T-Mobile 4G LTE sucks

[Scottish Skyedance]

I'd say the OP was a bit confused.
LTE has not even started to deployed yet (it will start 2013), and it will be 4.5G Cat 10 LTE (LTE-A). Currently T-Mobile is running "quasi-4G" and it's actually HSPA+.
After the given throttled point, the speed is reduced to 50-100kbps in both incoming and outgoing. Granted, customers are not charged overage (except you choose it) or getting internet shut down.
The topic is not correct for the reason mentioned above.

[newguy78]

What's up with this - "Something you might have done to cause the slow internet instead of bashing the network" ? Really ?? What possible effect I could have on the n/w if I am getting speeds of 100Kbps from the outset ?

The fact that you admitted not using a tmo branded device. You came on here, bashed our network, not even knowing our network (I accepted your apology on that one) using an non branded tmo device. Come on now, really...As for the stuck up comment, if you came across a lot different in your first post you would've got a much nicer response, or willingness to help. Hopefully this is a lesson learned.

[johnhere]

Overall from what I've seen tmobile speeds are pretty impressive even with not being lte and pretty consistent too.

[cagespear]

The fact that you admitted not using a tmo branded device. You came on here, bashed our network, not even knowing our network (I accepted your apology on that one) using an non branded tmo device. Come on now, really...As for the stuck up comment, if you came across a lot different in your first post you would've got a much nicer response, or willingness to help. Hopefully this is a lesson learned.

Agreed, my mistake overall.

[Scottish Skyedance]

It's about time to leave the OP alone for the poster had realized he/she missed some important facts.

[johnhere]

It's about time to leave the OP alone for the poster had realized he/she missed some important facts.

I agree. No good reason to bash the poster now.

[aurora40]

There aren't any. Your phone will not work on T-Mobile's 3G/4G networks at this time. After the modernization project finishes later this year, it will, if you are within the areas they are upgrading.

^-- This. Your ATT version of the SIII will not work on T-Mobile's 3G/4G network. It only works on their older 2G network, which is why you get such slow speeds. You have a few choices:
- Buy a T-Mobile USA compatible phone, and swap the SIM into it.
- Use your S3 as-is, and just deal with slow data speeds, but enjoy the other aspects of the phone. That's what iPhone users have to do. Eventually your phone should be able to connect to 3/4G as T-Mobile refarms their network. Who know if that will be weeks, months or years for you.
- Drop T-Mobile and get an ATT plan, or a MVNO that uses ATT's network, like StraightTalk.

Kudos for apologizing for your initial posts. Glad you got the issue sorted out.

[jarrodpd]

Finally, How about you seeing this video and checking download speed of "your" network ? I believe face palm could be the best icon here!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ia5iBxqsjW8

You realize the white GS3 that got slower speeds was on the At&T LTE network, you can tell by the slight UI differences LTE At&T phone say 4G with LTE below it or show H+ for non LTE 4G and T-Mobile phones show 4G all of the time unless out of reach from UMTS.

I am sure mine does. The ones sold by ATT in US (and I believe other carriers as well) have dual core processor but LTE chip in comparison to the other flavor sold with quad core and no LTE chip.

The USA version is completely different then the EU and Asia model. The USA had a dual core processor with 1Gb or ram, and then the radio varies by carrier for obvious reasons, Verizon and sprint have a CDMA/LTE version but the LTE radios operate on different frequencies because they don't own the same range of spectrum. The At&T version is H+ 21mbps with LTE and the T-Mobile version is H+ 42mbps capable.

[ggore]

I've been seeing these T-Mobile ads on TV this week about the 35,000 towers in their "4G" network. Good grief, where are all those towers? They only offer "4G in 5 cities in my state, 2 of a million, the rest 50-70,000. 35,000 towers averages out to 729 per state over 48 states in the continental U.S. I know it can't be true, but 729 towers in those 5 cities? With no more 4G than T-Mobile has across the US, there must be thousands and thousands of sites in each of the biggest cities, or else this number is complete hoohaa.

[i0wnj00]

I've been seeing these T-Mobile ads on TV this week about the 35,000 towers in their "4G" network. Good grief, where are all those towers? They only offer "4G in 5 cities in my state, 2 of a million, the rest 50-70,000. 35,000 towers averages out to 729 per state over 48 states in the continental U.S. I know it can't be true, but 729 towers in those 5 cities? With no more 4G than T-Mobile has across the US, there must be thousands and thousands of sites in each of the biggest cities, or else this number is complete hoohaa.

They likely do have 35,000 "towers" on 4G. But if you want to know where those all towers are then all you have to do is look at the current HSPA+ network. Most of those towers are going to be fairly close together, it's not an uncommon sight to have T-Mobile sites very close together in certain areas. Trying to play with numbers like you did won't yield any meaningful results.

Another possibility is that they actually have 35,000 and simply are just stretching the truth when it comes to the amount of HSPA+ coverage they have. I'm more inclined to believe my first assumption seeing that Sprint has a total of ~68,000, I'm not about to believe that T-Mobile USA has a total 35,000 towers. T-Mobile USA should have just as many as Sprint does.

[Danny4G]

35,000 cell sites may include micro cells and/or pico cells I assume? Probably not all towers.

[i0wnj00]

35,000 cell sites may include micro cells and/or pico cells I assume? Probably not all towers.

