Jump to content
lilotimz

T-Mobile LTE & Network Discussion V2

Recommended Posts

DTCapMarketsCoverage.png

 

I do not believe that map.  It is wildly optimistic.  A project of that size is just not that easy.  Otherwise, Sprint or T-Mobile would have done it years ago.  No, some factor or another will keep T-Mobile from fully realizing that goal by the end of the year.  

 

The costs of adding thousands of new sites could prove too expensive, and funding could be scaled back.  Along similar lines, the timeframe required to add that many new sites could prove too short, extending the project by months or years.

 

On the other hand, if T-Mobile actually does cover the map as projected by the end of the year, it will be low density, low quality coverage.  Just toss up a site every 25 miles and call it a day.  That is what we call a superficial gesture.  It technically may fill in the map, but it will not fill in coverage in real world usage.  And I do not consider that a goal accomplished.

 

AJ

 

I'm inclined to believe you, that it'll be low quality coverage . . . and then filled in later.

Still better than what they have now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DTCapMarketsCoverage.png

 

I do not believe that map.  It is wildly optimistic.  A project of that size is just not that easy.  Otherwise, Sprint or T-Mobile would have done it years ago.  No, some factor or another will keep T-Mobile from fully realizing that goal by the end of the year.  

 

The costs of adding thousands of new sites could prove too expensive, and funding could be scaled back.  Along similar lines, the timeframe required to add that many new sites could prove too short, extending the project by months or years.

 

On the other hand, if T-Mobile actually does cover the map as projected by the end of the year, it will be low density, low quality coverage.  Just toss up a site every 25 miles and call it a day.  That is what we call a superficial gesture.  It technically may fill in the map, but it will not fill in coverage in real world usage.  And I do not consider that a goal accomplished.

 

AJ

 

 

I'm inclined to believe you, that it'll be low quality coverage . . . and then filled in later.

Still better than what they have now.

 

 

I really doubt T-Mobile can even do that low-quality coverage.

 

I live in the Chicago market, and its filled with a major hole in the suburbs around me, which from reading about T-Mobile's spectrum in this area and around illinois, I really doubt they have enough to cover so far out from here across the state.

 

I think T-Mobile is becoming too engulfed in delusion from their own success that they now are just saying whatever comes to mind expecting and possibly knowing most people in awe of them will just believe anything they say. Heck, If John Legere claimed T-Mobile could provide LTE signal a couple hundred feet under water, you'd have quite a huge TmoNews scuba diving party.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you seen the DT capital markets day slide of coverage improvement?

They're increasing lte coverage from 0.6 to 1.6 mil sq miles EoY 2015.

 

I don't live in a concrete jungle and lte coverage is good (suburbs), some parts fall to Hspa outside.

 

In conference call they said they're not relying on getting more 700a to reach 300mil lte.

 

Don't know if there will be densification for not so well covered suburbs.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Have you seen this clip from DT Capital Markets Day that like 3 different people have pointed out in the past couple months (not on this forum)? 

 

(Start at 10:26 mark and listen for a few minutes).

 

It's interesting to hear the CEO of DT talk as a businessman as opposed to the warm cocoon of delusional optimism and cherry-picked "facts" from the T-Mobile team. 

 

Where T-Mobile lacks low-band, they automatically lack much indoor coverage. Where T-Mobile lacks density (virtually all suburbs and outward, and even worse than sparse in rural areas), they lack any reliable coverage, period.

 

I don't care what lies Legere and Ray and any of the team wants to give the magenta children to run around shouting for the next 6 months. The reality is: T-Mobile is non-existent or almost always completely unreliable in the majority of the suburbs, commuter towns, and rural areas in this country. They are an urban carrier and that sucks for everyone outside of cities, which is surprisingly more than 1% of this country's population. 

 

That coverage map will not be achieved (common sense). How much will actually get done? Well time can only tell. Not T-Mobile's "spot-free and perfect track record" like many magenta mouthpieces on other mediums have be raving about endlessly. 

Edited by cortney
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heck, If John Legere claimed T-Mobile could provide LTE signal a couple hundred feet under water, you'd have quite a huge TmoNews scuba diving party.

 

John of Bellevue does not scuba dive.  He walks on water.

 

;)

 

AJ

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you seen this clip from DT Capital Markets Day that like 3 different people have pointed out in the past couple months (not on this forum)? 

 

(Start at 10:26 mark and listen for a few minutes).

 

It's interesting to hear the CEO of DT talk as a businessman as opposed to the warm cocoon of delusional optimism and cherry-picked "facts" from the T-Mobile team. 

 

Of course he is. DT is the Verizon of Germany.

No one doubts that all companies are in it to make money.

 

People have predicted the end of TMO many times, most vociferously regarding the ETFs: turns out that as of Uncarrier 9, they paid out to 1.8mil people, not the millions that we've speculated.

 

TMO may not make money for a long time but at least it's gaining subs and posting very small losses.

 

Please state the cherry-picked facts and we'll discuss them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is 15-20 GB a month abusive?

 

How much bandwidth you used is like the megapixel of the camera world, or the BMI of the weight world.

 

The best way to measure where you stand is the % of a tower's capacity you use at any given time. That is, someone who is the only person connected to a tower (unlikely but illustrative) could blaze LTE all day and technically it's not harming the network since data (once it enters the wireline) is very very cheap. I would think network management focuses on this aspect but since this isn't transparent to the end user, bandwidth has become the way to measure a user but it's inaccurate.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MetroPCS has fast speeds here in the Chicago Market while outside traveling around the area and such, but inside the home here in this suburb, a house that is wooden and slightly stucco, often loses a signal, even though I'm usually right near a window. I think that is really bad, especially when T-Mobile's newer coverage map shows users around here reporting an excellent signal. I'm not even talking about a drop in data speeds, but a total signal loss on a new ZTE ZMAX device that gets good to great signal most places outside.

 

"while their overcrowded network here in Chicago just gets worse"

 

T-Mobile isn't actively recognizing their network/spectrum issues in the Chicago Market, which really upsets me, while they promote their supposed "great" service, along with their new 700 mhz, that isn't even in Chicago. A sure sign of incompetence or ignorance, perhaps both by them, in regards to being honest about their business among their attempts in persuading people they are "Data Strong".

 

 

Anything to combat T-Mobile's lies at this point, I'm thinking. 

 

So, I'm not sure how that's lies.

 

You claim overcrowding (which is a real thing that happens on T-Mobile), but you said that you get fast speeds in the Chicago Market, so it must not be *that* overcrowded. And that aligns with their marketing. In some urban areas, they have some of the densest urban cell spacing in the nation, which is how you get fast speeds even with lots of usage despite having less spectrum -- that's what "Data Strong" means.

 

T-Mobile didn't promise you 700mhz service in Chicago, so that's not a lie. 

 

T-Mobile's coverage map is lies. But everyone's coverage map is complete lies (including Sprint's). No carrier can claim to be more truthful than another in that regard -- there's not a single shred of integrity left in anyone's coverage map.

 

- - -

 

Chicago is a known weak T-Mobile market, and a known strong Sprint market. You should switch, you'll probably like Sprint better -- especially if it works in your home.

 

But I wouldn't discredit T-Mobile as a business because of that. If you head over to another market (Detroit or Seattle/Tacoma come to mind) you could easily have the opposite experience. But I wouldn't say Sprint "lies" just because there's no 800mhz service there. And I wouldn't call it "lies" when Sprint claims "Spark has launched" even though 800mhz service is missing.

 

Use what works for you, obviously. But I wouldn't assume everyone's lying just because you had a bad experience. T-Mobile as a business wouldn't exist if your experience was common. (even if S4GRU makes it sound that way)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm inclined to believe you, that it'll be low quality coverage . . . and then filled in later.

Still better than what they have now.

 

I would argue with the "still better than what they have now" part.  Sometimes, you just have to acknowledge that a roaming partner with a mature network -- especially one based around Cellular 850 MHz -- can provide superior wireless coverage in an area.

