T-Mobile LTE & Network Discussion

[richy]

I just spent the last day reading through all 82 pages of this topic. The only thing I really have to add is about roaming. One of the reasons I am on Sprint and not T-Mobile is because of the roaming agreements they have. I'm confident I can make or receive a call/text pretty much anywhere a cell phone can even be used. I don't venture out into the sticks often, but when I do it's reassuring I can make a call to a friend or a tow truck for example, if I needed help. I don't need high speed data in the middle of nowhere, but I do need my phone to function as a phone. Until T-Mobile fixes that, I will never consider them as my primary wireless service provider.

iirc tmo basically freddie krugered most of the areas where you roamed previously. The whol eof east Maui has no tmo service, absolutely no chance of getting any as there is a 10000ft volcano in the way, but you don't roam on at&t anymore. You used to be able to, but not anymore. Vzw and at&t have service there and sprint roams on vzw. Tmo you are left to whistle. 

 

I had to chuckle today, theres actually a second small area of tmo lte on island, speeds are 3mbps down, 6.5 mbps up. So not overloaded then Back on the other side its 17mbps down, 12 up. Can't wait for NV to get rolling here, darn permits! 

[jamesinclair]

Yep. I have run into crews at two sites so far. In Progress.

 

Robert via Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

Can you link to your AT&T LtE deployment progress map?

[S4GRU]

Can you link to your AT&T LtE deployment progress map?

I haven't started one yet. And it would just be Rapid City.

 

Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

 

[digiblur]

That is true, I cannot think of a single time that I've been without the ability to make a phone call or send a text message with Sprint. When I had TMobile, I would be either stuck with no service or "Emergency Only" once I got within 3 miles of my house.

Sounds like the same thing with me. Their coverage is a huge joke. I thought about getting a Tmobile SIM to play with but with them only having coverage in about 25% of the places in the city that I go to it wouldn't be worth it.

[S4GRU]

Sounds like the same thing with me. Their coverage is a huge joke. I thought about getting a Tmobile SIM to play with but with them only having coverage in about 25% of the places in the city that I go to it wouldn't be worth it.

It's amazing how variable their coverage is. In Baton Rouge, they have very sparse coverage. In Albuquerque, they are spaced OK for outdoor coverage, but indoor coverage is bad more than 1/2 mile from a site. In Santa Fe, there were places I couldn't even use my phone outdoors in major commercial areas.

 

However, in Denver, I never lost Tmo signal ever. I even kept LTE in most places. So some places, Tmo does their thing right. But in most places I go...no bueno.

 

Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

[Paynefanbro]

NYC is covered insanely well by T-Mobile. However, Sprint has been right on their tail with site spacing.

 

In the city itself it is probably T-Mobile, Sprint, Verizon, AT&T. In the metropolitan area (Long Island, a bit of Upstate New York and parts of New Jersey and Connecticut) it goes, Sprint, Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile.

[digiblur]

It's amazing how variable their coverage is. In Baton Rouge, they have very sparse coverage. In Albuquerque, they are spaced OK for outdoor coverage, but indoor coverage is bad more than 1/2 mile from a site. In Santa Fe, there were places I couldn't even use my phone outdoors in major commercial areas.

 

However, in Denver, I never lost Tmo signal ever. I even kept LTE in most places. So some places, Tmo does their thing right. But in most places I go...no bueno.

 

Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

 

After toying with a friend of mine's TMobile phone he had for a day or two, I learned quickly that you only have coverage in the darkest magenta layer on the map.  Ignore all the others.  They are missing some huge areas of coverage even on the interstate system in this state.  That would explain why I've never seen a single handset of TMobile in the wild here unless I go to a store which I'm shocked they have 3 of them here.

[S4GRU]

After toying with a friend of mine's TMobile phone he had for a day or two, I learned quickly that you only have coverage in the darkest magenta layer on the map. Ignore all the others. They are missing some huge areas of coverage even on the interstate system in this state. That would explain why I've never seen a single handset of TMobile in the wild here unless I go to a store which I'm shocked they have 3 of them here.

Yeah, on the old Tmo maps, I would only get service with their two darkest green colors. The two lighter colors were completely zero service. At least with Tmo, I know that my service ends with the darker color. I wish Sprint's LTE maps at least had color strata, so I know where their service actually ends.

 

Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

[digiblur]

Yeah, on the old Tmo maps, I would only get service with their two darkest green colors. The two lighter colors were completely zero service. At least with Tmo, I know that my service ends with the darker color. I wish Sprint's LTE maps at least had color strata, so I know where their service actually ends.

 

Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

They still have those maps on the business side of their site.

 

Sprint maps do have the different colors if you zoom in enough but with the miscalculation it doesn't work well. I usually use the voice maps, subtract a bit, and see if the site is complete on the S4GRU maps to get the real picture.

[WiWavelength]

They still have those maps on the business side of their site.

 

Sprint maps do have the different colors if you zoom in enough but with the miscalculation it doesn't work well. I usually use the voice maps, subtract a bit, and see if the site is complete on the S4GRU maps to get the real picture.

 

The other problem with the T-Mobile coverage maps is that they do not readily distinguish LTE from the rest of the "4G" footprint.  That obfuscation buys T-Mobile time to deploy LTE.  Of course, T-Mobile supporters will say that it is justified because HSPA+ is also "4G."  But I disagree, as that, too, was obfuscation.

 

AJ

[Conan Kudo]

The other problem with the T-Mobile coverage maps is that they do not readily distinguish LTE from the rest of the "4G" footprint.  That obfuscation buys T-Mobile time to deploy LTE.  Of course, T-Mobile supporters will say that it is justified because HSPA+ is also "4G."  But I disagree, as that, too, was obfuscation.

 

AJ

It doesn't matter, A.J.

 

Yeah, T-Mobile doesn't show different colors for LTE and HSPA+, but it will still tell you what technology you've got when drop a pin on a location. Certainly, it isn't as clear as Sprint's map, which uses different colors for CDMA, WiMAX, and LTE. But the information is still there.

 

And as for the "4G" comment, don't forget that Sprint played that game, too. WiMAX is still called a 4G technology despite being classified as a 3G technology by the ITU at least a year before Sprint deployed WiMAX with Clearwire.

 

If you want to get technical, you know damn well that you can't even call EDGE "2G" or "2.5G" or whatever crazy moniker. It's classified as 3G, and that has never been revoked. But of course, you don't care about that, because aside from a brief stint by Cingular, very few called it 3G in order to be able to sell UMTS to consumers far more easily.

 

Don't get snippy over the "4G" mark. And who cares? To most people, 4G is 4G is 4G. From a performance perspective, LTE, HSPA+, and WiMAX are all fairly similar. Peak numbers are nice to crow about, but it doesn't matter beyond the first few months of a network deployment.

[WiWavelength]

Yeah, T-Mobile doesn't show different colors for LTE and HSPA+, but it will still tell you what technology you've got when drop a pin on a location. 

 

Yeah, I know.  So, I need to drop a few thousand pins to find out.  As Al Pacino says in "The Insider," "Give me ******* break."

 

AJ

[Conan Kudo]

Yeah, I know.  So, I need to drop a few thousand pins to find out.  As Al Pacino says in "The Insider," "Give me ******* break."

 

AJ

I'll take signal gradients over technology gradients any day.

[bruce]

NYC is covered insanely well by T-Mobile. However, Sprint has been right on their tail with site spacing.

 

In the city itself it is probably T-Mobile, Sprint, Verizon, AT&T. In the metropolitan area (Long Island, a bit of Upstate New York and parts of New Jersey and Connecticut) it goes, Sprint, Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile.

I would love to believe this but I currently have verizon and tried sprint for a week and a half this past month. I am in the Long Island area and had many dropped calls, something that I have never experienced with Verizon. A lot of times the phone went to 1x and roaming when inside a house. I understand that upgrades are happening, but its a very slow process, at least that is what I have learned from asking around.

Not to sound like a troll (because I do want sprint to get better) why does it take so long to change over equipment, get from 3g to 4g accepted? There is a site that has been 3g accepted for a year and people say its permit issue or backhaul issue, thats why its not lte accepted yet. But that is not true because every other carrier is on that same roof and they all have lte with no backhaul issue. 

Another thing is I have a friend who I see every week. He is in the steel business and he builds platforms for cell sites. Every week he tells me he put up a new platform for verizon. He must have put in at least 3 platforms a month for the past year, all for verizon. Why does verizon not seem to have the same issues as sprint (permits, equipment, wire, backhaul)

[WiWavelength]

I'll take signal gradients over technology gradients any day.

 

Then, you need technology gradients.  Signal gradients for W-CDMA and LTE are not one and the same.

 

Face it, Neal, you are just giving T-Mobile a free pass here.  You have a clear cut T-Mobile bias.  It shows in your tweets.  More disturbingly, it shows in your ExtremeTech articles.

 

AJ

[centermedic]

iirc tmo basically freddie krugered most of the areas where you roamed previously. The whol eof east Maui has no tmo service, absolutely no chance of getting any as there is a 10000ft volcano in the way, but you don't roam on at&t anymore. You used to be able to, but not anymore. Vzw and at&t have service there and sprint roams on vzw. Tmo you are left to whistle. 

 

I had to chuckle today, theres actually a second small area of tmo lte on island, speeds are 3mbps down, 6.5 mbps up. So not overloaded then Back on the other side its 17mbps down, 12 up. Can't wait for NV to get rolling here, darn permits! 

In defense of T-Mo...they had a roaming agreement with Cingular. After the AT&T/Cingular merger the new AT$T decided to let those roaming agreements expire. T-Mo had to decide if they were going to build out, negotiate with AT&T at a higher price or stand pat. Their business decision was to stand pat.

[reedacus25]

Sounds like the same thing with me. Their coverage is a huge joke. I thought about getting a Tmobile SIM to play with but with them only having coverage in about 25% of the places in the city that I go to it wouldn't be worth it.

 

The few times I have been in downtown Baton Rouge, it was fine outdoors but the few buildings I went in near I110 the RF died. But down towards campus the only issues I've had were in the bars of Tigerland. Perkins, Highland, Nicholson, Burbank, Brightside/Lee/College, Bluebonnet, Siegen that area have all worked fine for me. Tiger Stadium had capacity issues, but thats because the site serving Tiger Stadium wasn't broadcasting PCS HSPA and AWS LTE by the A&M game for whatever reason....

 

Spent most of my time this summer on the Northshore in Covington and Mandeville and only had problems out on the outskirts of Folsom. Granted ATT was struggling as well. If they could get the stretch from Hammond to Slidell to HSPA/LTE like it is from Hammond to Baton Rouge, I would be very happy. Overall very happy with T-Mobile for the most part in the south Louisiana area. I55 north of Hammond needs a lot of work, but thats a very different story and I have my Freedompop Hotspot on EvDO for the Hammond to Brookhaven, MS stretch.

 

I can't speak for Sprint in the area since I haven't used their network aside from the Freedompop I grabbed this summer since Virgin Mobile in 2004, but I know plenty of CSpire customers who bemoan their roaming service in Baton Rouge. And of course they are roughly staying in the same college areas as I do in Baton Rouge. Not trying to have a T-Mobile bias, just giving my experience.

 

I think T-Mobile would have had more reason to densify its network if they had been able to run 2 HSPA carriers from the onset and been able to sell a really good service their. That single HSPA carrier really hurt them there.

[richy]

In defense of T-Mo...they had a roaming agreement with Cingular. After the AT&T/Cingular merger the new AT$T decided to let those roaming agreements expire. T-Mo had to decide if they were going to build out, negotiate with AT&T at a higher price or stand pat. Their business decision was to stand pat.

 

I thought they got fair \  competitive terms as part of their break clause in the at&t deal? I can't wait for them to get so low dial spectrum but frankly sprint is going to beat them to that so in a year or two I will be on sprint. I don't think I will be the only one in that position either. Don't get me wrong, I like a lot about tmobile, but my kids tidy their rooms faster than tmo are rolling out here.  

[WiWavelength]

In defense of T-Mo...they had a roaming agreement with Cingular. After the AT&T/Cingular merger the new AT$T decided to let those roaming agreements expire. T-Mo had to decide if they were going to build out, negotiate with AT&T at a higher price or stand pat. Their business decision was to stand pat.

 

Based on your location, I have to assume that you are speaking from experience in the Carolinas.  But do not generalize from that, as the Carolinas were basically a black hole for T-Mobile -- it had no native footprint.

 

To help smooth approval of the Cingular-AT&TWS acquisition, AT&TWS (SunCom) in the Carolinas was divested to T-Mobile.  That finally gave T-Mobile a native network in Carolinas; prior to that, T-Mobile had no choice but to roam on Cingular or AT&TWS.

 

Elsewhere in the country, roaming on Cingular or AT&TWS was not common.  And that still holds true today.  When VZW and Sprint can come to terms on a national roaming agreement but AT&T and T-Mobile cannot, well, that is a failing of the latter pair.  Plus, T-Mobile data roaming allotments are a pittance.

 

Like it or not, T-Mobile is just not very roaming friendly.  In so many cases, you have T-Mobile, or you have nothing.  So, you really have to like T-Mobile to put up with that.

 

AJ

[Paynefanbro]

I would love to believe this but I currently have verizon and tried sprint for a week and a half this past month. I am in the Long Island area and had many dropped calls, something that I have never experienced with Verizon. A lot of times the phone went to 1x and roaming when inside a house. I understand that upgrades are happening, but its a very slow process, at least that is what I have learned from asking around.Not to sound like a troll (because I do want sprint to get better) why does it take so long to change over equipment, get from 3g to 4g accepted? There is a site that has been 3g accepted for a year and people say its permit issue or backhaul issue, thats why its not lte accepted yet. But that is not true because every other carrier is on that same roof and they all have lte with no backhaul issue. Another thing is I have a friend who I see every week. He is in the steel business and he builds platforms for cell sites. Every week he tells me he put up a new platform for verizon. He must have put in at least 3 platforms a month for the past year, all for verizon. Why does verizon not seem to have the same issues as sprint (permits, equipment, wire, backhaul)

Verizon and AT&T are their own backhaul providers. T-Mobile had enhanced backhaul for a few years now, so that comparison is definitely not fair. In my testing, Sprint maintained at least 3 bars while travelling throughout Long Island. My mother's phone of Verizon dropped to 1 bar several times. Ultimately your signal inside your home is variable to different things including distance from the cell tower and where your nearest tower is. You should know upgrades are moving as fast as they can and ultimately those fast speeds are left to backhaul and whether the ISP can get it to the site in a timely matter, which it hasn't done as of yet.

 

We all wish it'd be going faster but for a project of this size, it doesn't go much faster than this. In a few years when those other 3 carriers find themselves having to upgrade their network, they'll see how hard it is to redo their whole network.

[bruce]

Verizon and AT&T are their own backhaul providers. T-Mobile had enhanced backhaul for a few years now, so that comparison is definitely not fair. In my testing, Sprint maintained at least 3 bats while travelling throughout Long Island. My mother's phone of Verizon dropped to 1 bar several times. Ultimately your signal inside your home is variable to different things including distance from the cell tower and where your nearest tower is. You should know upgrades are moving as fast as they can and ultimately those fast speeds are left to backhaul and whether the ISP can get it to the site in a timely matter, which it hasn't done as of yet.

 

We all wish it'd be going faster but for a project of this size, it doesn't go Mich faster than this. In a few years when those other 3 carriers find themselves having to upgrade their network, they'll sew how hard it is to redo their whole network.

I hope you are right about that. 

I have not seen any plans of sprint expanding coverage to the size that verizon has...will this likely happen?

Also, the question about the ability of verizon to build new sites with the new platforms in a matter of a week has still yet to be answered. Verizon also puts generators on every new build, does sprint do that?

[bruce]

and bryce, thank you for taking the time to reply to my question, I really appreciate it

[Paynefanbro]

I hope you are right about that. I have not seen any plans of sprint expanding coverage to the size that verizon has...will this likely happen?Also, the question about the ability of verizon to build new sites with the new platforms in a matter of a week has still yet to be answered. Verizon also puts generators on every new build, does sprint do that?

Those Verizon sites are likely new AWS sites. Those sites are getting done at the same pace as the Spark sites are on Sprint. Spark has been moving much faster than the initial LTE deployment on PCS because they have high speed backhaul already.

[centermedic]

Based on your location, I have to assume that you are speaking from experience in the Carolinas.  But do not generalize from that, as the Carolinas were basically a black hole for T-Mobile -- it had no native footprint.

 

To help smooth approval of the Cingular-AT&TWS acquisition, AT&TWS (SunCom) in the Carolinas was divested to T-Mobile.  That finally gave T-Mobile a native network in Carolinas; prior to that, T-Mobile had no choice but to roam on Cingular or AT&TWS.

 

Elsewhere in the country, roaming on Cingular or AT&TWS was not common.  And that still holds true today.  When VZW and Sprint can come to terms on a national roaming agreement but AT&T and T-Mobile cannot, well, that is a failing of the latter pair.  Plus, T-Mobile data roaming allotments are a pittance.

 

Like it or not, T-Mobile is just not very roaming friendly.  In so many cases, you have T-Mobile, or you have nothing.  So, you really have to like T-Mobile to put up with that.

 

AJ

Actually I'm a born and raised New Yorker! My statement was based on the fact that T-Mo had A roaming agreement with Cingular. Now where they could roam I have no idea. I also know that AT&T was not interested in continuing those roaming agreements.

[WiWavelength]

Actually I'm a born and raised New Yorker! My statement was based on the fact that T-Mo had A roaming agreement with Cingular. Now where they could roam I have no idea. I also know that AT&T was not interested in continuing those roaming agreements.

 

Well, New York was another special case.  Prior to the AT&TWS merger, Cingular had no native presence in the New York metro.  T-Mobile had the same problem in California.  It was really quite embarrassing for national operators Cingular and T-Mobile to be absent from New York, Los Angeles, San Diego, and/or San Francisco.

 

So, they struck a network sharing agreement.  In essence, Cingular got to use the T-Mobile network and sell service in New York, while T-Mobile got to do likewise in California.  I suspect that is your recollection.  Then, the network sharing agreement was terminated as part of the Cingular-AT&TWS merger -- with T-Mobile buying the somewhat redundant Cingular network in California.

 

AJ