T-Mobile LTE & Network Discussion

[Conan Kudo]

Not this again.  Basically, you are insinuating that a mobile technology does not really matter until Apple embraces it and makes the hoi polloi feel they need it.  And you do not see this as a problem?

 

AJ

It's a problem, certainly. But it's still true. However, he is wrong in saying Google did not work with banks. On the contrary, they worked with Citi, American Express, and several other banks over the course of the last few years to integrate into Wallet directly. The credit card art, among other things, is a consequence of cooperation and integration of Wallet with bank systems.

 

The main thing that stymied growth in Wallet was that AT&T, Verizon Wireless, Cricket, U.S. Cellular, and T-Mobile demanded that embedded secure elements not be included in their phones, or if they were, they had to be disabled. Google Wallet required the embedded element to function. Sprint and MetroPCS both embraced Wallet and encouraged its growth. In a market like the U.S., that essentially relegated the service to irrelevance.

 

Google eventually managed to work around the problem, but it would take three years to do it. And now, a year after that, Apple Pay has arrived, with Apple's classic ability to override the carriers and provide its services anyway. That ability is what gives Apple the strength in the market. It can provide an experience untainted by the carriers (well, mostly).

[Destroyallcubes]

What is the big deal for Mobile payments? Im not up to par with it all, but everyone complains about security, and such, and this seems like something that is less secure. Correct me if i am wrong on that. But heck even cards arent as secure, but the more digital these things get, the more opportunities thiefs get at your money.

[Conan Kudo]

What is the big deal for Mobile payments? Im not up to par with it all, but everyone complains about security, and such, and this seems like something that is less secure. Correct me if i am wrong on that. But heck even cards arent as secure, but the more digital these things get, the more opportunities thiefs get at your money.

On the contrary, mobile payments can be far more secure than existing systems when designed properly (like Google Wallet, Softcard, and Apple Pay are). The biggest advantage of these systems is that a tertiary level of indirection is applied with temporal aspects to eliminate permanency in transaction links.

 

For example, when you write a check or swipe a credit card, your direct account information is recorded. This creates a major problem when retail systems are cracked and databases are dumped. Mobile payment systems solve this problem by generating a temporary transaction specific credit ID (often referred to as transaction tokens) that is used for the purpose of fulfilling a specific transaction. Once the transaction is fulfilled, the token expires. This prevents the retailer or anyone else from using the information for nonconsensual withdrawals or charges.

 

Of course, this moves the weakness from the retail system to the payment processor. But payment processors have to comply with all sorts of requirements that retailers do not in order to offer their services, so they are generally far more secure.

 

I'm hopeful that banks will implement this system on chip+PIN based transactions using credit cards, too. That will establish a more widespread means of protecting financial information used for identity theft. However, no credit card issued in the U.S. does this today. You must use a payment processor with NFC payments gain this protection, for now.

 

PayPal and Amazon Payments provide a similar protection in the digital goods space, as they both use transaction-specific token payment fulfillment schemes.

[Destroyallcubes]

On the contrary, mobile payments can be far more secure than existing systems when designed properly (like Google Wallet, Softcard, and Apple Pay are). The biggest advantage of these systems is that a tertiary level of indirection is applied with temporal aspects to eliminate permanency in transaction links.

 

For example, when you write a check or swipe a credit card, your direct account information is recorded. This creates a major problem when retail systems are cracked and databases are dumped. Mobile payment systems solve this problem by generating a temporary transaction specific credit ID (often referred to as transaction tokens) that is used for the purpose of fulfilling a specific transaction. Once the transaction is fulfilled, the token expires. This prevents the retailer or anyone else from using the information for nonconsensual withdrawals or charges.

 

Of course, this moves the weakness from the retail system to the payment processor. But payment processors have to comply with all sorts of requirements that retailers do not in order to offer their services, so they are generally far more secure.

 

I'm hopeful that banks will implement this system on chip+PIN based transactions using credit cards, too. That will establish a more widespread means of protecting financial information used for identity theft. However, no credit card issued in the U.S. does this today. You must use a payment processor with NFC payments gain this protection, for now.

 

PayPal and Amazon Payments provide a similar protection in the digital goods space, as they both use transaction-specific token payment fulfillment schemes.

Well on debit transactions and.such the account info, like the pin number is encrypted using a code only banks can decrypt. Such during the targ ey breach only cards that used Credit were effected. Many use debit and credit on different trips, so most accustomed the breach to affect debit users as well, that and the whole everyone got sent new cards created mis stories. The chip based cards are a lot more secure.

[Conan Kudo]

Well on debit transactions and.such the account info, like the pin number is encrypted using a code only banks can decrypt. Such during the targ ey breach only cards that used Credit were effected. Many use debit and credit on different trips, so most accustomed the breach to affect debit users as well, that and the whole everyone got sent new cards created mis stories. The chip based cards are a lot more secure.

You don't need the PIN number for ACH transactions, just the routing number and account number of the bank account. MCX's CurrentC doesn't support debit or credit/charge cards. In fact, they specifically request direct access to your bank account and do direct bank charges. Their policies are somewhat disturbing, too. This is a consequence of retailers driving the development of a payment solution, rather than an independent entity concerned with providing a secure platform for micro and macro payments. CurrentC exists for the sole purpose of bypassing credit/charge/debit card networks.

 

Also, CurrentC is legally dangerous to use (compared to Google Wallet, Apple Pay, Softcard, PayPal, and Amazon Payments), as you lose all fraud and identity theft protections guaranteed under federal law for being credit/charge card users because CurrentC will not support connecting to charge/credit/debit card networks ever, only bank accounts.

[JimBob]

Will T-Mobile Take Over Sprint's Number 3 Position In 2015?

 

http://www.bidnessetc.com/31732-will-tmobile-takeover-sprint-corporation-number-3-position-in-2015/

[jamisonshaw125]

Will T-Mobile Take Over Sprint's Number 3 Position In 2015?

 

http://www.bidnessetc.com/31732-will-tmobile-takeover-sprint-corporation-number-3-position-in-2015/

In all honesty, I see it happening....and they might hold that title for a while. 

[derrph]

It will happen but I never understood the obsession with T-Mobile surpassing Sprint.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[derrph]

I got a test drive iPhone in the mail today to test the network. Now while I applaud T-Mobile for what they have done to the industry and how fast they have been able to deploy LTE and wideband in Columbus. From my personal testing, the speeds are all over the place and not too consistent. In my house I pull 50+ max was 63 but leaving my house and driving down the street I dropped to 20mbps and driving more I saw 3mbps, some tens. It makes me think that they just slapped on LTE and turned it on and moved to the next or they just put wideband on some but not all towers. Sprint in my area I get 40mbps in my house but driving around I would drop between the 20s and low 30s. Sprint is a slightly more constant in my opinion. But they just don't have the raw speeds in my house that T-mobile has.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[orangeblue]

I got a test drive iPhone in the mail today to test the network. Now while I applaud T-Mobile for what they have done to the industry and how fast they have been able to deploy LTE and wideband in Columbus. From my personal testing, the speeds are all over the place and not too consistent. In my house I pull 50+ max was 63 but leaving my house and driving down the street I dropped to 20mbps and driving more I saw 3mbps, some tens. It makes me think that they just slapped on LTE and turned it on and moved to the next or they just put wideband on some but not all towers. Sprint in my area I get 40mbps in my house but driving around I would drop between the 20s and low 30s. Sprint is a slightly more constant in my opinion. But they just don't have the raw speeds in my house that T-mobile has.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I noticed that as well and yes T-Mobile launched LTE quickly and in some terms half ass. Speeds are not consistent and the network does not keep the signal alive as much as Sprint does. It feels like if you had good coverage before LTE, you still get fast speeds but in 1-2 bar areas, speeds drop a lot.

[derrph]

I noticed that as well and yes T-Mobile launched LTE quickly and in some terms half ass. Speeds are not consistent and the network does not keep the signal alive as much as Sprint does. It feels like if you had good coverage before LTE, you still get fast speeds but in 1-2 bar areas, speeds drop a lot.

Yes. I get four bars at home but when I dropped to two bars speeds took a major dive. I was in some 4 bar areas and the speeds were in the 20s. I think it was a rush job in some areas.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ascertion]

20mbps is great...not sure why you guys think that is half assed.

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8

[joshuam]

I'll be happy when I can get 3Mbps LTE everywhere in and around Baltimore. I have seen 70Mbps off one tower, but never since that day. I really don't care about peak speeds, just want to stream Spotify or let my kids stream Disney Jr without issues. It seems fine as long as I can pull 3Mbps, otherwise it buffers and buffers then just craps out.

[derrph]

20mbps is great...not sure why you guys think that is half assed.

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8

There's nothing wrong with being in the 20s I think it's also great. Its more than enough of what you need to do data related tasks on your phone. It's just from my testing and also being in a wideband market that all my speedtests have been all over the place and not so much consistent around my city. Going in I have/had a expectation of seeing the speeds other T-Mobile customers say they have and the marketing of T-Mobile. In Columbus sprint and T-Mobile are the same. But it's neither here nor there.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[EvanA]

I got a test drive iPhone in the mail today to test the network. Now while I applaud T-Mobile for what they have done to the industry and how fast they have been able to deploy LTE and wideband in Columbus. From my personal testing, the speeds are all over the place and not too consistent. In my house I pull 50+ max was 63 but leaving my house and driving down the street I dropped to 20mbps and driving more I saw 3mbps, some tens. It makes me think that they just slapped on LTE and turned it on and moved to the next or they just put wideband on some but not all towers. Sprint in my area I get 40mbps in my house but driving around I would drop between the 20s and low 30s. Sprint is a slightly more constant in my opinion. But they just don't have the raw speeds in my house that T-mobile has.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your experience is supported by the 2H RootMetrics report. Sprint's speed index came in just below T-Mobile but they tied Verizon for reliability.

 

http://www.rootmetrics.com/us/rsr/columbus-oh

[lou99/maximus1987]

Your experience is supported by the 2H RootMetrics report. Sprint's speed index came in just below T-Mobile but they tied Verizon for reliability.

 

http://www.rootmetrics.com/us/rsr/columbus-oh

That's because of 800mhz lte and voice.

[maxsilver]

"Prediction for 2015 : We'll go toe-to-toe with Verizon almost everywhere...and win"
http://newsroom.t-mobile.com/issues-insights-blog/2015-predictions.htm

 

T-Mobile's done an excellent job this year. They've been aggressive as hell. They've surpassed all their previous deadlines. They've rolled out new technology. It's fantastic, and it's impressive.

 

But if this is true native coverage, I can't see this happening. It's simply not realistic. At least, not unless they grossly redefine the phrase "almost everywhere". There simply isn't enough time in a single year.

 

They're easily behind Verizon by at least 100 - 150 cell sites just in Michigan alone. They'd have to file permits, sign leases, install backhaul, purchase / deliver / install gear, for two or three new cell sites a week, every single week, all year long, with zero setbacks or delays of any kind, just to catch up in *one* of these 50 states.

 

Even if they only match Sprint, even if they only cover *half* of Michigan (Their 300m pops vs Verizon's 303m pops), that's still at least another 50 cell sites, at least one a week, every week, in Michigan alone.

 

I hope I'm wrong. I hope they pull that off. And I've worked on some impressively quick tower constructs for WISPs, so I've seen firsthand what can be accomplished quickly if everything falls into place. But that timeline just seems completely, hopelessly, ludicrously unrealistic. 

 

- - - 

 

The only way I see them hitting this deadline is if they fake it. Throw up a single tower in a small town where Verizon uses six, and pretend it's equivalent coverage.

[lordsutch]

Will T-Mobile Take Over Sprint's Number 3 Position In 2015?

 

http://www.bidnessetc.com/31732-will-tmobile-takeover-sprint-corporation-number-3-position-in-2015/

Depends. If/when Sprint consummates the deal with nTelos and goes after USCC and/or C Spire, they may be able to hold T-Mobile off for a while.

[lou99/maximus1987]

Why is 50 sites per year per state hard?

[lou99/maximus1987]

I don't think TMO would mind it if sprint bought us cellular cause then sprint would turn around and sell 700a immediately to Tmobile.

Maybe Tmobile would prefer to buy Cspire for its customers AND 700a but it'd settle for 700a

[caspar347]

Why is 50 sites per year per state hard?

Individual site permits can take weeks or months in big cities, individual site backhaul can take months or years no matter where the site is, lease negotiations can take months, building new sites takes all of the aforementioned plus weeks/months to actually build the tower structure etc. Multiplied by 2500 (50 sites in 50 states) you have a giant headache. And there is little overlap between all of the steps, time-wise.

[lou99/maximus1987]

Individual site permits can take weeks or months in big cities, individual site backhaul can take months or years no matter where the site is, lease negotiations can take months, building new sites takes all of the aforementioned plus weeks/months to actually build the tower structure etc. Multiplied by 2500 (50 sites in 50 states) you have a giant headache.

But you can do the permits and everything in parallel right?

 

@maxsilver obviously Legere is bsing about verizon especially since most of lte coverage past past 250mil is GMO 1900 lte. Good luck penetrating a paper bag with THAT lol

[derrph]

But you can do the permits and everything in parallel right?

 

@maxsilver obviously Legere is bsing about verizon especially since most of lte coverage past past 250mil is GMO 1900 lte. Good luck penetrating a paper bag with THAT lol

What's wrong with GMO 1900 LTE? Is T-mobile using that?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lou99/maximus1987]

What's wrong with GMO 1900 LTE? Is T-mobile using that?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think GMO lte means no RRH which means 1900 lte range is reaaaaally bad. They're just reusing same 1900 antennas that have been tgere for 10+ years.

 

Yes TMO is using GMO 1900 lte as a quick and dirty way to get lte up and running. Later they'll come back and put 700/AWS/1900 RRUs up.

[derrph]

I think GMO lte means no RRH which means 1900 lte range is reaaaaally bad. They're just reusing same 1900 antennas that have been tgere for 10+ years.

 

Yes TMO is using GMO 1900 lte as a quick and dirty way to get lte up and running. Later they'll come back and put 700/AWS/1900 RRUs up.

Ohhhh ok I never knew that it was bad. I guess the good thing is that they will in fact come back and fix it within a reasonable amount of time.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk