5 ms·

Pre-Launch Details of T-Mobile's New LTE Network

33 points by brendan_gill 14y ago

lnanek2 14y ago
Feels weird defending a competitor, but Samsung has officially announced details of their new phone's US processor choice that conflict with this post. What this company witnessed was probably an engineering sample with different hardware than the eventual shipping version. Makes me wonder about how solid the rest of their information is. Carriers have test labs that can deliver any sort of signal to a phone. So maybe some of the test results are just from an LTE node at a test lab and have nothing to do with that being a launch city. If something isn't announced it may never even see the light of day anyway.
- fpgeek 14y ago
  T-Mobile is actually expected to be launching an LTE version of the Galaxy S3 soon: http://www.androidcentral.com/t-mobile-set-launch-galaxy-s3-lte-soon-march-27 http://www.androidcentral.com/t-mobile-set-launch-galaxy-s3-... Given that, I think it is very possible they misidentified the device. As many have noted, the designs of the S3 and S4 are quite similar. And unlike an S4, it would make sense for T-Mobile's LTE S3 to have a Snapdragon S4, like all of the other US S3s.
  - brendan_gill 14y ago
    Op here, we're pretty sure its the Galaxy S IV. The model number, which is what we use to identify it, is the SGH-M919 and all other specs e.g. the screen resolution match up to the S IV, rather than the S III. The other comment on it being an engineering device and the chipset for commercial launch is a fair point though.
rayiner 14y ago
It's not super-useful to measure the speed of a network nobody is using yet. AT&T gives me 5-6 megabits in a skyscraper in midtown Manhattan, in the middle of the afternoon. I'd be very surprised to see T-Mobile, with its limited resources and limited spectrum be able to come close. Which is ultimately why it was a total disaster that the DOJ nixed the ATT/T-Mobile merger. Now you've got two carriers with not enough spectrum versus Verizon that's sitting on a fat 20 MHz nationwide band.
- brendan_gill 14y ago
  Real world speeds will undoubtedly differ, as the article describes, but it's at least an improvement over no data or the 'peak' data speeds that operators like to quote that bear no relation to the actual speeds consumers experience.
  - Nrsolis 14y ago
    Just an FYI: The primary challenge to the mobile operators is backhaul from the base stations, not spectrum. At any given tower/site, you've only got a certain amount of fixed facilities from the local wireline carrier that are available. In other cases, you're using point-to-point microwave links to backhaul until you can offload that traffic to a fiber-connected location. In either situation, you need to think about the entire picture before you go ahead and focus on "spectrum" as the reason why your link speed differs from what you expect. There are many moving parts and they all can cause congestion. And the AT&T/T-Mobile merger was nixed because they tried to pull a fast one on the FCC/DOJ by claiming that they needed the spectrum/infrastructure to upgrade their network. When a document surfaced that showed that their cost to upgrade their existing network was a fraction of what they were paying for the T-Mobile network, it became clear that they were buying them to eliminate price competition.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      I assume you were replying to me. Where the bottleneck is depends on market being served. In dense urban areas (i.e. the ones that matter), the bottlenecks is often spectrum. See: http://gizmodo.com/5847811/giz-explains-whats-wireless-spectrum-and-why-you-care-about-it-more-than-you-think http://gizmodo.com/5847811/giz-explains-whats-wireless-spect..., http://www.androidpolice.com/2013/01/25/verizon-sells-att-lower-700mhz-b-block-to-att-for-1-9-billion-and-some-aws-spectrum-heres-what-that-means http://www.androidpolice.com/2013/01/25/verizon-sells-att-lo.... This is both because the density of users in urban areas, and the fact that it's easier to provision urban cell cites with fiber.
      - Nrsolis 14y ago
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

33 points by brendan_gill 14y ago

Feels weird defending a competitor, but Samsung has officially announced details of their new phone's US processor choice that conflict with this post. What this company witnessed was probably an engineering sample with different hardware than the eventual shipping version. Makes me wonder about how solid the rest of their information is. Carriers have test labs that can deliver any sort of signal to a phone. So maybe some of the test results are just from an LTE node at a test lab and have nothing to do with that being a launch city. If something isn't announced it may never even see the light of day anyway.

fpgeek 14y ago
T-Mobile is actually expected to be launching an LTE version of the Galaxy S3 soon: http://www.androidcentral.com/t-mobile-set-launch-galaxy-s3-lte-soon-march-27 http://www.androidcentral.com/t-mobile-set-launch-galaxy-s3-... Given that, I think it is very possible they misidentified the device. As many have noted, the designs of the S3 and S4 are quite similar. And unlike an S4, it would make sense for T-Mobile's LTE S3 to have a Snapdragon S4, like all of the other US S3s.
- brendan_gill 14y ago
  Op here, we're pretty sure its the Galaxy S IV. The model number, which is what we use to identify it, is the SGH-M919 and all other specs e.g. the screen resolution match up to the S IV, rather than the S III. The other comment on it being an engineering device and the chipset for commercial launch is a fair point though.

rayiner 14y ago

It's not super-useful to measure the speed of a network nobody is using yet. AT&T gives me 5-6 megabits in a skyscraper in midtown Manhattan, in the middle of the afternoon. I'd be very surprised to see T-Mobile, with its limited resources and limited spectrum be able to come close. Which is ultimately why it was a total disaster that the DOJ nixed the ATT/T-Mobile merger. Now you've got two carriers with not enough spectrum versus Verizon that's sitting on a fat 20 MHz nationwide band.

brendan_gill 14y ago
Real world speeds will undoubtedly differ, as the article describes, but it's at least an improvement over no data or the 'peak' data speeds that operators like to quote that bear no relation to the actual speeds consumers experience.
- Nrsolis 14y ago
  Just an FYI: The primary challenge to the mobile operators is backhaul from the base stations, not spectrum. At any given tower/site, you've only got a certain amount of fixed facilities from the local wireline carrier that are available. In other cases, you're using point-to-point microwave links to backhaul until you can offload that traffic to a fiber-connected location. In either situation, you need to think about the entire picture before you go ahead and focus on "spectrum" as the reason why your link speed differs from what you expect. There are many moving parts and they all can cause congestion. And the AT&T/T-Mobile merger was nixed because they tried to pull a fast one on the FCC/DOJ by claiming that they needed the spectrum/infrastructure to upgrade their network. When a document surfaced that showed that their cost to upgrade their existing network was a fraction of what they were paying for the T-Mobile network, it became clear that they were buying them to eliminate price competition.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    I assume you were replying to me. Where the bottleneck is depends on market being served. In dense urban areas (i.e. the ones that matter), the bottlenecks is often spectrum. See: http://gizmodo.com/5847811/giz-explains-whats-wireless-spectrum-and-why-you-care-about-it-more-than-you-think http://gizmodo.com/5847811/giz-explains-whats-wireless-spect..., http://www.androidpolice.com/2013/01/25/verizon-sells-att-lower-700mhz-b-block-to-att-for-1-9-billion-and-some-aws-spectrum-heres-what-that-means http://www.androidpolice.com/2013/01/25/verizon-sells-att-lo.... This is both because the density of users in urban areas, and the fact that it's easier to provision urban cell cites with fiber.
    - Nrsolis 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]