Jump to content

T-Mobile LTE & Network Discussion V2


lilotimz

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.

Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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!

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.


×
×
  • Create New...