T-Mobile to roll out its LTE network in 2013?
This is a very unconfirmed piece of information, so treat it as such, but it definitely makes sense, since Verizon already has a functioning LTE network, AT&T is set to offer one as soon as the summer, while Sprint supports WiMAX, leaving T-Mo as the only major US carrier, which doesn't offer what most people perceive as a "true 4G network".
A report has claimed that LTE is not to displace HSPA+ in most places over the next five years ( which is not necessarily true for the USA), but it's a matter of personal opinion whether this simply means that HSPA+ can complement rather than compete with LTE, since there is virtually an unanimous agreement backed with facts that LTE is way faster than HSPA+.
Anyway, T-Mobile is the fourth-largest US carrier, and do you think it can move forward if it sticks with its HSPA+ network for the foreseeable future?
source: T-Mo News
2. Galen20K posted on 20 Jan 2011, 06:23 0
I'm sure it's going to be the LTE-Advanced standard by then which 2013 is the year that other carriers should be rolling out LTE-Advanced at that same time so it makes sense. Different than regular LTE used today which is about be blown away by HSPA+. But yeah at that time(2013) thats when LTE-A will be introduced by all. Sounds like a good plan.
3. Junior posted on 20 Jan 2011, 07:26 3
However, this article makes no mention of LTE-Advanced. It's stating that T-Mobile might be ready to roll out LTE to some extent by 2013. If LTE-Advanced is to become somewhat of a standard by then, like you mention, T-Mobile will yet again be behind the curve. As always. Also, by this time, most carriers will already be covering a majority of their customers with whatever 4G technology they have all the while, T-Mobile will more than likely still be expanding HSPA+ and roll out LTE in one or two markets just so that they can make the claim of having LTE or, perhaps in their words, 5G!!
14. remixfa posted on 20 Jan 2011, 20:14 0
junior, the current 42mb/s rollout of tmobile's hspa+ thats going to happen in a few months is faster than LTE is currently. Tmobile is the speed champion until an LTE phone actually launches on verizon, and it will be again in the summer when 42mb/s HSPA+ launches its first capable phone.
fanboyism asside, Tmobile is the speed champion and is fighting to stay on top, which is pretty incredible from the 4th place company who just launched 3g not too long ago, dont ya think?
2013 is a fine time, the post might not mention which LTE standard Tmobile might be shooting for, but i doubt it would be for current LTE which is slower than 42mb/s. that would be retarded. common sence says it would be the new LTE-A standard.
So, when ur on VZW and u go from current LTE to 3g your going from 10-20 to 1.5-2. On Tmobile when you go from (assuming LTE-A) to HSPA you would be going from LTE-A speeds to 42. Which drop down would you rather have? Until VZW works out the kinks with having to reboot your equipment to switch from LTE to 3g CDMA, thas a pretty big downer as well.
18. Junior posted on 20 Jan 2011, 23:49 1
No one is knocking on HSPA+ or LTE speeds. I never even made mention of my personal carrier or any other carriers besides T-Mobile. Boast all you like about the HSPA+ speeds but it really doesn't matter when the majority of T-Mo customers don't even have HSPA+ at the moment, will not have it for a while and a lot of them are barely getting 3G, as you mentioned. Look, HSPA+ has awesome speeds for technically being a 3.5G technology but what does it matter when only a few of their customers are covered? With T-Mobile, speeds don't matter, it's the coverage they provide. Also, I don't know why you would assume that the LTE they're referring to is LTE-A because T-Mobile's track record would lead any phone enthusiast to assume otherwise. That's my entire reasoning. T-Mobile is usually behind the curve and I wouldn't be surprised if they stay behind in 2013. That's IF they still exist by then.
20. remixfa posted on 21 Jan 2011, 10:48 0
yea, they used to be behind the curve. they havent been behind the curve since the launch of HSPA+ so continuing to say that is looking in the rearview mirror.
why would I assume LTE-A? Because 42mb/s HSPA+ is FASTER than verizon's current LTE service, so to not go to new standards would be a step backwards.
Tmobile's HSPA footprint is bigger than ATT's regular 3g footprint. Most all of the major spots in Tmobile's network are covered in hspa now. Yea, in the rural areas, u dont have it and probably wont any time soon, but thats a downside of the rural areas. Who does have 4g service in rural america yet? Noone really... especially not VZW since LTE is just launching so picking on Tmobile for having the same coverage holes as everyone else would be unfair.
If the new agressive stance pays off, I would expect tomobile to have made serious strides on getting close or taking 3rd place by 2013. Had the old CEO stayed in charge with his reliance on celebrities like chevy chase, Tmobile would be dead by 2013.
24. Junior posted on 21 Jan 2011, 13:50 0
Well, look at the new article Phone Arena posted. Your assumption was wrong. No LTE-A, just LTE. And as others have mentioned, VZW's LTE is already covering a lot of people and actual devices have yet to even be released. By the end of 2012, those coverage holes will be at a severe minimum and the vast majority of VZW customers will be covered by LTE with no need to have to fall back on previous CDMA technologies. Verizon is investing way too much money in LTE for it to not be reliable and not cover all of it's customers.
4. Slammer posted on 20 Jan 2011, 08:10 2
"IF" they were to roll out LTE, spectrum would necessary to build it on and currently, T-Mobile severely lacks an amount of it to successfully roll out a competitive LTE network.
However, here is my bone of contention:
The mainstream public is now being groomed for the "4G" terminology but they have no idea what the difference is of WiMAX, LTE or HSPA +. So if T-Mobile is so confident in HSPA+ legitimately defining a 4G standard, why advance to LTE? Because they know that the build on 3G is just a bandaid.
This is why the general public has no clue they are being manipulated by terms of misrepresentation.
As one poster stated. Unless T-Mobile is talking LTE-Advanced, t-mobile will be way behind in the market. Again, spectrum will be crucial in this. Without it, they can't compete.
5. Horace (unregistered) posted on 20 Jan 2011, 09:55 1
2013????? T-Mobile may not even be in existence by then. Are they serious????
6. i know all (unregistered) posted on 20 Jan 2011, 10:36 0
Look all you people think vzw and thr LTE is going to be so great.. so false.. If you are in an LTE area im sure it will be great.. but what happens when it gets congested or thr is no LTE coverage..back to CDMA and thr current crappy 3g..VZW has to completely overhaul thr entire network for LTE wich will take them forever to blanket the US.
Now what At&T and T-Mobile are doing is really what is going to set them apart from VZW..developing hsdpa+ with the download speeds of up to 42mbps as 4g then the current 3g which we all know is way faster(around 60% faster) then VZW 3g. And continually launching LTE over the united states. That is why gsm is far superior to cdma. So with ATT and TMO ull have LTE-HSDPA+ then 3g = badd ass...VZW ull have LTE -cdma slow so called 3g.
Plus with all the 3g iphones thats about to blow up VZW 3g OMG it will be like 1986 trying to make a phone call. so good luck VZW ill stick with my GSM 3g 4g LTE device..
7. XxVerbalxX (unregistered) posted on 20 Jan 2011, 12:15 1
im just confused on how a company with little 3g coverage goes right past getting decent 3g and claims they have nationwide 4g. also the recent pick up on cdma bashing is kind of funny as it is the most popular signal in the US. tmobile sucks if u travel, and while i am excited for 4g i have never felt like i was crawling on 3g, ever. tmobile has been a joke since....well ever pretty much. they are a budget carrier, they dont have the money to invest in their network which is y we are waiting for LTE till 2013. i guess if you live in a major area that has tmobile towers its an awesome service, but to laud it like its the best thing since sliced bread is delusional. i guess i will go skiing in maine and enjoy having strong 3g coverage while tmobile customers can go get a tracphone for when they travel just so they can even make a call. "best" is relative anyway
8. XxVerbalxX (unregistered) posted on 20 Jan 2011, 12:23 1
congestion isnt a problem. why do u think verizon paid all that money for the c block of spectrum? verizon has the money and they got the best of the lot by a large margin, including the ability to hold many many more users using data than any other block. plus the 700mhz spectrum has deeper penetration than any other block that was available due to its lower frequency, and had more widespread coverage in the US. verizon has never had a problem with congestion ever, and their customers account for what? 63% of all data usage? to think it will suddenly b an issue, especially apparently not knowing or doing the research on what they bought to use LTE on and y, is at best ignorant and at worst plain stupid.
9. Treysters (unregistered) posted on 20 Jan 2011, 14:46 0
I'm not going to comment on everything else. T-Mobiles coverage is lacking in many areas but for those who get a clear signal and enjoy the fair price great for them. All about coverage in your area.
While we can argue about all the carriers 4G plans or terminologies to the end consumer the question is the speeds. If they can get faster speeds than Sprints current 4G network and most likely Verizons output at 3.5G without paying $10 extra for 4G plus if your on Sprint beginning next month that extra $10 "smartphone fee."
So to someone paying a low price, getting good coverage, and experiencing fast speeds at a low price on T-Mobile why would you rag on them?
It doesn't necessarily ring true but my point is if they can offer fast competitive speeds it doesn't matter to the consumer. It only matters to T-Mobile so they can divert the majority of data traffic to LTE. Its not like the consumers need something like voice+data as its GSM network already allows this(To be fair CDMA 3G networks can offer Voice+Data too. Its all on Sprint and Verizon.)
Yes I don't like their false branding but reiterating the point, if they can offer fast speeds at a cheap price to every day consumers thats great no?
11. XxVerbalxX (unregistered) posted on 20 Jan 2011, 16:57 0
like i said if you get the coverage its awesome. also i brought up best is relative. y do i rag on them? they blantanly lie. AT&T has the same speeds and better coverage using HSPA+. Their prices are predatory to any company that does care about having good nationwide coverage and maintaining towers. they have some of the shadiest dealers EVER (The Mobile Solution anyone? i know every company has a few but they always seem to have fraud inducing sadists working with them) their customers are usually ghetto and trashy (because no one else will take their busted ass credit). they are are german based company (tmobile usa is still under the deuchland telekom umbrella). how much more do you need to know why i think tmobile sucks?
12. XxVerbalxX (unregistered) posted on 20 Jan 2011, 17:11 0
ok i thought i was done ranting. i'm not. -1's are in order.
they have no prorated term fee because people would leave in droves, their logo is pink (yes im going to have petty stuff in here, its my rant and i feel like being petty), they were a huge company for obnoxious teenage girls with their sidekicks, their gsm tech with simcards pretty much caused them to have more stolen phones in use than any other company (low income trash with bad credit+ability to jus throw ur sim card in a phone=way to may thieves) and makes people think they can steal my cdma phone and just use it. seriously people if you steal a verizon/sprint/metro/us cell/cricket phone you are in need of a drool cup and a helmet.
13. XxVerbalxX (unregistered) posted on 20 Jan 2011, 17:20 0
heres a few more:
their consumers also for some reason feel the need to spout off how much better tmobile is than anyone else based on no real facts except it cheaper and works where they live. Its like saying mcdonalds is better than a real resuraunt becuase its cheap and you dont care about getting fat or dying of heart disease. they are a 4th place national company. numbers talk and BS walks so if you didnt notice the majority of this country thinks they suck. they have never been nor will ever b #1. at least at&t has been there b4, they at least have SOME argument to say they are the best.
15. remixfa posted on 20 Jan 2011, 20:28 0
wow.. your an idiot.
i dont think anything you said rings true either currently or ever.
ATT has the worst coverage in america, consumer reports just said so.
ATT charges like VZW while giving you half the coverage.
how are the prices predatory? because they dont gouge you like ATT/VZW for the "pleasure" of simply having their service? I can do unlimited everything with 4g for 80 bux a month, and no data cap 4g aircards for 40 a month.. u cant touch that on either att or VZW and they are both much slower. if im in a 4g area, why would i pay more to get less??
ATT HSPA+ is capped at 12mb/s while tmobile goes up to 21 and soon 42.
Tmobile currently has more HSPA+ than ATT has regular 3g.
Tmobile is about 40% cheaper than ATT so in an area with great coverage for all the places u go, why would u spend more for slower service?
tmobile prorates their ETFs.. i think everyone does now actually.
Mobile solution isnt tmobile, thats an indirect. if you cant tell the difference, then u need an edumakachun on the subject.
yea, the customers can be trashy, but they are no different than the snobby buffons on att or vzw that expect everything handed to them on a platter. ive watched VZW customers cause accidents by throwing their phones into traffic because they didnt get what they want. isnt that trashy?
they are NOT a german based company, they are an american company. DT owns 40% of tmobile. they are an investor. Vodaphone owns more of VZW than DT owns of Tmobile.
sidekicks are rarely seen anymore.. ever. catch up. tmobile has double the androids of anyone else. last i checked there was 10-13 on the lineup at one time.
you can easily steal a VZW phone. u just go online and change the IMEI number.. done, its now active. you can also just as easily track a stolen GSM phone to active service through th IMEI.
saying a company sucks because its in 4th place and only because its in 4th place is like saying u can never get better. Tmobile is under new leadership and incase u havent notice, has gotten VERY agressive lately, which has always been its weak point. Things have changed dramatically and u should probably pay attention instead of just spouting inaccuracies like a moron.
19. XxVerbalxX (unregistered) posted on 21 Jan 2011, 10:47 0
from wikipedia: "In the United States, T-Mobile is a cellular telecommunications provider. It is wholly owned by Deutsche Telekom, itself based in Bonn, Germany, as part of its T-Mobile division."
so while wikipedia isnt always 100% accurate they do get the big shit right. like who owns a a huge company.
yes their prices are predatory. they are below the industry standard because they dont maintain a real nationwide network. they do not have more 3.5g coverage than at&t. at&t has already called them out on this
i was wrong, they do prorate their etf. AFTER 18 MONTHS. most carriers do it monthly. they cant because they know people would bail.
the mobile solution is a dealer....which is indirect...which is what i was commenting on. i never said they were corporate. i said their dealers were shady learn how to read.
ur right about sidekicks. but i said WERE so once again learn to friggin read.
really that easy to go online and change an imei? which is y u cant give away a phone with a bad esn on verizon? need the esn to activate, in 5 years of working with cdma we have never ever used an imei to activate a phone.
they dont cover enough to satisfy 60 mil more people who will use phones not just where you happen to b. like i said awesome deal if you can get service but for most people tmobile is a joke.
u sir are a moron. flat out.
21. remixfa posted on 21 Jan 2011, 10:56 0
hold on, let me go change that info in wiki.. lol there's a reason why most college classes wont let u use wiki as a source.. its unreliable and changable by anyone.
no, ATT didnt call them out on their coverage, ATT said that they have "hspa+ too, but we dont call it 4g". ATT's HSPA+ is capped at 12 while tmobile's is capped at 21 and going to 42. ATT also doesnt have any hspa+ phones availible yet.
Again, Tmobile's 3g/"4g" footprint is bigger than ATT's.
most carriers dont do it monthly. VZW does it montly. They also have one of the highest ETFs in the business. And you want to talk about predatory.
people dont bail. in major metro areas, like where most people live, its hard to justify VZW prices when other carriers work the same, yet faster, for much less. Maybe its VZW that is predatory and needs to drop their pricing? eh?
you said "they have the shadiest dealers ever". You didnt specify indirects, so people that dont know any better wouldnt know the difference, which is most people. all indirects are shady, for every company.
and yes, ur right about the ESN. I used the wrong term but the process is still the same.
your arguement is still petty, childish, and invalid on almost every point. so, u sir just got told whats what by a "moron". what does that make u? lol.
22. XxVerbalxX (unregistered) posted on 21 Jan 2011, 12:24 0
...and ur info will b changed back because it is wrong. i even said my argument was petty, so i dont see your point. u must need some new reading glasses chum. even if u change the esn it has to b placed out the network to b activated. good luck doing that with an unregistered esn. what r u going to do make one up? use someone elses to clone the phone? wont happen. not all indirects r shady, some are damn good but i have yet to hear of any worth a crap for tmobile. the 35 million people in tmobile can stay in their metro area, the 93 million on verizon and at&t will have the freedom to actually go somewhere other than the corner store. u can stay left behind on tmobile just like they were waaay behing on 3g which they now decide to call four. like i said it may work if you get coverage, good for u. most people know they suck and have already said so with their wallets. as for their 4g coverage:http://www.phonearena.com/news
"On AT&T's Facebook page today, the mobile operator pulled no punches. "Hey Fans! You may have seen T-Mobile smack talking our network (seriously TMo?) and calling their HSPA+ network "4G" in order to claim they have the largest "4G" network. Not so fast...we have 180 million folks on HSPA+ already...40 million more than they do. They also claim 200 million by year's end but we'll have it to 250 million this month. So their network isn't bigger or faster. Just calling 'em as we see 'em."
yeah they have more 4g by having coverage to 40 million less people.
23. XxVerbalxX (unregistered) posted on 21 Jan 2011, 12:37 0
either way im done with this article now. regardless of the speed cap hspa+ is now, unfortunately, 4g. nothing ive said was false, as it is all based on real facts and the parts that are opinion are pretty clear. tmobile sucks for most people. just a fact
25. remixfa posted on 23 Jan 2011, 12:50 0
you do realize that ATT counts its international roaming partners (who are really the ones with HSPA+) in thier "coverage". They arent just talking about America, where Tmobile is only talking about america.
Easy answer in coverage from best to worst
VZW, Sprint, Tmobile, ATT.
VZW, ATT, Sprint, Tmobile.
BTW, that "facebook post" was called out immediately as another half truth/lie from ATT. stop drinking the coolaid.
All indirects are bad business. I used to work for VZW, the indirects were the cause of most of the complaints we got. Same with Tmobile. you really dont know what ur talking about, or your just jaded.
And unless that ESN is blocked by VZW, it can be reactivated quite easily. Yea, its a great feature no doubt, but it isnt fool proof either.
just go by my old slogan
"anyone but ATT". its that easy. Why pay the most for the worst service in america? you need an iphone that bad? lol.
Price doesnt dictate quality.
27. David A (unregistered) posted on 24 Jan 2011, 00:09 0
you worked for verizon and you cant spell expensive? Why not just say your in high school and you think VZW is the best.
28. XxVerbalxX (unregistered) posted on 24 Jan 2011, 18:06 0
just because you waited a few days because u wanted to get the last word in
they still test slower than at&t, and for the record i hate at&t. they may have improved since late 2010 when this was done, but at last real look they are a failure. at&t's roaming agreements in europe cover more than 40,000,000 people, so ur argument makes no sense on that one. as for how you feel about indirect agents it kind of proves to me what a gigantic fool you are. some suck, but not all. its like saying all inner city kids steal. yes there are some bad ones out there but to blanket a bunch of small business owners because u got cranky working at verizon (im guessing u got canned and couldnt afford credit and hopped over to tmobile as employee/customer or a hybrid of both) dealing with dealer screw ups. corporate stores make plenty too, the difference is they have to tools to correct it while dealers dont. without those dealers and partners u so hate no cell phone company could afford to do business nationwide. dealers are excellent in smaller markets especially, which is why EVERY SINGLE CARRIER HAS THEM. so to bad mouth them because u had to get off ur butt and do some work is pathetic to say the least.
you dont even know who owns the company you are fighting for here, which is also sad. ur credibility on knowing what ur talking about is shakey at best.
while my experience is limited to the northeast (which tmobile is far behind at&t) i can see why u would think tmobile has better service according to the JD power associates article i looked up. course they have had a hard on for tmobile all decade. tmobile also misrepresent which towers they own, and which ones they lease, as seen here in the northeast after the unicel purchase by verizon. tmobile didnt want to pay up to use the towers, so they dropped them. course if you looked at their coverage map in 2008 it said it was THEIR towers.
the 4g network adds will stop soon anyway as verizon finacially has the ability to roll theirs out faster than t-mobile which is why tmobile is selling "non-core" assets and y deuchland telekom is is dicussions to sell/merge. ur right, price doesnt mean better, but money=improvements. its y sprint has 4x the spectrum of ANYONE because of their relationship with clearwire but cant build out a 4g network quickly. at&t is claiming the 21/mbs download speeds, but we will see when the devices roll out. personally the smartest thing would b for tmobile to sell to at&t anyway.
29. XxVerbalxX (unregistered) posted on 24 Jan 2011, 18:06 0
yes, i know u can use the phone if u dont report it lost/stolen to verizon....the point was you CAN REPORT THEM STOLEN. ive already been working with us cellular cdma phones to get them on the verizon network, hot or not without us cell giving us the pin to get into the progamming they cant b activated on another network. could always be reflashed i guess. maybe where u r there are plenty of places that do it, but not here, or most places.
u have one article saying tmobile has better coverage than at&t. do a google search. for every 1 u find promoting tmobile service i can find 10 saying at&t has better coverage. so unless your traveling cross country and have the equpitment to check place by place, ur far from correct.
10. Libertasian posted on 20 Jan 2011, 14:49 1
Didn't T-Mobile say they were going to use HSPA Evolved Instead of going for LTE?
26. David A (unregistered) posted on 24 Jan 2011, 00:06 0
We shall call it 5G! :P