T-Mobile LTE & Network Discussion V2

[Arysyn]

Tmobile will bolt on 700a onto L1900 GMO sites

 

http://www.t4gru.com/index.php?/topic/94-New-York-City-Market-Deployment/page__view__findpost__p__752

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

I just went to read that, and I'm a little confused.

 

What is the difference between bolt on and full build?

 

I'm asking here as I don't really want to join T4GRU, since I won't be posting there.

[tybo31316]

I just went to read that, and I'm a little confused.

 

What is the difference between bolt on and full build?

 

I'm asking here as I don't really want to join T4GRU, since I won't be posting there.

It means that T-Mobile will be adding LTE 700 to their LTE 1900 GMO/Rural builds. In which many speculated that T-Mobile wouldn't do.

[lou99/maximus1987]

It means that T-Mobile will be adding LTE 700 to their LTE 1900 GMO/Rural builds. In which many speculated that T-Mobile wouldn't do.

According to that post, milan said GMO lte sites won't be upgraded to full build till jan 2017 at the earliest

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lilotimz]

It means that T-Mobile will be adding LTE 700 to their LTE 1900 GMO/Rural builds. In which many speculated that T-Mobile wouldn't do.

It's limited addition to full build where's it economic to. The vast majority of GMO lte sites will not be touched.

 

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 5

[lou99/maximus1987]

It's limited addition to full build where's it economic to. The vast majority of GMO lte sites will not be touched.

 

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 5

Ever?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lilotimz]

Ever?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Sprint and T-mobile has better things and much bigger things to focus on  for the rest of this year and next. 

 

Typically GMO sites are lowest priority and the least important sites. If they were impotant in any metric they would've got the full build setup. 

[Arysyn]

I apologize for my questioning certain things, as I'm still learning.

 

What is GMO?

[lou99/maximus1987]

I apologize for my questioning certain things, as I'm still learning.

 

What is GMO?

Ground mount option. Search this site for an article that Robert wrote about GMO sites.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[S4GRU]

GMO Article: http://s4gru.com/index.php?/blog/1/entry-340-sprint-deploys-special-ground-mount-option-network-vision-sites-in-some-low-capacity-and-high-engineering-locations/

 

Using Moto X² on Tapatalk

[lou99/maximus1987]

Interestingly, nTelos executives said T-Mobile (NYSE:TMUS) is building out LTE in nTelos' footprint, potentially setting up a battle between the two carriers. But nTelos executives said T-Mobile's efforts haven't been significant, nor have they seen T-Mobile increasing its sales and marketing efforts in the area.

 

 

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/ntelos-adds-8000-subs-q1-migrates-50000-subs-sprints-network/2015-05-01

[EvanA]

Interestingly, nTelos executives said T-Mobile (NYSE:TMUS) is building out LTE in nTelos' footprint, potentially setting up a battle between the two carriers. But nTelos executives said T-Mobile's efforts haven't been significant, nor have they seen T-Mobile increasing its sales and marketing efforts in the area.

 

 

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/ntelos-adds-8000-subs-q1-migrates-50000-subs-sprints-network/2015-05-01

You're late

 

http://www.s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/6950-T-mobile-LTE-&-Network-Discussion-V2&do=findComment&comment=416711

[lou99/maximus1987]

Modification to Chicago aws hspa shutdown and date for LA's shutdown.

 

http://www.t4gru.com/index.php?/topic/49-aws-hspa-shutdown-and-resulting-implications/?p=846

 

Up to now, we have knowledge of following being shutdown this year:

 

Indianapolis

Louisville, KY

Chicago

LA

[Arysyn]

Again, as I don't want to sign up on T4GRU, I'll respond to what I read on that link here instead. Although, thank you lou99 for posting it.

 

I think T-Mobile is beginning to realize their limitations, especially as I've read on TMONews yesterday (a site I personally do not like, but read anyways, as it still is the best source for T-Mobile news currently, though I try to avoid the bias as much as I can, despite it being difficult and upsetting when unavoidable)  the article about Cincinnati. Many people there, even die hard TMo fans, were complaining about the minimal speed improvements made there by T-Mobile recently. Some of the speed numbers were very unimpressive and resemblant to the Chicago market's speeds, at least those I've experienced around here. I've said before they were fast enough/good enough with MetroPCS, but certainly not the kind T-Mobile and their fans often tout about when speaking generally about their network, despite when it comes to specifics, they become more conservative, such as in the Cincinnati article.

 

The big issue is the lack of 700mhz in certain markets, which makes me think T-Mobile secretly got desperate enough to but from Verizon. I read an article on some website dated from a few years ago that T-Mobile at that time had no interest in purchasing the 700mhz from Verizon. Yet, they went ahead and bought it, despite only covering certain portions of their network. Why? I think it would have been better to save that money and had more purchasing power in the AWS auction, so they could enhance their current network with it, rather than having to do more work getting a totally new spectrum band onto the small areas where they now have it, leaving behind other areas of their network totally void of that band, giving a huge difference in network quality between those markets with 700mhz and those without it. Chicago being one of them, and had T-Mobile the extra cash available, they could have bought more AWS spectrum throughout their network, rather than satisfying just a portion of it with a much enhanced network other markets are now without completely.

 

Metropcs could not reach a signal through a simple plate of glass window, where I sit feet away from, hardly deep building penetration necessary. Yet Sprint got through deep concrete walls at Medieval Times. Shows Sprint as being the Data Stronger Network.

[travismheim]

Just because 700 isn't available to them nationwide doesn't mean it's not smart to purchase and deploy it where they can. The markets it is available will benefit greatly with the low band spectrum when it's up and running. B26 makes all the difference for Sprint, just as B12 will help T-Mobile where they can get it deployed.

 

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

[lou99/maximus1987]

Again, as I don't want to sign up on T4GRU, I'll respond to what I read on that link here instead. Although, thank you lou99 for posting it.

 

I think T-Mobile is beginning to realize their limitations, especially as I've read on TMONews yesterday (a site I personally do not like, but read anyways, as it still is the best source for T-Mobile news currently, though I try to avoid the bias as much as I can, despite it being difficult and upsetting when unavoidable)  the article about Cincinnati. Many people there, even die hard TMo fans, were complaining about the minimal speed improvements made there by T-Mobile recently. Some of the speed numbers were very unimpressive and resemblant to the Chicago market's speeds, at least those I've experienced around here. I've said before they were fast enough/good enough with MetroPCS, but certainly not the kind T-Mobile and their fans often tout about when speaking generally about their network, despite when it comes to specifics, they become more conservative, such as in the Cincinnati article.

 

The big issue is the lack of 700mhz in certain markets, which makes me think T-Mobile secretly got desperate enough to but from Verizon. I read an article on some website dated from a few years ago that T-Mobile at that time had no interest in purchasing the 700mhz from Verizon. Yet, they went ahead and bought it, despite only covering certain portions of their network. Why? I think it would have been better to save that money and had more purchasing power in the AWS auction, so they could enhance their current network with it, rather than having to do more work getting a totally new spectrum band onto the small areas where they now have it, leaving behind other areas of their network totally void of that band, giving a huge difference in network quality between those markets with 700mhz and those without it. Chicago being one of them, and had T-Mobile the extra cash available, they could have bought more AWS spectrum throughout their network, rather than satisfying just a portion of it with a much enhanced network other markets are now without completely.

 

Metropcs could not reach a signal through a simple plate of glass window, where I sit feet away from, hardly deep building penetration necessary. Yet Sprint got through deep concrete walls at Medieval Times. Shows Sprint as being the Data Stronger Network.

 

1) More spectrum = more speed. No one doubts this statement.

In Cincinatti, TMO has:

5x5 AWS hspa

10x10 PCS LTE (up from 5x5 LTE)

5x5 HSPA

5x5 GSM

 

In other markets, TMO has 25x25 AWS and 15x15 LTE and is faster than Sprint.

 

2) Chicago is a dense market so yeah, 10x10 LTE is not gonna be enough. 

In Chicago, TMO has:

10x10 AWS LTE

5x5 AWS HSPA (to be shutdown and refarmed to LTE in July, 2015 resulting in 15x15 AWS LTE)

10x10 PCS HSPA

5x5 GSM

 

Sure they could densify like NYC and they probably will. Until then speeds are gonna be sucky.

 

3) TMO needed low-band LTE spectrum given that even Sprint had 5x5 nationwide. 

Desperate? Sure that's fair.

But are you saying that if Verizon had owned 700a nationwide, it would've been ok to purchase it but because ownership was split among Verizon and other speculators then it's a waste of time to purchase it, one owner at a time?

 

4) TMO spent $3.315B cash & spectrum on Verizon 700a including $2.365B in cash

http://investor.t-mobile.com/Cache/1001182112.PDF?Y=&O=PDF&D=&fid=1001182112&T=&iid=4091145

 

Tmobile spent $1.77B on AWS-3 while Verizon =  $10B, Dish = $13B, ATT = $18B.

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/aws-3-auction-results-att-leads-182b-verizon-104b-dish-10b-and-t-mobile-18b/2015-01-30

 

An extra $2.365B would've made no difference and it wouldn't have addressed a key complaint among magentans: lack of in-building coverage.

 

5) They're not leaving behind anyone. They've purchased additional 700a since the VZW transaction they'll purchase more if the price is right.

http://www.spectrumgateway.com/t-mobile-700a-spectrum

 

6) Chicago has a ch51 station whose interference, with the 700a block, probably can't be addressed until after the 600 auction. Therefore it's a waste of money to buy the spectrum from the owner - att - until the interference can be resolved.

 

7) Metropcs: apples to oranges. Metro never bad low-band anything.

The fact that sprint can penetrate "deep concrete walls at Medieval Times" shows Sprint as having low-band LTE. 

The reason why Sprint has nationwide low-band spectrum is because it paid $36B for Nextel in 2005.

[Arysyn]

lou99, all of my MetroPCS mentions here on the site, are relating to my experience with them on the T-Mobile network, not their old CDMA network.

 

My opinion of the AWS auction, regarding T-Mobile, is they did poorly, very poorly at that. I know there are people who disagree with me about this, which is fine, as well as disagree with me about the 700mhz spectrum, which is fine too. There are some good points being mentioned online as to why T-Mobile bought the spectrum, and that is understandable. However, my outlook to things, which shape my opinions from basically everything wireless, is set on doing things as much as possible for the whole, not just for various areas. I'm very much like that regarding other non-wireless issues as well.

 

I don't believe T-Mobile spent as conservatively as they did in the AWS auction because of strategy. I believe they did it because of finances. Whereas I don't blame Sprint for not attending the auction, since they don't have any AWS spectrum. Hence, it would be unwise for Sprint to have gone into that auction to purchase AWS spectrum, say for example, five or seven states, having to upgrade their equipment to work with that spectrum, leaving the remainder of their network without it completely. Instead, Sprint is saving that money to invest in the network they have, with the spectrum they have. Similarly, I've read they might not even be bothered by the 600mhz spectrum, though if they were to go into that, I imagine they, along with T-Mobile, will try to get the spectrum throughout its network, which is the sensible thing to do. Spending money on a spectrum band you can't get for much of your network, which even at that is a hassle to get up and running because of channel interference, when that money could have been better spent on more AWS spectrum, a spectrum band they already have for most of its network, or saving that money for the 600mhz spectrum auction, would have been a better usage of that money than purchasing 700mhz spectrum was.

 

Also, they could have used that money on a better conversion of their 2g to 4g conversion, which some have mentioned is going to be done cheaply, though also due to meeting their massive date deadlines they've set in their marketing approach. After all, what is "Data Strong" when much of your network is still running on 2g.

[anthony.spina97]

 

In other markets, TMO has 25x25 AWS and 15x15 LTE and is faster than Sprint.

 

What does that have to do with anything?

 

-Anthony

[lou99/maximus1987]

What does that have to do with anything?

 

-Anthony

He stated that cincy has slow speeds and I replied that it's because of amount of spectrum a carrier has.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[anthony.spina97]

He stated that cincy has slow speeds and I replied that it's because of amount of spectrum a carrier has.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I saw that. But what does T-Mobile being "faster than Sprint" in other markets have to do with anything? I'm not sure how your post was related to Sprint at all when the question being asked was about T-Mobile.

 

-Anthony

[Arysyn]

I saw that. But what does T-Mobile being "faster than Sprint" in other markets have to do with anything? I'm not sure how your post was related to Sprint at all when the question being asked was about T-Mobile.

 

-Anthony

 

I understand what lou99 means by this, as it has been written on other sites that the higher spectrum allows for faster speeds. I believe lou99 meant that in those areas where T-Mobile has more spectrum than Sprint, has faster speeds because of it.

 

Right now though, I'm not thinking of faster speeds, but rather better reliability and honest salespeople who will tell the truth about plan options. T-Mobile doesn't seem honest about their business, as I certainly haven't experienced much of what they've said back when I had MetroPCS.

[anthony.spina97]

I understand what lou99 means by this, as it has been written on other sites that the higher spectrum allows for faster speeds. I believe lou99 meant that in those areas where T-Mobile has more spectrum than Sprint, has faster speeds because of it.

 

Right now though, I'm not thinking of faster speeds, but rather better reliability and honest salespeople who will tell the truth about plan options. T-Mobile doesn't seem honest about their business, as I certainly haven't experienced much of what they've said back when I had MetroPCS.

Oh I understand what he means too. I'm just trying to call out a known troll for doing what he does best: trolling.

 

-Anthony

[cortney]

When T-Mobile's LTE is slower than Verizon's EV-DO on a good day, it's now okay since ~1 megabit is fine (on T-Mobile, only; 1 UnCarrier megabit = 10 regular megabits). Because: UnCarrier Data Strong, so that means it can still do everything you need. Otherwise, go on WiFi.  

 

Flavor of the month: Too many people are hopping on T-Mobile's network.  

[Arysyn]

Well, seeing as I'm cancelling Sprint service, I'm hoping to go to Verizon, though my mother suddenly seems to be complaining about cost associated with it, true enough as it is, but there isn't much choice, either that, or ugh, T-Mobile. My mother gets to make the final decision of it, so if she refuses Verizon, we might have to try the T-Mobile test drive, which I'm hoping all my negative experiences using MetroPCS have more to do with that service, rather than the network, as my judgements have been based of that experience, yet there are people who've said MetroPCS is a major difference from T-Mobile's service, despite it being on the same network. So if I have to get T-Mobile, though I'm hoping not to, hopefully the problem was more to do with MetroPCS. Otherwise, i'll just end up more upset about this Sprint issue today, along with not having Verizon, as I really want to just get it and not have to worry about being given a plan that isn't as good as someone else's (with the exception of unlimited data, which Verizon is a lot more clear about them not offering anymore, than Sprint is about who still qualifies for Framily and who doesn't.Sad thing is, I'm currently out $200 I could use for my health needs, and can only get that money back from cancelling a service I've mostly been happy with, at least until today when Sprint decided to break my internet connection for no apparent reason.

[kilroy8here]

Modification to Chicago aws hspa shutdown and date for LA's shutdown.

 

http://www.t4gru.com/index.php?/topic/49-aws-hspa-shutdown-and-resulting-implications/?p=846

 

Up to now, we have knowledge of following being shutdown this year:

 

Indianapolis

Louisville, KY

Chicago

LA

It is an inane move to do this while still selling several new phones that don't have LTE. 

[Arysyn]

It is an inane move to do this while still selling several new phones that don't have LTE. 

 

It seems Chicago could really use the extra AWS for LTE though.