T-Mobile LTE & Network Discussion

[milan03]

How did it run? We had a good dozen or so rural WCDMA sites in New Mexico that ran at 200-400k. According to Neal, he says that when a a Tmo 2G site base station has to receive significant maintenance or replacement, it is upgraded to WCDMA, but left on the existing backhaul. This added a lot of WCDMA coverage, but not a significant net improvement in performance.

 

Don't get me wrong, I appreciated the places where I was not limited to EDGE 100k speeds and 1000ms ping. It was a better experience to get 400k and a 300ms ping. But it was only on one site in this county, and another two counties away. And it still wasn't as good as Sprint legacy 3G in these same areas.

 

I'm still not convinced there is a full blown and actionable Tmo plan to modernize its non urban network. If they were doing it now, they would say so. It wouldn't just be "future".

 

Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

This is the thread: http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php/1792144-official-T-Mobile-USA-LTE-thread?p=15312863#post15312863

 

Speeds seem to be solid. He even hit 50+ somewhere in NJ.

[S4GRU]

This is the thread: http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php/1792144-official-T-Mobile-USA-LTE-thread?p=15312863#post15312863

 

Speeds seem to be solid. He even hit 50+ somewhere in NJ.

 

Thanks for the link.  This is where Tmo should be hitting LTE on in non urban areas, at a minimum.  The Boston-DC Corridor.  It is unforgivable to not have solid at least 3G coverage up and down this area.  The 52Mbps is an impressive speed test.  It is in suburban Philly/Trenton, though.  But I always enjoy those speeds on Tmo when I get them.  I almost choked at Brazilian steakhouse in Denver once hitting over 60Mbps on Tmo.  It was faster than even unburdened Sprint Spark in the same area.

 

However, I'm still not convinced there is a full blown and actionable Tmo plan to modernize its non urban network. If they were doing it now, they would say so. It wouldn't just be "future".

 

Robert

[irev210]

However, I'm still not convinced there is a full blown and actionable Tmo plan to modernize its non urban network. If they were doing it now, they would say so. It wouldn't just be "future".

 

Robert

 

No specific plans announced - sort of interesting this popped up today.

 

Magenta For More People

T-Mobile's next frontier is to expand its overall network to more Americans. The company started by focusing on major cities, and it now covers 66 percent of the population with LTE and about 73 percent with HSPA+. If the rest of the population gets T-Mobile at all, it's on 2G EDGE.

That's been the No. 1 complaint my readers have had about T-Mobile; the 88 million or so Americans who can't get high-speed access on the carrier's plans are often pretty angry about it. That's bigger than the population of the U.K. or France.

 

"We haven't been talking about building new cell sites in a long while," Ray admitted. "The story for '14 is more footprint," he said. With 317 million Americans out there, the scrappy No. 4 carrier has its work cut out for it.

 

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2429285,00.asp

[WiWavelength]

One thing that interests me is T-Mobile's promise to deploy in Q4 2014 with what they bought. If its true channel 51 issues must have been resolved by that time.

 

No, the UHF channel 51 issues will linger for years until the 600 MHz spectrum below gets reverse auctioned, repacked, and forward auctioned -- whenever that actually happens.

 

True, in some markets, channel 51 may have been relocated.  Dallas is on the original channel 51 service contours map, but it is now mentioned as an unencumbered market.  Either T-Mobile made a mistake, or channel 51 is no longer in service in Dallas.  However, Dallas appears to be the exception.  Other major markets -- New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boston, Phoenix, Kansas City, Cincinnati -- are still encumbered.

 

AJ

[S4GRU]

No specific plans announced - sort of interesting this popped up today.

 

Magenta For More People

T-Mobile's next frontier is to expand its overall network to more Americans. The company started by focusing on major cities, and it now covers 66 percent of the population with LTE and about 73 percent with HSPA+. If the rest of the population gets T-Mobile at all, it's on 2G EDGE.

That's been the No. 1 complaint my readers have had about T-Mobile; the 88 million or so Americans who can't get high-speed access on the carrier's plans are often pretty angry about it. That's bigger than the population of the U.K. or France.

 

"We haven't been talking about building new cell sites in a long while," Ray admitted. "The story for '14 is more footprint," he said. With 317 million Americans out there, the scrappy No. 4 carrier has its work cut out for it.

 

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2429285,00.asp

 

I've read that article.  It's so vague.  Now we have two Tmo quotes, "future" and "more footprint".  Thanks.  

 

Robert

[S4GRU]

This is why for my main line, I can't use T-Mobile.   All I meant to say is there is a possibility and a way that T-Mobile can improve if they decide to do it.   One thing that interests me is T-Mobile's promise to deploy in Q4 2014 with what they bought. If its true channel 51 issues must have been resolved by that time.

 

Yep, there is a possibility.  No doubt.  I've even given them possibilities.  I'm critical of their inaction.  It's always been possible.

 

As for the timeline for the limited 700 they have, yes it has been announced.  But they only announced specifically cities that do not have Channel 51 interference issues.  Did you notice that?  They have said they have resolved Channel 51, but will not discuss how.  

 

The only thing that is definite at this point is Tmo is planning to deploy one 5MHz LTE 700 A-Block carrier starting by the end of 2014 in places without interference concerns.  They have not announced deploying in any Channel 51 interference areas yet.  They just said they have found a solution for it.

 

Robert

[WiWavelength]

I've read that article.  It's so vague.  Now we have two Tmo quotes, "future" and "more footprint".  Thanks.  

 

It is mainly more of the usual magenta fellatio from the tech press.  They love the foul mouthed Legere and "rock star" Ray.  Sascha has even said that he uses T-Mobile for his personal lines.  Plus, he comes across as a downtown kind of guy, probably flying everywhere, rarely leaving cities.

 

AJ

[IamMrFamous07]

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/t-mobile-launches-volte-seattle-promises-more-markets-year/2014-05-22

 

Hopefully sprint plans to launch it sometime this year too.

[Paynefanbro]

Hopefully not. Sprint's deployment needs to be perfect and nationwide if they plan on stealing any thunder from the other carriers. T-Mobile got coaxed into doing this because of the announcements by the big two.

 

Sprint needs to iron out the kinks before they try anything like this. Maybe by the end of the year will they launch VoLTE.

[JWMaloney]

Hopefully not. Sprint's deployment needs to be perfect and nationwide if they plan on stealing any thunder from the other carriers. T-Mobile got coaxed into doing this because of the announcements by the big two.

 

Sprint needs to iron out the kinks before they try anything like this. Maybe by the end of the year will they launch VoLTE.

Let's also not forget that Verizon's announcement only reiterated what they've already said in the past -- VoLTE is coming, just not right now. AT&T and T-Mobile are the only two currently launching.

[JeffDTD]

Who actually -wants- volte? Sure, clearer calls...but less coverage is a deal breaker for me. I take issue with this becoming another e-peen rat race. It benefits only the carrier

 

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[rjw]

Who actually -wants- volte? Sure, clearer calls...but less coverage is a deal breaker for me. I take issue with this becoming another e-peen rat race. It benefits only the carrier

 

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

Well in T-Mobile's case they've announced they'll use eSRVCC technology which will allow the calls to drop to either 3g/2g in case you move outside of LTE coverage. It's just the next advancement in Technology not sure how it's a e-peen rat race. Sprint will eventually deploy VoLTE as well. 

[Conan Kudo]

Well in T-Mobile's case they've announced they'll use eSRVCC technology which will allow the calls to drop to either 3g/2g in case you move outside of LTE coverage. It's just the next advancement in Technology not sure how it's a e-peen rat race. Sprint will eventually deploy VoLTE as well. 

The interesting thing is that VoLTE will enable T-Mobile to seek roaming deals with Verizon and AT&T, as the voice and data roaming orders would now kick in for T-Mobile, allowing them to use VoLTE as a means to get reasonable rates for LTE roaming. The "visited" network doesn't need to have VoLTE for that to work, it could just redirect packet data to the T-Mobile core as normal.

[gnoj]

Who actually -wants- volte? Sure, clearer calls...but less coverage is a deal breaker for me. I take issue with this becoming another e-peen rat race. It benefits only the carrier

 

VoLTE benefits consumers in a couple ways: First, it finally ends the 3GPP/3GPP2 divide. As long as the appropriate bands are included and the new phone unlocking guidelines are respected, it becomes easy to take your phone (which more people will be holding on to longer given the imminent demise of the 2-yr contract and other factors) to any other network. Even if you have no desire to leave Sprint, ease of portability should increase competitive pressure due to churn, which will help to keep a lid on prices.

 

Having everyone running LTE as their primary or sole network also greatly increases the odds of inking roaming deals with more companies. For example, you'll be able to place a call where there may have only been coverage by a "GSM" provider like AT&T or a rural operator like Viaero in the past. As Neal pointed out, given that voice traffic will be carried as well, more favorable roaming rates will be attainable.

 

In Sprint's case, moving the bulk of voice traffic to LTE will facilitate the refarming of their PCS holdings to B25 LTE. A skeleton legacy network (1-2 CDMA carriers) will have to remain for a long time yet for M2M and phones that lack BC10, of course.

 

However, by and large I also didn't really care too much for the rush to VoLTE until Sprint and the device manufacturers made what was, on balance (in my opinion), a poor decision to drop both SVDO and SVLTE. Going forward, it will be important for Sprint to regain the ability to offer what every other carrier continues to offer- some form of simultaneous voice & data. Since they've committed to only offering devices with a single transmit path, this will require VoLTE.

 

Certainly many challenges remain, foremost being coverage. I will be curious to see how well LTE on 600 MHz propagates compared to 1xA 800, particularly if the latter is changed to be tuned for coverage rather than capacity. The reliability of VoLTE will also depend on certain Release 10-12 LTE-A features, like Co-ordinated multipoint (CoMP) and Enhanced inter-cell interference coordination (eICIC). Sprint's network is I believe still on Release 9. Even with all those bells and whistles, I expect 1xA 800 coverage to extend much further than LTE 600. eSRVCC in Release 9 apparently allows for handoffs to CDMA circuit-switched voice for at least emergency callers, so coupling VoLTE with 1x800 to fall back on without the call dropping is theoretically possible.

 

3GPP Rel 12 isn't expected to be finalized until September, and we're still a year away from the incentive auctions, so I don't expect Sprint to go nationwide with VoLTE before 2016. They will likely be testing it in a couple markets and be sure to announce that they are doing so in order to keep up appearances. However, there is still time to sit back and let the others work out the kinks, just as long as Son has them set to move quickly when the time comes.

[Conan Kudo]

Certainly many challenges remain, foremost being coverage. I will be curious to see how well LTE on 600 MHz propagates compared to 1xA 800, particularly if the latter is changed to be tuned for coverage rather than capacity. The reliability of VoLTE will also depend on certain Release 10-12 LTE-A features, like Co-ordinated multipoint (CoMP) and Enhanced inter-cell interference coordination (eICIC). Sprint's network is I believe still on Release 9. Even with all those bells and whistles, I expect 1xA 800 coverage to extend much further than LTE 600. eSRVCC in Release 9 apparently allows for handoffs to CDMA circuit-switched voice for at least emergency callers, so coupling VoLTE with 1x800 to fall back on without the call dropping is theoretically possible.

It's more likely that PS handover will be used rather than SRVCC for CDMA networks, since that is much simpler to do. Sprint is already halfway there with eHRPD. EvDO was designed to support VoIP calls, if I remember correctly.

 

There's no reason that Sprint could not get roaming agreements from GSM carriers today. Most of Sprint's devices are quad-mode GSM/UMTS/LTE/CDMA, so the voice and data roaming orders already apply for Sprint to try to get roaming deals with GSM/UMTS operators. If it elected to, it could choose to get a roaming deal from AT&T instead of Verizon when the Alltel agreement expires next year. In fact, I'd probably recommend it because a roaming deal with AT&T is probably going to have more favorable terms than a roaming deal with Verizon. Verizon has not and will not allow Alltel roaming agreements to renew.

 

From T-Mobile's side, it does have a roaming agreement with Sprint it can use that it inherited from MetroPCS, if it wants. But I doubt it wants to use it. If it did, it could renegotiate to add LTE, and use only the LTE portion of it.

[jamisonshaw125]

 

Did the thread title change? Or have I officially lost my mind.

[JeffDTD]

It's just the next advancement in Technology not sure how it's a e-peen rat race. Sprint will eventually deploy VoLTE as well.

As soon as there are a handful of cities with live volte, those carriers and their pocket tech journalists will be telling the public we want volte. That will of course influence the crayon eating interwebs to again flame sprint for the next few years.

 

And as far hoping for more voice coverage via roaming agreements, do we know how either of the 3 will bill for volte? Will minutes be tracked like the legacy networks, or will it be billed based on the data it uses? Tmo's pains with roaming access have always been more about the cost than the availability of a network to roam on... will paying per kb for voice be cheaper than per minute if it ends up that way?

 

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[Fraydog]

As soon as there are a handful of cities with live volte, those carriers and their pocket tech journalists will be telling the public we want volte. That will of course influence the crayon eating interwebs to again flame sprint for the next few years.

That perception most certainly matters. It has cost Sprint customers. Why we dismiss it without making a real argument against it, beats me. What can Sprint do? Perhaps we should look at an approach that is based on real innovation. Sprint should go for VoLTE but integrate better and more reliable methods of doing it based on CoMP, better voice codecs like EVS, and TD-LTE voice. Pushing forward will most certainly be a better path. Also, I am not against giving users a choice. You don't like VoLTE? Just disable it and stuck with CDMA HD Voice.

 

And as far hoping for more voice coverage via roaming agreements, do we know how either of the 3 will bill for volte? Will minutes be tracked like the legacy networks, or will it be billed based on the data it uses? Tmo's pains with roaming access have always been more about the cost than the availability of a network to roam on... will paying per kb for voice be cheaper than per minute if it ends up that way?

 

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

I assume minutes will be tracked. I'd rather see it stay that way. If data is tracked, that's going to just encourage more people to use OTT Voice. VoLTE still holds an advantage in that voice over LTE can be given priority, but the carriers need to make sure people use VoLTE.

[bigsnake49]

It's more likely that PS handover will be used rather than SRVCC for CDMA networks, since that is much simpler to do. Sprint is already halfway there with eHRPD. EvDO was designed to support VoIP calls, if I remember correctly.

 

There's no reason that Sprint could not get roaming agreements from GSM carriers today. Most of Sprint's devices are quad-mode GSM/UMTS/LTE/CDMA, so the voice and data roaming orders already apply for Sprint to try to get roaming deals with GSM/UMTS operators. If it elected to, it could choose to get a roaming deal from AT&T instead of Verizon when the Alltel agreement expires next year. In fact, I'd probably recommend it because a roaming deal with AT&T is probably going to have more favorable terms than a roaming deal with Verizon. Verizon has not and will not allow Alltel roaming agreements to renew.

 

From T-Mobile's side, it does have a roaming agreement with Sprint it can use that it inherited from MetroPCS, if it wants. But I doubt it wants to use it. If it did, it could renegotiate to add LTE, and use only the LTE portion of it.

 

AT&T's UMTS voice network is inferior, coverage wise, to Verizon's CDMA. Now, their LTE networks might end up being equal as both of them have nationwide spectrum.  And I thought that the Alltel roaming deal expires in 2016.

[JWMaloney]

Who actually -wants- volte? Sure, clearer calls...but less coverage is a deal breaker for me. I take issue with this becoming another e-peen rat race. It benefits only the carrier

 

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

I do, because it's about time we have simultaneous voice & data. And there's no reason it should be less coverage, as the calls should hand off to 1x voice via SRVCC.

[Fraydog]

I do, because it's about time we have simultaneous voice & data. And there's no reason it should be less coverage, as the calls should hand off to 1x voice via SRVCC.

I glossed over that argument, good catch. I supported the move away from SV-LTE because of the addition of Spark and the enhanced performance and battery life that comes from eliminating SV-LTE. That said, to keep relying on CSFB to CDMA when the VoLTE approach that is better in the long run is not preferable.

[Conan Kudo]

AT&T's UMTS voice network is inferior, coverage wise, to Verizon's CDMA. Now, their LTE networks might end up being equal as both of them have nationwide spectrum.  And I thought that the Alltel roaming deal expires in 2016.

How do you know that? From what I've seen, AT&T's UMTS network matches Verizon's CDMA network in terms of overall coverage. There are spots here and there where they trade on coverage (Montana is strong for AT&T but weak for Verizon, while Verizon has a presence in Nebraska and AT&T does not, etc.).

[bigsnake49]

How do you know that? From what I've seen, AT&T's UMTS network matches Verizon's CDMA network in terms of overall coverage. There are spots here and there where they trade on coverage (Montana is strong for AT&T but weak for Verizon, while Verizon has a presence in Nebraska and AT&T does not, etc.).

Because I have been places like South Carolina and New Hampshire where AT&T does not have 850Mhz and their 1900Mhz network sucks. I have been left with no GPS guidance because of lack of 3G. That's why I bought Navigon. it's precisely why I always carry two phones: one AT&T and one Sprint that I can force to roam on Verizon.

[xdfgf]

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/analysts-comcast-could-make-bid-t-mobile-bolster-wireless-strategy/2014-05-23

 

 

 

The deal-making chess pieces are being moved around in the telecom industry, and one financial analyst thinks the next move might be for Comcast (NASDAQ: CMCSA) to make a bid for T-Mobile US

 

lel

[milan03]

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/analysts-comcast-could-make-bid-t-mobile-bolster-wireless-strategy/2014-05-23

 

 

 

lel

All I can think of is Comcast/TWC fiber backhaul going into 2015 and massive Small Cell deployment.

 

Could be also just wishful thinking and end up being the worst deal ever...