Page 16 of 28 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LastLast
Results 226 to 240 of 414

Thread: LG V30; Officially the first 600Mhz phone

  1. #226
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,023
    Feedback Score
    0
    The massive expenditure on 600 MHz to cover the US shows that they are also focusing their resources not just on where people live ("population", fixed addresses, etc) but also where they go. Because the number of people who need coverage in any given area is so often many many times greater than the mere fixed "population": at least 10 times greater in all of the many places I checked..

    "Let's not bother to cover where millions and millions and millions need cell coverage and instead just leave it to AT&T and Verizon" said no one in a TMO corporate meeting ever. Or if they did, Legere chewed them out.

    But I'm sure this sort of statement is common at the high levels of Sprint. And look where they are now.

    -----
    And it is time to let go of the fiction that areas where many millions go annually are "remote" in our small world.

  2. #227
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,023
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by @TheRealDanny View Post
    I give the pic I posted pause because it's coming from Verizon who has no incentive to make T-Mobile look better than AT&T (LTE coverage wise). The marketing message was based upon their data so it definitely makes me think?

    I've been through a few Band 12 areas in rural spots and surprisingly my data services worked okay.

    In urban areas where T-Mobile has lots and lots of customers... I agree that a Band 12 only occurrence wouldn't suffice.

    I'm happy that they bought a really nice slice of Band 71 that covers the entire US (give or take a little here and there). And the idea of Sprint's huge mid band offerings to boot really make me excited to be a T-Mobile customer.
    Yes, and B12 expanding the T-Mobile map significantly is what has driven the strong quarter by quarter growth ... it is making it much less likely that people will need to ditch their TMO phone for a "duopoly" device once they leave the driveway.

  3. #228
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    13,582
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by NotABiot View Post
    The massive expenditure on 600 MHz to cover the US shows that they are also focusing their resources not just on where people live ("population", fixed addresses, etc) but also where they go.
    The expenditure wasn't that massive. The spectrum sold for considerably less than the more valuable band 66 spectrum. And the rural spectrum sold for a lot less than the 600 spectrum that will be used to increase building penetration in the populated areas. So when you add it up, the expenditure for the back country spectrum really wasn't that much at all.

    Because the number of people who need coverage in any given area is so often many many times greater than the mere fixed "population":
    If the needs are so great, then they would be building "multiple bands across multiple panels on each sector" as jakeuten stated. But they're not doing that in the desolate areas. Just in the populated areas because the needs aren't what you claim them to be.

    "Let's not bother to cover where millions and millions and millions need cell coverage and instead just leave it to AT&T and Verizon" said no one in a TMO corporate meeting ever. Or if they did, Legere chewed them out.
    You have zero idea what was said in any corporate TMO meeting, so there's no reason to pretend that you do.

    And it is time to let go of the fiction that areas where many millions go annually are "remote" in our small world.
    It's time to face the reality of the tens of millions that will never set foot in these remote regions ever.

    Yes, and B12 expanding the T-Mobile map significantly is what has driven the strong quarter by quarter growth
    You have no evidence that it has driven any growth at all. As we saw from the recent NAD comments, T-Mobile's focus has been on building the fastest LTE network. Because that's what really drives the growth. And they're not building a fast LTE network in the backwoods. They are building it where people live and use it daily.

    Here's an example that jakeuten posted on just how bad this rural coverage is: "Having only one antenna per sector means that the null sector zones are a lot larger and that the experience due to that can be quite poor."

    So there's no way such a poor experience is delivering strong growth.

  4. #229
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,023
    Feedback Score
    0
    Areas where millions of people need coverage aren't "backwoods". And the term "remote" is meaningless in this discussion: LA for example is remote from Rangely, Maine. So basically no one is discussing "backcountry" coverage. The vast majority of this new coverage is in urban areas and along highways.

