T-Mobile LTE & Network Discussion V2

[Deval]

gusherb is absolutely correct about this. Actually it is one of the issues I've talked about most with him, as we live in the same vicinity in most ways, with the slight exception of the Indiana/Illinois border issues. T-Mobile is absolutely dreadful around here regarding spectrum. AT&T and Sprint have so much more spectrum holdings. My believe is AT&T and Sprint have the minimum spectrum which all carriers should have, an issue I take against the FCC rather than the carriers, as I know the carriers want much more than what the FCC is giving.

 

However, T-Mobile is way under that minimum in spectrum here, which just looks so much worse when other markets they serve have much more spectrum than Chicago, these markets being quite smaller than Chicago even is. I still blame the FCC, but also cannot ignore the fact T-Mobile has been neglectful of this area. Then they add BingeOn to it, which while has been shown to slow down speeds in many markets, it is particularly hurtful here in Chicago. My mother and I never had dropped calls on T-Mobile for many years. Suddenly after BingeOn was introduced, loads of dropped calls occur regularly. Very bad service. Now I'm just waiting hoping for HTC to reveal its specifications for the Sprint model of the HTC 10, then I'm going to try getting back on Sprint with that.

 

You seriously can't blame the FCC for T-Mobile's lack of money, right?

 

Sprint PCS was created by purchasing free-market rate PCS spectrum, something Voicestream at the time avoided. 

[bigsnake49]

You seriously can't blame the FCC for T-Mobile's lack of money, right?

 

Sprint PCS was created by purchasing free-market rate PCS spectrum, something Voicestream at the time avoided. 

 

But T-Mobile did very well purchasing MetroPCS. I wanted Sprint to buy/merge both Metro and Cricket.

[tommym65]

But T-Mobile did very well purchasing MetroPCS. I wanted Sprint to buy/merge both Metro and Cricket.

 

So did the much-maligned Dan Hesse.  His incredibly-stupid-at-that-time board of directors totally torpedoed him.

[tyroned3222]

Varies. Here a single tower install was 2-3 days and was broadcasting 3-4 weeks later.

 

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

On my home tower sites all antennas were shorter now 3 of them are longer any indication.

 

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

[Arysyn]

You seriously can't blame the FCC for T-Mobile's lack of money, right?

 

Sprint PCS was created by purchasing free-market rate PCS spectrum, something Voicestream at the time avoided. 

 

I'm not blaming the FCC for any specific financial issue of T-Mobile or any carrier, specifically. However, I blame the FCC for making it difficult for carriers to get enough spectrum to serve their customers' needs. The amount carriers spend just on basic spectrum amounts already is astronomical, spectrum amounts that still don't give enough room for speed and capacity. I'm not a fan of these auctions and while I'm plenty critical of T-Mobile where I see fault as I mention plenty of here on S4GRU, I can't honestly blame all of T-Mobile's spectrum issues exclusively on them. The FCC does carry some blame.

[travismheim]

I'm not blaming the FCC for any specific financial issue of T-Mobile or any carrier, specifically. However, I blame the FCC for making it difficult for carriers to get enough spectrum to serve their customers' needs. The amount carriers spend just on basic spectrum amounts already is astronomical, spectrum amounts that still don't give enough room for speed and capacity. I'm not a fan of these auctions and while I'm plenty critical of T-Mobile where I see fault as I mention plenty of here on S4GRU, I can't honestly blame all of T-Mobile's spectrum issues exclusively on them. The FCC does carry some blame.

How does the FCC make it difficult? They auction it off as it's made available. They only set the opening bid, T-Mobile needs to open up its wallet if it wants more spectrum at the next auction.

 

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

[Deval]

I'm not blaming the FCC for any specific financial issue of T-Mobile or any carrier, specifically. However, I blame the FCC for making it difficult for carriers to get enough spectrum to serve their customers' needs. The amount carriers spend just on basic spectrum amounts already is astronomical, spectrum amounts that still don't give enough room for speed and capacity. I'm not a fan of these auctions and while I'm plenty critical of T-Mobile where I see fault as I mention plenty of here on S4GRU, I can't honestly blame all of T-Mobile's spectrum issues exclusively on them. The FCC does carry some blame.

 

That's the thing buddy, the FCC didn't do anything wrong. T-Mobile didn't spend enough money, simple as that.

