T-Mobile LTE & Network Discussion

[maximus1987/lou99]

I test drove T-Mobiles network here in Jacksonville and I was honestly very surprised at how well it performed. In most cases it was better than Verizon but indoor coverage took a hit in certain areas. But I still have hope in Sprint. Sprint has LTE in about 80% of the locations I frequent now so this 800mhz rollout is going to only add icing to the cake!

 

Wanted to say something about Verizon...my cousin has Verizon and we both did LTE speed tests during the day (4:00pm) and he pulled 6mbps DL, while I pulled 18. But at 2:00AM, he pulled a whopping 47mbps! It just goes to show that Verizon has a lot of people using the data during the day and its noticeable. Still, his speeds were fine for daily use but this was an example of how speeds decline during peak hours, even on the "tier 1" network.

What happened indoors? Did you ever go down to HSPA?

Also, Verizon has been quoting 5-12 Mbps expected.

[BlueAngel]

I test drove T-Mobiles network here in Jacksonville and I was honestly very surprised at how well it performed. In most cases it was better than Verizon but indoor coverage took a hit in certain areas. But I still have hope in Sprint. Sprint has LTE in about 80% of the locations I frequent now so this 800mhz rollout is going to only add icing to the cake!

 

Wanted to say something about Verizon...my cousin has Verizon and we both did LTE speed tests during the day (4:00pm) and he pulled 6mbps DL, while I pulled 18. But at 2:00AM, he pulled a whopping 47mbps! It just goes to show that Verizon has a lot of people using the data during the day and its noticeable. Still, his speeds were fine for daily use but this was an example of how speeds decline during peak hours, even on the "tier 1" network.

I've been consistently beating my friend at work, we both get two bars (sometimes 3 for me) of LTE inside and he gets a max of around 8Mbps and I can get anywhere from 8-18Mbps, he's on Verizon.

Edited July 23, 2013 by BlueAngel

[Ascertion]

What happened indoors? Did you ever go down to HSPA?

Also, Verizon has been quoting 5-12 Mbps expected.

I would usually go LoS (Loss of Signal) where phone calls or texts couldn't reach me. A spot that I noticed this was in my local movie theater. I know they say to silence your cell phone but T-Mobile did for me. Lol

 

I've been consistently beating my friend at work, we both get two bars (sometimes 3 for me) of LTE inside and he gets a max of around 8Mbps and I can get anywhere from 8-18Mbps, he's on Verizon.

This is definitely fun! I love proving to people that Sprint can compete. Their reputation has been pretty bad for awhile now and I feel like I'm one of the very few people that brag about being on Sprint. Rofl

 

Verizon has 10mhz carriers whereas Sprint has 5mhz. Not to mention Verizon has LTE on the 700 MHz band which means it'll work much better indoors than Sprints 1900 LTE. The advantage we have is less people burdening the towers on Sprint. Verizon has a lot more customers on their network at a given time.

[Conan Kudo]

I would usually go LoS (Loss of Signal) where phone calls or texts couldn't reach me. A spot that I noticed this was in my local movie theater. I know they say to silence your cell phone but T-Mobile did for me. Lol

 

 

This is definitely fun! I love proving to people that Sprint can compete. Their reputation has been pretty bad for awhile now and I feel like I'm one of the very few people that brag about being on Sprint. Rofl

 

Verizon has 10mhz carriers whereas Sprint has 5mhz. Not to mention Verizon has LTE on the 700 MHz band which means it'll work much better indoors than Sprints 1900 LTE. The advantage we have is less people burdening the towers on Sprint. Verizon has a lot more customers on their network at a given time.

It doesn't help that Verizon actually has a lower cell site density than Sprint/T-Mobile because of the 700MHz band (though that is changing very quickly in order for them to move to LTE-only offerings).

[Ascertion]

It doesn't help that Verizon actually has a lower cell site density than Sprint/T-Mobile because of the 700MHz band (though that is changing very quickly in order for them to move to LTE-only offerings).

That's true, IIRC Verizon only has LTE on approx a 3rd of it's sites in the 700 Mhz frequency? 

[leerage]

I've been consistently beating my friend at work, we both get two bars (sometimes 3 for me) of LTE inside and he gets a max of around 8Mbps and I can get anywhere from 8-18Mbps, he's on Verizon.

Take a look at what your RSRP levels are. The bars are for voice and don't represent LTE. (Unless you're on an iPhone 5. Sorry I can't tell through tapatalk.)

 

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[BlueAngel]

Take a look at what your RSRP levels are. The bars are for voice and don't represent LTE. (Unless you're on an iPhone 5. Sorry I can't tell through tapatalk.)

 

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk 2

I am on an iPhone 5 and so is my friend.

Edited July 23, 2013 by BlueAngel

[Conan Kudo]

That's true, IIRC Verizon only has LTE on approx a 3rd of it's sites in the 700 Mhz frequency? 

In a mid-band CDMA market, that's the case. In a low-band CDMA market, Verizon uses about half the cell sites initially, and converts the other half on a capacity basis. It plans to move closer to an overbuild style on 700MHz to better support handover and reduce experience on cell edge (which offers terrible performance vs UMTS).

[mellimel2212]

That's craat because I don't know how long t-mobile been workin on lte in Chicago but it's Damn near everywhere like sprint is. And due to less customers and different frequencies peak hour speeds are higher.

 

Sent from my T-mobile LG Escape using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[mellimel2212]

Crazy

 

Sent from my T-mobile LG Escape using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[maximus1987/lou99]

In a mid-band CDMA market, that's the case. In a low-band CDMA market, Verizon uses about half the cell sites initially, and converts the other half on a capacity basis. It plans to move closer to an overbuild style on 700MHz to better support handover and reduce experience on cell edge (which offers terrible performance vs UMTS).

When's it gonna start this 700 MHz densification?

 

According to Robert, and my own cousin's Droid, Verizon's LTE is plummeting; her Droid got 1.5mbps.

[maximus1987/lou99]

Will TMO transition to WDCMA+ or go straight to VoLTE?

http://www.qualcomm.com/media/documents/files/wcdma-more-efficient-voice-for-more-data-services.pdf

[ericdabbs]

Will TMO transition to WDCMA+ or go straight to VoLTE?

 

http://www.qualcomm.com/media/documents/files/wcdma-more-efficient-voice-for-more-data-services.pdf

 

If Tmobile is smart they would focus only on LTE at this point.  Tmobile is already behind the other major carriers in the LTE game and they really need to catch up and LTE will be the default technology of choice among all US carriers.  According to the Qualcomm presentation, WCDMA+ won't be available until 2016 which by then VoLTE should be at the stages of beginning of mass deployment after all the carriers deploy LTE Advanced capable networks.  WCDMA+ seems to be an improvement on reducing resources for voice to free up resources for HSPA+ data and some improvements for HD voice.  WCDMA+ looks to have similar benefits as 1x Advanced in that it uses less spectrum resources for voice and increases voice capacity while freeing up these extra resources for data.  I think its a waste if Tmobile intends to keep HSPA+ alive.  ATT seems to be going all in on LTE now.  ATT didn't even bother to waste spectrum resources on deploying DC-HSPA+.

[maximus1987/lou99]

If Tmobile is smart they would focus only on LTE at this point. Tmobile is already behind the other major carriers in the LTE game and they really need to catch up and LTE will be the default technology of choice among all US carriers. According to the Qualcomm presentation, WCDMA+ won't be available until 2016 which by then VoLTE should be at the stages of beginning of mass deployment after all the carriers deploy LTE Advanced capable networks. WCDMA+ seems to be an improvement on reducing resources for voice to free up resources for HSPA+ data and some improvements for HD voice. WCDMA+ looks to have similar benefits as 1x Advanced in that it uses less spectrum resources for voice and increases voice capacity while freeing up these extra resources for data. I think its a waste if Tmobile intends to keep HSPA+ alive. ATT seems to be going all in on LTE now. ATT didn't even bother to waste spectrum resources on deploying DC-HSPA+.

How is HSPA+42 a waste of spectrum? It's channel bonding, so HSPA+21 phones can still connect.

ATT didn't do H+42 cause it doesn't provide any benefit to THEM in terms of spectral efficiency.

