x PhoneArena is hiring! Reviewer in the USA
  • Options
    Close






T-Mobile's Samsung Galaxy S III will not run on LTE network

0. phoneArena 25 Jun 2012, 18:56 posted on

T-Mobile has priced its versions of the Samsung Galaxy S III, both 16GB and 32GB models, at the highest price of any U.S. carrier selling the device; even at the highest price poitns, T-Mobile says that its version of the phone will not run on its future LTE pipeline...

This is a discussion for a news. To read the whole news, click here

posted on 25 Jun 2012, 19:08 2

1. PapaSmurf (Posts: 10457; Member since: 14 May 2012)


Well that was obvious. HSPA 42 competes in Chicago pulling 20-25mbps constantly.

But I seriously don't know why T-Mobile keeps shooting itself in the foot by pricing the phone more than all three carriers...

posted on 25 Jun 2012, 20:08 3

12. remixfa (Posts: 14255; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)


because you save 30- 50 bux a month on the plan. You can pay 50 less for the phone once every 2 years.. I'll pay 30-50 bux less a month... see who comes out ahead :)

posted on 25 Jun 2012, 22:06 3

23. PapaSmurf (Posts: 10457; Member since: 14 May 2012)


T-Mobile is way cheaper than Sprint, like about $50 cheaper. I love T-Mobile.

If they would price the phone at $199, they would have more people upgrading. I know a lot of people not getting it because its above the $200 price tag. I've tried explaining its worth it in he long run, but they never listen. -_-

posted on 26 Jun 2012, 01:43 2

26. Forsaken77 (Posts: 553; Member since: 09 Jun 2011)


You're paying less monthly because you're getting worse coverage, overall, than the other carriers. Tmobile is the budget carrier for people that need cheaper prices. So why have the highest price, by $80, of all the other carriers? Doesn't make sense and isn't what their brand represents.

posted on 26 Jun 2012, 09:30 1

29. disneydad (Posts: 114; Member since: 26 Mar 2012)


No, metroPCS and Cricket are the budget carriers for cheap phones.
I've had T-Mobile since 2003 and I've never had any major issues with coverage living in NJ and FL.
T-Mobile has reiterated time and again that they are not interested in subsidizing phones.

posted on 26 Jun 2012, 10:11 1

35. remixfa (Posts: 14255; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)


you have the taco mentality of "its better because you pay more".

It was just proven AGAIN to have the same speeds as VZW LTE. Tmobile covers 94-95% of Americans where VZW covers 97%. Yet the plans are nearly double on VZW. It also has more "4g" network than VZW does.
Your paying for the name and tons of advertising.

A friend of mine switched from Tmo to VZW in atlanta, and even with LTE he says he drops more calls than Tmo and has constant voice quality issues. He's mad because he wants to go back to Tmo but doesnt want to pay the tons of contract cancellation fees.

posted on 27 Jun 2012, 19:13

51. phoenixpr (Posts: 167; Member since: 28 Mar 2012)


Amen to that. You get for what you pay for. Fisher price service...

posted on 25 Jun 2012, 19:09 5

2. mas11 (Posts: 1034; Member since: 30 Mar 2012)


The sad thing is that they will still call it a "4G" phone even though HSPA+ is more like 3.75G. Now I know Lte isn't true 4G according to the original definition of a 4G network, but it's the closest thing to it. It just annoys me when they market both Lte and HSPA+ as "4G."

posted on 25 Jun 2012, 19:48 7

6. PapaSmurf (Posts: 10457; Member since: 14 May 2012)


WiMAX is nowhere near 4G and Sprint advertised it as 4G. T-Mobile's 3G as faster than it and that's sad.

HSPA+ 42 dishes out speeds near or sometimes better than LTE. When T-Mobile deploys LTE Advanced next year, its going to be the carrier with the fastest speeds. LTE with HSPA 42 back haul? Hell yeah.

posted on 26 Jun 2012, 01:45 1

27. Forsaken77 (Posts: 553; Member since: 09 Jun 2011)


LTE Advance next year? That's overly optimistic. They haven't even put up the regular LTE yet and that takes more than a year.

posted on 26 Jun 2012, 02:02

28. gwhyte01 (Posts: 44; Member since: 09 Jul 2008)


They're not going to deploy regular lte. They're going straight to advanced on deployment.

posted on 26 Jun 2012, 10:09

34. remixfa (Posts: 14255; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)


They are installing LTE-10 which is the base for LTE Advance. It wont take them long to basically flip a switch from one to the other. The installs are already in the works.

posted on 25 Jun 2012, 19:50 7

7. Lboogey6 (Posts: 281; Member since: 31 Jan 2012)


Dude come on let it go it's marketing and has proof to be faster than regular 3g it's America we won't reach "true" 4g for a while lol the real liar is the 4s on Att now saying 4g lol.

posted on 25 Jun 2012, 20:13 3

14. Malique001 (Posts: 58; Member since: 08 Jun 2012)


All of these are just all marketing strategies IMO. HSPA+ is like you said 3.75G lmao. Technically there is so "real" 4G except for LTE Advanced i believe.

posted on 26 Jun 2012, 09:32 1

30. disneydad (Posts: 114; Member since: 26 Mar 2012)


Still clinging to that? No one has 'true' 4G as you said. Why worry about which technology is being called 4G? HSPA+ gives users significantly increased data speeds over 3G technology.

posted on 26 Jun 2012, 13:01 1

40. SmartPhoneStream (Posts: 162; Member since: 21 Jun 2012)


Well if Verizon's LTE is allowed to be advertised as 4G then so should T-Mobile's 4G HSPA+42, because even though on average Verizon's LTE is faster than T-Mobile's HSPA+42, in 11 cities nationwide T-Mobile's HSPA+42 is faster than Verizon's LTE.

http://www.phonearena.com/news/T-Mobiles-HSPA-42Mbps-network-faster-than-Verizons-4G-LTE-in-11-cities_id31387

posted on 25 Jun 2012, 19:09 2

3. ajac09 (Posts: 1481; Member since: 30 Sep 2009)


no surprise they are gonna release the gs3 with quad core and LTE as soon as there lte advanced network goes live .

posted on 25 Jun 2012, 19:09 3

4. Krishaun27 (unregistered)


No s**t! For a network that doesnt exist on a phone without the radio to connect to it, common ppl...

posted on 25 Jun 2012, 19:34 2

5. Birds (Posts: 1166; Member since: 21 Nov 2011)


lol, Lets face it! It is not really surprising. But who cares!!!! My cousin's One S pulls thirty megs down and ten megs up!!! That beats any LTE anywhere. lol

posted on 25 Jun 2012, 19:59 4

8. rockstarlive (Posts: 307; Member since: 19 Oct 2011)


Really.....I never knew...Tmobile didn't have LTE

posted on 25 Jun 2012, 20:01 4

9. eDiesel (Posts: 142; Member since: 17 Mar 2012)


That's the crappiest s3 so far. No exynos quad and no lte. Better off getting the tmo galaxy note.

posted on 25 Jun 2012, 20:07 3

11. remixfa (Posts: 14255; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)


Tmo was just proven to be as fast/faster than VZW LTE, so I dont know where you get off thinking that. No SGS3 in america has exynos, and the Note uses the Older crapdragon S3 chip which is way less powerful than the S4 and worse on battery life by far.

So no... your not better off getting the note.

posted on 25 Jun 2012, 20:38 3

17. eDiesel (Posts: 142; Member since: 17 Mar 2012)


Don't get me wrong I dislike vzw but they trash tmo I'm most places. Tmo is slow. Vzw is not called the largest and fastest for no reason. Personally I own a note, I don't see much benefit from another dual core , 4.x screen phone that has no lte and is a little faster. Tmo s3 = trash.

posted on 25 Jun 2012, 22:04 1

21. PapaSmurf (Posts: 10457; Member since: 14 May 2012)


Thats your opinion, but studies shown otherwise.

posted on 25 Jun 2012, 23:50 2

25. eDiesel (Posts: 142; Member since: 17 Mar 2012)


What are these studies you speak of?

posted on 26 Jun 2012, 14:46

45. SmartPhoneStream (Posts: 162; Member since: 21 Jun 2012)


PapaSmurf is correct, studies show that T-Mobile's 4G network is faster then Verizon's LTE in 11 cities. Overall though LTE is faster then HSPA+ but in some areas LTE is slower

http://www.phonearena.com/news/T-Mobiles-HSPA-42Mbps-network-faster-than-Verizons-4G-LTE-in-11-cities_id31387

posted on 26 Jun 2012, 10:07 1

33. remixfa (Posts: 14255; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)


yet Tmo has a much wider 4g network thats proven to be just as fast as VZW's LTE. They cover exactly 3% more population than Tmo. And they cost 50% more.

posted on 25 Jun 2012, 20:05 3

10. remixfa (Posts: 14255; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)


Alan, your dead wrong

You DO NOT pay interest on the value plan. You get a super cheap plan in exchange for full priced phones. When you bill the the phone to the account, it is a flat rate, which is the remaining balance after down payment, and nothing else.

The phone is cheaper on Tmobile because the plans are so much cheaper. Even on regular non-value contract, its 80 a month for unl talk text and 2gig of web with no overages. Do the math. You pay a little more up front to save a ton in the end. One month's service pays the difference in the device, and then your saving for the next 23 months compared to every other major carrier. Cheaper plans mean less money for subsidies.

10 seconds worth of research.

posted on 25 Jun 2012, 22:06

22. cfprelude (Posts: 137; Member since: 27 Oct 2011)


Hey man. What part of Jax are u in? I've been trying to reach out to u but email me when u have a chance (cfansher@gmail.com) .... Very interested in ur experience (speeds and coverage) with tmo in Jax. And which plans will be my best bet for cheaper than vzw. Thanks!

posted on 26 Jun 2012, 09:38

31. disneydad (Posts: 114; Member since: 26 Mar 2012)


Thank you for your clarification of EIP and Value plans on T-Mobile remixfa. You'd think with the comments on this site that the concept was like trying to grasp the theory of General Relativity.
Everyone needs to move on from the shiny temptress called 'Free Phone'. That 'free phone' makes up the difference in the monthly bill.

Want to comment? Please login or register.

Latest stories