T-Mobile gets ready to launch LTE and HD Voice

[lynyrd65]

Well, now, that would be very convent for a resident Tulsa, where US Cellular holds one of its rare major market Cellular 850 MHz licenses. But, no, that could not be an ulterior motive for lynyrd...

 

 

AJ

 

Only for the good of the majority.

 

[bigsnake49]

US SprinT-Mobile Cellular actually

 

 

I don't know about US Cellular, but the Sprint/T-Mobile merger is seriously been looked at. It is an open secret that T-Mobile and Sprint held merger discussions in the past. There's still interest on both sides. Both sides think that there will be further consolidation. The problem is the longer they keep looking at it, the harder it will become to integrate the systems.

[iansltx]

I don't know about US Cellular, but the Sprint/T-Mobile merger is seriously been looked at. It is an open secret that T-Mobile and Sprint held merger discussions in the past. There's still interest on both sides. Both sides think that there will be further consolidation. The problem is the longer they keep looking at it, the harder it will become to integrate the systems.

 

Not really. Two years from now, both companies will have solid LTE footprints...Sprint will have its footprint completely upgraded...and at that point all you'd need to do is add a single band (AWS) to Sprint phones to lock onto T-Mobile's (faster where spectrum is available) LTE network.

 

I wouldn't mind a S/T-Mo merger in the slightest, either. Though my ulterior motives involve higher LTE speeds on Sprint (10x10 or 20x20 LTE carriers in AWS) and a second or third WCDMA option in a lot of GSM-only areas.

 

...and, of course, more PCS spectrum would allow Sprint to deploy 10x10 LTE everywhere. Maybe even 20x20 in some cases. Now that'd be cool, even though I'd need a new phone to support it.

[bigsnake49]

Not really. Two years from now, both companies will have solid LTE footprints...Sprint will have its footprint completely upgraded...and at that point all you'd need to do is add a single band (AWS) to Sprint phones to lock onto T-Mobile's (faster where spectrum is available) LTE network.

 

I wouldn't mind a S/T-Mo merger in the slightest, either. Though my ulterior motives involve higher LTE speeds on Sprint (10x10 or 20x20 LTE carriers in AWS) and a second or third WCDMA option in a lot of GSM-only areas.

 

...and, of course, more PCS spectrum would allow Sprint to deploy 10x10 LTE everywhere. Maybe even 20x20 in some cases. Now that'd be cool, even though I'd need a new phone to support it.

 

Oh, I think that it would be great if the two merged. It would present much more of a competitor for the other two behemoths. That's why I think that the fuss over Clearwire is completely unwarranted. If Sprint could offload Clearwire to Dish for some decent money and then seriously go after T-Mobile I will be extremely happy.

[iansltx]

Oh, I think that it would be great if the two merged. It would present much more of a competitor for the other two behemoths. That's why I think that the fuss over Clearwire is completely unwarranted. If Sprint could offload Clearwire to Dish for some decent money and then seriously go after T-Mobile I will be extremely happy.

 

Not gonna happen. Softbank wants to create an economy of scale around LTE-2600 and needs Clearwire to do that.

[WiWavelength]

Not gonna happen. Softbank wants to create an economy of scale around LTE-2600 and needs Clearwire to do that.

 

Somebody is stealing my "Not gonna happen" rebuttal catchphrase...

 

AJ

[iansltx]

Somebody is stealing my "Not gonna happen" rebuttal catchphrase...

 

AJ

 

You want your catchphrase back? Not gonna happen.

[bigsnake49]

Not gonna happen. Softbank wants to create an economy of scale around LTE-2600 and needs Clearwire to do that.

 

They don't need Sprint to do that. China Mobile is already on board. It's also one of the LTE global bands.

 

I fervently believe that the T-Mobile/Sprint merger is going to happen. It's a matter of when, not if.

[SpenceSouth]

In my opinion, T-Mobile has the highest quality network in America (for right now anyways). I tried them out about 8 months ago and was very pleased in every regard. They have A+ data speeds, A- voice quality, A+ selection of devices, A customer service. If their coverage wasn't so minuscule, they could be a leading carrier (D-). I can't say I wouldn't be interested in Sprint and T-Mobile merging, but I'm pretty happy with where Sprint is heading now.

 

Good things to come

[Paynefanbro]

Once my speeds git 600kbps on 3G I an happy. I only stream YouTube when I am home on WiFi, but I browse the internet on my phone all of the time. I dontneven use my Airave anymore because my 700kbps to 1.8Mbps speeds are sufficient for me. That's why I never switched to T-Mobile. Besides that they also suffer from dropped calls all over the place on NYC.

[milan03]

Once my speeds git 600kbps on 3G I an happy. I only stream YouTube when I am home on WiFi, but I browse the internet on my phone all of the time. I dontneven use my Airave anymore because my 700kbps to 1.8Mbps speeds are sufficient for me. That's why I never switched to T-Mobile. Besides that they also suffer from dropped calls all over the place on NYC.

Not the case. T-Mobile from my own experience has the best sounding voice. That's before AMR-WB. Also, the dropped calls rate is significantly lower than other GSM operator, AT&T.

 

Not sure what your sources are, but I'm speaking from my own experience. Also, once you get the speeds you want, you'll probably ask for more. That's the human nature.

[Boosted20V]

Not the case. T-Mobile from my own experience has the best sounding voice. That's before AMR-WB. Also, the dropped calls rate is significantly lower than other GSM operator, AT&T.

 

Not sure what your sources are, but I'm speaking from my own experience. Also, once you get the speeds you want, you'll probably ask for more. That's the human nature.

 

I have noticed in all the rootmetrics scores T-Mobile has a much lower rate of dropped calls than Sprint.

[S4GRU]

So far, in my area, I haven't had a single dropped call on Tmo that wasn't attributed to no coverage. But I don't get Sprint dropped calls either unless crossing a roaming seam.

 

In my observations, Tmo has slightly reduced call quality than Sprint. Sounds quality is flat, but clear. It could be the Nexus 4, though.

 

Robert via Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[Paynefanbro]

 

Not the case. T-Mobile from my own experience has the best sounding voice. That's before AMR-WB. Also, the dropped calls rate is significantly lower than other GSM operator, AT&T.

 

Not sure what your sources are, but I'm speaking from my own experience. Also, once you get the speeds you want, you'll probably ask for more. That's the human nature.

 

My Aunt owns a GS3 on T-Mobile and on 23rd Street in her office by the window, she'll will randomly drop calls. Call quality on my EVO also appears to be better than her T-Mobile. I thought it was a known fact that 1xrtt has better call quality than the GSM equivalent.

[mellimel2212]

I'm in Chicago and both the gsm carriers voice quality sucks as lol. With att slightly better voice

 

Sent from my Sprint Galaxy Nexus rockin 4.2.1 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[tbs123456]

A buddy of mine is doing T-Mobile lte upgrades here in the metro area of MinnesotaI

[irev210]

Here are my thoughts on T-Mobile, now that I have had them for a month (in Boston, MA).

 

Coverage:

Compared to Sprint, it is mixed. Sprint has no coverage where I live because they skimped out on placing a tower in a very busy square (even clearwire did not skimp out on coverage in this area). This was the original reason why I wanted to try T-Mobile.

 

In most other places, other than where I live, Sprint's coverage seems to be better.

 

On the MBTA subway, T-Mobile has coverage but for whatever reason, it's broken. I don't know why they won't fix it. It's like the backhaul went down and T-Mobile has just ignored it. I have great signal, locked onto HSPA+, but no connectivity.

 

Data:

In downtown Boston, T-Mobile's DC-HSPA+ carrier is overloaded. Switching to their PCS HSPA+ carrier is fast as heck. I don't know how to force it to stay on PCS band, so most of the time my speeds are 1-3mbit downtown.

 

About 3 miles away from downtown, speeds fly at around 15-20mbit.

 

Everywhere else, it is pretty hit or miss. It's great or it simply doesn't work. I prefer Sprint's slow and steady approach.

 

Customer service:

I'll keep this quick. Sprint's is better.

 

Voice quality:

It's very good. I think it is roughly on-par with sprint.

 

I think for $30/month, it is a VERY attractive proposition - especially if you live near a major city, like I do.

[S4GRU]

Here are my thoughts on T-Mobile, now that I have had them for a month (in Boston, MA).

 

Coverage:

Compared to Sprint, it is mixed. Sprint has no coverage where I live because they skimped out on placing a tower in a very busy square (even clearwire did not skimp out on coverage in this area). This was the original reason why I wanted to try T-Mobile.

 

In most other places, other than where I live, Sprint's coverage seems to be better.

 

On the MBTA subway, T-Mobile has coverage but for whatever reason, it's broken. I don't know why they won't fix it. It's like the backhaul went down and T-Mobile has just ignored it. I have great signal, locked onto HSPA+, but no connectivity.

 

Data:

In downtown Boston, T-Mobile's DC-HSPA+ carrier is overloaded. Switching to their PCS HSPA+ carrier is fast as heck. I don't know how to force it to stay on PCS band, so most of the time my speeds are 1-3mbit downtown.

 

About 3 miles away from downtown, speeds fly at around 15-20mbit.

 

Everywhere else, it is pretty hit or miss. It's great or it simply doesn't work. I prefer Sprint's slow and steady approach.

 

Customer service:

I'll keep this quick. Sprint's is better.

 

Voice quality:

It's very good. I think it is roughly on-par with sprint.

 

I think for 30/month, it is a VERY attractive proposition - especially if you live near a major city, like I do.

 

This is very similar to my observations. The reduced in city coverage plus EDGE only rural coverage is really holding Tmo down. They really could be a contender. They do a lot of things right. But at 30 per month, I will be keeping my Tmo Nexus 4 as an extra device for a long time.

 

With Tmo, everything is fantastic or poor. No in between. I feel manic depressive. I guess the same can be said about Sprint right now too. Fantastic or poor.

 

I too have been happy with voice quality. I expected Tmo to be more like AT&T since they are both GSM. Poor quality and dropped calls. Have not experienced either.

 

Robert via Nexus 7 with Tapatalk HD

[irev210]

With Tmo, everything is fantastic or poor. No in between. I feel manic depressive. I guess the same can be said about Sprint right now too. Fantastic or poor.

 

Exactly! It's so frustrating. One second, I'll be flying at 25mbit and the next second I'll have 3 bars and no service...

 

I just don't get how T-Mobile is going to be a serious competitor without some sub 1GHz spectrum.

[Rawvega]

 

 

I just don't get how T-Mobile is going to be a serious competitor without some sub 1GHz spectrum.

 

It seems like they're trying to position themselves for some 600MHz spectrum (way) down the line.

 

http://www.fiercebroadbandwireless.com/story/t-mobile-pushes-its-own-plan-600-mhz-mobile-broadband/2013-02-04

[iansltx]

Exactly! It's so frustrating. One second, I'll be flying at 25mbit and the next second I'll have 3 bars and no service...

 

I just don't get how T-Mobile is going to be a serious competitor without some sub 1GHz spectrum.

 

If you're an urban-only carrier, you don't care about low spectrum for your own purposes. You do, however, care about low spectrum availability for your roaming partners. Let them build a microwave-fed network with cell radii of five miles on 600MHz, then ink a roaming agreement with them so their subs use you in the city and your subs use them in the country. Win-win.

[iansltx]

This is very similar to my observations. The reduced in city coverage plus EDGE only rural coverage is really holding Tmo down. They really could be a contender. They do a lot of things right. But at 30 per month, I will be keeping my Tmo Nexus 4 as an extra device for a long time.

 

With Tmo, everything is fantastic or poor. No in between. I feel manic depressive. I guess the same can be said about Sprint right now too. Fantastic or poor.

 

I too have been happy with voice quality. I expected Tmo to be more like AT&T since they are both GSM. Poor quality and dropped calls. Have not experienced either.

 

Robert via Nexus 7 with Tapatalk HD

 

The voice quality difference is because AT&T pretty much always uses AMR-HR (half rate) as its voice codec now. T-Mobile uses AMR-FR (full rate). In this case, throwing more bits at the problem really does help. And of course AMR-WB increases the quality gulf further, but I can't test that, since my N4 doesn't have a voice plan attached (though if it did I have a friend with a One S who I could call to test the service out).

 

The odd result of AT&T's AMR-HR preference in areas that aren't out in the sticks is that folks in the middle of nowhere (where AT&T is probably still running GSM only, or maybe a single HSPA+ carrier in CLR) can get decent voice quality on Big Blue. That, or my dad's LG flip phone (AT&T via Tracfone...give it a week and it'll be Sprint via Ting) was roaming when he received that call yesterday.

[WiWavelength]

The odd result of AT&T's AMR-HR preference in areas that aren't out in the sticks is that folks in the middle of nowhere (where AT&T is probably still running GSM only, or maybe a single HSPA+ carrier in CLR) can get decent voice quality on Big Blue. That, or my dad's LG flip phone (AT&T via Tracfone...give it a week and it'll be Sprint via Ting) was roaming when he received that call yesterday.

 

He may have been roaming. I have no direct experience with AT&T -- I refuse to give that vile company any money -- but my understanding is that AT&T uses AMR-HR network wide. And it makes sense that AT&T would continue to use AMR-HR even in GSM only coverage because those areas are still stuck on EDGE data. Any GSM half rate codec uses only every other TDMA frame, so two half rate calls can be effectively packed into the same timeslot -- they just alternate frames. And that frees up GSM channels for EDGE data.

 

AJ

[WiWavelength]

If you're an urban-only carrier, you don't care about low spectrum for your own purposes. You do, however, care about low spectrum availability for your roaming partners. Let them build a microwave-fed network with cell radii of five miles on 600MHz, then ink a roaming agreement with them so their subs use you in the city and your subs use them in the country. Win-win.

 

If you are using the above to describe T-Mobile and its strategy, I disagree.

 

You may see it differently in Texas because of the many small, independent telcos that have kowtowed to AT&T and gone GSM. But on a widespread basis, T-Mobile has only one roaming partner left: AT&T. And that is because AT&T has gobbled up AT&TWS, DCOC, Centennial, and divested RCC and Alltel (WWC) assets.

 

Yet, T-Mobile wants to limit licensees' ability to dominate the sub 1 GHz spectrum landscape. That is a direct shot across the bow at AT&T and VZW, the current and potentially future roaming partners for T-Mobile.

 

AJ

[gman561]

Do u guys think tmobile lte will be faster on average then sprints?