Edited July 23, 2013 by asdf190

[ericdabbs]

How is HSPA+42 a waste of spectrum? It's channel bonding, so HSPA+21 phones can still connect. ATT didn't do H+42 cause it doesn't provide any benefit to THEM in terms of spectral efficiency.

 

Because HSPA+ 42 uses 20 MHz of spectrum (10x10 carrier) with a peak of 42 Mbps.  There are some markets out there that can really use that extra 10 MHz (5x5 MHz) in AWS spectrum to deploy a 10x10 LTE carrier instead of settling for a 5x5 LTE carrier.  A 10x10 LTE carrier has a peak of 73 Mbps which is almost double of HSPA+ 42 peak which is more spectral efficient speed wise in my opinion.  Since not all Tmobile devices support PCS HSPA+ data, Tmobile has to keep a HSPA+ carrier in AWS spectrum for now but they should reduce it to HSPA+ 21 to give more spectrum to LTE.  If HSPA+ data is entirely on PCS spectrum nationwide then its fine that they deploy HSPA+ 42 but that is not the case.  Tmobile is still in the process of refarming PCS spectrum for HSPA+ data but who knows far they are in that effort.  I assume Tmobile towers upgraded to LTE thus far have HSPA+ data refarmed to PCS spectrum.

[maximus1987/lou99]

If Tmobile is smart they would focus only on LTE at this point. Tmobile is already behind the other major carriers in the LTE game and they really need to catch up and LTE will be the default technology of choice among all US carriers. According to the Qualcomm presentation, WCDMA+ won't be available until 2016 which by then VoLTE should be at the stages of beginning of mass deployment after all the carriers deploy LTE Advanced capable networks. WCDMA+ seems to be an improvement on reducing resources for voice to free up resources for HSPA+ data and some improvements for HD voice. WCDMA+ looks to have similar benefits as 1x Advanced in that it uses less spectrum resources for voice and increases voice capacity while freeing up these extra resources for data. I think its a waste if Tmobile intends to keep HSPA+ alive. ATT seems to be going all in on LTE now. ATT didn't even bother to waste spectrum resources on deploying DC-HSPA+.

Will VoLTE on 600 MHz have at least as much range as WCDMA+ on PCS when VoLTE is launched?

If not, WCDMA+ will be TMO's choice for voice until VoLTE catches up.

[ericdabbs]

Will VoLTE on 600 MHz have at least as much range as WCDMA+ on PCS when VoLTE is launched?

If not, WCDMA+ will be TMO's choice for voice until VoLTE catches up.

 

I can't comment about WCDMA+ voice coverage at this point since it hasn't been released yet. but if its going to be released in 2016, is it worth spending all the capital to deploy WCDMA+ when everyone is moving to LTE worldwide?  When VoLTE is going to improve every year.  The whole point of keeping HSPA+ around is to support legacy devices in the future.

 

But if you take a look at Verizon and ATT LTE at 700 MHz, would you say that it has better coverage indoors than WCDMA/HSPA+ on AWS/PCS spectrum?  I would say yes or else Tmobile would not have a poor reputation for deep indoor coverage.  I am going on a limb and going to say that 600 MHz LTE will have better coverage than WCDMA+ at PCS.

[WiWavelength]

How is HSPA+42 a waste of spectrum? It's channel bonding, so HSPA+21 phones can still connect. ATT didn't do H+42 cause it doesn't provide any benefit to THEM in terms of spectral efficiency.

 

T-Mobile started its *3G* deployment with fully "greenfield" spectrum in the AWS 2100+1700 MHz band.  AT&T, on the other hand, refarmed GSM or even AMPS within the Cellular 850 MHz and PCS 1900 MHz bands.  But that did not as consistently allow for two contiguous W-CDMA carriers to be paired as DC-HSPA+.

 

AJ

[Conan Kudo]

When's it gonna start this 700 MHz densification?

 

According to Robert, and my own cousin's Droid, Verizon's LTE is plummeting; her Droid got 1.5mbps.

Pretty much now. As reports come into Verizon, they'll go in and start doing the good work.

 

 

If Tmobile is smart they would focus only on LTE at this point.  Tmobile is already behind the other major carriers in the LTE game and they really need to catch up and LTE will be the default technology of choice among all US carriers.  According to the Qualcomm presentation, WCDMA+ won't be available until 2016 which by then VoLTE should be at the stages of beginning of mass deployment after all the carriers deploy LTE Advanced capable networks.  WCDMA+ seems to be an improvement on reducing resources for voice to free up resources for HSPA+ data and some improvements for HD voice.  WCDMA+ looks to have similar benefits as 1x Advanced in that it uses less spectrum resources for voice and increases voice capacity while freeing up these extra resources for data.  I think its a waste if Tmobile intends to keep HSPA+ alive.  ATT seems to be going all in on LTE now.  ATT didn't even bother to waste spectrum resources on deploying DC-HSPA+.

I'm glad you're not running T-Mobile then. There are a number of advantages with keeping up with UMTS, not the least of which is that it is becoming the new target for M2M globally because some of the most important countries are either shutting down 2G networks or switching to UMTS as the primary network technology underneath LTE.

 

WCDMA+ is being developed as a way to reduce the spectral requirements of the voice channels being multiplexed in. This doesn't have as much of a benefit for 5MHz WCDMA carriers as it does for 2.5MHz and 1.25MHz UMTS carriers (which is an upcoming 3GPP Release 12 feature). While these smaller UMTS carriers don't eliminate voice+data multiplexing (and in theory, the techniques used to make this possible shouldn't reduce performance), it would be advantageous to improve the link budget allocated to data for these smaller carriers.

[maximus1987/lou99]

Pretty much now. As reports come into Verizon, they'll go in and start doing the good work.

 

 

I'm glad you're not running T-Mobile then. There are a number of advantages with keeping up with UMTS, not the least of which is that it is becoming the new target for M2M globally because some of the most important countries are either shutting down 2G networks or switching to UMTS as the primary network technology underneath LTE.

 

WCDMA+ is being developed as a way to reduce the spectral requirements of the voice channels being multiplexed in. This doesn't have as much of a benefit for 5MHz WCDMA carriers as it does for 2.5MHz and 1.25MHz UMTS carriers (which is an upcoming 3GPP Release 12 feature). While these smaller UMTS carriers don't eliminate voice+data multiplexing (and in theory, the techniques used to make this possible shouldn't reduce performance), it would be advantageous to improve the link budget allocated to data for these smaller carriers.

But ublox and Sprint just signed an agreement BECAUSE 2G is cheaper and M2M users don't want or need 3G M2M.

 

"M2M customers have historically gravitated to 2G modules because their data needs have been minimal and 2G modules have been significantly less-expensive than 3G modules."

 

Read more: Sprint strikes M2M deal with u-blox, targets AT&T's 2G shutdown - FierceWireless http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/sprint-strikes-m2m-deal-u-blox-targets-atts-2g-shutdown/2013-04-22#ixzz2ZucHvj6G

Subscribe at FierceWireless

[maximus1987/lou99]

Pretty much now. As reports come into Verizon, they'll go in and start doing the good work.

 

 

I'm glad you're not running T-Mobile then. There are a number of advantages with keeping up with UMTS, not the least of which is that it is becoming the new target for M2M globally because some of the most important countries are either shutting down 2G networks or switching to UMTS as the primary network technology underneath LTE.

 

WCDMA+ is being developed as a way to reduce the spectral requirements of the voice channels being multiplexed in. This doesn't have as much of a benefit for 5MHz WCDMA carriers as it does for 2.5MHz and 1.25MHz UMTS carriers (which is an upcoming 3GPP Release 12 feature). While these smaller UMTS carriers don't eliminate voice+data multiplexing (and in theory, the techniques used to make this possible shouldn't reduce performance), it would be advantageous to improve the link budget allocated to data for these smaller carriers.

What's the point of scalable UMTS? You need new equipment and new phones so why not just use LTE 1.3 MHz FDD?

[maximus1987/lou99]

Pretty much now. As reports come into Verizon, they'll go in and start doing the good work.

 

 

I'm glad you're not running T-Mobile then. There are a number of advantages with keeping up with UMTS, not the least of which is that it is becoming the new target for M2M globally because some of the most important countries are either shutting down 2G networks or switching to UMTS as the primary network technology underneath LTE.

 

WCDMA+ is being developed as a way to reduce the spectral requirements of the voice channels being multiplexed in. This doesn't have as much of a benefit for 5MHz WCDMA carriers as it does for 2.5MHz and 1.25MHz UMTS carriers (which is an upcoming 3GPP Release 12 feature). While these smaller UMTS carriers don't eliminate voice+data multiplexing (and in theory, the techniques used to make this possible shouldn't reduce performance), it would be advantageous to improve the link budget allocated to data for these smaller carriers.

So do you think TMO will implement WCDMA+? If they are, shouldn't they begin requiring it on their phones NOW?

[Conan Kudo]

But ublox and Sprint just signed an agreement BECAUSE 2G is cheaper and M2M users don't want or need 3G M2M.

 

"M2M customers have historically gravitated to 2G modules because their data needs have been minimal and 2G modules have been significantly less-expensive than 3G modules."

 

Read more: Sprint strikes M2M deal with u-blox, targets AT&T's 2G shutdown - FierceWireless http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/sprint-strikes-m2m-deal-u-blox-targets-atts-2g-shutdown/2013-04-22#ixzz2ZucHvj6G

Subscribe at FierceWireless

Except the cost of the individual module makes up less than 15% of the total cost of the connectivity. And because 2G networks aren't well-designed to handle data, it actually costs more to deliver 2G data than it does to deliver 3G data. As a result, 3G M2M rates are usually lower than their 2G counterparts, even though the module itself is more expensive.

 

Additionally, 2G networks have a very short shelf-life right now. CDMA and GSM networks are being phased out globally over the next three years as refarming to UMTS and LTE occur. UMTS, however, is expected to be around for another 20 years, as it will replace 2G networks as the lowest level technology globally.

 

So do you think TMO will implement WCDMA+? If they are, shouldn't they begin requiring it on their phones NOW?

 

WCDMA+ isn't ready yet. It's not even a study in the 3GPP, much less a spec for proposal.

 

What's the point of scalable UMTS? You need new equipment and new phones so why not just use LTE 1.3 MHz FDD?

 

Because it is theoretically possible for scalable UMTS to offer greater downlink+uplink performance than a 1.4MHz LTE FDD carrier. The techniques being used to scale the carrier sizes aren't expected to affect the actual downlink/uplink throughput, so that could make it much more desirable. And there are regulatory environments where LTE is simply not permitted, but UMTS is.

[ericdabbs]

So do you think TMO will implement WCDMA+? If they are, shouldn't they begin requiring it on their phones NOW?

 WCDMA+ isn't coming until 2016 according to their presentation.  I don't think Qualcomm has any chipsets ready for commercial deployment yet.  I am thinking we won't see chipsets until spring 2016 or best case maybe 2015.

[maximus1987/lou99]

Except the cost of the individual module makes up less than 15% of the total cost of the connectivity. And because 2G networks aren't well-designed to handle data, it actually costs more to deliver 2G data than it does to deliver 3G data. As a result, 3G M2M rates are usually lower than their 2G counterparts, even though the module itself is more expensive.

 

Additionally, 2G networks have a very short shelf-life right now. CDMA and GSM networks are being phased out globally over the next three years as refarming to UMTS and LTE occur. UMTS, however, is expected to be around for another 20 years, as it will replace 2G networks as the lowest level technology globally.

 

WCDMA+ isn't ready yet. It's not even a study in the 3GPP, much less a spec for proposal.

 

Because it is theoretically possible for scalable UMTS to offer greater downlink+uplink performance than a 1.4MHz LTE FDD carrier. The techniques being used to scale the carrier sizes aren't expected to affect the actual downlink/uplink throughput, so that could make it much more desirable. And there are regulatory environments where LTE is simply not permitted, but UMTS is.

But the article?... Sprint says it's keeping 1xRTT for years, certainly more than the 3 years that you're claiming. Even ATT is keeping GSM for 3 more years.

 

"Forced migration from 2G GSM to HSPA can now be avoided, given Sprint's commitment to 2G longevity of the CDMA network."

 

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/sprint-strikes-m2m-deal-u-blox-targets-atts-2g-shutdown/2013-04-22#ixzz2ZucHvj6G

Edited July 23, 2013 by asdf190