20MHz x 20MHz LTE coming eventually to all T-Mobile metro areas
posted by Alan F. / Aug 13, 2014, 4:30 PM
While Carter says that it will require engineering work to offer configurations larger than 20MHz x 20MHz (like 30MHz x 30MHz and 40MHz x 40MHz), the executive says that the operator's pipeline will eventually expand past the 20MHz X 20MHz configuration. With wider spectrum, the capacity of the pipeline is larger and it allows T-Mobile to offer faster speeds.
T-Mobile currently uses 15MHz x 15MHz in 17 markets, and that number is expected to rise to 26 before the end of the year. T-Mobile calls this configuration "Wideband LTE". The carrier also plans on adding more 700MHz A Block spectrum through purchases, but Carter notes that T-Mobile will be "very disciplined and opportunistic." The mobile operator is in talks with sellers of the spectrum, but might have to put these deals on hold to avoid regulations against collusion, with the AWS-3 auction scheduled to start in November. The other deals might have to wait for 2015 to be completed.
Meanwhile, T-Mobile will start releasing smartphones that support A Block handsets in Q4. This year, the operator has purchased $2.365 billion of 700 MHz A Block spectrum from Verizon Wireless along with $50.5 million A Block 700 MHz spectrum from others.
Posts: 692; Member since: Oct 08, 2011
Call me when the actual footprint increases, when coverage gets better. Look at their own coverage maps from 5 years ago, compared to now. Very little change. I'm talking about rural, even mid sized suburbs.
posted on Aug 13, 2014, 5:38 PM 7
Posts: 56; Member since: Aug 12, 2014
I had VZW from about 1998 - 2010. Loved it; coverage everywhere. BUT, they were higher, much higher, than T-Mobile. All I read online (mostly) was how terrible T-Mobile was. But, once I got over the "fear" factor and analyzed my actual life (not the dream one, where I'm hiking a mountain, zip lining, or surfing a beach every single weekend) I came to realize that I pretty much live a life centered between home (Marysville, WA) and work (Everett, WA), with the occasional trip to Seattle, and the 1-2 times yearly trek to the WA or OR coast, Portland, or some other place. I ventured past my emotional response, saved over $40 per month on T-Mobile, and have never regretted it. Have I had situations with no signal? Yes. Has it been an earth shattering moment? No. Am I glad that in ~4 years I've saved 2,000 dollars and have no truly legitimate gripes? Hell yeah. Take that for what it's worth. There are rarely circumstances of "they're good" or "they're not good". Instead it comes down to "will it work for what you do/need?"
posted on Aug 13, 2014, 6:08 PM 11
Posts: 1092; Member since: Feb 23, 2009
Glad the coverage workd for you, I gave T-Mobile a spin about 6 moths ago and got edge way too much of the time. I live in Saint Paul,MN but travel and I will say if i did not leave the metro it would work great but it did not work for me. The coverage in north and south dakota absolutely sucks and the parts of Michgan it was 2g also. I do have an old SERO plan from sprint and it works in all the small towns yes I only get 3g in most of north and south dakota but that way better than edge. I will also say I have a LTE verizon work phone and almost everywhere in the 7 states I go to it gets LTE you pay for more coverage, but if you dont need it I aggree with you dont pay for something you dont need.
posted on Aug 13, 2014, 9:11 PM 1
Posts: 467; Member since: May 25, 2011
T-Mobile coverage sucks in Downtown St. Paul(My guess is tall building issues). Hell head south towards Farmington on down Highway 3 and coverage drops in and out. I will second your Dakota coverage complaints and also add Iowa, Nebraska, and Wisconsin.
posted on Aug 13, 2014, 10:54 PM 0
Posts: 294; Member since: Oct 07, 2010
THANK YOU!!!!! God all i want is hspa+ in my freaking house. seriously T-mobile would be rolling in the money if they worried more about there coverage rather than there freaking data speeds. Is there an explanation for this? i mean isnt there a reason why they dont expand coverage? Sorry for using there wrong....
posted on Aug 13, 2014, 7:24 PM 0
Posts: 240; Member since: Mar 15, 2012
Yes, I live in the far suburbs, I can get Verizon in the house easy, AT&T we need to walk outside in the front yard or stand on the roof, Sprint, drive about 3 miles down the street closer to our little downtown, T-Mobile, drive 15 miles towards our main city downtown. T-Mobile is an urban only system as of now. As of now, Verizon only alternative. If others improve, will see then.
posted on Aug 13, 2014, 5:57 PM 0
Posts: 35; Member since: Apr 25, 2014
I live in dallas and hardly ever leave town. Even though i got approved for 3 lines with verizon and im sure that they have better coverage. I think ill stick with tmobile until i win the lottery and can afford to travel the world
posted on Aug 13, 2014, 6:43 PM 0
Posts: 228; Member since: Mar 11, 2013
If you hit the lottery and can afford to travel the world then T-Mobile might be a better choice for you. You can use T-Mo in a lot of countries and even if you cant, their phones are GSM so you can just unlock it and insert a sim card.
posted on Aug 13, 2014, 7:37 PM 4
Posts: 2236; Member since: Jun 14, 2013
Too late to be any use to me. I wanted to like T-Mobile, but their coverage in the Southwest sucks. Unlimited data is only useful if it is actually available. They have awful service in Amarillo and Albuquerque, and almost nonexistent between.
posted on Aug 13, 2014, 10:00 PM 0
Posts: 1946; Member since: Feb 15, 2012
Hey, T-Mobile about to get even better, they are going to start throttling unlimited data users. It goes to show you, these company are all full hot air.
posted on Aug 13, 2014, 10:52 PM 0
Send a warning to post author
Send a warning to Selected user.
The user has 0 warnings currently.
Next warning will result in ban!
Ban user and delete all posts
Message to PhoneArena moderator (optional):