T-Mobile LTE & Network Discussion

[lou99/maximus1987]

No.

 

For 700A they have to do tower modifications with new antennas and new radios by antennas.

Isn't that what RRH is?

[lilotimz]

Isn't that what RRH is?

A RRH is a remote radio head.

 

You can have all the radio heads in the world for all I care but if the antennas don't support the frequency of the radios then it doesn't matter at all.

 

Tmobile must add 700 b12 radios and have compatible antennas.

[kg4icg]

Yeah, having a mismatch SWR of greater than 2:1 can reduce your transmit power substantially.

[lou99/maximus1987]

Yeah, having a mismatch SWR of greater than 2:1 can reduce your transmit power substantially.

What's SWR?

[WiWavelength]

What's SWR?

 

Standing wave ratio.  It relates to the resonant length of the antenna.

 

AJ

[CrossedSignals]

I'm probably too cynical but I suspect that T-Mo will be doing some 'dressing of a pig' at rural sites to meet the buildout timeline.  Something tells me those LTE sites in BFE will be connected to the same old backhaul.  A crappy speedtest in the middle of nowhere isn't going to make much of a wave to the 'YouTube jury' and the average consumer will be content just seeing 'LTE' on their phone.

[Conan Kudo]

I'm probably too cynical but I suspect that T-Mo will be doing some 'dressing of a pig' at rural sites to meet the buildout timeline.  Something tells me those LTE sites in BFE will be connected to the same old backhaul.  A crappy speedtest in the middle of nowhere isn't going to make much of a wave to the 'YouTube jury' and the average consumer will be content just seeing 'LTE' on their phone.

You're too cynical. It's not hard to get backhaul to these sites. It just takes more planning, which T-Mobile does a good job of, and they've proven themselves well, so far. Even Sprint has done a semi-decent job with many of the exurban sites it has.

[Paynefanbro]

maxsilver already said this....

I realized that after I typed it. Didn't have a chance to edit it though.

[maxsilver]

I'm probably too cynical but I suspect that T-Mo will be doing some 'dressing of a pig' at rural sites to meet the buildout timeline.  Something tells me those LTE sites in BFE will be connected to the same old backhaul.  A crappy speedtest in the middle of nowhere isn't going to make much of a wave to the 'YouTube jury' and the average consumer will be content just seeing 'LTE' on their phone.

 

I don't think that's likely -- backhaul should be pretty straightforward. I suspect that if there any "dressing of a pig" it will be in site count / density / placement.

 

I'm imaging rural towns like Cadillac, Michigan. To properly cover that town with usable service, you need at least three cell sites. Today AT&T and Verizon are on four, and Sprint is on two. T-Mobile has no coverage in any direction for 80+ miles.

 

If T-Mobile needs to "fudge" their rollout, I imagine they would do it by leasing a single site in places like Cadillac, but claiming the entire town's population in their "300 million POPs covered" LTE count. (Which would technically be true, but only barely -- and not anywhere near the same quality/usability as Verizon's coverage there is)

[Paynefanbro]

I don't think that's likely -- backhaul should be pretty straightforward. I suspect that if there any "dressing of a pig" it will be in site count / density / placement.

 

I'm imaging rural towns like Cadillac, Michigan. To properly cover that town with usable service, you need at least three cell sites. Today AT&T and Verizon are on four, and Sprint is on two. T-Mobile has no coverage in any direction for 80+ miles.

 

If T-Mobile needs to "fudge" their rollout, I imagine they would do it by leasing a single site in places like Cadillac, but claiming the entire town's population in their "300 million POPs covered" LTE count. (Which would technically be true, but only barely -- and not anywhere near the same quality/usability as Verizon's coverage there is)

Reminds me of Sprint with their LTE rollout. Of course that changed in 2014 with most big cities being launched with closer to 80% covered.

[milan03]

If T-Mobile needs to "fudge" their rollout, I imagine they would do it by leasing a single site in places like Cadillac, but claiming the entire town's population in their "300 million POPs covered" LTE count. (Which would technically be true, but only barely -- and not anywhere near the same quality/usability as Verizon's coverage there is)

I think you certainly have a valid concern as it's not gonna be easy for them to fully match Verizon/AT&T rural cell count maybe ever, but at the same token overlaying the existing 2G footprint with PCS and 700MHz LTE should bring them pretty close to 290 million pop mark.

 

Population of Cadillac, MI is just over 10,000, and it's important to understand that T-Mobile never claimed that they'll actually match Verizon's rural areas cell for cell. Their goal is 300 million by the end of '15, Verizon is already at 303 million pops, and while some rural areas may be left out others will emerge, and we should probably have our expectations reset.

[maxsilver]

I think you certainly have a valid concern as it's not gonna be easy for them to fully match Verizon/ATT rural cell count maybe ever, but at the same token overlaying the existing 2G footprint with PCS and 700MHz will bring them pretty close to 290 million pop mark.

I have a hard time believing their existing 2G-to-LTE footprint covers 290mil pops. Sprint's entire network is only around 270mil (edit: 282m) pops

 

ATT's LTE covers 300m+ POPs. It would stand to reason that T-Mobile's network needs to be roughly the same size as ATT's to match that number.

Population of Cadillac, MI is about 11,000, and it's important to understand that T-Mobile never claimed that they'll actually match Verizon cell for cell. Their goal is 300 million by the end of '15, and while some rural areas may be left out others will emerge, and it's important to have the expectations properly set from the get go.

Legere is the one who claimed he would "match Verizon almost everywhere, and win". It's not like I'm expecting him to cover every rural area -- these are places that ATT and Sprint already have coverage too.

 

He's intentionally setting expectations high, by claiming to match Verizon "almost everywhere", and by claiming to have an LTE network equal in size (by POPs covered) to ATT's. If he's not actually planning to match most of Verizons / all of ATT's coverage, he should stop publicly promising to do that.

[milan03]

I have a hard time believing their existing 2G-to-LTE footprint covers 290mil pops. Sprint's entire network is only around 270mil pops, if I remember correctly.

 

AT&T's LTE covers 300m POPs. It would stand to reason that T-Mobile's network needs to be roughly the same size as AT&T's to match that number.

 

 

Legere is the one who claimed he would "match Verizon almost everywhere, and win". It's not like I'm expecting him to cover every rural area -- these are places that AT&T and Sprint already have coverage too.

 

He's intentionally setting expectations high, by claiming to match Verizon "almost everywhere", and by claiming to have an LTE network equal in size (by POPs covered) to AT&T's. If he's not actually planning to match most of Verizons / all of AT&T's coverage, he should stop publicly promising to do that.

According to official T-Mobile info, right now the entire footprint is at 286 million pops. With the addition of 700MHz LTE overlay, it's reasonable to guess that reach could be extended by close to 4 million pops.

 

Now obviously, I have no way of verifying how many pops they cover and if they're honest or not, but since they have been publicly stating that 286M number for a while now I'm guessing they're fully ready to stand behind their claim.

 

Also, as I said in another thread, they've already met and exceeded quite a few goals that at first may have looked like a complete BS. If their execs and engineers didn't believe that they can meet 300 million pops goal by the end of '15, I'm sure they would've set the expectations lower so they can meet and exceed. I'm an optimist, but I guess we'll see.

[Paynefanbro]

I have a hard time believing their existing 2G-to-LTE footprint covers 290mil pops. Sprint's entire network is only around 270mil pops, if I remember correctly.

 

282 Million covered in 3G at least according to broadbandmap.gov

[Paynefanbro]

I also have a hard time believing that Verizon covers only 303 Million people with LTE, even if that's a claim that they made themselves. I think it's more than that by now.

[WiWavelength]

I'm probably too cynical but I suspect that T-Mo will be doing some 'dressing of a pig' at rural sites to meet the buildout timeline.

 

As the saying goes, you can put lipstick on a (male chauvinist) pig…but he is still John Legere.

 

AJ

[EvanA]

According to official T-Mobile info, right now the entire footprint is at 286 million pops. With the addition of 700MHz LTE overlay, it's reasonable to guess that reach could be extended by close to 4 million pops.

I don't see how low band is going to increase pops by that much. It should bring the LTE network up to GSM 1900 coverage levels or a little more, but it's not gonna increase pop coverage. They'll still have the same amount of markets covered after the 700 rollout.

[milan03]

I don't see how low band is going to increase pops by that much. It should bring the LTE network up to GSM 1900 coverage levels or a little more, but it's not gonna increase pop coverage. They'll still have the same amount of markets covered after the 700 rollout.

Considering T-Mobile's decades old and neglected Nortel 1900MHz GSM infrastructure vs a 700MHz spectrum band that propagates at least 2.5x further, which will also require brand new antennas and RRUs at the tower top, I don't think that extra 4 million pops estimation is unreasonable. 

 

Early user reports are already showing improved GSM coverage and 1900MHz LTE that fully matches old Nortel 2G footprint after the simple act of replacing the rusty and outdated cabinets and equipment with new NSN/Ericsson base stations on the ground.

[reedacus25]

Considering T-Mobile's decades old and neglected Nortel 1900MHz GSM infrastructure .

 

Early user reports are already showing improved GSM coverage and 1900MHz LTE that fully matches old Nortel 2G footprint after the simple act of replacing the rusty and outdated cabinets and equipment with new NSN/Ericsson base stations on the ground.

At least in my areas of travel, I have not noticed any appreciable difference in coverage. Granted the majority of this coverage isn't quite as old as the Nortel gear in OK, some of it was very, very old from the PowerTel days.

 

That being said, while user experience has improved greatly, consistency has taken a dive. I'm not sure if it is my iPhone 6, or network niggles upstream of me, but I have the worst luck with VoLTE. Can't place outbound calls, calls turn into dead air, etc. And this is with my phone hanging off the dashboard, no hands attenuating it. Very frustrating. And also, in areas that are not properly spaced, I often times fall to no service rather than the GSM network that is there and waiting. I chalk this up to the iPhone, but still. I have found the LTE network to be < the existing GSM footprint and the GSM footprint seeing no appreciable difference in coverage.

 

I can only wonder what my network performance and coverage would be with RRH and a UMTS layer to handle my voice duty and receive the SIB19 message to handup to the the LTE layer in seconds, not minutes...

[dnicekid]

If tmo/sprint are going after the big 2, Why not work together as far as getting towers up and co locating? Wouldn't that help expenses and expand footprint?

[maxsilver]

If tmo/sprint are going after the big 2, Why not work together as far as getting towers up and co locating?

 

There's a bunch of reasons. The biggest one: this probably wouldn't help much, since 90+% of the towers they need are already built and owned/operated by third party leasing companies, who already let them use these towers easily and at fairly low costs. (Crown Castle, American Tower, etc)

 

Occasionally a site they want is full (weight/wind/space limits) or is unusually expensive to lease / backhaul.

 

But in most cases, the only reason Sprint or T-Mobile aren't on a particular tower, is that they've simply chosen not to purchase leased space on it.

 

There's any number of reasons they might choose to skip a site. Everything from "that they might feel they already have sufficient coverage there" to "they just don't want to provide service in a particular area".

[MarkyD311]

I'm probably too cynical but I suspect that T-Mo will be doing some 'dressing of a pig' at rural sites to meet the buildout timeline.  Something tells me those LTE sites in BFE will be connected to the same old backhaul.  A crappy speedtest in the middle of nowhere isn't going to make much of a wave to the 'YouTube jury' and the average consumer will be content just seeing 'LTE' on their phone.

 

In Oklahoma and NW Arkansas alone, T-Mobile is using microwave to reach 300+ sites. They're not turning up sites without backhaul in place. 

[CrossedSignals]

Thanks for the replies to moderate my cynicism.  I really have a hard time believing that T-Mobile will be able to meet their timelines if they follow a similar development path to what Sprint has done.  We know the challenges in getting new backhaul in place (microwave is certainly one way to reduce this risk and as mentioned seems to be key).  We know that permitting takes time.  We know there are unforeseen supply chain events that affect hardware deliveries.  There's weather and crew availability.  It just seems that with all of those pacing items/contingencies causing potential schedule risk. The other challenge is likely that going from 260ish M POPs to 300M POPs will likely require far more than a linear/proportional number of cell sites.  So I assume that they're going to have to find space on a bunch of new sites simply to expand the footprint. 

 

I guess my mind just drifts to 'slap up some panels to replace what's there' (don't change the number or general physical shape to facilitate an easy permitting process), keep the existing backhaul (so you don't have to worry about backhaul driving LTE availability), and market the crap out of your urban/exurban speeds.  Voila, a Nation-wide LTE network.

 

 

That said, I hope they do meet their POP target with a legitimate, sufficiently dense LTE network as I think that is key to creating a competitive alternative to the duopoly. 

 

Now if Sprint would take some of that 'Google balloon technology' and cover the Dakotas with a 3 or 4 balloons' worth of 25/26/41, we'd really have something interesting (I make no claims to the technical merits or feasibility of this idea). lol

[Jones]

Now if Sprint would take some of that 'Google balloon technology' and cover the Dakotas with a 3 or 4 balloons' worth of 25/26/41, we'd really have something interesting (I make no claims to the technical merits or feasibility of this idea). lol

 

If only Lightsquared's LTE via satellite idea didn't cause interference with GPS and thus illegal. There would be LTE everywhere.

 

[lou99/maximus1987]

If only Lightsquared's LTE via satellite idea didn't cause interference with GPS and thus illegal. There would be LTE everywhere.

 

Lightsquared was not gonna do lte over satellite. They just had frequencies that were primarily used for satellite.