Page 4 of 28 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 414

Thread: LG V30; Officially the first 600Mhz phone

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    1,020
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by L33 View Post
    Of course they will have B71 only sites. There's many rural areas in the US where they still do not have 700 MHz licenses but now have 600 MHz one.
    I wouldn't be so sure but never say never. The main reason I can't see them doing B71 only is that a brand new site, even a colocation on an existing tower, costs so much money that a carrier would be silly not to deploy several, if not all, technologies at once if for nothing else but to maximize the potential of the site.

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    13,507
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JimMcGraff View Post
    I wouldn't be so sure but never say never. The main reason I can't see them doing B71 only is that a brand new site, even a colocation on an existing tower, costs so much money that a carrier would be silly not to deploy several, if not all, technologies at once if for nothing else but to maximize the potential of the site.
    What, maximize the potential for bad coverage? That's essentially what would be done because the site likely won't be spaced close enough to another site to do a handoff for higher frequency use. Just like T-Mobile had band 12 exclusive sites, they'll have B71 only sites as well.

    Bad coverage causes a customer to bad-mouth your product and they'll resist ever trying out your service again for many years. If coverage isn't available because someone is too cheap to buy a B71 compatible phone, T-Mobile can live with that. They'll be rolling out more B71 devices soon.

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Gulf Coast
    Posts
    14,044
    Device(s)
    Samsung Avant, Nexus 5X, Moto G
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile, Project Fi, PagePlus
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JimMcGraff View Post
    I wouldn't be so sure but never say never. The main reason I can't see them doing B71 only is that a brand new site, even a colocation on an existing tower, costs so much money that a carrier would be silly not to deploy several, if not all, technologies at once if for nothing else but to maximize the potential of the site.
    Yep. I said the same thing about band-12. Particularly, why deploy only 5x5 band 12, wouldn't that be limiting? But that's just what they've done. One thing that just crossed my mind is that T-Mobile has left AT&T roaming active in N. Michigan, at least for now. It might be too frustrating for someone using an older phone to start a call on T-Mobile's mid-band signal only to have it drop and have to resume when the phone picks up AT&T.
    Donald Newcomb

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    6,770
    Device(s)
    SGS 7
    Carrier(s)
    MSV 10GB plus 10GB free, 4 lines
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by DRNewcomb View Post
    I made exactly the same argument wrt band-12-only sites. T-Mobile installed them anyway.
    I guess we'll see. If they throw sites up with such incredible shortcuts as being B71-only, then that will really show that T-Mobile is not serious about their network. They already are on fewer DASes than AT&T and Verizon, and don't have the same backup power at many sites as the big two. The competition is good though, even if they don't intend to truly be an equal to the big two.

    Quote Originally Posted by ac21365 View Post
    They more or less do indeed have Band 2/4 licenses nationwide. Perhaps, pause for a moment and look at the rural issue you cite as "utterly incomprehensibly stupid" from a different point of view...
    Let me first say that PCS coverage on CLR spaced towers is MUCH better than no coverage at all. I speak from experience, being an AT&T customer. AT&T is not a CLR license holder in most of NH, and before LTE, their HSPA+ network was running on PCS, but installed on CLR-spaced towers, as they were built for the predecessors of USCC and Verizon, and AT&T co-located on the only structures available (in some places they've been fighting cell towers for like 20 years so it is literally impossible to densify). Yes, it was patchy, and dropped a lot, but it was a heck of a lot better than not having service for days on end. Putting up B71-only towers would absolutly be incomprehensibly stupid on T-Mobile's part. If they are serious about building out their network, then they will put at least B2 LTE on those sites as well, so that their customers can actually USE those sites before they get B71 devices.

    I don't care about capacity or anything else, it's about device support. There will be non-B71 devices on sale for another 3 or 4 years, and in use a good 3-4 years after that, so not putting at least B2 LTE up there would be completely idiotic. Sure, there will be little gaps here and there, but they'll get most of the coverage that the B71 devices do, instead of none.
    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.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    6,770
    Device(s)
    SGS 7
    Carrier(s)
    MSV 10GB plus 10GB free, 4 lines
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    So you tolerate dropped calls currently? You tolerate swiss cheese coverage? I don't know anyone who tolerates that. Yet, you think people would "work with" it. What you're saying doesn't make sense.

    Either the person should buy a B71 device or stick with a carrier that covers it well. Nobody that I can think of would tolerate working with poor coverage.
    So by your backward logic, having NO SERVICE is better than swiss cheese? That is incomprehensibly stupid logic. If your logic were used by the big guys, AT&T would have had almost no service in New Hampshire for many years. We will see what T-Mobile's aim is here. If they are serious about actually building a network that people can USE, they will, at a bare minimum, put B2 on ALL B71 sites. If their aim is simply to crayon in the map with pink for TV ads, then we might see B71-only sites.

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Gulf Coast
    Posts
    14,044
    Device(s)
    Samsung Avant, Nexus 5X, Moto G
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile, Project Fi, PagePlus
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GSMinCT View Post
    So by your backward logic, having NO SERVICE is better than swiss cheese? That is incomprehensibly stupid logic. .....
    I think your ire is misdirected. Neither I nor you nor jet have any control over what T-Mobile does or does not do. In this case, jet has history on his side. T-Mobile has proven themselves perfectly willing to deploy 700 MHz with no mid-band adjunct, regardless of how logical or illogical that may seem to any of us here. I find it hard to now claim that it would be irrational of them to do the same with 600, particularly as they have much more 600 bandwidth available.

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    6,770
    Device(s)
    SGS 7
    Carrier(s)
    MSV 10GB plus 10GB free, 4 lines
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by DRNewcomb View Post
    I think your ire is misdirected. Neither I nor you nor jet have any control over what T-Mobile does or does not do. In this case, jet has history on his side. T-Mobile has proven themselves perfectly willing to deploy 700 MHz with no mid-band adjunct, regardless of how logical or illogical that may seem to any of us here. I find it hard to now claim that it would be irrational of them to do the same with 600, particularly as they have much more 600 bandwidth available.
    Thanks Captain Obvious. jet1000 was defending an indefensible concept, so I was pointing out how backwards jet's logic is. We will see how T-Mobile builds out, and whether they are seriously building a network, or building TV ad graphics. You can argue that building out B71-only coverage is good because they just want TV ad graphics and not a real network that people can actually USE, but then you really have to ask yourself, what is the purpose of a wireless carrier? To make TV ads, or to provide good wireless service? They could also skimp on the backhaul, because coverage is coverage, right?

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    13,507
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GSMinCT View Post
    So by your backward logic, having NO SERVICE is better than swiss cheese?
    The logic isn't backwards. We are talking about areas where they already have NO SERVICE and have likely never have service. If you're going to roll out service in those areas, and you're asking people going to those areas to switch to your service, you had better have some quality service when they make the switch.

    If they just insert a T-Mobile SIM into their current phone and they get some patchy B2 service that constantly drops, that would damage their reputation. And the user would likely switch back to the service they had before. There's no positive result for T-Mobile or the customer in that case.

    If they are serious about actually building a network that people can USE, they will, at a bare minimum, put B2 on ALL B71 sites.
    You mean if they are serious about providing people with subpar, poor service they would put B2 on all sites and let the complaints roll in. Why are you such an advocate of junk service? Why do you think that people would like that? I have no idea why you tolerated AT&T service in NH that you said was " patchy, and dropped a lot" instead of switching to quality service in that area. But I assure you that you are the exception to the rule. People want their phones to work. And they expect that when they are using mobile service in a mobile manner (i.e. driving around) that their calls won't drop. This is a basic expectation.

    And yes, T-Mobile will want satisfied customers when they roll out service in those areas. They will want the customer to have a good experience not a bad one.

    The only "incomprehensibly stupid logic" would be when you advocate that T-Mobile provide poor, spotty, patchy service on B2 where calls and data would constantly drop. Somehow I've never seen the principle of providing poor service ever taught as a way to grow and expand one's business. Must be that the business schools don't share your sense of "logic".

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    7,791
    Carrier(s)
    at&t
    Feedback Score
    0
    I think T-Mobile is pretty serious about network upgrades. They pump things up just like the other carriers so that can easily bring up questions of how smooth things will be

    Their uncarrier movement seems stale to me so that's a little disappointing
    Last edited by themanhimself; 09-07-2017 at 04:40 PM.

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    286
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Today I drove from Warren PA up to Buffalo NY. Along route 60. T-Mobile owns band 12 over that entire area. And I'm sure they have the other bands as well. In Warren PA, T-Mobile has service. As soon as you go north, it's all AT&T roaming, all the way up to I90. Band 71 won't solve that problem. They already own tons of spectrum there including band 12. They're NOT ON THE TOWERS.

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    1,668
    Carrier(s)
    Ma bell and tmobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Can every att phone that was sold with b17 pick up b12 on T-Mobile or is just the ones released in the past few months?
    Sent from my windows phone

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Greater Los Angeles
    Posts
    8,364
    Device(s)
    Galaxy S8+ and Gear S3 Frontier
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile USA
    Feedback Score
    15 (100%)
    Is this still the LG v30 thread?
    “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

  13. #58
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    1,765
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by @TheRealDanny View Post
    Is this still the LG v30 thread?
    I think we ran out of V30 news!

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    7,791
    Carrier(s)
    at&t
    Feedback Score
    0
    I agree. Not much v30 news right now

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Gulf Coast
    Posts
    14,044
    Device(s)
    Samsung Avant, Nexus 5X, Moto G
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile, Project Fi, PagePlus
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur101 View Post
    Can every att phone that was sold with b17 pick up b12 on T-Mobile or is just the ones released in the past few months?
    No. A band-17 phone will not pick up the lower 700 MHz A-block unless it's also a band-12 phone.

Page 4 of 28 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... 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