T-Mobile LTE & Network Discussion V2

[EvanA]

what is EVS?

EVS is a new high quality voice codec designed with IP based communication in mind. You can read more about it here http://www.voiceage.com/EVS.html

[reedacus25]

Seems about time for T-Mobile to update its subpar voice quality.

I find it disconcerting that you find the voice quality to be subpar with T-Mobile. They have long since outpaced ATT and Verizon in terms of VQ from just about any perspective.

 

I haven't used Sprint for voice in around 10-12 years, and Sprint's voice quality for me was just a hair above T-Mobile's FR AMR VQ on GSM.

After moving to UMTS, after it finally made it to me, the bar was raised even higher, and then again with AMR-WB intra-carrier.

 

I've had several close family members use my phone for one reason or another to speak with another family member on the other end of the line only to comment on the 'clarity' compared to their ATT lines.

 

So I'm curious what brought your subpar quality statement out.

[gusherb]

I find it disconcerting that you find the voice quality to be subpar with T-Mobile. They have long since outpaced ATT and Verizon in terms of VQ from just about any perspective.

 

I haven't used Sprint for voice in around 10-12 years, and Sprint's voice quality for me was just a hair above T-Mobile's FR AMR VQ on GSM.

After moving to UMTS, after it finally made it to me, the bar was raised even higher, and then again with AMR-WB intra-carrier.

 

I've had several close family members use my phone for one reason or another to speak with another family member on the other end of the line only to comment on the 'clarity' compared to their ATT lines.

 

So I'm curious what brought your subpar quality statement out.

I agree. I don't understand how T-Mobile could be considered subpar in VQ. T-Mobile has by far had the best VQ, what I love is that VoLTE and UMTS sounds exactly the same on their network, and that both technologies support HD voice. Sprint was close when it was at its best but usually it had some random garble in most calls.

AT&T UMTS for me was about the same as sprint but without the robogarble. Their VoLTE is on par with T-Mobile's.

I tried Verizon recently and think I finally figured out what makes them sound so awful. They apparently don't use G.711 in their network when interfacing with the PSTN. I could never quite place my finger on that when I used their CDMA but when I finally tried their VoLTE I was shocked to hear almost the same characteristics as their CDMA voice, this scratchy hollow sound. That sound I've heard before when tinkering with VoIP - G.729. Terrible sounding codec.

[Fraydog]

I find it disconcerting that you find the voice quality to be subpar with T-Mobile. They have long since outpaced ATT and Verizon in terms of VQ from just about any perspective.

 

I haven't used Sprint for voice in around 10-12 years, and Sprint's voice quality for me was just a hair above T-Mobile's FR AMR VQ on GSM.

After moving to UMTS, after it finally made it to me, the bar was raised even higher, and then again with AMR-WB intra-carrier.

 

I've had several close family members use my phone for one reason or another to speak with another family member on the other end of the line only to comment on the 'clarity' compared to their ATT lines.

 

So I'm curious what brought your subpar quality statement out.

I wonder if it isn't issues localized to Chicago. To make a little deeper dive into this, Chicago is currently T-Mobile's logjam market. Suburban and exurban performance there is good for having no B12 due to not getting that spectrum with the Leap LicenseCo ownership of B12.

 

Where the real issues happen are in the city proper. Remember Milan03's accounts of how TMUS has a cell on literally every block more or less in NYC? Chicago really needs that level of density and then some small cells. I realize Dave Mayo (SVP of technology and right hand for Neville Ray) and some have said small cells aren't mature enough for deployment and the costs need to come down. To me, T-Mobile can't afford to wait for the costs to come down there for small cells even if the national case is not good for them. Verizon's small cell deployment is low cost, so I would disagree with Mr. Mayo on that. Furthermore LTE-U is needed there but the way it is going, it is mainly going to be an indoor solution at launch so WiFi interference issues get properly dealt with. LTE-U might help out in office buildings and malls like Water Tower, but on the Magnificent Miles proper, T-Mobile is going to either have to deploy macros almost like micro cells, or they are going to have to bite the bullet and do small cells in Chicago before other markets.

 

Source for Mayo comments: http://www.rcrwireless.com/20151001/network-infrastructure/t-mobile-us-talks-small-cells-spectrum-portfolio-tag17

 

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[gusherb]

I wonder if it isn't issues localized to Chicago. To make a little deeper dive into this, Chicago is currently T-Mobile's logjam market. Suburban and exurban performance there is good for having no B12 due to not getting that spectrum with the Leap LicenseCo ownership of B12.

 

Where the real issues happen are in the city proper. Remember Milan03's accounts of how TMUS has a cell on literally every block more or less in NYC? Chicago really needs that level of density and then some small cells. I realize Dave Mayo (SVP of technology and right hand for Neville Ray) and some have said small cells aren't mature enough for deployment and the costs need to come down. To me, T-Mobile can't afford to wait for the costs to come down there for small cells even if the national case is not good for them. Verizon's small cell deployment is low cost, so I would disagree with Mr. Mayo on that. Furthermore LTE-U is needed there but the way it is going, it is mainly going to be an indoor solution at launch so WiFi interference issues get properly dealt with. LTE-U might help out in office buildings and malls like Water Tower, but on the Magnificent Miles proper, T-Mobile is going to either have to deploy macros almost like micro cells, or they are going to have to bite the bullet and do small cells in Chicago before other markets.

 

Source for Mayo comments: http://www.rcrwireless.com/20151001/network-infrastructure/t-mobile-us-talks-small-cells-spectrum-portfolio-tag17

 

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

I used T-Mobile on Michigan avenue just back in February. When I could get a call out voice quality was not an issue at all. It sounded great every time. VoLTE failed a few times though.

 

As for their macro density, they already seem to be about equal with AT&T which is quite good. AT&T just has small

cells downtown, and more spectrum throughout. So on a macro level I think T-Mo is pretty good.

Despite that, if spectrum is gonna continue to be an issue they will need to go even denser no question.

I wanna say them and AT&T have cells every 4-6 blocks or so, outside of downtown.

[Fraydog]

 

 

I used T-Mobile on Michigan avenue just back in February. When I could get a call out voice quality was not an issue at all. It sounded great every time. VoLTE failed a few times though.

 

As for their macro density, they already seem to be about equal with AT&T which is quite good. AT&T just has small

cells downtown, and more spectrum throughout. So on a macro level I think T-Mo is pretty good.

Despite that, if spectrum is gonna continue to be an issue they will need to go even denser no question.

I wanna say them and AT&T have cells every 4-6 blocks or so, outside of downtown.

That is my greater point. Their use levels are going to be at the stage there where I think they may have to go on every block for the Loop and Magnificent Mile.

 

As far as VoLTE, I haven't used it extensively on T-Mo yet, I'm just going off what Arysyn said. Most places T-Mo has had solid voice quality. Even the 12.65 Kbps VoLTE is very good and equivalent to what I use on Verizon VoLTE.

 

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[gusherb]

That is my greater point. Their use levels are going to be at the stage there where I think they may have to go on every block for the Loop and Magnificent Mile.

 

As far as VoLTE, I haven't used it extensively on T-Mo yet, I'm just going off what Arysyn said. Most places T-Mo has had solid voice quality. Even the 12.65 Kbps VoLTE is very good and equivalent to what I use on Verizon VoLTE.

 

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

I think he just doesn't like the sound of the codec used. Nothing to do with the network quality itself AFAIK. I've always found their VQ to be stellar no matter which tech it is, and I've been testing them in the area since 2011.

 

Verizon VoLTE is another story, I mentioned that above. The only time it sounded great/same as AT&T/T-Mo was when calling another VZW VoLTE capable phone.

 

I think over on Michigan avenue T-Mobile does have a cell every block, hard to confirm but my signal was consistently strong from block to block. I also noticed the congestion being better or worse from block to block, some spots still are fast.

[Arysyn]

I find it disconcerting that you find the voice quality to be subpar with T-Mobile. They have long since outpaced ATT and Verizon in terms of VQ from just about any perspective.

 

I haven't used Sprint for voice in around 10-12 years, and Sprint's voice quality for me was just a hair above T-Mobile's FR AMR VQ on GSM.

After moving to UMTS, after it finally made it to me, the bar was raised even higher, and then again with AMR-WB intra-carrier.

 

I've had several close family members use my phone for one reason or another to speak with another family member on the other end of the line only to comment on the 'clarity' compared to their ATT lines.

 

So I'm curious what brought your subpar quality statement out.

 

I can't compare it to AT&T and Verizon, but definitely to Sprint I find Sprint's voice quality much better. I've written about the differences between what I've experienced/heard using T-Mobile in contrast with Sprint before here on S4GRU. I'll copy the link to what I wrote and its content here, for reference to this subject :

 

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/6950-t-mobile-lte-network-discussion-v2/page-10&do=findComment&comment=420816

I didn't answer your question specifically earlier, as I wanted to think of the best way to describe the differences between Sprint's voice quality sound, in contrast to T-Mobile's voice quality sound. Now that I've thought about it for a bit, I think I've figured out an analogy I'm going to use, which I believe is at least fairly accurate.

 

Sprint's voice quality sounds like someone is speaking through a microphone connected to a good speaker system in an auditorium setting. It is crisp and clear, as long as the person is not speaking too loudly, as it would create an issue for the microphone's sensitivity, which causes artifacts.

 

T-Mobile's voice quality sounds like someone is speaking through a toned-down megaphone, which despite the volume not being as high, still produces a bass-less amplified sound. Opposite of Sprint, T-Mobile seems to do better when someone is speaking louder, as it has difficulty picking up softer voices and causes a lot of skipping and static, at least from my experiences with it.

 

Anyways, that is my assessment of the two, again from my experiences with them. Personally, I vastly prefer Sprint's sound with the occasional artifacts, rather than T-Mobile's tinny loudspeaker-like sound.

 

 

​

[Arysyn]

Hopefully my reference to the old post I wrote about it helps explain my experiences with T-Mobile voice quality. My guess for it probably is the same as those who've told me it was better at one point until T-Mobile changed it to be of a lesser bitrate, etc. I did want to point out as I did in the post before my last one here, that I'm glad T-Mobile is trying to improve on it with the new changes. However, and this may be a Chicago market issue with the lesser spectrum and congestion, but there have been many dropped calls from my last device I had and also on my mother's phone. The best I can explain to her is the BingeOn program causing congestion with the limited spectrum, as T-Mobile never caused us dropped calls prior to BingeOn. Despite the voice quality issues I perceived, I was always happy that T-Mobile didn't drop calls. But its quite different now.

[gusherb]

Hopefully my reference to the old post I wrote about it helps explain my experiences with T-Mobile voice quality. My guess for it probably is the same as those who've told me it was better at one point until T-Mobile changed it to be of a lesser bitrate, etc. I did want to point out as I did in the post before my last one here, that I'm glad T-Mobile is trying to improve on it with the new changes. However, and this may be a Chicago market issue with the lesser spectrum and congestion, but there have been many dropped calls from my last device I had and also on my mother's phone. The best I can explain to her is the BingeOn program causing congestion with the limited spectrum, as T-Mobile never caused us dropped calls prior to BingeOn. Despite the voice quality issues I perceived, I was always happy that T-Mobile didn't drop calls. But its quite different now.

Were you using different phones when you compared? It's quite possible that made all the difference you noticed. I've always used iPhones with a few androids here and there, they all sounded different for sure. But I've tested all 4 networks on an iPhone 6 so it can't really get much more subjective than that, and definitely find T-Mobile the winner, Sprint and AT&T relatively close or a tie, and VZW last. A different phone may net a different result though.

[Arysyn]

Were you using different phones when you compared? It's quite possible that made all the difference you noticed. I've always used iPhones with a few androids here and there, they all sounded different for sure. But I've tested all 4 networks on an iPhone 6 so it can't really get much more subjective than that, and definitely find T-Mobile the winner, Sprint and AT&T relatively close or a tie, and VZW last. A different phone may net a different result though.

 

I've had quite a few phones on T-Mobile. I had a ZTE ZMax as my first T-Mobile (MetroPCS) smartphone, though I had been using an older bar phone from T-Mobile for years prior to that. Then the LTE radio died on the ZTE ZMax which actually was a T-Mobile smartphone they sent to me as a replacement. That one occasionally popped up with an "HD" symbol I assumed meant HD Voice, but it also happened when I was talking with my mother who does not have an HD voice capable phone. I thought both devices connected in a call had to be HD-Voice capable, though perhaps I'm wrong about that. Then I had the LG V10, which when it did connect calls, it sounded the same as with the ZTE ZMax, though I don't remember if that ever showed up with the "HD" symbol or not. While I liked the LG V10 overall, it started having issues connecting calls and making weird noises when it attempted to do so, or suddenly when someone called in. Then the last device I tried on T-Mobile, was the Microsoft Lumia 950xl. Same voice quality, never showed the "HD" symbol, didn't even have any option for VoLTE, unlike on the LG V10.

 

I really didn't notice a difference between the calls not showing the "HD" symbol and those that did. Whether it was or was not connected to HD voice, I couldn't say, but it was odd no noticeable difference was there. The biggest problem while having the Microsoft Lumia 950xl, which I got unlocked from Microsoft, was all the dropped calls I had on it a few months ago. A lot of dropped calls. My mother's old Samsung bar phone normally never got dropped calls for years with T-Mobile. Despite neither of us particularly caring for the voice quality, we were very happy the calls were so well connected. Then T-Mobile announced BingeOn, then all of the sudden lots of dropped calls, even when there is a strong signal. Voice quality still not good either.

 

Regarding Sprint, I only had two devices on the few times I had them last year. I had the Nexus 6 and a Kyocera. The voice quality on both were excellent. My only problem with Sprint, are dealing with their store employees which if I were to go back on Sprint I'd call in to the upper level department contact I have, skipping the stores, and of course the other issue was with the PCS connectivity. Now that Sprint has better PCS, I'd be happy to go back, as I liked the voice quality a lot. T-Mobile I'll admit might be much better in areas where they have more spectrum, but here in the Chicago market, it just isn't very good from my experiences. I can say that a lot more confidently than my negative experiences last year on Sprint, since much of what I was wrongly told by Sprint store employees I took too seriously, which thankfully S4GRU gave me a better explanation to the situation I had. I've become much more aware of the importance of spectrum because of this site, and it makes a big difference.

 

In closing, T-Mobile might be trying to improve their voice quality/services, which hopefully they'll be successful at, but they really need more spectrum and ought to consider how they are going to do this and have BingeOn congesting their network at the same time. The Chicago market I doubt can handle both, and they really should get onto doing whatever they can to improve the situation here.

[gusherb]

I've had quite a few phones on T-Mobile. I had a ZTE ZMax as my first T-Mobile (MetroPCS) smartphone, though I had been using an older bar phone from T-Mobile for years prior to that. Then the LTE radio died on the ZTE ZMax which actually was a T-Mobile smartphone they sent to me as a replacement. That one occasionally popped up with an "HD" symbol I assumed meant HD Voice, but it also happened when I was talking with my mother who does not have an HD voice capable phone. I thought both devices connected in a call had to be HD-Voice capable, though perhaps I'm wrong about that. Then I had the LG V10, which when it did connect calls, it sounded the same as with the ZTE ZMax, though I don't remember if that ever showed up with the "HD" symbol or not. While I liked the LG V10 overall, it started having issues connecting calls and making weird noises when it attempted to do so, or suddenly when someone called in. Then the last device I tried on T-Mobile, was the Microsoft Lumia 950xl. Same voice quality, never showed the "HD" symbol, didn't even have any option for VoLTE, unlike on the LG V10.

 

I really didn't notice a difference between the calls not showing the "HD" symbol and those that did. Whether it was or was not connected to HD voice, I couldn't say, but it was odd no noticeable difference was there. The biggest problem while having the Microsoft Lumia 950xl, which I got unlocked from Microsoft, was all the dropped calls I had on it a few months ago. A lot of dropped calls. My mother's old Samsung bar phone normally never got dropped calls for years with T-Mobile. Despite neither of us particularly caring for the voice quality, we were very happy the calls were so well connected. Then T-Mobile announced BingeOn, then all of the sudden lots of dropped calls, even when there is a strong signal. Voice quality still not good either.

 

Regarding Sprint, I only had two devices on the few times I had them last year. I had the Nexus 6 and a Kyocera. The voice quality on both were excellent. My only problem with Sprint, are dealing with their store employees which if I were to go back on Sprint I'd call in to the upper level department contact I have, skipping the stores, and of course the other issue was with the PCS connectivity. Now that Sprint has better PCS, I'd be happy to go back, as I liked the voice quality a lot. T-Mobile I'll admit might be much better in areas where they have more spectrum, but here in the Chicago market, it just isn't very good from my experiences. I can say that a lot more confidently than my negative experiences last year on Sprint, since much of what I was wrongly told by Sprint store employees I took too seriously, which thankfully S4GRU gave me a better explanation to the situation I had. I've become much more aware of the importance of spectrum because of this site, and it makes a big difference.

 

In closing, T-Mobile might be trying to improve their voice quality/services, which hopefully they'll be successful at, but they really need more spectrum and ought to consider how they are going to do this and have BingeOn congesting their network at the same time. The Chicago market I doubt can handle both, and they really should get onto doing whatever they can to improve the situation here.

You definitely need the other end to be HD capable for HD voice but that doesn't mean the network can't decide to bump you up to AMR 12.6 regardless of who you're calling. All that HD symbol means is that you're on the codec for HD.

 

As for your poor experience with VQ perhaps it's possible you live in a spot where it is bad, or your preferences just vary from many others. For surely Sprint and T-Mo sound different, CDMA generally does sound brighter and it is louder than UMTS/VoLTE.

 

If I had to go to a retail location and get Sprint service I would try one of their national retail accounts, like Best Buy or Target. My moms best friend handles those accounts in the south and west suburbs. Personally I would just do it online or over the phone.

[Arysyn]

You definitely need the other end to be HD capable for HD voice but that doesn't mean the network can't decide to bump you up to AMR 12.6 regardless of who you're calling. All that HD symbol means is that you're on the codec for HD.

 

As for your poor experience with VQ perhaps it's possible you live in a spot where it is bad, or your preferences just vary from many others. For surely Sprint and T-Mo sound different, CDMA generally does sound brighter and it is louder than UMTS/VoLTE.

 

If I had to go to a retail location and get Sprint service I would try one of their national retail accounts, like Best Buy or Target. My moms best friend handles those accounts in the south and west suburbs. Personally I would just do it online or over the phone.

 

Thank you for the information, gusher. I really thought it was strange at the time the HD symbol appeared, but I didn't think it was HD voice either. From all the great things I've heard about HD voice, I'd have to say I doubt that is what I've been experiencing when on voice calls using T-Mobile. It very likely is GSM, where my experience on Sprint has been non HD voice CDMA. In that comparison, I definitely prefer Sprint.

 

I wrote to Sprint recently, and got an upper management person to respond. My friend has had Sprint for a long time and tried to get me on his Everything Data line last year to no avail, mainly troubles dealing with store employees. With this direct contact, I can get on his plan without all the hassles we had with the stores. As I talked a lot about last year, which I brought up again in my post on the "Speed" thread, most of my troubles with Sprint last year, were due to store employees that messed up on things, such as not getting me on the Framily plan when others here on S4GRU at the time mentioned having no troubles getting people onto, and those store employees blaming the network rather than explaining to me the issues I later learned here on S4GRU.

 

I really like what Sprint is doing on the network side and the corporate restructuring, but I'm hoping Marcelo and his team can improve the store experience. I know there are plenty of people here who prefer dealing with Sprint online and over the phone which is fine, but the store experience should be on that level, as well.

[richy]

Absolutely! Probably why my mother has had a major increase in dropped calls as well.

 

I want to point another thing out about BingeOn. Reminder though first, I'm completely in agreement with other S4GRU members here not favorable of BingeOn, though I don't mind Music Freedom, because it isn't hindering audio quality as BingeOn is hindering video quality. Plus, audio doesn't congest the networks quite as much.

 

 

I think you'll find it's the length of your posts that are bringing the network to its knees, the internet was never designed to deal with this volume of data. I hear john legere is working on a new product called ArysynOn which will zero rate your posts but remove all the consonants but seriously I hope things are better on sprint for you, sprint certainly seems to be the network to head to these days.

[Fraydog]

 

Apparently our own milan03 found 175 Mbps in NY at Columbus Circle. Granted it isn't the most crowded time of the day there, but this is more or less to demonstrate B4-B12 carrier aggregation of 20 MHz and 5 MHz there.

 

 

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[Paynefanbro]

Around Columbus Circle isn't very residential so it should be pretty empty at night but very impressive nonetheless.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[greenbastard]

 

Apparently our own milan03 found 175 Mbps in NY at Columbus Circle. Granted it isn't the most crowded time of the day there, but this is more or less to demonstrate B4-B12 carrier aggregation of 20 MHz and 5 MHz there.

 

 

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Very impressive, yet extremely stupid on T-Mobile's part. Band 12 should be left as a last resort band for users on the edge of service and indoors. If they are going to aggregate bands, it should be Band 2-4.

[reedacus25]

Very impressive, yet extremely stupid on T-Mobile's part. Band 12 should be left as a last resort band for users on the edge of service and indoors. If they are going to aggregate bands, it should be Band 2-4.

If there are excess resource blocks available on the L700 side, and there is sufficient demand on the network, does it not make sense to fulfill the demand?

 

There is no Band 2 to aggregate with currently, so that's not on the table in this scenario. And clearly this is in a high RSRP/RSRQ area, so 64QAM frames, meaning more mileage out of the network in terms of overall throughput.

 

There's a reason in this example that L700 is the supplemental component carrier. It's resource block allocation is supplementary to the resource block scheduling of the L2100 RAN which is the primary component carrier.

 

So if the packet scheduler needs to allocate resource blocks to L700 for UE not in range of L2100, i.e. Edge of service and indoors, the first non-free resource blocks dynamically allocated are going to come from CA connected UE.

[Mr.Nuke]

I'm very interested to see if T-Mobile ever makes a move on Omaha. Obviously getting a local exchange is a big first step, but surely that is achievable, especially with the 531 area code overlay. Surely there's a full prefix they can claim in 531 at a reasonable price. I don't even think 402 is fully exhausted yet either.

Yeah if not having access to 402 numbers was the excuse surely they should be able to get 531 numbers.

I can say that I'm sure it works in a very narrow scope. I've had polar opposite experiences based on location.

If you zoom in far enough on the T-Mobile coverage map you get a really good idea of where their sites are at here. By-and-large it is designed to cover I-80 and I-680, which to a large degree makes sense. You have the ability to cover customers driving through on the interstate and cut down on roaming. As you note West of I-680 things drop off quickly. Your analysis of the market is significantly better than the reddit post.

My guess is with Sprint having a decent network, plus US Cellular adding a 4th player in the market, they see the market as too crowded to excel in. But the existing customers coming to visit Omaha are the ones who really suffer without a better network to fall back on.

Omaha has a history of being a crowded wireless market. I think they'd do fine here if they wanted to compete. It is a bit ridiculous for them not to be here given the size of the city.

[Houston_Texas]

 

Apparently our own milan03 found 175 Mbps in NY at Columbus Circle. Granted it isn't the most crowded time of the day there, but this is more or less to demonstrate B4-B12 carrier aggregation of 20 MHz and 5 MHz there.

 

 

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Holy smokes Batman!

 

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

[avb]

Very impressive, yet extremely stupid on T-Mobile's part. Band 12 should be left as a last resort band for users on the edge of service and indoors. If they are going to aggregate bands, it should be Band 2-4.

 

I said the same thing a while back on a reddit post in response to someone complaining about slow B12 speeds.  Of course I got downvoted

[Arysyn]

I think you'll find it's the length of your posts that are bringing the network to its knees, the internet was never designed to deal with this volume of data. I hear john legere is working on a new product called ArysynOn which will zero rate your posts but remove all the consonants but seriously I hope things are better on sprint for you, sprint certainly seems to be the network to head to these days.

 

Considering T-Mobile has Music Freedom and BingeOn to help congest it network, perhaps it has trouble handling long posts and blog articles as well. Oh, not to forget those long device-scathing "This device really sucks, but let me spend several minutes more reviewing this device because I really want to like it, only to hate on it even more" videos T-Mobile customer Erica Griffin puts out on YouTube. She even buys the devices she reviews from T-Mobile. I'm sure John Legere really likes seeing all those return numbers that are caused by her.

 

Next thing he'll do is to implement VideoSkip and TextShort, where video content is automatically sped up and text comes out looking like this : Tmo is rlly te bst uncr n te cntry nd cnt b bt by te dply

[Terrell352]

I said the same thing a while back on a reddit post in response to someone complaining about slow B12 speeds. Of course I got downvoted

Personally I think its a good idea. Sprint's b26 isn't all that usable at edge of cell either and if T-Mobile has 4/12 CA and 12/4 CA the latter will make b12 more usuable than Sprint's non CA band 26 especially if b12 is 4x2 capable since we know b26 is not.

[RAvirani]

Personally I think its a good idea. Sprint's b26 isn't all that usable at edge of cell either and if T-Mobile has 4/12 CA and 12/4 CA the latter will make b12 more usuable than Sprint's non CA band 26 especially if b12 is 4x2 capable since we know b26 is not.

I don't agree. Why waste your lowband's capacity on people who are in range of your midband/highband? It doesn't really make sense to me. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure T-Mobile's b12 is not 4x2, just regular old 2x2.

[Terrell352]

I don't agree. Why waste your lowband's capacity on people who are in range of your midband/highband? It doesn't really make sense to me. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure T-Mobile's b12 is not 4x2, just regular old 2x2.

Because it helps b12's own capacity by giving it the power of b4. I have yet to see sprints b26 outperform tmobile b12 because of this. Tmobile b12 has much better SNR values and they dont fluctuate as bad as sprints b26. In my experience across a few cities in florida at least including my own tmobile band 12 mops the floor with sprint band 26 in reliability.

 

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk