Page 8 of 28 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ... LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 414

Thread: LG V30; Officially the first 600Mhz phone

  1. #106
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    2,399
    Device(s)
    LG G4
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GSMinCT View Post
    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.
    Still got a question on that extra cost of adding other bands 2, 4, 66 and LTU/LAA to Band 12 & 71. Does T-Mobile have one or two Antenna that won't require them to have to lease two stacks of lease space on tower for Antenna's for Band 2, 4, 12, 66 and 71? Also, in metro areas like where I live (Broward County FL) T-Mobile has over a hundred towers just in Broward County and with the distance that band 12 and 71 does they would have to point the Antenna down or reduce power since they would interfere with each other. When you add in Dade, Broward and Palm Beach county with over 6 million people, Band 12 and Band 71 has to lot of separation between towers if they are run a full power and maximum tilt.

  2. #107
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    13,497
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GSMinCT View Post
    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?
    They were put up at various times. They don't have backhaul issues. Someone already mentioned that northern Michigan is covered by many band 12 only sites for example.

    Quite the BS logic. Either they build the network right, with B2/4 support on all new sites,
    Your definition of "right" is different from T-Mobile's definition of right. They believe right is having a network where coverage doesn't drop every time you move from site to site. So that's why you don't find B2/4 on those sites in northern Michigan. The sites are spaced for low band and you'll either use a B12 device or you won't get T-Mobile coverage.

    If they build B71-only sites, I would expect them to be backhaul-choked as well
    These B71 areas have such little population, they aren't going to get backhaul-choked.

    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,
    The roaming doesn't cost them that much, because they limit everyone to 200 MB of roaming data.

    and the iPhones users won't be happy when they are roaming/don't have service
    It's the exact same service that iPhone users have now on T-Mobile. If they're find with it now, they'll be fine with it then. If someone needs data in those areas, they're already not using T-Mobile.

    if they put up B71-only sites, the headlines won't be kind to T-Mobile's network at all.
    You still haven't found one headline decrying all of the B12 only sites. You have no evidence there will be any headlines at all. You're the one who seems bothered by the idea of B71 sites and you don't even use T-Mobile.


    Even for Verizon, where 100% of phones support B13, they will put B2/4/5 on any tower that gets touched.
    Completely irrelevant. If the B2/4 drops for the Verizon customer, they just fall back to B13 without losing service. Since most T-Mobile customers won't have a B71 device, they'd lose service altogether.


    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.
    Right, such a low cost and they don't put B2/B4 on so many B12 sites even today. Clearly, they don't see doing so as the upgrade you claim it is.

    Again, you're arguing against something that T-Mobile already does. Just remain with the carrier you currently have, and you'll never have to worry about it.

  3. #108
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    282
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by shilohcane View Post
    Still got a question on that extra cost of adding other bands 2, 4, 66 and LTU/LAA to Band 12 & 71.
    The biggest disappointment with the T-Mobile version of this phone is the lack of international LTE bands. If you take this phone to another country, you won't get LTE - it's basically like getting a $100 phone that has just T-Mobile bands. I'm keeping my eyes open on the unlocked version. It may have all the bands.

  4. #109
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    161
    Device(s)
    Pixel XL
    Carrier(s)
    Cricket / T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by HokieAl View Post
    The biggest disappointment with the T-Mobile version of this phone is the lack of international LTE bands. If you take this phone to another country, you won't get LTE - it's basically like getting a $100 phone that has just T-Mobile bands. I'm keeping my eyes open on the unlocked version. It may have all the bands.
    The FCC filing for only the T-Mobile version has band 71 support. The unlocked version won't so you'll lose that.

    Oh wait, looks like the unlocked will now

    https://www.xda-developers.com/unloc...nd-71-600-mhz/

  5. #110
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    282
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    The T-Mobile version of the G6 supports international bands. Seems strange that their latest flagship would not. But it's in the FCC docs for the T-Mobile version of the V30 - no international LTE bands.

  6. #111
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    6,743
    Device(s)
    SGS 7
    Carrier(s)
    MSV 10GB plus 10GB free, 4 lines
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    They were put up at various times. They don't have backhaul issues. Someone already mentioned that northern Michigan is covered by many band 12 only sites for example.
    Then how did they not get B2 and B4? Seems like somebody either screwed up badly, or they were slapping up towers as cheaply and quickly as possible to crayon in the map. B12-only is paper-thin coverage, when AT&T has 3 or 4 bands, some with several, larger blocks, all live, and when the B14-rebuild happens, every site that doesn't already have 29/30 will get 14/29/30 all at once.

    Your definition of "right" is different from T-Mobile's definition of right. They believe right is having a network where coverage doesn't drop every time you move from site to site. So that's why you don't find B2/4 on those sites in northern Michigan. The sites are spaced for low band and you'll either use a B12 device or you won't get T-Mobile coverage.
    That is complete bullpuckey. You are just making up nonsense to try and apologize for paper-thin coverage from T-Mobile. Verizon and AT&T have thousands of towers spaced for 850 or 700 that use B2/4 for capacity. A properly built T-Mobile B12 site will also have whatever B2 and B4 blocks are available in that area.

    These B71 areas have such little population, they aren't going to get backhaul-choked.
    Read my post. I said that if they are so penny wise and pound foolish as to cut every little corner they can, and not put B2/4 on those towers, then they will likely also cut corners where there is more money to be saved, and put as little backhaul on these things as possible. If they are building a real network for real people to use, we will be seeing 3x CA doing speedtests well into the 150+mbps range off of these new sites. If they are just crayoning in the map for the sake of the map, then we might see a minimal B71 deployment with slow backhaul. Plus, why bother paying for fast backhaul for sites that virtually no one will be able to use until well into next year, and probably won't have a critical mass of users for some time after that? If they are built properly with B2/4, then they could get some traffic immediately, and thus would need more backhaul.

    The roaming doesn't cost them that much, because they limit everyone to 200 MB of roaming data.
    Apparently they are cheaping out on roaming because it doesn't cost them much of anything in the first place? Do you actually read your own posts? You say the most absurdly illogical things.

    It's the exact same service that iPhone users have now on T-Mobile. If they're find with it now, they'll be fine with it then. If someone needs data in those areas, they're already not using T-Mobile.
    By your logic, T-Mobile should stop expanding their coverage entirely, because the network is "good enough" already.

    You still haven't found one headline decrying all of the B12 only sites. You have no evidence there will be any headlines at all. You're the one who seems bothered by the idea of B71 sites and you don't even use T-Mobile.
    If they start putting B71-only sites up, there will be articles about it. But I don't think there ever will be a B71-only site, so there won't be headlines.

    Completely irrelevant. If the B2/4 drops for the Verizon customer, they just fall back to B13 without losing service. Since most T-Mobile customers won't have a B71 device, they'd lose service altogether.
    ZOMG!!! There might be *dead spots* in the network. Because clearly no cell network in history has ever had dead spots in it. I can find spots that are swiss cheese on ANY of the 4 carriers (OK, that's most of Sprint's network, but all 4 of them have spots somewhere like that). If they followed your logic that it's perfect coverage or nothing, a lot of more rural parts of the country would have NOTHING, or they would still be running 850 analog. Heck, there are places that just don't have any service at all, or it's very weak.

    Right, such a low cost and they don't put B2/B4 on so many B12 sites even today. Clearly, they don't see doing so as the upgrade you claim it is.
    We still don't seem to have any good numbers on how many paper-thin sites there are, but that is very concerning, as even a small event or gathering or people could completely crush a tower running only on B12 with no B2/4 to CA on.

    Again, you're arguing against something that T-Mobile already does. Just remain with the carrier you currently have, and you'll never have to worry about it.
    We'll see how they build out the network.
    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. #112
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    6,743
    Device(s)
    SGS 7
    Carrier(s)
    MSV 10GB plus 10GB free, 4 lines
    Feedback Score
    0
    Your definition of "right" is different from T-Mobile's definition of right. They believe right is having a network where coverage doesn't drop every time you move from site to site. So that's why you don't find B2/4 on those sites in northern Michigan. The sites are spaced for low band and you'll either use a B12 device or you won't get T-Mobile coverage.
    You are using absurdly twisted and backwards logic to apologize for T-Mobile putting up penny-wise, pound-foolish, slap-it-up-as-fast-as-possible coverage. The ONLY reason T-Mobile could possibly have for not putting B2 and B4 on a normal site with power and fiber access is because they did the cheapest possible thing to put more coverage on the map. Somebody high up told them to just slap it up and cut every corner possible. If the engineers were in control of it, they'd have every last bit of spectrum they own in that area lit up, CA, etc. You can't run an LTE network on a single 6x6 block with nothing else, unless you're just covering the map. A handful of devices on that will crush the whole tower. If that's T-Mobile's answer to AT&T and Verizon, then that's just plain pathetic.

    I just looked at the coverage map on T-Mobile's site for an unspecified device (presumably B2/4 or B4-only), and if I'm in fact seeing B12-only coverage in much of northern lower Michigan (i.e. the site isn't assuming a B4 only device, but B2 is active on LTE), then that is HORRIFYING. That's a pure map buildout, and it's paper thin.

    In Charlevoix County, for example, the minimum AT&T could be running is a 5x5 B5, 5x5 B2, and 10x10 B4, and they are probably running a lot more than that, probably in the range of 40x40, while T-Mobile is running a single 6x6?!? They have the spectrum to run 31x31 and keep GSM running too. Verizon is running 5x5 B4, 10x10 B4, and 10x10 B13 at a minimum. Post-B14-rebuild, AT&T will be running a bare minimum of 50x40, and they'll probably be running around 80x70, not including if they have B66 up there.

  8. #113
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles/Canada
    Posts
    10,495
    Device(s)
    iPhone 6+, Google Nexus 6
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Tmobile can run rural areas on just 5x5 LTE, as it would effectively give 30Mbps/7Mbps. In rural areas (I.e. along i75) this is plenty. In many towns/cities, band 4 will also exist. In the UP, I think its band 12 or nothing

    Sent from my LG-H872 using HoFo mobile app
    AT&T... your world, throttled.

  9. #114
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Chattanooga, TN
    Posts
    242
    Device(s)
    SM-G935U
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon Wireless
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by formercanuck View Post
    Tmobile can run rural areas on just 5x5 LTE, as it would effectively give 30Mbps/7Mbps. In rural areas (I.e. along i75) this is plenty. In many towns/cities, band 4 will also exist. In the UP, I think its band 12 or nothing

    Sent from my LG-H872 using HoFo mobile app
    I think 5x5 is going to get overwhelmed pretty easily. Verizon's rural coverage on 10x10 suffers from plenty of congestion from what I see reported here. I would have to think that with a smaller number of customers, T-Mobile would be suffering with 5x5 in those areas.

  10. #115
    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%)
    “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. #116
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    1,758
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by formercanuck View Post
    Tmobile can run rural areas on just 5x5 LTE, as it would effectively give 30Mbps/7Mbps. In rural areas (I.e. along i75) this is plenty. In many towns/cities, band 4 will also exist. In the UP, I think its band 12 or nothing

    Sent from my LG-H872 using HoFo mobile app
    I think the UP coverage is just a small island in the east... with the rest of the UP (along with northern Wisconsin) being the largest "T-Mobile" free land area of the US east of the Mississippi. A place that is rural along with having numerous defined urban areas, one corner of a major metro area, and millions of annual visitors, and is due of course for have "Band 71" coverage.

  12. #117
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    1,758
    Feedback Score
    0
    Whose review is this, Danny, and what is the significance of this one out of all the many others?

  13. #118
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    1,758
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    These B71 areas have such little population, they aren't going to get backhaul-choked.

    ....You still haven't found one headline decrying all of the B12 only sites. You have no evidence there will be any headlines at all. You're the one who seems bothered by the idea of B71 sites and [U]you don't even use T-Mobile.
    With mobile phones, the "population" matters less than who is there. We are talking about areas with millions of annual visitors. One defined urban area in Northwestern Lower Michigan alone (Traverse City) has more than 3 million annual visitors. The Mackinaw area, with a much smaller sessile population, has more than a million visitors a year. This needs to be taken into account in such calculations, for both maximum load AND the need for carrier coverage.

    As for the other part, to crib from the classic BB King song, " if I didn't have Band 12 coverage, I wouldn't have any coverage at all."

    Name:  rs-12636-bbking-624-1379335294.jpg
Views: 119
Size:  43.6 KB

  14. #119
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    13,497
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GSMinCT View Post
    Then how did they not get B2 and B4? Seems like somebody either screwed up badly, or they were slapping up towers as cheaply and quickly as possible to crayon in the map.
    This has already been explained. They don't put up B2 or B4 because they don't want non B12 devices in use in this area.

    T-Mobile's CFO Braxton Carter stated that: "One macrocell tower that uses low-band spectrum can cover the same geographic area as five macrocells using the mid-band spectrum T-Mobile typically relies upon. "

    https://arstechnica.com/information-...over-whole-us/

    By that ratio, putting B2 or B4 on these sites would cover only 20% of the geographical area. That means there's 80% non-coverage. This isn't a swiss cheese hole that you're claiming. So no, T-Mobile doesn't permit B2 and B4 devices onto the networks when the sites are spaced 5 times further apart than what is needed to use those bands. They don't want their customers to have a poor network experience. You seem to think that missing 80% coverage is great. They don't agree with you.


    Verizon and AT&T have thousands of towers spaced for 850 or 700 that use B2/4 for capacity. A properly built T-Mobile B12 site will also have whatever B2 and B4 blocks are available in that area.
    You're not listening. All of the Verizon and AT&T devices have LTE bands that can fall back on 850 and 700 as needed if the customers lose B2 or B4 coverage.

    You know very well that all of the T-Mobile Mobile devices do not have B12 and will not have B71. There would be no fallback for those customers in 80% of the geographical area where sites are spaced for low band coverage. That's very bad service. While you are advocating they provide such bad service, T-mobile doesn't agree with you.

    If they are building a real network for real people to use, we will be seeing 3x CA doing speedtests well into the 150+mbps range off of these new sites.
    They would need five times the amount of sites in these areas for 3xCA due to the demands of the mid-band spectrum. Clearly that's not a priority for them. If B71 coverage won't meet your needs then stick with AT&T. T-Mobile customers will deal with the B71 only coverage just fine without any need for 3x CA and 150+mbps in these remote areas.

    Apparently they are cheaping out on roaming because it doesn't cost them much of anything in the first place? Do you actually read your own posts?
    I said they keep their roaming costs down by only permitting the customers to have 200 mb of roaming data. This is a fact and nothing that you can dispute.


    But I don't think there ever will be a B71-only site, so there won't be headlines.
    You can think what you like, but their past history clearly shows they won't put mid-band spectrum in areas where the the sites aren't spaced for mid-band use. Since B71 devices will be in short supply at rollout, they aren't going to let other devices into these areas if they follow their B12 rollout procedure.

    We still don't seem to have any good numbers on how many paper-thin sites there are, but that is very concerning, as even a small event or gathering or people could completely crush a tower running only on B12 with no B2/4 to CA on.
    It doesn't concern me at all and I'm a T-Mobile customer. If it bothers you, don't use T-Mobile.

  15. #120
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Almont, Michigan
    Posts
    2,764
    Device(s)
    Galaxy S7 edge, Note 5, Galaxy Tab S2
    Carrier(s)
    T,T-Mo,VZ.
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by NotABiot View Post
    With mobile phones, the "population" matters less than who is there. We are talking about areas with millions of annual visitors. One defined urban area in Northwestern Lower Michigan alone (Traverse City) has more than 3 million annual visitors. The Mackinaw area, with a much smaller sessile population, has more than a million visitors a year. This needs to be taken into account in such calculations, for both maximum load AND the need for carrier coverage.

    As for the other part, to crib from the classic BB King song, " if I didn't have Band 12 coverage, I wouldn't have any coverage at all."

    Name:  rs-12636-bbking-624-1379335294.jpg
Views: 119
Size:  43.6 KB
    I find it strange that Traverse City and Petoskey are still B12 only (afaik) considering a few smaller cities up there have B4. I'm sure there will be another wave of upgrades in the next year or so.

Page 8 of 28 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ... 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