Page 4 of 25 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 372

Thread: Tmobile EDGE upgrade?

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    62
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jarrodpd View Post
    I understand they need to use low band spectrum to use the least amount of towers possible, it could be a possible set back in the future though. Once people in rural areas discover their passion to watch Netflix, Youtube on their unlimited data plan it could potentially wreak havoc on their QOS.
    There's kinda two concerns: coverage and capacity.

    Let's start with the assumption that 850MHz spectrum travels 2.23x further than 1900MHz spectrum (as T-Mobile notes in their FCC filings). To cover a rectangular area, we'll resort to hexagonal tessellation. The distance between the center of one of the hexagons and its edge is going to be 0.87 for PCS and 1.93 for cellular (based on radii of 1 and 2.23 respectively). So, horizontally, to cover a strip of land 100 long, we would need 58 PCS towers and 26 cellular towers. That doesn't sound too bad for PCS, but it gets worse when you deal with two-dimensional surfaces. In the other direction, to cover the area, the distance between the rows goes from sqrt(3) * R to 3R/2 (where R is the radius). So, to cover 100 in the other direction would take 67 PCS towers and 30 cellular towers. When we multiply them together, we see that we would need 3,886 PCS towers to cover that 100x100 area or 780 cellular towers.

    Now, in any square area, there may be places where coverage isn't important and such. However, one of the issues with wireless coverage is that people want it to work even as they drive through unimportant places - even if they aren't there often. With low-frequency spectrum, you can much, much more easily blanket an area. Heck, 700MHz even improves over cellular to 550 towers in the example. That means that even as people go about their day to day business hitting areas where virtually no one exists, they can have signal.

    Now, that can be supplemented with other spectrum in more built-up areas. When a user is near a cell site, they can be off-loaded onto that spectrum. However, it's impractical to create a *reliable and mobile* network for rural use on such high frequency spectrum. Those two words are key. It's a lot easier to service someone where you can install an antenna for home broadband. They don't care if there isn't service 1,500ft up the road - their house isn't going to suddenly move out of coverage on them. Similarly, an installed antenna can get much better line of sight than you inside your home and doesn't have the issues of handoffs like you have driving your car.

    In terms of QOS, T-Mobile already prioritizes traffic based on plan type and throttles. If you're talking about rural smartphones, a 10x10 LTE seems like it would be able to handle the traffic easily, especially if users close to the towers were handled by other spectrum. Heck, Verizon is running a 10x10 LTE network and pushing the majority of their traffic over that limited spectrum, even in cities. Now, they're going to need to add to that, but we're talking about T-Mobile entering much less dense areas where spectrum isn't as crunched without a native data-craving user-base. A 20MHz portion of 600MHz spectrum would probably suffice for many years.

    If you're talking about rural home broadband over wireless, it's trickier. I hope Sprint goes in that direction with fixed-wireless. They have the spectrum to do it, but they may not have the desire.

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    South Texas
    Posts
    433
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    The tower has been performing good voicewise. The TMO Engineer called me after the additional T1 was put in service. I saw 10 kB/s down, but that has slowed down since to around 5 kB/s average, but still better than the under 2 kB/s to unusable it was before.


    Sent with the HoFo App

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    838
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    Miracles? Like what? Eliminating simple choice rates, truly unlimited data plans and charging very high rates per GB for data? Those are some miracles I can do without.

    If you want Verizon coverage, then port your number over to them and pay more.




    Because they are investing their resources to upgrade more populated areas with high speed LTE because that gets them more customers and more revenue. Check out last quarter's reports---1.1 million new customers. Upgrading 2G wouldn't have gotten anywhere close to that.




    Same answer. They're using their resources to upgrade more populated areas first. Barstow to Vegas goes through a very unpopulated area in the middle of the desert. People can't drive through it fast enough.
    Sad in a way. Since they not gonna go back and do roads and highways and small towns. I guess it's best. But still. Lazy.

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    14,618
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by MEDIX1011 View Post
    TMO recently upgraded our tower with a second T1 line, and another nearby congested tower.
    That's great that they quickly did what they recently promised you and increased the capacity of the tower.

    I didn't know about TMO "ignoring data coverage in the burbs and rural areas
    Rural areas yes. But those claims by certain people about the suburbs do not match what I find when I travel to many metro areas around the country. I find that I can get good 4G coverage in suburbs of many large cities.

    You'll also find that certain people who make such claims about suburbs don't even have T-Mobile but have a carrier like Verizon so they aren't talking from first hand experience except for perhaps their home metro area.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    14,618
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ram130 View Post
    Sad in a way. Since they not gonna go back and do roads and highways and small towns.
    They've never said that they're not going to do it ever. But it's good business sense to upgrade the most profitable areas first and then use those profits to upgrade other areas later. 2G equipment isn't going to last forever. It must be replaced eventually.

