Jump to content
CriticalityEvent

T-Mobile LTE & Network Discussion

Recommended Posts

http://gizmodo.com/5...-everybodys-ass

 

 

A lot of people wrote T-Mobile off when its big merger with AT&T fell through last year. The pink carrier had no iPhone, no 4G. But with today's announcement of the company's official LTE rollout, it may have just put itself in a position to offer something no one else can.

 

For the past few years T-Mobile has been focusing its efforts on its HSPA+ network, which has data speeds up to 42Mbps. Now, that isn't as high as LTE's theoretical maximum, but in practice we've found that HSPA+ speeds are almost as fast as LTE speed. When testing the Nexus 4 on T-Mo, for instance, we got download speeds of 16Mbps and 2Mbps uploads. Not bad at all.

 

Why does that matter? Because T-Mobile's isn't replacing its lightning quick HSPA+ network with LTE. It's just building it out in addition. That's going to make a huge difference.

 

Say you're on Verizon, enjoying your wicked fast 4G data thanks to its girthful LTE network. Hit a low or no-coverage spot, though, and you get bounced over to its 3G network. That is a major dropoff in speed—typically going from 20Mbps to 1 or 2Mbps. Suddenly, it'll be hard to stream music, and web browsing will crawl by comparison. Even AT&T's HSPA network (HSPA 21Mbps) is only about half the speed of T-Mobile's (HSPA 42Mbps). In other words, T-Mobile's backup is fast enough that you probably won't even notice that you're on the backup, which is pretty awesome. (For a look at how LTE works, check this out.) T-Mobile will offer guaranteed uninterrupted zip, something no other carrier can.

 

We're not there yet, though, unfortunately; T-Mobile's LTE won't be live in until the end of March, it will take the company until the end of the year to cover 100 million people. Your LTE choice is also limited; the only LTE device T-Mobile currently has is the Galaxy Note II, which will have LTE enabled through an OTA update coming this week. Hope is coming, though; theBlackBerry Z10 will launch with LTE, and we expect that the Galaxy S IV and the HTC One will as well.

 

T-Mobile still has a lot to prove but if it can successfully deliver everything it's promising, it will be offering something the other networks can't. Whether that's enough enough to make you switch, of course, is another question entirely.

 

 

 

Thoughts? From what I've read on this forum, people seem to think that T-Mobile's network is the only one of the four major carriers that will really rival Sprint's post-NV network in terms of technology.

 

However, I have some issues with this article; what it seems to be focusing on is maximum throughput as a standard by which to judge all other carriers. From my point of view, T-Mobile seems to be more metro-focused. Most of my friends who have it live in a major city and get usable signal in many more places than I do when I’m with them. On the other side of the coin, when they’re in a more suburban/rural area, they drop down to EDGE while I might still have LTE.

 

I guess I would like to see some hard evidence that T-Mobile’s HSPA+ “fallback” will be used as frequently as Sprint’s EV-DO network when the LTE signal starts getting weak. As far as I understand, T-Mobile will only be rolling out LTE on the 1700/2100MHz band, which would be comparable to Sprint’s 1900MHz band. However, once Sprint rolls out LTE on 800MHz, even if it will not be on every tower, would that be comparable to T-Mobile’s HSPA+ in terms of coverage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technology wise it will be great, but coverage is urban only. You get out of a population area and you are on 2G Edge, good luck downloading apps, streaming music, browsing the web on that dinosaur...

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technology wise it will be great, but coverage is urban only. You get out of a population area and you are on 2G Edge, good luck downloading apps, streaming music, browsing the web on that dinosaur...

 

 

Agreed. Sorry, I was still editing my post when you added that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technology wise it will be great, but coverage is urban only. You get out of a population area and you are on 2G Edge, good luck downloading apps, streaming music, browsing the web on that dinosaur...

 

This is the problem with so many tech bloggers trumping up T-Mobile's DC-HSPA+ 42 network as a great fallback. Judging by the 3G/4G W-CDMA coverage area that T-Mobile has constructed over the last six years, if you find yourself in a native coverage area without LTE, you probably will not have W-CDMA either.

 

AJ

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"People seem to think that T-Mobile's network is the only one of the four major carriers that will really rival Sprint's post-NV network in terms of technology."

 

I can only speak for myself, but with WCS and AWS spectrum respectively, both AT&T and Verizon(especially Verizon) can build plenty fast networks. Both companies have the cash to build out NV style projects whenever they feel they need to. They might limit the modernizations to the cities, but I see LTE on AWS for Verizon having a greater footprint than T-Mobile's entire network. Also, everyone but T-Mobile has <1GHZ spectrum, so really T-Mobile is in a really tough position coverage wise. Price and siding with the evil empires are a bigger issue for me than network potential. Oh and AT&T's current network is crap around here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fact is, T-Mobile will be cannibalizing some of its HSPA+ spectrum in AWS to make way for LTE. In some areas, all of it. Now they'll have PCS HSPA+ for backup, potentially DC-HSPA+ 42 Mbps, but in the same amount of spectrum that T-Mobile uses for DC-HSPA+, Sprint can deploy two 5x5 LTE carriers, with 75% more throughput in ideal conditions. In less than ideal conditions, Sprint can hit speeds on 5x5 LTE that T-Mobile takes DC-HSPA+ (double the spectrum) to achieve.

 

But getting back to LTE, T-Mobile will have a nice, fast network once they're done deploying. They'll have 10x10 LTE with similar cell sizes to Sprint's 5x5. Until Clearwire EBS LTE comes online, that probably means that T-Mobile LTE will be twice (or more) as fast as Sprint LTE...remember that TMo has fewer customers than Sprint.

 

That said, AJ is spot-on about T-Mobile's haves/have-nots situation with regard to network enhancements. I'm pretty sure Verizon and AT&T have less 1x-only and EDGE-only territory, respectively, than T-Mobile does, in an absolute site count sense...and T-Mobile's network is much smaller than either. That says somthing about T-Mobile's priorities.

 

For what it's worth, Verizon's upcoming AWS LTE network will probably cover 80% of what T-Mobile's LTE (AWS) network will end up serving, with not GPRS, EDGE or even HSPA+ but actual LTE (in 700 upper-C) serving as a fallback. Now Verizon's speeds may not match T-Mobile's two years from now when both carriers have 20x20 AWS LTE deployed (I won't be surprised when 100M down, 50M up tests roll in from T-Mobile's side), but that's not due to T-Mobile's inherent network superiority. It's because Verizon will have more subscribers using AWS LTE than T-Mobile; Verizon is 3x T-Mo's size last I checked.

 

That said, I don't have a problem with T-Mobile having higher speeds than VZW due to its lower subscriber cou nt. Keeps them on their un-carrier toes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anytime I see Tmobile ads or even forum threads for that matter I just laugh due to their coverage for my area. They could at least cover the interstate system.

 

Sent from my little Note2

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T-Mobile is great if you live in a larger city. But drive 10 miles out of almost city that has 4G and you'll be on Edge or even GPRS.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That said, I don't have a problem with T-Mobile having higher speeds than VZW due to its lower subscriber cou nt. Keeps them on their un-carrier toes.

 

I do have somewhat of a problem with T-Mobile's spectrum holdings. It does not make sense for the runt of the litter to have more spectrum per capita than the leading carrier does. If we are really going to allow the industry to consolidate down to just three or four major players, then we need to reconsider our approach to spectrum management. Having the remaining players compete for spectrum fails to take into account actual need. Allow each carrier to buy spectrum proportionally according to its market share. Then, the carriers can compete on factors that really matter: coverage, service, policies, and price.

 

AJ

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do have somewhat of a problem with T-Mobile's spectrum holdings. It does not make sense for the runt of the litter to have more spectrum per capita than the leading carrier does. If we are really going to allow the industry to consolidate down to just three or four major players, then we need to reconsider our approach to spectrum management. Having the remaining players compete for spectrum fails to take into account actual need. Allow each carrier to buy spectrum proportionally according to its market share. Then, the carriers can compete on factors that really matter: coverage, service, policies, and price.

 

AJ

 

But, if you break the holdings up this way, how can you ever hope to have those market share proportions change?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, if you break the holdings up this way, how can you ever hope to have those market share proportions change?

 

Spectrum would be leased from the public to wireless carriers on a yearly basis, then reapportioned annually. Unlike auctions, which create periodic windfalls, this would ensure a steady stream of revenue to the Treasury. And my understanding is that Japan manages its wireless spectrum this way.

 

AJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is the problem with so many tech bloggers trumping up T-Mobile's DC-HSPA+ 42 network as a great fallback. Judging by the 3G/4G W-CDMA coverage area that T-Mobile has constructed over the last six years, if you find yourself in a native coverage area without LTE, you probably will not have W-CDMA either.

 

AJ

 

Exactly.... Found it funny that the article talked in very general terms making giant assumptions... Just because you lose X signal type doesn't mean you will fall back to #2 type.... If coverage area for both kinds are the same you'd be skipping #2 all together and jump straight to the 3rd option...

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Say you're on Verizon, enjoying your wicked fast 4G data thanks to its girthful LTE network. Hit a low or no-coverage spot, though, and you get bounced over to its 3G network. That is a major dropoff in speed—typically going from 20Mbps to 1 or 2Mbps. Suddenly, it'll be hard to stream music, and web browsing will crawl by comparison.

 

What kind of music app struggles to stream with 1-2 Mbps? I've streamed Pandora on high quality with a little less than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, Verizon's upcoming AWS LTE network will probably cover 80% of what T-Mobile's LTE (AWS) network will end up serving, with not GPRS, EDGE or even HSPA+ but actual LTE (in 700 upper-C) serving as a fallback. Now Verizon's speeds may not match T-Mobile's two years from now when both carriers have 20x20 AWS LTE deployed (I won't be surprised when 100M down, 50M up tests roll in from T-Mobile's side), but that's not due to T-Mobile's inherent network superiority. It's because Verizon will have more subscribers using AWS LTE than T-Mobile; Verizon is 3x T-Mo's size last I checked.

 

That said, I don't have a problem with T-Mobile having higher speeds than VZW due to its lower subscriber cou nt. Keeps them on their un-carrier toes.

Verizon is actually going to have 2x20Mhz AWS LTE this year in quite a few markets. They don't have to wait for any merger to finalize, for refarm to happen, they could deploy 2x20Mhz as a secondary LTE carrier today in NYC for example.

They have contiguous 40Mhz of AWS (A+B block) just sitting and waiting here.

 

So I'm expecting to see 100Mbps, or 150Mbps (with Cat 4 UE) coming from Verizon much earlier than T-Mobile, most likely H2 2013. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is the problem with so many tech bloggers trumping up T-Mobile's DC-HSPA+ 42 network as a great fallback. Judging by the 3G/4G W-CDMA coverage area that T-Mobile has constructed over the last six years, if you find yourself in a native coverage area without LTE, you probably will not have W-CDMA either.

 

AJ

 

Not only that but T-Mobile has legacy equipment in these rural stations of nothingness, and no SMR like spectrum to deploy. Sure they can buy the 700 A spectrum off VZW and other partners but that's far from a clincher.

 

I also believe T-Mobile should consider buying some rural carriers. MTPCS, Viaero, and MobileNation (currently operating as a Sprint Rural Alliance) would all be on my hit list if I were T-Mobile. I'd also look at King Street and US Cellular spectrum. USCC has a bunch of spectrum in the Carbondale Marion BTA they never built out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're going to compare T-Mobile's near future plans to Sprint's, then wouldn't a huge point be the 800 mHz LTE Sprint will have? I could care less if a carrier offers me 10 Mbps versus 50+ Mbps average downloads if they have far better in-building reception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adding to that, even sprints lte 1900 will penetrate better than tmobiles lte on aws I would guess. Then again, tmobile has the greatest site density at least in metropolitan Detroit, compared to any other carrier by far. So that may make up for it. As for rural areas though, completely different story. Tmobile is an urban carrier and that's what they seem to be focused on. Att and verizon are really the only options for rural customers, tmobile isnt planning on overlaying their current edge network, but even if they do, there is no sub ghz spectrum for adequate coverage. One day sprint may be a 3rd option for rural customers with smr. But more towers will be needed to fill In the gaps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So i just read that Tmobiles 4G LTE would launch later this month and would cover about 200 million Americans. I was just wondering why they would be able to go from 0 to 200 million in 9 months and it is taking sprint longer. I was under the impression that both Sprint and Tmobile had the same kind of revenue flow.

 

 

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57575712-94/t-mobile-testing-4g-lte-in-more-than-eight-cities/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think T-Mobile's plan is very optimistic, maybe if all 200 million people went to work and didn't go home, didn't use the phone on the way to work, slept at work.

 

Sprint's is a little less optimistic than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should have a bit of a time advantage because they already have fiber to their hspa+ locations speeding up the whole lte process.

 

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe 2,000,000 that's all

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T-Mobile has had fiber to almost 100% of their HSPA+ footprint for a while now. Sprint basically has to put fiber or other backhaul at every site that they upgrade to NV.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i read that open signal found tmobile lte in denver. las vegas kansas city new orleans new york san diego san jose seattle

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found Tmo LTE in Albuquerque this week. But it would not authenticate.

 

Robert via Samsung Note II via Tapatalk

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest problem with T-mobile is not the speed of their LTE deployment (which should be faster than Sprint in metro areas as they don't have to wait on backhaul) but is the fact that their LTE will only overlay their HSPA+ footprint. The majority of their network outside metro areas are still Edge / 2g. The difference for a T-mobile LTE subscriber will be immense dropping from LTE to edge whereas Sprint at least has 3g on the rurals and LTE coming soon.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Similar Content

    • By danlodish345
      Hi everybody I would figure I would start a Sprint volte launch thread. please keep the let's please keep it on topic.
    • By Paynefanbro
      I recently went on an 8 day cruise from NYC to the Caribbean that stopped in Turks and Caicos, Puerto Rico, and the Dominican Republic. My first stop was Grand Turk and there I opted for the free roaming. My S9+ automatically connected to Flow's (Cable & Wireless) LTE network where I received speeds of around 120kbps on average with boosts of up to 150kbps. Something worth noting is that on speed tests, the server prefers to default to Sprint's Miami server as opposed to local servers. Speeds were more than adequate for any amount of web browsing and honestly felt much faster than in reality. It helps that using Chrome will save you data by not loading pictures on certain sites unless you click them.
      In Puerto Rico, I connected to Band 13 on the way into the port in San Juan but once I was in the city, my phone never left Band 41. While the phone was usable, speeds remained significantly lower than what I've come to expect from 3xCA in the mainland U.S. Data speeds peaked at around 25-30Mbos but on average were in the 5-10 Mbps range even on LTE+. Signal remained strong everywhere though. 
      Finally in the Dominican Republic, I entered in Amber Cover which is in Puerto Plata. My phone latched onto a weak Band 2 LTE signal in the port from Altice (called Orange Dominicana in SignalCheck). I had trouble loading pages though. Once off of the ship and out in the open, I had a much stronger signal which allowed me to browse the internet without a hitch. Because it was the last day of my trip, while at the beach I decided to purchase the 24 hour high speed pass for $5. My speeds went from 120kbps to 65Mbps in less than 5 seconds. In some areas speeds were slower, particularly at the port where it struggled to break 2Mbps. Now, back on the boat my phone is flipping between weak Band 4 LTE and overloaded Band 5 HSPA+ from Claro (called Verizon Dominicana in SignalCheck Pro). Here is the difference in speed from before and after purchasing the high speed pass. 
    • By legion125
      by Jeff Foster
      Sprint 4G Rollout Updates
      Friday, April 20, 2012 - 11:31 AM MDT
       
      Is there a "spectrum shortage?" Those two words send shivers down the spines of wireless industry executives. New services demand ever more spectrum, and, the story goes, there simply isn't enough spectrum available. An Internet search engine will easily find hundreds of thousands of links to the term "spectrum shortage." Many claim that it will be the downfall of America.
      The dwindling availability of a finite resource that can't be seen or touched threatens to possibly disrupt the mobile lifestyle that virtually every American has embraced. Dropped cellphone calls, delayed text messages and choppy video streams could become more frequent occurrences because the airwaves on which that data travel are nearing capacity at a time when mobile usage shows no signs of slowing.
      Federal regulators and industry players are searching for ways to fend off the supply-and-demand collision. Dish Network recently acquired a large block of vacant wireless spectrum that pending regulatory approval could be used for mobile broadband services.
       
      Short-Term Plan

      AT&T tried to merge with T-Mobile to solve its own capacity problem. It wanted to get its hands on T-Mobile spectrum. Still, that would have been only a temporary fix at best. Remember all the terrible stories about the quality of AT&T's wireless data network over the last few years? They say they simply don't have enough.
      The reason is that during the last few years, smartphones like the Apple iPhone and the many devices running Android emerged, and wireless data traffic grew like crazy. This problem jumped up and bit AT&T in the rear end. Suddenly, so many people were sucking so much data that the network could not handle it, due to spectrum shortage. Spectrum is like the size of the hose, and a wider hose is needed to carry more data for more customers.
      A couple good things are suddenly happening that may give carriers a little time to solve this increasing problem. Perhaps Verizon starting to sell the iPhone last spring has something to do with it. If so, then now with Sprint selling the iPhone, AT&T will have more breathing room, at least temporarily. That's the good news. However, that reprieve will only last a short while before the exploding smartphone and wireless data growth catches up. Then the other carriers will be faced with the same problem that's confronting AT&T.
      In the first quarter of 2011, the amount of data the average smartphone user consumed each month grew by 89 percent to 435 megabytes from 230 MB during the same quarter in 2010, according to Nielsen research. That's up from about 90 MB in 2009. For reference, the average size of an MP3 music file is about 4 MB.
      "Texting has always been traditionally viewed as a lightweight consumer of bandwidth, but if I start adding videos and pictures to my texts, that also starts consuming more bandwidth," said Tom Cullen, an executive vice president with Dish. But the primary growth driver will be video. Consumers can go through 5 gigabytes a month simply by streaming 10 minutes of standard definition video daily, he said.
       
      Data use is skyrocketing
      Data from the FCC indicate that more Americans are looking at their phones rather than talking on them. In 2009, 67 percent of available spectrum was utilized for voice and 33 percent for Internet data. Those percentages are now at 75 percent for data and 25 percent for voice. With each new iPhone release, data consumption grows. The iPhone 4S eats up twice as much data as the iPhone 4 and three times as much as the iPhone 3G, according to a study by network services firm Arieso. The new iPhone features Siri, a bandwidth-heavy voice recognition feature.
      The FCC estimates the U.S. will face a spectrum deficit of 90 MHz in 2013 and 275 MHz in 2014. To address the crunch, the federal government hopes to unleash 500 MHz of spectrum currently used for other purposes for wireless broadband by 2020. To put that figure in perspective, there is currently 547 MHz of spectrum allocated for mobile services, and AT&T and Verizon each own about 90 MHz.
      The government plans to hold so-called incentive auctions, which will try to lure spectrum owners such as TV broadcasters to sell their licenses. Verizon Wireless has agreed to purchase spectrum from a group of cable-TV companies. Sprint has expressed interest in working with Dish, which acquired the bulk of its 45 MHz of spectrum through two deals for bankrupt satellite technology companies. Dish chairman Charlie Ergen has said that the satellite-TV provider would prefer to partner with an existing wireless carrier on a high speed, 4G network. In response to recent comments by Sprint Chief Financial Officer Joe Euteneuer about the company's interest in working with Dish, Cullen said other wireless carriers are in the same situation. After failing to acquire T-Mobile, analysts expect AT&T to make a play for Dish, a long-rumored merger partner.
      As for T-Mobile, perhaps the most logical buyer is CenturyLink. T-Mobile's German-based parent company has indicated that it might exit the U.S. market. CenturyLink, which acquired Denver-based Qwest last year, is the third-largest landline phone company but does not own a wireless service, unlike the top two, AT&T and Verizon.
      Carriers are trying to offload as much traffic as they can to Wi-Fi networks, which ride on unlicensed spectrum. In some areas, they're installing picocells, which are smaller cell sites that can help boost capacity in dense areas.
      Finally, they're spending billions of dollars on LTE networks that use the airwaves more efficiently. Verizon and AT&T already have 4G LTE networks in place, and Sprint is moving to the technology. Dish says it hopes to enter the mobile broadband market with advanced LTE technology by late 2014 or early 2015. If Dish were to also offer voice service, it would come through VoLTE, which is similar to Voice-over-Internet Protocol (VOIP) phone services. Dish still needs the FCC to drop a condition tied to its spectrum that requires devices to have the ability to communicate with satellites, not just ground-based cell sites. The rule-making process that will likely remove the requirement is underway and could be completed by summer's end.
       
      Is there really a shortage problem?
      The problem, analysts argue, is that the operators that control the greatest amount of unused spectrum may be under-capitalized or unwilling to build out networks to use the spectrum. "We do not believe the U.S. faces a spectrum shortage," Jason Bazinet and Michael Rollins wrote in their Citigroup report. "Too much spectrum is controlled by companies that are not planning on rolling out services or face business and financial challenges. And of the spectrum that is being used, 90 percent of it has been allocated to existing 2G, 3G, and 3.5G wireless services by larger wireless carriers, such as AT&T, Verizon Wireless, Sprint Nextel, and T-Mobile USA.
      In total, U.S. operators have licenses for about 538MHz of wireless spectrum. Only about 192MHz of that spectrum is currently being used. Most of the unused wireless spectrum is owned by companies such as Clearwire, LightSquared, and Dish Network. But so far, LightSquared has been stopped and the other companies have been slow to build networks using their available spectrum.
      "There is definitely a mismatch when it comes to spectrum in the wireless industry," said Paul Gallant, an analyst with MF Global in Washington, D.C. "There are some companies that have spectrum, but they're struggling financially. Or they aren't quite sure what to do with the spectrum. And others that have the money and business model, but need the spectrum." The move to 4G is very important for these operators because it offers them a more efficient way to deliver service. 4G LTE uses the available spectrum roughly 700 percent more efficiently than the 3G wireless technology EV-DO. Carriers will soon be refarming 3G spectrum to 4G LTE in several years.
      A key factor in encouraging efficient use of spectrum has been largely overlooked in carrier boardroom discussions. Wireless providers can add capacity, without obtaining more spectrum, by adding more and more cell sites. Additional cell sites in spectrum constrained areas allow the same spectrum to be used by even more consumers, as well as adding picocells and microcells to denser population areas. So far, the carriers have not expressed too much interest in this method due to additional capital expenditures and overhead. Their strategy is like what Microsoft, Apple and Google have used. It's just cheaper to buy what you need than to invest the time and energy to do the actual work.
      So what can the wireless companies do? To some extent, re-farming their existing networks will help. But so will finding ways to use other spectrum. For example, only T-Mobile lets users make phone calls using Wi-Fi, yet most of the mobile devices available from carriers have this capability; the carriers just don't enable it.
      Allowing Wi-Fi calling could unload millions of voice and data users on to alternative networks and ease the spectrum crunch, at least to some extent. Encouraging VoIP use would also help for two reasons. VoIP doesn't require a lot of bandwidth, and it means that the phone in question uses only the data spectrum, not both voice and data while this is going on.
      These points illustrate that the carriers do have options beyond just buying up spectrum. They can offload more wireless traffic than they do now, build more cell sites into their networks and they can allow the use of other types of communications. While the spectrum crunch isn't going away, that doesn't mean that the process can't be slowed.
       
      Sensational graphic extolling the dire spectrum crisis. Maybe a tad exaggerated???
       
       
      Images courtesy: Spectrum Bridge, iqmetrix.com
       
      Source: FierceWireless.com, Denver Post, Ecommercetimes.com, CNET
    • By S4GRU
      by Jeff Foster
      Sprint 4G Rollout Updates
      Tuesday, January 31, 2012 - 7:46 PM MST
       
      Since last fall, there had been talk of a Samsung Galaxy Nexus launching on American carriers other than Big Red. Sprint has finally announced several weeks ago that it is the another vendor slated for release in the U.S. Suffice to say, many of us out there, especially those adverse to heading to Verizon and paying its premium prices, are excited about the impending release.
      The good news is that Google could be working on an updated version of the Galaxy Nexus. It has unofficially been dubbed the Galaxy Nexus Plus. There is much anticipation that it will be released before Sprint turns on LTE this summer. It’s not the first time an OEM has refreshed a device and re-released it to the market place, which works to our advantage. It’s rumored that the new Galaxy Nexus will have either a 1.5 or 1.8 GHz Texas Instrument OMAP4670 dual core processor. This would be a significant upgrade from the 1.2 GHz dual core processor found in the current Verizon version.
      We don’t know anything about official specs, but it’s also rumored to have an 8 MP camera. This is a noteworthy upgrade to the 5 MP shooter on the Verizon model (which has been lauded by many techies). We already know that the Sprint model will come installed with Google Wallet, per previous announcements. Some rumors also point to a beefier battery as well. The phone should have all the other features that’s on the current Galaxy Nexus, so now all we have to do is wait.
       
       
      Source: http://androidandme....era-on-the-way/
    • By EntrepreneurKid
      With Todays announcement that T-Mobile and Sprint are merging, and the announcement of the T-Mobile Sprint Roaming deal that will survive and will last for four years regardless if the merger is completed or not, which is effect immediately as stated in the conference call and the slides made available. So I thought I'd create this to see if anyone has been able to use their Sprint device on T-Mobile roaming yet. And of course if not, once you do, come back here and say you have. Personally I'm not bothering with anything until after the coverage map is updated again, hopefully to reflect the T-Mobile roaming. And of course if you are able to roam onto T-Mobile what kind of speeds are you pulling, and on what device.
      Also for those that are unaware, the T-Mobile Sprint Roaming agreement that was announced as part of todays merger announcement is a roaming agreement for Sprint customers to roam onto T-Mobile for 4 years and takes affect immediately, yes right now, regardless if the merger completes or not. Surely it's a stepping stone to integrating the networks by getting Sprint devices that are capable, which according to the conference call is 20 Million Sprint devices ready to be used on the T-Mobile network full time once deal is approved by the regulators and finally completed.
  • Posts

    • Don't be dramatic. Lol. Can't wait to see Neville and Saw on the podium kicking ass and taking names.  
    • Red,. I applaud your passion.  And no I'm not being condescending.  But I disagree with what your saying.  Yess, we didn't see the $5-6B that tmobile spends. Or the $10+B that the other two guys spend.  The balance sheet couldn't support it.  They had to be creative, Hence Mobilitie.  I would have love to see money thrown Willy nilly to build more tower. But, at that point it couldn't be done.   Now the point about Masa,. Think about it this way.  It's like you got this big ass mansion with many guest houses.  And fires all over the place.  And a guest house catches 🔥.  But your limited on how much water you can use.   If you use too much, you won't have enough to protect the mansion. And then everything you worked for is down the drain.  Or literally up in smoke.   Masa has $100B+ in debt.  Guy is not dumb.  But he has to be selective on how to use the *water*.  I think he's an incredible risk taker. Some pan out, some don't.  But, I won't critize the guy, cause again if Masa didn't buy Sprint. Other carriers would be picking @ Sprint like vultures on the roads.  
    • If the merger doesn't go through I'm out, not gonna be a good network to be on considering the competition. Would love to see B41 at it's prime, it's perfect for 5G but time will tell.
    • Maybe. But he isn't a charity. There was better use for his capital than investing in a Sprint with T-mobile. 
  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

×