T-Mobile Nearing Spectrum Purchase from Clearwire
Multiple LTE Frequencies
the 700 mhz has way too much noise in it resulting is more jitter and packet loss which makes for a less then desirable streaming experience and making voip and video chat very glitchy.
2.5 is well above the noise which is why it is ideal for 4g even though it does not penetrate near as well.
stevelvl said:2.5 is well above the noise which is why it is ideal for 4g even though it does not penetrate the air yet alone anything else.
I would pick 4g that is a little glitchy over 4g that you have to treat like the good old rabbit ears on the TV. What good is high speed data if you have to go outside or stand on top of the roof with a foil hat on to use it?
cstone said:
*FIXED*
I would pick 4g that is a little glitchy over 4g that you have to treat like the good old rabbit ears on the TV. What good is high speed data if you have to go outside or stand on top of the roof with a foil hat on to use it?
Exactly my point. So would I. That 2.5GHz couldn't even penetrate through a plastic bag. I've heard and read countless complaints about Clear's service and building penetration. When you go inside a building, no signal, soon as you walk out, bam! full signal. Ridiculous. But I guess T-Mo has no choice here âšī¸
Azeron said:
Exactly. While I applaud T-Mobile's marketing strategy of turning its poor 3G coverage into a great 4G map (all by merely redefining what is 4G) the truth is they are just faking it. They are spectrum crunched. It IS their own fault, of course. Still, they need to DO SOMETHING and if that means acquiring less than desirable spectrum then so be it.
--(all by merely redefining what is 4G)--
lol-- đ
carmodboy99 said:
You've heard and read... How ridiculous. Ive USED and EXPERIENCED Clear in 3 different markets (KC was by far the most consistent, and fastest) and while its true that signal strength diminishes indoors, full bars to no bars is just not what happened in Vegas, Raleigh, NC, or Kansas for me. You might drop 1 to 2 bars indoors IN SOME PLACES, but so long as you have 3 bars minimum, it never affectedthe service at all. Now rain, on the other hand... yea 2.5Ghz does not penetrate water for anything.
Well of course it works in those places. They dont have tall skyscrapers. The problems I've heard were from friends here in NYC (I've seen it first hand) and postings from members on various fo...
(continues)
Then you consider the following about 700mhz:
-Much better building penetration.
-Better weather penetration (poor weather won't F up the signal nearly as much)
-MUCH larger range. Why does this matter? This means that it will be a lot cheaper to deploy in lower population density areas because you'll need fewer towers. This means it's insanely cheaper to deploy once you leave the larger cities.
They're spreading the network more efficiently, but they're still limited by distance. What they did was position the transmitter/recievers to cover the maximum amount of useful area they could (since canada and mexico arn't native coverage, they were cut off) but even with these efficiencies those towers can't broadcast near the distance that Sprint's 1xRTT network can at the lower band. (which is why Verizon put EVDO in those bands as well)
To cover an area where one 700MHz can cover, you would need 4 or more 2.5 towers. Now, this isn't an issue in cities, because yo...
(continues)
Menno said:
-MUCH larger range. Why does this matter? This means that it will be a lot cheaper to deploy in lower population density areas because you'll need fewer towers. This means it's insanely cheaper to deploy once you leave the larger cities.
Upper/Lower 700 MHz spectrum -- and its attendant propagation strengths -- would be a boon if a carrier were building from the ground up a new network. But that has little relevance to T-Mobile USA.
Remember, T-Mobile already has a hybrid PCS 1900 MHz, AWS 2100+1700 MHz national network, and its cell site spacing reflects the propagation characteristics of that spectrum. So, BRS 2500/2600 MHz spectrum -- which has a free space path loss only ~1.7 dB gre...
(continues)
I know that Tmobile will never be more than a city carrier when it comes to data coverage, and it is unfortunate.
Because you prefer a carrier, doesn't mean other large corporations should give up their assets. Except for one case. And that is, where they put up spectrum they have no short, long or ever plans to use, just to lock out competition.
Azeron said:
You are way too emotional. Step back from it and breath. There...there...better now?
Much better, just had a Xanax. đ
WiWavelength said:...
Upper/Lower 700 MHz spectrum -- and its attendant propagation strengths -- would be a boon if a carrier were building from the ground up a new network. But that has little relevance to T-Mobile USA.
Remember, T-Mobile already has a hybrid PCS 1900 MHz, AWS 2100+1700 MHz national network, and its cell site spacing reflects the propagation characteristics of that spectrum. So, BRS 2500/2600 MHz spectrum -- which has a free space path loss only ~1.7 dB greater than that of T-Mobile's AWS downlink -- would be a reasonably good match for overlay on that existing network.
Also, T-Mobile does not widely provide native coverage to "lower population density areas." Never has, never will -- that ship
(continues)
I can't say that I agree with his ideas on government regulation of the industry, but I respect his knowledge and opinions.
Azeron said:
I believe the ability to penetrate is more important.
As do I. 2.5 GHz better than 700 MHz? No way.
muchdrama said:
As do I. 2.5 GHz better than 700 MHz? No way.
you say that only because you really have no idea what sorts of packet loss and jitter you have to deal with as a result of all that noise on the 700/800 mhz. if all you want to do is brows web pages and download large files then yes it is better. if you want to stream hd video and video conference or voip then no it is not.
I know this because i have worked on the network side deploying both spectrums in 3g and 4g.
stevelvl said:
you say that only because you really have no idea what sorts of packet loss and jitter you have to deal with as a result of all that noise on the 700/800 mhz. if all you want to do is brows web pages and download large files then yes it is better. if you want to stream hd video and video conference or voip then no it is not.
I know this because i have worked on the network side deploying both spectrums in 3g and 4g.
I spend a lot of my time buried in buildings. I'll stick with Verizon (as I have for 8 years) for their 700 MHz implementation.
The beauty though is once phones are LTE only, it won't be that hard to build one with multiple frequencies.
Plans will be data only. you won't have to do this bullshit of "x for calls, x for text and x for data"
Instead you just pay for data and use it as you please. Remember, Verizon said they consider 10GB to be the floor when it comes to Smartphone LTE data usage, so expect plans to START there once LTE only plans are available and only go up.
They're also going to push this as an alternative to fios internet where fios isn't available. Yes, current 4g pricing is still expensive, but that's because it's 3g/4g. Lets see what they do with 4g only plans.
that's what LTE will hopefully solve since it will be the same frequency for Voice and Data
This forum is closed.