T-Mobile LTE & Network Discussion

[Nickel]

 

Many of the European operators grossly overpaid for their "3G" spectrum at the height of the tech bubble, circa 2000, and that left them strapped for capital the next several years.

 

I will stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that few other operators besides T-Mobile USA have deployed DC-HSPA+.  In many cases, overseas operators do not have two 5 MHz FDD adjacent spectrum blocks.

 

AJ

1. Yeah, I'm reading the PDF Ryan linked.

 

2. Oh, I thought it was common place over there. I could be wrong but still even if it's only 21.1 that's still "good enough" for most people to be cheap and not spend the extra money on LTE data. Also, remember that I am not arguing this but merely saying that other people will claim this.

[maxsilver]

I will stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that few other operators besides T-Mobile USA have deployed DC-HSPA+.

DC-HSPA+ (HSPA+42) is actually fairly common in major cities outside of the USA:

 

In Canada, Bell and Telus both run DC-HSPA+ networks. Telstra runs one in Australia. SFR runs one in France. All three major carriers in New Zealand offers HSPA+42. 3 and EE in the United Kingdom run DC-HSPA+. Vodafone runs it in a bunch of countries including Ireland, Italy, New Zealand, Spain, ect. And of course, T-Mobile runs one in Germany.

 

As you correctly mentioned above, lots of European providers invested heavily on HSPA+ banded spectrum, and LTE spectrum was being delayed while they (properly) solved the roaming / handset compatibility issues. DC-HSPA+ was a slightly-easier slightly-cheaper upgrade path that gave those operators good incentive to max out the use of their existing spectrum.

[maxsilver]

GSM, for its time, was an ingenious system that unified a fractured mobile landscape in Europe. Now Europe finds itself behind because of the way they regulated their mobile industry over there.

 

For all the warts of our mobile system, we beat Europe hands down in regards to 3GPP LTE adoption. Now would it be nice to have one phone and attach it to any of our mobile networks? Of course it would be nice, but it's not worth blowing up the entire mobile system over. 

 

I think government over-intervention is why they're sinking over there on LTE adoption and we're doing much better.

Europe isn't "behind" so much as they're trying to avoid our mistakes.

 

Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T's LTE all being on separate bands that devices can't properly switch between (until very recently). USA considers this a 'success', because we 'deployed early'.

 

Europe properly sees that as a failure. The major goal of their regulation is to prevent exactly what happened in the USA. LTE intentionally being separately and incompatibly banded is a *bad thing* for *everyone*. It's anti-competitive to lock phones down like that, and it encourages isolated networks that force extra costs onto consumers.

 

A properly run FCC should have pushed operators to do the right thing here. A properly run FCC should banded all 700mhz spectrum so that LTE devices on those bands were entirely cross compatible between any network.

 

- - - -

 

I think it's very much the 'pot calling the kettle black' when we point at Europe's "slow" adoption of LTE. In the United States, we still sell proprietary, archaic, legacy 1x/EVDO devices as modern equipment, and are still *deploying* new EVDO and 1x CDMA service on sites. That's the definition of backwards, even Canada is beating us in this regard, having properly switched over 95%+ of their population to GSM/HSPA+ by now.

 

We can puff up our LTE deployment stats all we want -- but by international standards, USA cell service is still a giant mess of crazy and incompatible bands and services. I would greatly prefer we adopt a more European approach, if it meant providers were forced into modern GSM services and compatible band planning.

[Conan Kudo]

Europe isn't "behind" so much as they're avoid our mistakes.

 

Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T's LTE all being on separate bands that devices can't properly switch between (until very recently). USA considers this a 'success', because we 'deployed early'.

 

Europe properly sees that as a failure. The major goal of their regulation is to prevent exactly what happened in the USA. LTE intentionally being separately and incompatibly banded is a *bad thing* for *everyone*. It's anti-competitive to lock phones down like that, and it encourages isolated networks that force extra costs onto consumers.

 

A properly run FCC should have pushed operators to do the right thing here. A properly run FCC should banded all 700mhz spectrum so that LTE devices on those bands were entirely cross compatible between any network.

 

- - - -

 

I think it's very much the 'pot calling the kettle black' when we point at Europe's "slow" adoption of LTE. In the United States, we still sell proprietary, archaic, legacy 1x/EVDO devices as modern equipment, and are still *deploying* new EVDO and 1x CDMA service on sites. That's the definition of backwards, even Canada is beating us in this regard, having properly switched over 95%+ of their population to GSM/HSPA+ by now.

 

We can puff up our LTE deployment stats all we want -- but by international standards, USA cell service is still a giant mess of crazy and incompatible bands and services. I would greatly prefer we adopt a more European approach, if it meant providers were forced into modern GSM services and compatible band planning.

What people don't understand is that telecommunications is all about scale and interoperability. That's how the original phone system managed to grow throughout the world. Cry about it all you want, but there's a reason that universal service typically demands universal technology and compatibility.

 

Despite the fact that our networks are well-built out, it hasn't been long enough that the dust has settled yet. We still have an opportunity to push interoperability, better spectrum management, and better technology management. A lot of us tend to forget that these companies don't own the spectrum (even though they make it sound like they do). We do. 

 

I consider many telecom companies out there to be very hypocritical. Even at the CCA, where the smaller carriers bemoan the lack of interoperability and stuff like that, they talk out of both sides of their mouths. They want the big carriers to not have that ability, but they want it to screw over their customers. They've even said that they don't want to offer that to their customers.

 

A.J. often accuses me of having a Eurasian view to telecom. And perhaps he's right. But the Eurasian view is that common technology, common frequencies, and common networks are incalculably beneficial to the public. CEPT has done a great job of that in Europe, and even though the spread of that beyond Europe is tinged by some darker undertones in Africa and Asia, I think it still worked out fairly well.

 

Contrary to popular belief, I liked using CDMA2000 when it first arrived. It was superior to FD-TDMA systems like D-AMPS and GSM. But, I switched to UMTS as soon as it arrived, because I felt that it sufficiently incorporated the advantages of CDMA technology with some advancement and interesting capabilities of its own. And of course, it was a global technology being adopted by all regions. I've never made it a secret that I prefer UMTS over CDMA2000. I personally like that operators in Canada, Latin America, and most of Asia have switched from CDMA2000 to UMTS as they've realized the socioeconomical weakness of the CDMA2000 platform. For a company like Sprint, who is deploying multi-mode gear, it's very easy to add UMTS to it and transition over time to UMTS/LTE. T-Mobile is doing the same thing in MetroPCS CDMA/LTE markets, and it's been going along very swimmingly. I think that operators in the US should move to a common UMTS/LTE platform, especially since our spectrum for LTE is so screwed up that we've practically broke the key benefit of everyone using LTE.

 

I've also never made it a secret that I think the FCC needs a swift kick in the pants by the public to force them to fix our spectrum problem. We don't have a spectrum shortage problem. We have a spectrum mismanagement problem. This is because Congress keeps forcing the FCC to auction spectrum when it isn't ready, and the FCC keeps taking shortcuts to auction spectrum, leaving it fragmented and useless. Thankfully, the FCC doesn't make totally insane decisions (like making 600MHz spectrum TDD). However, the FCC's work with 700MHz, S band, PCS H, L band, etc. prove to me that we, as the public, need to force the FCC to fix this -- once the government is back online.

[WiWavelength]

And here is confirmation -- in The Wall Street Journal, no less -- that T-Mobile will continue to let its GSM only network areas rot, while Sprint extends LTE to its entire network...

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/10/11/t-mobile-lte-target-smaller-than-competitors/

 

 

AJ

[vryan44]

T-Mobile is expanding their faster networks into some edge only markets. For example, Saginaw, MI, (previously an edge-only market) now has 3g green and 4g purple showing up on sensory.

 

With a metropolitan population of just under 200,000, I'm glad t-mobile decided not to ignore this market any longer.

[Nickel]

And here is confirmation -- in The Wall Street Journal, no less -- that T-Mobile will continue to let its GSM only network areas rot, while Sprint extends LTE to its entire network...

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/10/11/t-mobile-lte-target-smaller-than-competitors/

 

AJ

But nobody cares because T-Mobile's is "fast" and Sprint is "behind schedule" Sigh.

[Moropo]

Is T-Mobile's goal to move all HSPA to PCS and keep AWS all for LTE?

[iansltx]

 

Many of the European operators grossly overpaid for their "3G" spectrum at the height of the tech bubble, circa 2000, and that left them strapped for capital the next several years.

 

I will stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that few other operators besides T-Mobile USA have deployed DC-HSPA+.  In many cases, overseas operators do not have two 5 MHz FDD adjacent spectrum blocks.

 

AJ

 

Not Europe, but Telstra beat T-Mobile to the DC-H+ punch by a year or two. DC-H+ isn't 100% deployed in the EU, but there are plenty of companies that do it.

[iansltx]

Is T-Mobile's goal to move all HSPA to PCS and keep AWS all for LTE?

 

Yes. They want 20x20 in as many places as they can get it, and if that means killing H+ in AWS then they'll do it, from what I'm hearing.

[iansltx]

And here is confirmation -- in The Wall Street Journal, no less -- that T-Mobile will continue to let its GSM only network areas rot, while Sprint extends LTE to its entire network...

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/10/11/t-mobile-lte-target-smaller-than-competitors/

 

 

AJ

 

And this is why, mark my words, T-Mobile and Sprint won't be apart for more than another three years. T-Mobile's rural strategy is merging with another company that has a rural strategy. Leaving 28% of the population of the US on 2G doesn't work.

[Nickel]

Yes. They want 20x20 in as many places as they can get it, and if that means killing H+ in AWS then they'll do it, from what I'm hearing.

I wasn't aware that they had that much AWS, wow.

[iansltx]

I wasn't aware that they had that much AWS, wow.

 

Thanks to MetroPCS, they do in a number of markets. In others, they'll be limited to 10x10 unless they can swap with other carriers to get contiguous blocks. But the swaps they did with Verizon awhile back got them contiguous 20x20 in some areas, and MetroPCS just fueled that fire.

[Fraydog]

I like this discussion. I do see some positive things out of the Eurasian discussion. I believe interoperability is a great thing. Interoperability is how the Bell System became the best phone system in the world. A lot of people seem to forget that.

 

That said, I don't envy their increased regulation and not having a common policy on auctions so the entire continent can clear up 800 spectrum at once. The EU messes up by over-regulating in my point of view. I differ from AJ's view in that I don't point the finger at the GSMA or 3GPP, bodies where the US carriers have a more increasing role as it is anyway. I point that finger at the European Commission.

[Moropo]

Yes. They want 20x20 in as many places as they can get it, and if that means killing H+ in AWS then they'll do it, from what I'm hearing.

Thanks. Around two weeks ago I switched one of my Sprint lines (of 5) to test-drive T-Mobile's network and at that time they had 5mhz in Miami. However, a few days ago I checked again and Miami is now 10mhz. Is 20mhz (10x10mhz) the maximum that T-Mobile has in AWS in Miami?

[jamesinclair]

People were using cell phones in the 1960s?!  :jester:

 

Of course Im referring to the per minute rates. In the era of VOIP services, I dont understand how $2.50 a minute is still a thing. I'm a smart consumer, I use skype and such. That being said, if I need to receive calls at my standard number, Id like the option of doing that at a reasonable rate.

 

 

Yeah, 128 kbps is huge.  A huge waste of time.  If you like that, then you like CDMA1X.  So, stop complaining.

 

AJ

 

If 128 is a huge waste of time, then apparently so is Sprints 3G network.

 

Yes, thats a joke. A joke backed by speedtests, but a joke.

 

On a serious note, when I travel internationally, I dont want to stream netflix or youtube. Maybe it's just me, but if Im abroad, I like actually doing things, rather than watching bad movies on a 4 inch screen.

 

I want to use my map, I want to check emails, I want to confirm train times and I want to send text messages. 128kbps is more than enough for that. Sure, Id be staring at loading screens...but who cares?  I stare at loading screens when Im in the central valley market or in Manhattan.

 

Unlimited international text messages sounds incredibly convenient, rather than relying on an internet text provider and having to find a hotspot.

 

Sprint needs to look at this announcement and start mimicking it. Isnt that what competition is about? I think it would add great value to the Sprint brand, rather than being the company that people who travel internationally skip over.

 

If anything, start with north america. Free texts in Canada, Mexico and the Carribean. Hell, cap it at 100 free texts, its a start. Voice rates close to .25 than $2.50.

 

 

No, let's just get an unlocked SIM plan for the countries we travel to. I can be in the UK for a month, get an EE SIM for £33 and have 3GB of LTE data with speeds similar to what AT&T/Verizon have here. Sounds better than unusable EDGE and per minute voice charges.

 

Of course people don't seem to realize this.

 

Why not both? If im in Mexico for 4 days, I dont care about 3GB of LTE data. I care about text messages and email.

 

But yeah, if I was going for a month, I would want a local SIM.

[compuwizz]

You actually can send/receive texts for free to/from and inside Canada with Sprint. It just comes out of your plan bucket. So if you have unlimited texts, you have unlimited roaming texts in Canada. 

 

However thats not so in Mexico. Its a high rate per message there.

[Conan Kudo]

I like this discussion. I do see some positive things out of the Eurasian discussion. I believe interoperability is a great thing. Interoperability is how the Bell System became the best phone system in the world. A lot of people seem to forget that.

 

That said, I don't envy their increased regulation and not having a common policy on auctions so the entire continent can clear up 800 spectrum at once. The EU messes up by over-regulating in my point of view. I differ from AJ's view in that I don't point the finger at the GSMA or 3GPP, bodies where the US carriers have a more increasing role as it is anyway. I point that finger at the European Commission.

That is definitely true. I'm glad you brought up the Bell System. For all of its faults, it was a good thing from a technological perspective. The Bell System eventually grew, incorporated features from rival systems, and became the gold standard for a telephone system. The Bell System did it by incorporating the feedback from those in various markets it expanded into (Mexico, Japan, Europe, etc.). That made it a better system, overall. The 3GPP does the same thing today with UMTS and LTE.

 

As for spectrum release issues in Europe, the EC is working on streamlining the process this time around with the APT700 subset that will be implemented for its second digital dividend spectrum release in about a year. The EC messed up this time with the CEPT800 plan because they allowed the individual countries to have their own timetables on digital TV conversion.

 

To be fair, part of the problem was the differing TV standards used throughout the region covered by CEPT. Not all of them used PAL (which tended to move toward lower frequency systems anyway). Several used SECAM instead. The countries also argued for years about which system to move to until they EU put its foot down and told them which system to use. These problems won't come up again this time around, so I think it'll move along much more smoothly.

[JohnHovah]

I had to go through the last 6 pages of comments just to make sure what I am going to say has not already been put out there.  My initial thought was that this free international data sounded astounding (not that many T-Mob subs are doing too much international traveling as a value brand, which is beside the point) and then I read the fine print.

 

Simple Choice International Service: Additional charges apply in excluded destinations; see here for included destinations (subject to change at T-Mobile’s discretion). Qualifying postpaid Simple Choice plan and capable device required. Taxes additional; usage taxed in some countries. Voice and text features for direct communications between 2 people.Communications with premium-rate (e.g., 900, entertainment, high-rate helpline) numbers not included and may incur additional charges. Calls to mobile devices and landlines are $.20/min; texts are $.20 each (no charge for Wi-Fi calls or texts to US). Coverage not available in some areas; we are not responsible for the performance of our roaming partners’ networks. Standard speeds approx. 128 Kbps. No tethering. Not for extended international use; you must reside in the U.S. and primary usage must occur on our U.S. network. Device must register on our U.S. network before international use. Service may be terminated or restricted for excessive roaming or misuse.

 

Sure, 128kbps will work in most instances (as a few have pointed out here) for those who need basic data access for mapping, emails and other non-data intensive applications.  God forbid you forget to tell your friends or family to not call you or text you, because you will be racking up those 20 cent charges pretty damn fast.  A fact most are glossing over.  Free EDGE internationally is great but there are still some serious limitations when it comes to using your phone as a phone.  Hell if you pissed off a former lover who knows that you are in another country via facebook or social media stalking, they might just text you to spite you.  Not that the latter case is widespread, but you would still need to either turn off your device (which defeats the purpose of having data available to your phone) in any situation just in case you do start getting texts.  I know some serial textaholics, and if every dumb "lol" or similar response is racking up 20 cents, I'm sure anyone (cost conscious value customer on t-mobile) might be a little upset.

 

 

As to T-Mobile vs. Sprint Network comparison which seems to be a hot button issue in this thread, yes, t-mobile has been able to seemingly move faster toward deploying LTE than Sprint because of the existing backhaul already being fiber.  This does not take into account the sites that are not getting upgrades and are stuck on EDGE 2G.  

 

The bottom line is even with all of those upgrades, their network coverage size still pales in comparison to that of Sprint's Pre/Post NV footprint.

 

I am not necessarily advocating Sprint over T-Mobile in any regard, people should choose the carrier that provides the best coverage/value in the areas they live/work/frequent; If that is T-Mobile then good on them, if not there are always other options  

[richy]

 Hell if you pissed off a former lover who knows that you are in another country via facebook or social media stalking, they might just text you to spite you.  

 

<snip>

 

I am not necessarily advocating Sprint over T-Mobile in any regard, people should choose the carrier that provides the best coverage/value in the areas they live/work/frequent; If that is T-Mobile then good on them, if not there are always other options  

 

Love the post. Re inbound calls from abroad, there are some great apps which can run white and black lists for you on calls and reject as you desire. I think android 4.3 has started to integrate more advanced blocking features as well. 

 

Completely agree with your last statement. For me it's tmo for now until NV finally gets done which should change the game a lot. Sprint have a spectrum advantage in general, they have 800MHz spectrum and huge amounts of 2500\2600MHz (whereas tmo has less spectrum and no sub 1k yet, although they frequently have more 'mid dial'), but of course this is pre 600MHz auction which either carrier could spend big in. It's always a roll of the dice but luckily for the vast majority of us things seem to be improving no matter what your carrier is. 

[Bob Newhart]

With this T-mobile plan, it isn't clear if it free for incoming calls. It is free for all sms.

[WiWavelength]

Re inbound calls from abroad, there are some great apps which can run white and black lists for you on calls and reject as you desire. I think android 4.3 has started to integrate more advanced blocking features as well. 

 

Well, I suggest that anyone potentially affected research these apps before using them.

 

If a sub roaming abroad does not answer an incoming call, the call can get forwarded back to the US for voicemail.  In such case, the sub can still be on the hook for international long distance and roaming airtime, as the call has been forwarded from the US to the foreign operator and then back to the US.

 

AJ

[maxsilver]

Sure, 128kbps will work in most instances (as a few have pointed out here) for those who need basic data access for mapping, emails and other non-data intensive applications.  God forbid you forget to tell your friends or family to not call you or text you, because you will be racking up those 20 cent charges pretty damn fast.  A fact most are glossing over.  Free EDGE internationally is great but there are still some serious limitations when it comes to using your phone as a phone.  Hell if you pissed off a former lover who knows that you are in another country via facebook or social media stalking, they might just text you to spite you.  Not that the latter case is widespread, but you would still need to either turn off your device (which defeats the purpose of having data available to your phone) in any situation just in case you do start getting texts.  I know some serial textaholics, and if every dumb "lol" or similar response is racking up 20 cents, I'm sure anyone (cost conscious value customer on t-mobile) might be a little upset.

 

 

We will skip the fact that you could just not answer your phone when traveling, and thus, rack up zero dollars of minute charges.

 

Did you even read about the T-mobile announcement? Despite what you wrote above, international texting is free. Feel free to piss off your lovers, all their international texts are free, youll be just fine.

 

No one is skipping over the 20c / min charge. It's an astounding value! Compare it to Sprint, which charges 59c in Canada or $1.49 a minute in the United Kingdom. And Sprint doesn't give you any free data or texts. (T-Mobile does)

 

Theres pleanty of real problems with T-Mobile, you dont need to invent fake problems to gripe about. No matter how you cut it, the T-Mobile international announcement is a great deal, and represents the lowest postpaid international roaming pricing in the country.

[richy]

Well, I suggest that anyone potentially affected research these apps before using them.

 

If a sub roaming abroad does not answer an incoming call, the call can get forwarded back to the US for voicemail.  In such case, the sub can still be on the hook for international long distance and roaming airtime, as the call has been forwarded from the US to the foreign operator and then back to the US.

 

AJ

 

I checked and android 4.3 also has an auto block for sure under call settings > call rejection. If no connection was made it would be rerouted at the egress switch to vm. The only completed call would be to vm within the states although I wouldn't put it past any cellco to charge you for it. When custard services is open I will give them a call and see what they say. 

 

It's great to see an interesting product, no matter who it is from. This walks the balance between being just useful enough not to buy a foreign sim and just useless enough to make you say sod it and cough up a few bucks for calls and some 4g. Seems to be nicely played on their part. Any carrier making a move like this makes it interesting for everyone, look at the whole update your phone whenever thing, now every carrier is at it one way or another. You can bet every carrier is taking a look at this if they haven't already. They probably won't all adopt it, at&t would be the most likely given GSM, but it will at least prompt them to run a cost benefit analysis on it. Now if only I could pay tmo to let me roam on at&t when I can't get a tmo signal lol.  

[Jaggrey]

There's always the free wifi calling that they already have too. I could see travelling internationally and using my phone in the evenings on wifi, but this new option is pretty convenient. Like has already been mentioned here, I wish they'd enable domestic roaming on AT&T!!