 

This isn't a welfare state where spectrum is doled out for free.

[joshuam]

Spectrum is a finite resource. There are many things fighting for space, including critical emergency systems. It's not a perfect system, but I don't think anyone predicted data used and spectrum needs 30 years ago. Priorities change.

[avb]

But T-Mobile did very well purchasing MetroPCS. I wanted Sprint to buy/merge both Metro and Cricket.

 

Hesse wanted MetroPCS too.  I wanted Cricket because they have PCS spectrum in the Houston market and Sprint needs more in Houston (and because I'm selfish and always want more improvements in Houston).

[Arysyn]

How does the FCC make it difficult? They auction it off as it's made available. They only set the opening bid, T-Mobile needs to open up its wallet if it wants more spectrum at the next auction.

 

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

 

That's the thing buddy, the FCC didn't do anything wrong. T-Mobile didn't spend enough money, simple as that.

 

This isn't a welfare state where spectrum is doled out for free.

 

I'm not referring to auctions where T-Mobile passed over and those they didn't spend, The FCC simply isn't offering enough spectrum for carriers to provide great service for customers. That is, service which can properly handle the growing demand for data. I realize many here on S4GRU have a more conservative mindset when it comes to issues of data usage, etc., which I'm not arguing. Its just a perspective people here happen to have differently than those such as on TmoNews, where Magentans seem to believe more progressively (higher data usage, etc.) ( happen to believe more in between those perspectives of how much data ought to be used in consumption, along with spectrum issues and the overall needs of handling those growth patterns. Still, I can respect both sides of thinking.

 

However, what I see happening varies from that. Data usage is on the rise and it needs to be dealt with. It could be done in the manner people here advocate, it could be done progressively, but something needs done as networks become more congested. Surely prices for services could change to lessen the usage by raising prices, carriers could build more sites, which if they cannot afford enough then price raising could help with that, but it still doesn't deal with the issue of spectrum which will require significant price hikes for carriers to afford enough spectrum to cover the growing demand for data. Then there is the issue of how much spectrum even is being offered.

 

My believe is that the FCC ought to offer more spectrum at cheaper rates to the carriers so that the carriers could add spectrum without taking such a hard financial hit. Sure, perhaps T-Mobile should have bought more spectrum when they could have at the time it wasn't as scarce, when it was more affordable. However, by blaming T-Mobile completely just on that point alone hurts their customers who need the extra spectrum on T-Mobile's network. I'm not saying the FCC ought to just give T-Mobile free spectrum now to cover from T-Mobile's mistakes, but the FCC could be more fair about it in how they offer spectrum, which goes to helping all carriers, not just T-Mobile.

 

Regardless, my view on this I've mentioned here many times before, its nothing new. I'm not a fan of the FCC and I believe some of its practices while it claims is good for consumers, have turned out not to be, at least in part.

[travismheim]

 

 

My believe is that the FCC ought to offer more spectrum at cheaper rates to the carriers so that the carriers could add spectrum without taking such a hard financial hit.

The spectrum is bid on. It is expensive because many parties find it valuable, and bid against each other. They could set the starting price at zero and it could still be auctioned off for billions, because that's what companies are willing to pay for it.

 

 

 

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

[greenbastard]

 

The spectrum is bid on. It is expensive because many parties find it valuable, and bid against each other. They could set the starting price at zero and it could still be auctioned off for billions, because that's what companies are willing to pay for it.

 

 

 

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Don't forget to add that there simply isn't enough spectrum...or usable spectrum.

[Arysyn]

The spectrum is bid on. It is expensive because many parties find it valuable, and bid against each other. They could set the starting price at zero and it could still be auctioned off for billions, because that's what companies are willing to pay for it.

 

 

 

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

Very true. This is a reason why I don't like the auction process of spectrum dealing for wireless carriers.

 

While I realize this Is a pipe dream idea, I'd still much rather there be a system of fair spectrum distribution among wireless carriers and the FCC. I like the idea of them meeting together and figure out a plan where enough spectrum is given to each of the carriers based on their network needs to best serve the amount of subscribers each of the carriers have. The FCC could then charge rent based off the use of that spectrum, which then could change easily as carriers swap spectrum based on changing subscriber needs and numbers.

 

While that I think would work quite well, I'd want another workaround even more. I would really like there to be three carriers in the country with the same amount of spectrum between them which the carriers would be forced to make the best of work for them and their needs. My suggestion is for a 30x30 amount of low-band, 30x30 mid-band, and 30x30 or equivalent with TDD at 3x ca in high-band spectrum given to each of the three carriers. That way, spectrum wouldn't be an issue for customers, especially those currently in areas in need of more spectrum from their wireless providers. The spectrum would be charged in rent with this idea too.

 

Both ideas would go far in helping give a better quality network experience for customers without having to do so much wasteful investigation in whether or not this or that wireless carrier has enough spectrum to properly provide for their usage needs. The problem with T-Mobile here in the Chicago market is just that, too little spectrum where calls are dropping much more due to the increased congestion. I do blame T-Mobile for not trying better to get more spectrum around here, but then again, the system could be friendlier to all carriers, including towards T-Mobile, in finding more of a fair way of distributing this spectrum than by auction.

[Fraydog]

The US should go to spectrum beauty contests. I suspect the Republican Congress and the duopoly would flip at this proposal, however.

 

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[tyroned3222]

b12 spotted in el paso

 

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

[bigsnake49]

Hesse wanted MetroPCS too.  I wanted Cricket because they have PCS spectrum in the Houston market and Sprint needs more in Houston (and because I'm selfish and always want more improvements in Houston).

 

I wanted both since Metro and Cricket bought the spectrum in places where Sprint's PCS holdings were weak.

Edited April 18, 2016 by bigsnake49

[bigsnake49]

The US should go to spectrum beauty contests. I suspect the Republican Congress and the duopoly would flip at this proposal, however.

 

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

I think so too. They should collect annual rent from the beauty contest winners but not too much that it severely impacts their ability to deploy a network.

[red_dog007]

TMobile is very lucky to be alive.  TMobile got a lot in AWS1 auction.  But then MetroPCS gave them a lot of spectrum which got TMobile to go after the 700A acquisitions.  Then they also go some decent spectrum from the failed AT&T merger.  If Sprint had purchased MetroPCS, we don't know what would have happened, but TMo would be a lot more lacking and wouldn't not have gone after 700A spectrum.  Shoot, AT&T might have been able to acquire TMo.  We'd have three big players instead of four.

 

 

It really isn't the FCC fault.  Spectrum is limited, and each auction someone else is giving up their spectrum.  700 and 600 MHz TV broadcasters are giving up spectrum.  AWS3, government is giving up spectrum.  Sprints 800MHz, local and state governments had to relocate.  Then Dish is sitting on a lot of spectrum, Ligado has a good bit of spectrum.  That Ligado and Dish both have a lot of repurposed satellite spectrum for LTE terrestrial use.  The government imo is doing a decent job in repurposing spectrum for a hugely growing market. 

 

Then TMobile only spent half what they allocated for AWS3, and they should have allocated more.  Then look at Sprint with the BRS/EBS.  BRS auction went for nothing.  Clearwire went around scooping up EBS licenses for nothing which too is reallocated spectrum.  Everyone thought it was junk spectrum, because at that time data was not a huge issue and could easily argue it was junk.  But now everyone would kill to get their hands on 20 or 40MHz of the stuff.  Sprint bought the remaining 50% stake in Clearwire for just $3.3 billion!  Would have been cheaper if it wasn't for Dish!  And now you have some major carriers testing the use of unlicensed 3.5GHz and 5GHz which the Feds have opened up a lot spectrum there.   Dish and Ligado alone are sitting on some +/-100MHz depending on the market.

 

This issue is time, planning, trends, risk taking, and money and you can't really blame the FCC too much for that.  Especially when some of the spectrum was acquired cheaply or been repurposed.

 

If anything I'd say we are lucky to have the amount of spectrum for LTE/cellular that we do, that we have four nationwide carriers and still lots of regional carriers.  And still lots of unused total spectrum across all spectrum holders in any given market.

[tyroned3222]

Anyone know what could cause t mobiles ping/latency to be high. Mine is 155 for a while now used to 55 to 60

 

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

[Arysyn]

At first, I wasn't sure where to post this, but as I plan on writing more about T-Mobile than Sprint here, plus that the link I'm going to mention is from TmoNews, I decided this thread is a better place for this, instead of the Sprint thread. Anyways, here is the link :

http://www.tmonews.com/2016/04/nearly-half-of-t-mobiles-q1-2016-new-phone-activations-came-from-other-carriers-report-says/

 

In the article, it mentions "Finally, today’s report says that Sprint lost the most customers to other carriers, with 27 percent of its subscribers jumping ship. T-Mobile is said to have lost 18 percent of its customers, with Verizon at 17 percent, and AT&T at 16 percent." That isn't very good news regarding Sprint, although despite the percentage of customers lost is greater than that of T-Mobile's customer losses, I still think this is worse news for T-Mobile than for Sprint. I say this because Sprint is in a much better position to grow than T-Mobile is right now. Sprint is still building on to its network and has much more spectrum to do it with than T-Mobile has, which at most for T-Mobile is 5x5 of 700mhz spectrum. Whereas Sprint has plenty areas where it can deploy up to 60mhz of its band 41 spectrum.

 

Worse though than that, is the threat AT&T poses towards T-Mobile with its new unlimited plans both on AT&T and with Cricket. Sure, it could be said that threat being the same towards Sprint, though not so if taken into account the potential for growth Sprint has over T-Mobile. Sprint is in a much better, stronger position to take on AT&T, than T-Mobile is. I think T-Mobile's growth is at a peak now and wouldn't be surprised to see it start falling, especially since the several months of hype surrounding the 700mhz spectrum addition has begun not only to die down, but in a reversal I've noticed plenty of people commenting how slow the 700mhz connections are. This is not an issue Sprint has to be concerned about with its band 41 spectrum that will be plenty fast. The only concerns about it I've read, is the indoor connectivity, which if Sprint figures out a way to resolve those issues as they are investigating currently, then all will be well and good for positive growth on Sprint. T-Mobile's only real future seems to be what it can get with 600mhz spectrum, which if they only end up with 5x5 of, that just won't be enough for any sort of stable future growth.

 

I believe T-Mobile is going to lose more customers, particularly once Sprint gets going on its NGN plans. Sprint needs to do this though soon, before its subscriber losses worsen. However, even if customers are leaving Sprint for T-Mobile, my guess is many of them will turn around and leave for AT&T. I'm very impressed by what AT&T is doing lately. Also, it turns out my cousin who has AT&T and is experiencing some slowdown, is likely due to him not having a band 30 capable device. AT&T having 10x10 of band 30 spectrum here in the Chicago market, it is very important to have a band 30 capable device around here. I imagine that those with the band 30 capability are much more satisfied than those who don't on AT&T's network. Now that more devices coming out do have band 30 connectivity, those with it on AT&T's or Cricket's unlimited data plans likely are contributing to AT&T's successes and will continue more with the additions to its network which AT&T finally is beginning to pay attention to here in the U.S.

[EvanA]

T-Mobile appears to be taking the "throw money at the problem" approach to 600MHz relocation. They've signed a deal with an antenna manufacturer to allow them to ramp up production and hire more installation crews.

 

I'm still skeptical that 600MHz relocation will go smoothly and finish according to the 39 month timeline.

 

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/local-tv/nab-2016-t-mobile-backs-repack-tech-company/155727

[Arysyn]

T-Mobile appears to be taking the "throw money at the problem" approach to 600MHz relocation. They've signed a deal with an antenna manufacturer to allow them to ramp up production and hire more installation crews.

 

I'm still skeptical that 600MHz relocation will go smoothly and finish according to the 39 month timeline.

 

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/local-tv/nab-2016-t-mobile-backs-repack-tech-company/155727

 

I admitted being wrong thinking T-Mobile would have this done in time, as I erroneously compared this to the fast rollout of the LTE network. Well, there also is the issue if this is even going to be done correctly, let alone on time.

 

T-Mobile's network speeds are slowing a lot, and while issues such as T-Mobile's lack of spectrum in many areas, along with BingeOn being factors of that, I also wonder if the work, or the equipment (possibly both) may have something to do with the issues that go beyond just slower speeds. There have been a lot of problems with connectivity issues too. I've read more complaints regarding dropped calls and other network connectivity faults. My mother has had qui8te a bit of dropped calls lately and very weak signal readings on her phone. It has been getting worse where she can't get a signal around an entire block or two in the neighborhood. I'm fairly certain it isn't her phone that is the problem, as similar issues occurred when I had the Microsoft Lumia 950xl a few months ago.

[red_dog007]

I think TMo will continue to grow well as long as they continue their ad campaign and continue their perks, all while providing usable internet. All their markets still have PCS -> LTE, so that will give them a little more breathing room.

 

TMobile might of had an advantage here due to history. Before TMobile purchased Metro, TMobile only had a little over 30 million customers. Metro sling shot them to around 45million and through an ad campaign (who knows TMobile anyways? No one!) has successfully added customers like mad. Both companies have come from completely different pasts. TMobile is that kid no one knows who has an awesome product. Sprint is that kid who everyone already knows and don't believe what they say because it is always Coming Soon^TM

 

 

Oh, also TMo should go big on the AWS3 auction for what Dish surrendered. Chicago and Charlotte they can get 20MHz. NYC, Pittsburg, Tampa, OKC, El Paso and Boston can be 10MHz.

[Arysyn]

I think TMo will continue to grow well as long as they continue their ad campaign and continue their perks, all while providing usable internet. All their markets still have PCS -> LTE, so that will give them a little more breathing room.

 

TMobile might of had an advantage here due to history. Before TMobile purchased Metro, TMobile only had a little over 30 million customers. Metro sling shot them to around 45million and through an ad campaign (who knows TMobile anyways? No one!) has successfully added customers like mad. Both companies have come from completely different pasts. TMobile is that kid no one knows who has an awesome product. Sprint is that kid who everyone already knows and don't believe what they say because it is always Coming Soon^TM

 

 

Oh, also TMo should go big on the AWS3 auction for what Dish surrendered. Chicago and Charlotte they can get 20MHz. NYC, Pittsburg, Tampa, OKC, El Paso and Boston can be 10MHz.

 

You are correct about Sprint. I really like Sprint and all of the network upgrade stuff, but I don't like how Sprint is marketing their image and not really doing much about its biggest problem which is customer service. Sure there still are many complaints online about the network, though we know that will lessen in time as Sprint continues to adjust things on its network implementing them with the newer technology. Yet, Sprint doesn't appear to be fixing the customer service issues I keep seeing more of while the network complaints are lessening to an extent. After the fiasco with the woman in the "ghetto comment" video, it seems Sprint may be placing too much emphasis on the network which may be making them not as aware of their image and customer service issues.

 

I really think Sprint needs to rebrand, which it may be considering for when the network is completely upgraded, or at least near so. Along with that, it needs to spend more on higher quality customer service, or else many people will not care about the newer network or rebrand qualities. In that regard, admittedly T-Mobile is doing a better job at in getting people to be with the brand that appears "cool" with its highly-lauded customer service. Sprint may need Marcelo right now to get things done, but I wonder if he'll be gone when it comes time for a new image makeover of Sprint. That is where Marcelo truly is failing at. He just isn't capturing much at5tention to the Sprint brand, even though much of that isn't his fault as he's representing a brand that needs revived in the public image, a task which won't be succeeded in fixing the network alone.

 

However, Marcelo's slipups and missed opportunities in the public, particularly in the recent situation, shows that he just doesn't seem the best at being the person to lead the company in the public eye. He does seem to be a friendly guy who probably is great at resolving internal issues and bringing his employees together, but not so good at being a tough go-getter public leader-type like how John Legere is. Sprint is going to need that type of person if it does a rebrand, though hopefully someone who is a bit more professional than Legere is. Yet, I'm not sure if having all of these regional presidents of Sprint is going to work with that type of person in charge. Furthermore, I'm not so sure that having all these regional presidents is such a good idea for Sprint, especially at a time where the company needs a unified image that doesn't appear so "franchised". Then again too, there hasn't been much said about Sprint from Masa lately, which could be good or bad. Although I thought the main point in Masa/Softbank purchasing Sprint was to fulfill his dream of having a major carrier brand in the U.S. Such a vested personal interest I'd think he'd want to be at least a little bit more involved with Sprint.

[NYC126]

Anyone noticed the 2.6ghz thread on the tmobile subreddit ? seems the fans over there want a piece of the 2.5-2.6ghz spectrum and rebranded to band 7. Of course Sprint number one hater Cabian_Cortez is hoping Sprint fold .