Page 20 of 28 FirstFirst ... 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 286 to 300 of 414

Thread: LG V30; Officially the first 600Mhz phone

  1. #286
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Greater Los Angeles
    Posts
    8,357
    Device(s)
    Galaxy S8+ and Gear S3 Frontier
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile USA
    Feedback Score
    15 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by NotABiot View Post
    All those Podunks, Hooterville's, Mayberry's, Eerie Indiana's, Hazzard Counties, Castle Rock Maine's and Dogpatches!
    We live in the same country? Just kidding.

    Yes I'm confident with the addition of Band 71 plus all of Sprint's spectrum things will be looking up in that area.
    “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

  2. #287
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    1,761
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by @TheRealDanny View Post
    We live in the same country? Just kidding.

    Yes I'm confident with the addition of Band 71 plus all of Sprint's spectrum things will be looking up in that area.
    Actually you should go to the Dogpatch restaurant in Munising in the Upper Peninsula. It's great.

    A lot better than a lead milkshake at Halo Burger down in Flint.

    http://www.dogpatchrestaurant.com

    Name:  download (8).jpg
Views: 96
Size:  12.0 KB

  3. #288
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    13,503
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by NotABiot View Post
    All of the other places mistakenly termed as "dust bowl" actually have from hundreds of thousands to tens of millions who need coverage there.
    First of all, these are numbers you just make up. As for actual need, for the most part these areas are already covered by AT&T, Verizon or some regional carrier. And anyone that's there likely already has coverage. So your talk of need is completely exaggerated.

    And it's great that T-Mobile is expanding so they don't just serve shut-ins, prison inmates,
    Prison inmates? What prison allows prisoners to use cell phones? Where do you come up with such nonsense?


    T-Mobile is to be applauded for expanding their coverage so these many tens of millions don't need to switch to AT&T just to use their phones.
    Switch to AT&T? They're likely already with AT&T (or Verizon). Who's to say how many will even switch to T-mobile if and when coverage exists? Have you read the posts by GSMinCT? Here's what he calls T-Mobile's coverage in these areas: "T-Mobile's tissue paper LTE". That's right. He said tissue paper! I've noticed you haven't disputed him at all on this because you know it's true. Furthermore, he has publicly stated that he will not switch away from AT&T to T-Mobile because of what he calls, "crappy coverage".

    And why do they cover such areas? Profit.
    So profitable that they're cutting corners with tissue thin coverage? No, that's not the case. This backcountry coverage is a money loser, so they're keeping it as cheap as possible. GSMinCT already established their real motive: "T-Mobile seems to be trying to get just enough crayon on to show some pink." I noticed you didn't dispute this either.

    Nor did you dispute jakeuten:

    Quote Originally Posted by jakeuten View Post
    The coverage map is very pretty but the coverage shown doesn’t always match the experience and you don’t get what you’d expect. You don’t really get 360 degree coverage from a site with 3 sectors. 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.
    Clearly the coverage in these areas is very bad. This coverage that you're touting as profitable has been found to be "quite poor". It's all there just so they can color in a map. Not for profit as you falsely claim.

  4. #289
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    1,761
    Feedback Score
    0
    "First of all, these are numbers you just make up"

    Actually I get these numbers from very specific reports on tourism for states, for cities, and for counties.

    If anything is "made up", it is your idea that people don't need coverage in these areas and the TMobile is not making a profit by covering the millions of people that need their phones here.

  5. #290
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    1,761
    Feedback Score
    0
    And the mention of prison inmates is to mock the preposterous idea that cell phone coverage only matters to people at where they live. And that people never travel. Basing coverage on fixed population statistics is fine if you only want to cover shut-ins and prison inmates and those with the travel phobia issues.....

    It's a landline "State of Mind". One that TMobile definitely does not share.

    Again this is not a criticism of TMobile. They are doing the right thing and covering Americans where they go instead of just those who never leave their driveway. People who are tied to a chain in their backyard might not like it, but those are the realities.

  6. #291
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    199
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by NotABiot View Post
    And the mention of prison inmates is to mock
    Actually prison inmates get their hands on cell phones more often than people think. Have a close friend who is a prison guard and cell phones are one of the items that come up a lot in cell shakedowns. People would be surprised as to what inmates get their hands on. So you're statement wasn't as crazy as certain people tried to portray it.

  7. #292
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    1,761
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ksych1 View Post
    Actually prison inmates get their hands on cell phones more often than people think. Have a close friend who is a prison guard and cell phones are one of the items that come up a lot in cell shakedowns. People would be surprised as to what inmates get their hands on. So you're statement wasn't as crazy as certain people tried to portray it.
    And they can benefit from improved building penetration

  8. #293
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    6,756
    Device(s)
    SGS 7
    Carrier(s)
    MSV 10GB plus 10GB free, 4 lines
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by @TheRealDanny View Post
    Thankfully T-Mobile doesn't run a single carrier 5x5 network in any of the areas I travel. But I'll take your word and avoid the UP of Michigan at all costs!
    It's not just the UP, it's Northern Lower.

    Come to my area and I'll show you all the places where AT&T's 4G network can't even load a webpage. I'm at the Irvine Spectrum right now having a beer outside of Javier's. Lots of people here. Verizon and AT&T are really struggling here with all those LTE carriers. My phone works just fine.
    There are areas that every carrier struggles. But overall, AT&T has excellent coverage and speed in most places. AT&T is still not great in NYC, but their improvement from useless before LTE to a decent LTE network has been impressive.

    Quote Originally Posted by @TheRealDanny View Post
    Me neither. Same for northern Alaska and Caribou, Maine. Just not on my list this year.
    I was up in the UP 2 years ago. AT&T was great until I got to Sault. Ste. Marie, ON, and it was still hanging on AT&T, and not switching to Rogers, and they lock carrier selection. Grrrrrrr. Got a refund on my data roaming package though. I was in Northwest Lower this year, including Beaver Island, where I found an AT&T 3G site that was cruising along at about 1mbps, until more people were in town and it was about 500kbps. T-Mobile doesn't have service there at all. I haven't been way up in Maine in a while, although last year I was in some way out there places in Maine, New Hampshire, and Utah. I was in Ottawa, ON a few days ago, great LTE coverage all the way up and back, although Rogers puts AT&T and Verizon to shame with their LTE coverage in urban areas. It's fast and dense. In 2015 I was in Alaska, excellent AT&T service there except for rural roaming, where EDGE works sometimes, and doesn't work other times.

    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    Yes me too!




    A business doesn't have to be all things to all people in order to be successful and profitable. Businesses can appeal to different markets and different customers.
    Then they're not going to rival AT&T and Verizon in customer count.

    But that doesn't mean that T-Mobile has to also have the best coverage in Timbuktu. A company has limited resources so you have to pick and choose your battles to maximize profit. As you've noted they've only decided to invest in a tissue-thin network in these areas because there's not a lot of profit to be made by doing any more than that. Those areas already have established competing networks and there's no guarantee those customers are going to switch even if you built strong coverage.
    Then most people will stay with AT&T and Verizon.

    If it works for you, that's great. I have LTE all the time and would never go to the areas that AT&T has only Faux G coverage anyway.
    Considering how much of T-Mobile's LTE is tissue-paper-thin and worse than Faux G, if I were concerned about the raw land area coverage of LTE specifically, then I would have to have Verizon, as no one else comes anywhere close.

    Quote Originally Posted by NotABiot View Post
    ...and hodophobes in urban areas
    And I learned a new word today!

    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    Switch to AT&T? They're likely already with AT&T (or Verizon). Who's to say how many will even switch to T-mobile if and when coverage exists? Have you read the posts by GSMinCT? Here's what he calls T-Mobile's coverage in these areas: "T-Mobile's tissue paper LTE". That's right. He said tissue paper! I've noticed you haven't disputed him at all on this because you know it's true. Furthermore, he has publicly stated that he will not switch away from AT&T to T-Mobile because of what he calls, "crappy coverage".
    Then maybe they should build a real network with 2 panels per sector, and a fully deployment of their B2/4/12 spectrum instead of tissue paper thin B12 on a single 5x5 that's going to slow down to nothing as soon as any critical mass of people congregate at a park or in a town or something. Granted, 99% of people don't know what band or how much spectrum is deployed, but if phones are slow as molasses while AT&T is flying along then they're not going to want T-Mobile.

