T-Mobile LTE & Network Discussion

[bigsnake49]

I don't think they reported the number of sites after 2008 in their year end reports.

[4ktvs]

I just hope sprint can keep the avg speeds up than peak speeds like Verizon loves to scream. Though that doesn't do any good if your day time speeds are like this:http://www.speedtest.net/android/501976820.png

 

Yep that was with near full signal too. taken in SC at the beach.

 

Also waiting on tri-band phone/LTE to work in my city.

 

I will have to say t-mobile in the bigger citys is likely in the best place right now for data speeds. (Could be wrong though.)

 

Edit: A bit offtopic, but how much is Softbank going to pay per share for sprint?

 

Thanks

Edited July 2, 2013 by 4ktvs

[bigsnake49]

If they actually have 52,000 macro sites + 6,000 Metro DAS, then that's great for their customers. But unless they improve in couple of places where I stay and work, I could not use them. But a great network does not guarantee sucess. Ask Verizon in Florida.

[ChadBroChillz]

I just hope sprint can keep the avg speeds up than peak speeds like Verizon loves to scream. Though that doesn't do any good if your day time speeds are like this:http://www.speedtest.net/android/501976820.png

 

Yep that was with near full signal too. taken in SC at the beach.

 

Also waiting on tri-band phone/LTE to work in my city.

 

I will have to say t-mobile in the bigger citys is likely in the best place right now for data speeds. (Could be wrong though.)

 

Edit: A bit offtopic, but how much is Softbank going to pay per share for sprint?

 

Thanks

 

Softbank is paying 7.65 per share.

[4ktvs]

Softbank is paying 7.65 per share.

Thanks that's what I thought.

[Conan Kudo]

It also coincides with T-Mobile's massive AWS W-CDMA overlay push following the 2006 AWS-1 FCC auction.  Hmm, that is worthy of investigation.

 

AJ

It wasn't until 2010 that T-Mobile actually switched to reusing sites a majority of the time for UMTS deployment. Prior to that, UMTS and GSM sites were separate, which dramatically increased the number of cell sites.

[JeffDTD]

Why would anyone want to argue in favor of tmo having 51k+ sites on air? Given the coverage and rural coverage complaints, it seems like proving that would damper confidence in them.

 

Point blank, their 3g/4g footprint in the states I travel is unacceptable. Convert some of the rural coverage and I become a customer. Until then, I rely on sprint and its roaming partners

 

Sent from my Note II. Its so big.

 

 

[maximus1987/lou99]

Why would anyone want to argue in favor of tmo having 51k+ sites on air? Given the coverage and rural coverage complaints, it seems like proving that would damper confidence in them.

 

Point blank, their 3g/4g footprint in the states I travel is unacceptable. Convert some of the rural coverage and I become a customer. Until then, I rely on sprint and its roaming partners

 

Sent from my Note II. Its so big.

 

It's not that we want that to be true but rather, we have the CEO of TMO pre-merger stating that they're going to upgrade 37,000 towers to LTE and he states that this 37k number is their current (2012) 3g/4g footprint. So this would mean that they would have to have WAY more than 37k towers to account for all the 2G-only areas.

[tommym65]

For what it's worth:

 

The "One, Two, Kalamazoo . . ." TMo commercial from last year counted 35,023 sites. Before anyone attacks, I know perfectly well that this number came from marketing, and is inherently unreliable, but add a few, and it comes pretty close to 37,000.  Of course, is doesn't say what is the mix of 2G/3G/~4G. In fact, other than the sexy little kitten on the sexy motorcycle, it doesn't communicate much of anything.

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC0QtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Da5JLZJkcxCE&ei=YpzUUYutCo3YyAGdu4HoAw&usg=AFQjCNHJjOHIlGFDoVOWB5YKL3TjOexH1g&bvm=bv.48705608,d.aWc

[maximus1987/lou99]

For what it's worth:

 

The "One, Two, Kalamazoo . . ." TMo commercial from last year counted 35,023 sites. Before anyone attacks, I know perfectly well that this number came from marketing, and is inherently unreliable, but add a few, and it comes pretty close to 37,000. Of course, is doesn't say what is the mix of 2G/3G/~4G. In fact, other than the sexy little kitten on the sexy motorcycle, it doesn't communicate much of anything.

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC0QtwIwAA&url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5JLZJkcxCE&ei=YpzUUYutCo3YyAGdu4HoAw&usg=AFQjCNHJjOHIlGFDoVOWB5YKL3TjOexH1g&bvm=bv.48705608,d.aWc

 

There's a quote from Philip Humm during a conference call in this thread or the other TMO thread wherein he says 37k is the then 3G/4g coverage. And he says those are the towers they're gonna upgrade to LTE.

 

So TMO will have 2g-only areas and LTE areas and no HSPA-only areas. That's the implication from the conference call.

[maximus1987/lou99]

I think I've "figured out" whether Tmobile will expand LTE to more than their current 225 mil HSPA+: yes, it will.

 

Reason: competition.

a) Sprint - by mid 2013, they'll have 250 million or 277 million

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/files/download/13-sprint-network-vision-handout/

pg 16/21

So through their Boost and Virgin brands, they'll have an advertising advantage against Tmobile.

 

Virgin: $55 - unlimited talk, text, 2.5 GB full speed data

Tmobile: $50/60 - unlimited talk, text, 500MB/2.5GB full speed data

 

Whether it's gonna be 277 or 250 million final LTE coverage is gonna be big in terms of the "BOOM!" advertising factor but even if it's "only" 25 million it'll be hard for TMO to compete.

 

But if Tmobile won't expand because of Sprint's 250 or 277 mil advantage then they will expand their LTE because of the big dog

 

AIO wireless aka ATT - AIO is owned and operated by ATT and will have geographic access to ALL of ATT's network.

 

[I'm pretty sure this is relevant to this discussion cause we're talking about why or why not Tmobile will expand their LTE footprint]

 

AIO - $55 2GB full speed (and unlimited talk, text)

Your LTE speeds are limited to 8mbps even during the "full speed" portion

 

TMO - $50/60 500MB/2.5GB full speed (and unlimited talk, text)

 

 

BUT ATT's gonna have 270 million with LTE end of 2013 and 300 million end of 2014

 

Now, TMO can't do anything about that 300 million number until 600 MHz is available for activation but at the very least . . .

 

Look at its native map for data (which is the same as its prepaid data coverage)

http://prepaid-phones.t-mobile.com/prepaid-coverage

 

TMO covers 225 mil with HSPA+ TODAY in the green areas - once you zoom in enough - then imagine how many people TMO covers today with its entire footprint i.e. when you include the 2G! 

 

If it simply upgrades ALL current towers to LTE, it'll have a fighting chance against AIO but if it doesn't . . . . then I can only assume that their strategy is to force the FCC/DOJ to let ATT or Sprint purchase them.

[milan03]

Why not comparing Boost, Virgin, and AIO to MetroPCS which is T-Mobile US main prepaid brand, and is about to get T-Mobile's entire LTE/WCDMA/GSM coverage on July 10th.

 

$40/mo for 500MB of data

$50/mo for 2.5GB of data

$60/mo Unlimited data

All Unlimited Talk/Text.

 

This should bring everyone's price down even further!

[maximus1987/lou99]

Why not comparing Boost, Virgin, and AIO to MetroPCS which is T-Mobile US main prepaid brand, and is about to get T-Mobile's entire LTE/WCDMA/GSM coverage on July 10th.

 

$40/mo for 500MB of data

$50/mo for 2.5GB of data

$60/mo Unlimited data

All Unlimited Talk/Text.

 

This should bring everyone's price down even further!

 

No it won't.

The data is only available on Tmobile's network so you're still at a disadvantage compared to AIO when it comes to coverage.

http://maps.eng.t-mobile.com/maps/index.html?map=metro

That's Tmobile's coverage map colored slightly differently to hide that it's Tmobile's map.

Since Metro is part of TMO, I wonder why they'd be undercutting themselves by $10/month.

Well the answer is the TMO's Metro brand has no 0% financing so you're effectively paying a $10/month financing fee if you have Tmobile and not MetroPCS.

 

For the family plan, 3 people on Metro is $105 while on TMO-proper it's $90 and you get the same 500MB/line and you get the 0% financing. I wonder if they meant for Metro to be more expensive than TMO.

 

If Metro's prices were lower than TMO in every category, like a family plan for 3, then yes it'd be a better deal.

[milan03]

Sure no financing, but I can also get a full on T-Mobile GSM/LTE GS3 on MetroPCS for $399 while that same exact phone on T-Mobile is $550.

 

MetroPCS definitely isn't for everyone, but for individuals that want T-Mobile's native GSM/LTE coverage for $120 less a year, MetroPCS just became a viable solution.

[WiWavelength]

Why not comparing Boost, Virgin, and AIO to MetroPCS which is T-Mobile US main prepaid brand, and is about to get T-Mobile's entire LTE/WCDMA/GSM coverage on July 10th.

I just feel sorry for the MetroPCS subs who are unwittingly going to lose substantial roaming coverage by switching from CDMA2000 to W-CDMA/GSM. Assuredly, some of them are going to leave the city and show up at granny's house someday soon, just to be unpleasantly surprised to see "No Service" or "Emergency Calls Only."

 

AJ

[milan03]

WiWavelength, on 03 Jul 2013 - 10:40 PM, said:

 

I just feel sorry for the MetroPCS subs who are unwittingly going to lose substantial roaming coverage by switching from CDMA2000 to W-CDMA/GSM. Assuredly, some of them are going to leave the city and show up at granny's house someday soon, just to be unpleasantly surprised to see "No Service" or "Emergency Calls Only."

 

AJ

Let's hope that by the end of 2015 T-Mobile either figures out roaming options, or modernize across their entire footprint. For now, existing CDMA MetroPCS subs get to use their CDMA phones for two more years.

 

T-Mobile will lose some MPCS subs at some point, but I think they're aware of that.

[maximus1987/lou99]

Sure no financing, but I can also get a full on T-Mobile GSM/LTE GS3 on MetroPCS for $399 while that same exact phone on T-Mobile is $550.

 

MetroPCS definitely isn't for everyone, but for individuals that want T-Mobile's native GSM/LTE coverage for $120 less a year, MetroPCS just became a viable solution.

 

I just verified those prices and wow. I'm surprised.

What's Tmobile's strategy?

[milan03]

I just verified those prices and wow. I'm surprised.

What's Tmobile's strategy?

No idea, but that S3 sounds awfully good to me

[maximus1987/lou99]

No idea, but that S3 sounds awfully good to me

 

Haha. Nope. It's the CDMA version.

SCHR530RWBM

http://www.wirefly.com/product/metropcs/samsung/galaxy-s-iii

[milan03]

Haha. Nope. It's the CDMA version.

SCHR530RWBM

http://www.wirefly.com/product/metropcs/samsung/galaxy-s-iii

They're already selling T-Mo GSM version in Hartford, Vegas, Dallas officially, my local store already has it in stock, but not allowed to sell until the 14th.

So it's coming.

[ChadBroChillz]

I think I've "figured out" whether Tmobile will expand LTE to more than their current 225 mil HSPA+: yes, it will.

 

Reason: competition.

a) Sprint - by mid 2013, they'll have 250 million or 277 million

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/files/download/13-sprint-network-vision-handout/

pg 16/21

So through their Boost and Virgin brands, they'll have an advertising advantage against Tmobile.

 

Virgin: $55 - unlimited talk, text, 2.5 GB full speed data

Tmobile: $50/60 - unlimited talk, text, 500MB/2.5GB full speed data

 

Whether it's gonna be 277 or 250 million final LTE coverage is gonna be big in terms of the "BOOM!" advertising factor but even if it's "only" 25 million it'll be hard for TMO to compete.

 

But if Tmobile won't expand because of Sprint's 250 or 277 mil advantage then they will expand their LTE because of the big dog

 

AIO wireless aka ATT - AIO is owned and operated by ATT and will have geographic access to ALL of ATT's network.

 

[I'm pretty sure this is relevant to this discussion cause we're talking about why or why not Tmobile will expand their LTE footprint]

 

AIO - $55 2GB full speed (and unlimited talk, text)

Your LTE speeds are limited to 8mbps even during the "full speed" portion

 

TMO - $50/60 500MB/2.5GB full speed (and unlimited talk, text)

 

 

BUT ATT's gonna have 270 million with LTE end of 2013 and 300 million end of 2014

 

Now, TMO can't do anything about that 300 million number until 600 MHz is available for activation but at the very least . . .

 

Look at its native map for data (which is the same as its prepaid data coverage)

http://prepaid-phones.t-mobile.com/prepaid-coverage

 

TMO covers 225 mil with HSPA+ TODAY in the green areas - once you zoom in enough - then imagine how many people TMO covers today with its entire footprint i.e. when you include the 2G! 

 

If it simply upgrades ALL current towers to LTE, it'll have a fighting chance against AIO but if it doesn't . . . . then I can only assume that their strategy is to force the FCC/DOJ to let ATT or Sprint purchase them.

 

This is Tmobile's real footprint

 

That map includes roaming partners.  

[maximus1987/lou99]

 

 

I think I've "figured out" whether Tmobile will expand LTE to more than their current 225 mil HSPA+: yes, it will.

 

Reason: competition.

a) Sprint - by mid 2013, they'll have 250 million or 277 million

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/files/download/13-sprint-network-vision-handout/

pg 16/21

So through their Boost and Virgin brands, they'll have an advertising advantage against Tmobile.

 

Virgin: $55 - unlimited talk, text, 2.5 GB full speed data

Tmobile: $50/60 - unlimited talk, text, 500MB/2.5GB full speed data

 

Whether it's gonna be 277 or 250 million final LTE coverage is gonna be big in terms of the "BOOM!" advertising factor but even if it's "only" 25 million it'll be hard for TMO to compete.

 

But if Tmobile won't expand because of Sprint's 250 or 277 mil advantage then they will expand their LTE because of the big dog

 

AIO wireless aka ATT - AIO is owned and operated by ATT and will have geographic access to ALL of ATT's network.

 

[i'm pretty sure this is relevant to this discussion cause we're talking about why or why not Tmobile will expand their LTE footprint]

 

AIO - $55 2GB full speed (and unlimited talk, text)

Your LTE speeds are limited to 8mbps even during the "full speed" portion

 

TMO - $50/60 500MB/2.5GB full speed (and unlimited talk, text)

 

 

BUT ATT's gonna have 270 million with LTE end of 2013 and 300 million end of 2014

 

Now, TMO can't do anything about that 300 million number until 600 MHz is available for activation but at the very least . . .

 

Look at its native map for data (which is the same as its prepaid data coverage)

http://prepaid-phones.t-mobile.com/prepaid-coverage

 

TMO covers 225 mil with HSPA+ TODAY in the green areas - once you zoom in enough - then imagine how many people TMO covers today with its entire footprint i.e. when you include the 2G!

 

If it simply upgrades ALL current towers to LTE, it'll have a fighting chance against AIO but if it doesn't . . . . then I can only assume that their strategy is to force the FCC/DOJ to let ATT or Sprint purchase them.

 

 

This is Tmobile's real footprint

 

 

 

That map includes roaming partners.

 

Uhh no it doesn't.

It shows TMO native plus metro pcs. See how Michigan is only half covered? If you look at the post paid map, it shows roaming for other half of Michigan which is not shown here.

 

This map most definitely only shows TMO native

[ChadBroChillz]

Uhh no it doesn't.

It shows TMO native plus metro pcs. See how Michigan is only half covered? If you look at the post paid map, it shows roaming for other half of Michigan which is not shown here.

 

This map most definitely only shows TMO native

 

I think their is some confusion. The map I posted shows T-mobile's native coverage with Metro coverage. The map you posted from the prepaid coverage checker shows Native + service partners.( you can tell by zooming in all the way, then it changes the legend to show service partners)

[maxsilver]

I just feel sorry for the MetroPCS subs who are unwittingly going to lose substantial roaming coverage by switching from CDMA2000 to W-CDMA/GSM.

Yes! This is a bigger deal than it seems.

 

MetroPCS CDMA phones roam near-flawlessly across two major networks + others, nationwide.

 

T-Mobile GSM phones roam on one major network + others, and only in very specific designated areas.

 

If T-Mobile would just stop blocking AT&T roaming, then their roaming would be (roughly) equally useful to MetroPCS's and it wouldn't be an issue. But since they block a large portion of roaming right now, their roaming coverage can't be depended on.

[maximus1987/lou99]

 

I just feel sorry for the MetroPCS subs who are unwittingly going to lose substantial roaming coverage by switching from CDMA2000 to W-CDMA/GSM.

Yes! This is a bigger deal than it seems.

 

MetroPCS CDMA phones roam near-flawlessly across two major networks + others, nationwide.

 

T-Mobile GSM phones roam on one major network + others, and only in very specific designated areas.

 

If T-Mobile would just stop blocking AT&T roaming, then their roaming would be (roughly) equally useful to MetroPCS's and it wouldn't be an issue. But since they block a large portion of roaming right now, their roaming coverage can't be depended on.

Just how much do you think the ghetto-PCS customers roam?

Think of the places where there's no Tmobile roaming. It's so far from the metro areas where their target market is located that its irrelevant.

 

Shouldn't TMO first concern itself with their lack of even 3G in rurals?