T-Mobile LTE & Network Discussion

[lou99/maximus1987]

cant they build out rual towers to expand native coverage and dont thwy have nationwide SMR PCS AND EBS and BRS licenses

Yes. But they have more pressing things to spend their money on. Like getting lte speeds above 1.5mbps in SE michigan and everywhere there's no 2.5 yet.

[danlodish345]

Yes. But they have more pressing things to spend their money on. Like getting lte speeds above 1.5mbps in SE michigan and everywhere there's no 2.5 yet.

thats understandable and arent you in the ibez as well ?

[lou99/maximus1987]

thats understandable and arent you in the ibez as well ?

Yes

[WiWavelength]

Yes. But they have more pressing things to spend their money on. Like getting lte speeds above 1.5mbps in SE michigan and everywhere there's no 2.5 yet.

 

Wait, when did Muskegon move across the state to "SE Michigan"?  Oh, I remember.  You are not actually in Muskegon.  That is your false front.

 

 

AJ

[danlodish345]

Yes

is it a pain to be in the ibez where 800 isnt avaliable

[lou99/maximus1987]

is it a pain to be in the ibez where 800 isnt avaliable

It wouldn't matter. Speeds would at best be doubled. So they'd be 2mbps.

[danlodish345]

oh thats not good

[Deval]

Sprint is in the worst position to expand of the four major networks. They have to densify urban with 2.6 GHz and work their way out. I know that sounds like a negative statement, but the good news is Sprint has decent rural LTE coverage with Network Vision providing 800 MHz LTE and CDMA. They're fine where they have rural towers FWIW.

 

The good thing with adding density to a market is that the equipment exists already. Look at the NYC market. Clearwire did a decent enough job covering the city and surrounding areas with dual-tech WiMAX/LTE radios. Almost all of those are now broadcasting LTE. Combine that with 8T8R radios on non-colocated sites, and you're in business.

[Deval]

It wouldn't matter. Speeds would at best be doubled. So they'd be 2mbps.

 

Dude you're full of shit.

[Deval]

oh thats not good

 

That's not the case, so I would be hesitant to believe everything blindly buddy.

 

The network is slow because B25 (1900mhz PCS) is getting overloaded by all the LTE devices that Sprint has sold. In order to help alleviate that, B26 (800mhz SMR) is being deployed where ever possible. To add, and I'll use Muskegon as a perfect example, even B41 (2.5ghz) is being deployed, thus all three bands being on-air. So if a user had a Spark device in that area, they would see optimal data speeds because all three bands being deployed. 

[maxsilver]

It wouldn't matter. Speeds would at best be doubled. So they'd be 2mbps.

Wait, when did Muskegon move across the state to "SE Michigan"?  Oh, I remember.  You are not actually in Muskegon.  That is your false front.

 

Which is kind of ironic, since if he *was* actually in Muskegon, he'd have access to Spark right now...

[lou99/maximus1987]

Dude you're full of shit.

Dude I've been going to the same sprint store for months and … that's what I've seen. I'll send you pics.

[Deval]

Dude I've been going to the same sprint store for months and … that's what I've seen. I'll send you pics.

 

You're full of shit in that B25 + B26 just doubles the speed hyperbole. Every network has slow speeds in some areas. Hell, I'll grab a T-Mobile phone and head to my cousin's house in Jersey where they only have EDGE, and take speedtests and share.

 

Let's bring this thread back on topic, before the mod's close it.

 

With T-Mo promising their EDGE network to be overlaid with LTE, the question I have is, how much PCS do they have to actually do so? If they are limited to 10mhz, how will they deploy LTE and keep voice?

[lou99/maximus1987]

Dude you're full of shit.

Pcs is 5x5 and 800 lte is another 5x5 so average speeds will at most double. Wheres the inaccuracy?

[maxsilver]

oh thats not good

That's not the case, so I would be hesitant to believe everything blindly buddy.

To be fair, "1-2mbps" is actually somewhat accurate representation of average speeds in West Michigan during peak hours for a lot of urban Michigan sites on B25 / B26. (such as ones within the city limits of Muskegon). His description of it isn't quite accurate, but if you run speedtest on those bands, you'll regularly see 2mbps-ish speeds in those areas.

 

However, Muskegon's an officially launched Spark market -- it has plenty of B41. And B41 in Muskegon routinely pulls down 7-20+mbps. Complaints about B41 coverage are pretty fair (site density isn't great). Complaints about B41 data speeds are...lies, for the most part.

 

Muskegon's B25/B26 congestion is higher than normal, because they have a higher-than-normal amount of Sprint subscribers, since T-Mobile didn't exist there until last year and even today, only offers slow <1mbps "3G" data there (EDIT: Coverage they care so little about, they didn't even remember to include it on their new coverage map...  )

 

Muskegon is also a very poor city, even by Michigan standards, which exacerbates the "non-Spark devices on network" situation...

[Fraydog]

The mods are watching. Consider this a warning to stay on topic, please.

[WiWavelength]

Sprint is in the worst position to expand of the four major networks. They have to densify urban with 2.6 GHz and work their way out. I know that sounds like a negative statement, but the good news is Sprint has decent rural LTE coverage with Network Vision providing 800 MHz LTE and CDMA. They're fine where they have rural towers FWIW.

 

Ryan, "expand" upon that -- pun intended.  I am not sure how someone can state that Sprint is in worse position than T-Mobile, so clarify what you mean by "expand."

 

T-Mobile has no low band spectrum across most of the country.  And that is not going to change for at least several years.  On the flip side, Sprint does.  Is the T-Mobile mid band spectrum advantage your point?  Absolutely, T-Mobile has greater total PCS plus AWS-1 assets.  But what does that mean for expansion?  

 

Is it the "wideband" virtue?  That is highly variable for T-Mobile.  Yet, Sprint has more than sufficient band 25 spectrum to "expand" 10 MHz FDD across most of the country.

 

AJ

[lou99/maximus1987]

Ryan, "expand" upon that -- pun intended. I am not sure how someone can state that Sprint is in worse position than T-Mobile, so clarify what you mean by "expand."

 

T-Mobile has no low band spectrum across most of the country. And that is not going to change for at least several years. On the flip side, Sprint does. Is the T-Mobile mid band spectrum advantage your point? Absolutely, T-Mobile has greater total PCS plus AWS-1 assets. But what does that mean for expansion?

 

Is it the "wideband" virtue? That is highly variable for T-Mobile. Yet, Sprint has more than sufficient band 25 spectrum to "expand" 10 MHz FDD across most of the country.

 

AJ

Sprint needs to spend money on urban capacity while TMO has that set for now and can focus $ on footprint expansion.

That's what he means.

[WiWavelength]

Sprint needs to spend money on urban capacity while TMO has that set for now and can focus $ on footprint expansion.

That's what he means.

 

While "Adrian" does contain the name "Ryan" -- that is, if you spell the latter differently -- you need not clarify for him.  Let him speak for himself.

 

AJ

[lou99/maximus1987]

While "Adrian" does contain the name "Ryan" -- that is, if you spell the latter differently -- you need not clarify for him. Let him speak for himself.

 

AJ

Amazing what clicking and reading yields huh?

 

http://www.s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/3420-T-Mobile-LTE-%26-Network-Discussion/page__view__findpost__p__398976

[WiWavelength]

Amazing what clicking and reading yields huh?

 

http://www.s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/3420-T-Mobile-LTE-%26-Network-Discussion/page__view__findpost__p__398976

 

Uh, yeah, I quoted that post.  I read it.  It is vague with regard to the term "expand" -- especially in context of the danlodish345 posts earlier today about "expansion."  Thus, I sought clarification from Ryan.

 

AJ

[Deval]

To be fair, "1-2mbps" is actually somewhat accurate representation of average speeds in West Michigan during peak hours for a lot of urban Michigan sites on B25 / B26. (such as ones within the city limits of Muskegon). His description of it isn't quite accurate, but if you run speedtest on those bands, you'll regularly see 2mbps-ish speeds in those areas.

 

However, Muskegon's an officially launched Spark market -- it has plenty of B41. And B41 in Muskegon routinely pulls down 7-20+mbps. Complaints about B41 coverage are pretty fair (site density isn't great). Complaints about B41 data speeds are...lies, for the most part.

 

Muskegon's B25/B26 congestion is higher than normal, because they have a higher-than-normal amount of Sprint subscribers, since T-Mobile didn't exist there until last year and even today, only offers slow <1mbps "3G" data there (EDIT: Coverage they care so little about, they didn't even remember to include it on their new coverage map...  )

 

Muskegon is also a very poor city, even by Michigan standards, which exacerbates the "non-Spark devices on network" situation...

 

Thank you for the honest post, it helps.

 

What I was referring to was the simple trolling. 

 

In the interests of keeping the thread open, I'll bow out of this chain.

[Fraydog]

Ryan, "expand" upon that -- pun intended. I am not sure how someone can state that Sprint is in worse position than T-Mobile, so clarify what you mean by "expand."

 

T-Mobile has no low band spectrum across most of the country. And that is not going to change for at least several years. On the flip side, Sprint does. Is the T-Mobile mid band spectrum advantage your point? Absolutely, T-Mobile has greater total PCS plus AWS-1 assets. But what does that mean for expansion?

 

Is it the "wideband" virtue? That is highly variable for T-Mobile. Yet, Sprint has more than sufficient band 25 spectrum to "expand" 10 MHz FDD across most of the country.

 

AJ

I'm speaking of site adds. I think Sprint has to direct the site adds they make to urban and suburban first and convert more 2.6 GHz. Sprint can gain more subs in the city to fund future expansion in rural .

 

Where Sprint already serves they have the advantage on coverage due to 800 MHz. That's what I was referring to. Now if someone wants to counter "but T-Mobile is doing 10x10 rural on PCS", fine. Sprint has enough capacity to deploy 10x10 in the sticks. Sprint also has tower top radios where T-Mobile is using GMO. Sprint will get higher signal penetration on the same band in the same spot due to tower top radios.

 

I've advocated in the past that Sprint deploy 10x10 in the past for rural installs for this very reason - to outflank T-Mobile.

 

Financially, I think Sprint can get higher ROI on urban and suburban site expansion. Site density will be better post Clearwire conversion, so that helps.

[WiWavelength]

I'm speaking of site adds. I think Sprint has to direct the site adds they make to urban and suburban first and convert more 2.6 GHz. Sprint can gain more subs in the city to fund future expansion in rural .

 

Maybe I am biased from the Kansas market, but we are seeing urban, suburban, and rural band 41 site adds right and left.  And to paraphrase now deposed Bob Azzi, "This dog can hunt."  Yet, this time, it is true.  With the current infrastructure, band 41 has serious propagation.  Meanwhile, Magentans are full of shit with their four year old WiMAX and "wet paper bag" jokes.  So, I am less concerned about any band 41 densification.  Just continue to put band 41 on most/all Sprint sites.

 

AJ

[Fraydog]

Maybe I am biased from the Kansas market, but we are seeing urban, suburban, and rural band 41 site adds right and left. And to paraphrase now deposed Bob Azzi, "This dog can hunt." Yet, this time, it is true. With the current infrastructure, band 41 has serious propagation. Meanwhile, Magentans are full of shit with their four year old WiMAX and "wet paper bag" jokes. So, I am less concerned about any band 41 densification. Just continue to put band 41 on most/all Sprint sites.

 

AJ

Illinois is getting a ton of USCC adds so no, it isn't just the home base getting adds. I never paid much mind to people who would, if given the same spectrum, would say T-Mobile would rocket to NUMBER 1. I'll just add that Illinois - a state with high population - is near the bottom on T-Mobile EDGE to LTE site conversion.