Page 7 of 28 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 414

Thread: LG V30; Officially the first 600Mhz phone

  1. #91
    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
    I'm not arguing a hypothetical. Myself and others provided real examples from their B12 rollout where they built B12 only sites in rural areas. They did not put B2 nor B4 on these sites even though they own such spectrum at those locations. These B12 only sites are in existence today and can be confirmed by their coverage maps. If you don't have a B12 device with T-Mobile VoLTE in these areas, you can't make any calls on their network whatsoever.
    When were these sites put up? How many years after the initial B12 rollout? Are they some sort of special sites that are running on solar power or have backhaul issues or something?

    You can call it illogical all you want. They don't agree with you. They aren't interested in having customers use these rural sites and having their calls drop because the customers are too cheap to get a compatible device.
    Quite the BS logic. Either they build the network right, with B2/4 support on all new sites, which is what I think they will do, or they build it the absolute cheapest way possible, with B71-only, just to make a map for TV. If they build B71-only sites, I would expect them to be backhaul-choked as well, as why bother provisioning enough bandwidth if all you care about is a TV ad? It will be like AT&T in 2009 all over again.

    So? Not every customer will travel to these remotes areas where they'll need B71. The ones that do, can upgrade if they want.
    If they start doing cheapo paper-thin B71-only coverage, it will end up costing them more in the long run, as they will be paying AT&T roaming fees on all those iPhones, and the iPhones users won't be happy when they are roaming/don't have service and cheapie Android devices six months down the line have T-Mobile LTE (albeit slow from the cheaped-out backhaul that would come with paper-thin B71-only sites).

    Been there, done that. The iPhone didn't have B12 when they started rolling out B12 only sites. No headlines as you stated. It wasn't really a big deal at all. Eventually Apple added the band. Eventually Apple will add B71 too.
    Of course they will next time around, but due to the timing with a band that is already lit up, if they put up B71-only sites, the headlines won't be kind to T-Mobile's network at all.

    You're talking about sites which were spaced for B2 in more populated areas. They didn't and haven't ever added B2 to many B12 only sites.
    I don't think in the future you will see any carrier building sites that have a subset of the spectrum that they have licensed in that area. Even for Verizon, where 100% of phones support B13, they will put B2/4/5 on any tower that gets touched. I would bet money that any B13-only tower is from their OG LTE rollout, and still has coax going up the tower and old equipment, when they get switched to RRHs, it will be 2/4/5/13 with CA. Some of those may not get touched for a while, since they are way out there somewhere, and are "good enough" for now.

    There are a number of reasons why T-Mobile won't build out B71-only towers:

    1. Adding B2/B4 is trivial compared to the cost of getting a tower site, fiber, etc. It's not even pennies on the dollar when you're talking about a $150k cell site with thousands a month for fiber.
    2. The iPhone and S8 both lack B71.
    3. The roaming fees to AT&T would cost far more than just adding the B2/B4.
    4. Some areas where they don't currently own low-band won't have B71 ready for a couple of years. They avoided building towers there until now because they didn't want to build B2, then have to re-climb the towers for B71. If they put up B71/2/4 antennas and RRHs in areas where B71 isn't released yet, they can light up B2/4 now, have a fully functioning cell site pumping out 100mbps+, crayon the crap out of the map, and then whenever xyz broadcaster vacates a couple years down the road, they can go back and light up B71 with the now-existing hardware, and voila! the cell edge moves outwards, adding coverage.
    5. If they are spacing the towers for B71, then they are going to need B2 as the primary "parking" band for most phones to use, and then CA in B71, leaving B71 for extreme cell edge coverage. Putting only B71 on towers would be like Verizon's B13-only paper thin LTE deployment all over again. It makes no sense to densify when it's trivially easy and cheap to add B2 and B4 to a B71 installation, and let the traffic get split up between bands. AT&T and Verizon rely heavily on B2 and B4, respectively, with both carriers using both bands in many areas, even on sites that are spaced for B5 and now offer B17 and B13, respectively. Apparently, it makes sense to use B2 as the "parking" band, and then CA in the lower bands, as I almost never see my phone "parked" on B17, it pretty much stays on 2/4, unless I'm on the extreme edge of a cell, then it will "park" on B17.
    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. #92
    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
    And it's not. Their coverage maps are very clear when an area is B12 only. They use the designation Extended Range LTE and it can be toggled on and off on the map.
    And how much of that is B12-only sites versus some computer guesstimates/crayoning of what B12 on a site will cover versus B2 on that same site?

    Quote Originally Posted by NotABiot View Post
    Urban areas with just Band 12 turn out to be rather common.
    If that's going on, that a whole different problem. They may be newer areas to get coverage, but if they're putting up paper-thin LTE, this is Verizon B13-only with wide tower spacing all over again- everything is just going to clog up without B2/4 and CA.

  3. #93
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    1,765
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GSMinCT View Post
    If that's going on ((Band 12 in urban areas), that a whole different problem. They may be newer areas to get coverage, but if they're putting up paper-thin LTE, this is Verizon B13-only with wide tower spacing all over again- everything is just going to clog up without B2/4 and CA.
    From the Census Bureau:

    "The Census Bureau identifies two types of urban areas:

    Urbanized Areas (UAs) of 50,000 or more people;
    Urban Clusters (UCs) of at least 2,500 and less than 50,000 people."


    The dictionary definition of urban has a much lower bar to hurdle.

    In Band 12-only northern lower Michigan, I find myself usually in one of two urban areas (which are 400% or more of the minimum size for the US Census definition of urban area) or in the actual rural areas in between.

    I think some, not necessarily you, use "urban" in these discussions when they really mean "major metropolitan area". Those are indeed much larger and are also defined.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrop...atistical_area

    What can I say, I have a geography degree, and it's not often that I can use it.

  4. #94
    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 NotABiot View Post
    In Band 12-only northern lower Michigan, I find myself usually in one of two urban areas (which are 400% or more of the minimum size for the US Census definition of urban area) or in the actual rural areas in between.

    I think some, not necessarily you, use "urban" in these discussions when they really mean "major metropolitan area". Those are indeed much larger and are also defined.
    You don't even need an urban area to overload a single band of LTE, unless they are counting on very few of their customers ever actually *using* those towers. I know of a number of places in Northwest Lower that can clog up quite a bit with 3 bands of LTE active on AT&T in the summer. They're certainly usable, but they're not winning any speedtest competitions, and that's 3 bands, so theoretically, newer phones should be on 3x CA.

    Single LTE bands worked OK about 5 years ago, but they're not going to work well in today's world. With data consumption going up and up and up, the carriers are scrambling to get all their licensed bands active on every tower, like B29/30/66 for AT&T and 66 for Verizon, as well as B2/5 refarming.

    The only place I could see a single band LTE deployment working would be in the absolute middle of nowhere.... so a few of those B13-only Verizon sites might survive for a while if they're "good enough" for the purpose.

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Greater Los Angeles
    Posts
    8,363
    Device(s)
    Galaxy S8+ and Gear S3 Frontier
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile USA
    Feedback Score
    15 (100%)
    GSMinCT: Are you going to pick up a LG V30 and give the Magenta network a try? Come on over.
    “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

  6. #96
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    1,765
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GSMinCT View Post
    You don't even need an urban area to overload a single band of LTE, unless they are counting on very few of their customers ever actually *using* those towers. I know of a number of places in Northwest Lower that can clog up quite a bit with 3 bands of LTE active on AT&T in the summer. They're certainly usable, but they're not winning any speedtest competitions, and that's 3 bands, so theoretically, newer phones should be on 3x CA.

    Single LTE bands worked OK about 5 years ago, but they're not going to work well in today's world. With data consumption going up and up and up, the carriers are scrambling to get all their licensed bands active on every tower, like B29/30/66 for AT&T and 66 for Verizon, as well as B2/5 refarming.

    The only place I could see a single band LTE deployment working would be in the absolute middle of nowhere.... so a few of those B13-only Verizon sites might survive for a while if they're "good enough" for the purpose.
    I never paid attention to bands when I was on Cricket (which I assume anyone reading this knows is AT&T) until the spring of this year, in "Northwest Lower", as I got a steady blanketing of the area at 9 mbps. Which areas did you notice clogging up?

  7. #97
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    1,765
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by obeythelaw View Post
    T-Mobile has confirmed that LG V30 will support the 600. Also, saw today that Maine is now lit up with 600 as the 2nd city to have it.
    And Scarborough, Maine is an urban area. Not a major metropolitan area of course, but definitely not rural.

    I started to look into the actual definition of urban vs rural when someone called the quite well populated Amherst, Mass "rural" during a discussion of T-Mobile coverage there.

    These cities, I suppose, are "rural" compared to Tokyo/Yokohama, but....

    Name:  country-mouse-city-mouse.jpg
Views: 140
Size:  45.6 KB
    Last edited by NotABiot; 09-14-2017 at 05:04 AM. Reason: messed up the picture link

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    218
    Feedback Score
    0
    Been reading that the Samsung 600 phone will be less expensive. Not sure how true that is but if true that will be a nice option to have.

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    378
    Device(s)
    iPhone
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    Just read that the google pixel 2 will also not support 600. Just releases FCC certified.

  10. #100
    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 NotABiot View Post
    I never paid attention to bands when I was on Cricket (which I assume anyone reading this knows is AT&T) until the spring of this year, in "Northwest Lower", as I got a steady blanketing of the area at 9 mbps. Which areas did you notice clogging up?
    9mbps is pretty nicely clogged compared to what I usually see out of AT&T. Like I said, perfectly usable but not a great showing on the Speedtests. I was in the Charlevoix and Petoskey areas.

  11. #101
    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 @TheRealDanny View Post
    GSMinCT: Are you going to pick up a LG V30 and give the Magenta network a try? Come on over.
    Not planning on it anytime soon. I'll admit that the $60 55+ plan is really enticing (I could jump on with one of my parents) but T-Mobile's network still leaves a lot to be desired. I'd have to have a Verizon or AT&T prepaid backup phone for when I'm outside of T-Mobile coverage. My S7 obviously doesn't have B71 but it should work on T-Mobile, I used a T-Mobile SIM to test the unlocking when I bought it. My choice for a T-Mobile phone would probably be an X4 the this point. Even if T-Mobile did something as incomprehensibly stupid as not putting B2 on all B71 towers, the price difference could buy a lot of TracFone cards for a TF Verizon SIM or GB on Xfinity Mobile.

    If I were to choose any carrier today I'd probably go Verizon, largely for their phone selection although AT&T is slightly better in Connecticut network wise. The T-Mobile pricing is extremely tempting though for what you get, and it would still be much cheaper even with a VZ TF SIM active for backup. For two lines, T-Mobile would save around $1000/year with the 55+ plan.

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    6,770
    Device(s)
    SGS 7
    Carrier(s)
    MSV 10GB plus 10GB free, 4 lines
    Feedback Score
    0
    All that being said, T-Mobile would be a 100% no-go zone for me if B71-only towers show up in any number, as I don't want a carrier which is building TV graphics, I want a carrier who is building a network, and that would be indicative of a much more serious problem with T-Mobile than just the practical consequences of building some towers that a majority of their customers can't use for several years. The B12-only sites are already very concerning from a capacity perspective while Verizon has all of their spectrum active in all but the most middle of nowhere towers that predate xLTE, and AT&T has announced that when B14 deployment begins, every tower will get B14/29/30, plus whatever else they already own and are already using.

  13. #103
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    7,791
    Carrier(s)
    at&t
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GSMinCT View Post
    All that being said, T-Mobile would be a 100% no-go zone for me if B71-only towers show up in any number, as I don't want a carrier which is building TV graphics, I want a carrier who is building a network, and that would be indicative of a much more serious problem with T-Mobile than just the practical consequences of building some towers that a majority of their customers can't use for several years. The B12-only sites are already very concerning from a capacity perspective while Verizon has all of their spectrum active in all but the most middle of nowhere towers that predate xLTE, and AT&T has announced that when B14 deployment begins, every tower will get B14/29/30, plus whatever else they already own and are already using.
    I think T-Mobile will take it very serious and build appropriately. Will take time but they seem to be doing a good job so far. I don't think they will have but so many 12 only sites. Some spots could get away with it but majority will be different

  14. #104
    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 GSMinCT View Post
    All that being said, T-Mobile would be a 100% no-go zone for me if B71-only towers show up in any number, as I don't want a carrier which is building TV graphics, I want a carrier who is building a network, and that would be indicative of a much more serious problem with T-Mobile than just the practical consequences of building some towers that a majority of their customers can't use for several years. The B12-only sites are already very concerning from a capacity perspective while Verizon has all of their spectrum active in all but the most middle of nowhere towers that predate xLTE, and AT&T has announced that when B14 deployment begins, every tower will get B14/29/30, plus whatever else they already own and are already using.
    Yeah, I would hope that T-Mobile will do at least 2/4/12/71 where possible. AT&T typically does everything they can (UMTS/LTE, previously GSM/UMTS/LTE) when they’re building, and does more than one panel per sector. We will have to see.

    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

  15. #105
    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 jakeuten View Post
    Yeah, I would hope that T-Mobile will do at least 2/4/12/71 where possible. AT&T typically does everything they can (UMTS/LTE, previously GSM/UMTS/LTE) when they’re building, and does more than one panel per sector. We will have to see.
    Yeah I would certainly hope so. The idea with B71 is to get coverage in areas without B12, but obviously they will want to roll it out for capacity in other markets as well. AT&T has been a bit slow/spotty with 29/30, but I think it makes sense for them to roll out 14/29/30 all at once and because of the FirstNet contract, once that gets underway, it will move quickly. The cost isn't much more to add both 2 and 4, so they two parking bands and then 71 to CA in or for cell edge and that's a really solid network. Where possible, they should be able to colocate on existing Verizon or AT&T 850-spaced towers with no problems.

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