Jump to content

T-Mobile LTE & Network Discussion V2


lilotimz

Recommended Posts

http://i.imgur.com/4ZgGPoW.png

 

any thoughts on this hilariously inaccurate coverage map?

 

How can one even comment on that? They think they'll have similar/same LTE than AT&T/Verizon? And if it's anything like their map a few years ago: 

 

Perpetually Coming Soon ™

 

Anyone can ask them (don't; rhetorical) the honest question, and it is not trolling, why T-Mobile refuses to complete it's 2G to 3G overlay, particularly in suburban and semirural areas where it is absolutely necessary. 

 

When is that never-ending project going to be declared "substantially complete"? Let alone this new skip 2G to LTE thing. 

 

Likewise, I've seen shill trolls say T-Mobile's LTE would be COMPLETE, not substantially, but totally complete by mid-2015. That did not happen, and now they've gone to retorting the "but it is substantially complete" bs. 

 

So basically: no.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can one even comment on that? They think they'll have similar/same LTE than AT&T/Verizon? And if it's anything like their map a few years ago:

 

Perpetually Coming Soon ™

 

Anyone can ask them (don't; rhetorical) the honest question, and it is not trolling, why T-Mobile refuses to complete it's 2G to 3G overlay, particularly in suburban and semirural areas where it is absolutely necessary.

 

When is that never-ending project going to be declared "substantially complete"? Let alone this new skip 2G to LTE thing.

 

Likewise, I've seen shill trolls say T-Mobile's LTE would be COMPLETE, not substantially, but totally complete by mid-2015. That did not happen, and now they've gone to retorting the "but it is substantially complete" bs.

 

So basically: no.

It is complete in their mind if John Legere and his executive minions say it is.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone can ask them (don't; rhetorical) the honest question, and it is not trolling, why T-Mobile refuses to complete it's 2G to 3G overlay, particularly in suburban and semirural areas where it is absolutely necessary.

 

When is that never-ending project going to be declared "substantially complete"? Let alone this new skip 2G to LTE thing.

 

They have essentially abandoned UMTS overlay projects.

 

The only new UMTS sites that have been coming online are new densification sites that are typically U1900/L2100 only.

 

Otherwise, they have basically come to the conclusion that it's more economical to skip UMTS in favor of LTE on the legacy GSM sites, except where they take those sites to full modernization.

 

The dream of an entire GSM/UMTS/LTE footprint is basically just that, a dream. Forget the dream of tower top radios and AWS gear in most of those areas, even with the 700 overlay.

 

And I for one was a huge proponent of UMTS overlay for better reach and voice quality/capacity compared to LTE and GSM respectively.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They have essentially abandoned UMTS overlay projects.

 

The only new UMTS sites that have been coming online are new densification sites that are typically U1900/L2100 only.

 

Otherwise, they have basically come to the conclusion that it's more economical to skip UMTS in favor of LTE on the legacy GSM sites, except where they take those sites to full modernization.

 

The dream of an entire GSM/UMTS/LTE footprint is basically just that, a dream. Forget the dream of tower top radios and AWS gear in most of those areas, even with the 700 overlay.

 

And I for one was a huge proponent of UMTS overlay for better reach and voice quality/capacity compared to LTE and GSM respectively.

 

Correct and good post. And to clarify, I might be too broad. I am not advocating for T-Mobile to covert their absolute entire 2G footprint. My problem is with non-cities where they don't have the density, and I could agree with them skipping most if not all W-CDMA in cities.

 

They cannot skip W-CMDA if they are serious about covering these suburban and semirural areas riddled with 2G and LTE islands. Then if you can't get LTE you get the insult of GPRS/EDGE in 2015 or no signal altogether. 

 

And the other problem is there's a vast amount of areas that simply aren't getting B12 yet or soon enough, and many still won't have a B12 phone, to add to that problem.

 

In short, city carrier is city carrier. With a little highway LTE coverage every now and again. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They have essentially abandoned UMTS overlay projects.

 

The only new UMTS sites that have been coming online are new densification sites that are typically U1900/L2100 only.

 

Otherwise, they have basically come to the conclusion that it's more economical to skip UMTS in favor of LTE on the legacy GSM sites, except where they take those sites to full modernization.

 

The dream of an entire GSM/UMTS/LTE footprint is basically just that, a dream. Forget the dream of tower top radios and AWS gear in most of those areas, even with the 700 overlay.

 

And I for one was a huge proponent of UMTS overlay for better reach and voice quality/capacity compared to LTE and GSM respectively.

T-Mobile's situation is a very good example of my viewpoint regarding how things are vs. how things ought to be, especially based on how wireless carriers say alot to make it seem like they can offer so much because their technology supposedly is so dense and so far reaching, but even worse of them to say that that is when they say they are current with technology in the various forms and ways they say it.

 

Carriers shouldn't need overlays of older technologies otherwise. If what they claim really is true by what I pointed to in the previous paragraph, then they ought to have 100% LTE by now and only LTE as their internet system. I wrote a post on S4GRU about this recently, and it seems that T-Mobile is very much the example. I made there of the complete opposite of those viewpoints.

 

T-Mobile claims to have so much LTE and that they are "Data Strong", when they have so much 2G remaining and are so far from completing what they have been promising for several years. Yet, they make themselves out to be so fast and so advanced. However, they keep getting slower and slower in the reports. While I had working T-Mobile service up until recently, I was noticing speeds dropping quite a bit from what they were, along with more and more drops from LTE down to various other older network technology that also slows them down and is not proper replacement for more sites that allow better LTE coverage so that those older network technologies can be removed from their sites.

 

Anyways, it shows that there still is a way to go for carriers to match what they say and provide the experience told will be given, rather than using older systems as a cover up, along of course with the fine print.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone can ask them (don't; rhetorical) the honest question, and it is not trolling, why T-Mobile refuses to complete it's 2G to 3G overlay, particularly in suburban and semirural areas where it is absolutely necessary. 

 

When is that never-ending project going to be declared "substantially complete"? Let alone this new skip 2G to LTE thing.

 

Well, I can only comprehensively speak on one market, but West Michigan's 2G-to-LTE footprint project has been nearly complete for months (where "nearly complete" means there's just 3 EDGE-only sites left across this entire half of the state.) 

 

 

They cannot skip W-CMDA if they are serious about covering these suburban and semirural areas riddled with 2G and LTE islands. Then if you can't get LTE you get the insult of GPRS/EDGE in 2015 or no signal altogether.

That's only true if you assume no new sites. But T-Mobile is adding brand new native LTE sites. (We've had three this year alone in Ottawa County, all in rural / exurban areas).

 

Sure, T-Mobile could spend lots of good money deploying old technology. But why should they throw money into 2G/3G, when they could throw it into new sites and LTE? Increased density is always better than airlink band-aids.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd take a second LTE site in Chester over a WCDMA add. But that's just me.

 

That would fit T-Mobile's modus operandi.  It is basically the "all or nothing" wireless operator.  Either native service or no service.  Either fast data or no data.  Either band 12 LTE or no signal.  Either ground mount band 2 LTE or no W-CDMA but GSM, which has become the equivalent of nothing.

 

 

AJ

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, T-Mobile could spend lots of good money deploying old technology. But why should they throw money into 2G/3G, when they could throw it into new sites and LTE? Increased density is always better than airlink band-aids.

 

For the argument how it's better to skip from 2G to LTE (which can make sense for dense areas or cities), no other carrier choose to do that as a whole or skip so much, and for a reason. I understand it might not be possible for them to do that right now, but the damage is done and I am not excusing it. 

 

(from a year ago: http://www.lightreading.com/mobile/small-cells/t-mobile-small-cells-were-dense-already/a/d-id/710439)

 

It seems it's low-band or nothing. We have to see if they are going to deploy any more low-band than they did 3G and they can only deploy it in certain areas.  

 

I also clarified that to me this really applies to suburban and semirural areas. For a GSM network that isn't dense, W-CDMA makes a huge world of difference. I don't know of any plans outside of just select areas that they are densifying nationwide. I don't want GPRS/EDGE for data, calling, texting or anything. I want LTE or 3G, period. LTE is more robust, and it is not even necessarily for low-traffic areas. Too much LTE obsession. 

