Jump to content

T-Mobile LTE & Network Discussion V2


lilotimz

Recommended Posts

I'll bet people will complain about those speeds because Verizon and AT&T are getting faster then that

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


TMobile still has a lot of work to do with LTE consistency where I live. You know like instead of tooting your own horn about your service put your money where your mouth is and keep improving upon it.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Carrilloevo said:

I'll bet people will complain about those speeds because Verizon and AT&T are getting faster then that

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 

They already are complaining. Either way, those speeds drop significantly once there's a pane of glass in the way.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They already are complaining. Either way, those speeds drop significantly once there's a pane of glass in the way.
I'll be totally honest I don't give a darn about 5G or any of that stuff. I'm perfectly content with 4G LTE.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PCMag got to test T-Mobile's 5G network in NYC unofficially by using a T-Mobile SIM in an Verizon S10 5G.

T-Mobile's midtown macro site spacing is good enough for pretty much seamless outdoor coverage. They mention it's 100MHz of spectrum which has a max speed of 650Mbps but they were only able to hit up to 500Mbps. Then (they believe) that T-Mobile caught on and started capping their speeds. 

https://www.pcmag.com/news/368728/t-mobiles-pre-launch-5g-network-results-are-encouraging

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PCMag got to test T-Mobile's 5G network in NYC unofficially by using a T-Mobile SIM in an Verizon S10 5G.
T-Mobile's midtown macro site spacing is good enough for pretty much seamless outdoor coverage. They mention it's 100MHz of spectrum which has a max speed of 650Mbps but they were only able to hit up to 500Mbps. Then (they believe) that T-Mobile caught on and started capping their speeds. 
https://www.pcmag.com/news/368728/t-mobiles-pre-launch-5g-network-results-are-encouraging
300-400 on a cell phone it's way more then enough for me
.. Don't see the need of those speeds on a cell phone...

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know everyone has different needs.  30-50 download and 20-40 upload seem to be sufficient for me.  Coverage is my biggest concern.  I hate to get out on the highway somewhere and not get a signal.
Obviously I don't like that either. Coverage needs to be ubiquitous.

Sent from my Phone 2 using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

300-400 on a cell phone it's way more then enough for me
.. Don't see the need of those speeds on a cell phone...

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Yes, no one needs that speed on their phone. But I see it as a proxy for how much capacity is available, since the network is currently unloaded. So in that sense, 800+ Mbps means that a site can handle a lot of traffic without getting congested, vs 400 Mbps means it can absorb about half as much traffic before becoming congested.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, no one needs that speed on their phone. But I see it as a proxy for how much capacity is available, since the network is currently unloaded. So in that sense, 800+ Mbps means that a site can handle a lot of traffic without getting congested, vs 400 Mbps means it can absorb about half as much traffic before becoming congested.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Also I find that type of speed on a cellphone ridiculous. unless it's some type of data have the application like virtual reality or something that takes up a ridiculous amount of bandwidth. I mean for Pete's sake I have a gigabit internet connection in my home. And I don't even use half that bandwidth.

Sent from my Phone 2 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i doint need the speed for me it is all about  not cost ver much have pay as you go or tiny plan  

 since if i want great speed i just use wifi  or waite till i get home to do it on my destop instead 

Edited by mattp
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/30/2019 at 11:51 AM, Carrilloevo said:

I'll bet people will complain about those speeds because Verizon and AT&T are getting faster then that

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 

I got this awhile back right when a new site came live.  Basically 5G for me. 😃

Screenshot_20190426-100639.jpg

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

L600 and L850! 

We are beginning the process of turning over to one antenna for dual low band. 

You can spit on low band all day until you need it. Imagine when n5/n71 kicks in 20+MHz of tree proof speedtests, land mobile LE comms and plenty of data/IoT subscribers who just want a complete LTE network. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

T-Mobile is launching 5G in 6 cities on June 28th alongside the Galaxy S10 5G. The cities are NYC, LA, Las Vegas, Dallas, Cleveland, and Atlanta. If you’re in one of these cities, you’ll be able to purchase the phone, though T-Mobile makes it clear that its 5G coverage is currently extremely limited and will only reliably work outdoors. They even kinda have coverage maps.

NYC has the largest deployment out of all of them and it's because their macro site density is insane here. The rest of the cities don't look too good.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paynefanbro said:

T-Mobile is launching 5G in 6 cities on June 28th alongside the Galaxy S10 5G. The cities are NYC, LA, Las Vegas, Dallas, Cleveland, and Atlanta. If you’re in one of these cities, you’ll be able to purchase the phone, though T-Mobile makes it clear that its 5G coverage is currently extremely limited and will only reliably work outdoors. They even kinda have coverage maps.

NYC has the largest deployment out of all of them and it's because their macro site density is insane here. The rest of the cities don't look too good.

Wow, that’s a really limited deployment. Quite the difference between Millimeter Wave and 2.5 GHz coverage. I’m surprised T-Mobile isn’t waiting for a handset with a modem that can support its 5G on 600 MHz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paynefanbro said:

NYC has the largest deployment out of all of them and it's because their macro site density is insane here. The rest of the cities don't look too good.

Indeed. Their Las Vegas launch coverage is hilarious :rofl:. I guess if one is staying at the Luxor then they're probably in good shape...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RedSpark said:

Wow, that’s a really limited deployment. Quite the difference between Millimeter Wave and 2.5 GHz coverage. I’m surprised T-Mobile isn’t waiting for a handset with a modem that can support its 5G on 600 MHz.

It is actually a little embarrassing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

T-Mobile recently applied for 9 site permits in Columbus, OH for updated sites including band 71.  Here is the typical description:

"installation of (6) new antennas, (6) new RF modules (3) AHLOA¿s and (3) AHFIB¿s with RF jumpers, (2) airscale SM outdoor AMOB w/ (2) ASIA module, (4) ABIA modules, (1) ABIL and (1) ASIK, TMA¿s will be reuse. "

lilotimz translated as follows:

"AHLOA - B71 600 MHz + B12   dual band radio

AHFIB is a 4 port radio B2/25 + B4/66 again dual band

AMOB ASIA is BTS and radio box related accessories

ABIA, ABIL, and ASIK is related to ground equipment

Dual band radios are very new, released within the last 9 months.  Only really started seeing ATT, VZW, and TMO deploy them in recent months.  Vast majority of the time they stick to the 4 port uni band radios."

I believe that if the duo were deploying dual band radios, they these are likely ~5g capable.  lilotimz then said these T-Mobile radios are 4.9G.

This in my opinion shows that Sprint is further behind than we would like to admit.  Ideally all the equipment Sprint has been installing would be ~5g capable like the duo and now T-Mobile.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, dkyeager said:

I believe that if the duo were deploying dual band radios, they these are likely ~5g capable.  lilotimz then said these T-Mobile radios are 4.9G.

This in my opinion shows that Sprint is further behind than we would like to admit.  Ideally all the equipment Sprint has been installing would be ~5g capable like the duo and now T-Mobile.

 

I don't think NR will really come to PCS on Sprint as the vast majority of markets don't have more than 10 MHz of contiguous PCS spectrum. It's much more likely that all of Sprint's 2.5 GHz spectrum will get reframed to NR (merger or not) and 10-15 MHz of FDD LTE will remain on 1900 as fallback. According, I don't really think B25 NR radios are super important right now  

As for 800, I don't really know what the game plan will be there. DSS could help here, although I'm waiting to see how well various OEMs' implementations perform in the real world before making any judgements. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RAvirani said:

I don't think NR will really come to PCS on Sprint as the vast majority of markets don't have more than 10 MHz of contiguous PCS spectrum. It's much more likely that all of Sprint's 2.5 GHz spectrum will get reframed to NR (merger or not) and 10-15 MHz of FDD LTE will remain on 1900 as fallback. According, I don't really think B25 NR radios are super important right now  

As for 800, I don't really know what the game plan will be there. DSS could help here, although I'm waiting to see how well various OEMs' implementations perform in the real world before making any judgements. 

The real issue I believe for Sprint is the continued need to support CDMA limits their choices.  No doubt the 5G focus so far has been on Massive MIMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, dkyeager said:

The real issue I believe for Sprint is the continued need to support CDMA limits their choices.  No doubt the 5G focus so far has been on Massive MIMO.

I see PCS CDMA mostly going away soon. With Verizon CDMA roaming going away at the end of this year and the nationwide VoLTE launch coming soon, they will likely thin PCS CDMA down to a single 1x carrier (for old CDMA-only voice devices) and run it in an LTE guard band. 

1x800 is likely here to stay for a while. I wouldn't be surprised if they require OEMs to manufacture custom radios in the next few years that support LTE/NR DSS and 1x800.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

T-Mobile’s 5G network can’t yet top Verizon’s speed, but it has promising coverage

Quote

It’s not winning at speed, but for now, T-Mobile can at least claim that it’s faring a little better at coverage. The carrier’s map would have you believe it’s done an impressive job of blanketing sections of New York with 5G. My real-life experience didn’t quite match that. In sections of the Financial District of Manhattan near The Verge’s office, I’d see the 5G indicator but get typical LTE download speeds. On other streets where T-Mobile’s map glowed pink to indicate 5G coverage, the phone only displayed 4G when downloading content from Netflix or Prime Video.

I saw T-Mobile’s 5G nodes on top of many smaller buildings scattered around Manhattan. And it did pay off: the Samsung Galaxy S10 5G held on to 5G on the move noticeably better than it did on Verizon’s 5G network in Chicago. I didn’t feel as though I had to freeze in place whenever I found a 5G signal to get those speedy downloads. But I’m not sure how accurate their coverage map is...

PCMag's article goes way more in depth with the network experience.

Quote

Over a four-hour period, I ran 30 tests on T-Mobile's 5G network and another 57 on its 4G network. Speeds on T-Mobile's 5G network peaked at 502Mbps, and I saw a lot of 200-350Mbps results. That falls far short of the gigabit-plus results I've seen on AT&T and Verizon; it's much more like the mid-band speeds I saw in Dallas with Sprint. That makes sense when you remember that T-Mobile only has 100MHz of millimeter-wave spectrum in New York. 

On the Lower East Side of Manhattan, I was able to walk more than a mile without consistently losing millimeter-wave 5G signal. That's a really big deal. When I've tested Verizon's network in Chicago, it has been disconnected little two-block bubbles with big gaps between them. If I believe CellMapper.net, it took seven T-Mobile cell sites to cover my mile. Seeing where I got the relatively few dropouts on this walk, I'm estimating that each site had about a 600-foot radius, similar to what I saw with Verizon in Chicago. Compare that to Sprint in Dallas, which was able to cover an 0.6-mile radius with one mid-band cell site.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I tried Verizon,  I shouldn't of switched from sprint,  but tomorrow I will be turning in my phone and lte extender to Verizon tomorrow after I port my number to tmobile.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • I think it is likely that T-Mobile will be forced to honor any existing US cellular roaming agreements in those areas as a condition of them taking over the spectrum.  In that case, there would be no improvement of service unless T-Mobile improves the service offering in those areas.
    • My understanding is the MNO carriers are the one who have objected to the use of cell phones in commercial planes.  I understand that it ties down too many cell phones at once, thus I can not see this changing. However this depends on how it is structured. Use of a different plmn for satellite service might make it possible for planes only to connect with satellite. Private pilots have been using cellphones in planes for many decades. Far fewer phones at a lower altitude.
    • On Reddit, someone asked (skeptically) if the US Cellular buyout would result in better service.  I'd been pondering this very issue, and decided to cross-post my response here: I've been pondering the question in the title and I've come to the conclusion that the answer is that it's possible. Hear me out. Unlike some of the small carriers that work exclusively with one larger carrier, all three major carriers roam on US Cellular today in at least some areas, so far as I know. If that network ceases to exist, then the carriers would presumably want to recover those areas of lost service by building out natively. Thus, people in those areas who may only have service from US Cellular or from US Cellular and one other may gain competition from other carriers backfilling that loss. How likely is it? I'm not sure. But it's definitely feasible. Most notably, AT&T did their big roaming deal with US Cellular in support of FirstNet in places where they lacked native coverage. They can't just lose a huge chunk of coverage whole still making FirstNet happy; I suspect they'll have to build out and recover at least some of that area, if not most of it. So it'd be indirect, but I could imagine it. - Trip
    • Historically, T-Mobile has been the only carrier contracting with Crown Castle Solutions, at least in Brooklyn. I did a quick count of the ~35 nodes currently marked as "installed" and everything mapped appears to be T-Mobile. However, they have a macro sector pointed directly at this site and seem to continue relying on the older-style DAS nodes. Additionally, there's another Crown Castle Solutions node approved for construction just around the corner, well within range of their macro. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Verizon using a new vendor for their mmWave build, especially since the macro site directly behind this node lacks mmWave/CBRS deployment (limited to LTE plus C-Band). However, opting for a multi-carrier solution here seems unlikely unless another carrier has actually joined the build. This node is equidistant (about five blocks) between two AT&T macro sites, and there are no oDAS nodes deployed nearby. Although I'm not currently mapping AT&T, based on CellMapper, it appears to be right on cell edge for both sites. Regardless, it appears that whoever is deploying is planning for a significant build. There are eight Crown Castle Solutions nodes approved for construction in a 12-block by 2-block area.
    • Starlink (1900mhz) for T-Mobile, AST SpaceMobile (700mhz and 850mhz) for AT&T, GlobalStar (unknown frequency) for Apple, Iridium (unknown frequency) for Samsung, and AST SpaceMobile (850mhz) for Verizon only work on frequency bands the carrier has licensed nationwide.  These systems broadcast and listen on multiple frequencies at the same time in areas much wider than normal cellular market license areas.  They would struggle with only broadcasting certain frequencies only in certain markets so instead they require a nationwide license.  With the antennas that are included on the satellites, they have range of cellular band frequencies they support and can have different frequencies with different providers in each supported country.  The cellular bands in use are typically 5mhz x 5mhz bands (37.5mbps total for the entire cell) or smaller so they do not have a lot of data bandwidth for the satellite band covering a very large plot of land with potentially millions of customers in a single large cellular satellite cell.  I have heard that each of Starlink's cells sharing that bandwidth will cover 75 or more miles. Satellite cellular connectivity will be set to the lowest priority connection just before SOS service on supported mobile devices and is made available nationwide in supported countries.  The mobile device rules pushed by the provider decide when and where the device is allowed to connect to the satellite service and what services can be provided over that connection.  The satellite has a weak receiving antenna and is moving very quickly so any significant obstructions above your mobile device antenna could cause it not to work.  All the cellular satellite services are starting with texting only and some of them like Apple's solution only support a predefined set of text messages.  Eventually it is expected that a limited number of simultaneous voice calls (VoLTE) will run on these per satellite cell.  Any spare data will then be available as an extremely slow LTE data connection as it could potentially be shared by millions of people.  Satellite data from the way these are currently configured will likely never work well enough to use unless you are in a very remote location.
  • Recently Browsing

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