    So profitable that they're cutting corners with tissue thin coverage? No, that's not the case. This backcountry coverage is a money loser, so they're keeping it as cheap as possible. GSMinCT already established their real motive: "T-Mobile seems to be trying to get just enough crayon on to show some pink." I noticed you didn't dispute this either.
    This is the problem. It's just to crayon in the map for TV commercials. When people realize that it sucks in real life compared to AT&T or Verizon, they won't be too happy with T-Mobile. However, you are arguing around in circles, constantly changing your position to make an argument or fulfill your duty as a T-Mobile fanboy.

    Quote Originally Posted by NotABiot View Post
    Again this is not a criticism of TMobile. They are doing the right thing and covering Americans where they go instead of just those who never leave their driveway. People who are tied to a chain in their backyard might not like it, but those are the realities.
    Except that they've gone about it in the wrong way and built crappy coverage. They should build sites to the same specifications and quality that Verizon and AT&T do, and deploy all their spectrum.
    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.

  9. #294
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    199
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by NotABiot View Post
    And they can benefit from improved building penetration
    Hahaha I'm sure they very much appreciate it lol makes you wonder what the preferred carrier of the prison inmate is.

  10. #295
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    1,761
    Feedback Score
    0
    GSM, it's the never ending battle between
    "They are covering it."

    Vs

    "They are covering it badly"

    Vs

    "It's a bad idea to cover it."

  11. #296
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,685
    Device(s)
    Gold 128 GB iPhone 7+ Intel, whatever the cat dragged in
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T Mobility
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ksych1 View Post
    Hahaha I'm sure they very much appreciate it lol makes you wonder what the preferred carrier of the prison inmate is.
    Probably Sprint or T-Mobile because they’re cheaper to use?

    Galaxy S7 - Carrier Aggregation Band 30 10 MHz PCC + Band 4 10 MHz SCC1 + Band 12 10 MHz SCC2
    iPhone 7 - Carrier Aggregation Band 4 10 MHz PCC + Band 2 10 MHz SCC1 + Band 12 5 MHz SCC2

    -

    Intel iPhone 7 Plus- AT&T Unlimited Plus

  12. #297
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    1,761
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jakeuten View Post
    Probably Sprint or T-Mobile because they’re cheaper to use?
    Or Boost... You always see them by bail bondsmen offices.

  13. #298
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    13,503
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by NotABiot View Post
    Actually I get these numbers from very specific reports on tourism for states, for cities, and for counties.
    Yeah I've seen you do your math numbers where you take the entire visitors to the state and you never deduct those who are just traveling to the cities. And that's because nobody is tracking who goes to those lowly populated areas. So basically when you say, " hundreds of thousands to tens of millions" it's just completely made up. No "very specific reports" are used as you claim.

    If anything is "made up", it is your idea that people don't need coverage in these areas
    I never said people don't need it. Here's exactly what I said, "for the most part these areas are already covered by AT&T, Verizon or some regional carrier." I said they are getting coverage not that they don't need any coverage at all. You continually make up statements that were never said. And since they are getting coverage, you have shown no reason that additional coverage by T-Mobile would be all that important.

    the TMobile is not making a profit by covering the millions of people that need their phones here.
    Well that's easy to see. Compare the cost to build the sites compared to their market share in these areas. These are loss leaders for them. Call up the locals and see how many are using T-Mobile. As GSMinCT says, "It's just to crayon in the map for TV commercials. When people realize that it sucks in real life compared to AT&T or Verizon, they won't be too happy with T-Mobile. "

    And you're trying to claim that T-Mobile is actually making a profit with such bad coverage? You're kidding no one.

    And the mention of prison inmates
    The mention of prison inmates doesn't apply to the discussion on cell service. They use landlines to make their calls. Despite what contraband ksych1's friend is finding in shakedowns, prisoner's use of cell service is very minuscule.

    the preposterous idea that cell phone coverage only matters to people at where they live. And that people never travel.
    That preposterous idea that you and you alone dreamed up. I've never talked about people not traveling. You keep repeating the same made up statements over and over. I said that vast amounts of people never travel to these lowly populated areas. But a lot of people travel to cities where many people live. Just because you frequent little places doesn't mean that most people do. There are many small towns that are dying out and most people would never have a reason to visit.

    They are doing the right thing and covering Americans where they go
    By actual reports they are covering these lowly populated areas very badly. Again, you never argue that they're doing it well. So the tissue thin coverage must be acceptable to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by GSMinCT View Post
    Then they're not going to rival AT&T and Verizon in customer count.
    Trying to match their customer count is not the way to maximum profitability.

    much of T-Mobile's LTE is tissue-paper-thin and worse than Faux G
    Exactly right. They aren't wasting a lot of resources in these desolate areas. They are investing where most of the usage is.

    Then maybe they should build a real network with 2 panels per sector, and a fully deployment of their B2/4/12
    Their return on investment would be very bad if they did that. They would gain too few new customers to offset the massive cost of such a build out. T-Mobile is gaining a lot of customers by just putting up the tissue thin network. It's a winning strategy.

    Except that they've gone about it in the wrong way and built crappy coverage. They should build sites to the same specifications and quality that Verizon and AT&T do, and deploy all their spectrum.
    I agree that the coverage in these areas is crappy. But there's no profit in trying to compete for too few customers against established networks. T-Mobile's tissue thin strategy is a profit maximizer.

  14. #299
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    6,756
    Device(s)
    SGS 7
    Carrier(s)
    MSV 10GB plus 10GB free, 4 lines
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by NotABiot View Post
    GSM, it's the never ending battle between
    "They are covering it."

    Vs

    "They are covering it badly"

    Vs

    "It's a bad idea to cover it."
    Yeah, pretty much.

    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    That preposterous idea that you and you alone dreamed up. I've never talked about people not traveling. You keep repeating the same made up statements over and over. I said that vast amounts of people never travel to these lowly populated areas. But a lot of people travel to cities where many people live. Just because you frequent little places doesn't mean that most people do. There are many small towns that are dying out and most people would never have a reason to visit.
    That's a pretty sad existence if you never stray off the major interstates. Some of the coolest places are in small towns out in the middle of nowhereland, and driving on back roads through America is really fun. But your arguments about T-Mobile's coverage just go around in circles, so it's sort of pointless arguing with them, as whenever your arguments stop making sense, you just change positions.

    Trying to match their customer count is not the way to maximum profitability.
    Customer count is important, as the costs of running a network are relatively fixed, with a small amount of marginal costs for upgrades with more customers. So more customers equals more profit.

    Their return on investment would be very bad if they did that. They would gain too few new customers to offset the massive cost of such a build out. T-Mobile is gaining a lot of customers by just putting up the tissue thin network. It's a winning strategy.
    Yet AT&T and Verizon pour literally billions of dollars into covering all sorts of off the beaten path places. What makes no sense for T-Mobile is that they should either do it right or not do it (and just roam). The cost to put up a cell site, or lease space on an existing site, install equipment, backhaul, etc, is astronomical, and the additional cost to throw up B2 and B4 and 3 more panels while they are there is relatively minimal in comparison.

    Even at $60/mo for two lines on T-Mobile vs. $130/mo plus taxes on AT&T, AT&T is worth the premium for the network.

    I agree that the coverage in these areas is crappy. But there's no profit in trying to compete for too few customers against established networks. T-Mobile's tissue thin strategy is a profit maximizer.
    Except for the more than 200M customers on AT&T and Verizon who mostly live in areas that T-Mobile covers just fine, but mostly want coverage when they travel places. T-Mobile's strategy is also strange, as they aren't really competing that much on price, being only slightly cheaper than the big two. They should get back to heavily undercutting the big two like they did a few years ago.

  15. #300
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Greater Los Angeles
    Posts
    8,357
    Device(s)
    Galaxy S8+ and Gear S3 Frontier
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile USA
    Feedback Score
    15 (100%)
    https://www.t-mobile.com/offers/lg-v...P2Z629TF610505

    For a limited time, buy a new LG V30 and get a FREE Google Daydream View and $40 VR content pack.
    How to redeem:


    Purchase a new LG V30 from 10/5/17 – 11/6/17

    Go to LGV30launchpromo.com/t-mobile and enter the information requested to register by 11/20/17

    Allow 6-8 weeks for fulfilment

Page 20 of 28 FirstFirst ... 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, 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