T-Mobile gets ready to launch LTE and HD Voice

[S4GRU]

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

 

Yes. In the way that a Koenigsegg is faster than a Corvette. Because both provide speeds faster than what you need for a smartphone.

 

Robert via Samsung Note II via Tapatalk

 

 

[lilotimz]

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

 

Another thing to add. T-mobiles coverage indoors and coverage outside cities is laughable. T-mobile LTE can be hell of a lot faster than sprint (if they use channels wider than 5x5) but it doesn't matter if you can't get it inside a building or when you get one mile outside a major city. Their speeds are respectable but their coverage and indoor penetration leaves much to be desired.

[ericdabbs]

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

 

Its hard to say right now. With tmobile acquiring metropcs, it really helps tmobiles aws and pcs spectrun depth that allows them to deploy a 10x10 lte carrier and in some areas a 20x20 lte carrier once tmobile migrates all hspa+ on aws spectrum to pcs spectrum.

 

I am very curious about 20 mhz tdd lte carriers on sprint from clearwire to see how speeds compare. The bigger question is how much depth will sprint add to the 2.5 ghz spectrum LTE in all its markets. Sprint obviously would need to extend its 2.5 ghz LTE to cities like phoenix and san diego who never got wimax

 

Sent from my MB855 using Tapatalk 2

[iansltx]

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

 

Yes...though keep in mind that by the time 600MHz rolls around I'm sure that there will be both CDMA and GSM based carriers grabbing that spectrum, for FD-LTE. T-Mobile (or whoever else) can do LTE-only roaming with any of them, provided compatibility exists.

 

My original point still stands: T-Mobile only wants to make sure that they can ink a roaming agreement with whomever they please. From what I've seen, they don't want to serve rural areas themselves if they can help it.

[iansltx]

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

 

For peak speeds in markets that can hold a 10x10 or better LTE carrier in AWS, yes.

 

For average speeds in markets that can hold a 20x20 LTE carrier in AWS, yes.

 

In markets like Kansas City where AWS LTE will be 5x5 for awhile yet, no.

[Bob Newhart]

What difference does it make for a user if a carrier implements a single 10x10 vs multiple 5x5?

 

If its a location with many users, we won't notice the difference, right?

[irev210]

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.

 

I disagree. Indoor coverage in urban areas does matter. While all carriers will say no indoor coverage is guaranteed, when you compare carriers, it makes a HUGE difference when it comes to the user experience.

 

Customers don't care if they are in a basement or behind brick and lowE glass, they want coverage. Sub-1GHz spectrum is the only realistic way to provide it.

[ericdabbs]

I disagree. Indoor coverage in urban areas does matter. While all carriers will say no indoor coverage is guaranteed, when you compare carriers, it makes a HUGE difference when it comes to the user experience.

 

Customers don't care if they are in a basement or behind brick and lowE glass, they want coverage. Sub-1GHz spectrum is the only realistic way to provide it.

 

I agree that indoor coverage in urban areas does matter. While sub-1 Ghz spectrum is much needed if the carrier plans to provide rural coverage, the voice of those in the rural areas is not as loud as those who are in the large urban areas who can't get a good voice or data signal indoors. The truth is that any carrier needs a combination of low, med and high spectrum to be an efficient carrier with capacity.

 

Sprint is on the road to becoming a better carrier by having low, med and high spectrum for voice and data.

[iansltx]

I disagree. Indoor coverage in urban areas does matter. While all carriers will say no indoor coverage is guaranteed, when you compare carriers, it makes a HUGE difference when it comes to the user experience.

 

Customers don't care if they are in a basement or behind brick and lowE glass, they want coverage. Sub-1GHz spectrum is the only realistic way to provide it.

 

ub-1GHz has interference issues though, the the spectrum is quite expensive if you're just going to use it as an overlay for a much denser network in an urban context. It would be less expensive for T-Mobile to split cells to get in-building coverage (which honestly isn't that bad from what I've seen...areas where it's poor are an artifact of poor site placement since Sprint has fine indoor coverage there) than for them to purchase 600 spectrum covering heavily populated areas to do the same thing.

 

I could be wrong, but there's a reason that MetroPCS for the most part stayed out of the 700 auction.

[irev210]

ub-1GHz has interference issues though, the the spectrum is quite expensive if you're just going to use it as an overlay for a much denser network in an urban context. It would be less expensive for T-Mobile to split cells to get in-building coverage (which honestly isn't that bad from what I've seen...areas where it's poor are an artifact of poor site placement since Sprint has fine indoor coverage there) than for them to purchase 600 spectrum covering heavily populated areas to do the same thing.

 

I could be wrong, but there's a reason that MetroPCS for the most part stayed out of the 700 auction.

 

I only base my assumption on where I've seen Verizon 4G LTE on 700MHz and the times I roam when I go indoors.

 

Verizon's 4G LTE urban coverage in Boston is exceptional. Speed-wise, it's overloaded, but the coverage is great.