T-Mobile LTE & Network Discussion

[digiblur]

So I saw a new T-Mobile commercial last night about their $0 down Samsung promotion and was surprised that they specifically singled out AT&T. Overall, the commercial seemed to feel a little too "urban low brow" stereotypical for me, but the aggressiveness of firing a shot across AT&T's bow was nice. I wonder if Sprint will start singling out the other providers once they complete more of their network.

I want to see a graphic of No coverage or maybe the big red X over one of the Verizons maps on their commercial

[Paynefanbro]

I want to see a graphic of No coverage or maybe the big red X over one of the Verizons maps on their commercial

I hope Sprint does some cool commercials too. These recent T-Mobile commercials look cool and intriguing, but I know about their coverage already. I could see Sprint targeting Verizon's antiquated network and T-Mobile's poor coverage in their marketing.

[S4GRU]

I hope Sprint does some cool commercials too. These recent T-Mobile commercials look cool and intriguing, but I know about their coverage already. I could see Sprint targeting Verizon's antiquated network and T-Mobile's poor coverage in their marketing.

Sprint will not be able to compete with Verizon calling it an antiquated network. They would compete saying that they offer less expensive service that is unlimited. And when the network improvements are systemwide, they can add thst they provide an equal or better experience within their coverage area.

 

Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

[WiWavelength]

So I saw a new T-Mobile commercial last night about their $0 down Samsung promotion and was surprised that they specifically singled out AT&T. Overall, the commercial seemed to feel a little too "urban low brow" stereotypical for me...

 

Well, who needs to "rent to own" their phones?  Consider T-Mobile's audience.  The "urban lowbrow" stereotype carries a fair amount of truth.

 

AJ

[WiWavelength]

Many of you might enjoy reading this piece.  Oddly, TmoNews is now edited by a Brit, and it shows in the article.

 

http://www.tmonews.com/2013/12/t-mobiles-2014-resolution-its-got-to-be-coverage-coverage-and-more-coverage/

 

 

AJ

[GinaDee]

So I saw a new T-Mobile commercial last night about their $0 down Samsung promotion and was surprised that they specifically singled out AT&T. Overall, the commercial seemed to feel a little too "urban low brow" stereotypical for me, but the aggressiveness of firing a shot across AT&T's bow was nice. I wonder if Sprint will start singling out the other providers once they complete more of their network.

 

I thought it was an awesome commercial.  

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO_qOjv_1v4

[GinaDee]

Many of you might enjoy reading this piece.  Oddly, TmoNews is now edited by a Brit, and it shows in the article.

 

http://www.tmonews.com/2013/12/t-mobiles-2014-resolution-its-got-to-be-coverage-coverage-and-more-coverage/

 

 

AJ

 

Some of them hated Cam for a few days but he speaks the truth. 

[Mobilesolutions]

Some of them hated Cam for a few days but he speaks the truth. 

 

Unfortunately T-Mobile lacks the quality and quantity of service offered by AT&T and Verizon.  At either of my parent's homes in the heart of Tulsa T-Mobile only works if you are outdoors.  Even Sprint who uses a similar frequency for LTE and Voice connectivity offers a certain marginal level of indoor service inside my mother's partial brick home.  I had a T-mobile device for a few months both with a "real" T-mobile Sim and a trial of Solavei.  The service even around town was borderline pathetic, and at my apartment in Norman T-mobile signals are again only usable on the patio.  My neighbor Jon with a T-mobile iPhone 5S is sorely disappointed with their service. AT&T offers extremely high speeds in and around Tulsa and OKC.  Verizon is crippled by USCC holdings in Tulsa but still offers a competitive LTE service and a mildly robust voice network over PCS.  Sprint is somewhere in the middle.

-William

[Nickel]

So I saw a new T-Mobile commercial last night about their $0 down Samsung promotion and was surprised that they specifically singled out AT&T. Overall, the commercial seemed to feel a little too "urban low brow" stereotypical for me, but the aggressiveness of firing a shot across AT&T's bow was nice. I wonder if Sprint will start singling out the other providers once they complete more of their network.

They are obsessed with AT&T, I've been seeing a ton of T-Mobile commercials recently (which is funny because they don't really exist in my neck of the woods) and everyone one them directly names AT&T. 

