T-Mobile LTE & Network Discussion

[Paynefanbro]

Does it say that?

http://www.broadbandmap.gov/about-provider/sprint-nextel-corporation/nationwide/

[maximus1987/lou99]

Nope. broadbandmap.gov is strictly native. Including roaming Sprint covers over 300 Million

Coverage not available everywhere. Nationwide Sprint Network (including roaming) reaches more than 314 million people.

 

Sprint 3G network (including roaming) reaches more than 285 million people. Sprint 4G LTE network available in limited markets, on select devices

 

http://network.sprint.com/

 

 

Other Terms: Coverage not available everywhere. Nationwide Sprint Network reaches over 278 million people. The Sprint 3G network (including roaming) reaches over 276 million people

 

http://shop2.sprint.com/en/shop/why_sprint/4g/evo_plan_details.html

Edited August 11, 2013 by maximus1902

[Paynefanbro]

Coverage not available everywhere. Nationwide Sprint Network (including roaming) reaches more than 314 million people.

 

Sprint 3G network (including roaming) reaches more than 285 million people. Sprint 4G LTE network available in limited markets, on select devices

 

http://network.sprint.com/

 

broadbandmap is government data from last year. Seems like Sprint with roaming is larger than VZW.

[maximus1987/lou99]

Nope. broadbandmap.gov is strictly native. Including roaming Sprint covers over 300 Million

Something's gotta give. How can TMO with 37k LTE/HSPA+ towers only cover 225 million yet sprint with 39k towers can cover 270 million with EVDO.

Yes, CDMA propagation ... better than anything ... but not with an extra 2k towers.

[Paynefanbro]

Something's gotta give. How can TMO with 37k LTE/HSPA+ towers only cover 225 million yet sprint with 39k towers can cover 270 million with EVDO.

Yes, CDMA propagation ... better than anything ... but not with an extra 2k towers.

Maybe someone else can answer that, I have no idea.

[IamMrFamous07]

Same boat here..... daddy has the itch to replace all the devices

Same but Ill wait until the network is somewhat deployed in my area before I invest in a triband phone. No need to jump the gun when the network for the phone isn't there.

[maxsilver]

Something's gotta give. How can TMO with 37k LTE/HSPA+ towers only cover 225 million yet sprint with 39k towers can cover 270 million with EVDO.

Yes, CDMA propagation ... better than anything ... but not with an extra 2k towers.

It's site density. T-Mobile has roughly 2x the number of sites than Sprint in some urban areas, and roughly matches them in the suburbs.

[Rawvega]

What urban areas are you referring to and what's your source?

[maxsilver]

What urban areas are you referring to and what's your source?

Source is math.

 

37k T-Mobile HSPA+ sites. 39k sites on Sprint's side. Sprint's covering a larger total area (in square miles) than T-Mobile does.

 

If you believe all of the above information, then by definition T-Mobile has to have a higher density. It's simple math.

[Rawvega]

So again, what specific urban areas are you referring to?

 

Plus, to do the math to come up with your "2x" figure, you would need to know the total area (in square miles) for each network. So what variables are you using to do your 'simple math'?

[derrph]

I miss Sprint soooo much but I had to leave and jump to T-Mobile. Dont get me wrong T-Mobile has very fast LTE in Columbus Ohio and the HSPA+ is wonderful too. I have yet to test out the network on the highway (which I dont think will be too hot E all the way). But T-Mobile is not all that to be honest I do get service at my job now as far as data goes but as soon as NV has more of a coverage in Ohio I will be switching back. My sprint IPhone is just waiting to be reactivated!  My loyalty will always be with sprint. But T-Mobile's downfall is when you leave the city atleast with sprint I got 3g when I would travel and was able to stream pandora...Spotify well that was iffy. 

[bucdenny]

My sister has  iPhone 5 on T-Mobile here in San Diego.  It is blazzing fast and my Sprint LTE EVO pushing 30Mbps+ too.  I can say my Sprint is blazzing fast too.

 

By years end hopefully at least 30,000 NV sites completed.

[S4GRU]

Source is math.

 

37k T-Mobile HSPA+ sites. 39k sites on Sprint's side. Sprint's covering a larger total area (in square miles) than T-Mobile does.

