Page 75 of 76 FirstFirst ... 25 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 LastLast
Results 1,111 to 1,125 of 1135

Thread: Northern MI T-Mobile buildout has begun!

  1. #1111
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,863
    Feedback Score
    0
    Also at the end of the day T-mobile isn't deploying 5G over 600 MHz there right now. So they can actually use the entire 20X20 MHz of 600 on 4G which beats any lowband that Verizon or at&t has there.

  2. #1112
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Almont, Michigan
    Posts
    4,220
    Device(s)
    Galaxy S10
    Carrier(s)
    LTE-A
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hagar View Post
    I disagree that's Sprint's band 2 would be less effective than Verizon's or At&t band 2/4 which they have deployed in these same areas.
    Oh, I didn't say Sprints B25 was less effective. My comment was stating that a smaller carrier (PCS) has better propagation characteristics than a wideband PCS carrier whether its T-Mo, Sprint, or any other wireless carrier.

  3. #1113
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles/Canada
    Posts
    11,446
    Device(s)
    LG G7 (T-Mobile), iPhone 8 (AT&T)
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile, AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by 10mm View Post
    Right, and it depends on location. In northern Michigan, Verizon and T have greater site density which allows them to optimze their network better.
    This is true. In much of the UP, TMobile exists primarily on the highway and a site in towns. At&t and Verizon typically are and have been relied on for quite a while and have enough coverage to fill in both towns and in between. They have had service since the cellular days. In the UP at&t isnt as established..but been there longer than TMobile.

    Sent from my LM-G710 using HoFo mobile app
    AT&T... your world, throttled.

  4. #1114
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    1,375
    Feedback Score
    0
    The whole system with fixed allocated frequencies is antiquated and broken. It was necessary in 1900's but now in 2020 is just a dinosaur.
    This is an example of carriers having bought exclusive "rights" to bandwidth, but not actually building up a network on that bandwidth because of financial or other considerations.

    If FCC would not be that greedy with their auctions (that sell our bandwidth to richest bidders), and would implement a shared spectrum everywhere on LTE bands, similar with CBRS, then we would see much faster buildup of towers and sites for actual coverage. Private owners could get in contracts with all the carriers for access to their tower/site. Verizon could build where the others can't (or won't) and bring in competition.

  5. #1115
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,863
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post
    The whole system with fixed allocated frequencies is antiquated and broken. It was necessary in 1900's but now in 2020 is just a dinosaur.
    This is an example of carriers having bought exclusive "rights" to bandwidth, but not actually building up a network on that bandwidth because of financial or other considerations.

    If FCC would not be that greedy with their auctions (that sell our bandwidth to richest bidders), and would implement a shared spectrum everywhere on LTE bands, similar with CBRS, then we would see much faster buildup of towers and sites for actual coverage. Private owners could get in contracts with all the carriers for access to their tower/site. Verizon could build where the others can't (or won't) and bring in competition.
    Only parts of CBRS is "shared" the FCC is auctioning 70 MHz next year. Sharing is not going to work how do you make sure one carrier doesn't use all the bandwidth? And then what if 2 or 3 other regional carriers want to share too? Want to talk about slow connections. The only thing the FCC should do if force carriers to swap noncongruent spectrum. it's stupid to have 10 MHZ over here and 10 MHZ over there wasting CA on merging than when it should be next to each other. Also neither at&t or Verizon should be able to own both blocks of 850 in any area so they need to swap blocks in markets where one has both. And whoever gave up the most gets compensated by the other

  6. #1116
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    874
    Device(s)
    Note9
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T, Google Fi, Mint
    Feedback Score
    0
    T-Mobile's 5G rollout on 600mhz is stupid. They should have started with n2, where they have more spectrum, instead of using what precious little low-band they have on 5G that almost no phones have right now, just as they have a critical mass of B71 LTE devices out there ready to utilize the spectrum.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hagar View Post
    The only thing the FCC should do if force carriers to swap noncongruent spectrum. it's stupid to have 10 MHZ over here and 10 MHZ over there wasting CA on merging than when it should be next to each other. Also neither at&t or Verizon should be able to own both blocks of 850 in any area so they need to swap blocks in markets where one has both. And whoever gave up the most gets compensated by the other
    There is more the FCC could and should do with spectrum to make the market more competitive, BUT you are right on CLR blocks. AT&T and Verizon should trade with the other in markets where one holds both CLR blocks, a 10x10 of B2 for 12.5x12.5 of B5, so that it's roughly an equal trade.

  7. #1117
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles/Canada
    Posts
    11,446
    Device(s)
    LG G7 (T-Mobile), iPhone 8 (AT&T)
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile, AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by SoxFan76 View Post
    T-Mobile's 5G rollout on 600mhz is stupid. They should have started with n2, where they have more spectrum, instead of using what precious little low-band they have on 5G that almost no phones have right now, just as they have a critical mass of B71 LTE devices out there ready to utilize the spectrum.
    I suspect there's some reasoning to their logic.
    In theory, it was probably easier to deploy 5G on a 'new' and effectively unused band than to refarm existing. Many areas (urban at least) typically end up on B2/B4 due to the fact that in many areas B4 typically has 20x20MHz and B2 has at least 10x10MHz. Since B71 can't CA with B12 (i.e. one or the other), it makes sense to pick something like B12 or B71 for this purpose. Refarming B12 would have killed many rural areas (most of northern MI) and other areas where B71 hasn't yet been deployed yet. B71 is pretty much nationwide, where B12 is not.