 

Otherwise, we'll have to agree to disagree. 

 

Edit: AJ beat me to it  ;)

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

I initially largely lamented the fact that the L1900 overlay meant no UMTS services.

 

Largely because of site spacing, the lack of RRH, and especially, the inefficient use of spectrum holdings.

 

I still largely lament the fact that T-Mobile has 20-40+ MHz of AWS sitting fallow in some areas.

 

In a lot of highway cases (for me at least), T-Mobile is just barely too sparsely laid out. In many of these cases, RRH would almost always solve that with increased Tx and especially greatly increased Rx sensitivity.

 

Other cases result in a need for more macro builds in suburban and exurban areas.

 

I say all this, but T-Mobile has bust its tail in Mississippi and southeast Louisiana. T-Mobile has a vastly larger LTE footprint in state of MS than CSpire at this point, and has for close to a year at this point. By ~October/November of '14 they had substantial progress completed on US-45 and I-59, with substantial completion by January. And to be honest, it works well enough for me that I almost never worry that I don't have UMTS layers to fall back on. Streamed a Saints game from Starkville, MS to New Orleans last weekend on Slingbox and dropped the feed once in a known bad signal area on US-45. A year ago that was impossible.

 

So in all, it would be fantastic to have UMTS layers, and wider LTE channels, and more spectrum deployed total, but for where I am right now, it's working for me, and there is still room to grow which is good.

 

T-Mobile has ~20 sites awaiting back haul in MS, I know they must be back haul because these were GPRS sites that now have EDGE but no L1900 yet. And they've been waiting for over 6 months for it. So I would call 20/~500 sites in MS substantial completion.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the argument how it's better to skip from 2G to LTE (which can make sense for dense areas or cities), no other carrier choose to do that as a whole or skip so much, and for a reason. 

 

Luckily, there's still choice at play.

 

I hear there's this other carrier that just spent a ton of time and debt buying an all new 3G network on top of deploying LTE. A "network vision" where they "ripped and replaced" 3G.  So if you absolutely demand a "weak 3G" service step in between your 2G and LTE, you can buy that from them today.

 

I can't quite think of their name...but I'm sure someone will mention them in the thread

 

;)

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Luckily, there's still choice at play.

 

I hear there's this other carrier that just spent a ton of time and debt buying an all new 3G network on top of deploying LTE. If you absolutely demand a "weak 3G" service step in between your 2G and LTE, you can buy that today.

 

I can't quite think of their name...but I'm sure someone will mention them in the thread

 

;)

RootMetrics seems to be OK with Sprint's approach. Look, Sprint made a lot of unforced technological errors. CDMA 1X Advanced wasn't one of them. Sprint's issue with their network is not having increased LTE site density. But building LTE as an overlay over the old Sprint CDMA would have had issues as well.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, Sprint made a lot of unforced technological errors. CDMA 1X Advanced wasn't one of them. 

 

I never said that it was a mistake. I literally didn't criticize that decision in any way.

 

I only said that it's easier to just switch to Sprint, than be upset that T-Mobile isn't Sprint. I sort of assumed it would be the least controversial thing I could say, in this place.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said that it was a mistake. I literally didn't criticize that decision in any way.

 

I only said that it's easier to just switch to Sprint, than be upset that T-Mobile isn't Sprint. I sort of assumed it would be the least controversial thing I could say, in this place.

 

I wasn't really sure what you were saying, actually.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said that it was a mistake. I literally didn't criticize that decision in any way.

 

I only said that it's easier to just switch to Sprint, than be upset that T-Mobile isn't Sprint. I sort of assumed it would be the least controversial thing I could say, in this place.

You're fine. It will just be an area where we see things a little differently, that's all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cloud storage services generally are not good solutions for embedding images, as they typically do not provide direct links with S4GRU compatible image file extensions.

 

So, actually, I am referring to embedding images like this...

 

96ge2g.gif

 

AJ

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

HAHAHAHA.  AJ, these coverage maps from carriers are getting out of hand...

 

I'm surprised T-Mobile simply hasn't copied Verizon's map and thickened the edges. 

EOY 2016: 99.99% pops covered, 99.98% land covered in LTE. 

 

:rolleyes:

Edited by cortney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

T-Mobile LTE coverage right now:

 

 

 

 

When it starts showing up on crowd sourced maps, then I'll believe.

To be fair. I don't use sensorly anymore, and none of the major providers have referenced it as of recent. Root metrics appears to be the major player that is recognized.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

T-Mobile LTE coverage right now:

 

JXJVOHT.png

 

 

When it starts showing up on crowd sourced maps, then I'll believe.

I gave your post a like, though I'd give it ten likes if I could.

 

I would have wrote about this coverage map issue sooner, but I've been quite upset about it, seeing that T-Mobile is blatantly lying about their coverage, yet there haven't been any reports of an investigation into this by the FCC or any major consumer rights groups. T-Mobile even has an image on their website showing their coverage map in full, while someone is carrying a flag with areas missing in coverage from the coverage map in full on the same page right next to the person carrying the flag!

 

It is pathetic all the crap T-Mobile and its CEO, John Legere, is getting away with.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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


  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Similar Content

    • 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 lilotimz
      T-mobile Ericsson Cell Equipment
       
      For Ericsson markets t-mobile uses what is known as AIR antenna units which have the radio unit integrated with the antenna. This type of setup significantly reduces signal loss from the radio to the antenna since they're both practically next to each other and not sepearated by coax jumper cables like that of a remote radio unit.
       
      Basic Ericsson AIR21 setup
      (Note typically there are 2 Ericsson AIR per sector)

       

       

       
      Ericsson AIR21 + Band 12 700 mhz Equipment
       
      Note the addition of a new low band 700 mhz capable antenna + Ericsson RRUS11 B12 (remote radio units) in addition to new TMA (tower mounted amplifiers) connected to the AIR antenna. The new Ericsson RRUS11 B12 + Antenna addition is for tmobiles band 12 700mhz (L700) deployment. 

      (Credit: tmo.rocks)
       
      Credit for the photographs belong to whoever took it. You know who you are!
    • 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.
  • Posts

    • DISH and IOG Form Strategic Collaboration to Leverage Blockchain Technology in Wireless:   https://ir.dish.com/news-releases/news-release-details/dish-and-iog-form-strategic-collaboration-leverage-blockchain
    • Another Verizon C-band site, this time there appears it appears to be connected. eNB 84416  
    • I found this tower interesting too, but I think its an RFS panel next to that 6449. It's usually RFS+6488/6449 for Ericsson markets, Commscope+AAHF/AEHC for Nokia markets. Here is a similar setup, this time in Manhattan, eNB 45627. Looks like the same panel to me.   I am to blame for B41 not showing up on this tower. The eNB for B41 is located, but hidden, since no cells are shown. I passed this tower recently, and the J5 Pro I use for mapping B12/41 had a GPS glitch, and registered trails too far west, but parallel to Kings Hwy. With the trails and sector spread being too far west, I deleted the cells, with the intention of remapping B41 on this tower within the next month, as I will be in the neighborhood then. I'll make sure to add B12/71 too, which I haven't mapped for this tower at all. I think this tower was one of those midband only sites that finally got the full spectrum deployment. I could be wrong, but I don't think those antennas are still active. From the May 2021 view of Google Maps, all the new panels for that sector are at the edge of the building, with the other 2 sectors also getting updated, but they haven't changed positions. Wouldn't make sense to keep the old panels though, as they no longer have a purpose.
    • Band 41 Upgrades in progress in the Rapid City SD/Black Hills market as well as info on Sprint site transitions by EOY......we shall see. Hopefully this will be paired with NEW sites as T-Mobile is still at least 29 sites short of the other 2 in the Black Hills area....and DISH is starting to move in with sites. 
    • Dish moving into the Black Hills of South Dakota.......have seen 3 permits so far. Also, their are 5 NB-IOT sites that were put in back in 2019 that were basically part of a spectrum hold promise. I assume these sites will be transitioned as well. 
  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...