"Towers" is a generic term used by the mainstream media since people don't care for industry jargon and are already familiar with how they look like.
As you already know, towers aren't the only places they can stash their gear on and next to.

[ggore]

They likely do have 35,000 "towers" on 4G. But if you want to know where those all towers are then all you have to do is look at the current HSPA+ network. Most of those towers are going to be fairly close together, it's not an uncommon sight to have T-Mobile sites very close together in certain areas. Trying to play with numbers like you did won't yield any meaningful results.

Another possibility is that they actually have 35,000 and simply are just stretching the truth when it comes to the amount of HSPA+ coverage they have. I'm more inclined to believe my first assumption seeing that Sprint has a total of ~68,000, I'm not about to believe that T-Mobile USA has a total 35,000 towers. T-Mobile USA should have just as many as Sprint does.

Guess it depends on what definition they are using of "tower" in their commercials. I'm sure in some high-rise buildings in New York City and the like, there is a "tower" or site on each floor or every couple floors, which would pad the number quite a bit. And in stadiums where there are dozens of arrays for each provider scattered around (though they rarely help), and are they each considered a "tower"? From most of my experience in cities, I see a physical tower every few blocks in either commercial or residential areas, with several different providers' antenna arrays on them.

I know the averages are meaningless in reality, it was just interesting to see how that number worked out. You say Sprint has 68,000 sites, that would work out to 1416 per state in an ideal flat-world situation, and with 77 counties here, it comes out to 18 sites per county, which would be more than enough to cover this average-sized county. Fun numbers to crunch, but I guess there are some urban locales that require upwards of 3-4000 sites to cover adequately. That's probably not too far-fetched a number either. Wow.

[i0wnj00]

Guess it depends on what definition they are using of "tower" in their commercials. I'm sure in some high-rise buildings in New York City and the like, there is a "tower" or site on each floor or every couple floors, which would pad the number quite a bit. And in stadiums where there are dozens of arrays for each provider scattered around (though they rarely help), and are they each considered a "tower"? From most of my experience in cities, I see a physical tower every few blocks in either commercial or residential areas, with several different providers' antenna arrays on them.

Those arrays should count as they provide service in a space which would otherwise get no service due to being to far from the nearest site or too much congestion on neighboring ones. Since they're capable of functioning independently unlike a repeater they should be counted, if they haven't already. Also there sites you can't readily see so you'll have to add them as well. Not every locale wants a pole sticking out of the ground.

I know the averages are meaningless in reality, it was just interesting to see how that number worked out. You say Sprint has 68,000 sites, that would work out to 1416 per state in an ideal flat-world situation, and with 77 counties here, it comes out to 18 sites per county, which would be more than enough to cover this average-sized county. Fun numbers to crunch, but I guess there are some urban locales that require upwards of 3-4000 sites to cover adequately. That's probably not too far-fetched a number either. Wow.

You have to consider factors such as total area of each city/county and potential number of subscribers in each area. I bet in your case, that would probably be around 3-5 counties where T-Mobile USA has a significant investment in a retail stores and network coverage and the remaining counties getting 0-18 (your average), but I think your average of 18 is a bit too high once you factor in rural counties. In a flat world situation T-Mobile USA would rather turn up the Tx/Rx to achieve 3-5 miles than to find space and build more towers.

The size of the county may be of average size, but wireless carriers only do it to grab the most customers.

Vermont, OTOH has practically no real significant investment from T-Mobile USA.
The only thing around is a small 2 year old GSM/EDGE network. No retail/authorized dealers stores or "4G" of any kind.



Gigaom claims there are 68,000 Sprint cell sites. If they want to write a quality article then they shouldn't have too much problems with obtaining basic information.
http://gigaom.com/mobile/sprint-can-...extel-network/

[ggore]

Those arrays should count as they provide service in a space which would otherwise get no service due to being to far from the nearest site or too much congestion on neighboring ones. Since they're capable of functioning independently unlike a repeater they should be counted, if they haven't already. Also there sites you can't readily see so you'll have to add them as well. Not every locale wants a pole sticking out of the ground.



You have to consider factors such as total area of each city/county and potential number of subscribers in each area. I bet in your case, that would probably be around 3-5 counties where T-Mobile USA has a significant investment in a retail stores and network coverage and the remaining counties getting 0-18 (your average), but I think your average of 18 is a bit too high once you factor in rural counties. In a flat world situation T-Mobile USA would rather turn up the Tx/Rx to achieve 3-5 miles than to find space and build more towers.

The size of the county may be of average size, but wireless carriers only do it to grab the most customers.

Vermont, OTOH has practically no real significant investment from T-Mobile USA.
The only thing around is a small 2 year old GSM/EDGE network. No retail/authorized dealers stores or "4G" of any kind.



Gigaom claims there are 68,000 Sprint cell sites. If they want to write a quality article then they shouldn't have too much problems with obtaining basic information.
http://gigaom.com/mobile/sprint-can-...extel-network/

T-Mo has excellent coverage here, it's just all EDGE except for a very small area in Oklahoma City, Tulsa, Enid, Lawton, Stillwater, and Norman. Outside of Oklahoma City and Tulsa, the other cities are covered by 2 or 3 sites each from zooming way in on the coverage maps and looking at each of them. The green is T-Mo's 4G "nationwide system" here. The yellow is native, which is very good, but like I said, it's all 2G/EDGE

Attachment 84071
Oklahoma's share of those 35,000 sites is pretty small.