T-Mobile LTE & Network Discussion

[WiWavelength]

If TMUS gets a nationwide 5x5 block they will have to upgrade their 2G sites to be compliant.  I hope that is what forces Tmobile to upgrade all their 2G sites to not only 600 MHz LTE but AWS LTE as well.

 

Hold on.  The FCC has not yet set service rules for 600 MHz; we do not know what geographic licensing scheme -- CMA, BTA, BEA, MTA, REA -- will be used.  But I can practically guarantee that there will be no nationwide license block.  The US is simply too large geographically, so the FCC does not do nationwide licenses with terrestrial spectrum.

 

Additionally, we do not know what buildout requirements the FCC will impose.  Will they be area based?  POPs based?  And what percentage?  If POPs based, for example, T-Mobile could overlay only its existing "evolved" network and likely meet the benchmark.

 

AJ

[Bob Newhart]

Can't wait for TMUS to get 5x5 600 MHz nationwide!

 

Why? They have licenses that cover the entire county and hardly use any of them. 

Why should any new license be different?

[WiWavelength]

Why? They have licenses that cover the entire county and hardly use any of them. 

Why should any new license be different?

 

You need to get off this soapbox.  Your perception of "use" is highly skewed toward rural areas.  Both Sprint and T-Mobile have long since satisfied the POPs based requirements of their PCS 1900 MHz licenses.  If you do not think that sufficient, complain to the FCC or your politicians.  But what is done is done.

 

AJ

[maximus1987/lou99]

Why? They have licenses that cover the entire county and hardly use any of them.

Why should any new license be different?

The lower the frequency, the fewer towers you need for same coverage.

[maximus1987/lou99]

If TMUS gets a nationwide 5x5 block they will have to upgrade their 2G sites to be compliant. I hope that is what forces Tmobile to upgrade all their 2G sites to not only 600 MHz LTE but AWS LTE as well.

With Sprint reaching 250mil LTE mid 2014, I don't think TMUS will be able to stick to their plan of 37k towers to LTE. That plan was formulated when Philip Humm was still CEO, before anyone knew Softy was gonna rescue Sprint with billions AND buy Clearwire. TMUS has to upgrade all towers with AWS LTE, HSPA+.

 

Also, AJ says 600 MHz won't be available for ?deployment? or cleared until late ?2016?

TMUS can't wait 3 more years to upgrade the 2G sites to LTE.

 

Go to the Tmobile data coverage maps and zoom in till you see yellow(2G), green(3G/4G/LTE). You'll see green spots surrounded by yellow. That yellow - the native 2G - means that TMUS has the towers but they're not upgraded. If all that yellow turned into green, TMUS would not have such a bad reputation.

Also, AJ said W-CDMA voice would have farther reach than GSM on the same frequencies so with those GSM-spaced towers converted to W-CDMA, you wouldn't have a drop in voice coverage like going to VoLTE.

 

One thing we do know is that TMUS isn't going to expand footprint until 600 MHz is available.

 

Ray said that the company is not currently looking to expand its network footprint and is eagerly awaiting next year's scheduled incentive auctions of 600 MHz broadcast TV spectrum. He said using such spectrum is "a far more effective way to go and build those opportunities out"

 

Read more: T-Mobile to expand MetroPCS footprint by 100M POPs - FierceWireless http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/t-mobile-expand-metropcs-footprint-100m-pops/2013-05-15#ixzz2ZdzDGYEZ

Subscribe at FierceWireless

[ericdabbs]

I did try Tmobile LTE at a store yesterday and its pretty darn fast.  I think Tmobile has covered a lot of the LA area since I do see a lot of the AIR antennas built on a lot of towers.  I hope they keep up the good work and make a run at Sprint for its money. Tmobile has jumped to the number 3 spot for LTE network coverage especially since they have already launched LTE in 3/4 of the top 100 markets and Sprint is not even close to that.

[Paynefanbro]

I did try Tmobile LTE at a store yesterday and its pretty darn fast.  I think Tmobile has covered a lot of the LA area since I do see a lot of the AIR antennas built on a lot of towers.  I hope they keep up the good work and make a run at Sprint for its money. Tmobile has jumped to the number 3 spot for LTE network coverage especially since they have already launched LTE in 3/4 of the top 100 markets and Sprint is not even close to that.

You are a premier sponsor with over 1,000 posts and you believe what you just said? You know about Sensorly, in all its glory and you just said T-Mobile has jumped into 3rd place. Sprint has LTE in 95% of the markets T-Mobile does. And T-Mobile has LTE in about 50% of the areas Sprint does.

[maximus1987/lou99]

You are a premier sponsor with over 1,000 posts and you believe what you just said? You know about Sensorly, in all its glory and you just said T-Mobile has jumped into 3rd place. Sprint has LTE in 95% of the markets T-Mobile does. And T-Mobile has LTE in about 50% of the areas Sprint does.

Not as many TMUS subs use sensorly as Sprint's and unfortunately, TMUS doesn't show LTE on a map and Sprint is too embarrassed of its POPs so you can't compare the two easily.

But I don't think Sprint has more than 157mil POPs. However, TMUS' advantage is temporary since June 2014 Sprint will have 250mil and TMUS will possibly have 250mil if the fiber backhaul is in place.

Edited July 21, 2013 by asdf190

[rjw]

Over on the Howard Forums I saw a link to this article posted:

 

http://www.wiwavelength.com/2013/07/a-taste-of-t-mobile-lte-bandwidth.html?m=1

 

by our very own AJ. And I guess it goes accordingly in this thread since it is about T-Mobile?

 

I'm waiting anxiously on the Miami breakdown...

Well I recently signed up T-Mobile Prepaid services roughly 2 - 3 months ago. Only reason I decided to give them a spin was due to the closest Sprint tower having issues with blocked calls and I was told by Sprint that they weren't going to fix it because the tower was scheduled for NV upgrade. That tower was recently upgraded (2-3 weeks ago and is officially 3G/4G but still no LTE being broadcast and the block call issues still occur on all of my 5 lines with Sprint).

 

But overall T-Mobile service for me has been great in the Fort Lauderdale/Miami area much better than Sprint right now. I rarely have had any issues. The speeds are great on HSPA+ and LTE. LTE coverage is still lacking but who cares when you fall back to HSPA+. You will pick up LTE in a lot more places than Sprint but with only 1 bar which is still usable. Anything over -106 dBm on Sprint usually gives me poor performance while on T-Mobile I can hang onto -113 dBm signal and have much more usable service.

 

I will say though a few buildings I visit I have no service whatsoever. But to combat this I just enable Wi-Fi calling which I think is absolutely great feature. But even though I love T-Mobile's service once Sprint starts rolling out CDMA 800 and LTE 800 I'll be back over to test then I'll make my finally decision on if I'll keep my 5 lines with Sprint or move them over to T-Mobile. The pricing also is very good IMO. As far as rural coverage I could care less about that as I am not out in those areas much but Sprint definitely will have an advantage once they build out those sites. But at this moment without NV on those sites they are just as slow as T-Mobile Edge coverage.

[maximus1987/lou99]

Sprint is very lucky to have that 800 MHz cause its a key differentiator to TMUS. I guess that was ONE positive to come out of the Nextel purchase, though they could've built A LOT of PCS coverage for $36 BIIILLLLIIOON DOLLARRSS.

 

ATT and Verizon spent $16.3 bil on 700 MHz auction. It's sad thinking about it.

[maximus1987/lou99]

Well I recently signed up T-Mobile Prepaid services roughly 2 - 3 months ago. Only reason decided to give them a spin was due to the closest Sprint tower having issues with blocked calls and I was told by Sprint that they weren't going to fix it because the tower was scheduled for NV upgrade. That tower was recently upgraded (2-3 weeks ago and is officially 3G/4G but still no LTE being broadcast and the block call issues still occur on all of my 5 lines with Sprint).

 

But overall T-Mobile service for me has been great in the Fort Lauderdale/Miami area much better than Sprint right now. I rarely have had any issues. The speeds are great on HSPA+ and LTE. LTE coverage is still quite lacking but who cares when you fall back to HSPA+. You will pick up LTE in a lot more places than Sprint but with only 1 bar which is still very much usable. Anything over -106 dBm on Sprint usually gives me poor performance while on T-Mobile I can hang on to -113 dBm signal and have much more usable service.

 

I will say though a few buildings I have go visit I have no service whatsoever. But to combat this I just enable Wi-Fi calling which I think is absolutely great. But even though I love T-Mobile's service once Sprint starts rolling out CDMA 800 and LTE 800 I'll be back over to test then I'll make my finally decision on if I'll keep my 5 lines with Sprint or move over to T-Mobile. The pricing also is very good IMO for what you pay. As far as rural coverage I could care less about as I am not out in those areas much but Sprint definitely will have an advantage once they build out those sites with NV since currently those sites are just as slow as T-Mobile Edge coverage.

With the 800 MHz LTE, why would you NOT stay with Sprint, especially if you buy a phone with TDD-LTE? Of course, TDD-LTE will take a long time to appear. They're only finishing the PCS, SMR LTE deployment in June 2014 but as Robert said, next they're gonna convert the remaining GMOs so it'll be end of ?2014? till you see TDD-LTE everywhere. Plus, Miami is not very dense so you dont need TDD like NY. So it may be a long time till you see TDD-LTE. Still, once Sprint finishes the 800 LTE, it'll definitely be better than TMO.

[rjw]

I don't care for TDD-LTE 2.5GHz at this moment only 800MHz LTE as current 1900 LTE deployment in my area doesn't penetrate very well and most of the sites are built out already.

 

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

 

[maximus1987/lou99]

I don't care for TDD-LTE 2.5GHz at this moment only 800MHz LTE as current 1900 LTE deployment in my area doesn't penetrate very well and most of the sites are built out already.

 

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Interesting decision by Sprint. I wonder if they're gonna infill with small cells?

 

Is it just LTE or even 3G that has a hard time penetrating?

 

I was in Southfield, MI in a Sprint store, ten feet from a window and on iphone 5, went from LTE to 1x while moving the phone around.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

Edited July 21, 2013 by asdf190

[rjw]

Interesting decision by Sprint. I wonder if they're gonna infill with small cells?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

Don't think they will need to once they deploy LTE on 800MHz. Once I test that in my area I'll buy all new devices. 

 

To follow-up your edited post: 3G is perfectly fine on 1900MHz in these areas. It's just the nature of the LTE signal propagation ..

 

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

[maximus1987/lou99]

Don't think they will need to once they deploy LTE on 800MHz. Once I test that in my area I'll buy all new devices

 

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

But what about all those people with "old" PCS LTE devices? I really don't think Sprint can afford to keep on screwing with its customers. They've amassed so much bad will that if their network sucks even after NV, it won't be pretty.

First it was the $10 for WiMAX that never came and now it's "we don't feel like paying for small cells so you're gonna have to buy a new phone"? What if new iphone this fall doesn't have 800 LTE? How is Sprint gonna meet its $15bil commitment if in a given market, people start hearing that iphone 5 doesn't get good reception in building?

Sprint has the money. No more excuses. Just pay for the $&@## small cells.

Sure, long term it won't matter cause eventually everyone will 800 LTE on Sprint but its gonna take even more years to repair Sprint's reputation if next year, when someone buys an iphone 5, they don't get reception. In buildings. Not acceptable.

 

I saw a Sprint slide showing the coverage improvements in Atlanta and actually, it looks like that's exactly what they're planning: poor PCS building penetration and making up for it with 800.

http://community.sprint.com/baw/thread/106007

 

That's unfortunate.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

Edited July 21, 2013 by asdf190

[WiWavelength]

Anything over -106 dBm on Sprint usually gives me poor performance while on T-Mobile I can hang onto -113 dBm signal and have much more usable service.

 

Careful.  That could be an apples to oranges comparison.  On CDMA1X, -106 dBm is an RSSI measurement, while on W-CDMA, -113 dBm is likely an RSCP measurement.  And like RSRP on LTE, RSCP is inherently lower than RSSI.

 

For some similar background, see my article:

 

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/blog/1/entry-308-rssi-vs-rsrp-a-brief-lte-signal-strength-primer/

 

AJ

[S4GRU]

But what about all those people with "old" PCS LTE devices? I really don't think Sprint can afford to keep on screwing with its customers.

LTE 800 is not Sprint screwing with its customers. It could not be offered until now. Sprint just wrapped up their FIT a few months ago and could offer info to OEM's for devices. They couldn't really start releasing LTE 800 devices until now.

 

LTE 1900 devices will work just fine with even bettering performance as more sites go live. And if a customer wants LTE 800 coverage for an even better experience, they can do that by purchasing a device at their convenience.

 

Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

 

[maximus1987/lou99]

LTE 800 is not Sprint screwing with its customers. It could not be offered until now. Sprint just wrapped up their FIT a few months ago and could offer info to OEM's for devices. They couldn't really start releasing LTE 800 devices until now.

 

LTE 1900 devices will work just fine with even bettering performance as more sites go live. And if a customer wants LTE 800 coverage for an even better experience, they can do that by purchasing a device at their convenience.

 

Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

I meant that Sprint is not going to put up more PCS sites because it's gonna rely on 800, thereby screwing with PCS-only LTE customers.

 

The Atlanta slides from the link I posted are Sprint corporate slides. The whole point of those slides was "yeah, PCS LTE sucks but instead of putting up more sites, we're just gonna use 800 to fill in gaps and yeah, sucks for PCS-only LTE customers".

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

[S4GRU]

I meant that Sprint is not going to put up more PCS sites because it's gonna rely on 800, thereby screwing with PCS-only LTE customers.

 

The Atlanta slides from the link I posted are Sprint corporate slides. The whole point of those slides was "yeah, PCS LTE sucks but instead of putting up more sites, we're just gonna use 800 to fill in gaps and yeah, sucks for PCS-only LTE customers".

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

I don't see how deploying LTE 1900 on every CDMA site in the country is screwing anyone. Also, I was on the conference call when they released those maps you reference. In context they were discussing 1900 voice and 800 voice coverage differences. Not LTE. LTE 800 will not provide the coverage of the 800 voice shown in those maps. LTE 800 will have a footprint only slightly better than 1900 voice, albeit with better in building performance within the coverage.

 

So current LTE smartphone customers are not being screwed by the maps. They get to experience the 800 voice that is being depicted in them. Sprint has not released any LTE 800 coverage maps to date ever.

 

Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

 

[maximus1987/lou99]

I don't see how deploying LTE 1900 on every CDMA site in the country is screwing anyone. Also, I was on the conference call when they released those maps you reference. In context they were discussing 1900 voice and 800 voice coverage differences. Not LTE. LTE 800 will not provide the coverage of the 800 voice shown in those maps. LTE 800 will have a footprint only slightly better than 1900 voice, albeit with better in building performance within the coverage.

 

So current LTE smartphone customers are not being screwed by the maps. They get to experience the 800 voice that is being depicted in them. Sprint has not released any LTE 800 coverage maps to date ever.

 

Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Didn't know it was only for voice.

How can LTE 800 be barely improved compared to PCS but voice 800 is hugely improved compared to PCS?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

[S4GRU]

Didn't know it was only for voice.

How can LTE 800 be barely improved compared to PCS but voice 800 is hugely improved compared to PCS?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

Your problem is you're not comparing frequency and technology apples to apples. LTE 800 has way better coverage than LTE 1900. And CDMA 800 has way better coverage than CDMA 1900. However, LTE 800 only has a slightly better coverage than CDMA 1900.

 

If you go over to Verizon, their CDMA 850 has better coverage than their LTE 750. CDMA works to -106dBm RSSI, whereas LTE maxes out around -93dBm RSSI. CDMA provides much more coverage. So when you put CDMA on a high frequency and LTE on a low frequency, the LTE coverage is a little greater, but not a lot. However, penetration within that LTE 800 footprint is vastly improved.

 

LTE 800 improves coverage and in building performance over LTE 1900. By significant amounts. And makes the LTE coverage on par with what Verizon and AT&T put out from their LTE sites. But it is not going to resemble the CDMA 800 footprint, which is going to be even better. This is a physics thing, and the same limitations apply to all carriers. It's not a Sprint thing.

 

Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

 

[maximus1987/lou99]

Your problem is you're not comparing frequency and technology apples to apples. LTE 800 has way better coverage than LTE 1900. And CDMA 800 has way better coverage than CDMA 1900. However, LTE 800 only has a slightly better coverage than CDMA 1900.

 

If you go over to Verizon, their CDMA 850 has better coverage than their LTE 750. CDMA works to -106dBm RSSI, whereas LTE maxes out around -93dBm RSSI. CDMA provides much more coverage. So when you put CDMA on a high frequency and LTE on a low frequency, the LTE coverage is a little greater, but not a lot. However, penetration within that LTE 800 footprint is vastly improved.

 

LTE 800 improves coverage and in building performance over LTE 1900. By significant amounts. And makes the LTE coverage on par with what Verizon and AT&T put out from their LTE sites. But it is not going to resemble the CDMA 800 footprint, which is going to be even better. This is a physics thing, and the same limitations apply to all carriers. It's not a Sprint thing.

 

Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

In the premier sponsor section, do you have coverage maps, like those produced by cloudrf.com, for LTE, CDMA at both Sprint frequencies given all future NV towers?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

[rjw]

Careful.  That could be an apples to oranges comparison.  On CDMA1X, -106 dBm is an RSSI measurement, while on W-CDMA, -113 dBm is likely an RSCP measurement.  And like RSRP on LTE, RSCP is inherently lower than RSSI.

 

For some similar background, see my article:

 

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/blog/1/entry-308-rssi-vs-rsrp-a-brief-lte-signal-strength-primer/

 

AJ

 

AJ

I am comparing the RSRP for LTE from both my Sprint & T-Mobile S4 devices Engineering Screens and SignalCheck Pro app. Even though download on T-Mobile is solid on 1 bar of LTE, upload tends to flake out or be slower

[S4GRU]

In the premier sponsor section, do you have coverage maps, like those produced by cloudrf.com, for LTE, CDMA at both Sprint frequencies given all future NV towers?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

No. We haven't made any LTE 800 coverage maps, yet.

 

Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

 

[WiWavelength]

AJ

 

I am comparing the RSRP for LTE from both my Sprint & T-Mobile S4 devices Engineering Screens and SignalCheck Pro app. Even though download on T-Mobile is solid on 1 bar of LTE, upload tends to flake out or be slower

If RSRP to RSRP, then that is an apples to apples comparison. Additionally, both Sprint and T-Mobile have 5 MHz FDD LTE bandwidth in Miami. But not really anything about T-Mobile's LTE deployment is inherently superior at lower signal levels. So, you are likely just encountering greater loading on Sprint LTE, since it has a one year lead on T-Mobile in that regard.

 

AJ