  8. #1118
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    4,502
    Device(s)
    S9
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by formercanuck View Post
    I suspect there's some reasoning to their logic.
    In theory, it was probably easier to deploy 5G on a 'new' and effectively unused band than to refarm existing. Many areas (urban at least) typically end up on B2/B4 due to the fact that in many areas B4 typically has 20x20MHz and B2 has at least 10x10MHz. Since B71 can't CA with B12 (i.e. one or the other), it makes sense to pick something like B12 or B71 for this purpose. Refarming B12 would have killed many rural areas (most of northern MI) and other areas where B71 hasn't yet been deployed yet. B71 is pretty much nationwide, where B12 is not.
    The current version of 5G (3GPP Release 15) that every network are using is the Non-Stand-Alone version that requires 4G for controls of the 5G. Until 3GPP release 16 ( Expect June 2020) of the 5G Stand-Alone version that doesn’t need 4G LTE don’t expect to see 5G in areas with limited 4G.

  9. #1119
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    874
    Device(s)
    Note9
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T, Google Fi, Mint
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by formercanuck View Post
    I suspect there's some reasoning to their logic.
    In theory, it was probably easier to deploy 5G on a 'new' and effectively unused band than to refarm existing. Many areas (urban at least) typically end up on B2/B4 due to the fact that in many areas B4 typically has 20x20MHz and B2 has at least 10x10MHz. Since B71 can't CA with B12 (i.e. one or the other), it makes sense to pick something like B12 or B71 for this purpose. Refarming B12 would have killed many rural areas (most of northern MI) and other areas where B71 hasn't yet been deployed yet. B71 is pretty much nationwide, where B12 is not.
    I kind of see where you're coming from there, but T-Mobile doesn't have a lot of low-band, and that really limits them in a lot of areas, whereas they have more mid-band. Really, all of this 5G stuff is a race to nowhere, and currently all the spectrum being used for sub-6 5G would be better used on LTE until there is a critical mass of 5G phones out there to use it. mmWave 5G is not a spectrum issue since it's all new spectrum.

  10. #1120
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Gulf Coast
    Posts
    15,847
    Device(s)
    Moto G7 Power, Nexus 5X
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile, PagePlus
    Feedback Score
    0
    Rationally, you are right but P.R. and public perceptions are important. A couple of weeks ago there was a thread about T-Mobile being behind in the "race" to 5G.

  11. #1121
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    874
    Device(s)
    Note9
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T, Google Fi, Mint
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by DRNewcomb View Post
    Rationally, you are right but P.R. and public perceptions are important. A couple of weeks ago there was a thread about T-Mobile being behind in the "race" to 5G.
    Meanwhile, most people don't even really know what 5G even IS, and the collective mess that the carriers are creating with jumping the gun is also generating a lot of negative press. My point was just that they could have gotten roughly the same coverage with less valuable spectrum.

  12. #1122
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    3,144
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by SoxFan76 View Post
    Meanwhile, most people don't even really know what 5G even IS, and the collective mess that the carriers are creating with jumping the gun is also generating a lot of negative press. My point was just that they could have gotten roughly the same coverage with less valuable spectrum.
    I think that the negative press over this or that carrier being first or last in the rollout is dwarfed by all the "junk science" press about how incredibly dangerous 5G is, and once it is ubiquitous it will be like we are all living in a microwave oven.

  13. #1123
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    874
    Device(s)
    Note9
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T, Google Fi, Mint
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by NotABiot View Post
    I think that the negative press over this or that carrier being first or last in the rollout is dwarfed by all the "junk science" press about how incredibly dangerous 5G is, and once it is ubiquitous it will be like we are all living in a microwave oven.
    That's also true, I forgot about that loony tunes stuff that sadly some people believe.

  14. #1124
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,863
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by NotABiot View Post
    I think that the negative press over this or that carrier being first or last in the rollout is dwarfed by all the "junk science" press about how incredibly dangerous 5G is, and once it is ubiquitous it will be like we are all living in a microwave oven.
    What ironic is that 600 MHZ has ben used for TV broadcasting for over 60 years at MUCH higher power levels and yet where are all the cancers from this? Heck TV used to go up to 890 MHz. So pretty much bands 5, 12, 13, 14, 17, 71. Wi-fi uses 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz where are all the cancers? Wi-fi been around long enough for it to show up. Bands 2 and 4/66 are lower than this.

  15. #1125
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Gulf Coast
    Posts
    15,847
    Device(s)
    Moto G7 Power, Nexus 5X
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile, PagePlus
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hagar View Post
    What ironic is that 600 MHZ has ben used for TV broadcasting for over 60 years at MUCH higher power levels and yet where are all the cancers from this? ...
    You're using logic again. Stop it!
    Donald Newcomb

Page 75 of 76 FirstFirst ... 25 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. It has begun: The merger process between Sprint and T-Mobile
    By agalvan in forum General Prepaid discussion
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 07-15-2014, 07:28 PM
  2. Rev A has hit Northern MI
    By budone in forum ALLTEL
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 08-26-2009, 03:18 PM
  3. T-Mobile USA has best quarter ever with more than 1 million net additions in the Four
    By VTECMAN in forum General Mobile Questions and Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 02-22-2003, 12:55 PM
  4. T-Mobile only has 20% of Cingulars Capacity?
    By ethune in forum T-Mobile
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-19-2002, 11:36 PM
  5. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 07-15-2002, 11:16 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks