T-Mobile LTE & Network Discussion V2

[WiWavelength]

I think it's cool but here's my thought. With T-Mobiles verified mapping, will people start to verify locations of LTE that are using this CellSpot knowing there is little to no coverage in that location?

 

Again, I would like to have further info.  But this LTE CellSpot sounds similar to cable set top box deployment from Iliad's Free and Free Mobile in France.  Will the CellSpot be optionally or necessarily open to all T-Mobile subs?  In other words, will T-Mobile subs see each CellSpot as another GCI in the macro network?  If so, this is an additional initiative to overcome the T-Mobile in building signal penetration and in market no roaming problem.

 

AJ

[cortney]

rofl wtf is the point of this if it counts against your data?!

 

It seems you basically use YOUR internet to create a small LTE/HSPA+ hotspot, if we verify this is open to all T-Mobile users.  And as of late, there is no word of any option to make an exception to 1 or a few people's data (this use would be to make sure it doesn't count against 1-5 people in a house supplying the backhaul), so that means as far as I know you could indeed easily waste high-speed data you pay from T-Mobile on your own internet connection if there's a dead spot in your WiFi or you forget to toggle it on your phone.

 

(Edit: Does the device repeat an LTE/HPSA+ signal if there is one? That could make this situation somewhat less disastrous.) 

 

Most people don't open their internet to people (they password protect their guest network if they even have one), so how would this make any sense, right?

 

I think it's cool but here's my thought. With T-Mobiles verified mapping, will people start to verify locations of LTE that are using this CellSpot knowing there is little to no coverage in that location?

 

One of the many strings that are coming to mind. Not to mention this is essentially asking for a socialist approach where people run the backhaul and equipment for T-Mobile. We all know how public WiFi is. It's all over, but which is even usable? Does anyone think this is going to be so much better, even if people in heavy T-Mobile supporting places really took it to heart?

 

Plus anyone with an internet cap can risk seeing the bill from their provider if there are any abusers in the neighborhood. We need to know what options this thing has to set, but it can be ugly if it's just a plug and play device.

 

In rural areas, it might NOT be very fast, with average speeds already averaging as low as 3-20 megabits down. Try handing out those kind of speeds, even to just a person or two outside of the network. Does anyone know of this thing allowing you to allocate only so much bandwidth? This is arguably only good for 100+ Mbps/gigabit fiber users, even with not many users. Just two people on this thing can easily suck up to 10-20 megabits a second and if they're speed testing much more. Casual use from 2-3 extra people can easily handicap DSL / slower cable internet. 

 

No thanks -- I like the way the other 3 are doing it.

 

And of course: when the power goes out, where does your hotspot LTE/W-CDMA (and internet) go? But I know where you go: outside or down the block (unless the others already simply cover your home) with a Verizon, AT&T or Sprint phone.

Edited November 2, 2015 by cortney

[WiWavelength]

Wired article:

 

http://www.wired.com/2015/11/t-mobile-will-put-a-tiny-lte-booster-in-your-house/

 

The "booster" terminology is technically incorrect.  But the citation of the RootMetrics reliability graph is a good inclusion.

 

AJ

[Arysyn]

What seems odd to me is the part where it says to connect this to the internet. So then, how does connecting this to home internet do anything different than a regular WiFi router would? Unless it means to have this connect to the T-Mobile sinal, then this acts as a booster to that, though that doesn't seem the case. Or is it?

[Dkoellerwx]

What seems odd to me is the part where it says to connect this to the internet. So then, how does connecting this to home internet do anything different than a regular WiFi router would? Unless it means to have this connect to the T-Mobile sinal, then this acts as a booster to that, though that doesn't seem the case. Or is it?

I could see businesses using this, but beyond that, it makes no sense for home use. As you say, it would be better to just use the WiFi you probably already have.

[cortney]

What seems odd to me is the part where it says to connect this to the internet. So then, how does connecting this to home internet do anything different than a regular WiFi router would? Unless it means to have this connect to the T-Mobile sinal, then this acts as a booster to that, though that doesn't seem the case. Or is it?

 

If you mean how it technically works: it uses your home or a business'  internet as the backhaul to act as basically a mini small cell. It outputs a cellular signal at 1900/2100MHz as opposed to a 2.4GHz Wi-Fi signal. 

 

Edit: Also, I am unaware if it secondarily or primarily if possible additionally boosts an actual T-Mobile LTE/W-CDMA signal. It definitely uses an actual internet connection, though. 

Edited November 3, 2015 by cortney

[maxsilver]

Not to mention this is essentially asking for a socialist approach where people run the backhaul and equipment for T-Mobile. We all know how public WiFi is. It's all over, but which is even usable? Does anyone think this is going to be so much better, even if people in heavy T-Mobile supporting places really took it to heart?

"People, what are you all doing? Why are you all paying money for Christmas lights, and then buying electricity to run them, just so *other people* can get free light. What is this socialist approach to lighting? Do you really think these are going to be so much better than regular light bulbs?"

 

[AgathosAnthropos]

I can't wait to be deprioritized for using too much bandwidth on my home internet connection.

[travismheim]

I think for members like yourself, a stock 3G Airave would work the same, and you'd get the expanded voice coverage and use WIFI for data.

The current 3G Airave sucks if you have any sort of weak LTE in or around any part of your home. If you forget to toggle your phone to 3G only, the phone won't connect to the Airave for calls at all.

[cortney]

I can't wait to be deprioritized for using too much bandwidth on my home internet connection.

 

But no worries, T-Mobile will go after the 2TB abusers. Hopefully before your ISP goes after you!

 

[Fraydog]

"People, what are you all doing? Why are you all paying money for Christmas lights, and then buying electricity to run them, just so *other people* can get free light. What is this socialist approach to lighting? Do you really think these are going to be so much better than regular light bulbs?"

 

 

Honestly if it wasn't for "socialism" i.e. the government giving money to rural telephone companies for fiber, there would be lots of areas around me without any sort of 4G access. In my area, it's called IBOP Southern, Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile use it. Sprint uses it even though they largely rely on Verizon through most of Southern Illinois with roaming access. 

[Fraydog]

http://www.t-mobile.com/coverage.html

 

BIG map update. 

 

The Western TN expansion shocks me, they might have actually expanded their footprint over what Uncle Terry (SI Wireless) built off the Southern Illinois rural coop dime. 

[Paynefanbro]

http://www.t-mobile.com/coverage.html

 

BIG map update. 

 

The Western TN expansion shocks me, they might have actually expanded their footprint over what Uncle Terry (SI Wireless) built off the Southern Illinois rural coop dime. 

 

From what I've read via Reddit, there are a number of areas that are still 2G only but a misrepresented as LTE. I'm being very cautious with this map.

[Fraydog]

From what I've read via Reddit, there are a number of areas that are still 2G only but a misrepresented as LTE. I'm being very cautious with this map.

I looked up the Reddit thread and question and there was only one or two examples of coverage overshoot so far (Martha's Vineyard and Western KS).

 

Maybe more will pop up but overall, from my experience, the map is, if anything, conservative about updates.

[JeffDTD]

Considerable new native coverage in Mississippi on the map. Wow. Considering sprint's absence in many of these places, Tmo should do well with rural customers looking for unlimited

 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[Mr.Nuke]

I looked up the Reddit thread and question and there was only one or two examples of coverage overshoot so far (Martha's Vineyard and Western KS).

 

Maybe more will pop up but overall, from my experience, the map is, if anything, conservative about updates.

#Omaha.

[Fraydog]

#Omaha.

Touché.

[joshuam]

Western Maryland has LTE now!

[Deval]

I'm curious about the map update. Are they referencing the PCS LTE overlay and 700a purchases? If so, that's pretty impressive from a mile high level.

[Paynefanbro]

I'm curious about the map update. Are they referencing the PCS LTE overlay and 700a purchases? If so, that's pretty impressive from a mile high level.

 

I'd venture to say 90-95% of that is B12 and B2 only. But then again, that's only accessible to a fraction of their user base. And then some of those folks who scream that BYOD is the savior of all things are missing out with the coverage increase from B12 due to T-Mobile's certification process.

 

But still, it's awesome coverage growth.

[Paynefanbro]

I looked up the Reddit thread and question and there was only one or two examples of coverage overshoot so far (Martha's Vineyard and Western KS).

 

Maybe more will pop up but overall, from my experience, the map is, if anything, conservative about updates.

 

There's even more people claiming the map is bogus on HowardForums.

[S4GRU]

I'm curious about the map update. Are they referencing the PCS LTE overlay and 700a purchases? If so, that's pretty impressive from a mile high level.

Most of my observations are B2 and B12 coverages in the places I checked. But in South Dakota the maps are quite overstative. And the B2 GMO LTE sites, they are crazy overstative in area covered.

 

If you compare Project Fi LTE coverage of the same B2 GMO LTE site (look at Lovelock, Nevada, many towns in NW OK and dozens of others) you will see where Google and Tmo think differently of B2 GMO coverage. Why does Tmo give Google more realistic data than they use on their own maps? It looks like Tmo is intentionally trying to overstate.

 

However, it does illustrate where they have been adding service. And the amount of rural sites they have fired up is impressive. Looks like Tmo has made a decision to make their LTE maps look more impressive against the duopoly to get people interested and then try to fill it in as quickly as possible. The tech media won't call them out on it, so it will probably work for them. Sprint could never do this. They would get slaughtered.

 

Using Tapatalk on Note 8.0

[Ascertion]

There's even more people claiming the map is bogus on HowardForums.

Where's the thread?  Can't seem to find a busy one there regarding the new map.

[Paynefanbro]

Where's the thread?  Can't seem to find a busy one there regarding the new map.

 

You can take a look at the Michigan expansion thread.

[Deval]

Most of my observations are B2 and B12 coverages in the places I checked. But in South Dakota the maps are quite overstative. And the B2 GMO LTE sites, they are crazy overstative in area covered.

 

If you compare Project Fi LTE coverage of the same B2 GMO LTE site (look at Lovelock, Nevada, many towns in NW OK and dozens of others) you will see where Google and Tmo think differently of B2 GMO coverage. Why does Tmo give Google more realistic data than they use on their own maps? It looks like Tmo is intentionally trying to overstate.

 

However, it does illustrate where they have been adding service. And the amount of rural sites they have fired up is impressive. Looks like Tmo has made a decision to make their LTE maps look more impressive against the duopoly to get people interested and then try to fill it in as quickly as possible. The tech media won't call them out on it, so it will probably work for them. Sprint could never do this. They would get slaughtered.

 

Using Tapatalk on Note 8.0

 

But is it safe to generalize that they are not adding service, rather just upgrading existing footprints? Or are these new site builds?