T-Mobile LTE & Network Discussion

[Vince]

I actually agree with that because t mobile is actually throttling users who actually do illegal downloading ... I like that..

I didn't really mean throttling abusive users (sorry if it read that way). What I meant was, every single person has a bandwidth cap while on band 41. Nobody needs to download at 120 whatever Mbps. Spread it out amongst everyone connected to that sector. Better usability, especially in crowded places will please more customers than just being able to rip a triple-digit speedtest for bragging rights.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone 6+

[derrph]

I didn't really mean throttling abusive users (sorry if it read that way). What I meant was, every single person has a bandwidth cap while on band 41. Nobody needs to download at 120 whatever Mbps. Spread it out amongst everyone connected to that sector. Better usability, especially in crowded places will please more customers than just being able to rip a triple-digit speedtest for bragging rights.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone 6+

I agree but it just seems like now that the speed test app makes or breaks a carrier which is sad. Faster and faster speeds is more important than a reliable experience.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited December 20, 2014 by derrph

[danlodish345]

I agree but it just seems like now that the speed test app makes or breaks a carrier which is sad. Faster and faster speeds is more important than a reliable experience.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

bother carrier reliability and speed and coverage are all important 

[CaryTheLabelGuy]

I didn't really mean throttling abusive users (sorry if it read that way). What I meant was, every single person has a bandwidth cap while on band 41. Nobody needs to download at 120 whatever Mbps. Spread it out amongst everyone connected to that sector. Better usability, especially in crowded places will please more customers than just being able to rip a triple-digit speedtest for bragging rights.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone 6+

The loads are already "spread out" naturally on a sector. If you are the only one and have a good airlink, you'll get close to maximum throughput. As more people join a sector, the loads are automatically spread out and depend greatly on airlink quality.

 

I'm not sure what or why this is hurting anybody.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk

[lou99/maximus1987]

The loads are already "spread out" naturally on a sector. If you are the only one and have a good airlink, you'll get close to maximum throughput. As more people join a sector, the loads are automatically spread out and depend greatly on airlink quality.

 

I'm not sure what or why this is hurting anybody.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk

Maybe he means your speed should be inversely proportional to amount of data used so far in given month.

[Conan Kudo]

Maybe he means your speed should be inversely proportional to amount of data used so far in given month.

That would be problematic and invite disincentive to utilize the service. At what level do you start degradation? What's the rate of degradation? Do you filter by airlink? Band? Cell load? It's incredibly complicated to make that work, and the end result may not be attractive to current and potential subscribers. After all, who wants to use a service that's designed so that you don't use it?

 

The only reason the full speed bucket thing works is because there's no step-wise degradation. It's all fast until you hit the limit. Not only that, there remains an option to have unlimited full speed data.

[Deval]

Yup. For most of the things folks do on a mobile phone, a consistent 5mb or so with low ping will be just fine.  Sprint provides this level of service all over town here now and I rarely have issues anymore streaming radio, loading web pages, ect.

 

And I think that's what will win over customers.

[Conan Kudo]

And I think that's what will win over customers.

Has it? It doesn't appear to...

[milan03]

I know that the speedtest app creates a stupid pissing contest amongst wireless customers, but I honestly feel that even at the point of multiple band 41 carriers/CA, no user should be allowed max bandwidth. Why not just cap it at a reasonable speed. Let everyone have a fair share of the available bandwidth, instead of one guy pulling 100mbps+ so that he can illegally feed his home ISP needs.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone 6+

That would defeat the purpose and reduce spectral efficiency of the LTE network.

 

In order to keep spectral efficiency high, scheduler dynamically allocates resource blocks based on device feedback, activity, etc. For instance, if a device with low signal quality and low SNR requests light HTML content in an indoor environment unable to ever properly utilize MIMO, but gets equal artificial provisioning (speed cap) as the device that's outdoor with high signal quality and SNR which can easily multiplex and peak higher, that network is effectively wasting their resource blocks, and becoming highly inefficient.

 

The ultimate goal for wireless operators is to move more and more data, increase (bit/s)/Hz or spectral efficiency, and ultimately collect more revenue. That "data hogs" argument makes me laugh every single time, as a properly deployed and managed network is suppose to be able to manage their deployed spectrum resources and/or increase density of their infrastructure accordingly. That's why ToS exists.

 

This is also why at this point in time forward thinking wireless operators all over the world look to densify their networks from the inside out, by deploying micros, femtos, or VoWiFi to complement their existing macro grid, and increase the efficiency.

[lou99/maximus1987]

Has it? It doesn't appear to...

That's cause 5x5 1900 + 5x5 800 is not enough to provide that basic experience everywhere. I only get 1mbps at multiple sprint stores on multiple phones in my 5x5 1900 area and that's when it doesn't time out. Adding 5x5 800 lte would ?double? those speeds. Because sprint chose site density way less than Tmobile, sprint will only be usable when spark gets here.

[dedub]

That's cause 5x5 1900 + 5x5 800 is not enough to provide that basic experience everywhere. I only get 1mbps at multiple sprint stores on multiple phones in my 5x5 1900 area and that's when it doesn't time out. Adding 5x5 800 lte would ?double? those speeds. Because sprint chose site density way less than Tmobile, sprint will only be usable when spark gets here.

 

 

I don't know if your assertion that sprint density is way less than tmobile is correct or not (I really doubt it, and it would be highly dependent on market anyway), however you are correct that sprints 800 & 1900 spectrum does create some limitations that will only be overcome by blanketing 2500 and any other potential spectrum additions.

[lou99/maximus1987]

I don't know if your assertion that sprint density is way less than tmobile is correct or not (I really doubt it, and it would be highly dependent on market anyway), however you are correct that sprints 800 & 1900 spectrum does create some limitations that will only be overcome by blanketing 2500 and any other potential spectrum additions.

TMO has 10x10 in Chicago. How usable was sprint's 5x5 before spark? If site density is similar sprint speeds should've been only 1/2 of TMobike. Were they?

[dedub]

TMO has 10x10 in Chicago. How usable was sprint's 5x5 before spark? If site density is similar sprint speeds should've been only 1/2 of TMobike. Were they?

 

on equally unloaded sectors, I am sure they were.

 

However there is alot more factors than simple spectrum sizes and site densities that affect resulting throughput at any point in time.

[lou99/maximus1987]

on equally unloaded sectors, I am sure they were.

 

However there is alot more factors than simple spectrum sizes and site densities that affect resulting throughput at any point in time.

What was rootmetrics median speeds before sprint launched spark and what was tmobile speeds in same report? Those factors will be accounted for in the root report.

[dedub]

I have no idea, and really its all irrelevant at this point.

 

All other things being equal, double the spectrum is going to either provide double the speed, or twice as much simultaneous connections.

 

So sprint with 5mhz and max ~35mbs and more connections vs tmo with 10mhz max ~70mbs and less subscribers is going to have higher ave speeds on a tower by tower basis.

 

If density was at the point that 2 towers were covering the same as one of the other, then that would skew factors even further.

No one is going to argue any different.

 

if you're just going to attempt to cheerlead for tmo, you probably aren't going to last here.

[Vince]

The loads are already "spread out" naturally on a sector. If you are the only one and have a good airlink, you'll get close to maximum throughput. As more people join a sector, the loads are automatically spread out and depend greatly on airlink quality.

 

I'm not sure what or why this is hurting anybody.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk

Let's just play with some theoretical numbers. If you and I are on the same sector, and it has a max throughput of 70mbps download, and I'm downloading something massive that's using 60mbps. When you start using your phone, wouldn't you only be able to access to remaining 10, or does it chop my bandwidth down so that you and I have an equal share? Of course, this is theoretical, and airlink conditions are perfect.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone 6+

[caspar347]

I have no idea, and really its all irrelevant at this point.

 

All other things being equal, double the spectrum is going to either provide double the speed, or twice as much simultaneous connections.

 

So sprint with 5mhz and max ~35mbs and more connections vs tmo with 10mhz max ~70mbs and less subscribers is going to have higher ave speeds on a tower by tower basis.

 

If density was at the point that 2 towers were covering the same as one of the other, then that would skew factors even further.

No one is going to argue any different.

 

Fabian dragged me through 6 hours of debate over the definition of "potential speed" in this context over on Fierce. Ugh.

[CaryTheLabelGuy]

Let's just play with some theoretical numbers. If you and I are on the same sector, and it has a max throughput of 70mbps download, and I'm downloading something massive that's using 60mbps. When you start using your phone, wouldn't you only be able to access to remaining 10, or does it chop my bandwidth down so that you and I have an equal share? Of course, this is theoretical, and airlink conditions are perfect.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone 6+

If we were both downloading at the same time and both had a good airlink (and were the only two on the same sector), our speeds would be roughly equally balanced.

 

It is more complicated than that, but this is roughly how it would work.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk

[dedub]

Let's just play with some theoretical numbers. If you and I are on the same sector, and it has a max throughput of 70mbps download, and I'm downloading something massive that's using 60mbps. When you start using your phone, wouldn't you only be able to access to remaining 10, or does it chop my bandwidth down so that you and I have an equal share? Of course, this is theoretical, and airlink conditions are perfect.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone 6+

 

 

Network is like liquid flowing through a pipe. Bandwidth equalizes pressure and throughput much like liquid does.

 

If you have a big main pipe, and you connect 2 other equal side pipes, then the throughput and pressure through those pipes are going to be pretty much equal.

 

If one pipe is smaller or more restrictive (longer, more bends, etc), then that pipe will flow less.

 

Bandwidth on a mobile/wireless network is very dynamic, as rarely there will be one user or perfect conditions for that user.

 

If you ever use an app like internet speed meter, you will see in nearly real time how your speed will dynamically adjust over time, as the load and the airlink quality between you and the sector/tower, is constantly changing, your ratio and speed of available bandwidth will change also.

 

That is all assuming there is nothing in on the back end affecting priorities, throw in network management protocols, that can prioritize and/or de-prioritize various connections on demand, your particular ratio and resulting speed could be better or worse than other users on the same sector.

[WiWavelength]

If you want a good chuckle, read the few hundred comments following this article:

 

http://www.tmonews.com/2014/12/are-you-happy-with-t-mobile-moving-you-from-legacy-to-simple-choice-or-new-plans/

 

Not everything is beautiful at T-Mobile and TmoNews.  Some Magentans are in the pink, others in the stink.

 

 

AJ

[danlodish345]

Blah to t mobile

[compneo]

Trolls are everywhere

[danlodish345]

Lol

[lou99/maximus1987]

If you want a good chuckle, read the few hundred comments following this article:

 

http://www.tmonews.com/2014/12/are-you-happy-with-t-mobile-moving-you-from-legacy-to-simple-choice-or-new-plans/

 

Not everything is beautiful at T-Mobile and TmoNews. Some Magentans are in the pink, others in the stink.

 

 

AJ

The plan changes may have affected many but obviously it didn't affect the vast majority of customers.

[danlodish345]

The plan changes may have affected many but obviously it didn't affect the vast majority of customers.

well t mobile has a LTE outage on my block and there is HSPA+ service but no LTE any where near the tower