Page 11 of 28 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 414

Thread: LG V30; Officially the first 600Mhz phone

  1. #151
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    1,761
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by shilohcane View Post
    Let's get back to the V30 that many of us are interested in buying. The people that come to this board that hate T-Mobile will never stop.
    Yes, I am interested in all features of this specific phone. Good and bad. And especially reports on how it works on band 71 once people are actually able to buy it and use it in the growing number of band 71 areas.

    And as much as I find it to be a personal interest to my situation, all the excruciatingly detailed discussion about coverage in the northern half of Michigan really doesn't have a lot to do with the LG V30 phone. Because it is probably at least a year until this area gets 600 MHz.

  2. #152
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    6,752
    Device(s)
    SGS 7
    Carrier(s)
    MSV 10GB plus 10GB free, 4 lines
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by themanhimself View Post
    Everything I've heard from T-Mobile employees, read online, etc shows great potential for them building out nicely with 600. 700 can be considered a band aide fix but it looks like things will be more serious with 600. 700 has made a big difference it just doesn't have as much potential as 600 on a broad scale.
    Where they have 700, it has plenty of potential. In Michigan, for example, they could have done a good build-out by using B12/4/2, but instead they went as cheap as possible. When you can put most of the data traffic on B2, park the majority of the phones on B2, a single 5x5 on 12 will work fine for coverage, but instead, they made paper-thin coverage that will easily bog down.

    Quote Originally Posted by NotABiot View Post
    Roaming on to AT&T makes Northwest lower Michigan coverage work. At least until they fill out the rest of the coverage with band 71 or whatever so most of the rest becomes TMO-native.
    Filling in holes has nothing to do with B71. B71 will help them where they don't have low-band spectrum, but they already have B12 in Michigan. They need to get on more towers, or if there is no room on those towers where they have coverage holes compared to AT&T, then build new ones.

    Quote Originally Posted by NotABiot View Post
    And as much as I find it to be a personal interest to my situation, all the excruciatingly detailed discussion about coverage in the northern half of Michigan really doesn't have a lot to do with the LG V30 phone. Because it is probably at least a year until this area gets 600 MHz.
    B71 doesn't mean much of anything for Northern Michigan. Maybe they are waiting for B71 antennas to go back and upgrade towers do they can add B71/2/4 all at once, but if they wanted to build a network with adequate capacity up there, they already have a 15x15 of B2 and a 5x5 of AWS, totalling 25x25.
    Happy AT&T customer and addicted Speedtester in CT
    AT&T Galaxy S7
    If you text while driving, you're an idiot. End of story.

  3. #153
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    6,752
    Device(s)
    SGS 7
    Carrier(s)
    MSV 10GB plus 10GB free, 4 lines
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    I read your previous post and I looked at T-Mobile's map. I don't see anything on the map which would backup your statement that, "T-Mobile already had a GSM/GPRS network in Northern Michigan, on the PCS band, presumably with towers spaced for the PCS band"
    We have already come to the conclusion that the map is actually showing AT&T's 3G/Faux G coverage. No need for more trolling from you.

    What's being discussed is a business decision. You are not the arbiter of what the correct decision is. You can certainly have your opinion. I just pointed out that T-Mobile executives have a different opinion on this than you. They have B12 only sites in other locations such as North Dakota and Oregon as well. This isn't exclusive to Northerm Michigan. Frequently where they have added new coverage with B12, they have spaced the sites apart for maximum coverage and only put B12 on those sites.
    A business decision that they want to build out coverage for a map graphic by building the cheaper, crappiest coverage that they can build and still call "coverage".

    Yes, it is noted that you advocate they add other LTE bands despite the issues of dropped calls and lost data that it would cause. Is it noted that it is acceptable to you to have service that, "was basically impossible to do anything that required a continuous connection while driving" such as AT&T provided you in NH. But the fact that others wouldn't want such poor service doesn't automatically make them wrong and you right.
    STOP TROLLING.

    You attack T-Mobile's network and make statements like, "There is no good "experience" from an overloaded, clogged up B12-only tower. " When you were asked for a real example of such a clog, your only reply was "STOP TROLLING".
    STOP TROLLING.


    Basically when you are unable to discuss the topic rationally, you have to engage in name calling such as:

    "you are a TROLL."
    STOP TROLLING.

    Why would I admit to something that is not true. I have provided reasons. One was the dropped calls and loss of service that would happen if non low-band devices were used. Another reason is devices that are brought from AT&T or Verizon may have B2/4, but they don't have T-Mobile compatible VoLTE. Thus, while they would appear to get some service on B2/4, calls could not be completed nor received. This causes a life safety issue.

    Whereas, devices sold by T-Mobile with B12, have T-Mobile VoLTE and are able to make voice calls on T-Mobile's B12 only sites.
    STOP TROLLING.

    It depends on your standard of a decent network. T-Mobile regularly trounces AT&T in speed rankings:
    Apparently you cannot comprehend how grade school math works. It's an average. So a gazillion great speed tests in major cities will overwhelm the crappy speed tests in more rural areas, while AT&T and Verizon's networks reliably work at a decent speed virtually everywhere.

    I don't really care about how fast the coverage is in these remote areas. I want fast speeds in the large metro areas that I travel to and T-Mobile gives me that. Last night, I was next to someone at a bar and who was on AT&T and he couldn't even get pictures on his Twitter timeline to load. I had him do a speedtest and he was getting a pathetic 0.34 Mbps down. That's not a speed I can live with.
    Every carrier has some weak or slow spots. AT&T and Verizon both get great speeds virtually everywhere.

    Now since you have the goal to travel to all 50 states, I could see where you would need better remote coverage and if AT&T provides that, that's great. But I'll stick with the carrier that provides me the fastest coverage where I go.
    T-Mobile is clearly a cheaper, inferior alternative to Verizon and AT&T. There's a market for that, but it's in no way superior to the big two.

  4. #154
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    13,503
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GSMinCT View Post
    We have already come to the conclusion that the map is actually showing AT&T's 3G/Faux G coverage.
    So now you admit your statement that ""T-Mobile already had a GSM/GPRS network in Northern Michigan, on the PCS band, presumably with towers spaced for the PCS band" was indeed a complete fabrication.

    STOP TROLLING.
    I don't take orders from you. I'm rationally discussing the points that you bring up and I will continue to do so when I see fit. This will include setting the record straight when you post blatant falsehoods as you have previously done.

    A business decision that they want to build out coverage for a map graphic by building the cheaper, crappiest coverage that they can build and still call "coverage".
    Yes, how they build out a network is indeed a business decision. Every business has limited resources, and they have to allocate how to expend those resources. While you disagree with how they run their business, they gain more customers than other companies do each quarter, they are expanding their coverage map, and their stock is up some 33% over the past year. As they said in July they are targeting going from 315 million to 321 million people covered by the end of the year:

    https://newsroom.t-mobile.com/news-a...7-earnings.htm

    Everything is going well for the company, so they really have zero concern about your criticism of how they do things.

    It's an average. So a gazillion great speed tests in major cities will overwhelm the crappy speed tests in more rural areas,
    Well since i spend my time in major cities I love getting great speed tests that are much faster than what I'd get on AT&T. In fact, AT&T isn't even second to T-Mobile, it's third behind Verizon. No wonder you're so concerned about how many bands of LTE are on a tower. You're so desperate for any kind of speed boost whatsoever.

    When you can put most of the data traffic on B2, park the majority of the phones on B2, a single 5x5 on 12 will work fine for coverage, but instead, they made paper-thin coverage that will easily bog down.
    You let T-Mobile and their customers worry about the so-called bogs that you're predicting. This is just more of your constant criticism of T-Mobile and their actions. We get it, you're anti-T-Mobile.

    Here's John Legere's email address. Please do let him know how you think he can run his business better:

    [email protected]

  5. #155
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    6,752
    Device(s)
    SGS 7
    Carrier(s)
    MSV 10GB plus 10GB free, 4 lines
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    So now you admit your statement that ""T-Mobile already had a GSM/GPRS network in Northern Michigan, on the PCS band, presumably with towers spaced for the PCS band" was indeed a complete fabrication.
    STOP TROLLING.

    I don't take orders from you. I'm rationally discussing the points that you bring up and I will continue to do so when I see fit. This will include setting the record straight when you post blatant falsehoods as you have previously done.
    STOP TROLLING.

    Yes, how they build out a network is indeed a business decision. Every business has limited resources, and they have to allocate how to expend those resources. While you disagree with how they run their business, they gain more customers than other companies do each quarter, they are expanding their coverage map, and their stock is up some 33% over the past year. As they said in July they are targeting going from 315 million to 321 million people covered by the end of the year:
    Doing things the cheapest, fastest way is not the way to run a company doing infrastructure. You can criticize AT&T and Verizon for various decisions they have made around network build-out and CAPEX spending, but they are probably 5 years behind Verizon and several years behind AT&T, and the trends for data usage are not in their favor.

    Well since i spend my time in major cities I love getting great speed tests that are much faster than what I'd get on AT&T. In fact, AT&T isn't even second to T-Mobile, it's third behind Verizon.
    In NYC, AT&T is third to T-Mobile and Verizon. In most other cities they are 1st or 2nd, but who cares? No one really cares that much if you're pulling 12 or 20 or 50mbps in the middle of some city. When traveling, and your phone has nothing, or is on a B12 tower struggling to get anything to load, and I'm flying along at 10 or 20mbps, that's what really matters.

    No wonder you're so concerned about how many bands of LTE are on a tower. You're so desperate for any kind of speed boost whatsoever.
    STOP TROLLING.

    You let T-Mobile and their customers worry about the so-called bogs that you're predicting. This is just more of your constant criticism of T-Mobile and their actions. We get it, you're anti-T-Mobile.
    STOP TROLLING.

    EDIT: Combine Posts

  6. #156
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    13,503
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GSMinCT View Post
    Doing things the cheapest, fastest way is not the way to run a company doing infrastructure.
    So did you let John know that you disagree with how he runs the company. I gave you his email in my last post. He has a 33% stock increase in the last year, gains more customers than any other carrier every quarter, constantly provides faster data speeds than other carriers and you think you know better how to run his company.

    Please post any response you get back from him.



    No one really cares that much if you're pulling 12 or 20 or 50mbps in the middle of some city.
    I care that I have the fastest speeds available. Since I'm the one paying for the service, it's my opinion that counts.

    When traveling, and your phone has nothing,
    I travel all around and my phone gets good coverage. Granted, I likely am not going to the back country or wilderness regions that you may go. Nor do I have plans to go.

  7. #157
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    1,761
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GSMinCT View Post
    STOP TROLLING.
    STOP TROLLING....

    Doing things the cheapest, fastest way is not the way to run a company doing infrastructure....
    ...STOP TROLLING.
    STOP TROLLING.

    EDIT: Combine Posts
    As long as it works, I don't care about paper and the number of whatsiwhosises hung on those tall metal thingies...

  8. #158
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    1,761
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GSMinCT View Post
    ...
    Apparently you cannot comprehend how grade school math works. It's an average. So a gazillion great speed tests in major cities will overwhelm the crappy speed tests in more rural areas, while AT&T and Verizon's networks reliably work at a decent speed virtually everywhere.
    You have a good point. If you are going to look at average speed in a geographic territory, you need to select a suitable number of completely randomly distributed points inside that territory, and then check speed at each and average the total speed by the number of data points.

    You will then have an accurate picture of data speed that has a strength and validity that the Sensorly/etc crowdsourced "studies" completely lack.

    T-Mobile's has been low, but it is improving fast as they add towers and coverage.... regardless of "paper" and Frankfort MI "Band 2" blips. The odd man out is Sprint... if you cover 20% of the US at a good speed, and don't give any coverage to 80% of the US, a fair reporting of your US speed will be rather poor.

    (By the way, I can't see Jet1000 is a troll. He does, however, have the courage of his convictions. But don't we all?)

    Name:  funny3smaller.jpg
Views: 151
Size:  22.7 KB

  9. #159
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    6,752
    Device(s)
    SGS 7
    Carrier(s)
    MSV 10GB plus 10GB free, 4 lines
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    So did you let John know that you disagree with how he runs the company. I gave you his email in my last post. He has a 33% stock increase in the last year, gains more customers than any other carrier every quarter, constantly provides faster data speeds than other carriers and you think you know better how to run his company.
    I would hope that they have network engineers who are looking at this stuff, and seeing how horrible the speeds are during peak tourist season in some of these places. It's a matter of spending the CAPEX to do it right.

    I care that I have the fastest speeds available. Since I'm the one paying for the service, it's my opinion that counts.
    Speedtest results are useless when you don't have service in a lot of places.

    I travel all around and my phone gets good coverage. Granted, I likely am not going to the back country or wilderness regions that you may go. Nor do I have plans to go.
    I don't go to the backcountry or wilderness, and there are plenty of places without any T-Mobile coverage. Forget about Sprint, I left them behind 200 miles ago.

    Quote Originally Posted by NotABiot View Post
    You have a good point. If you are going to look at average speed in a geographic territory, you need to select a suitable number of completely randomly distributed points inside that territory, and then check speed at each and average the total speed by the number of data points.
    Yeah, many of them are now using "acceptable speed" tests, because getting a few random 200mbps speedtests on 3x CA can screw up the whole results, and are meaningless. I believe they use a number like 5mbps or 8mbps, and see how many of the tests are above or below that speed, and use that to calculate a more meaningful average. There is something to be said for doing more tests in more populated areas, but you have to understand what those speed rankings mean. They don't represent coverage or the overall experience you'll have on the network. At one point, Sprint had the fastest LTE network in terms of peak speed, yet their coverage is completely atrocious, and their Verizon roaming is bigger than their own network.

    (By the way, I can't see Jet1000 is a troll. He does, however, have the courage of his convictions. But don't we all?)
    He's either a raging T-Mobile fanboy who is completely blind to reality, or a troll. He behaves like a bit of each.

  10. #160
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    217
    Feedback Score
    0
    This 600 is going to be nice. I think TMobile will have just as good of coverage as anyone else within a few years maybe even better with how aggressive their build has been lately

  11. #161
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Gulf Coast
    Posts
    14,034
    Device(s)
    Samsung Avant, Nexus 5X, Moto G
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile, Project Fi, PagePlus
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by anthonyjones View Post
    This 600 is going to be nice. I think TMobile will have just as good of coverage as anyone else within a few years maybe even better with how aggressive their build has been lately
    The other carriers aren't standing still (except maybe Sprint).
    Donald Newcomb

  12. #162
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    7,784
    Carrier(s)
    at&t
    Feedback Score
    0
    My personal theory is that we will have 3 carriers that are hard to distinguish from each other. Network and price will be very similar in most ways. Now if T-Mobile does a certain amount and then skimps and considers 1 600 tower in each city complete we could be in trouble

    Sprint has been quiet about a possible tmo deal so not sure if that ever turns into anything.

  13. #163
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    2,402
    Device(s)
    LG G4
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by DRNewcomb View Post
    The other carriers aren't standing still (except maybe Sprint).
    When do you think AT&T, USCC and C-Spire will light up their 600 Mhz they got in the auction?
    Last edited by shilohcane; 09-18-2017 at 12:49 PM.

  14. #164
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    2,402
    Device(s)
    LG G4
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by themanhimself View Post
    My personal theory is that we will have 3 carriers that are hard to distinguish from each other. Network and price will be very similar in most ways. Now if T-Mobile does a certain amount and then skimps and considers 1 600 tower in each city complete we could be in trouble

    Sprint has been quiet about a possible tmo deal so not sure if that ever turns into anything.
    T-Mobile's 600 Mhz is a lot different than T-Mobile 700 Mhz Block "A" that is only 6 Mhz. In most rural areas across the nation T-Mobile owns anywhere from 30Mhz, 40 Mhz and in a few places up to 50 Mhz of 600 Mhz. For a lot of rural areas without a lot of customers that is a lot of bandwidth especially when it becomes 5G.

  15. #165
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    1,761
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GSMinCT View Post
    He's either a raging T-Mobile fanboy who is completely blind to reality, or a troll. He behaves like a bit of each.
    Regardless, that comes across like a personal attack. I've done this before too, but there''s nothing to be gained from it.

    And there's nothing wrong with being a "T-Mobile fanboy": check the Real Danny, a "raging" unapologetic T-Mobile fanboy who is one of the nicest on this forum.

Page 11 of 28 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 06-28-2014, 12:43 PM
  2. Motorola to launch the first 'world' phone
    By Bratan in forum Motorola
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-31-2004, 06:04 AM
  3. The first wireless phones in Canada with GPS capability.
    By Helmsley in forum TELUS Mobility
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-17-2003, 10:30 AM
  4. What's going to be the first camera phone to come to verizon ?
    By WeneedJapPhones in forum Verizon Wireless
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-27-2003, 11:34 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks