Page 5 of 28 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 414

Thread: LG V30; Officially the first 600Mhz phone

  1. #61
    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 jet1000 View Post
    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.
    Your logic is 100% backwards. Your logic is that someone with an existing T-Mobile phone that doesn't have B71, including a lot of phones that will continue to be sold for the next year or two, should have NO SERVICE instead of potentially patchy service. That is completely backwards.

    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.
    I'm an advocate of doing everything they can to provide whatever service they can to people. Right now, almost no one has a T-Mobile B71 device, so they should support devices on whatever bands that they can. If B2 is the best band that they own in that area other than B71, then run the site as B2/B71. Guess what? Those LG V30 users can CA the two bands and get stunning speedtests too, and they'll still have B71 if B2 flakes right in the middle of a tower handoff area or at the edge of coverage. You know what IS really poor service? When you crayon in the map with pink and then 99% of your customers have NO SERVICE.

    So by your absurd backwards logic, I should have wanted AT&T to provide NO SERVICE throughout most of New Hampshire, because they weren't a CLR license holder, so they should have provided NOTHING. ZERO. NO SERVICE. Instead, they provided what they could, and it was basically impossible to do anything that required a continuous connection while driving, but when we were actually stopped somewhere, we had perfectly good service with PCS GSM and later HSPA+. Now they have B17, and it's much better, but at the time, they did what they could do. You are completely disconnected with reality.

    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.
    Showing a giant area covered in pink and having 99% of your customers get NO SERVICE is a really, really bad experience. Putting up B2 coverage so that those 99% of customers get service would be a decent experience, even if coverage is patchy.

    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".
    You are so disconnected from reality that you just don't understand the basic concept of building a network here. By your logic, if everything has to be perfect 100% of the time, there are lots of places that all the big carriers should take towers down because they are too far apart, or there are holes, gaps, or drops in the coverage due to lack of a place to put a tower. Those areas have sub-optimal coverage, so why try at all? They should just make giant holes of NO SERVICE so that when they do have service it's 100% perfect. By that logic, only major metros would ever have service, and all the carriers would look like T-Mobile circa 2014. Most of rural America would never have gotten the benefit of cell phones because there might be one little stretch of road or one little mountain valley with NO SERVICE. Get real, and get a grip on reality.

    We don't know what T-Mobile will do, but one thing is crystal clear. They will either be building out multiple bands to support the majority of devices on their network, or they will be building B71 only, which is not a cellular network, it is a graphic for a TV ad.
    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.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    13,582
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GSMinCT View Post
    Your logic is that someone with an existing T-Mobile phone that doesn't have B71, including a lot of phones that will continue to be sold for the next year or two, should have NO SERVICE instead of potentially patchy service.
    Not potentially patchy. It's a technological fact that B2 can't cover the same distance as B71. That's why T-Mobile paid so much money for 600 spectrum. It's so they can cover areas they couldn't economically cover with B2.

    You've established that you advocate that people receive patchy service. I advocate that if people are going to receive service that they get quality service. You and I have a difference in what level of service that we tolerate. If I get bad reception, I would use another provider---not tolerate it like you admitted you did in NH with AT&T.


    Right now, almost no one has a T-Mobile B71 device, so they should support devices on whatever bands that they can.
    They don't want to deploy B2 in these areas or they would've already done so. They own nationwide B2.

    Those LG V30 users can CA the two bands and get stunning speedtests too,
    LOL, those V30 users will be getting fine service on B71 by itself. We are not talking about populated areas. CA is not at all needed to have a good user experience.


    You know what IS really poor service? When you crayon in the map with pink and then 99% of your customers have NO SERVICE.
    A lot of those 99% won't even need service in these areas. Those that do simply open up their wallet and pay for a B71 device. Those that don't can continue on with the service they are already satisfied with. T-Mobile can indicate on their map that a B71 device is needed. They already did this when they rolled out B12. Their coverage maps showed that B12 device was needed.

    You're acting like all of their existing customers really need this coverage when in actuality they're fulfilling a niche market. As for new customers, as I stated previously, if you're going to convince them to switch to your service, you need to provide quality service. Otherwise you're doing them a disservice by allowing them to use a B2 service when you know it will be patchy and subpar.


    I should have wanted AT&T to provide NO SERVICE throughout most of New Hampshire,
    No, you should have switched to a carrier that provided quality service. Why didn't you do that instead of put up with bad service? You admitted, "it was basically impossible to do anything that required a continuous connection while driving". That would be a great slogan for T-Mobile to use during the B71 rollout, "New coverage, impossible for 99% of our customers to use while driving, must be stopped for 'perfectly good service'." Sound like a winning marketing campaign? And you accuse me of being disconnected with reality. Your statements say it all.

  3. #63
    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 jet1000 View Post
    Not potentially patchy. It's a technological fact that B2 can't cover the same distance as B71. That's why T-Mobile paid so much money for 600 spectrum. It's so they can cover areas they couldn't economically cover with B2.

    You've established that you advocate that people receive patchy service. I advocate that if people are going to receive service that they get quality service. You and I have a difference in what level of service that we tolerate. If I get bad reception, I would use another provider---not tolerate it like you admitted you did in NH with AT&T.
    Yes. I have common sense. Common sense and logic states that patchy service is better than no service. Period. Yeah, our level of tolerance is different. I don't tolerate a carrier with less coverage, that's why I have AT&T, not T-Mobile. What, should I have gotten Verizon so that a couple times a year when I was in New Hampshire, I could do something with my phone in that car? Who cares. That logic is insane. We have friends who have houses up there, they got Verizon because they go up there all the time. We have AT&T because the service was good enough. Now it's about the same.

    The fact of the matter is that no carrier is perfect everywhere. AT&T and Verizon have gotten better, but neither covers everywhere perfectly, and T-Mobile still has a long way to go before getting to their level.

    They don't want to deploy B2 in these areas or they would've already done so. They own nationwide B2.
    That is completely erroneous logic. They have been building out in more populated areas, getting to the least populated ones last, and have made vast improvements to their coverage.

    LOL, those V30 users will be getting fine service on B71 by itself. We are not talking about populated areas. CA is not at all needed to have a good user experience.
    2/4/71 CA would make some great Speedtests for this site LOL.

    A lot of those 99% won't even need service in these areas. Those that do simply open up their wallet and pay for a B71 device. Those that don't can continue on with the service they are already satisfied with. T-Mobile can indicate on their map that a B71 device is needed. They already did this when they rolled out B12. Their coverage maps showed that B12 device was needed.
    So by your logic, since 99% of them don't need service, why is T-Mobile bothering to build out at all? There is no reason to build out then. Or are you arguing that T-Mobile doesn't really care about building actual service, and just wants to make graphics for TV ads? In that case, they should put up the narrowest B71 that they can, put a T1 line on each site, and call it a day. 99% of people don't even know what an LTE band even IS. They just have whatever phone they want, and assume it will actually WORK where T-Mobile has coverage. Not putting a core coverage band for T-Mobile on every site that T-Mobile runs would be completely insane.

    You're acting like all of their existing customers really need this coverage when in actuality they're fulfilling a niche market. As for new customers, as I stated previously, if you're going to convince them to switch to your service, you need to provide quality service. Otherwise you're doing them a disservice by allowing them to use a B2 service when you know it will be patchy and subpar.
    Then why are they bothering to build out coverage if that's the case? For TV ads? Again, your "logic" is completely illogical. Providing NO SERVICE for miles on end where the map shows coverage is FAR WORSE than a few botched hand-offs if the phones can't hold on to a very weak B2 signal. It remains to be seen if T-Mobile would do something so incomprehensibly stupid as to build out B71-only sites in the next 5 years, but like I said, it will be extremely telling about what T-Mobile's goals are.

    No, you should have switched to a carrier that provided quality service. Why didn't you do that instead of put up with bad service? You admitted, "it was basically impossible to do anything that required a continuous connection while driving". That would be a great slogan for T-Mobile to use during the B71 rollout, "New coverage, impossible for 99% of our customers to use while driving, must be stopped for 'perfectly good service'." Sound like a winning marketing campaign? And you accuse me of being disconnected with reality. Your statements say it all.
    Your "logic" is completely asinine. I've also been places that had AT&T coverage and nothing on Verizon, so no matter which carrier we picked, one would work sometimes and not other times. No carrier is perfect. Further, why would someone switch carriers just to get slightly better service for a couple hours in the car somewhere that they go a couple times a year? That's NUTS. Once we were up at one of the lakes, it was fine anyway, as B2 carries pretty well across open water.

    You are completely disconnected from reality, and you continue to prove that. You have stated that it is better for customers to have NO SERVICE than to have patchy/spotty service that will likely do 95% of what they want out of it anyway. That is completely disconnected from reality. Cell phone service is not marketed for car use anymore, some people use it for that, many people are using it for data and texting, and many people use it while stopped somewhere, like in a town, so to say that just because it wouldn't work well while driving down the highway at 70mph it shouldn't be done at all is completely disconnected from reality. Get a grip.

    We will see what T-Mobile does. If B71-only sites start popping up, then it will be proven that all they care about are TV ad graphics. I don't think they will. I don't think they are that stupid. They might leave B4 off the sites, although they will probably put that on too while they're at it if they have the backhaul available. B2 is almost as good as B17, B4 is significantly weaker. Why that is, I don't know, as B4 should be more like B2 than B17, but it's not. This seems to be an LTE phenomenon, as PCS HSPA+ was always weak/patchy compared to CLR.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    13,582
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GSMinCT View Post
    So by your logic, since 99% of them don't need service, why is T-Mobile bothering to build out at all? There is no reason to build out then. Or are you arguing that T-Mobile doesn't really care about building actual service, and just wants to make graphics for TV ads?
    The B71 will be actual service. Who said it wouldn't? The consumer will need to buy a new device to get it. So what?

    If they need the service in these remote locations right away, then they can be an early adopter and buy an V30. If not, they can wait until B71 is gradually added to the lineup of phones that T-Mobile sells. The percent of people without B71 will gradually come down over time. It happens with every rollout of new technology. Again, so what?


    99% of people don't even know what an LTE band even IS. They just have whatever phone they want, and assume it will actually WORK where T-Mobile has coverage.
    Right, they assume that if they get a signal, that it won't cut out if they drive a few miles down the road and then disappear and the reappear constantly. They don't expect the condition that you experienced: "it was basically impossible to do anything that required a continuous connection while driving."

    Yes you're an advocate of poor coverage and bad service. And anyone who is not in favor of poor coverage, you label stupid. You even state that if T-Mobile management doesn't add poor coverage to these new sites, then they would be stupid too. You've made your position clear on the matter.


    Providing NO SERVICE for miles on end where the map shows coverage is FAR WORSE than a few botched hand-offs if the phones can't hold on to a very weak B2 signal.
    Except you never say what's worse about it. The fact is, T-Mobile doesn't provide service to these areas now. If they add service on B71, it's only a positive gain for them. It doesn't make their position worse. Those that are in these areas with B71 devices will use the service. For those that don't have a B71 device, nothing changes and certainly nothing becomes worse.

    But you advocate giving all of these people (the vast majority of their customer base) a poor user experience when they go to these areas. And you claim this is a positive? You want them to see coverage on a map, try to use it, and be very disappointed. Again, that is very bad business. It's like opening a restaurant and admitting you're going to sell bad food and give bad service.


    and many people use it while stopped somewhere, like in a town, so to say that just because it wouldn't work well while driving down the highway at 70mph it shouldn't be done at all is completely disconnected from reality.
    What I said, is if someone wants to use it in that town, then they should buy a device that can access the B71. T-Mobile is installing new equipment. If the consumer wants access, then they need to buy new equipment. It's a simple marketplace transaction. And yes, far superior than providing shoddy service like you advocate.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,021
    Feedback Score
    0
    I wish I could read more about the V30 in this thread...

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    De Soto
    Posts
    236
    Device(s)
    LG Phoenix 3 (with FM Radio), iPhone 4S
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    Yes my phone supports Band 17 and picks up band 12 lower frequencies.

    Sent from my LG-K371 using Tapatalk

  7. #67
    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 jet1000 View Post
    The B71 will be actual service. Who said it wouldn't? The consumer will need to buy a new device to get it. So what?

    If they need the service in these remote locations right away, then they can be an early adopter and buy an V30. If not, they can wait until B71 is gradually added to the lineup of phones that T-Mobile sells. The percent of people without B71 will gradually come down over time. It happens with every rollout of new technology. Again, so what?
    People generally don't buy new devices for LTE band support. You are completely disconnected from REALITY.

    Right, they assume that if they get a signal, that it won't cut out if they drive a few miles down the road and then disappear and the reappear constantly. They don't expect the condition that you experienced: "it was basically impossible to do anything that required a continuous connection while driving."
    You obviously don't comprehend basic logic, since patchy coverage is better than NO SERVICE. Period.

    Yes you're an advocate of poor coverage and bad service. And anyone who is not in favor of poor coverage, you label stupid. You even state that if T-Mobile management doesn't add poor coverage to these new sites, then they would be stupid too. You've made your position clear on the matter.
    I'm an advocate of the best service that can be provided. Which, for 99% of T-Mobile phones, would be patchy B2 in areas with T-Mobile owns B71 and not B12.

    Except you never say what's worse about it. The fact is, T-Mobile doesn't provide service to these areas now. If they add service on B71, it's only a positive gain for them. It doesn't make their position worse. Those that are in these areas with B71 devices will use the service. For those that don't have a B71 device, nothing changes and certainly nothing becomes worse.
    It's worse because Joe Average looks at the coverage map, goes, "oh, there's coverage there", goes there, his phone has NO SERVICE, and he's like "WTF T-Mobile you're a bunch of liars". With B2, the coverage is there, and has a few gaps in it, which cell service in rural areas general does anyway, so no big deal.

    But you advocate giving all of these people (the vast majority of their customer base) a poor user experience when they go to these areas. And you claim this is a positive? You want them to see coverage on a map, try to use it, and be very disappointed. Again, that is very bad business. It's like opening a restaurant and admitting you're going to sell bad food and give bad service.
    Again, you fail to comprehend basic logic. Basic logic states that patchy coverage is a much better experience than NO SERVICE. Period.

    What I said, is if someone wants to use it in that town, then they should buy a device that can access the B71. T-Mobile is installing new equipment. If the consumer wants access, then they need to buy new equipment. It's a simple marketplace transaction. And yes, far superior than providing shoddy service like you advocate.
    You are completely disconnected from reality.

    We will see what T-Mobile does. If B71-only towers start showing up, we know that they are building a TV ad, not a cell phone network. I don't think they will, as I would hope that their engineers would have some basic common sense and not subscribe to incomprehensibly stupid non-logic like you do.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    slc ut
    Posts
    1,119
    Device(s)
    Pixel XL
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon
    Feedback Score
    0
    Can the two of you please start your own website and pound on each other there. This has gotten past boring and ruins good threads.
    Paul Thurrott:
    Not now mom, somebody's wrong on the Internet

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    13,582
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GSMinCT View Post
    You are completely disconnected from REALITY.
    No, the reality is that T-Mobile already does this very thing with B12 devices. They've had B12 only sites since they started rolling it out with very few B12 devices on the market. Here's an existing example of coverage for Spray, OR:

    Name:  B12.png
Views: 201
Size:  213.3 KB

    It's a B12 only site and the map has a note that says: "4G LTE service requires a capable device. Check list of capable devices." Then it provides this link:

    https://business.t-mobile.com/option...hones-700.html

    "That page says, "This area is now covered with our Extended Range LTE™ which enhances signal strength and coverage. Our new Extended Range LTE signal reaches twice as far and is four times better in buildings than before! To take advantage of this technology, you need a compatible device. See the list of compatible devices below.

    If you do not have one of the devices on the list below, you can click on “Choose Device” in the top right corner of the map to view the coverage you would experience with a non-compatible device. "


    If you do what it says and choose a band 2 device, then the coverage map correctly shows no coverage at all and explains you need a different device:


    Name:  No B12.png
Views: 205
Size:  164.4 KB

    You obviously don't comprehend basic logic, since patchy coverage is better than NO SERVICE. Period.
    Well the execs at T-Mobile clearly don't agree with you. Or else they would've installed B2 LTE for Spray.

    I'm an advocate of the best service that can be provided. Which, for 99% of T-Mobile phones, would be patchy B2 in areas with T-Mobile owns B71 and not B12.
    Another place where T-Mobile doesn't agree with you. They're just fine having B12 only in Spray and they'll be just fine having B71 only sites too. They don't feel it's a problem at all.

    It's worse because Joe Average looks at the coverage map, goes, "oh, there's coverage there", goes there, his phone has NO SERVICE, and he's like "WTF T-Mobile you're a bunch of liars".
    Actually Joe Average sees the coverage maps above and sees that it either has coverage with his particular device or it doesn't. He would only call T-Mobile "a bunch of liars" if he is too dumb to read what the map actually says.

    You are completely disconnected from reality.
    I am fully connected to the reality of how T-Mobile has implemented low-band spectrum. You're a long time AT&T customer with no apparent interest in using T-Mobile. Why do you care so much about their 600 Mhz spectrum implementation anyway?

    You apparently didn't even know that they implemented B12 only sites when few people had B12 phones. Why don't you study up a little on how they do things before claiming you're the authority on what is logical and what isn't?

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    174
    Device(s)
    Pixel XL
    Carrier(s)
    Cricket / T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by sectime View Post
    Can the two of you please start your own website and pound on each other there. This has gotten past boring and ruins good threads.
    +1000

    Both seem to lack the logic that the other isn't going to concede and to just drop it.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    396
    Device(s)
    iPhone
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    Simple answer is there is no reason not to have a B12 capable phone if you are going use T-Mobile service.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,021
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by seezar View Post
    +1000

    Both seem to lack the logic that the other isn't going to concede and to just drop it.
    I plaintively plead... Could someone please talk about the LG V30?

  13. #73
    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 jet1000 View Post
    No, the reality is that T-Mobile already does this very thing with B12 devices. They've had B12 only sites since they started rolling it out with very few B12 devices on the market. Here's an existing example of coverage for Spray, OR:

    Name:  B12.png
Views: 201
Size:  213.3 KB

    It's a B12 only site and the map has a note that says: "4G LTE service requires a capable device. Check list of capable devices." Then it provides this link:

    https://business.t-mobile.com/option...hones-700.html

    "That page says, "This area is now covered with our Extended Range LTE™ which enhances signal strength and coverage. Our new Extended Range LTE signal reaches twice as far and is four times better in buildings than before! To take advantage of this technology, you need a compatible device. See the list of compatible devices below.

    If you do not have one of the devices on the list below, you can click on “Choose Device” in the top right corner of the map to view the coverage you would experience with a non-compatible device. "


    If you do what it says and choose a band 2 device, then the coverage map correctly shows no coverage at all and explains you need a different device:


    Name:  No B12.png
Views: 205
Size:  164.4 KB



    Well the execs at T-Mobile clearly don't agree with you. Or else they would've installed B2 LTE for Spray.
    That was pretty stupid of T-Mobile not to put B2 on that tower, although there were more B12 devices available at the time they launched B12, as it was actually a previously used band, not something brand new like B71 is now.

    Another place where T-Mobile doesn't agree with you. They're just fine having B12 only in Spray and they'll be just fine having B71 only sites too. They don't feel it's a problem at all.

    Actually Joe Average sees the coverage maps above and sees that it either has coverage with his particular device or it doesn't. He would only call T-Mobile "a bunch of liars" if he is too dumb to read what the map actually says.

    I am fully connected to the reality of how T-Mobile has implemented low-band spectrum. You're a long time AT&T customer with no apparent interest in using T-Mobile. Why do you care so much about their 600 Mhz spectrum implementation anyway?

    You apparently didn't even know that they implemented B12 only sites when few people had B12 phones. Why don't you study up a little on how they do things before claiming you're the authority on what is logical and what isn't?
    If they do something as incomprehensibly stupid as put up B71-only sites when there is no logical reason to do so, then they will be showing their true colors: a giant marketing ploy that doesn't care about the actual network. It doesn't cost much extra to throw B2 up there when they're already getting backhaul and antennas and everything else set up for a site. The average Joe will see the map on TV or their web site, their phone won't work, and they will be pissed off at T-Mobile.

    Plus, T-Mobile has every incentive to get them connected to T-Mobile's network, as some B71 areas may overlap with AT&T roaming areas. Much better to have them on a marginal T-Mobile B2 signal than AT&T's B5, B17, or even B2.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    84
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by NotABiot View Post
    I plaintively plead... Could someone please talk about the LG V30?
    Sure! How bad does anyone want this phone?

    Name:  Screen Shot 2017-09-10 at 8.19.22 PM.png
Views: 183
Size:  553.1 KB

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    1,058
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    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.
    Sorry for the late response but I find it hard to believe that there are B12 only sites unless the markets way out in the other parts of the country are operating on a completely different level than the other markets but the closest I've seen to B12 only is when they add B12 on a GSM/LTE B2 site but even then you've got a little bit of B2 piping through. I've worked on many sites (new build and upgrade) in several states over the last few years during the B12 buildout and I have never once seen T-Mobile opt to just install B12. This is why I find it hard to believe that they'll spend all this money to just install B71 if they're building out new sites.

Page 5 of 28 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ... 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