Official Tmobile-Sprint merger discussion thread

[Flompholph]

You can use the Band selection link in scp to force nr  b71 to see if lte or nr. I haven't connected to real 5g(only the fake lte b2) to see what the s20 shows.

[PythonFanPA]

22 hours ago, Bennyjet29 said:

https://www.fiercewireless.com/5g/t-mobile-deactivates-sprint-s-legacy-2-5-ghz-5g-ahead-re-deployments

 

New T-Mobile is officially running the show now and repurposing all of Sprint/Clearwire 2.5 GHz Spectrum.

Found this part very interesting/telling:

"Data provided by research and analysis firm BayStreet Research shows that in the 11 months from June 2019 through April 2020, Sprint sold slightly over 75,000 of the now incompatible 5G phones. That includes around 15,000 Galaxy S10 5Gs, 35,000 LV V50 ThinQ and roughly 25,000 One Plus 7 Pro 5G.

Comparatively, Sprint users bought many more Galaxy S20, S20+ and S20 Ultra devices.Through April 2020 cumulative volume totals for the devices were 90,000; 55,000; and 75,000, respectively, according to BayStreet data.

That’s only two months of S20 volumes, BayStreet founder Cliff Maldonado noted, including part of March and April. Through June 2020 that increased to 200,000 for the S20; 115,000 for S20+; and 150,000 for S20 Ultra."

 

While in one sense it may show the appeal of the S20 line, I'd also take it to at least in part be a commentary on the percentage of users that have any interest in being early adopters too.  Even that said though, its almost odd that for those early adopters, the Samsung phones were the least purchased of the 3 options.  Without having seen the numbers otherwise, I'd have assumed they'd still command the lead there.  Unfortunately the article didn't mention numbers differential to other 2nd gen+ 5G alternatives (to whatever extent they exist).  

 

[ingenium]

Wait, so what's the difference between T-Mobile's 2.5GHz 5G and Sprint's 2.5GHz 5G, that causes older 5G phones that could connect to Sprint's implementation to not be able to connect to T-Mobile's? I figured it would just be a PLMN change or something (if that's even a thing with 5G).
 
Apologies at my lack of understanding of 5G. It's been awhile since I've been active on the forum and I'm going off my previous LTE knowledge. Feel free to link something that may help me understand better [emoji28]
 
-Anthony

NR right now is operating in a mode called non standalone (NSA). LTE has to be the anchor band (primary carrier) and NR is aggregated. It uses the LTE core. For voice calls, it actually drops the NR carrier. Honestly I'm not sure what about those phones prevents them from being able to use B2 or B66 as an anchor other than software/certifications. I'm not aware of any technical limitation of the modem that would prevent it

Supposedly standalone (SA) NR is coming by the end of the year. This will use NR as the primary carrier, and use the NR core (and enable VoNR). I think it can still aggregate LTE carriers as secondary, but no current modems support aggregating multiple NR carriers. For that we have to wait for the x60.

I guess technically once SA NR comes, these older phones would be able to use it. The issue would be whether or not they're actually capable of SA, and if they can do VoNR with software updates. And I guess also whether or not they'd get those software updates if so.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[iansltx]

1 hour ago, PythonFanPA said:

While in one sense it may show the appeal of the S20 line, I'd also take it to at least in part be a commentary on the percentage of users that have any interest in being early adopters too.  Even that said though, its almost odd that for those early adopters, the Samsung phones were the least purchased of the 3 options.  Without having seen the numbers otherwise, I'd have assumed they'd still command the lead there.  Unfortunately the article didn't mention numbers differential to other 2nd gen+ 5G alternatives (to whatever extent they exist).  

For a bit there, the S20 series were the only current-gen-5G capable phones on Sprint, so the LG and now OnePlus variants came in late enough in the game that you can safely assume their numbers were <100k combined. Remember that Sprint has been pushing the S20 series *hard* with discounts, so they're selling like hotcakes (I'm sure they're above 500k for the entire line at this point).

As for the folks getting the first-gen 5G phones, 75K total is actually pretty decent for a network that was only lit in a few markets, with no timeline for elsewhere.

I'm curious about what Verizon's numbers are at this point. Their current mmWave network almost certainly covers less territory than Sprint's 41+41 network did, and they aren't discounting their phones any because they don't have a burning need to push folks to the new network like Sprint does. Going to guess that, despite being a larger carrier, they still haven't cracked 500k 5G phone sales. Wouldn't be surprised if AT&T hasn't either.

[iansltx]

1 hour ago, ingenium said:

/snip

Supposedly standalone (SA) NR is coming by the end of the year. This will use NR as the primary carrier, and use the NR core (and enable VoNR). I think it can still aggregate LTE carriers as secondary, but no current modems support aggregating multiple NR carriers. For that we have to wait for the x60.

/snip

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk
 

The nice thing about T-Mo's 5G network though is that there shouldn't be a burning need to aggregate NR, with the exception of areas where their 2.5 holdings are chopped up into smaller channels due to licensing weirdness (which to my knowledge is a relatively small chunk of territory). Since NR channels can be 40/60 MHz, you just plop one of those channels down in 2.5 and have a significant amount of capacity to play with, while n71 is left for folks who aren't close enough to the cell for n41, similar to how T-Mobile prioritizes B71 right now.

If T-Mobile wants to fill in more speed in areas with contiguity issues, they can add B41 channels (which they're already doing in some areas). B41 is less efficient of course, but virtually every Sprint phone can use it, as well as plenty of T-Mobile phones, so they can push more users to T-Mobile primary without making (more of) a hash of their network.

At some point of course, they'll want more capacity in areas where they don't have enough contiguous spectrum to just make a bigger NR carrier, but the X60 will have dropped by then...sounds like it could actually wind up in the iPhone 12 series.

[ingenium]

The nice thing about T-Mo's 5G network though is that there shouldn't be a burning need to aggregate NR, with the exception of areas where their 2.5 holdings are chopped up into smaller channels due to licensing weirdness (which to my knowledge is a relatively small chunk of territory). Since NR channels can be 40/60 MHz, you just plop one of those channels down in 2.5 and have a significant amount of capacity to play with, while n71 is left for folks who aren't close enough to the cell for n41, similar to how T-Mobile prioritizes B71 right now.
If T-Mobile wants to fill in more speed in areas with contiguity issues, they can add B41 channels (which they're already doing in some areas). B41 is less efficient of course, but virtually every Sprint phone can use it, as well as plenty of T-Mobile phones, so they can push more users to T-Mobile primary without making (more of) a hash of their network.
At some point of course, they'll want more capacity in areas where they don't have enough contiguous spectrum to just make a bigger NR carrier, but the X60 will have dropped by then...sounds like it could actually wind up in the iPhone 12 series.

The main scenario where I envision NR CA being useful is edge of cell scenarios, where N71 can be used for PCC and N41 as SCC. You gain the better and more stable uplink from low band, extending the range of N41.

There are a lot of places now where B41 uplink is basically failing, but can still be used for download if uplink was on another band. The wider carrier widths of N41 width helps, plus NR is supposed to be better with weak signal uploads than LTE I believe, but it would still be nice to have and see N71+N41. It would also likely take load off of N71.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[Paynefanbro]

1 hour ago, ingenium said:

 I think it can still aggregate LTE carriers as secondary, but no current modems support aggregating multiple NR carriers. For that we have to wait for the x60.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk
 

That's not 100% true. The X55 modem supports mmWave carrier aggregation of up to 8 carriers or 800MHz. In NYC T-Mobile aggregates two 50MHz n261 carriers.

It also supports aggregation of a select few sub-6GHz bands. However, the sub-6GHz aggregation won't be meaningful until the x60 launches which will likely have CA support for nearly every sub-6GHz band.

In May, Qualcomm and Fujitsu achieved a multi-gigabit connection by aggregating NSA 3.5GHz and 4.9GHz with a X55 modem in a smartphone.

https://www.fiercewireless.com/tech/qualcomm-fujitsu-validate-5g-carrier-aggregation

[anthony.spina97]

5 hours ago, ingenium said:

NR right now is operating in a mode called non standalone (NSA). LTE has to be the anchor band (primary carrier) and NR is aggregated. It uses the LTE core. For voice calls, it actually drops the NR carrier. Honestly I'm not sure what about those phones prevents them from being able to use B2 or B66 as an anchor other than software/certifications. I'm not aware of any technical limitation of the modem that would prevent it


Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk
 

Fantastic explanation. Thanks!

 

-Anthony

[Tengen31]

Is it using both at once? Like carrier aggregation? B66/2 being used for download and upload (like primary carrier) and n41 only being used for download (like secondary carrier)? Again, apologies for the probably basic question lol.
-Anthony

Here we go

Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk

[Trip]

Okay, now that I said I hadn't seen any activity, I'm wondering if I saw something new this afternoon.

https://imgur.com/a/kD5lUkr

I copied one of the pictures and annotated it in red.  Am I right?

- Trip

[newyork4me]

I just lost B41 LTE in downtown Los Angeles.  Can’t even get it by forcing band selection—everything is B25 now...

[Tengen31]

I just lost B41 LTE in downtown Los Angeles.  Can’t even get it by forcing band selection—everything is B25 now...

It's possible TMO has shut it down with the plan to move you over to them. Is B25 10x10+5x5 or just 5x5+5x5

Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk

[Yuhfhrh]

 

2.5GHz install on a T-Mobile site in the Houston area: 29.7018566, -95.7397737

Site is only broadcasting two B41 LTE carriers, no N41 as of right now. Talked with the crew for a bit and the four of them are tackling four sites per day right now.

[greenbastard]

1 hour ago, Yuhfhrh said:

 

2.5GHz install on a T-Mobile site in the Houston area: 29.7018566, -95.7397737

Site is only broadcasting two B41 LTE carriers, no N41 as of right now. Talked with the crew for a bit and the four of them are tackling four sites per day right now.

One thing I do like about T-Mobile is that they really put a lot of energy into taking care of Houston. T-Mobile pulled a bunch of permits from the City of Houston on June 10. Seems like they're not sitting on those permits (which Sprint used to do).

From the few towers I checked, it seems like they are prioritizing towers that were left behind during the 600 Mhz upgrades first. The towers that received the first round of 600 Mhz upgrades have not had any permits submitted.

[chamb]

12 hours ago, greenbastard said:

One thing I do like about T-Mobile is that they really put a lot of energy into taking care of Houston. T-Mobile pulled a bunch of permits from the City of Houston on June 10. Seems like they're not sitting on those permits (which Sprint used to do).

From the few towers I checked, it seems like they are prioritizing towers that were left behind during the 600 Mhz upgrades first. The towers that received the first round of 600 Mhz upgrades have not had any permits submitted.

They are trying to get two different results with the upgrades.  The 600 Mhz upgrade was to get more range from the site to cover fringe areas.  The 2500 upgrade is to get faster speeds & capacity in major population areas.

[greenbastard]

1 hour ago, chamb said:

They are trying to get two different results with the upgrades.  The 600 Mhz upgrade was to get more range from the site to cover fringe areas.  The 2500 upgrade is to get faster speeds & capacity in major population areas.

All the 600 Mhz sites in my area were already part of a very dense network, so coverage was never an issue. It seems like every 600 Mhz upgrade was for capacity issues since T-Mobile was also deploying the 5x5 block they had in the AWS-3 band.

 

[littlejth]

Not to take this too far off topic (let me know if this would warrant a new thread!) but has T-Mo made any comment as to what it plans to do with Sprint towers, particularly in areas where coverage is sparse? I traveled on I94/90 between Eau Claire and Madison and coverage is *bad*. It looks like not only are they not able to deploy much B12 since just after Eau Claire is US Cellular territory but they have also not done any B71 upgrades in the area (perhaps there was a straggler TV station that had to move and didn't until later?) so it's all B4/66. I know there are Sprint towers in positions where T-Mo has very low to no native coverage and mostly partner coverage (I'm on an MVNO so I dropped to edge at this point, on the interstate) and it *seems* to make sense they'd keep some, but I guess I don't know if there's a rhyme or reason to it? It might be a bit more clear cut thinking about markets like Nebraska where T-Mo has almost no native coverage as opposed to Sprint but it's hard to say I suppose.

[dewbertdc]

9 minutes ago, littlejth said:

Not to take this too far off topic (let me know if this would warrant a new thread!) but has T-Mo made any comment as to what it plans to do with Sprint towers, particularly in areas where coverage is sparse? I traveled on I94/90 between Eau Claire and Madison and coverage is *bad*. It looks like not only are they not able to deploy much B12 since just after Eau Claire is US Cellular territory but they have also not done any B71 upgrades in the area (perhaps there was a straggler TV station that had to move and didn't until later?) so it's all B4/66. I know there are Sprint towers in positions where T-Mo has very low to no native coverage and mostly partner coverage (I'm on an MVNO so I dropped to edge at this point, on the interstate) and it *seems* to make sense they'd keep some, but I guess I don't know if there's a rhyme or reason to it? It might be a bit more clear cut thinking about markets like Nebraska where T-Mo has almost no native coverage as opposed to Sprint but it's hard to say I suppose.

They've said they plan to keep about 10,000 Sprint sites where they make sense for coverage or capacity, but haven't specified which.

[jreuschl]

21 minutes ago, littlejth said:

Not to take this too far off topic (let me know if this would warrant a new thread!) but has T-Mo made any comment as to what it plans to do with Sprint towers, particularly in areas where coverage is sparse? I traveled on I94/90 between Eau Claire and Madison and coverage is *bad*. It looks like not only are they not able to deploy much B12 since just after Eau Claire is US Cellular territory but they have also not done any B71 upgrades in the area (perhaps there was a straggler TV station that had to move and didn't until later?) so it's all B4/66. I know there are Sprint towers in positions where T-Mo has very low to no native coverage and mostly partner coverage (I'm on an MVNO so I dropped to edge at this point, on the interstate) and it *seems* to make sense they'd keep some, but I guess I don't know if there's a rhyme or reason to it? It might be a bit more clear cut thinking about markets like Nebraska where T-Mo has almost no native coverage as opposed to Sprint but it's hard to say I suppose.

There's quite a bit of B71 only in Northern WI, but it seems based on the TM MVNO map where you can see what LTE bands are available in a spot, B71 deployment has definitely stalled.  Madison and Milwaukee are not good markets for TM, I know largely because spectrum availability is so low.  Sprint isn't great in WI, but TM is even worse, especially rural.  I hope they have a commitment to make it better.

The map I'm taking about: https://maps.t-mobile.com/pcc.html?map=mvno-noroam-34l

I hope TM is also committed to combining their B2 and Sprint B25 ASAP.

[littlejth]

Here's another good source I've seen from the user lart2150 on reddit posted on the T-Mo subreddit: https://coverage.lart2150.com/# They use the T-Mo map and scan it to take all the info you can see in specific spots and show it nationwide. It shows pretty clear holes in the Madison market, it's definitely not great. Meanwhile back up here towards the cities I think it's probably one of their better markets.

[jreuschl]

15 hours ago, Yuhfhrh said:

2.5GHz install on a T-Mobile site in the Houston area: 29.7018566, -95.7397737

Site is only broadcasting two B41 LTE carriers, no N41 as of right now. Talked with the crew for a bit and the four of them are tackling four sites per day right now.

Glad to see there is some LTE staying around.  Apparently in Nokia markets the equipment can do dual LTE/5G but not Ericsson?

[dewbertdc]

1 minute ago, jreuschl said:

Glad to see there is some LTE staying around.  Apparently in Nokia markets the equipment can do dual LTE/5G but not Ericsson?

There's some talk over in the T-Mobile subreddit that the Ericsson equipment might be software upgradeable to run both LTE and NR carriers.

[chamb]

47 minutes ago, greenbastard said:

All the 600 Mhz sites in my area were already part of a very dense network, so coverage was never an issue. It seems like every 600 Mhz upgrade was for capacity issues since T-Mobile was also deploying the 5x5 block they had in the AWS-3 band.

 

Your area must be unique. I NEVER see dense T-Mobile coverage.  T-Mobile is actually the worst carrier by far in my eyes. They normally do not know what dense means.   To make a good network, it is going to be very very expensive because they are starting with a very poor network.  T-Mobile was a great marketing device, but not a great cell phone carrier.

[mdob07]

25 minutes ago, chamb said:

Your area must be unique. I NEVER see dense T-Mobile coverage.  T-Mobile is actually the worst carrier by far in my eyes. They normally do not know what dense means.   To make a good network, it is going to be very very expensive because they are starting with a very poor network.  T-Mobile was a great marketing device, but not a great cell phone carrier.

T-Mobile is pretty dense in the Louisville metro area, close to matching AT&T as far as macro sites go in most parts of town, both blow Verizon and Sprint out of the water here. This is also a pretty mature B71 & N71 area. When I previously had T-Mobile service back around 2014 they were horrendous here, but they did a ton a work between then and when I switched back in April of this year. What I hope they focus on here is rural coverage, as they are pretty even with what Sprint had and both lag far behind AT&T and Verizon in rural coverage here. 

[dro1984]

1 hour ago, mdob07 said:

T-Mobile is pretty dense in the Louisville metro area, close to matching AT&T as far as macro sites go in most parts of town, both blow Verizon and Sprint out of the water here. 

 

4 hours ago, chamb said:

Your area must be unique. I NEVER see dense T-Mobile coverage.  T-Mobile is actually the worst carrier by far in my eyes. They normally do not know what dense means.   

T-Mobile if very dense in my area too.   Sprint in my area always needed a densification.     So no... it's not Unique.