Page 9 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 23 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 414

Thread: LG V30; Officially the first 600Mhz phone

  1. #121
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    301
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    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.
    Why not? That's what Verizon did. They started with 700MHz, and retrofitted with AWS ("XLTE"). So their AWS wouldn't cover everywhere either, it just adds capacity nearer to the tower.

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    286
    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.
    TMobile builds out well and appropriately so I wouldn't worry about b71 at all
    """new T-Mobile customer"""

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Greater Los Angeles
    Posts
    8,496
    Device(s)
    iPhone X 256GB Space Gray
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile USA
    Feedback Score
    15 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by NotABiot View Post
    Whose review is this, Danny, and what is the significance of this one out of all the many others?
    T-Mobile direct. Trying to steer the conversation.....
    “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

  4. #124
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,006
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by @TheRealDanny View Post
    T-Mobile direct. Trying to steer the conversation.....
    You got me to subscribe.

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    7,891
    Carrier(s)
    at&t
    Feedback Score
    0
    Not even thinking about b71, I do like the v30 from what I've read. Maybe the price will drop in the near future

  6. #126
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,006
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by themanhimself View Post
    Not even thinking about b71, I do like the v30 from what I've read. Maybe the price will drop in the near future
    Yeah, my only misgiving about it is all the reports about poor LG build quality and hostile customer service.

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    13,582
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by HokieAl View Post
    Why not? That's what Verizon did. They started with 700MHz, and retrofitted with AWS ("XLTE"). So their AWS wouldn't cover everywhere either, it just adds capacity nearer to the tower.
    I already explained why not in areas where the sites are spaced for low band. Where Verizon's AWS doesn't cover, the customer still has coverage on 700 as all of their customers still have B13.

    However, on T-Mobile if the customer were to lose an AWS or PCS signal in these remote areas, and his device doesn't have B71, then he would have nothing to fall back on. T-Mobile doesn't want to give these customers a bad experience, so they don't allow them to use these sites at all until they get a low band device. For example, in northern Michigan, T-Mobile requires a B12 device to use the coverage. It tells them this right on their coverage map.

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    6,943
    Device(s)
    SGS 7
    Carrier(s)
    MSV 10GB plus 10GB free, 4 lines
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by weskeene View Post
    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.
    10x10 is paper thin, 5x5 is tissue paper. It will easily overload in a large town/small city. Imagine a busy weekend or event with a lot of phones on one sector... you'll be lucky to be able to load a web page. Their Northern Michigan coverage is a map fill-in, not a real network. AT&T was running B5 only for a couple years, but that got really slammed, even with a lot of HSPA+ still active, now they are B2/4/5 up there, with some 700 I believe, depending on the county or area.

    Quote Originally Posted by caddypower View Post
    TMobile builds out well and appropriately so I wouldn't worry about b71 at all
    Not in Northern Michigan. Based on their coverage maps, if I'm interpreting them correctly, they are running a single 5x5 B12 rollout. That's tissue paper thin. After seeing that, I've pretty much lost faith in T-Mobile. They are rushing to built LTE out as quick and cheap as possible, and cover the map. It's like a cut-corners version of what Verizon had to do when they built LTE, but 5+ years later with much higher data usage, and without "THE NETWORK" CDMA/EVDO to fall back on when their thin LTE deployment had a hiccup.
    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. #129
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    6,943
    Device(s)
    SGS 7
    Carrier(s)
    MSV 10GB plus 10GB free, 4 lines
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    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.
    Your logic is completely asinine.

    1. B12 LTE > B2 LTE >>> nothing.
    2. T-Mobile already had a GSM/GPRS network in Northern Michigan, on the PCS band, presumably with towers spaced for the PCS band, which, according to your logic, couldn't have existed. But it did.
    3. By your logic, we can therefore deduce that you believe B12 LTE > PCS GPRS > B2 LTE. To put that simply, you believe that PCS GPRS is better service than B2 LTE.

    That is completely asinine. Stop pretending that this is about some technical/engineering reason. It's not. That has been thoroughly disproven.

    Therefore, we can be sure that this was about either cost or schedule, in doing LTE the cheapest and fastest way possible in order to fill in the map. Today, virtually all T-Mobile phones have B12, but with increasing data consumption, a 5x5 is completely inadequate for many of the areas that they cover with just that. This is a tissue-paper thin network.

    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.
    What he said is probably theoretically factually correct, under exactly the right circumstances. Like so many things, you need to actually apply some critical thinking before parroting facts and statistics in places where they simply do not apply. He was likely referring to 600mhz vs. 1700/2100mhz under the exact perfect conditions, on a 350' or 400' guyed wire tower, with the antennas at 350AGL or higher, on perfectly flat land, in an area with few trees. Under those exact conditions, which are present in a few places in the west, then the land area coverage of a B71 LTE site is probably 5x that of a B2 site.

    So let's get back to reality. Northern Michigan is somewhat flat-ish, but not pancake flat, doesn't generally have towers anywhere close to 350'+, and has a lot of vegetation, and we're comparing B12 to B2 not B71 to B4. When you actually go to Northern Michigan, and actually use a phone there, you will notice that on AT&T, you're parked on B2 virtually all the time, even though they have a 5x5 of B5 to fill in any gaps or holes left by what B2 can do and for in-building penetration. So likely, the numbers are much closer to 20% additional coverage on low-band than what you have on mid-band, not 5x the coverage.

    Further, for capacity, the towers/sites are often close to or in a town where most of the people using most of the data are, so the range of those bands isn't as important. Even if they did put up 350' guyed wire towers over flat land, as long as they are within a mile or two of a town, that town can rely mostly on mid-band, while the low-band bandwidth is saved for people who are 10 miles out from the tower in the middle of nowhere.

    So we have thoroughly debunked your asinine claims about T-Mobile somehow claiming that PCS GPRS is better than B2 LTE, which was an insane argument from the get-go. This is about quickly and/or cheaply putting up the bare minimum coverage that is technically called LTE, not about some fundamental principled approach about denying people any LTE coverage just because their phone can't get perfect LTE coverage.

    Knowing that, they probably also skimped on the backhaul, and having a very slow LTE network means that they don't need as much backhaul to these sites. Now we get to the question: did they even put in fiber backhaul? How much bandwidth did they buy? Or are they using bonded T1s? Does every site even *have* LTE on it, or are they doing what Verizon did in the early days of LTE having one LTE tower cover multiple GPRS towers? Verizon could get away with it in a time with relatively few LTE phones, much less data usage, and a rock-solid EVDO network to back up the LTE when a hole tore in the paper. T-Mobile doesn't have any of that going for it now.

    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.
    That's an asinine argument, as I've shown above, and several times in previous posts.

    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.
    See above. You need to apply a bit of critical thinking before parroting quotes to situations that they are not at all applicable to. You also don't need 100% coverage of every band for CA. If you're in a metal building 5 miles away from the site, you're just not going to get CA. That's not that point. If it works for most people most of the time, then it's better for the whole network, as it keeps most of the users off of the low-band, and leaves more low-band available for that guy in the metal building.

    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.
    Apparently it's not cheap, as they'll let you have unlimited throttled data in Moscow, but not while roaming on AT&T. Therefore, in areas where they don't have a GPRS network, they would greatly benefit by putting up B2 LTE.

    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.
    Cut the garbage about "letting" devices "in" to here or there. This is not a club with some sort of exclusive benefits. This is a question of whether T-Mobile is quickly and cheaping throwing up pink on a map, or whether they are building a robust cellular network for people to actually USE. Unfortunately, it seems that they have done a lot of the former in some places, like in Northern Michigan.

    It doesn't concern me at all and I'm a T-Mobile customer. If it bothers you, don't use T-Mobile.
    After seeing how piss-poor their "coverage" is in Northern Michigan, I am no longer one bit intrigued by their $60 55+ plan, as I can see that their network is tissue-paper thin, while AT&T has a pretty solid network with 3 bands of LTE, probably multiple blocks in the PCS band, and a couple years down the road, will have 6 bands of LTE active across most or all of their network.

    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    I already explained why not in areas where the sites are spaced for low band. Where Verizon's AWS doesn't cover, the customer still has coverage on 700 as all of their customers still have B13.
    Which B12 does. And B71 does. Your arguments about phones without those bands are completely off the wall.

    However, on T-Mobile if the customer were to lose an AWS or PCS signal in these remote areas, and his device doesn't have B71, then he would have nothing to fall back on. T-Mobile doesn't want to give these customers a bad experience, so they don't allow them to use these sites at all until they get a low band device. For example, in northern Michigan, T-Mobile requires a B12 device to use the coverage. It tells them this right on their coverage map.
    So, according to your logic:

    1. Being stuck on GPRS for days is a good experience.
    2. Having no service for days is a good experience.
    3. Roaming for days with a 200MB data cap is a good experience.
    4. BUT, having LTE that is fast and reliable near the towns and attractions themselves, but patchy or spotty while driving on rural roads is a bad experience.


  10. #130
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    13,582
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GSMinCT View Post
    2. T-Mobile already had a GSM/GPRS network in Northern Michigan, on the PCS band, presumably with towers spaced for the PCS band, which, according to your logic, couldn't have existed. But it did.
    Not according to the coverage map. If you turn off the extended LTE coverage (i.e. band 12) on the coverage map, it shows PARTNER coverage all over northern Michigan (everywhere that hash mark cuts through the magenta.) It does not show a native T-Mobile GSM network.

    Name:  N-MI.png
Views: 135
Size:  674.3 KB

    So when did this PCS GSM network exist there? What happened to it? When was it dismantled?

    So likely, the numbers are much closer to 20% additional coverage on low-band than what you have on mid-band, not 5x the coverage.
    I'll take the statistics of T-Mobile's CFO over your statistics. You have provided no basis for your calculation of only 20% additional coverage. Braxton knows exactly how many sites they need to build to implement each band's coverage.


    So we have thoroughly debunked your asinine claims about T-Mobile somehow claiming that PCS GPRS is better than B2 LTE,
    I never made such a claim regarding PCS GPRS. You completely fabricated that.

    Apparently it's not cheap, as they'll let you have unlimited throttled data in Moscow, but not while roaming on AT&T.
    Right, the rates AT&T charge for data are high, hence T-Mobile has solved that by putting a very low limit of 200 MB on the roaming. If their customers want more than that, they'll buy a B12 device and get more data. If not, the partner coverage is non LTE data and that won't go past 200 MB.

    Therefore, in areas where they don't have a GPRS network, they would greatly benefit by putting up B2 LTE.
    T-Mobile disagrees with that. Else Northern MI would be covered by it.


    Which B12 does. And B71 does. Your arguments about phones without those bands are completely off the wall.
    It's a technological fact that phones without those bands won't be able to fallback to those bands if coverage is lost on a mid-range band.


    So, according to your logic:

    1. Being stuck on GPRS for days is a good experience.
    I never said that. That's your fabrication.

    2. Having no service for days is a good experience.
    Another fabrication of yours.

    3. Roaming for days with a 200MB data cap is a good experience.
    Actually it's T-Mobile that says that's a better experience than having patchy or spotty service while driving. That's why they pay a roaming partner in Northern Michigan so that their customers will be able to make calls when they need it. And the customers won't be stuck with the patchy and spotty coverage that you advocate they provide, unable to make a call in the dead of winter when their car breaks down.

  11. #131
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    6,943
    Device(s)
    SGS 7
    Carrier(s)
    MSV 10GB plus 10GB free, 4 lines
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    Not according to the coverage map. If you turn off the extended LTE coverage (i.e. band 12) on the coverage map, it shows PARTNER coverage all over northern Michigan (everywhere that hash mark cuts through the magenta.) It does not show a native T-Mobile GSM network.
    Mine just shows 2G, and some of it may be roaming. The map seems to have little relationship to AT&T's coverage map, so they must selectively allow roaming on AT&T. On the UP, it looks like they threw darts AT&T's coverage map, and enabled roaming on the first few towers that they hit, unless those are a few native T-Mobile towers. If they are showing "2G roaming" on AT&T, then it must either be 3G or LTE that's throttled to "2G speeds", because AT&T took down their whole 2G network last December.

    I'll take the statistics of T-Mobile's CFO over your statistics. You have provided no basis for your calculation of only 20% additional coverage. Braxton knows exactly how many sites they need to build to implement each band's coverage.
    You're just trolling at this point. He was speaking at a financial conference, trying to explain why T-Mobile can roll out more coverage, and why they spent so much on low-band spectrum. So obviously, he would present the facts in the way that is most advantageous to his case. And he's not lying. They can probably get results like that in parts of Eastern Wyoming or parts of the Dakotas, but that's certainly the exception, not the norm. You're simply not getting 5x the area on 700mhz on 150-190' towers. No way, no how. Not gonna happen.

    I never made such a claim regarding PCS GPRS. You completely fabricated that.
    Depending on what those maps are actually showing, then you are claiming that 200MB of 2G-speed-throttled roaming is better than native B2 coverage, or in other cases, no coverage is better than native B2 coverage, which are both asinine statements, slightly less so, and slightly more so, respectively. If they are showing roaming, your statements are even more asinine, since if there were holes in the B2 LTE coverage, people would simply roam to AT&T, and then right back again when they got back in range of B2 LTE, so the B2 LTE would be zero-loss and only a gain for both T-Mobile and the customer.

    Right, the rates AT&T charge for data are high, hence T-Mobile has solved that by putting a very low limit of 200 MB on the roaming. If their customers want more than that, they'll buy a B12 device and get more data. If not, the partner coverage is non LTE data and that won't go past 200 MB.
    Right. Because T-Mobile is too cheap to properly build out their sites with all the bands on them, and then they punish their customers for their own cheapness with more cheapness. Sprint just pays the roaming bill, and has full Verizon coverage with almost useless molasses slow data as a result.

    T-Mobile disagrees with that. Else Northern MI would be covered by it.
    It's not about T-Mobile agreeing with anything. It's about them finding the cheapest possible way to put more pink on their coverage maps.

    It's a technological fact that phones without those bands won't be able to fallback to those bands if coverage is lost on a mid-range band.
    Who cares. Some coverage is better than no coverage. After many posts, you refuse to acknowledge this basic fact. Either you are completely incapable of any logical thought, or you are just trolling for the lulz here.

    I never said that. That's your fabrication.
    Then they're stuck on AT&T roaming with 200MB of data. Still proves the point. I'm reading the freaking T-Mobile map on their own website. They claim 2G coverage there. I'm thinking that it is partially or completely mislabelled, and it's actually AT&T 4G coverage.

    Another fabrication of yours.
    Then they'll have 200MB of AT&T roaming if it's available for days. That sounds like fun.

    Actually it's T-Mobile that says that's a better experience than having patchy or spotty service while driving. That's why they pay a roaming partner in Northern Michigan so that their customers will be able to make calls when they need it. And the customers won't be stuck with the patchy and spotty coverage that you advocate they provide, unable to make a call in the dead of winter when their car breaks down.
    GET IT THROUGH YOUR FREAKING HEAD, this is not about any "experience". There is no good "experience" from an overloaded, clogged up B12-only tower. This is about being short-signed, penny wise and pound foolish, cheap, cutting corners, and doing just the bare minimum to put coverage on the map as quickly as possible. PERIOD. Your cute little story there is total bullpuckey, as they could still have AT&T roaming in-market, and on top of that, even if they didn't AT&T has to take a 911 call from a T-Mobile phone according to federal law. And maybe, if people are so worried about breaking down in winter, they should get a real carrier with a real network like AT&T or Verizon

    We will see how they roll out B71, and what they do to beef up their network in Michigan, and probably other places as well. Right now, it's not looking good for T-Mobile. It will take their customers a while to wise up to what's going on, but a bunch of times of the excellent "experience" of having data that is so slow it's useless while traveling will quickly temper any enthusiasm people have for T-Mo.

  12. #132
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    6,943
    Device(s)
    SGS 7
    Carrier(s)
    MSV 10GB plus 10GB free, 4 lines
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    Actually it's T-Mobile that says that's a better experience than having patchy or spotty service while driving. That's why they pay a roaming partner in Northern Michigan so that their customers will be able to make calls when they need it. And the customers won't be stuck with the patchy and spotty coverage that you advocate they provide, unable to make a call in the dead of winter when their car breaks down.
    Either stop trolling, or learn how to use basic logic. Your posts are worthless, and are adding nothing to this discussion.

  13. #133
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Almont, Michigan
    Posts
    2,857
    Device(s)
    Galaxy S7 edge, Note 5, Galaxy Tab S2
    Carrier(s)
    T,T-Mo,VZ.
    Feedback Score
    0
    Well guys, I don't think there was any native T-Mobile 2G/EDGE on 1900 or 1700 anywhere in northern Michigan before their B12 build out. They did add some B4 UMTS in areas like Gaylord and Alpena but it was all AT&T roaming even though T-Mobile holds some PCS up there.

  14. #134
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Gulf Coast
    Posts
    14,188
    Device(s)
    Samsung Avant, Nexus 5X, Moto G
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile, Project Fi, PagePlus
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by 10mm View Post
    Well guys, I don't think there was any native T-Mobile 2G/EDGE on 1900 or 1700 anywhere in northern Michigan before their B12 build out. They did add some B4 UMTS in areas like Gaylord and Alpena but it was all AT&T roaming even though T-Mobile holds some PCS up there.
    There appears to be a tiny bit of 2G around Frankfort, MI. At least it shows up on both CellMapper and Sensorly.
    Donald Newcomb

  15. #135
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    13,582
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by 10mm View Post
    I don't think there was any native T-Mobile 2G/EDGE on 1900 or 1700 anywhere in northern Michigan before their B12 build out.
    Of course. GSMinCT just made up this statement, "T-Mobile already had a GSM/GPRS network in Northern Michigan, on the PCS band, presumably with towers spaced for the PCS band" when in fact they did not.

    Now he claims their coverage map shows 2G. He should post a screen shot. I'm clicking all around the area when I turn off extended LTE and I see a lot of PARTNER coverage wherever I click, just like in the screen shot that I previously posted. There are very few areas where T-Mobile has non B12 native coverage. One is Gaylord that you mentioned. And I see some dark Magenta around in Cheboygan---which says T-Mobile LTE when you click on it.

Page 9 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 23 ... 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