T-Mobile LTE & Network Discussion

[EmeraldReporter]

Is what they're saying true? I'm the comments: http://www.dslreports.com/forum/news,129929~mode=full~days=2000

 

Sprint has Release 9 equipment that is already outdated?

 

What was all that money spent for anyway?

Edited August 3, 2014 by EmeraldReporter

[EvanA]

Is what they're saying true? I'm the comments: http://www.dslreports.com/forum/news,129929~mode=full~days=2000

 

Sprint has Release 9 equipment that is already outdated?

 

What was all that money spent for anyway?

Yes that's true. They only have rel9 because that was the latest available when they started the rollout.

[Nickel]

Rel. 9 is only a software update to Rel. 10.

[Ascertion]

Is what they're saying true? I'm the comments: http://www.dslreports.com/forum/news,129929~mode=full~days=2000

 

Sprint has Release 9 equipment that is already outdated?

 

What was all that money spent for anyway?

I could have swore Sprint opted for Release 10 and not 9.  I could be wrong, maybe Robert or AJ can chime in here.  I recall reading somewhere that Sprint had an easily up-gradable version of LTE so it did not require hardware swaps.

 

EDIT: Maybe they are on release 9, but as Nickel stated, it is only a software update to Rel 10.

[lilotimz]

It's full on lte release 9 implementation for the original equipment. Software updates can enable certain lte advance functionalities as for equipment.

 

Sprints 8t8r equipment are straight out LTE advance.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[EvanA]

So the latest round of BS from T-Mobile fanboys is that Sprint's site spacing isn't dense enough. They claim that Sprint's spacing is "less than half as dense as T-Mobile in some places"

 

Justification: "If you walk into a store, and still have T-Mobile LTE, but Sprint drops from LTE to EVDO, this is usually why. Sprint "cheaped out" on a cell site further away or otherwise worse than T-Mobile's is."

 

Also " Sprint won't ever get better until they add more towers in urban areas. No amount of new spectrum, or low band spectrum will help in any way, until they stop shutting down their cell sites, and start adding new ones."

[Terrell352]

Well then they need to add more towers. They need at least 20,000 more sprint towers. I'm talking towers capable of all 3 bands not just clear sites with only band 41

So the latest round of BS from T-Mobile fanboys is that Sprint's site spacing isn't dense enough. They claim that Sprint's spacing is "less than half as dense as T-Mobile in some places"

 

Justification: "If you walk into a store, and still have T-Mobile LTE, but Sprint drops from LTE to EVDO, this is usually why. Sprint "cheaped out" on a cell site further away or otherwise worse than T-Mobile's is."

 

Also " Sprint won't ever get better until they add more towers in urban areas. No amount of new spectrum, or low band spectrum will help in any way, until they stop shutting down their cell sites, and start adding new ones."

[S4GRU]

So the latest round of BS from T-Mobile fanboys is that Sprint's site spacing isn't dense enough. They claim that Sprint's spacing is "less than half as dense as T-Mobile in some places"

 

Justification: "If you walk into a store, and still have T-Mobile LTE, but Sprint drops from LTE to EVDO, this is usually why. Sprint "cheaped out" on a cell site further away or otherwise worse than T-Mobile's is."

 

Also " Sprint won't ever get better until they add more towers in urban areas. No amount of new spectrum, or low band spectrum will help in any way, until they stop shutting down their cell sites, and start adding new ones."

 

It's true.  In some places.  It's also true that Sprint has greater density than Tmo in some places.  Heck, Sprint even has better density than VZW and AT&T in some places.

 

In most of the places I go, Sprint and Tmo density is pretty similar.

 

Robert

[gusherb]

In the Chicagoland area the density goes like this: Verizon...........at&t.......Sprint....T-Mobile.

 

Sprint could definitely fill in some spots where I don't think LTE 800 will reach even after optimization but EVDO/1x has no problems anywhere around here. T-Mobile is so dense that I never drop LTE on AWS while driving around the area.

A good 1/4 of my town is an LTE coverage hole for AT&T.

 

AT&T barely gets away with the cell density they have, and Verizon does because they crank the power and blast 1x/EVDO 850 from the towers. (I assume they do for LTE too)

[transitwatch889]

Parts of NYC, the Bronx were I reside could stand for greater site density in outer boroughs. But I'll be patient to see what the network performs like by early 2016, it's my date of the network showing its depth and consistent nature for better or worse.

[reedacus25]

It's true. In some places. It's also true that Sprint has greater density than Tmo in some places.

 

In most of the places I go, Sprint and Tmo density is pretty similar.

I can completely corroborate this. In many areas, T-Mobile and Sprint are in parity for density, often colo on the same physical site.

 

Sometimes T-Mobile has better density. Baton Rouge comes to mind for density in T-Mobile's favor (in the city are, outlying areas fall off quickly). My hometown of Starkville, MS is another good example, where T-Mobile and Sprint are co-located together on 3 sites, but T-Mobile edges out with a fourth site in the city.

 

But New Orleans is more Sprint dense. Not that I have horrible issues with T-Mobile in New Orleans, I don't, but Sprint definitely edges out on density by a pretty fair margin.

[S4GRU]

I can completely corroborate this. In many areas, T-Mobile and Sprint are in parity for density, often colo on the same physical site.

 

Sometimes T-Mobile has better density. Baton Rouge comes to mind for density in T-Mobile's favor (in the city are, outlying areas fall off quickly). My hometown of Starkville, MS is another good example, where T-Mobile and Sprint are co-located together on 3 sites, but T-Mobile edges out with a fourth site in the city.

 

But New Orleans is more Sprint dense. Not that I have horrible issues with T-Mobile in New Orleans, I don't, but Sprint definitely edges out on density by a pretty fair margin.

 

NOLA Sprint density is decent.  They just need tons more capacity!  Sprint density in Baton Rouge though is one of the worst in the country.

 

Robert

[Paynefanbro]

NOLA Sprint density is decent.  They just need tons more capacity!  Sprint density in Baton Rouge though is one of the worst in the country.

 

Robert

 

Judging from Sensorly, Verizon offers the most consistent coverage in Baton Rouge, at least on the 3G side of things.

[digiblur]

Judging from Sensorly, Verizon offers the most consistent coverage in Baton Rouge, at least on the 3G side of things.

ATT has more sites out of all here. I have mapped out most areas of town. Some areas are double or triple what Sprint has. Some more. LSU area is crazy. I can't even find two of them to narrow them down. I found 7 sites and Sprint only has two. You can consider it even double that since they have twice the bandwidth of LTE. Sprint has their work cut out for them here.

[maxsilver]

So the latest round of BS from T-Mobile fanboys is that Sprint's site spacing isn't dense enough. They claim that Sprint's spacing is "less than half as dense as T-Mobile in some places"

 

Justification: "If you walk into a store, and still have T-Mobile LTE, but Sprint drops from LTE to EVDO, this is usually why. Sprint "cheaped out" on a cell site further away or otherwise worse than T-Mobile's is."

 

Also " Sprint won't ever get better until they add more towers in urban areas. No amount of new spectrum, or low band spectrum will help in any way, until they stop shutting down their cell sites, and start adding new ones."

Aww, come on. If your claiming I'm a "T-Mobile fanboy", I must be a pretty bad one, since I just signed a two-year contract on a Sprint LG G3     

 

Anyway, I stand behind that statement. Sprint's PCS proprogates better than T-Mobile's AWS, so if you drop LTE on Sprint, it's usually a site placement issue (assuming the towers in question are upgraded to NV1.0 and live, which should be most of them by now)

 

I'm not picking sides here -- the reverse is equally true as well. If you have Sprint LTE, but not T-Mobile LTE/HSPA+ in urban areas, it's usually because T-Mobile "cheaped out" on whatever cell site is nearby, which also happens.

 

I'm not passing judgement about it -- Sprint and T-Mobile have less cash on hand, so they often *have* to get "creative" on sites. But there's no point in pretending this doesn't effect the network -- it does.

[maxsilver]

ATT has more sites out of all here. I have mapped out most areas of town. Some areas are double or triple what Sprint has. Some more. LSU area is crazy. I can't even find two of them to narrow them down. I found 7 sites and Sprint only has two. You can consider it even double that since they have twice the bandwidth of LTE.

 

This is my experience as well, on both site density and 'effectively available bandwidth'.

 

Density usually seems to go:

 

1) ATT

2) T-Mobile

3) Sprint

4) Verizon

 

Although, like nearly everything, this obviously varies on location.

 

Sprint has their work cut out for them here.

I hope so. I truly hope they focus on this, above everything else (even above NV2.0, in my opinion)

 

But I'm still very concerned that they'll dump the Clearwire sites, like the Nextel ones went away last year.

[digiblur]

This is my experience as well, on both site density and 'effectively available bandwidth'.

 

Density usually seems to go:

 

1) ATT

2) T-Mobile

3) Sprint

4) Verizon

 

Although, like nearly everything, this obviously varies on location.

Tmobile is kinda sparse here.

[EvanA]

Aww, come on. If your claiming I'm a "T-Mobile fanboy", I must be a pretty bad one, since I just signed a two-year contract on a Sprint LG G3     

 

Anyway, I stand behind that statement. Sprint's PCS proprogates better than T-Mobile's AWS, so if you drop LTE on Sprint, it's usually a site placement issue (assuming the towers in question are upgraded to NV1.0 and live, which should be most of them by now)

 

I'm not picking sides here -- the reverse is equally true as well. If you have Sprint LTE, but not T-Mobile LTE/HSPA+ in urban areas, it's usually because T-Mobile "cheaped out" on whatever cell site is nearby, which also happens.

 

I'm not passing judgement about it -- Sprint and T-Mobile have less cash on hand, so they often *have* to get "creative" on sites. But there's no point in pretending this doesn't effect the network -- it does.

It's not necessarily a placement "issue," more so a placement difference.  Both T-Mobile and Sprint have dead zones in certain areas.  There's no use saying that Sprint is the only one with sparse placement when both have sparse placement depending on the market.  The difference with Sprint is that they need not add as many new towers now and instead add band 26 to more towers.  Band 26 will fill those 3G drop holes without needing a new tower.  

 

Now, they may come back later after band 26 is on and tuned and decide to add a new tower.  In some cases they already have plans for new towers (see: STL market premier thread).

[Conan Kudo]

It's full on lte release 9 implementation for the original equipment. Software updates can enable certain lte advance functionalities as for equipment.

 

Sprints 8t8r equipment are straight out LTE advance.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

8T8R, however, is not a software upgrade. It requires replacing the entire radio head (including RRHs) to implement. Same goes for the weird 4T2R radios it is now installing to replace the previous 2T2R radios it had in place for FDD bands.

 

Don't make the mistake that LTE-Advanced features are all accessible through software upgrades. Less than half are. The focus of Releases 10-13 are on features that require brand new hardware to function, because they modify critical behaviors or change the air interface in some critical manner. Most of the "software fixes" from Release 10 are focused on the core network (specifically IMS and IPX interfaces and functionality), so they won't affect the RAN much.

 

That's the reason why T-Mobile received custom gear from Ericsson to be Release 10 compliant, and why NSN gear is Release 10 compliant as well. It's the same reason for AT&T and Verizon having to replace their gear again in order to move up from Release 8, and why Ericsson and ALU market upgrades to Release 10 will be far more painful than in Samsung markets. Release 9 was mostly software oriented fixes, so Sprint received Release 8 gear with patches to implement some relevant Release 9 improvements. Release 10 will require new hardware.

[EvanA]

8T8R, however, is not a software upgrade. It requires replacing the entire radio head (including RRHs) to implement. Same goes for the weird 4T2R radios it is now installing to replace the previous 2T2R radios it had in place for FDD bands.

They're only using 4x2 MIMO on the 8T8R antennae for band 41.

[danlodish345]

Well I have att verizon t mobile and used to have sprint...before I got screwed over but any ways the order of the coverage in my part of town goes like this t mobile verizon at&t and sprint...t mobile has much more bandwidth in my area then the other 3 and two bars of lte get me 30 megs compared to Verizon and AT&T sprints coverage is spotty at best but it will be interesting when the switch on bad 26

So the latest round of BS from T-Mobile fanboys is that Sprint's site spacing isn't dense enough. They claim that Sprint's spacing is "less than half as dense as T-Mobile in some places"

Justification: "If you walk into a store, and still have T-Mobile LTE, but Sprint drops from LTE to EVDO, this is usually why. Sprint "cheaped out" on a cell site further away or otherwise worse than T-Mobile's is."

Also " Sprint won't ever get better until they add more towers in urban areas. No amount of new spectrum, or low band spectrum will help in any way, until they stop shutting down their cell sites, and start adding new ones."

[Ascertion]

On my local site, just Sprint and T-Mobile had antennas installed.  Sprint got 4G installed first, then T-Mobile a month or two later.  Then AT&T and Verizon both installed panels about 6 months later, about two weeks apart from each other.  Makes me think Verizon or AT&T look at the local permits and install panels on nearby/same sites as their counterparts.

 

For me, until my local site was upgraded, at least on my street, T-Mobile had the most density followed by Sprint/Verizon being about the same with AT&T the worst.  Now, Verizon/T-Mobile are the densest with Sprint next and AT&T still last.

[Destroyallcubes]

Well here in Tyler, Att and Verizon are adding towers, just noticed at least two today that are brand new less than 5 months old, with 4 spots available on the monopole. Our site density in Tyler for ATT and Verizon is growing. Sprint hasn't grown, neither has T-Mobile. But sprint has 2-3 times the number of towers as T-Mobile, and has them in better places than T-Mobile. ATT and Verizon are such impactful carriers Herr they need the extra sites. BTW these new sites I saw I've never seen 4 panels per sector, all identical panels. Is ATT using PCs LTE in high site density as a way to keep LTE speeds higher?

[WiWavelength]

ATT and Verizon are such impactful carriers Herr they need the extra sites.

 

"Herr they need the extra sites"?  So, they have to get permission from a German man to add them?

 

AJ

[kojitsari]

Here in rural Missouri att is adding a tower in the back of a subdivision, about 5-6 miles from i44. They're already drawing fiber and have streets closed to do it-_-. I can't see them keeping a tower in their name, wouldn't it be more likely someone else owns and built it or that they're going to sell it to one of those tower company is? T-mobile has spotty edge, and a few tiny spots of hpsa. Atts LTE is a bit denser than Sprint(because not all of the sprint towers are upgraded), but speeds are lower. Verizon probably is on less towers than att but they're better placed. Now the real king tower wise/density is USC, they have towers all over the place. For instance there are three less than a mile from my home in the boonies.