[Mr.Nuke]

They are obsessed with AT&T, I've been seeing a ton of T-Mobile commercials recently (which is funny because they don't really exist in my neck of the woods) and everyone one them directly names AT&T. 

They're clearly national ad buys, but I too find it funny that for as often as I see there ads that they won't sell me service here. Plug in our zip codes and the T-mobile website acts like they don't exist.

[milan03]

They are obsessed with AT&T, I've been seeing a ton of T-Mobile commercials recently (which is funny because they don't really exist in my neck of the woods) and everyone one them directly names AT&T. 

It's the GSM/HSPA technology that's the common ground which makes very easy for subscribers to bring their own devices.

[Nickel]

It's the GSM/HSPA technology that's the common ground which makes very easy for subscribers to bring their own devices.

I get that, I just find it odd how they directly name it and not call it "Blue Globe" or something.

[milan03]

I get that, I just find it odd how they directly name it and not call it "Blue Globe" or something.

Free advertisement for AT&T. They really want AT&T to start doing the same, but AT&T is rarely doing so. For now

[Nickel]

Free advertisement for AT&T. They really want AT&T to start doing the same, but AT&T is rarely doing so. For now

AT&T would be crazy to do that, that would legitimize a smaller competitor and perhaps lose some customers who weren't aware of T-Mobile.

[milan03]

AT&T would be crazy to do that, that would legitimize a smaller competitor and perhaps lose some customers who weren't aware of T-Mobile.

Exactly, but that seems to be the idea. Either way it's kind of win-win for T-Mobile as they've been poaching subs from AT&T in large numbers even without AT&T publicly acknowledging it.

Except early on:

 

Can't wait to see what's AT&T's strategy going to be in 2014.

[GinaDee]

AT&T would be crazy to do that, that would legitimize a smaller competitor and perhaps lose some customers who weren't aware of T-Mobile.

 

For T-Mobile's sake they've proven that they can be disruptive enough to cause the bigger guys to adjust their offerings even if mediocre in comparison.

[GinaDee]

Unfortunately T-Mobile lacks the quality and quantity of service offered by AT&T and Verizon.  At either of my parent's homes in the heart of Tulsa T-Mobile only works if you are outdoors.  Even Sprint who uses a similar frequency for LTE and Voice connectivity offers a certain marginal level of indoor service inside my mother's partial brick home.  I had a T-mobile device for a few months both with a "real" T-mobile Sim and a trial of Solavei.  The service even around town was borderline pathetic, and at my apartment in Norman T-mobile signals are again only usable on the patio.  My neighbor Jon with a T-mobile iPhone 5S is sorely disappointed with their service. AT&T offers extremely high speeds in and around Tulsa and OKC.  Verizon is crippled by USCC holdings in Tulsa but still offers a competitive LTE service and a mildly robust voice network over PCS.  Sprint is somewhere in the middle.

-William

 

The United States is a huge place.

 

For T-Mobile users who keep in big cities and only travel to other urban locations via plane would probably rarely notice any adverse network conditions.

 

Ever been to Hollywood, CA?  Major tourist area.  T-Mobile has LTE and HSPA+ even deep within the bowels of buildings.  They build their network really dense in certain areas.  You could probably imagine that people who keep within an area like this would give T-Mobile high marks. 

 

Even with my AT&T phone I have "coverage," practically everywhere but sometimes the quality isn't there, sites are sometimes spaced too far apart so my dBM readings are less than ideal and data doesn't always connect.

 

T-Mobile just can't duplicate Hollywood, CA. coverage everywhere without forking over $10-$12 billion dollars in high frequency band rollouts.  Spotty 700 MHz from Verizon will help in certain areas but I'm sure they'll need to snag additional 700 MHz licenses scattered throughout the country.

 

Edited December 30, 2013 by GinaDee

[WiWavelength]

They're clearly national ad buys, but I too find it funny that for as often as I see there adds that they won't sell me service here. Plug in our zip codes and the T-mobile website acts like they don't exist.

 

In many ways, T-Mobile is the oddball wireless operator, and one of those quirks is your very own Omaha.  Even though it is a top 100 market, it is a license protection market for T-Mobile, which maintains a skeleton W-CDMA/GSM network consisting of about 20 sites for the entire metro.  But it does not market nor sell service in Omaha.  I am not sure that T-Mobile even has an MSC in Omaha -- traffic may just all get backhauled to Kansas City, Des Moines, or elsewhere.

 

AJ

[Mr.Nuke]

In many ways, T-Mobile is the oddball wireless operator, and one of those quirks is your very own Omaha.  Even though it is a top 100 market, it is a license protection market for T-Mobile, which maintains a skeleton W-CDMA/GSM network consisting of about 20 sites for the entire metro.  But it does not market nor sell service in Omaha.  I am not sure that T-Mobile even has an MSC in Omaha -- traffic may just all get backhauled to Kansas City, Des Moines, or elsewhere.

 

AJ

And they're in the process of rolling out LTE on their sites here...

[WiWavelength]

And they're in the process of rolling out LTE on their sites here...

 

That is interesting news.  I was not sure that T-Mobile would bother with LTE in Omaha.  Well, I suppose that is nice for visitors who have T-Mobile.  Data speeds should be insanely fast because there are almost zero local subs on the network.  But coverage is reportedly very weak due to the skeleton network of just a few sites.  On the other hand, roaming on AT&T would not be that much better.  Omaha is and has long been a CDMA2000 town.

 

AJ

[WiWavelength]

Some of them hated Cam for a few days but he speaks the truth. 

 

No, I would say that he was a bad hire.  TmoNews reports on T-Mobile USA, but the editor does not even live in North America and cannot regularly use the wireless service he covers???  Maybe PhoneDog was going for distanced objectivity, but I doubt it, as that does not seem to be the outlet's modus operandi.  No, hiring a Brit to run a US wireless operator focused site is just a head scratching choice.

 

AJ

[milan03]

No, I would say that he was a bad hire.  TmoNews reports on T-Mobile USA, but the editor does not even live in North America and cannot regularly use the wireless service he covers???  Maybe PhoneDog was going for distanced objectivity, but I doubt it, as that does not seem to be the outlet's modus operandi.  No, hiring a Brit to run a US wireless operator focused site is just a head scratching choice.

 

AJ

They should've hired Neal. But not sure if he'd be interested.

[Conan Kudo]

That is interesting news.  I was not sure that T-Mobile would bother with LTE in Omaha.  Well, I suppose that is nice for visitors who have T-Mobile.  Data speeds should be insanely fast because there are almost zero local subs on the network.  But coverage is reportedly very weak due to the skeleton network of just a few sites.  On the other hand, roaming on AT&T would not be that much better.  Omaha is and has long been a CDMA2000 town.

 

AJ

As far as I know, the only reason T-Mobile doesn't sell service in Omaha (and thus, care more about it) is that they've never been able to get local phone number blocks assigned to them for use in that area. There are ways to buy service, but you don't get a local number.

 

What's the point in doing more for that area if you can't sell phone service there?

 

They should've hired Neal. But not sure if he'd be interested.

 

Probably not, as it's a very demanding job with probably a lower pay scale than what I do now.

[Mr.Nuke]

As far as I know, the only reason T-Mobile doesn't sell service in Omaha (and thus, care more about it) is that they've never been able to get local phone number blocks assigned to them for use in that area. There are ways to buy service, but you don't get a local number.

I find that extremely difficult to believe. We've got an entire 2nd area code of unused numbers.

[jadedchameleon]

That is interesting news.  I was not sure that T-Mobile would bother with LTE in Omaha.  Well, I suppose that is nice for visitors who have T-Mobile.  Data speeds should be insanely fast because there are almost zero local subs on the network.  But coverage is reportedly very weak due to the skeleton network of just a few sites.  On the other hand, roaming on AT&T would not be that much better.  Omaha is and has long been a CDMA2000 town.

 

AJ

 

No doubt T-Mobile is extremely weak in Omaha, and Verizon and Sprint are the strongest carriers, but AT&T has quietly built a fairly decent network in Omaha over the past few years--I wouldn't at all say it is "not that much better" than T-Mobile.  AT&T is hugely better than T-Mobile in Omaha (T-Mobile is only usable in about 25% of the city).  AT&T has really closed the gap quite a bit from a few years ago--they're actually a viable choice now, IMO.  And if AT&T had a cellular license and Verizon didn't hold both sides, I'd venture to say they'd actually be beyond competitive with any carrier--in town.  Rural is an entirely different story, and CDMA has a massive, massive lead.