    "You have zero idea what was said in any corporate TMO meeting, so there's no reason to pretend that you do"

    I have a very good idea. My evidence is T-Mobile's corporate behavior. And I very much applaud them for moving from the poor coverage of a couple of years ago to the great coverage they are on track for having in 2 years. The more coverage T-Mobile has, the better for everyone. Especially TMobile: this is why they are on a fast track to close the gap. But the customers also have nothing to lose and very much to gain from the network getting better and better.

  5. #230
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,023
    Feedback Score
    0
    Danny said "And the idea of Sprint's huge mid band offerings to boot really make me excited to be a T-Mobile customer."

    Yes! A better network benefits everyone. The company is definitely on the right track.

  6. #231
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    6,949
    Device(s)
    SGS 7
    Carrier(s)
    MSV 10GB plus 10GB free, 4 lines
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by @TheRealDanny View Post
    I give the pic I posted pause because it's coming from Verizon who has no incentive to make T-Mobile look better than AT&T (LTE coverage wise). The marketing message was based upon their data so it definitely makes me think?
    Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised. AT&T's 4G network is still far larger than T-Mobile's LTE network. Also, AT&T's LTE network could be just as big, but when you use projections of coverage, if T-Mobile's coverage just ends, and AT&T's goes to another tower with HSPA+, AT&T's LTE coverage will end and go over to the next tower's HSPA+, and T-Mobile's will hang on until the very end with LTE. Calculate out projections based on thousands upon thousands of miles of LTE/HSPA+ "border" sites, and that could be a significant factor too. Verizon has almost completely overlaid EVDO, and T-Mobile doesn't have another network underneath their LTE network, so they don't have these issues.

    In urban areas where T-Mobile has lots and lots of customers... I agree that a Band 12 only occurrence wouldn't suffice.
    They may be counting on having very few customers in those areas, but that's a dangerous bet. I know of a bunch of areas in Northern Michigan that heavily load AT&T's network with at least 3 LTE carriers up, with probably at least 20x20 total, if not significantly more. Some of these sleepy touristy towns can get overrun for a few months in the summer, with people using a lot of mobile data, since a lot of people don't bother with home internet or WiFi anymore, or it's not even available at all.

    I'm happy that they bought a really nice slice of Band 71 that covers the entire US (give or take a little here and there). And the idea of Sprint's huge mid band offerings to boot really make me excited to be a T-Mobile customer.
    Sprint has the best spectrum position in the industry, and they have basically done nothing with it. I'm very skeptical of SprinT-Mobile after seeing the SprinxTel disaster.

    Quote Originally Posted by jakeuten View Post
    This. When T-Mobile does full UMTS/LTE builds with multiple bands across multiple panels on each sector, their network can be considered on par with Verizon and AT&T.
    Yeah, I wouldn't worry about HSPA+, but they need to roll out multiple bands of LTE and have multiple panels on each sector like normal. This is clearly a paper-thin buildout.

    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    As I originally posted, and as Danny re-posted, Verizon states that T-Mobile is their "nearest competitor". Not AT&T. You've posted absolutely nothing to dispute that.
    AT&T is Verizon's nearest competitor for 4G coverage, and debatably might have more 4G coverage than Verizon, depending on how you slice in dice it. That graphic was looking only at LTE. For a 4G network, T-Mobile is a distant third.

    Quote Originally Posted by NotABiot View Post
    The massive expenditure on 600 MHz to cover the US shows that they are also focusing their resources not just on where people live ("population", fixed addresses, etc) but also where they go.
    Yeah, this is key, as people travel around a lot to places where almost no one lives year-round.

    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    If the needs are so great, then they would be building "multiple bands across multiple panels on each sector" as jakeuten stated. But they're not doing that in the desolate areas. Just in the populated areas because the needs aren't what you claim them to be.
    AT&T and Verizon have built robust networks in rural areas. They have layered LTE on top of HSPA+ and EVDO, respectively, with at least 20x20 or more of LTE virtually everywhere, and that number will go up as B2/5 get refarmed.

    It's time to face the reality of the tens of millions that will never set foot in these remote regions ever.
    If they never leave the city, they can get cheap plans on Sprint. The customers that the carriers actually want do travel to remote places, and need coverage. T-Mobile is right to build out coverage in rural areas, it's just that they are cutting corners like crazy doing it, and that creates a less than great network experience compared to the big guys. Hopefully they go back and fix it.

    You have no evidence that it has driven any growth at all. As we saw from the recent NAD comments, T-Mobile's focus has been on building the fastest LTE network. Because that's what really drives the growth. And they're not building a fast LTE network in the backwoods. They are building it where people live and use it daily.
    If you think T-Mobile would have grown with their 2014 LTE network, you are completely insane. They would be worse off than Sprint right now if they hadn't expanded LTE coverage, even if some of the expansion is somewhat spotty and superficial. Most people don't even know how to speedtest or care. They just want their phone to work wherever they are, whenever they are there.

    Here's an example that jakeuten posted on just how bad this rural coverage is: "Having only one antenna per sector means that the null sector zones are a lot larger and that the experience due to that can be quite poor."

    So there's no way such a poor experience is delivering strong growth.
    Both things are true. People saw the map, and switched. How much churn they have from a lousy, cheaply cobbled together network, who knows.
    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.

  7. #232
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,023
    Feedback Score
    0
    Exactly. If TMobile had stuck with its 2014 network, which only served the needs of a minority of Americans, it would be where Sprint is right now.

    I really don't see any sense in a certain person arguing that bad coverage is a strength.

    The good thing is that the TMobile company finds that idea to be ridiculous as well. The company has given a huge priority for covering Americans wherever they go, instead of what one person wants, which for them to cover many Americans only if they never leave their houses.

    Verizon and AT&T are huge and successful and profitable and have so many customers precisely because they cover America better than the other networks. T-Mobile's only path to set success is to cover America as well as the others. It's clear the company is on this path, or at least trying to be on this path.

    GSM, your arguments are well-founded and researched and get me pause. Unlike the shake my head nonsense about how bad it is for TMobile to actually cover America.

    I just hope things don't end up being as bad as you say they will be due to this coverage being very thin.

    I'm glad that T Mobile is ignoring the 1% of Americans who think that a network that only works in their house is sufficient. Those people are best suited to be landline customers instead.

  8. #233
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    7,891
    Carrier(s)
    at&t
    Feedback Score
    0
    I like the path T-Mobile is going in. They may suck in certain areas but they seem to steadily improve which is nice to see

  9. #234
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    13,582
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by NotABiot View Post
    Areas where millions of people need coverage aren't "backwoods".
    You've never proven your premise that millions needs coverage in these areas that T-Mobile doesn't cover. You use the total number of tourists for the entire state including that state's cities and then you extrapolate that all of these millions are going from these cities into these uncovered areas. And it's just not the case.

    And the term "remote" is meaningless in this discussion: LA for example is remote from Rangely, Maine.
    Let me give you the dictionary definition of remote that I was using since you're incapable of figuring it out from the context as I used it:

    (of a place) situated far from the main centers of population; distant.

    So basically no one is discussing "backcountry" coverage.
    I am. And yes, these uncovered areas are very back country. Off the beaten path. Low population. There are many ways they can be described.

    I have a very good idea. My evidence is T-Mobile's corporate behavior.
    You mean the behavior that covers hundreds of thousands of square miles with tissue-thin coverage and says its covered. Yeah, anybody can tell that their just slapping up a few sites with little capacity to make their maps look good. It's just your imagination that they are strongly dedicated to providing quality coverage in these areas. What they actually install shows a story quite different from that.

    And I very much applaud them for moving from the poor coverage of a couple of years ago to the great coverage they are on track for having in 2 years.
    But you can't applaud them for moving to great rural coverage now because they have junk rural coverage. So you're applauding them for something they haven't done yet and may never do. Why would you do that?

    The more coverage T-Mobile has, the better for everyone.
    No, it's only better for the tiny fraction of people that go to those places where the new coverage is. It doesn't benefit the other customers one bit. No need to say it's better for everyone when that is a falsehood.

  10. #235
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Greater Los Angeles
    Posts
    8,505
    Device(s)
    iPhone X 256GB Space Gray
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile USA
    Feedback Score
    15 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by themanhimself View Post
    I like the path T-Mobile is going in. They may suck in certain areas but they seem to steadily improve which is nice to see

    That's true and to some extent they probably always will suck to someone somewhere at sometime. Plus the perception of a shoddy network will carry though mainly with the old timers for some time to come. Youth aren't so close minded and will continue to sign up with the carrier with the best perceived value and best marketing.

    Good thing is that T-Mobile is better than ever before and well equipped to go toe to toe with the duopoly going forward.

    As a former Verizon employee and former AT&T customer I can tell you that those two networks are often overrated and the idea that their networks are "perfect," while "T-Mobile sucks everywhere," is outdated except in the areas they actually apply to.

    I'm still surprised that in 2017 a hypothetical guy who lives/works and spends 95% of his life in (insert state here) would think that: "T-Mobile sucks in America," because the map in North Dakota shows a lot of white spots? (again hypothetical).

    I travel throughout the US probably more than any other person on this forum and my T-Mobile phone suits me just fine. How does that happen? And if coverage in the areas that people never go was the only thing that mattered to people then T-Mobile would be losing customers and netting negative quarter after quarter and everyone would sign up with Big Red.
    “The Internet wasn’t meant to be metered in bits and bytes, so it’s insane that wireless companies are still making you buy it this way. The rate plan is dead — it’s a fossil from a time when wireless was metered by every call or text.” John Legere 1/5/2017

  11. #236
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    13,582
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GSMinCT View Post
    AT&T is Verizon's nearest competitor for 4G coverage,
    Not according to the Verizon website. If you dispute that take it up with Verizon. But I'm sure Verizon has a lot more info about their competition than you would have. So I'll take their word for it.

    Per Verizon, T-mobile is only 400,000 square miles behind them and that means AT&T is further back.


    AT&T and Verizon have built robust networks in rural areas. They have layered LTE on top of HSPA+ and EVDO, respectively, with at least 20x20 or more of LTE virtually everywhere, and that number will go up as B2/5 get refarmed.
    That's great. That shows there's even less reason for T-Mobile to build robust coverage in these areas. Why spend more money when a tissue-thin network will color in your coverage map just as magenta.


    The customers that the carriers actually want do travel to remote places, and need coverage.
    So they use Verizon. Despite not having these areas covered, T-mobile has been gaining customers quarter after quarter. These uncovered areas show no sign of impacting T-Mobile's subscriber growth.



    How much churn they have from a lousy, cheaply cobbled together network, who knows.
    You know what their churn is by looking at their quarterly report. While I agree the coverage in the remote areas is "cheaply cobbled" their churn rate was record low in Q2 2017. "Record-Low Churn of 1.10%"

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

    It shows the tissue-thin dust bowl network is not what matters to T-Mobile customers.

  12. #237
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    7,891
    Carrier(s)
    at&t
    Feedback Score
    0
    From carrying a T-Mobile phone and att phone side by side in about 12 states, I experienced a lot more LTE with T-Mobile. Coverage wise T-Mobile has come a long way and reliability wise T-Mobile has also gotten tons better.

  13. #238
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    6,949
    Device(s)
    SGS 7
    Carrier(s)
    MSV 10GB plus 10GB free, 4 lines
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by NotABiot View Post
    GSM, your arguments are well-founded and researched and get me pause. Unlike the shake my head nonsense about how bad it is for TMobile to actually cover America.
    Thanks. I think the real debate here is about how far T-Mobile needs to go in order to compete with the big two. Do they need to equal the quality and coverage of the network one-for-one, or is pretty close "good enough".

    What concerns me is not that they haven't covered 100% of the area that AT&T or Verizon has covered overnight, as they have built out very fast, and no one has ever built a network like this before (Verizon and AT&T having put humpty-dumpty together by buying other carriers, and Verizon's massive LTE buildout happening on existing CDMA/EVDO sites) but the low quality of some of their buildouts. If they really intend to get more customers in rural areas, or who travel even semi-frequently, their network is going to fall apart in B12-only areas.

    I'm glad that T Mobile is ignoring the 1% of Americans who think that a network that only works in their house is sufficient. Those people are best suited to be landline customers instead.
    I hear Sprint has some deals for them. I don't necessarily think it's entirely a bad thing to have a carrier with awful coverage making Unlimited cell service more accessible to more people at a very low price, but to think they can compete with T-Mobile, much less the big two, is delusional.

    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    I am. And yes, these uncovered areas are very back country. Off the beaten path. Low population. There are many ways they can be described.
    Exactly where you want to have cell service the most, as other connectivity options are often relatively limited. It's not like there's xfinitywifi every 50 feet in the middle of nowhere.

    You mean the behavior that covers hundreds of thousands of square miles with tissue-thin coverage and says its covered. Yeah, anybody can tell that their just slapping up a few sites with little capacity to make their maps look good. It's just your imagination that they are strongly dedicated to providing quality coverage in these areas. What they actually install shows a story quite different from that.
    They recognize that they need to fill in the map. The problem is, they are doing it cheaply and poorly, and the experience on that network will suffer as a result. All the carriers lie about their coverage maps. I personally have seen AT&T lie about theirs, but it sounds like T-Mobile is lying just as much if not more than AT&T and Verizon lie in trying to crayon in the map. They have built the only tissue-paper-thin LTE network without a backup. AT&T never built one, and while Verizon had one for a while, they always had a rock-solid EVDO network to back it up.

  14. #239
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    6,949
    Device(s)
    SGS 7
    Carrier(s)
    MSV 10GB plus 10GB free, 4 lines
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by @TheRealDanny View Post
    As a former Verizon employee and former AT&T customer I can tell you that those two networks are often overrated and the idea that their networks are "perfect," while "T-Mobile sucks everywhere," is outdated except in the areas they actually apply to.
    Unfortunately neither of the big two are perfect everywhere, and there are places where both fall flat on their face, in some cases due to the carriers not trying, in other cases due to bad NIMBYism where they just can't get towers up (New Hampshire has been fighting with them for decades, and there are still towns that are dead zones).

    However, the overall experience with both big networks has gone up significantly, particularly with AT&T, where they have gone from having a mess of a network 5-8 years ago that frequently didn't work, and had significantly worse overall coverage than Verizon to one that rivals Verizon overall, and will provide an excellent experience the vast majority of the time. T-Mobile is a lot better than they were 3 years ago, but they still aren't anywhere close to the big guys.

    I'm still surprised that in 2017 a hypothetical guy who lives/works and spends 95% of his life in (insert state here) would think that: "T-Mobile sucks in America," because the map in North Dakota shows a lot of white spots? (again hypothetical).
    I look at places I've actually been, most recently Northern Michigan, or Downeast Maine. I definitely have had much better coverage than I would have had on T-Mobile. The big question is, how much is that coverage worth? How much is the speed worth? I'm actually contemplating getting a Moto E for $99 and putting an xfinitymobile SIM in it when they do BYOD, so that I can avoid areas where AT&T doesn't work and Verizon does.

  15. #240
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,023
    Feedback Score
    0
    Dust bowl network ? Even the specific "Dust Bowl" (an actual region) has tens of thousands of not hundreds of thousands who need coverage in it. AT&T and Verizon are profitable because they cover this non-remote area and areas like it. TMO is moving in too. And this, again, is a good thing.

Page 16 of 28 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 06-28-2014, 01:43 PM
  2. Motorola to launch the first 'world' phone
    By Bratan in forum Motorola
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-31-2004, 07:04 AM
  3. The first wireless phones in Canada with GPS capability.
    By Helmsley in forum TELUS Mobility
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-17-2003, 11:30 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, 12:34 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks