Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Results 106 to 113 of 113

Thread: T-Mobile three new Un-Carrier moves

  1. #106
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    3,823
    Device(s)
    iPhone 11 Pro 256 GB Midnight Green
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T Mobility
    Feedback Score
    0
    There is 0 real world difference between 600 and 700 MHz spectrum. The uplink borders 700 MHz downlink, and that’s the weaker link. Acting like 600 MHz is some “magic bullet” that’s going to extent 2x further than 700 MHz is hilarious. If Verizon felt that it were so “superior”, they would’ve bid on it. 0 difference in the real world... and they don’t have to deal with license issues on borders where other carriers using 700A/B/C or 600 MHz might face. There’s a reason Band 13 cost as much as it did. It was a gold mine for LTE.


    Sent from my iPhone using HoFo

    Chicago, IL
    2+46+46+46+4

  2. #107
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    3,118
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by adam1991 View Post
    no, ReCarrier means tmo is becoming just like VZW and AT&T with regard to business practices.

    It has nothing to do with coverage.
    It has everything to do with coverage, as traditionally the difference between the "carriers" and the "uncarrier" was that the "carriers" actually covered just about every place in the US Americans went. T-Mobile has become more "carrier"-like by closing the coverage gap.

  3. #108
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,902
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by NotABiot View Post
    It has everything to do with coverage, as traditionally the difference between the "carriers" and the "uncarrier" was that the "carriers" actually covered just about every place in the US Americans went. T-Mobile has become more "carrier"-like by closing the coverage gap.
    you may think that, but you'd be completely wrong.

    You can also say oak trees grow upside down inside the dirt with their roots up in the air. Nobody's saying you can't say that. But just because you say it, doesn't mean it's anywhere near right.

  4. #109
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,488
    Device(s)
    Any Windows Phones!
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jakeuten View Post
    There is 0 real world difference between 600 and 700 MHz spectrum. The uplink borders 700 MHz downlink, and that’s the weaker link. Acting like 600 MHz is some “magic bullet” that’s going to extent 2x further than 700 MHz is hilarious. If Verizon felt that it were so “superior”, they would’ve bid on it. 0 difference in the real world... and they don’t have to deal with license issues on borders where other carriers using 700A/B/C or 600 MHz might face. There’s a reason Band 13 cost as much as it did. It was a gold mine for LTE.


    Sent from my iPhone using HoFo
    Not to speak for my sparring partner, but I don't think anyone said 600MHz was preferable to 700MHz for range. The particular chunk of 700MHz (C block) Verizon purchased was saddled with an "open access" provision forcing the buyer (Verizon) to sell any devices that access that spectrum to be sold unlocked. Subsequent auctions for equivalent spectrum (e.g. 600MHz) weren't stuck with the same restrictions.



    Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk
    --
    Todd Allcock, Microsoft MVP: Mobile Devices 2007-2011

  5. #110
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    4,349
    Device(s)
    S9
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Oh the AT&T people are just so upset that T-Mobile has the best Beach Front Spectrum with propagation and penetration they try to get T-Mobile customers to ignore physics. If the merger goes through then T-Mobile will have the first robust 5G NR Nation wide network as well as the best 5G Wireless ISP. Really if AT&T is so good why does all these AT&T fans have to come to this board to attack T-Mobile just because T-Mobile is stealing their customers? As AT&T keeps raising their prices to replace the revenue they are losing to T-Mobile, AT&T will keep hemorrhaging customers to T-Mobile.

  6. #111
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    732
    Device(s)
    Note9
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T, Google Fi, Mint
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by elecconnec View Post
    T-Mo was in as bad if not worse shape than Sprint it's today prior to their failed merger attempt with AT&T at the start of the decade. A few billion dollars of cash plus some roaming coverage from AT&T (from a penalty clause triggered by the merger failing) and new leadership under Legere turned T-Mo around. There's no reason some cash and better leadership couldn't fix Sprint too. The narrative that Sprint is a year or two from collapse is being spun by T-Mo and Sprint* to reinforce the idea that the merger is necessary.
    Exactly. Sprint has a path to success as a profitable 4th place carrier by leveraging n41 in order to build out 5G with far less CAPEX than Verizon and the others. It won't be as good of a network, but there is a market for cheap, and they could compete for business with the cable companies for lighter home internet users in major metro markets using n41 macro sites in addition to their mobile business. They could also target rural areas that don't have internet using n41.

    Quote Originally Posted by adam1991 View Post
    Nobody said anything about CDMA.

    And in fact, the point is that Visible manages not to support perfectly legitimate, modern LTE phones. Galaxy S9 but not Galaxy S10? And which Galaxy S9 variants, mmmm? Plug in your IMEI and see. Whoops, sorry. Why not shop for a phone from us? THAT'S pure VZW.
    XFinity Mobile is a hot mess. They don't even have a coverage map, and it takes a lot of digging to figure out that they don't offer any Extended network coverage, so there are giant holes in their coverage, just like Visible, and any other non-Verizon-branded service. Their phone selection and BYOD system is a disaster, they can't seem to just offer SIM cards like every other provider. xfinitywifi itself is kind of flaky, since you're bouncing from router to router. I was using it extensively last week on my AT&T phone since I was in a facility that has weak cell service, but has a bulk deal with Comcast, so there is xfinitywifi everywhere, but if I have good LTE, I don't use it.

    I am kind of surprised that no one has yet done microcells in home routers. If AT&T, Verizon, Charter (Verizon) and Comcast (Verizon) put their own LTE network in their home routers, they could have insane LTE coverage within their served markets, but no one has done this yet. Maybe it's too expensive or interference-prone, but it seems like an interesting idea, and would give them a homefield advantage (or the big two in AT&T/Comcast or AT&T/Charter markets).

    Quote Originally Posted by NotABiot View Post
    To me, Re-Carrier means getting a network as good as the duopoly...or better, eventually.. That's a lot more important than their customer service getting more grumpy.
    Except that T-Mobile's network still isn't there. I've been traveling a lot with AT&T and T-Mobile, and while T-Mobile is sometimes faster, AT&T is far more reliable, and works almost everywhere. Meanwhile, T-Mobile has holes all over their network, some small and others quite large. Postpaid T-Mobile would have some roaming capability, but that's not really a good replacement for native or Extended coverage.

    Quote Originally Posted by jakeuten View Post
    There is 0 real world difference between 600 and 700 MHz spectrum. The uplink borders 700 MHz downlink, and that’s the weaker link. Acting like 600 MHz is some “magic bullet” that’s going to extent 2x further than 700 MHz is hilarious. If Verizon felt that it were so “superior”, they would’ve bid on it. 0 difference in the real world... and they don’t have to deal with license issues on borders where other carriers using 700A/B/C or 600 MHz might face. There’s a reason Band 13 cost as much as it did. It was a gold mine for LTE.
    Exactly! That B13 spectrum allowed Verizon to build out LTE nationwide, and put them ahead in LTE. LTEiRA is brilliant as well, since they have partner carriers making their network quite a bit bigger. Why they haven't filled in big holes on their map in TX and WV beats me though.

    Quote Originally Posted by shilohcane View Post
    Oh the AT&T people are just so upset that T-Mobile has the best Beach Front Spectrum with propagation and penetration they try to get T-Mobile customers to ignore physics. If the merger goes through then T-Mobile will have the first robust 5G NR Nation wide network as well as the best 5G Wireless ISP. Really if AT&T is so good why does all these AT&T fans have to come to this board to attack T-Mobile just because T-Mobile is stealing their customers? As AT&T keeps raising their prices to replace the revenue they are losing to T-Mobile, AT&T will keep hemorrhaging customers to T-Mobile.
    What? AT&T and Verizon have just as good low-band spectrum as T-Mobile does, as jakeuten explains above. There are some customers who want a cheaper network, but you get what you pay for. T-Mobile just isn't as reliable as AT&T, and doesn't have the same coverage.

  7. #112
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,488
    Device(s)
    Any Windows Phones!
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by SoxFan76 View Post
    What? AT&T and Verizon have just as good low-band spectrum as T-Mobile does, as jakeuten explains above. There are some customers who want a cheaper network, but you get what you pay for. T-Mobile just isn't as reliable as AT&T, and doesn't have the same coverage.
    Agreed. As a happy T-Mo user, I accept comparably inferior service in return for a lower price (which, again, is also one of the reasons why I'm anti-merger! I *like* that a lower quality/lower price option exists for those who want it.)

    If Shilocane is to be believed, he's in one of those (rare!) areas where T-Mo works as good or better than anyone else, so he may have a skewed perspective of the typical coverage gap between second-tier operators like Sprint and T-Mo vs. first-tier operators like AT&T and Verizon. I sometimes even forget it myself, since I'm in an area (Denver metro) where T-Mo's coverage is quite good. (In fact, when I moved to my current neighborhood 15 years ago, in a small valley southwest of Denver, *only* Sprint and T-Mo worked here! They each had a small 1900MHz cell in the valley, while the big-two tried, and failed, to cover the area from an 800Mhz tower outside the valley that primarily covered the highway. They've long since placed cells inside the valley as well and now all four carriers work here.)

    However, I do travel quite a bit, and occasionally to areas where T-Mo frankly just sucks. By a horrible confidence, both my and my wife's hometowns are terrible T-Mo areas, making connectivity an issue when visiting family. (In an equally horrible coincidence, neither of our folks' houses have internet service, so we can't fall back on WiFi calling or Digits, unless we bring backup devices on other carriers!)

    Occasional dead spots and poor service in areas I visit 5% of the time just don't justify paying 30% more for service all the time, IMO, so color me magenta.

    Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

  8. #113
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    732
    Device(s)
    Note9
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T, Google Fi, Mint
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by elecconnec View Post
    Agreed. As a happy T-Mo user, I accept comparably inferior service in return for a lower price (which, again, is also one of the reasons why I'm anti-merger! I *like* that a lower quality/lower price option exists for those who want it.)
    Yup, and there's a market for that. Personally, I'd rather spend less time with no service, but for some, the cost/coverage tradeoff errs more towards lower cost. I think the international roaming is brilliant, as that saves more for some people who travel internationally frequently or for long periods of time than the base rate does.

    If Shilocane is to be believed, he's in one of those (rare!) areas where T-Mo works as good or better than anyone else, so he may have a skewed perspective of the typical coverage gap between second-tier operators like Sprint and T-Mo vs. first-tier operators like AT&T and Verizon. I sometimes even forget it myself, since I'm in an area (Denver metro) where T-Mo's coverage is quite good. (In fact, when I moved to my current neighborhood 15 years ago, in a small valley southwest of Denver, *only* Sprint and T-Mo worked here! They each had a small 1900MHz cell in the valley, while the big-two tried, and failed, to cover the area from an 800Mhz tower outside the valley that primarily covered the highway. They've long since placed cells inside the valley as well and now all four carriers work here.)
    It's interesting because before I had T-Mobile I thought that they had better urban coverage, and in reality, at least for the handful of metros that I've been to recently, T-Mobile at it's best has the same coverage and somewhat higher speeds than AT&T, but occasionally has less coverage, even within large metros. Once you're outside of the metros, T-Mobile has significantly less coverage, and large dead zones where AT&T is rock solid.

    However, I do travel quite a bit, and occasionally to areas where T-Mo frankly just sucks. By a horrible confidence, both my and my wife's hometowns are terrible T-Mo areas, making connectivity an issue when visiting family. (In an equally horrible coincidence, neither of our folks' houses have internet service, so we can't fall back on WiFi calling or Digits, unless we bring backup devices on other carriers!)

    Occasional dead spots and poor service in areas I visit 5% of the time just don't justify paying 30% more for service all the time, IMO, so color me magenta.
    I'm always prepared for not having service, since every carrier has huge coverage holes, and there are even large holes where nothing works, but I do prefer to have as much service as reasonably possible. Sprint and AT&T was a good combo, as I had access to USCC, but that ended after the free year on Sprint. Interestingly, Sprint has much better coverage than AT&T in a chunk of the Midwest in Illinois and Iowa, and then better coverage in some USCC areas. If I am able to do extended travel in the US, I'm going to go to a Pixel 3a as my secondary device and put it on Google Fi with a Verizon Prepaid SIM in the SIM slot for all 5 major US carriers.

    T-Mobile seems to hit a sweet spot for a lot of people, with significantly better coverage than Sprint, but lower prices than the Duopoly. Data roaming regulation would make the market more competitive, as T-Mobile and Sprint could offer somewhat better roaming for occasional travel on the duopoly carriers in rural areas.

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 63
    Last Post: 09-09-2018, 01:30 PM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-30-2016, 07:15 AM
  3. T-Mobile becomes the "Un-Carrier" (No-contracts)
    By terryjohnson16 in forum T-Mobile
    Replies: 356
    Last Post: 04-04-2013, 03:34 PM
  4. Nokia to unveil three new mobiles (clam shell/flip models)
    By eakenn in forum General Mobile Questions and Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-26-2003, 04:06 PM
  5. FS: Brand New Un-used Un-snapped T-Mobile SIM "Smart" Card
    By ProtoMan.EXE in forum GSM phone Buy/Sell/Trade
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-11-2003, 09:41 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks