Jump to content

T-Mobile LTE & Network Discussion


CriticalityEvent

Recommended Posts

The biggest problem with T-mobile is not the speed of their LTE deployment (which should be faster than Sprint in metro areas as they don't have to wait on backhaul) but is the fact that their LTE will only overlay their HSPA+ footprint. The majority of their network outside metro areas are still Edge / 2g. The difference for a T-mobile LTE subscriber will be immense dropping from LTE to edge whereas Sprint at least has 3g on the rurals and LTE coming soon.

I dont know about 3g lol I get slower than my friends t-mobile 2g. I will be happy to get a steady 1mbps down.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I live in a Verizon 3G only area where EV-DO is blazing along at speeds sometimes slower than EDGE. With no Sprint here, and if not for LTE almost being here, I would consider going to the $30 T-Mobile plan. If I'm going to be on slow speeds I'd rather not pay out through the caboose for it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Over iPCS land, Network Vision will work very well. That's what melimel was eluding to.

 

I think the Bell duopoly has strengthened to the point where the FCC needs to start serious monitoring of market activity of VZW and AT&T in rural areas. Here where I live, theoretically five carriers can compete, but in reality, Verizon covers Chester well and is congested as heck because *everyone* has them, AT&T other sort of does but not well, and T-Mobile covers well but is EDGE and almost no one has them because they were very late to the party here. USCC and Sprint bleed over from the bluff but don't cover the town proper. We're on the edge of multiple CMA's so spectrum here will be a mess. That said, our local officials here are really concerned that one carrier has 97% of the market here. We just don't know how to correct that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok...while I admit I do not understand any of the technical information posted above, I will give my 2 Cents.

 

I was a Blackberry Administrator at the company I work at, and everyone who was assigned a Blackberry on T-Mobile was frustrated with the carrier service...especially the employees located in West Virginia.

 

Due to that experience, I personally would avoid T-Mobile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok...while I admit I do not understand any of the technical information posted above, I will give my 2 Cents.

 

I was a Blackberry Administrator at the company I work at, and everyone who was assigned a Blackberry on T-Mobile was frustrated with the carrier service...especially the employees located in West Virginia.

 

Due to that experience, I personally would avoid T-Mobile.

 

That makes sense given T-Mobile has almost no native service in that state. It's a black hole for most providers. VZW, AT&T, and Sprint are all weak there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Over iPCS land, Network Vision will work very well. That's what melimel was eluding to.

 

I think the Bell duopoly has strengthened to the point where the FCC needs to start serious monitoring of market activity of VZW and AT&T in rural areas. Here where I live, theoretically five carriers can compete, but in reality, Verizon covers Chester well and is congested as heck because *everyone* has them, AT&T other sort of does but not well, and T-Mobile covers well but is EDGE and almost no one has them because they were very late to the party here. USCC and Sprint bleed over from the bluff but don't cover the town proper. We're on the edge of multiple CMA's so spectrum here will be a mess. That said, our local officials here are really concerned that one carrier has 97% of the market here. We just don't know how to correct that.

This just popped in my head. Don't know if its viable or not. Your municipality could become a MVNO. At that point I don't see why a cell phone provider would not put a tower in your jurisdiction or allow you to finance the same.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Id be happy with 4 down 1 up. Perfect for pulling up YouTube instead of seeing dumb buffering sign. hahahaha I care more about coverage than getting 30mbps down and 10 up. That's nice but id like data access in more areas than a couple hot spots ;)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This just popped in my head. Don't know if its viable or not. Your municipality could become a MVNO. At that point I don't see why a cell phone provider would not put a tower in your jurisdiction or allow you to finance the same.

 

I don't know about that, but the proper payoffs could be in place along with a call to dan@sprint.com.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I feel few people realize is T-Mobile didn't start deploying LTE recently but has been working on it almost as long as NV.

 

Consider this, most T-Mobile PCS HSPA sites are broadcasting blocked LTE. PCS HSPA started showing up early last year in small pockets.

 

So, T-Mobile's LTE deployment actually started early last year like NV. T-Mobile has sent crews almost entirely to big cities, so to me its obvious why T-Mobile is getting ahead in big cities, its because they have been working almost as long as Sprint has and they've been focusing almost exclusively on these areas.

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That makes sense given T-Mobile has almost no native service in that state. It's a black hole for most providers. VZW, AT&T, and Sprint are all weak there.

 

Sprint only has service from their network in West Virginia in Mt. Gay, Parkersburg and Wheeling. The rest of the state is provided by nTelos for Sprint. nTelos has a decent network and decent coverage in WV. They are just not doing a full Network Vision style upgrade. But they are coordinating with Sprint to deploy LTE some time in the future.

 

Robert via Nexus 7 with Tapatalk HD

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I feel few people realize is T-Mobile didn't start deploying LTE recently but has been working on it almost as long as NV.

 

Consider this, most T-Mobile PCS HSPA sites are broadcasting blocked LTE. PCS HSPA started showing up early last year in small pockets.

 

So, T-Mobile's LTE deployment actually started early last year like NV. T-Mobile has sent crews almost entirely to big cities, so to me its obvious why T-Mobile is getting ahead in big cities, its because they have been working almost as long as Sprint has and they've been focusing almost exclusively on these areas.

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

if tmobile deploys LTE fast enough with good coverage, they will be the best carrier here in NYC. they have good alternative with HSPA+ with easily topping 10mbps and their LTE seems to be 10 X 10 in NYC when time comes. Sprint will be more favorable when 800mhz and 2500mhz actually hits the market with good coverage, but until then, t mobile sounds like a really good deal.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spring soon #2? I know we like Sprint here, but they aren't going to be #2 in the next few years.

 

That's not so hard to believe sprint does dominate certain markets. I believe sprint and vzw is both going for number one carrier in Chicago. Both are dominating.

 

Sent from my Sprint Galaxy Nexus rockin 4.2.2 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if tmobile deploys LTE fast enough with good coverage, they will be the best carrier here in NYC. they have good alternative with HSPA+ with easily topping 10mbps and their LTE seems to be 10 X 10 in NYC when time comes. Sprint will be more favorable when 800mhz and 2500mhz actually hits the market with good coverage, but until then, t mobile sounds like a really good deal.

 

Too bad they priced themselves out by removing device subsidies. I can't in good faith pay $550 for a device up front, and still pay $70 a month.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Too bad they priced themselves out by removing device subsidies. I can't in good faith pay $550 for a device up front, and still pay $70 a month.

 

Exactly Lol. The people who wanna buy full price will taking subsides was incredibly stupid for the 4th man in.

 

Sent from my Sprint Galaxy Nexus rockin 4.2.2 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

if tmobile deploys LTE fast enough with good coverage, they will be the best carrier here in NYC. they have good alternative with HSPA+ with easily topping 10mbps and their LTE seems to be 10 X 10 in NYC when time comes. Sprint will be more favorable when 800mhz and 2500mhz actually hits the market with good coverage, but until then, t mobile sounds like a really good deal.

 

NYC is a 5x5 LTE market for T-Mobile. Not nearly enough spectrum. Even with the buyout of MetroPCS, it'll take some time to get the spectrum from MetroLTE to T-Mobile LTE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Too bad they priced themselves out by removing device subsidies. I can't in good faith pay $550 for a device up front, and still pay $70 a month.

 

They do throw in 500 mb of free tethering which would sweeten the deal considerably for me. They're coverage is still too much of a problem for me (not just with high speed coverage either)

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think T-Mobile will do well in big cities. HTC One for 99 bucks and 20-30 bucks for 24 months. That's no different from subsidy but your price plan goes down afterwards. That's awesome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NYC is a 5x5 LTE market for T-Mobile. Not nearly enough spectrum. Even with the buyout of MetroPCS, it'll take some time to get the spectrum from MetroLTE to T-Mobile LTE.

 

Sprint is making 5x5 LTE work, even in NYC. TMo should be fine, though they can't crow about their LTE speeds.

 

As for MetroLTE -> TMoLTE, my bet is that NYC gets reconfigured within three months of the deal happening. Send down a PRL update to the MetroPCS phones to start using T-Mobile LTE rather than MetroPCS, then tell the MetroPCS base stations to stop broadcasting LTE, then tell the T-Mobile base stations to use the now-free MetroPCS spectrum for LTE. There may be a bit of rejiggering as any 1x or EvDO channels in AWS get moved (within AWS or, more likely, pushed to PCS spectrum owned by T-Mobile) but, despite the fact that 5x5 is sorta-enough in NYC, T-Mobile would much rather have more LTE online now than later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too bad they priced themselves out by removing device subsidies. I can't in good faith pay $550 for a device up front, and still pay $70 a month.

 

Or you can pay $90 per month, plus $100 up front. Then $70 after the first two years. Sure, that puts T-Mobile only $20 short of Sprint's Simply Everything plan, or $10 above the 450 + Any Mobile plan that's all most folks need. But that's how most folks will end up getting TMo service anyway; it's just a different way to package the phone subsidy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They do throw in 500 mb of free tethering which would sweeten the deal considerably for me. They're coverage is still too much of a problem for me (not just with high speed coverage either)

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

500mb isn't as much as people make it seem to be. These days you can blow through that pretty quickly.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or you can pay $90 per month, plus $100 up front. Then $70 after the first two years. Sure, that puts T-Mobile only $20 short of Sprint's Simply Everything plan, or $10 above the 450 + Any Mobile plan that's all most folks need. But that's how most folks will end up getting TMo service anyway; it's just a different way to package the phone subsidy.

 

Yeah by then you'll be wanting to upgrade your phone anyway. If I'm paying $90 a month, contract or not, I'm still responsible for the cost of the device. That being said, once my two years are up, and I want to upgrade my phone, I pay another $100 down, and the circle continues.

 

I guess it's a different way of doing business, and while a contract isn't mandated, you are, in effect, still bound to one simply based on cost principle. The key difference is that the cost of the device is now shifted towards the end user.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah by then you'll be wanting to upgrade your phone anyway. If I'm paying $90 a month, contract or not, I'm still responsible for the cost of the device. That being said, once my two years are up, and I want to upgrade my phone, I pay another $100 down, and the circle continues.

 

I guess it's a different way of doing business, and while a contract isn't mandated, you are, in effect, still bound to one simply based on cost principle. The key difference is that the cost of the device is now shifted towards the end user.

 

I don't know about "shifted" so much as "made transparent". I foresee an uptick in the number of unlocked T-Mobile compatible phones showing up on eBay etc. as people choose to set their own upgrade cycles. You can do this now anyway by paying your ETF early (and, put another way, T-Mobile is effectively giving you a $480 ETF if you buy their iPhone "on contract"...sneaky) but there's a stigma associated with that.

 

If you don't have to have the latest, greatest phone, you can buy used (probably half the cost of new via EIP, but you have to pay all at once) or get a lower-end phone via EIP, so you're paying $15-$18 per month with less money down, rather than $20 per month. In comparison, Verizon charges more for non-contract than contract, and doesn't differentiate their monthly price depending on whether you get a cheap or an expensive phone, other than the $10 monthly discount for getting a non-smartphone versus a smartphone.

 

Speaking of Verizon, $30 per month under contract for unlimited voice + text and shared data is now obvious highway robbery when you compare to $10 + EIP on T-Mobile, which includes 500MB of data and doesn't preclude getting a smartphone. Funny how you can get an HTC 8X with unlimited + unlimited + 500MB for less per month than a flip phone with no data.

 

Sprint is quite a bit better than VZW in this regard, at least for now, since you're paying $30 per line beyond the first two and, at this point with so many people being cell-only, getting the same thing that you'd get with T-Mobile's $30 per month ($10 + $20 for unlimited data), except without an EIP to worry about.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know about "shifted" so much as "made transparent". I foresee an uptick in the number of unlocked T-Mobile compatible phones showing up on eBay etc. as people choose to set their own upgrade cycles. You can do this now anyway by paying your ETF early (and, put another way, T-Mobile is effectively giving you a $480 ETF if you buy their iPhone "on contract"...sneaky) but there's a stigma associated with that.

 

If you don't have to have the latest, greatest phone, you can buy used (probably half the cost of new via EIP, but you have to pay all at once) or get a lower-end phone via EIP, so you're paying $15-$18 per month with less money down, rather than $20 per month. In comparison, Verizon charges more for non-contract than contract, and doesn't differentiate their monthly price depending on whether you get a cheap or an expensive phone, other than the $10 monthly discount for getting a non-smartphone versus a smartphone.

 

Speaking of Verizon, $30 per month under contract for unlimited voice + text and shared data is now obvious highway robbery when you compare to $10 + EIP on T-Mobile, which includes 500MB of data and doesn't preclude getting a smartphone. Funny how you can get an HTC 8X with unlimited + unlimited + 500MB for less per month than a flip phone with no data.

 

Sprint is quite a bit better than VZW in this regard, at least for now, since you're paying $30 per line beyond the first two and, at this point with so many people being cell-only, getting the same thing that you'd get with T-Mobile's $30 per month ($10 + $20 for unlimited data), except without an EIP to worry about.

 

I agree, and this will really cater to the BYOD crowd. I'm just curious how the customers will react when they realize that the prices they see will NOT include the cost of their new iPhone 5. I know when T-Mobile first rolled out their unsubsidized plans, I had to explain to a few folks that they were NOT saving money, unless they wanted to reuse their 5 year old broken devices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, and this will really cater to the BYOD crowd. I'm just curious how the customers will react when they realize that the prices they see will NOT include the cost of their new iPhone 5. I know when T-Mobile first rolled out their unsubsidized plans, I had to explain to a few folks that they were NOT saving money, unless they wanted to reuse their 5 year old broken devices.

 

But they are saving money. The price of the phone is less then what you would pay full price. Just using iPhone as an example, it's 100+(20X24)=$580 compared to $650. That's a $70 savings. And they can always sell or trade up if they want to and still pay less monthly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for MetroLTE -> TMoLTE, my bet is that NYC gets reconfigured within three months of the deal happening.

 

I will take that bet and raise you an additional six months. See my post in the NYC thread:

 

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/1901-network-visionlte-new-york-city-market/page__st__2560__p__119091#entry119091

 

Furthermore, any MetroPCS CDMA1X carrier channel relocation and PRL reconfiguration has to be coordinated with all MetroPCS roaming partners.

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • Here's the spectrum breakdown by band. There's some 2.5 in there as well. The remaining spectrum is definitely enough to keep running FWA on while finding a buyer, and since the towers aren't conveying with the subs and spectrum there's nothing stopping USCellular from competing with T-Mobile on FWA until Verizon or AT&T decide the spectrum is valuable enough to take off TDS's hands. If they go that route, I wouldn't be surprised if FWA gets rebranded under TDS.
    • Transaction Details and Financial Profile T-Mobile will pay approximately $4.4 billion for the assets being acquired from UScellular in the transaction in a combination of cash and up to $2.0 billion of debt to be assumed by T-Mobile through an exchange offer to be made to certain UScellular debtholders prior to closing. To the extent any debtholders do not participate in the exchange, their bonds will continue as obligations of UScellular and the cash portion of the purchase price will be correspondingly increased. Following the closing of the transaction, UScellular will retain ownership of its other spectrum as well as its towers, with T-Mobile entering into a long-term arrangement to lease space on at least 2,100 additional towers being retained. T-Mobile does not expect the transaction to impact the company’s 2024 guidance or 2024 authorized shareholder return program. T-Mobile expects this transaction will yield approximately $1.0 billion in effective total opex and capex annual run rate cost synergies upon integration, with total cost to achieve the integration currently estimated at between $2.2 billion to $2.6 billion. The company plans to reinvest a portion of synergies toward enhancing consumer choice, quality and competition in the wireless industry. The transaction, which is subject to the satisfaction of customary closing conditions and receipt of certain regulatory approvals, is expected to close in mid-2025.
    • The way I heard it, these were for sites that T-Mobile would not be keeping, and presumably is how they would handle decommissioning the equipment from them.  This would presumably happen because they're already on the tower or on an adjacent tower.  For example, in Keysville, VA, T-Mobile is on a tower directly adjacent to the existing US Cellular-owned tower. https://maps.app.goo.gl/kefNy451QXYFSqi5A T-Mobile at left; at right is the US Cellular-owned tower with both US Cellular and Verizon gear on it. - Trip
    • My gut opinion is they are waiting for technology improvements. C-band is seeing some of those emerge now which will extend its useful range and carrying capacity.  Given it current short range, 24GHz is best for places where people are seated in sizeable numbers, although I would not rule out business pico cells. Of course, Verizon is using mmWave small cells quite well for FWA by placing them outside large apartment buildings that only allow one ISP with outrageous charges. UScellular and some Verizon have been using it to do the job of microwave links to preserve licences (4 needed per county).
    • Looks like T-Mobile is consolidating around 24GHz for mmWave. Curious to know what their plans are for that. 
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...