 

T-Mobile is now focusing on metro's with the highest amount of pops, and not on coverage simply because this is their last chance to get in the game and compete with the top 3. They're bleeding customers badly. They would never be able to do anything spectacular on the coverage plan, as they still have quite a large amount of EDGE only areas, with no ETA on upgrades. Their two spectrum licenses are in the high frequency bands, they don't have that proper cell density outside of metros to do any damage with PCS and AWS.

 

But one thing they can compete is the network performance and that's where their focus is clearly gonna be. 2x10 LTE then later 2x20, and now HD Voice in all markets. Their voice quality has always been beautiful sounding full rate, I am curious to check out AMR-WB.

[Paynefanbro]

Hasnt Sprint been had HD voice for a while now? And the call quality has always been great in my opinion.

[S4GRU]

I don't think any other carrier except Sprint has such a granular plan on deploying to almost all sites, nationwide. That alone is quite remarkable. The other three carriers are more about pops covered, and then in the future slowly adding density. Not sure if that's good or bad, as their PR teams are all over this method and certainly banking. T-Mobile is now focusing on metro's with the highest amount of pops, and not on coverage simply because this is their last chance to get in the game and compete with the top 3. They're bleeding customers badly. They would never be able to do anything spectacular on the coverage plan, as they still have quite a large amount of EDGE only areas, with no ETA on upgrades. Their two spectrum licenses are in the high frequency bands, they don't have that proper cell density outside of metros to do any damage with PCS and AWS. But one thing they can compete is the network performance and that's where their focus is clearly gonna be. 2x10 LTE then later 2x20, and now HD Voice in all markets. Their voice quality has always been beautiful sounding full rate, I am curious to check out AMR-WB.

 

All things considered, Tmo is doing some very smart moves with the resources they have. I think getting a good portion of their EDGE converted to HSPA+ would also be a good move. But hey, you got to choose your battles.

 

Robert

[milan03]

All things considered, Tmo is doing some very smart moves with the resources they have. I think getting a good portion of their EDGE converted to HSPA+ would also be a good move. But hey, you got to choose your battles.

 

Robert

Yup I agree with you, and in a perfect world they should. I just think they have to chose the absolute shortest way back to competing, and laser focus on it. That sadly means no love for rural areas in 2013...

[WiWavelength]

Yup I agree with you, and in a perfect world they should. I just think they have to chose the absolute shortest way back to competing, and laser focus on it. That sadly means no love for rural areas in 2013...

 

One thing to remember is that T-Mobile is the most "urban" of all four major carriers. Fully 60 percent of T-Mobile subs live in the top 50 markets, and that percentage will likely increase even more with the MetroPCS acquisition.

 

AJ

[iansltx]

Hasnt Sprint been had HD voice for a while now? And the call quality has always been great in my opinion.

 

Only on the Evo LTE. Now, granted, Sprint voice quality has always been good for me, but it's not "HD Voice" (which sounds like a jitter-free version of Skype I think).

[gangrene]

I don't think any other carrier except Sprint has such a granular plan on deploying to almost all sites, nationwide. That alone is quite remarkable.

 

Sorry, but Verizon is busy covering its entire footprint with LTE and plans to be finished by the end of this year.

Edited January 13, 2013 by gangrene

[WiWavelength]

[/size]

Sorry, but Verizon is busy covering its entire footprint with LTE and plans to be finished by the end of this year.

 

Sorry, but VZW is not overlaying LTE on every site, just enough sites to approximate its existing footprint.

 

AJ

[gangrene]

Sorry, but VZW is not overlaying LTE on every site, just enough sites to approximate its existing footprint.

 

AJ

 

So Sprint isn't optimizing its network in a similar fashion? Decommissioning sites that they deem to be extraneous, moving others to improve reception and fill coverage gaps, combining locations where they can?

 

Remember the large amount of Nextel sites that are being decommissioned without conversion or replacement? or the speculation regarding how TD-LTE is going to be deployed and how it won't just be a 1:1 replacement of existing WiMax sites.

 

They're BOTH approximating original coverage and optimizing their networks to remove redundancies.

Edited January 13, 2013 by gangrene

[dmchssc]

99.9% of existing PCS CDMA sites will be getting LTE/NV upgrades. It's fundamentally different from Verizon's strategy of overlaying for basic coverage.

[WiWavelength]

And Sprint is obviously decommissioning, moving, and combining individual sites that it deems extraneous in order to save money during the rollout of Network Vision. Not to mention the large number of Nextel sites are that are being decommissioned without conversion or replacement, or the speculation regarding how TD-LTE is going to be deployed and how it won't just be a 1:1 replacement of existing WiMax sites.

 

They're BOTH approximating original coverage and optimizing their networks to remove redundancies.

 

Ah, now that your original assertion has been shown wrong, I see that you are moving the goalposts, just throwing out logical fallacies in an attempt to salvage your position. Nice try.

 

Sprint is decommissioning the legacy Nextel iDEN network. That is separate from Network Vision. Do not conflate the two. But Sprint is not decommissioning CDMA2000 sites. And the TD-LTE network has not even been built yet, so your speculation is just idle. Never mind that the TD-LTE network is intended for "hotspot" offload coverage, not continuous coverage, since the Sprint LTE network will provide that.

 

Regardless, Milan is correct. No other carrier "has such a granular plan on deploying to almost all sites, nationwide." VZW's strategy of LTE deployment lacks the site density, Release 10 compatibility, and RRUs of Network Vision. It is not comparable to Network Vision in scale or degree. Trust us, S4GRU knows. We have the plans, and Sponsors/Premier Sponsors can view those plans.

 

Look, you moved on from Sprint. If you want to stick around here and be an apologist for other carriers, that is fine, but at least get your facts right.

 

AJ

[pyroscott]

Verizon's LTE rollout is more like Sprint's WiMax rollout (except that they are not contracting it from someone else) they are essentially deploying another separate network. In contrast, Sprint is updating the equipment on nearly every site, adding LTE and modernizing EV-DO and 1xRTT. As far as Nextel and WiMax, they are converting a few nextel sites but nextel sites were not usable for "sprint" customers anyway, so how does that have any bearing on this. WiMax speculation is just that, speculation, so that has zero bearing on the discussion.

 

Edit: AJ beat me to it...

[Kevster1321]

Sprint is doing every tower well Verizon is doing every other or every third tower.not the same as Sprint

[WiWavelength]

Edit: AJ beat me to it...

 

I now suspect that gangrene is afflicted with "Hey, buddy, this is New Yawk," a form of hasty generalization. He assumes that if Sprint does not work for him personally in the New York City metro, then Sprint in general must be inferior to other carriers that do meet his personal needs. After all, everyone knows that New York City is the capital of the world and New Yawkers are the most important people on the planet.

 

 

AJ

[maxsilver]

Sprint is doing every tower well Verizon is doing every other or every third tower.not the same as Sprint

 

This is technically true, but not a fully accurate representation of the situation.

 

Verizon's LTE rollout, and Sprint's LTE rollout, seem to be about the same amount of work.

 

I'm not sure how it is in other markets, but in Michigan, Verizon is only upgrading about half of their towers to LTE, and Sprint is doing most-to-all of them.

 

However, Sprint here has very little overlap between tower coverage -- their cell sites coverage barely overlap -- only just the minimal amount for a call handoff. Verizon on the other hand, has a lot of redundant tower coverage, and lots of overlap between sites.

 

So, it's technically true that Verizon isn't upgrading "all" of their sites, and that Sprint is upgrading all of theirs. But Verizon has so many extra, overlapping sites that even if they only do half of their sites, the total number of towers upgraded will end up pretty similar to Sprint's.

 

And while they haven't started this yet, Verizon will be using AWS for LTE on all of their tower sites in a year or two, so eventually, all of their towers (even the redundant ones) will be running LTE.

 

(And, by the time Verizon is actively deploying AWS LTE, Sprint will likely be re-purposing Clearwire spectrum to do something similar with their sites)

[WiWavelength]

Western Michigan is a former iPCS affiliate market. iPCS was one of Sprint's worst affiliates -- and that is saying something. So, Western Michigan markets are not representative of Sprint markets as a whole.

 

Additionally, VZW is going to need an additional few years to deploy AWS LTE across its network, so Sprint's 2.5 year timeline for Network Vision is looking pretty good by comparison.

 

AJ

[maxsilver]

Western Michigan is a former iPCS affiliate market. iPCS was one of Sprint's worst affiliates -- and that is saying something. So, Western Michigan markets are not representative of Sprint markets as a whole.

 

 

Wow. I've been digging through various cell information for a long time, but I never knew this before.

 

That explains a lot. Especially why people kept talking about Sprint having a "dense network." -- I was pretty confused, as their cell sites here are spread out super thin, with less of them (per square mile) than other carriers (even less than either T-Mobile or MetroPCS.)

 

Thanks!

[xcharles718]

How many POPs would VZW & Sprint cover when their respective LTE deployment is (initially) completed?

 

Sent from my Nokia Lumia 920 using Board Express

[gangrene]

I now suspect that gangrene is afflicted with "Hey, buddy, this is New Yawk," a form of hasty generalization. He assumes that if Sprint does not work for him personally in the New York City metro, then Sprint in general must be inferior to other carriers that do meet his personal needs. After all, everyone knows that New York City is the capital of the world and New Yawkers are the most important people on the planet.

 

 

AJ

 

I stand by my position, however there is simply no point in arguing with someone who I strongly suspect is on an entirely different kind of "spectrum."

Edited January 13, 2013 by gangrene