 

A native network is not the end all, be all if it provides just a barebones new footprint that colors a map but fails the user test.  And the problem for T-Mobile users is that in market roaming in those expanded markets could go away.  That is a trend with T-Mobile -- it has no roaming fallback, just emergency service.

 

On the flip side, a lot of fanboys knock Sprint for relying so much on roaming on VZW and USCC.  But most of those VZW and USCC networks have the benefit of 25 years of Cellular 850 MHz deployment, likely providing more consistent service than Sprint could on its own with a brand new footprint expansion.

 

AJ

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T-Mobile as a business wouldn't exist if your experience was common. (even if S4GRU makes it sound that way)

 

You should not ascribe to S4GRU what some of its vocal members may say.  Even our staff's opinions are their own.  You will find a lot of diversity of views among our staff members.  My views often can be very different from AJ's.  And Tim's can be very Tmo friendly, beyond even my own.

 

That's the great thing about S4GRU.  Knowledgeable people with varying views on all different kinds of subjects.  Even beyond Sprint.

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should not ascribe to S4GRU what some of its vocal members may say.  Even our staff's opinions are their own.  You will find a lot of diversity of views among our staff members.  My views often can be very different from AJ's.

 

Many people forget or do not know that I have a secondary line on T-Mobile.  Additionally, I have done a fair amount of T-Mobile focused (unpaid) work -- opposing the merger with AT&T, creating maps, building spreadsheets, etc.  Thus, I am not really anti T-Mobile.  I am, however, against the childish behavior of the current T-Mobile leadership and its fanboys, astroturfers, and trolls.  So, ironically, if anything has caused me to be anti T-Mobile, it is the jagoff T-Mobile supporters.

 

AJ

  • Like 16

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I'm not sure how that's lies.

 

You claim overcrowding (which is a real thing that happens on T-Mobile), but you said that you get fast speeds in the Chicago Market, so it must not be *that* overcrowded. And that aligns with their marketing. In some urban areas, they have some of the densest urban cell spacing in the nation, which is how you get fast speeds even with lots of usage despite having less spectrum -- that's what "Data Strong" means.

 

T-Mobile didn't promise you 700mhz service in Chicago, so that's not a lie. 

 

T-Mobile's coverage map is lies. But everyone's coverage map is complete lies (including Sprint's). No carrier can claim to be more truthful than another in that regard -- there's not a single shred of integrity left in anyone's coverage map.

 

- - -

 

Chicago is a known weak T-Mobile market, and a known strong Sprint market. You should switch, you'll probably like Sprint better -- especially if it works in your home.

 

But I wouldn't discredit T-Mobile as a business because of that. If you head over to another market (Detroit or Seattle/Tacoma come to mind) you could easily have the opposite experience. But I wouldn't say Sprint "lies" just because there's no 800mhz service there. And I wouldn't call it "lies" when Sprint claims "Spark has launched" even though 800mhz service is missing.

 

Use what works for you, obviously. But I wouldn't assume everyone's lying just because you had a bad experience. T-Mobile as a business wouldn't exist if your experience was common. (even if S4GRU makes it sound that way)

 

I've been posting quite a bit here since becoming a member earlier, and due to my health, I sometimes need to make messages I write a bit short, trying to get to the point a bit too much, where I really ought to better explain what I'm saying and to avoid using too simplistic, generalized words that may not be entirely fitting, such as the word "lies".

 

The word "misleading" is a better term for what I meant, of course. Although, I know T-Mobile never claimed to have 700 mhz spectrum here, the promoting of that spectrum seems to be what T-Mobile is using as their way of expanding service to people, and a major part of their network expansion this year. Since T-Mobile doesn't have 700 mhz spectrum here, and has limited spectrum as it is around Illinois, they can't build it out well as they can where they have more spectrum, particularly the 700 mhz spectrum. I've read they don't have enough spectrum in Illinois to build out a wideband network here, which while it doesn't mean there network is bad at all around Chicago, it means that this area is more prone to becoming congested as the usage increases and starts clogging what they do have here, unable to expand beyond that.

 

Again, I should have been a bit more informative about my experiences here using T-Mobile's Network, expanding on my vague statements,m but I'm battling some issues with my typing abilities, trying to not let my physical issues keep me from being part of something I have much respect for. I'll try to expand more when I can, and will do so now...

 

I do get fast speeds where T-Mobile works, which is when I'm in the car while my mother drives us places. Though, there are moments where there isn't just a slow drop in speeds, but a complete drop that occurs in a matter of seconds from when it just was very good. I'm not so worried about Sprint being "slower" when I get my phone in tomorrow and start the service actively. I need the coverage where I'm at not dropping off completely, whereas T-Mobile has done already enough times that it has become a risk for me not having a connection. Although, this mostly happens at home, but is where I'm mostly alone and most in need of the connection.

 

So, while there are areas which T-Mobile is fast, the complete dropping of signal a moment later, is troubling, and I've had no other reason than to suspect it is network congestion dropping me off the signal. Certainly, I'm not denying other possibilities though, just that is what I'm currently thinking it is, as the device works elsewhere. If it were the device, it wouldn't be working anywhere. If it were the tower proximity, then why does the signal come back fully a few feet away, even fluxuating working in the same space some moments later after having completely dropped.

 

I'm certainly not pretending or even claiming I know everything about wireless stuff, and I'll freely admit to having learned so much of what I do know from people here on S4GRU. That is how I know to have these particular reasons to suggest as to why these problems are occurring with the MetroPCS service.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting read. In regards to legere his loyal followers will back him blindly regardless how bad the pink carrier finds itself in a predicament. Simply put his their messiah and personal jesus christ that loves to swear etc etc etc...

 

* Now not sure if this was covered but didn't AT&T get nailed for doing just this to it's unlimited data subscribers.  Is there a double standard !!!

 

Hmmm....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting read. In regards to legere his loyal followers will back him blindly regardless how bad the pink carrier finds itself in a predicament. Simply put his their messiah and personal jesus christ that loves to swear etc etc etc...

 

* Now not sure if this was covered but didn't AT&T get nailed for doing just this to it's unlimited data subscribers. Is there a double standard !!!

 

Hmmm....

Hell, people ragged Sprint for just putting it in their terms and conditions. Magically, it's understandable if the great T-Mobile enforces it.

 

Sent from my G2

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand, if T-Mobile actually does cover the map as projected by the end of the year, it will be low density, low quality coverage.  Just toss up a site every 25 miles and call it a day.  That is what we call a superficial gesture.  It technically may fill in the map, but it will not fill in coverage in real world usage.  And I do not consider that a goal accomplished.

 

I expect that's what we'll see, although at least in the GSM-only areas even a terrible, backhaul-starved LTE overlay would probably be an improvement over GPRS and EDGE, just as getting even backhaul-starved LTE in rural areas would probably be an improvement over Sprint's 1x coverage – rural EVDO occasionally gets to the point of being functional, but CDMA 1x and GSM 2G just don't cut it for even basic stuff like Google Maps navigation today.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well we all expected this eventually, but T-Mobile is officially shutting off AWS HSPA in Chicago (and Louisville) on June 1st to expand to wideband (i.e. 15x15 MHz) LTE. http://www.t4gru.com/index.php?/topic/49-AWS-HSPA-shutdown-(and-resulting-implications)#entry720

This is great news (now that it's official), just in time before Chicago starts noticing just how slow they've gotten. I will definitely reevaluate them once this is done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How big of a difference will that make in congested areas? Is the backhaul there to be able to handle wider channels?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone 6+

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

Looks like T-mobile is building out in W.Va.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Interesting words because if Ntelos is saying the efforts aren't "significant" when they themselves are pretty bad... tmobiles network expansion may just be bare minimal coverage to meet requirements and reduce roaming. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were to guess, T-Mobile is probably just going to cover the interstates and have token coverage to keep roaming costs down without pushing hard to actually gain customers in the state.  West Virginia, I'm learning, is a really tough state to cover, with both AT&T and Verizon having huge coverage holes in the state--some areas having no service at all--and I can imagine T-Mobile not wanting to get stuck trying to fight a losing battle.

 

- Trip

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm.

 

I mentioned in a post the other day that I read somewhere about how the Chicago market for T-Mobile doesn't have enough spectrum for wideband. Is this not true, or is it that the wideband here just won't be as strong as it is in other markets.

 

Regardless, 15x15 AWS LTE, along with 5x5 PCS HSPA+ doesn't sound strong enough for an area as large as Chicago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm.

 

I mentioned in a post the other day that I read somewhere about how the Chicago market for T-Mobile doesn't have enough spectrum for wideband. Is this not true, or is it that the wideband here just won't be as strong as it is in other markets.

 

Regardless, 15x15 AWS LTE, along with 5x5 PCS HSPA+ doesn't sound strong enough for an area as large as Chicago.

 

Tmobile should still try to buy the 700 MHz A-block license from AT&T (Leap) too in the Chicago market to help with building penetration.  I am sure Tmobile has held off on this for 2 reasons:

1) They might not be sure if they can relocate the incumbent to another channel until 600 MHz rebanding is complete

2) AT&T (Leap) might be demanding a huge premium for the Chicago market.  Tmobile has said recently that due to the AWS-3 success in spectrum valuation, the remaining 700 MHz A-block licensees are putting a high premium on the spectrum.  I am confident that Tmobile will eventually obtain the Chicago license because AT&T (Leap) is under the gun to deploy or lose the license.  THis applies to all the other remaining 700 MHz A-block holdouts.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm.

 

I mentioned in a post the other day that I read somewhere about how the Chicago market for T-Mobile doesn't have enough spectrum for wideband. Is this not true, or is it that the wideband here just won't be as strong as it is in other markets.

 

Regardless, 15x15 AWS LTE, along with 5x5 PCS HSPA+ doesn't sound strong enough for an area as large as Chicago.

They don't have enough spectrum to operate AWS HSPA, and wideband LTE. Which is why June 1st they'll be shutting AWS HSPA down and bumping LTE up to 15x15 from 10x10. There is also currently DC-HSPA which is two 5x5 channels on PCS.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judging from their projected End of Year coverage map it won't be much coverage in West Virginia anyway. To me, it doesn't seem like they plan on covering the interstates much at all. It all seems to be in the northeastern part of the state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah!

 

So this reminds me way back in the mid 2000s when I first started reading about wireless technology on Howard Forums. My mother had started her prepaid T-Mobile phone around this time, a cheap Samsung bar phone she still uses to this day that only has the pcs band on it. I remember sometime within a few years after that, T-Mobile had a major spectrum enhancement I mistook for being in the lower spectrum bands, and only realized I was wrong on that a few years ago, when I heard about AWS and started learning the differences in bands and how they penetrate through building walls vs being mostly outdoor use, etc. Had I realized this much sooner, I probably would have talked with my mother about getting a prepaid phone with another company working with lower spectrum bands and never got T-Mobile service to begin with, as local coverage is very important for us.

 

I have a question regarding spectrum bands, with an idea in mind, though not T-Mobile related. so, I'm going to create a thread about it in General Topics, though the information I received here in this thread certainly has helped me with that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Similar Content

    • By DesignGuy
      Fierce has a poll posted... and is utilizing a bracket style contest to find out who their readers think is the most powerful person in the telecom industry. Between Marcelo and the pink clad Chihuahua of a man... I give it to Marcelo. I think the final winner should be Masa, it's is a name people know and will get to know more in the coming years worldwide. But for the current poll, it's an easy decision for me!  
       
      http://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/vote-now-to-decide-who-most-powerful-person-u-s-telecom-industry
       
       
       
    • By derrph
      With the introduction of the new plans Sprint has announced. I told one of my friends about the $60 unlimited plan and she was shocked yet happy about it. She currently has T-Mobile and there has been times where my Sprint service has out performed her service even in the city with puling up information and out of town...well... you already know how that went. She was talking about switching and stuff but then she sent me a typical article bashing Sprint and I got irritated by it and I had to explain to her that Sprint is not bad at all. These articles are based on past experiences from 3+ years ago. I told her I'm pulling 60+ mbps on LTE but she's worried about Sprint being slow ( because of what she read). Guys give me some advice on persuading her to give Sprint a chance. 
       
      I feel like articles that are being posted is what keeps away customers.  It makes no sense that T-Mobiles 2g network is not spoken about when they are in the news for changes to plans and such. But good ol Sprint makes changes and articles that get posted rips Sprint apart for filth. 
    • By belusnecropolis
      http://ces.cnet.com/8301-35284_1-57616761/how-i-got-t-mobiles-ceo-kicked-out-of-at-ts-ces-party/
      Roger Cheng @cnet appears to have had the most fun out of this, it kind of wrote the story for him I guess, so there is that. Also, just noticed the extra title Q, that is gonna drive some people nuts today. Top lel.
    • By Paynefanbro
      Am I the only one that likes to look at Verizon's coverage comparison tool. I think it gives a good idea of a carrier's generalized coverage as far as those cities that have been announced. However, it takes a while for it to get updated. I look at Verizon's map and think, no one will ever build an LTE network of that size. When I look at T-Mobile, I see a spotty, spread out network. AT&T is also spotty with a few highways covered here and there. Sprint seems to be more put together as in even if it is spotty, they are in blobs rather than random remote areas.
       
      I've also found a few places that Sprint has coverage in but not Verizon such as in southern Texas.
       
      http://www.verizonwireless.com/wcms/consumer/4g-lte.html
    • By kripatel
      I'm a former sprint customer, and recently moved to T-mobile.  The main reason I moved to T-mobile had to do with the speed of the network from the speed testing websites, and they seemed to be more reliable.  The second resons was that it was on GSM network which would allow for International roaming when abroad.  However, I've found that when T-mobile is available it is fast, but lacks indoor penetration, something I notieced of Sprint as well, it also is not available everywhere such as sprint overall coverage.  So I am now thinking of switching back to sprint because I live in Indiana and travel a lot on the road, which requires coverage that is not readily provided by T-mobile.
      My question, if and when Sprint moves LTE to 800mhz and 2.5Ghz, are new phones required to take advantage of that frequency or will the Moto X and Iphone 5s work on those bands?  Secondly, I read that Verizon will be shutting down its CDMA network sometime next year and move to Voicelte, I'm thinking this will effect Sprint coverage since I'm sure they use their network at times.  Any thoughts on that or has Sprint also announced moving to Voice over LTE?
      My main concern was with speed of the network, which when I have coverage with T-mobile, is much slower than Sprint (my wife still has sprint).  I'm not sure I understand why the network is slower on Sprint and whether that will improve over time specfiically in Indianapolis.  I appreciate any feedback so that I might move back to Sprint for the best long-term viability.
  • Posts

    • I mentioned it earlier the Tampa market thread, but i made my first VoLTE call today on my iPhone XS.

      I got a spam call during a game I was playing. Normally this cuts off my data session and it takes a while to reload, but this time after declining the call, the game carried on like nothing happened. I thought that was odd and checked the carrier info on my iPhone XS and saw IMS was active for SMS and Voice. Woohoo!


      Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    • So, TMobile has stated that if the merger goes through, you'll be able to go into a Sprint store but be put on TMobile's network. What if you already have a plan on Sprint.  Would I be able to get say a OnePlus 6T, activate it on my account and it be on TMobile's network?
    • Just noticed this today (MM2/SC2) anyone else?

      Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

    • Mini Skirt

      Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

    • Hopefully it'll be released soon since VoLTE was just activated today here. It's working on my S8+. My understanding is only the screen and the battery are different between the S8 and S8 active models. If that's true and all the other internals are the same, I don't know what the holdup could be. 
  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

×