 

If you believe all of the above information, then by definition T-Mobile has to have a higher density. It's simple math.

 

This may mean Tmo has higher site density somewhere. But I have not witnessed anywhere that I have gone since becoming a Tmo customer that they have greater site density than Sprint. In Santa Fe, they have less than Sprint.

 

What I know is that the Sprint 39k is just macro sites. The Sprint number does not include DAS systems, picocells and corporate installs. And we don't know what Tmo's numbers include, except that it is HSPA+ sites. So it very well could include 1000's of non macro sites and repeaters that include HSPA+.

 

So without knowing what the number includes, people should not cite it as a Tmo superiority or Sprint deficiency. Tmo and John Legere love to have the data be misconstrued to their advantage. No one has ever presented Tmo site data where an apples to apples comparison can be done.

 

Robert via Samsung Galaxy Note 8.0 using Tapatalk

 

[WiWavelength]

Something's gotta give. How can TMO with 37k LTE/HSPA+ towers only cover 225 million yet sprint with 39k towers can cover 270 million with EVDO.

 

I suggest that you look at this extensive HowardForums list.  See the many MSAs in which T-Mobile has no native coverage or only GSM.  But in most of those, Sprint has native coverage.  So, those MSAs likely make for the difference in covered POPs.

 

http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php/1792144-official-T-Mobile-USA-LTE-thread?p=15191562#post15191562

 

AJ

[maximus1987/lou99]

I suggest that you look at this extensive HowardForums list. See the many MSAs in which T-Mobile has no native coverage or only GSM. But in most of those, Sprint has native coverage. So, those MSAs likely make for the difference in covered POPs.

 

http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php/1792144-official-T-Mobile-USA-LTE-thread?p=15191562#post15191562

 

AJ

The focus of my post was on the discrepancy in tower densities but thanks for the list.

[ryry4ya]

I'm just sayin, T Mobile has more cruise in my own city of Toledo then sprint does. Do you like monkeys they're out there lol

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[WiWavelength]

The focus of my post was on the discrepancy in tower densities but thanks for the list.

 

But no one has definitively shown that T-Mobile generally has higher macrosite density than Sprint does.  In fact, Robert and I have both observed in our markets that the reverse is the case.  And what I did by presenting that list was offer a possible explanation for why T-Mobile and Sprint could have similar macrosite densities but Sprint could have significantly greater covered POPs:  T-Mobile is missing millions of POPs in secondary markets.

 

AJ

[maximus1987/lou99]

But no one has definitively shown that T-Mobile generally has higher macrosite density than Sprint does. In fact, Robert and I have both observed in our markets that the reverse is the case. And what I did by presenting that list was offer a possible explanation for why T-Mobile and Sprint could have similar macrosite densities but Sprint could have significantly greater covered POPs: T-Mobile is missing millions of POPs in secondary markets.

 

AJ

Are we still assuming TMO has 52k sites? We have transcripts from Humm saying "upgrading 37k sites, our current 3G/4g footprint, to LTE."

Given that info, where is TMO hiding all their HSPA/LTE sites? They have a way high density SOMEWHERE.

 

This may mean Tmo has higher site density somewhere. But I have not witnessed anywhere that I have gone since becoming a Tmo customer that they have greater site density than Sprint. In Santa Fe, they have less than Sprint.

 

What I know is that the Sprint 39k is just macro sites. The Sprint number does not include DAS systems, picocells and corporate installs. And we don't know what Tmo's numbers include, except that it is HSPA+ sites. So it very well could include 1000's of non macro sites and repeaters that include HSPA+.

 

So without knowing what the number includes, people should not cite it as a Tmo superiority or Sprint deficiency. Tmo and John Legere love to have the data be misconstrued to their advantage. No one has ever presented Tmo site data where an apples to apples comparison can be done.

 

Robert via Samsung Galaxy Note 8.0 using Tapatalk

http://assets.fiercemarkets.com/public/mdano/amis/tmopres.pdf

 

Slide 18, top left. The DAS asterisk is only applied to metro and newco so 52k means cell sites only.

[WiWavelength]

Are we still assuming TMO has 52k sites? We have transcripts from Humm saying "upgrading 37k sites, our current 3G/4g footprint, to LTE."

Given that info, where is TMO hiding all their HSPA/LTE sites? They have a way high density SOMEWHERE.

 

Well, T-Mobile has deployed W-CDMA in some odd rural locations where Sprint has no native coverage.  To give you two examples that are relevant to Robert and myself, take a look at northeastern Kansas and eastern New Mexico.  So, add up those kinds of W-CDMA sites across the country, probably a few hundred.  Then, subtract them from the total, as they do not really matter regarding site density.

 

Also, John Legere and Neville Ray can stick a sock in it with their lampooning of Sprint's scattered, sometimes smaller market Network Vision deployment sequence.  Sprint is going to finish its entire network with LTE.  Meanwhile, T-Mobile is just throwing darts at the map with W-CDMA.  T-Mobile has W-CDMA deployed in the likes of tiny Roy, NM, but it still has only GSM in Fort Smith, AR; Saginaw, MI; Yuma, AZ; etc.  Give me a freaking break.

 

AJ

[maximus1987/lou99]

Well, T-Mobile has deployed W-CDMA in some odd rural locations where Sprint has no native coverage. To give you two examples that are relevant to Robert and myself, take a look at northeastern Kansas and eastern New Mexico. So, add up those kinds of W-CDMA sites across the country, probably a few hundred. Then, subtract them from the total, as they do not really matter regarding site density.

 

Also, John Legere and Neville Ray can stick a sock in it with their lampooning of Sprint's scattered, sometimes smaller market Network Vision deployment sequence. Sprint is going to finish its entire network with LTE. Meanwhile, T-Mobile is just throwing darts at the map with W-CDMA. T-Mobile has W-CDMA deployed in the likes of tiny Roy, NM, but it still has only GSM in Fort Smith, AR; Saginaw, MI; Yuma, AZ; etc. Give me a freaking break.

 

AJ

It will definitely be interesting to see their coverages July 2014.

 

I'm just trying to learn why TMO has worse effective site density but mathematically, they should be killing it. A couple hundred still doesn't explain it. Someone said TMO's antennas are never on the top of the tower; would this affect propagation noticeably?

Edited August 12, 2013 by maximus1902

[maxsilver]

No one has ever presented Tmo site data where an apples to apples comparison can be done.

Would it be helpful to have that data? I can't get it everywhere, but I could prepare one for the Grand Rapids / West Michigan market, if anyone would find it useful. (I realize this is just one single market out of hundreds, and that both T-Mobile and Sprint are known to be weak here for historical reasons. But if it's helpful, I can break down the entire urban area down site-by-site for both carriers.)

[WiWavelength]

It will definitely be interesting to see their coverages July 2014. I'm just trying to learn why TMO has worse effective site density but mathematically, they should be killing it. A couple hundred still doesn't explain it. Someone said TMO's antennas are never on the top of the tower; would this affect propagation noticeably?

 

If T-Mobile truly has 52,000 macro sites to Sprint's 39,000 macro sites, then T-Mobile almost has to be in a Sprint Nextel like situation -- thousands of redundant 2G GSM only sites.  If so, that could be a similar financial albatross around T-Mobile's neck.  I hope so, as based on Legere's and Ray's juvenile statements of late, I want to see T-Mobile experience some pain.

 

AJ

[Mobilesolutions]

In my market, Sprint and TMO literally follow each other. There is usually a TMO site within a block of Sprint. When 800mhz is deployed Sprint will really have the upper hand. Saddest yet Sprint has an opportunity to pass everyone, its knocking on their door and has gone completely unanswered.

[milan03]

Yuma, AZ is LTE as of March. I'm sure it used to be all GSM, but I've been getting LTE reports from Yuma.

[WiWavelength]

Yuma, AZ is LTE as of March. I'm sure it used to be all GSM, but I've been getting LTE reports from Yuma.

 

If so, Yuma had to go straight from GSM to LTE -- a first?  And T-Mobile's *new* maps this summer do not even reflect that change.

 

Along those lines, every wireless operator is worthy of some legitimate criticism.  The idea that any wireless operator, its CEO, or its CTO is a "rock star" is ludicrous.

 

AJ