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,410
    Device(s)
    iPhone 6S
    Carrier(s)
    Pioneer Cellular
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by mrbrown2195 View Post
    You better believe it! To paraphrase: "There are no future plans to upgrade these towers. Additionally, there are no future plans to upgrade the coverage in Springfield, MO to LTE."
    i.e. Therefore, one must assume T-Mobile considers Springfield, MO to be a "dust bowl". Sad.




    Sent with the HoFo App

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,410
    Device(s)
    iPhone 6S
    Carrier(s)
    Pioneer Cellular
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ram130 View Post
    I think someone should email the CEO about those areas and the potential to get alot of customers. Then again what can he do. Seems like he plays deaf to coverage.

    Why is tmobile so content with their 2G coverage yet even AT&T has more areas covered in "4G". It's like network consistency and reliability is never a priority. Im afraid the same gonna happen again in NYC if another hurricane hits. Network down.

    I only can pray and hope tmobile will impress me some what with their coverage in the future. For now goodbye Verizon.
    The CEO has already loudly and clearly called all those states and GPRS areas dust bowls and said they have no intention of serving them. Verizon already has them covered with LTE, and AT&T has them covered with "4G". How could T-Mobile possibly go in and build everything from scratch under these conditions at a level to compete effectively and still maintain their cheap pricing? It just can't be done. They're an urban carrier. If you're lucky and live in an urban area, great, if not, they might provide you basic voice & text via roaming in other areas, but that's it.

    The two areas in the country where they are bucking this are in eastern New Mexico and the Texas panhandle, areas with little to no population, whole counties with only 200 people in them, and only very tiny towns with a couple hundred people at most. Why? Who knows. At the same time, they have blanket Coverage in western Oklahoma where there is far more population, but it's all GPRS, which makes no sense either. All these areas have been explained as mistakes by previous management, or efforts to keep spectrum that they are about to lose, maybe that's true. If that's the case, they've spent a LOT of money with little hope of ever having a return as those areas already have LTE or 4G from other carriers.


    Sent with the HoFo App

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    18,125
    Device(s)
    Samsung Galaxy S2 (T-Mobile)
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile USA
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ggore View Post
    The CEO has already loudly and clearly called all those states and GPRS areas dust bowls and said they have no intention of serving them. Verizon already has them covered with LTE, and AT&T has them covered with "4G". How could T-Mobile possibly go in and build everything from scratch under these conditions at a level to compete effectively and still maintain their cheap pricing? It just can't be done. They're an urban carrier. If you're lucky and live in an urban area, great, if not, they might provide you basic voice & text via roaming in other areas, but that's it.

    The two areas in the country where they are bucking this are in eastern New Mexico and the Texas panhandle, areas with little to no population, whole counties with only 200 people in them, and only very tiny towns with a couple hundred people at most. Why? Who knows. At the same time, they have blanket Coverage in western Oklahoma where there is far more population, but it's all GPRS, which makes no sense either. All these areas have been explained as mistakes by previous management, or efforts to keep spectrum that they are about to lose, maybe that's true. If that's the case, they've spent a LOT of money with little hope of ever having a return as those areas already have LTE or 4G from other carriers.


    Sent with the HoFo App
    Imagine the people that live in those GPRS states but can't really afford att and verizon and just want tmobiles low pricing. That's an issue.


    Sent with the HoFo App
    __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _________



    Speed achieved using T-Mobile Samsung GS2

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    14,618
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ggore View Post
    i.e. Therefore, one must assume T-Mobile considers Springfield, MO to be a "dust bowl". Sad.
    This is more false information. Springfield already has 4G HSPA+ across the city. Hardly falls in the dust bowl category.

    It is also understandable that the 139th largest city in the U.S. with a population of only 334,000 wouldn't be at the top of the list to get an LTE upgrade.


    The CEO has already loudly and clearly called all those states and GPRS areas dust bowls and said they have no intention of serving them.
    You can't produce a single quote from the CEO saying "they have no intention of serving those areas". Which you would think you could do if he had said this as "loudly and clearly" as you falsely maintain. The fact is that his comment about dust bowl states was used in conjunction with Verizon's coverage and not T-Mobile's.

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,410
    Device(s)
    iPhone 6S
    Carrier(s)
    Pioneer Cellular
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ac21365 View Post
    13 hours 34 minutes, surprised it took you this long to come take a few whacks at that horse.

    T-Mobile is an urban carrier, never claimed to be anything but. Here again you imply that T-Mobile should advertise outright that they are crap in suburban/rural areas. For the most part, folks already realize this via coverage maps, word of mouth, etc. There's a few that don't do the research, and we see them from time to time posting here. Those are the minority, most of the populace knows who works and who doesn't in their area. The number of posts you see here indicates nothing more than the vocal part of that minority. You've made your point pretty clear in past threads(and threads and threads and threads and threads), mind letting it go?
    What's wrong with telling potential customers that you're an urban carrier and have no intentions of offering the same service in the suburbs that you do in the downtown core? You put words in my mouth, I did not say they should advertise it, but in my opinion they should tell a person signing up for service at that very time that based on where they live they might never have 3G or 4G or LTE. I would be really ticked if I had bought an LTE-capable phone at a T-Mobile store where LTE worked, and brought it home a mile away and just had GPRS to work with. Sheesh, you make it sound like there's nothing wrong with that and not telling a customer about it. Get busy with rationalizing all that instead of worrying about how many times I or anyone else on here complains about the same thing, because it is not a small number or an isolated few. Not at all.


    Sent with the HoFo App

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,410
    Device(s)
    iPhone 6S
    Carrier(s)
    Pioneer Cellular
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    This is more false information. Springfield already has 4G HSPA+ across the city. Hardly falls in the dust bowl category.

    It is also understandable that the 139th largest city in the U.S. with a population of only 334,000 wouldn't be at the top of the list to get an LTE upgrade.

    You can't produce a single quote from the CEO saying "they have no intention of serving those areas". Which you would think you could do if he had said this as "loudly and clearly" as you falsely maintain. The fact is that his comment about dust bowl states was used in conjunction with Verizon's coverage and not T-Mobile's.
    You apparently think its a dust bowl, since you consider a city that size as unworthy for LTE. The third largest city in Missouri. Cities that size are considered big in this part of the world, which I know is impossible for anyone in a megalopolis of millions to fathom and accept, and which is why it has LTE from both Verizon and AT&T already, but I bow to your opinion.


    Sent with the HoFo App

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    The Ozarks
    Posts
    295
    Device(s)
    iPhone X
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    This is more false information. Springfield already has 4G HSPA+ across the city. Hardly falls in the dust bowl category.

    It is also understandable that the 139th largest city in the U.S. with a population of only 334,000 wouldn't be at the top of the list to get an LTE upgrade.
    Firstly, my complaint wasn't so much with the HSPA+ coverage around Springfield, which is pretty excellent, it's the EDGE and GPRS coverage south of here in the Branson area. And although I would expect you to say, "Oh, it's Branson, the population is 10,000 people and the county only has 50,000," the area (Taney & Stone counties) swells in population (250k-1m people) during the summer months because of the tourism industry that has sprung up in that area.

    Secondly, it was only a few years ago that Springfield was at the top of their list for HSPA+ upgrades -- heck, they actually pushed it in a nationwide press release. The newer equipment is already there - I don't know that much about cellular technology (I'm just a lowly prosecutor), but certainly it'd be easier to upgrade to LTE than some place that doesn't already have that technology in place.

    I kind of find it ironic that one of their major call centers is located here (it's a mile from my house!) and the majority of their employees probably don't get anything more than EDGE service.

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,896
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by NHCharmedOne View Post
    Hell we still have a ton of places that say there is Edge and or 4G and it is all G LOL I would be happy with those places being Edge!
    No you wouldn't...I sure as hell wouldn't be "OK" with edge...

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    NH
    Posts
    2,171
    Carrier(s)
    T-mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Over G I would lol but luckily I'm not in those areas too often.

    Sent with the HoFo App
    NHCharmedOne





    My opinions are mine, not yours, no one says you have to agree with them! =)

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,896
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    EDGE is just so overloaded i'd rather have nothing
    Quote Originally Posted by NHCharmedOne View Post
    Over G I would lol but luckily I'm not in those areas too often.

    Sent with the HoFo App

Page 4 of 25 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Edge upgrades in New Jersey
    By ColdFlip in forum T-Mobile
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-30-2005, 09:45 AM
  2. tmobile phone upgrade?
    By triple5soul8781 in forum T-Mobile
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-21-2005, 06:54 AM
  3. Tmobile - EDGE, or high speed?
    By werx in forum T-Mobile
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-09-2004, 04:21 PM
  4. Tmobile Phone Upgrade's
    By Xarthan in forum T-Mobile
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-18-2004, 10:59 PM
  5. Hong Kong gets EDGE upgrade
    By eakenn in forum General Mobile Questions and Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-26-2003, 12:23 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks