T-Mobile LTE & Network Discussion

[Paynefanbro]

Am I the only one that thinks that T-Mobile is being a bit generous with numbers? Perhaps pulling an AT&T numbers scheme. If they can claim 116 markets then I know of 100 Markets that Sprint can announce tomorrow. Not to mention, the coverage in some of these areas is worse than Sprint upon launch. According to Sensorly, only half of Phoenix is covered whereas with NYC, virtually the whole city is covered yet they still don't announce it because it is not as good as launching conditions should be.

[maximus1987/lou99]

Am I the only one that thinks that T-Mobile is being a bit generous with numbers? Perhaps pulling an AT&T numbers scheme. If they can claim 116 markets then I know of 100 Markets that Sprint can announce tomorrow.

They only cover downtown with HSPA+ anyway, remember? Lol

 

It's funny cause they don't even show LTE areas on their site. Have to go to sensorly for that.

[IsaiahL]

http://m.technobuffalo.com/2013/07/10/t-mobile-4g-lte-now-reaches-157-million-people-available-across-116-markets/

 

 

WAHTTTTT , Sprint only has 110 ugh this is a disappointment . It seems like Sprint has completely stopped all movements in the NV Rollout Process

[lilotimz]

They only cover downtown with HSPA+ anyway, remember? Lol

 

It's funny cause they don't even show LTE areas on their site. Have to go to sensorly for that.

 

Funny thing is in Sacramento, T-mobiles been going at their refarm for a good year or so but Sprint has already past them on rural LTE coverage with one single LTE cell site south of Rancho Cordova in the sticks . Heh.

[adamo696]

Know Tmobile has more markets than sprint covered or am i wrong?

 

http://www.gottabemobile.com/2013/07/10/t-mobile-4g-lte-now-live-in-116-metro-markets/

 

[S4GRU]

Know Tmobile has more markets than sprint covered or am i wrong?

 

http://www.gottabemobile.com/2013/07/10/t-mobile-4g-lte-now-live-in-116-metro-markets/

 

Discussion already under way in this thread:  http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/3420-t-mobile-lte-network-discussion/?p=166451

 

 

Robert

[NaNa_Ch!LL]

Remember that it's a longer process with sprint. Tmobile's network is more updated thanks to their DC-HSPA42 network. Meaning they already have the fiber and backhaul ready so conversions are quick.

 

Don't forget that sprint is renewing towers from scratch on almost every tower, everywhere.

[iansltx]

So, let's look at Jump for a minute.

 

First off, it's insurance. That alone is pretty valuable, from the customer's perspective. Though my bet is that the deductible will get triggered if they want to upgrade their phone and it's not in good enough condition to be sold as a refurb. Which is compounded by the fact that the maximum claim frequency for insurance is the same as the "upgrade cycle" on Jump.

 

I wouldn't even be surprised if, when you tried to make an insurance claim on Jump, T-Mobile would instead suggest that you pay your deductible, and then upgrade to a new phone at "new customer" pricing (which includes renewing the EIP). So if I had an S III, they'd have me pay the $150 deductible, then offer an S 4 ($175 deductible by the way) for another $100 on top of that...plus renewed EIP payments.

 

Which I guess is fair.

 

Keeping in mind that EIP resets each time you get a new phone, I'm guessing.

 

So you're basically on a six-month contract renewal schedule, and you're probably paying for top-of-the-line phones ($100 + $20/mo EIP). Add $10 per month in for Jump and you're shelling out $280 every six months to for a new phone every six months...and you don't get to keep the old one.

 

In my S III to S 4 example, if I bought the phone outright for $580 and sold your six month old S III for $300, you'd be dead-even with Jump. Of course, selling the phone at that price takes more time and effort than going to a T-Mobile store and swapping out the phone would. So it's a bit of a win for you.

 

But wait, there's more! T-Mobile can now refurbish that S III for $50 or so, then turn around and sell it as a refurb for $400 off-contract, or maybe $0 plus $17 per month on their EIP system. Which is why this new option costs a little less than premium device insurance.

 

So you could say the plan is a win-win, but the closed-loop system may well benefit T-Mobile more than it does the customer.

[jamesinclair]

^^Itll be very important to see the fine print on this thing. I dont think it makes sense to have you pay a deductible for an upgrade, but that may be how they "get you"

[iansltx]

As for T-Mobile's LTE network, I'll be the first to say that they're doing a good job in overlaying their HSPA+ footprint. They certainly aren't done yet, but I have a couple data points:

 

1. In Austin, plenty (though not all) of sites have refarmed (PCS) HSPA+ and AWS LTE. Speeds are comparable to or better than Sprint LTE, though both use 5MHz channels for now. T-Mobile's network deployment is tighter due to AWS WCDMA spacing (as opposed to PCS CDMA2000 spacing) and as such LTE coverage is more of a blanket than Sprint's at this point (though SMR LTE will completely fix that). The catch: outside town you drop to EDGE equite quickly, and then GPRS. Sprint drops to 3G a little later, and stays there.

 

2. I spent the weekend on both sides of the Front Range. In Granby, CO, Sprint had 3G, Verizon had LTE and T-Mobile had...roaming on Union Cellular with no data (or maybe it had data but no one had enabled data roaming on their phones...not completely sure). In nearby Grand Lake, Sprint roamed on Verizon (EvDO native) with no data capability, and T-Mobile was still roaming.

 

In Golden, Verizon had (slowing) LTE and Sprint had 3G. T-Mobile had HSPA+ until you got out on the highway, but picked up LTE pretty soon thereafter. Denver has 10x10 LTE turned on, so I was seeing 30+ Mbps down and 15+ Mbps up in a lot of cases. Not quite the 40/10 that I've seen on Verizon but very respectable.

 

--

 

Also, T-Mobile has some consistently low pings for its LTE service. We're talking below 30ms in many cases. I've seen around that with Sprint (about a year ago, in Fort Worth, on LTE) but at least for now you could play FPS games on T-Mobile and get away with it, while Sprint would be a little more latent.

[drock2750]

T Mobile just announced that they have LTE service in 73 of the top 100 markets while Sprint has 22 out of the top 100 markets. Their CTO Neville Ray then made fun of Sprint for missing "every possible deadline". 

 

The fact that T Mobile has been able to move so much more quickly seems to indicate that there is no good reason that NV is taking so long. Backhaul is not a legitimate excuse when an even smaller carrier is able to make it happen in a fraction of the time. It has to either be mismanagement or cashflow issues. 

 

In Chicago, even towers that have 3G 800 or LTE or any other upgrades, these capabilities come and go from day to day on any given tower. I had 3G 800 at home for a few days and then poof...back to PCS. Many towers that have LTE often have no internet connectivity even with strong signal. Hopefully Softbank will do some housecleaning in Sprint's engineering department...they couldn't possibly feel that the rollout is going well or going quickly.

 

http://bgr.com/2013/07/10/t-mobile-us-lte-footprint/

[Paynefanbro]

T Mobile just announced that they have LTE service in 73 of the top 100 markets while Sprint has 22 out of the top 100 markets. Their CTO Neville Ray then made fun of Sprint for missing "every possible deadline". 

 

The fact that T Mobile has been able to move so much more quickly seems to indicate that there is no good reason that NV is taking so long. Backhaul is not a legitimate excuse when an even smaller carrier is able to make it happen in a fraction of the time. It has to either be mismanagement or cashflow issues. 

 

In Chicago, even towers that have 3G 800 or LTE or any other upgrades, these capabilities come and go from day to day on any given tower. I had 3G 800 at home for a few days and then poof...back to PCS. Many towers that have LTE often have no internet connectivity even with strong signal. Hopefully Softbank will do some housecleaning in Sprint's engineering department...they couldn't possibly feel that the rollout is going well or going quickly.

 

http://bgr.com/2013/07/10/t-mobile-us-lte-footprint/

Backhaul is still the issue because T-Mobile already had fiber to its sites from before hand. They hardly have to wait for anything.

[maximus1987/lou99]

Backhaul is still the issue because T-Mobile already had fiber to its sites from before hand. They hardly have to wait for anything.

 

Yes. 

 

An even bigger payoff looms as T-Mobile rolls out LTE, minus the backhaul concerns that usually plague such deployments. "Because we've already upgraded to fiber backhaul on over 32,000 cell sites, the transition to LTE will be a much faster process, enabling us to rapidly deploy LTE in 2013," Mayo said.

 

Read more: T-Mobile: 95% of our backhaul is fiber - FierceBroadbandWireless http://www.fiercebroadbandwireless.com/story/t-mobile-95-our-backhaul-fiber/2012-08-01#ixzz2YgFSDptq 

Subscribe at FierceBroadbandWireless

[Rawvega]

 

The fact that T Mobile has been able to move so much more quickly seems to indicate that there is no good reason that NV is taking so long. Backhaul is not a legitimate excuse when an even smaller carrier is able to make it happen in a fraction of the time. It has to either be mismanagement or cashflow issues. 

 

Unfortunately, this is the conclusion that the unwashed masses will invariably come to as well.

[drock2750]

Backhaul is still the issue because T-Mobile already had fiber to its sites from before hand. They hardly have to wait for anything.

If T Mobile was looking further down the road with their decisions way back then, it's still a glaring contrast between the two companies. Sprint must have some estimate of how long it takes to get backhaul to any given site, and even if it took 2 years for att to run backhaul to a site, then they should have placed the order 2 years in advance so that the backhaul upgrades and the NV equipment upgrades would have happened at around the same time. Upgrading the backhaul before legacy equipment was removed probably would have been ok too. I understand that backhaul is the reason things are progressing so slowly, but it isn't a good reason...certainly doesn't let Sprint off the hook.

[maximus1987/lou99]

I vaguely remember someone answering this question (partially) so let's give it a full treatment here:

 

Can't backhaul be shared? Does it really require a new cable to be run to the tower for each carrier on the tower?

 

If each backhaul cable can be scaled to 1Gbps, why can't connections be temporarily shared between carriers? 

I'm sure Tmobile would be happy with having 30mbps until it got its owned dedicated link. That's definitely better than a T1 line.

[Deval]

T Mobile just announced that they have LTE service in 73 of the top 100 markets while Sprint has 22 out of the top 100 markets. Their CTO Neville Ray then made fun of Sprint for missing "every possible deadline". 

 

The fact that T Mobile has been able to move so much more quickly seems to indicate that there is no good reason that NV is taking so long. Backhaul is not a legitimate excuse when an even smaller carrier is able to make it happen in a fraction of the time. It has to either be mismanagement or cashflow issues. 

 

In Chicago, even towers that have 3G 800 or LTE or any other upgrades, these capabilities come and go from day to day on any given tower. I had 3G 800 at home for a few days and then poof...back to PCS. Many towers that have LTE often have no internet connectivity even with strong signal. Hopefully Softbank will do some housecleaning in Sprint's engineering department...they couldn't possibly feel that the rollout is going well or going quickly.

 

http://bgr.com/2013/07/10/t-mobile-us-lte-footprint/

 

T-Mobile is moving quickly because they are bolting on new panels and equipment to existing sites with existing fiber/ethernet backhaul.

 

Sprint is tearing down the site completely and rebuilding it.

 

Compare Apples to Apples please.

[maximus1987/lou99]

Because they are retarded.

 

It's not a consumer's job to read up on backhaul, Nextel disaster.

In the end, these are all just excuses.

 

"Need backhaul?Then Sprint should've started on getting fiber to their sites years ago like Tmobile

Couldn't afford it because of Nextel disaster? Not my problem. No one forced Sprint to buy Nextel, not Verizon, not ATT, not the government. I'm a consumer. I buy a phone, pay for service, and expect it to work and I don't care for your excuses. The end."

[Deval]

It's not a consumer's job to read up on backhaul, Nextel disaster.

In the end, these are all just excuses.

 

"Need backhaul?Then Sprint should've started on getting fiber to their sites years ago like Tmobile

Couldn't afford it because of Nextel disaster? Not my problem. No one forced Sprint to buy Nextel, not Verizon, not ATT, not the government. I'm a consumer. I buy a phone, pay for service, and expect it to work and I don't care for your excuses. The end."

 

That's why consumers are given a choice, don't like it, have problems, port out.

[Bob Newhart]

T-Mobile is moving quickly because they are bolting on new panels and equipment to existing sites with existing fiber/ethernet backhaul.

 

Sprint is tearing down the site completely and rebuilding it.

 

Compare Apples to Apples please.

 

What do you mean? He is saying that T-Mobile planned for expansion of increased data usage. Sprint didn't do this.

 

I have connected on T-Mobile sites with HSPA+ but still max out at 1Mbps, as the site is fed with T1s also.

[WiWavelength]

What do you mean? He is saying that T-Mobile planned for expansion of increased data usage. Sprint didn't do this.

 

I have connected on T-Mobile sites with HSPA+ but still max out at 1Mbps, as the site is fed with T1s also.

 

Sprint did plan for "expansion of increased data usage."  It was called Clearwire WiMAX.  It did not work out as expected.  But do not ever say that Sprint did not plan.

 

AJ

[WiWavelength]

It's not a consumer's job to read up on backhaul, Nextel disaster.

In the end, these are all just excuses.

 

"Need backhaul?Then Sprint should've started on getting fiber to their sites years ago like Tmobile

Couldn't afford it because of Nextel disaster? Not my problem. No one forced Sprint to buy Nextel, not Verizon, not ATT, not the government. I'm a consumer. I buy a phone, pay for service, and expect it to work and I don't care for your excuses. The end."

 

No, to function correctly, the free market requires consumers to be inherently knowledgeable.  Otherwise, we get anti competitive corporations who take advantage of consumers' ignorance, leading to oligopolies, such as VZ and AT&T, that run roughshod over the public interest.  For that, we can thank the idiot consumers.

 

AJ

[sbeezy]

Had I known T-Mobile were gonna deploy LTE earlier than planned I would have stayed there. But all in all I am happier with sprint and by them flipping the LTE switch on (although on one tower) progress is being made and for that I am content!

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[Deval]

What do you mean? He is saying that T-Mobile planned for expansion of increased data usage. Sprint didn't do this.

 

I have connected on T-Mobile sites with HSPA+ but still max out at 1Mbps, as the site is fed with T1s also.

 

I was comparing LTE deployment strategy and today's status for both companies, not what happened in the past.

[WiWavelength]

If T Mobile was looking further down the road with their decisions way back then, it's still a glaring contrast between the two companies. Sprint must have some estimate of how long it takes to get backhaul to any given site, and even if it took 2 years for att to run backhaul to a site, then they should have placed the order 2 years in advance so that the backhaul upgrades and the NV equipment upgrades would have happened at around the same time. Upgrading the backhaul before legacy equipment was removed probably would have been ok too. I understand that backhaul is the reason things are progressing so slowly, but it isn't a good reason...certainly doesn't let Sprint off the hook.

 

No, you are living far too much in the present, forgetting (or not knowing) the past, and failing to project the future.

 

By 2007, T-Mobile had no "3G" to show for itself, had fallen at least two years behind VZW and Sprint in that regard.  Then, T-Mobile took at least another two years to catch up -- but only in urban areas.  That is how T-Mobile had ample time to establish advanced backhaul to its urban sites.  Four years, four years.

 

Now, Sprint is doing likewise.  The difference is that Sprint is doing likewise across its *entire* network.  And Sprint is doing so in two and a half years.  Show some respect for that.

 

On the other hand, if all you care about is results, then you are in my mind a shortsighted, ignorant consumer.

 

AJ