Home  ›  News  ›

T-Mobile Nearing Spectrum Purchase from Clearwire

Article Comments  

all discussions

show all 32 replies

Multiple LTE Frequencies

michael_herc

Feb 4, 2011, 10:30 PM
I believe that this spectrum acquisition by T-Mobile would result in them launching a 4G LTE network in a frequency other than 700 MHz. It kind of stinks that all these carriers around the world are moving to 1 common 4G technology, but there's going to a plethora of different frequencies that they're run in.
...
AndroidRules

Feb 4, 2011, 11:41 PM
Oh no. Clear only has spectrum in 2.5GHz range right?
...
stevelvl

Feb 5, 2011, 10:18 AM
you are 100% correct. clear wire has a nation wide spectrum in the 2.5 ghz. 2.5 is actually much better suited for 4g technology the the 700 mhz.

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.
...
cstone

Feb 5, 2011, 11:03 AM
*FIXED*
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?
...
AndroidRules

Feb 5, 2011, 11:40 AM
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 ☚ī¸
...
Azeron

Feb 5, 2011, 12:44 PM
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.
...
Jayshmay

Feb 5, 2011, 3:15 PM
Isn't one of the technical benefits of HSPA+ is that it can more simultaneous users? Not just increased speeds.
...
muchdrama

Feb 5, 2011, 9:31 PM
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-- 😈
...
carmodboy99

Feb 5, 2011, 12:57 PM
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.
...
AndroidRules

Feb 6, 2011, 1:19 AM
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)
...
Menno

Feb 5, 2011, 12:20 PM
the 700mhz band is what the Analog TV broadcast networks used to push out over. It's an excellent band for data transmission. No, it doesn't have the same theoretical max speed as 2.5, but we're well over a decade from those speeds anyway, and who knows what they'll have by then?

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.
...
carmodboy99

Feb 5, 2011, 1:05 PM
Sprint has been upgrading their towers with new equipment that spreads the 1900Mhz frequency more efficiently so that they can cut down on the number of towers the use. The downside to this is that the coverage that spilled over into Mexico and Canada is now just about nonexistent, but when i'm within coverage ive found no real change in the service at all, clear and quick as usual. My point is, if theyre doing this with the 1900 spectrum, it will only be so long before they and other carriers with 2.5 implement the same or advanced technology, and 2.5Ghz spectrum can penetrate rural areas to the point that it becomes comparative to 700Mhz
...
Menno

Feb 5, 2011, 1:21 PM
No they can't. It's a limitation of the spectrum. The radio waves can only go so far, you CANNOT force them to go further on the same wavelength and still be useful.

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)
...
WiWavelength

Feb 5, 2011, 1:40 PM
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)
...
Menno

Feb 5, 2011, 2:09 PM
This was mainly in regards to the OP talking about Sprint's coverage.

I know that Tmobile will never be more than a city carrier when it comes to data coverage, and it is unfortunate.
...
Azeron

Feb 5, 2011, 5:26 PM
Yes, but even when T-Mobile had the chance to acquire smaller carriers using 850 like SunCom...they passed. They seemed to believe 1900 was superior. Like Sprint bragging on being all PCS. Whatever...
...
Jayshmay

Feb 6, 2011, 5:27 PM
Could you ever envision Tmo buying MetroPCS, or the company named after a bug, Cricket?
...
Versed

Feb 5, 2011, 5:35 PM
Gluttons? What was AT&T and VZW do, hold back on their plans till TMO or Sprint can catch up? This isn't a chess game, you bid, you out bid you win. Its not like DT is a small company, its a multinational corporation. So stop the woe is me, I grew up on welfare crap.

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

Feb 5, 2011, 6:18 PM
You are way too emotional. Step back from it and breath. There...there...better now?
...
Versed

Feb 6, 2011, 10:04 AM
Azeron said:
You are way too emotional. Step back from it and breath. There...there...better now?


Much better, just had a Xanax. 😎
...
Slammer

Feb 6, 2011, 10:34 AM
Yes. You even look better now. The color in your face has returned. 😁
...
muchdrama

Feb 5, 2011, 9:35 PM
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)
...
Azeron

Feb 5, 2011, 11:17 PM
No doubt. AJ is like E.F. Hutton...

I can't say that I agree with his ideas on government regulation of the industry, but I respect his knowledge and opinions.
...
Azeron

Feb 5, 2011, 12:39 PM
I believe the ability to penetrate is more important.
...
muchdrama

Feb 5, 2011, 9:32 PM
Azeron said:
I believe the ability to penetrate is more important.


As do I. 2.5 GHz better than 700 MHz? No way.
...
stevelvl

Feb 5, 2011, 11:47 PM
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.
...
muchdrama

Feb 5, 2011, 11:48 PM
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.
...
Menno

Feb 5, 2011, 11:51 AM
Because every country had slightly different distribution at launch.

The beauty though is once phones are LTE only, it won't be that hard to build one with multiple frequencies.
...
Azeron

Feb 5, 2011, 12:47 PM
I hope that day never happens or at least not until 2020. I have no plans to go to 4G.
...
Menno

Feb 5, 2011, 1:07 PM
Why not?

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.
...
cstone

Feb 5, 2011, 1:13 PM
Same idea as GSM. I'm not sure why people see a big problem with having multiple frequencies. It works just fine for GSM (which I know is not the same, but its the most comparable.) You can buy a global unlocked phone and use it on just about any GSM carrier. It would be awesome if everyone went LTE and we could use our phones on any carrier we wanted.
...
Menno

Feb 5, 2011, 1:25 PM
you can use it on any carrier for Voice. with 3g it's not really possible.

that's what LTE will hopefully solve since it will be the same frequency for Voice and Data
...
Azeron

Feb 5, 2011, 12:31 PM
There was only so much 700 mHz to go around and Verizon and AT&T snapped it up. What is T-Mobile supposed to do? Wither and die?
...

This forum is closed.

Please log in to report a message to the moderator.

This forum is closed.


all discussions

Subscribe to Phone Scoop News with RSS Follow @phonescoop on Threads Follow @phonescoop on Mastodon Phone Scoop on Facebook Follow on Instagram

 

Playwire

All content Copyright 2001-2024 Phone Factor, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Content on this site may not be copied or republished without formal permission.