T-Mobile is the fastest 4G LTE network in US (according to 6 billion OpenSignal reports)

[Harold Newton]

T-Mobile finally beats Verizon to become fastest 4G LTE network in U.S.
<http://mashable.com/2018/01/22/tmobile-rules-opensignal-report-2018/>

"The OpenSignal "State of Mobile Networks" report took into account
about 6 billion measurements from 237,213 U.S. smartphone users,
sampled between Oct. 1 to Dec. 30 of 2017 (Q4)."

"The "uncarrier" blew past Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint in five out
of six major metric tests, besting the competition on 4G download
speed, 3G download speed, overall download speed, 3G latency,]
and 4G availability. The only metric T-Mobile didn't win was 4G
latency; AT&T just beat it by a hair."

[sms]

On 1/22/2018 9:51 AM, Harold Newton wrote:
> T-Mobile finally beats Verizon to become fastest 4G LTE network in U.S.
> <http://mashable.com/2018/01/22/tmobile-rules-opensignal-report-2018/>

Too bad about their coverage.

[Harold Newton]

We're both in the Silicon Valley environs, where I've been here since
before cell phones, and hence I had Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile.

I dropped Verizon because they upped my 2-year contract simply because I
had a phone replaced under the extended warranty plan, which I though was
unfair, and when I went to AT&T, I was surprised I saved money, and they
allowed me to block data if I wanted to, by phone, on the "family" plan.

The coverage was 'about the same' where I traveled, camped, and stayed at
home in the mountains (which is to say the coverage sucked in the mountains
and when camping).

Then AT&T wouldn't let *new* phones block data (it's more complex than
that, but that's not the point here) so I summarily dropped AT&T for
T-Mobile (after toying with the idea of changing the IMEI because AT&T
insisted that they'd charge you for data if you switched the SIM card into
a phone that 'could' have data - even if you had data blocked!).

After complaining abot AT&T to the FCC (and getting a perfectly idiotic
"nospam like" response from the AT&T Marketing exec who called me about my
complaint), I was happy to find out that T-Mobile doesn't care what phone
the SIM card goes in.

In addition, T-Mobile was cheaper, and they allowed you to use any phone
you wanted, and they'd even sell you a phone (for $50 more than MSRP
though), but with no contract if you paid in full.

Once again, the coverage was 'about the same' where I traveled, camped, and
stayed at home in the mountains (which is to say the coverage sucked in the
mountains and when camping).

In addition, T-Mobile gave me a free repeater and a free femtocell (aka
microcell) so my rather large multi-floor home is now covered from end to
end and from top to bottom with cellular signal.

While my experience with all three carriers happened sequentially, I'd have
to say that, in the Silicon Valley, while traveling, and while camping, and
living in the mountains, the coverage was "about the same".

Bear in mind, T-Mobile will give you a free one-month *loaner phone*, which
allows you to *test* your coverage. Just make sure it's Android because the
tools for testing signal strength are far easier to use for debugging than
on the iPhone (which is primitive by way of comparison).

[nospam]

In article <p458eb$2i7$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> > T-Mobile finally beats Verizon to become fastest 4G LTE network in U.S.
> > <http://mashable.com/2018/01/22/tmobile-rules-opensignal-report-2018/>
>
> Too bad about their coverage.

t-mobile's coverage is excellent and *very* fast.

a decade ago it wasn't as good, but those days are long, long gone.

[nospam]

In article <p45932$q87$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Harold Newton

<har...@example.com> wrote:

>
> Then AT&T wouldn't let *new* phones block data

they don't prevent it.

> (it's more complex than
> that, but that's not the point here)

it is the point because once again, you're wrong.

[sms]

I would respectfully say that you're full of it.

We go to the Sierras a lot. There are vast areas with good Verizon
coverage, mediocre AT&T coverage, and no T-Mobile coverage. Sprint roams
on Verizon (as long as you're on postpaid Sprint). T-Mobile just very
very recently added coverage in Yosemite Valley.

One year we went up to Yosemite in the winter. We were staying in
Yosemite West. This is not an isolated area, it's a big housing
development just outside the park boundary even though you have to go
into the park to get there. We arrived in a snowstorm. The place we were
staying didn't leave the key out. Having Verizon, I was able to call the
caretaker. There was no AT&T coverage. There was no T-Mobile coverage.
Still isn't, years later. See <http://oi63.tinypic.com/eiwdbn.jpg>. It's
the same situation throughout most of the Sierra once you're off I-80 or
US50. Verizon bought Golden State Cellular, a CDMA carrier that did an
outstanding job at rural coverage
<http://www.verizon.com/about/news/vzw/2014/06/verizon-wireless-purchases-golden-state-cellular>.

Same situation as above when driving the child-units to Boy Scout Camp
along CA 108. Leaving Sonora heading east you'd better have Verizon. At
Camp Hi Sierra, you can barely get a Verizon signal, but no other
carriers have any coverage (except Sprint roaming on Verizon). For all
the complaints about Sprint, at least they allow roaming on Verizon in
areas where they lack their own coverage.

We often travel to San Diego (child-unit in college there). When we
briefly tried T-Mobile the coverage was terrible on that drive. T-Mobile
dropped out just east of Gilroy on 152. Coverage was sporadic on I-5
from Los Banos to Santa Clarita (trying to use Spotify). Our three
months of hell on T-Mobile ended and we switched to an AT&T provider and
all was well. I kept one phone on Verizon for more rural excursions.

[Harold Newton]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 13:06:48 -0500, nospam wrote:

>>
>> Then AT&T wouldn't let *new* phones block data
>
> they don't prevent it.
>
>> (it's more complex than
>> that, but that's not the point here)
>
> it is the point because once again, you're wrong.

First off, you are so desperate to find a single statement from me that is
factually wrong, that you'll grasp at *anything*, even when I said I was
simplifying the details.

Do you think that I don't have an FCC complaint that has *all* the gory
details, and that I didn't get a call from AT&T Marketing telling me that
they would charge me for data even if I had a data block if I put the SIM
card in a phone that they considered a "smartphone"?

You're so desperate to find something, anything, that I've said that you
can claim isn't factual that the next thing we'll see is you finding a typo
and claiming that it's not factual.

Grow some balls. And some brains.
You'll never find me stating a mistruth because I'm not like you.

I say the truth - you never say the truth.
Don't think I'm like you.

You're like Peter Madsen. A perfect double. And James Comey.
You don't even believe 95% of what you say.

[nospam]

In article <p45doa$128p$2...@gioia.aioe.org>, Harold Newton

<har...@example.com> wrote:

>
> >>
> >> Then AT&T wouldn't let *new* phones block data
> >
> > they don't prevent it.
> >
> >> (it's more complex than
> >> that, but that's not the point here)
> >
> > it is the point because once again, you're wrong.
>
> First off, you are so desperate to find a single statement from me that is
> factually wrong, that you'll grasp at *anything*, even when I said I was
> simplifying the details.

i'm not desperate at all. just about everything you say is wrong.

> Do you think that I don't have an FCC complaint that has *all* the gory
> details, and that I didn't get a call from AT&T Marketing telling me that
> they would charge me for data even if I had a data block if I put the SIM
> card in a phone that they considered a "smartphone"?

their smartphone plans include data.

you were trying to get away with scamming them and they caught you.

that's also different from blocking data, something that's trivially
done on any carrier and there's no way to block that.

[Harold Newton]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 11:16:30 -0800, sms wrote:

> I would respectfully say that you're full of it.

You're welcome to that opinion, but then you have to contrast your opinion
with mine, where I've never stated a mistruth here yet, in tens of
thousands of posts over the decades, and where you just tried to sell me
the brooklyn bridge on both benchmark results and iPhone batteries.

My credibility is nearly 100% (even I might make a mistake once in a
while).

Yours was good until you tried to claim your illogical claims about
benchmarks and batteries - both of which fail any logic test.

What we can say, logically, is that both you and I have "anecdotal
evidence", where I too have traveled with T-mobile and I certainly have
traveled with people in the car with other carriers, just as I camp out
with the grandkids with plenty of other people since we're in organized
camping groups just as you are.

The coverage, in my anecdotal experience, is "about the same", while in
your anecdotal experience, they're not.

That's fine. But don't imply that I'm "full of it".
Just say your anecdotal experience doesn't match mine.

And that's fine.
That's how anecdotal experience works.

What we all need are FACTS - which I'm not afraid of - that prove the
point, either way.

Why would I care either way whether T-mobile or Verizon or AT&T has
"better" coverage in the places it matters to me.

I don't care which way the answer goes - but my anecdotal experience has
been that it doesn't matter - while yours has been that it does.

Let's stop this until or unless we find FACTS to support the claims.

HINT: It's an age-old question, so there are billions of articles
portending to answer it.

[Harold Newton]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 14:36:42 -0500, nospam wrote:

> i'm not desperate at all. just about everything you say is wrong.

When you get that childishly silly, I don't even read your post further.

[Harold Newton]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 13:06:48 -0500, nospam wrote:

> t-mobile's coverage is excellent and *very* fast.
>
> a decade ago it wasn't as good, but those days are long, long gone.

Since you always guess, once in a while you actually guess right!

[nospam]

In article <p45eo9$1420$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Harold Newton

<har...@example.com> wrote:

> I don't even read your post further.

of course not, because it proves you wrong yet again.

[nospam]

In article <p45elm$13s0$2...@gioia.aioe.org>, Harold Newton

<har...@example.com> wrote:

> What we all need are FACTS - which I'm not afraid of - that prove the
> point, either way.

you're *terrified* of facts.

whenever anyone provides any, you fly off the handle.

[The Real Bev]

Ditto. Friend with Verizon (or maybe Sprint) can get signal up on the
mountain while we're skiing. With T-Mobile I have to drive around in
town before I can find a spot that will let me make a call.

I'm going to try my Freedompop hotspot + Hangouts next time and see if
that works any better.

If I really needed better coverage I'd have to pay a LOT more than the
$10/year it costs me now :-)


--
Cheers, Bev
"If Mary Jo could float I would have been president."
-- Ted Kennedy

[nospam]

In article <p45iis$gbj$1...@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev

<bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm going to try my Freedompop hotspot + Hangouts next time and see if
> that works any better.
>
> If I really needed better coverage I'd have to pay a LOT more than the
> $10/year it costs me now :-)

not if you shop around a bit, and you wouldn't have to fuss with two
carriers either.

[JF Mezei]

On 2018-01-22 13:04, Harold Newton wrote:

> Then AT&T wouldn't let *new* phones block data (it's more complex than
> that, but that's not the point here) so I summarily dropped AT&T for
> T-Mobile (after toying with the idea of changing the IMEI because AT&T
> insisted that they'd charge you for data if you switched the SIM card into
> a phone that 'could' have data - even if you had data blocked!).

The problem was people who got data-capable phones without data plans,
and would rack up $10,000 bills because they ended up using data anyways
but being charged $1 per byte or whatever the fee was for use of data
without a data plan.

There are other aspects too because they benefit when you move from a
low ARPU plan with no data to a far mreo expensive plan with data.

(and charging exorbitant amounts for us eof data without data plan was
part of the strategy to push people to higher monthly packages to avoid
those $10,000 bills).

[sms]

On 1/22/2018 12:46 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 01/22/2018 09:53 AM, sms wrote:
>> On 1/22/2018 9:51 AM, Harold Newton wrote:
>>> T-Mobile finally beats Verizon to become fastest 4G LTE network in U.S.
>>> <http://mashable.com/2018/01/22/tmobile-rules-opensignal-report-2018/>
>>
>> Too bad about their coverage.
>
> Ditto.  Friend with Verizon (or maybe Sprint) can get signal up on the
> mountain while we're skiing.  With T-Mobile I have to drive around in
> town before I can find a spot that will let me make a call.
>
> I'm going to try my Freedompop hotspot + Hangouts next time and see if
> that works any better.
>
> If I really needed better coverage I'd have to pay a LOT more than the
> $10/year it costs me now :-)

Yeah, I keep a $10/year T-Mobile phone just because I have so much money
on the account. But I can't find that phone right now.

T-Mobile coverage is fine on the eastern seaboard, but in California and
much of the west, if you ever venture outside of urban areas you're
going to be without coverage.

[Ant]

Sure if you get good signals. In my rural area, you get nothing! Same
for others like Sprint. Verizon barely gets a signal though. :P

--
Quote of the Week: "Ants live safely till they have gotten wings." --unknown
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail privately. If credit-
| |o o| | ing, then please kindly use Ant nickname and URL/link.
\ _ /
( )

[Harold Newton]

The VP at AT&T kept giving me that "consistent bill" bullshit where I had
to constantly remind her that the phone line had a *data block* so it's
impossible to use data.

They'd let you have a data block, but they wouldn't let you put the SIM in
a phone that they called a "smart phone", where, they had the nospam-like
duplicity to say, with a straight face "what good is a smart phone not with
a data plan?".

That's when I realized that the VP was either the dumbest person on the
planet, or, just a duplicitous liar like nospam is.

It's frustrating to deal with people who say dumb things like that with a
straight face because you have to think:
a. Are they really that stupid?
b. Or, do they really think I'm that stupid?

It's the same with nospam with his deadpan responses of duplicity.

In the end, I gave up, and the government said AT&T told them they
"resolved" it, which was a bold outright lie but I was worn down by then.

The way I resolved it was to drop AT&T and move to T-Mobile and I've been
happy ever since.

[nospam]

In article <p46des$flv$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Harold Newton

<har...@example.com> wrote:

>
> The VP at AT&T kept giving me that "consistent bill" bullshit where I had
> to constantly remind her that the phone line had a *data block* so it's
> impossible to use data.

that doesn't matter.

at&t's smartphone plans require data.

you were trying to scam them by using a smartphone on a non-smartphone
plan and you got caught.

if you don't like their plans, find another provider.

[Harold Newton]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 20:53:45 -0600, Ant wrote:

> Sure if you get good signals. In my rural area, you get nothing! Same
> for others like Sprint. Verizon barely gets a signal though. :P

If you're on Verizon, and you have weak signal, don't they give you free
femtocells or free repeaters or free routers for wi-fi calling?

T-Mobile will normally give you one of those for free, but they gave me two
(which works better because my house if large).

I have the free femtocell, which connects to the SOHO router, and I have a
free repeater, which has a wall unit and a house unit.

With those, I get *great* cellular signal strength inside the house.
Can't you do the same with Verizon?

[Harold Newton]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 23:51:56 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> The VP at AT&T kept giving me that "consistent bill" bullshit where I had
>> to constantly remind her that the phone line had a *data block* so it's
>> impossible to use data.
>
> that doesn't matter.

It's rare that you say a truthful statement that even you believe, but you
are correct that, to AT&T, it didn't matter one bit that I had a data block
on the line. If the SIM was to be put into anything that they arbitrarily
listed as a 'smart phone', then it *had* to have data.

> at&t's smartphone plans require data.

The service already existed and it had a data block.

The blackberry was grandfathered, but if I replaced the blackberry with
another phone, and if that other phone was on an arbitrary list of phones
that AT&T deemed to be a "smart" phone (at that time, not all phones were),
then even with the data block, they said they would charge the high data
plan.

> you were trying to scam them by using a smartphone on a non-smartphone
> plan and you got caught.

As usual, you think everyone thinks like you think.
I wasn't scamming anyone.
I was *asking* them how their system worked.

I didn't even *own* a smart phone at that time.
It was my first smart phone that I was considering buying.

And I didn't want data.

As usual, you think everyone thinks the devious way your brain works.

It's incomprehensible to you that someone would simply *ask* AT&T how their
plan works.

> if you don't like their plans, find another provider.

Worked for me!
You haven't heard me say anything bad about T-Mobile have you?

Well, they did charge an extra $50 for the phones I bought from them on
zero-percent interest for two years - but that's really just interest.

T-Mobile even gave me *two* different cellular extendors, one a femtotower
and the other a repeater - which I can't complain about - because they saw
how big the house was in their GPS maps.

T-Mobile gives me free SIM cards all the time (I've *never* had to pay for
a SIM card ever from them), and T-Mobile gives me free data on all my iOS
devices (not much - but enough to use when I need it).

The best thing I did was get off Verizon, and then the best thing I did
after that was get off of AT&T. I'm happy with T-Mobile, where, trust me,
if I wasn't happy - I'd be complaining to you how bad they are.

But they're the best of the three IMHO, although I didn't have all three at
the same time, so I went from analog razrs to Kyocera's on Verizon, to
Blackberrys and razrs on AT&T to a variety of iOS and Android "smart"
phones on T-mobile.

[The Real Bev]

On 01/22/2018 09:17 PM, Harold Newton wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 20:53:45 -0600, Ant wrote:
>
>> Sure if you get good signals. In my rural area, you get nothing! Same
>> for others like Sprint. Verizon barely gets a signal though. :P
>
> If you're on Verizon, and you have weak signal, don't they give you free
> femtocells or free repeaters or free routers for wi-fi calling?
>
> T-Mobile will normally give you one of those for free, but they gave me two
> (which works better because my house if large).

Any chance they can supply 12V versions? I should ask the local
T-Mobile shop...

> I have the free femtocell, which connects to the SOHO router, and I have a
> free repeater, which has a wall unit and a house unit.
>
> With those, I get *great* cellular signal strength inside the house.
> Can't you do the same with Verizon?

--
Cheers, Bev
There is a fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness.'

[sms]

On 1/22/2018 6:53 PM, Ant wrote:
> Sure if you get good signals. In my rural area, you get nothing! Same
> for others like Sprint. Verizon barely gets a signal though. :P

It's amusing to look at the cleverly worded advertising campaigns and
pick them apart.

Remember when Cingular, was claiming "fewest dropped calls?" Not only
was it shown to be untrue, but in order to have a dropped call you first
have to have a call connect.

Then you have the claims of coverage based on the percent of the
population, instead of geographic area.

And of course the claim of the fastest data rates are amusing because
the only reason is that the network usage is sufficiently low that
there's little congestion to slow data rates. Besides that, to any user,
the difference between 8Mb/s and 80Mb/s is negligible in any
application, and would only make a difference if you're transferring
ginormous quantities of data.

<http://www.kansascity.com/news/business/technology/article97326092.html>
"RootMetrics noted T-Mobile’s network performed well in metropolitan
areas but not as well in rural markets."

<https://www.cio.com/article/2972239/consumer-electronics/wireless-network-tests-prove-competition-boosts-quality-of-us-carriers.html>
"T-Mobile's test results are particularly interesting. The carrier
offers very fast and reliable data service in many metro areas, but
performance drops off quickly when users leave cities. If you don't
leave your home city very often, T-Mobile may well be your best bet.
However, if you frequently travel outside of your home ground, or live
in a rural area, you might find yourself in the no-bar zone."

[nospam]

In article <p46i1j$9j2$1...@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev

<bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> > If you're on Verizon, and you have weak signal, don't they give you free
> > femtocells or free repeaters or free routers for wi-fi calling?
> >
> > T-Mobile will normally give you one of those for free, but they gave me two
> > (which works better because my house if large).
>
> Any chance they can supply 12V versions? I should ask the local
> T-Mobile shop...

there is absolutely *no* point in that.

[nospam]

In article <p46ghu$j18$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Harold Newton

<har...@example.com> wrote:


>
> If you're on Verizon, and you have weak signal, don't they give you free
> femtocells or free repeaters or free routers for wi-fi calling?

all of the big four offer femtos for free.

however, it obviously won't work while not at home.

[Ken Blake]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 16:04:27 -0800, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

You're right that it's better in the east than in the west. But since
I'm rarely outside of urban areas, the coverage in the west is good
enough, and it's been fine for me everywhere.

See https://www.t-mobile.com/coverage/coverage-map for details of
coverage.

Interestingly, in ND and SD, two states that I don't think of as at
all urban, coverage is nearly universal.

[sms]

On 1/23/2018 8:04 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 16:04:27 -0800, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/22/2018 12:46 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
>>> On 01/22/2018 09:53 AM, sms wrote:
>>>> On 1/22/2018 9:51 AM, Harold Newton wrote:
>>>>> T-Mobile finally beats Verizon to become fastest 4G LTE network in U.S.
>>>>> <http://mashable.com/2018/01/22/tmobile-rules-opensignal-report-2018/>
>>>>
>>>> Too bad about their coverage.
>>>
>>> Ditto.  Friend with Verizon (or maybe Sprint) can get signal up on the
>>> mountain while we're skiing.  With T-Mobile I have to drive around in
>>> town before I can find a spot that will let me make a call.
>>>
>>> I'm going to try my Freedompop hotspot + Hangouts next time and see if
>>> that works any better.
>>>
>>> If I really needed better coverage I'd have to pay a LOT more than the
>>> $10/year it costs me now :-)
>>
>> Yeah, I keep a $10/year T-Mobile phone just because I have so much money
>> on the account. But I can't find that phone right now.
>>
>> T-Mobile coverage is fine on the eastern seaboard, but in California and
>> much of the west, if you ever venture outside of urban areas you're
>> going to be without coverage.
>
>
> You're right that it's better in the east than in the west. But since
> I'm rarely outside of urban areas, the coverage in the west is good
> enough, and it's been fine for me everywhere.

True. But a lot of Californians do also venture outside of urban areas.
You're okay with T-Mobile on the two major east-west roads, I-80 and
US50, but if you ever leave the urban core, even to travel to another
urban core, i.e. SF Bay Area to Los Angeles, or if you travel out to
most of the recreational areas and National Parks in rural areas,
T-Mobile is definitely not the carrier for you. You can just look at
their maps and figure this out!

Even on AT&T and Verizon, be careful because often the roaming that is
needed in areas where there are smaller carriers is only available on
their postpaid services, and not on their prepaid or MVNO services. I.e.
Cricket coverage is very different than AT&T postpaid coverage.

You can see the subject of this thread and how meaningless it actually
is. Being the "fastest" is of no consequence, when no user of the
second, third, or fourth fastest carrier would ever be able to tell the
difference in speed except when running a speed test. But when a carrier
can't talk about things that really matter, like geographic coverage,
they find something else to talk about. Latency and download speed are
of such extremely minor importance when they are low-enough and
high-enough, respectively, that no user would ever notice a difference,
yet one testing company gives equal weight to the carrier with
marginally faster downloads and marginally lower latency.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

[joe]

Look closer, much of that coverage is on a partner with no LTE data.

[sms]

On 1/23/2018 8:32 AM, joe wrote:

<snip>

> Look closer, much of that coverage is on a partner with no LTE data.

One thing that really hurt T-Mobile was the expiration of many of the
roaming agreements with AT&T Wireless and Cingular (back when they were
separate companies). While T-Mobile still has roaming agreements on many
smaller rural carriers, there isn't much AT&T roaming. You really notice
this loss of coverage in the outer parts of the Bay Area, like up in the
Santa Cruz mountains.

In California, there are very few small carriers, if any, left. Verizon
and AT&T acquired them, leaving T-Mobile in an even worse position than
before.

[nospam]

In article <p47qll$aq7$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> In California, there are very few small carriers, if any, left. Verizon
> and AT&T acquired them, leaving T-Mobile in an even worse position than
> before.

t-mobile got a significant chunk of spectrum after at&t's failed
attempt to buy them, leaving t-mobile in a very good position, the
opposite to what you claim.

also, california is just one state out of 50. there's a lot more going
on in this world that what goes on in california.

[Harold Newton]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 21:43:14 -0800, The Real Bev wrote:

> Any chance they can supply 12V versions? I should ask the local
> T-Mobile shop...

You have to agree not to "move" them around without T-Mobile permission,
but I get your drift that they'd be great inside a car.

Let me look at the power supply, which is really all that matters.

The repeater (which basically just picks up a weak signal and amplifies it)
has a power supply whose secondary is 12 VDC at 1.5 Amps, which is
*perfect* for a cigarette-lighter adapter, don't you think?

The femtocell, which has to be attached to a router, has a power supply
secondary output of 12 VDC at 2.0 Amps - which is also within the range of
a car.

Of course, they work in hotels too, and camping, so, you *could* get away
with it - but I wonder if they could tell?

For the repeater, they might not be able to tell, unless the repeater
itself sends a signal *back* to the tower since I've already seen using the
debugging tools on the Android phone that the repeater just repeats the
*same* tower information to the phone.

That is, the Android debugging tools I've used show clearly that the
repeater itself, does not seem to provide the phone with any other number
but the nearest (strongest) unique tower number.

However, when my Android phone picks up the femtocell, the *unique* number
of the femtocell *is* displayed on the phone (this test can't work on iOS
even though the iOS Apple Apologists "say" it can, sans any proof).

In summary, for the free T-Mobile cellular repeater:
a. The free repeater use 12 volts DC input at 1.5 Amps of current
b. Hence, the repeater could be used in a car, theoretically (I assume)
c. Certainly it could be used camping or at a hotel
d. But would T-Mobile know that you moved it?
e. Maybe not. The repeater just strengthens the local tower strength
f. Does the repeater report back to T-Mobile? I don't know.

In summary, for the free T-Mobile cellular femtocell:
A. The free femtocell uses 12 volts DC input at 2.0 Amps of current
B. But it needs to be connected, via Ethernet cable, to 'something'
C. In a car, I don't know of that 'something' to connect to (do you?)
D. Certainly it could be used camping or at a hotel if you have an AP
E. But would T-Mobile know that you moved it?
F. Probably. The femtocell has a unique tower number & your IP address
G. However, you can change your IP address so, maybe T-Mobile won't notice?
H. But the IP address has a "geolookup" location - which they 'could' see

Dunno enough about this, but I added sci.electronics.repair because smart
people like Jeff Liebermann know this stuff far better than I do.

All I know is that T-Mobile gave me both, even though they normally only
give you one, because I have a large house and I get my Internet over the
air via WISP which Jeff Liebermann is intimately familiar with, so they
gave me both, for redundancy, for free, with zero deposit required.

[nospam]

In article <p47rfo$qi9$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Harold Newton

<har...@example.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 21:43:14 -0800, The Real Bev wrote:
>
> > Any chance they can supply 12V versions? I should ask the local
> > T-Mobile shop...
>
> You have to agree not to "move" them around without T-Mobile permission,
> but I get your drift that they'd be great inside a car.

only if you have a very, very long ethernet cable, because:

> The femtocell, which has to be attached to a router...

...

> Dunno enough about this,

yep. you don't.

[Harold Newton]

It's an interesting question, but kind of outside the realm of this
newsgroup so I moved the discussion over to the home, wisp, and electronics
newsgroup just now so as to better answer The Real Bev's question.

Here is the thread on the various newsgroups:
http://tinyurl.com/alt-internet-wireless
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.internet.wireless/MA_JEJ1JvKc>
http://tinyurl.com/sci-electronics-repair
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.electronics.repair/keHFcrmptyk>
http://tinyurl.com/alt-home-repair
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.home.repair/sWSyKnt3hDo>



SUBJECT:
Could a T-Mobile repeater & femtocell be moved to a new location outside the Santa Cruz mountains?

THEORETICAL question (not a legal question!):

Given there are *huge* gains to be made in cellular signal strength...
<https://u.cubeupload.com/RUsTGy.jpg>

Q: Would T-Mobile *know* if I *moved* the femtocell and/or repeater to a
different location altogether than my own house?
<https://u.cubeupload.com/RU3rGl.jpg>

I live in the Santa Cruz mountains, where all cellular carrier signal
sucks, and I have a big house ... hence, my cellular carrier, T-Mobile,
provides me a free femtocell, and since my Internet comes from about 5
miles away over the air via WISP from another mountain, T-Mobile also gave
me a free cellular repeater.

Here's a picture of the repeater and femtocell:
<https://u.cubeupload.com/sSOph0.jpg>

Here is a picture of just one of my many access points inside my house:
<https://u.cubeupload.com/EZvpx3.jpg>

Given that there is unquestionably a *huge* signal strength advantage:
<https://u.cubeupload.com/jqV5cR.jpg>

The question came up in another discussion by "The Real Bev" whether the
repeater or femtocell can "realistically" be "moved" to a second or third
location.
<https://u.cubeupload.com/RLxLv5.jpg>

Ignoring the legality, since, as I recall, T-Mobile made me agree verbally
over the phone that I would inform them if I move them, and knowing that
the output of both transformers are 12VDC at 1.5 and 2.0 Amps, the question
is *theoretical* only!
<<https://u.cubeupload.com/RJ3cs6.jpg>>

Theoretical question:
Q: How would T-Mobile *know* if I *moved* the femtocell and/or repeater to
a different location altogether than my own house?

[Harold Newton]

On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 08:28:50 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> If you're on Verizon, and you have weak signal, don't they give you free
>> femtocells or free repeaters or free routers for wi-fi calling?
>
> all of the big four offer femtos for free.
>
> however, it obviously won't work while not at home.

Thanks for the answer for the femtocell... (aka microcell).

Q: Do the big-four carriers offer free femtocells sans deposit?
A: Apparently, yes.

Q: Do the other big-four carriers also offer free *repeaters*?
A: ?

Q: Do any of the other big-four carriers also offer a free Wi-Fi Router?
A: ?

[Ken Blake]

On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 08:23:54 -0800, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

>You can see the subject of this thread and how meaningless it actually
>is. Being the "fastest" is of no consequence, when no user of the
>second, third, or fourth fastest carrier would ever be able to tell the
>difference in speed except when running a speed test. But when a carrier
>can't talk about things that really matter, like geographic coverage,
>they find something else to talk about.

I generally agree. But although you say geographic coverage really
matters, I want to point out that although it really matters to some
people, it doesn't really matter to others. As I said in my previous
message in this thread, it hardly matters at all to me.

[Ken Blake]

Thanks for pointing that out. I hadn't noticed.

However those are two states I've never been in, and that I will
probably never go to.

[Harold Newton]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 22:04:45 -0800, sms wrote:

> It's amusing to look at the cleverly worded advertising campaigns and
> pick them apart.

Hi sms,

I agree with you and disagree with you, but only as a respectful healthy
adult of sentience and intelligence.

It's not at all true that all statistics lie ... just as it's not true that
correlation can't imply causation...
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUti6vGctQM>

But it is true that you have to understand the statistic before you can
*accurately* grasp what they say.

It's clear to me that most people don't even understand the simplest things
about the world we live in because they rely completely on their intuition.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IM630Z8lho8>

Likewise, most people don't understand the Marketing bullshit that Apple
and Google and Microsoft and Samsung and Verizon/T-Mobile/Sprint/AT&T put
out.

Marketing is *very clever* and people are (essentially) intuitive morons.

For example, since Apple *said* they "told us", we saw post after post
after post after post after post (ad infinitum) by the Apple Apologists
that "they knew" all about the throttling, and yet ... we belatedly find
out that Apple fibbed in their "apology". They quietly *inserted* the
"power management" well after the release notes were released!

Apple clearly fibbed in that unsigned apology - and yet - I'll wager there
are *billions* of people who still think Apple "told us" all along!

Likewise, Apple fibbed in the unsigned apology by attempting beyond all
reason to *blame* the battery and even to blame the industry for having
similar batteries - even though there isn't a *single* reliable reference
that backs up that ridiculous claim - and quite a few obvious facts that
directly contradict that ridiculous claim.

And yet, even you, and certainly the Apple Apologists, desperately cling to
that ridiculous and easily proven false claim.

Why?
*I suspect you desperately cling to only what supports your belief system.*

That's how we're different.
My belief system is based solely on facts.

I can change my belief system on a dime.
All I need are facts to the contrary of my current belief system.

But you seem to cling to a belief system that is devoid of supporting facts.

Just like there are *plenty* of people who don't even understand the very
utter basics of the world we live in.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4B_x1XjBhiI>

[nospam]

In article <p47u2s$veo$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Harold Newton

<har...@example.com> wrote:

> My belief system is based solely on facts.

ones which you have fabricated and which bear absolutely no relevance
to reality.

> I can change my belief system on a dime.
> All I need are facts to the contrary of my current belief system.

such facts have been provided and yet you haven't changed anything.

instead, you go into rant mode and start insulting anyone and everyone.

[sms]

On 1/22/2018 12:46 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 01/22/2018 09:53 AM, sms wrote:
>> On 1/22/2018 9:51 AM, Harold Newton wrote:
>>> T-Mobile finally beats Verizon to become fastest 4G LTE network in U.S.
>>> <http://mashable.com/2018/01/22/tmobile-rules-opensignal-report-2018/>
>>
>> Too bad about their coverage.
>
> Ditto.  Friend with Verizon (or maybe Sprint) can get signal up on the
> mountain while we're skiing.  With T-Mobile I have to drive around in
> town before I can find a spot that will let me make a call.

One year my wife was skiing at Homewood, on the west shore of Lake
Tahoe, and she decided that she was good enough to try the moguls. She
wasn't. I got a call from her to "call the ski patrol." I called. They
brought her down and I drove her to the hospital in Truckee with a knee
injury.

Had she been on T-Mobile, she might have not made it. This was more than
ten years ago. Today, there is some patchy T-Mobile service up there.

[JF Mezei]

On 2018-01-23 12:20, nospam wrote:

> t-mobile got a significant chunk of spectrum after at&t's failed
> attempt to buy them, leaving t-mobile in a very good position, the
> opposite to what you claim.

The spectrum allowed t-mobile to refarm its frequencies to "standard"
use (for instance, LTE on 1700). It did not magically cause towers to
grow from the ground.

One important aspect is that for the few years prior to AT&T's takeover
being blocked, T-Mobile had thrown in the towel since there was no point
in improving network that would be shutdown once it merged with AT&T.

Once the takeover was blocked, T-Mobile had to scramble to come back to
life (hence its agressive marketing and network building). But It was
coming from way behind.

While it has made big improvements, it still lags AT&T outside cities
and/or main interstates.

Also, in northern NY state, it relies on AT&T as "partner network" but
on prepaid service, you may or may not have access to "partner networks"

[nospam]

In article <eaM9C.193311$ww.6...@fx27.iad>, JF Mezei

<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>
> > t-mobile got a significant chunk of spectrum after at&t's failed
> > attempt to buy them, leaving t-mobile in a very good position, the
> > opposite to what you claim.
>
> The spectrum allowed t-mobile to refarm its frequencies to "standard"
> use (for instance, LTE on 1700). It did not magically cause towers to
> grow from the ground.

it was a huge bonus for t-mobile, and they're now very competitive.

[sms]

On 1/23/2018 11:37 AM, JF Mezei wrote:
> On 2018-01-23 12:20, nospam wrote:
>
>> t-mobile got a significant chunk of spectrum after at&t's failed
>> attempt to buy them, leaving t-mobile in a very good position, the
>> opposite to what you claim.
>
> The spectrum allowed t-mobile to refarm its frequencies to "standard"
> use (for instance, LTE on 1700). It did not magically cause towers to
> grow from the ground.

LOL. It's really tough for an urban carrier like T-Mobile to justify
spending hundreds of millions of dollars on new towers to provide
coverage in rural areas with very low population density, just so their
customers can have coverage when traveling through those areas. But AT&T
isn't interested in providing roaming to T-Mobile, especially data
roaming
<https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/12/t-mobile-wins-fight-against-att-and-verizon-over-data-roaming-charges/>.

While it's hard to feel sorry for AT&T or Verizon, the fact is that they
spent a ginormous amount of money on coverage for sparsely populated
areas and they aren't anxious to provide that coverage at a low price to
enable a national competitor.

> One important aspect is that for the few years prior to AT&T's takeover
> being blocked, T-Mobile had thrown in the towel since there was no point
> in improving network that would be shutdown once it merged with AT&T.

Well not shut down, the spectrum would have been used for increased
capacity.

> Once the takeover was blocked, T-Mobile had to scramble to come back to
> life (hence its agressive marketing and network building). But It was
> coming from way behind.
>
> While it has made big improvements, it still lags AT&T outside cities
> and/or main interstates.

They positioned themselves pretty well as a lower-cost alternative for
customers for whom ubiquitous coverage is not important. I'm sure we all
know plenty of people that rarely venture outside urban areas.

> Also, in northern NY state, it relies on AT&T as "partner network" but
> on prepaid service, you may or may not have access to "partner networks"

Same deal with a lot of MVNOs, or a carrier's own prepaid services. Very
limited roaming. Obviously a carrier can't make its lower cost prepaid
services so good that it takes customers away from its higher cost
services. You now see AT&T worsening its Cricket service with higher
prices and less roaming, probably because their marketing campaign for
Cricket was taking customers from AT&T postpaid, and not just Boost,
Metro PCS, Virgin, etc..

[nospam]

In article <p485kf$vrn$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> >> t-mobile got a significant chunk of spectrum after at&t's failed
> >> attempt to buy them, leaving t-mobile in a very good position, the
> >> opposite to what you claim.
> >
> > The spectrum allowed t-mobile to refarm its frequencies to "standard"
> > use (for instance, LTE on 1700). It did not magically cause towers to
> > grow from the ground.
>
> LOL. It's really tough for an urban carrier like T-Mobile to justify
> spending hundreds of millions of dollars on new towers to provide
> coverage in rural areas with very low population density, just so their
> customers can have coverage when traveling through those areas.

that's no different than any other carrier.

the money is in urban areas, not rural.

> Obviously a carrier can't make its lower cost prepaid
> services so good that it takes customers away from its higher cost
> services.

sure it can.

it's much better that they sign up for a carrier's own low cost service
than a competitor's offerings.

[Harold Newton]

On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 13:27:16 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> My belief system is based solely on facts.
>
> ones which you have fabricated and which bear absolutely no relevance
> to reality.

Except that you are incensed that you can't find a *single* fact that I've
stated that you can find wrong (except perhaps typos).

Meanwhile, I know you're ill educated because nobody who has been through
two decades of schooling would lower their credibility to the level you are
willing to lower yours by your outright flip-the-coin guesses on
everything.

>> I can change my belief system on a dime.
>> All I need are facts to the contrary of my current belief system.
>
> such facts have been provided and yet you haven't changed anything.

You are fantastic at wasting everyone's time saying absolutely nothing of
fact.

>
> instead, you go into rant mode and start insulting anyone and everyone.

I only tell the truth.
I'm not afraid of facts because, unlike you, my belief system is built on
facts.

Yours is not.
Your belief system is a house of cards ... which is why facts are a dire
threat to you.

You call facts trolls - because facts threaten the underpinnings of your
entire belief system.

You know this is true.

BTW, speaking of facts ...
I've told you where I live, what phone I own, where I went to school, etc.

How about you?

[nospam]

In article <p488mr$1gur$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Harold Newton

as expected, you proved my point.

[JF Mezei]

On 2018-01-23 14:49, nospam wrote:

> it was a huge bonus for t-mobile, and they're now very competitive.

When you preparing your own funeral, anything which reverses that parth
is a huge bonus.

T-Mobile was the only US network to have deployed 3G on 1700. And with
Apple refusing to put 3G-1700 on the iPhone, it put t_mobile at a severe
disadvantage.

The end of AT&T's attempt to weaken T-Mobile (to make it easier to
acquire) also saw Apple magically lift the decision to not support 3G on
1700, and T-Mobile getting enough spectrum to deploy 4G and refarm 3G to
1900 giving it a more standard network with regards to spectrum use for
each tech.

But fixing the spectrum is only part of bringing T-Mobile back from near
death experience. Getting some 700mhz greatly helped extend range of
coverage for its existing antennas in areas where it has 700mhz. It hels
with in-building coverage in urban areas, but doesn't lug "coverage
holes" since T-Mobil already had good coverage in urgan areas.


The 600mhz it has acquired will help plug many holes, but handset
availability may be a problem without AT&T deploying it.

[nospam]

In article <6hO9C.582513$4Z6....@fx41.iad>, JF Mezei

<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>
> > it was a huge bonus for t-mobile, and they're now very competitive.
>
> When you preparing your own funeral, anything which reverses that parth
> is a huge bonus.

they weren't preparing a funeral.

> T-Mobile was the only US network to have deployed 3G on 1700.

because it was cheaper than the other bands.

> And with
> Apple refusing to put 3G-1700 on the iPhone, it put t_mobile at a severe
> disadvantage.

apple added aws with the iphone 5, although shortly after that,
t-mobile refarmed to non-aws, so it didn't really matter.

[JF Mezei]

On 2018-01-23 15:23, sms wrote:

> Well not shut down, the spectrum would have been used for increased
> capacity.

In such a merger, the acquiring network keeps very little of the
infrastructure of the acquired network. There may be tower locations
where the acquired network had better location, or better leasing deal
than what AT&T had, so AT&T would be moving its network to that tower.

The merger of the 2 networks is done rather quickly. First, AT&T allows
T-Mobil SIM cards to roam on the AT&T network seamlessly. (and on
iPhone, can reprogram the T-Mobile carrier.plist to make AT&T network
"native" so the Phone doesn't think it is roaming).

And then, as T-Mobile radios are shut in each neighbourhood and its
spectrum moved to the nearby AT&T radios, the T-mobile customers without
realizing it, end up on the AT&T network.

Owners of older handsets will be given deals. The older tri band
T-Mobile handsets cannibalized 850mhz support to add 1700 at 3G and had
2G at 1900. AT&T has 3G at 1900 and 4G at 1700 which means those old
phones would not work at all and those customers would be given deals to
upgrade phones. (this happened in Canada when new entrants who also had
3G on 1700 found themselves with incompatible handsets when purhcased by
incumbent).

And you will find that T-Mobile will likely have to do similar deals as
it completes the refarming iof spectrum and eventually shuts 2G on 1900.
(but the loger you work, the fewer customers you need to deal with).

> They positioned themselves pretty well as a lower-cost alternative for
> customers for whom ubiquitous coverage is not important. I'm sure we all
> know plenty of people that rarely venture outside urban areas.

Correct. However, when it comes to discussions about coverage outside
urnan areas, the differences between T-Mobile and AT&T/Verizon become
far greater. And while T-Mobile may be improving, it takes time.

As an aside:

In 1998/1999, I could get 1900 coverage from Omnipoint at a motel in
Fort Edward NY. In 2010, there was no longer any coverage (Omnipoint
acquired by Voicestream which became T-=Mobile). This was at a time when
T-Mobile was in talks with AT&T already. So in some rural areas,
network coverage got WORSE. (back in 1999, Glenn Falls was the
northermost coverage for Omnipoint but from Albany to New York it was
well deployed)

[nospam]

In article <oxO9C.496$8W2...@fx19.iad>, JF Mezei

<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> > They positioned themselves pretty well as a lower-cost alternative for
> > customers for whom ubiquitous coverage is not important. I'm sure we all
> > know plenty of people that rarely venture outside urban areas.
>
> Correct. However, when it comes to discussions about coverage outside
> urnan areas, the differences between T-Mobile and AT&T/Verizon become
> far greater. And while T-Mobile may be improving, it takes time.

took time. significant improvements have already happened.

t-mobile's coverage is *much* better than it was a decade ago.

[JF Mezei]

On 2018-01-23 15:55, nospam wrote:

> the money is in urban areas, not rural.

Flip side of coin: it often costs far less to setup in rural because
municipality welcomes the service and the cost of tower is far lower
than in urban areas where you have to fight to get permits, and there is
bidding to raise price of prized locations for antennas, and you have to
pay higher rent for buildings upon which you affix antennas.

Depending on geography, in a rural area, you can really get then 30km
diameter coverage from a single antenna and capture everyone there. But
in Manhattan, you need to have small cells with antennas at every second
street corner (or whatever).

So the perceived advantages of urban vs rural are not as big as carriers
make it out to be. You have to realise that the carriers pitch rural as
very hard and expensive to do because they smell subsidies or other firm
of relief (tax/regulatory) from government. If they didn't paint rural
as really hard, they wouldn't get those freebies from government.

[Harold Newton]

On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 16:27:11 -0500, nospam wrote:

> as expected, you proved my point.

Hehhehheh,.,..
Classic Apple Apologist troll.

Facts threaten you because your entire Apple Apologist belief system has,
as its foundation, only Marketing dogma - with nary a fact to support it.

[The Real Bev]

On 01/23/2018 09:30 AM, Harold Newton wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 21:43:14 -0800, The Real Bev wrote:
>
>> Any chance they can supply 12V versions? I should ask the local
>> T-Mobile shop...
>
> You have to agree not to "move" them around without T-Mobile permission,
> but I get your drift that they'd be great inside a car.
>
> Let me look at the power supply, which is really all that matters.
>
> The repeater (which basically just picks up a weak signal and amplifies it)
> has a power supply whose secondary is 12 VDC at 1.5 Amps, which is
> *perfect* for a cigarette-lighter adapter, don't you think?

Exactly. Does it have a wall-wart with a USB socket? OTOH, I have a
couple of converters...

> The femtocell, which has to be attached to a router, has a power supply
> secondary output of 12 VDC at 2.0 Amps - which is also within the range of
> a car.
>
> Of course, they work in hotels too, and camping, so, you *could* get away
> with it - but I wonder if they could tell?
>
> For the repeater, they might not be able to tell, unless the repeater
> itself sends a signal *back* to the tower since I've already seen using the
> debugging tools on the Android phone that the repeater just repeats the
> *same* tower information to the phone.

Why would they bother? Why would they even care?

> That is, the Android debugging tools I've used show clearly that the
> repeater itself, does not seem to provide the phone with any other number
> but the nearest (strongest) unique tower number.
>
> However, when my Android phone picks up the femtocell, the *unique* number
> of the femtocell *is* displayed on the phone (this test can't work on iOS
> even though the iOS Apple Apologists "say" it can, sans any proof).
>
> In summary, for the free T-Mobile cellular repeater:
> a. The free repeater use 12 volts DC input at 1.5 Amps of current
> b. Hence, the repeater could be used in a car, theoretically (I assume)
> c. Certainly it could be used camping or at a hotel
> d. But would T-Mobile know that you moved it?
> e. Maybe not. The repeater just strengthens the local tower strength
> f. Does the repeater report back to T-Mobile? I don't know.
>
> In summary, for the free T-Mobile cellular femtocell:
> A. The free femtocell uses 12 volts DC input at 2.0 Amps of current
> B. But it needs to be connected, via Ethernet cable, to 'something'
> C. In a car, I don't know of that 'something' to connect to (do you?)

I have USB and earphone sockets, but no ethernet :-( Does it normally
plug into 110V with a wallwart? I have a converter. Doesn't solve the
ethernet problem, though, which presumes a router :-( Never mind...

You'd think they'd provide a simple cigarette-lighter plug-in unit.
It's to their advantage that you be able to connect with T-Mobile as
often as possible -- otherwise you might choose Verizon. Maybe even a
rechargeable battery-operated unit so I could phone from the ski slope :-)

> D. Certainly it could be used camping or at a hotel if you have an AP
> E. But would T-Mobile know that you moved it?
> F. Probably. The femtocell has a unique tower number & your IP address
> G. However, you can change your IP address so, maybe T-Mobile won't notice?
> H. But the IP address has a "geolookup" location - which they 'could' see

Perhaps run a VPN on your phone. No idea how practical this is.

> Dunno enough about this, but I added sci.electronics.repair because smart
> people like Jeff Liebermann know this stuff far better than I do.
>
> All I know is that T-Mobile gave me both, even though they normally only
> give you one, because I have a large house and I get my Internet over the
> air via WISP which Jeff Liebermann is intimately familiar with, so they
> gave me both, for redundancy, for free, with zero deposit required.

I NEED to visit the T-M store.

--
Cheers, Bev
"Once you've provoked a few people into publicly swearing they are
going to hunt you down and kill you, the thrill wears off."
-Elric of Imrryr

[The Real Bev]

On 01/23/2018 09:50 AM, Harold Newton wrote:

> The question came up in another discussion by "The Real Bev" whether the
> repeater or femtocell can "realistically" be "moved" to a second or third
> location.
> <https://u.cubeupload.com/RLxLv5.jpg>

For me, that question is moot: "T-Mobile 4G LTE CellSpot is available to
current postpaid and simple choice customers. Prepaid customers cannot
currently request a 4G LTE CellSpot." I assume this is the repeater.

https://support.t-mobile.com/docs/DOC-24269

Supposedly there's a deposit, and you have to return the thing when you
cancel service.

[nospam]

In article <MDO9C.413597$NJ1.2...@fx22.iad>, JF Mezei

<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>
> > the money is in urban areas, not rural.
>
> Flip side of coin: it often costs far less to setup in rural because
> municipality welcomes the service and the cost of tower is far lower
> than in urban areas where you have to fight to get permits, and there is
> bidding to raise price of prized locations for antennas, and you have to
> pay higher rent for buildings upon which you affix antennas.

the only advantage of rural areas is you need fewer towers because
there are fewer people. it also helps if the terrain is flat, such as
states like kansas or nebraska.

of course, just about all of the highways have coverage, so there's no
problem for those who take road trips.

venture off the highway and coverage varies, no matter what carrier it
is.

in dense urban areas, there could be a tower on every city block,
sometimes in individual buildings, and in some cases, on *each* floor,
depending on demand.

[nospam]

In article <p48cte$khe$1...@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev

<bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > For the repeater, they might not be able to tell, unless the repeater
> > itself sends a signal *back* to the tower since I've already seen using the
> > debugging tools on the Android phone that the repeater just repeats the
> > *same* tower information to the phone.
>
> Why would they bother? Why would they even care?

e911

[sms]

On 1/23/2018 2:18 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
> On 2018-01-23 15:23, sms wrote:
>
>> Well not shut down, the spectrum would have been used for increased
>> capacity.
>
> In such a merger, the acquiring network keeps very little of the
> infrastructure of the acquired network. There may be tower locations
> where the acquired network had better location, or better leasing deal
> than what AT&T had, so AT&T would be moving its network to that tower.

The tower locations are a hugely valuable asset. Towers that are close
together are still needed to increase capacity. Changing the equipment
on the tower is an expense that is almost lost in the noise.

Getting a new tower approved, permitted, and constructed, can be a five
year or more process. The T-Mobile tower closest to me took about ten
years, in fact the process was began prior to T-Moble buying Cingular's
1900 MHz network in California, following Cingular's acquisition of AT&T
Wireless, and their wanting to only keep the 850 MHz AT&T network which
was far better.

You should see what the carriers are demanding in California in terms of
towers. Thankfully Governor Brown vetoed SB649. "In a signing statement,
Brown wrote that while he saw the value in “extending this ​innovative
technology rapidly and efficiently,” the bill took too much control away
from cities and counties."

[sms]

On 1/23/2018 2:25 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
> On 2018-01-23 15:55, nospam wrote:
>
>> the money is in urban areas, not rural.
>
> Flip side of coin: it often costs far less to setup in rural because
> municipality welcomes the service and the cost of tower is far lower
> than in urban areas where you have to fight to get permits, and there is
> bidding to raise price of prized locations for antennas, and you have to
> pay higher rent for buildings upon which you affix antennas.
>
> Depending on geography, in a rural area, you can really get then 30km
> diameter coverage from a single antenna and capture everyone there. But
> in Manhattan, you need to have small cells with antennas at every second
> street corner (or whatever).

All true for flat rural. But in the Sierras, the problem is that it's
not flat. The rural carrier spent a lot of money providing coverage in
difficult to cover areas. Verizon invested in them and eventually
purchased them. To this day, Verizon coverage in those areas is far
superior to other carriers that either only tried to cover major roads
(AT&T), depended on roaming (Sprint), or didn't even bother to try to
provide coverage.

[Harold Newton]

On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 14:27:57 -0800, The Real Bev wrote:

>> The repeater (which basically just picks up a weak signal and amplifies it)
>> has a power supply whose secondary is 12 VDC at 1.5 Amps, which is
>> *perfect* for a cigarette-lighter adapter, don't you think?
>
> Exactly. Does it have a wall-wart with a USB socket? OTOH, I have a
> couple of converters...

We should take this conversation over to the thread *just* for this topic.

[Savageduck]

On Jan 23, 2018, nospam wrote
(in article<230120181743348137%nos...@nospam.invalid>):

I live about 13 miles West of Paso Robles, CA in hilly country, and West of
the 101 corridor. Between my home and town there are two dead spots for
Verizon coverage, one of about 1 mile, and one of about 2 miles. Verizon
service is good at my home and for most of the drive into town. AT&T service
has been questionable, as have both Sprint, and T-Mobile. Along the 101
corridor, and in town there is coverage and good service for all.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

[The Real Bev]

I only ski where there are other people -- generally more than I'd like
:-( When I broke ribs I had to depend on the kindness of strangers to
call for help. Same when my defective binding broke.

I suck at moguls :-(

--
Cheers, Bev
"Faster, faster, until the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death."
-- Hunter S. Thompson

[Harold Newton]

On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 14:35:25 -0800, The Real Bev wrote:

>> The question came up in another discussion by "The Real Bev" whether the
>> repeater or femtocell can "realistically" be "moved" to a second or third
>> location.
>> <https://u.cubeupload.com/RLxLv5.jpg>
>
> For me, that question is moot: "T-Mobile 4G LTE CellSpot is available to
> current postpaid and simple choice customers. Prepaid customers cannot
> currently request a 4G LTE CellSpot." I assume this is the repeater.
>
> https://support.t-mobile.com/docs/DOC-24269
>
> Supposedly there's a deposit, and you have to return the thing when you
> cancel service.

Yes, there is "supposedly" a deposit, just like there is a SIM card fee of
something like $15, but T-Mobile has *never* charged me either, and I get a
*lot* of SIM cards from them, and two of these "cell spot" devices.

BTW, from a branding perspective, "Cell Spot" is sort of like "iPhone".
They use that "cell spot" name for *different* things.

Both of my devices are *called* a "personal cellspot:, but they're
different.
<https://u.cubeupload.com/RU3rGl.jpg>

One is a repeater.
The other is a femtotower.

Both make an astoundingly huge difference in signal strength!
<https://u.cubeupload.com/RUsTGy.jpg>

> I assume this is the repeater.
> https://support.t-mobile.com/docs/DOC-24269

No. That's the free femtocell that plugs into your router.

The "repeater" is the two-piece unit called "4G LET Signal Booster":
<https://u.cubeupload.com/sSOph0.jpg>

You see two of them in that photo because I complained to T-Mobile about it
not working and they sent me a new one by next-day delivery.

The femtocell is the one on the right called "4G LTE CellSpot".

> Supposedly there's a deposit,

They "waived" the supposed deposit for me and for *every* one of my
relatives who got it (more than one). So I don't think there "is" a
deposit, in practice.

> and you have to return the thing when you cancel service.

I think they said they'd charge me $400 if I didn't return it when they ask
for it, e.g., when they sent me a second repeater (aka signal booster).

[Harold Newton]

On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 17:43:34 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> Why would they bother? Why would they even care?
>
> e911

This is a useful answer from you nospam, which I, for one appreciate.

Probably T-Mobile cares for the following reasons.

1. I assume, as nospam did, that they have regulatory E911 constraints
2. I assume they also have FCC radio-spectrum broadcast constraints
3. In addition, I assume they gave the repeater to me for a reason and that
reason was *not* to move it around but to garner coverage in my home which
sits on a mountaintop quite a few miles away from the cellular towers.

Thanks nospam for being helpful.
--
BTW, Snit just responded in the s.e.r. thread, which you might find funny
(he did it under the nym ("pf...@aol.com" <pf...@aol.com>); but it was 100%
Snit. It's actually kind of funny. But also sad. Here's the link:

<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.electronics.repair/keHFcrmptyk/wQMauAmNAwAJ>
Could a T-Mobile repeater & femtocell be moved to a new location outside the Santa Cruz mountains?

[JF Mezei]

On 2018-01-23 17:14, nospam wrote:

>> When you preparing your own funeral, anything which reverses that parth
>> is a huge bonus.

> they weren't preparing a funeral.

Deutsche Telekom had annoucned it wanted out of its US subsidiary, would
no longer invest and want to sell it. Once the AT&T deal emerged,
during the long time it took for govt to rejevct it, T-Mobile started to
prepare to move its customers to AT&T and decide which towers/links
would be integrated into AT&T and which would be retired.

>> T-Mobile was the only US network to have deployed 3G on 1700.
>
> because it was cheaper than the other bands.

Nop. T-Mobile got 1900 from its original carriers (Omnipoint,
Voicestream (and a Sprint GSM system in Washington DC). It didn't get
the 850 that the big carriers got for analogue in late 1980s.

The next auction was 1700. The big guys had already deployed 3G on 1900,
but T-Mo didn't have enough 1900 to split it between 2G and 3G. It's
only choice was to buy some 1700 and put 3G on it. (meanwhile, AT&T,
Verizon waitied for LTE to be ready before making use of their 1700).

> apple added aws with the iphone 5, although shortly after that,
> t-mobile refarmed to non-aws, so it didn't really matter.

AWS 3G support came after AT&T deal was killed. The Canadian new entrant
carriers, also stuck with 3G on 1700 (because that is all they had)
confirmed to CRTC that it was pressure from AT&T on Apple which
prevented 3G support on AWS, which was hurting their ability to grow in
Canada.

[nospam]

In article <NMU9C.59639$k%2.4...@fx33.iad>, JF Mezei

<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>
> >> When you preparing your own funeral, anything which reverses that parth
> >> is a huge bonus.
>
> > they weren't preparing a funeral.
>
> Deutsche Telekom had annoucned it wanted out of its US subsidiary, would
> no longer invest and want to sell it. Once the AT&T deal emerged,
> during the long time it took for govt to rejevct it, T-Mobile started to
> prepare to move its customers to AT&T and decide which towers/links
> would be integrated into AT&T and which would be retired.

that's not a funeral.

> >> T-Mobile was the only US network to have deployed 3G on 1700.
> >
> > because it was cheaper than the other bands.
>
> Nop. T-Mobile got 1900 from its original carriers (Omnipoint,
> Voicestream (and a Sprint GSM system in Washington DC). It didn't get
> the 850 that the big carriers got for analogue in late 1980s.
>
> The next auction was 1700. The big guys had already deployed 3G on 1900,
> but T-Mo didn't have enough 1900 to split it between 2G and 3G. It's
> only choice was to buy some 1700 and put 3G on it. (meanwhile, AT&T,
> Verizon waitied for LTE to be ready before making use of their 1700).

they had a choice, and chose the less expensive option.

[JF Mezei]

On 2018-01-23 17:21, nospam wrote:

> t-mobile's coverage is *much* better than it was a decade ago.

Most of the marketed improvements are due to T-Mobile getting some 700
and 600mhz which have greater range from existing antennas, and may not
refloect actual deployments of new antennas.

Note that neither 600 nor 700 spectrum holdings by t-mobile are
nationwide, so in areas where T-Mo has neither, coverage has not
improved much. (and few if any handsets support the 600 yet)

[JF Mezei]

On 2018-01-23 17:47, sms wrote:

> All true for flat rural. But in the Sierras, the problem is that it's
> not flat. The rural carrier spent a lot of money providing coverage in
> difficult to cover areas.

And in urban areas, they spend a lot of "legal" money to get the
permits, negotiate leases on existing towers etc. It takes a lot of time
to get this done, during which those lawyers are paid high salaries.

[Harold Newton]

On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 00:29:25 -0500, JF Mezei wrote:

> Most of the marketed improvements are due to T-Mobile getting some 700
> and 600mhz which have greater range from existing antennas, and may not
> refloect actual deployments of new antennas.
>
> Note that neither 600 nor 700 spectrum holdings by t-mobile are
> nationwide, so in areas where T-Mo has neither, coverage has not
> improved much. (and few if any handsets support the 600 yet)

JF Mezei,

You seem to know a *lot* about T-Mobile, as does nospam.
In this case, surprisingly, nospam and I agree.

Since I only care about facts, and since you must know that by now, why is
it that I haven't seen any anecdotal evidence of T-Mobile being as bad as
you seem to be portraying it?

To be sure, I live in Silicon Valley where the signal is pretty much great
for all the major carriers, and I live on a mountaintop where *all* the
carriers suck - but I also travel - where I've had people in the same car
and same hotel and same campground - and while there definitely is signal
difference at times - it *seems* spread out pretty much evenly.

Bearing in mind I have only anecdotal evidence, I just wonder aloud...

Why is your experience seemingly so different than mine?

[nospam]

In article <VQU9C.59640$k%2.2...@fx33.iad>, JF Mezei

<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>
> > t-mobile's coverage is *much* better than it was a decade ago.
>
> Most of the marketed improvements are due to T-Mobile getting some 700
> and 600mhz which have greater range from existing antennas, and may not
> refloect actual deployments of new antennas.

nope. it's refarming 3g and deploying lte

[sms]

On 1/23/2018 9:25 PM, JF Mezei wrote:

<snip>

> Deutsche Telekom had annoucned it wanted out of its US subsidiary, would
> no longer invest and want to sell it. Once the AT&T deal emerged,
> during the long time it took for govt to rejevct it, T-Mobile started to
> prepare to move its customers to AT&T and decide which towers/links
> would be integrated into AT&T and which would be retired.

The big issue was the cost of investment needed to make T-Mobile into a
national carrier that could compete against AT&T and Verizon in terms of
coverage. But the strategy of targeting customers that cared more about
price than coverage was still profitable.

> Nop. T-Mobile got 1900 from its original carriers (Omnipoint,
> Voicestream (and a Sprint GSM system in Washington DC). It didn't get
> the 850 that the big carriers got for analogue in late 1980s.

True. Nor did Sprint.

> The next auction was 1700. The big guys had already deployed 3G on 1900,
> but T-Mo didn't have enough 1900 to split it between 2G and 3G. It's
> only choice was to buy some 1700 and put 3G on it. (meanwhile, AT&T,
> Verizon waitied for LTE to be ready before making use of their 1700).

The most amusing part of this is when T-Mobile decided to call its
non-LTE system, "4G." "T-Mobile will be able to launch HSPA+42 (HSPA+
service with a theoretical maximum download speed of 42Mbps, which it
calls 4G) service"

[sms]

Still, if T-Mobile decides to build towers in more rural areas, by the
time this occurs there will be handsets with those bands. It's very
possible that in 15-20 years T-Mobile will be able to be on par with the
top tier carriers in terms of coverage.

[sms]

True. And one thing they do is to not offer enough money to owners of
property with ideal cell locations, then proclaim that they need to be
allowed to put towers in parks, schools, etc.. The closest tower to me
is a fake-tree Verizon tower in the parking lot of our City Hall. We
have only Verizon coverage in our Civic Center area. AT&T is planning to
share the Verizon tower sometime later this year.

When the iPhone first launched, it was on AT&T only for several years.
There were a lot of very upset residents in my city because the AT&T
coverage was poor at the time and they couldn't use their iPhones at
home. But of course they also did not want cell towers in residential
neighborhoods. For our city, all of the mobile devices purchased by the
City are on Verizon.

Speaking only for myself.

[nospam]

In article <p4ak0v$35q$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> The most amusing part of this is when T-Mobile decided to call its
> non-LTE system, "4G." "T-Mobile will be able to launch HSPA+42 (HSPA+
> service with a theoretical maximum download speed of 42Mbps, which it
> calls 4G) service"

4g is a marketing term. it does *not* mean lte.

sprint initially used the term 4g for their wimax network, which turned
out to be a failure, and t-mobile's hspa+ was often faster than lte
from other carriers, which is what actually matters to users, not the
specifics of the air interface.

<https://gizmodo.com/5680755/the-dirty-secret-of-todays-4g-its-not-4g>
Right now, every major carrier in the US is touting a "4G" network
that's either available or being rolled out. Sprint is pushing WiMax.
AT&T and Verizon are pushing LTE (Long-Term Evolution). T-Mobile is
pushing HSPA+ (High Speed Packet Access Evolved). They're all faster
than the "3G" speeds than we're used to, with WiMax and HSPA+
delivering consistent, real-world speeds of anywhere from
3Mbps-12Mbps today. But a rep for the ITU told me flatly, "The fact
is that there are no IMT-Advanced黍r 4G虐ystems available or deployed
at this stage." Calling their newer, faster networks "4G" is
"completely marketing" by the carriers, says Gartner analyst Phil
Redman.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTC_Evo_4G>
The HTC Evo 4G (trademarked in capitals as EVO 4G, also marketed as
HTC EVO WiMAX ISW11HT in Japan) is a smartphone developed by HTC
Corporation and marketed as Sprint's flagship Android smartphone,
running on its WiMAX network. The smartphone launched on June 4, 2010
and was the first 4G enabled smartphone released in the United
States.

[nospam]

In article <p4akgp$6h0$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> When the iPhone first launched, it was on AT&T only for several years.
> There were a lot of very upset residents in my city because the AT&T
> coverage was poor at the time and they couldn't use their iPhones at
> home. But of course they also did not want cell towers in residential
> neighborhoods. For our city, all of the mobile devices purchased by the
> City are on Verizon.

no, the complaints were because at&t's network was overloaded.

they wildly underestimated how much data would actually be used,
assuming usage would be similar to previous smartphones, such as
blackberry. they were very wrong.

[nospam]

In article <p4ak41$35q$2...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> Still, if T-Mobile decides to build towers in more rural areas, by the
> time this occurs there will be handsets with those bands. It's very
> possible that in 15-20 years T-Mobile will be able to be on par with the
> top tier carriers in terms of coverage.

they already are.

[JF Mezei]

On 2018-01-24 00:34, Harold Newton wrote:

> Since I only care about facts, and since you must know that by now, why is
> it that I haven't seen any anecdotal evidence of T-Mobile being as bad as
> you seem to be portraying it?

My argument is that T-Mobile spent a few years in a state of
abandonment, waiting for a buyier and then waiting for AT&T to be
approved. Only after that, did they have to fight to remain alive and
they started from a very low level because of those years before.

They have improved. But much of the improvement was due to greater range
of the 700mhz they got IN CERTAIN AREAS. In areas where they didn't get
700mhz, the improvements have not been significant since it takes time
to deploy new antennas in new locations.

There are areas where they are good, and areas where their coverage maps
are overly optimistic (akaL in real live, no coverage).

> Why is your experience seemingly so different than mine?

I traveled through different areas of the USA than you, and never on an
interstate (since bikes not allowed).

And since I use prepaid while in USA, I only get T-Mobile's "native"
network, so I really see coverage holes that a postpaid customer may not
see.

[JF Mezei]

On 2018-01-24 01:06, nospam wrote:

> nope. it's refarming 3g and deploying lte

This does not change coverage. Whether you use 1700 for HPSA/UMTS or for
LTE/VoLTE doesn't change the coverage in a significant fashion.

But deploying service on 700 when in the past all you had was 1900 and
1700 makes a significant difference, even in urban areas as 700 has
better building penetration than frequencies above 1ghz. And it also has
better range from an antenna.

[nospam]

In article <5r7aC.499$8W2...@fx19.iad>, JF Mezei

<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:


> My argument is that T-Mobile spent a few years in a state of
> abandonment, waiting for a buyier and then waiting for AT&T to be
> approved. Only after that, did they have to fight to remain alive and
> they started from a very low level because of those years before.

they didn't, but then an offer came along.

> They have improved. But much of the improvement was due to greater range
> of the 700mhz they got IN CERTAIN AREAS. In areas where they didn't get
> 700mhz, the improvements have not been significant since it takes time
> to deploy new antennas in new locations.

no it wasn't.

> There are areas where they are good, and areas where their coverage maps
> are overly optimistic (akaL in real live, no coverage).

that applies to all carriers.

[nospam]

In article <jt7aC.500$8W2...@fx19.iad>, JF Mezei

<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>
> > nope. it's refarming 3g and deploying lte
>
> This does not change coverage. Whether you use 1700 for HPSA/UMTS or for
> LTE/VoLTE doesn't change the coverage in a significant fashion.

lte is not only 1700mhz and they don't need 700mhz to deploy lte.

[JF Mezei]

On 2018-01-24 15:17, nospam wrote:

> 4g is a marketing term. it does *not* mean lte.

Only in the USA. In rest of the world, carriers don't fool the iPhone to
display "4G" when its on HSPA/UMTS.

In the rest of the world 4G = LTE. (note that in Canada, Telus attempted
4G sheninigans when LTE wasn't widely deployed yet but has gotten back
in line with rest of world:

TELUS utilizes the following frequency bands:

4G LTE and LTE Advanced:
2100 MHz downlink and 1700 MHz uplink (AWS)
1900 MHz
700 MHz
850 MHz
HSPA: 850 MHz and 1900 MHz (UMTS)

> sprint initially used the term 4g for their wimax network,

wimax was 4g along with LTE, in a VHS vs betamax battle. LTE won. (to a
lerge extent because LTE was compatible with GSM and made for easier
co-existence between 3G and 4G GSM.

> out to be a failure, and t-mobile's hspa+ was often faster than lte
> from other carriers, which is what actually matters to users, not the
> specifics of the air interface.

But still a 3rd generation protocol and compression.

Whether a carrier's infrastructure provides trhoughput or not does not
change the fact that it is using 4G software/protocols aka LTE.

Consider AT&T when iPhone came out, It was not able to give 2G speeds on
its network, not because it was 2G, but because the links between towers
and central offices didn't have sufficient capacity. This has nothing to
do with what generation of protocol you are using. Similarly, a carrier
may have implemented the lastest in protocols and software, but
insufficient spectruj for the number of customers it has in an area will
result in bad performance. But it is still a 4G installation.

[nospam]

In article <4U7aC.327966$247.1...@fx40.iad>, JF Mezei

<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>
> > 4g is a marketing term. it does *not* mean lte.
>
> Only in the USA. In rest of the world, carriers don't fool the iPhone to
> display "4G" when its on HSPA/UMTS.

it's not a question of fooling. 4g can be whatever the carrier wants it
to be. it does have an official definition but not everyone uses it.

>
> But still a 3rd generation protocol and compression.

users see a 4g icon and *much* faster speeds. that's what matters. they
don't know nor care what the underlying technology is.

> Whether a carrier's infrastructure provides trhoughput or not does not
> change the fact that it is using 4G software/protocols aka LTE.
>
> Consider AT&T when iPhone came out, It was not able to give 2G speeds on
> its network, not because it was 2G, but because the links between towers
> and central offices didn't have sufficient capacity.

that's a capacity issue because at&t grossly underestimated how much
data iphone users would use, assuming that it would be comparable to a
blackberry, perhaps a little bit more. they were wrong.

[JF Mezei]

On 2018-01-24 17:10, nospam wrote:

> lte is not only 1700mhz and they don't need 700mhz to deploy lte.
>

Until the AT&T deal was killed and T-Mobile received a boost with some
spectrum, all T-Mo had was 1900 and 1700.

As long as T-Mobile's network was to be shut and integrated into AT&T's
there was no point in spending money to refarm some 3G to 1900 to open
space to deploy LTE on 1700. (leaving little spectrum for 2G, little
spectrum for 3G and little spectrum for LTE.

And when you only have a few Mhz for LTE, you cannot maroet/achieve
speeds that your competitors with much more spectrum can achieve for
LTE. So deploying LTE on limited spectrumn still wouldn't have given
T-Mobile a marketing advantage.

After the AT&T deal was killed, the refarming of 3G towards 1900 allowed
T-Mobile to start to become "standard" in terms of handfset support (and
this was just before 3G support on 1700 was finally unlocked).

[nospam]

In article <hz8aC.201816$%a1.1...@fx35.iad>, JF Mezei

<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> Until the AT&T deal was killed and T-Mobile received a boost with some
> spectrum, all T-Mo had was 1900 and 1700.

true, and on aws.

t-mobile refarmed aws to standard 3g and also added the new spectrum
they got from the failed at&t deal.

> As long as T-Mobile's network was to be shut and integrated into AT&T's
> there was no point in spending money to refarm some 3G to 1900 to open
> space to deploy LTE on 1700. (leaving little spectrum for 2G, little
> spectrum for 3G and little spectrum for LTE.

it wasn't going to be shut.

[nospam]

In article <p4ak41$35q$2...@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> Still, if T-Mobile decides to build towers in more rural areas, by the
> time this occurs there will be handsets with those bands. It's very
> possible that in 15-20 years T-Mobile will be able to be on par with the
> top tier carriers in terms of coverage.

not only are they on par, but they're actually a bit *ahead*.

as of january 2018 (i.e., now):
<http://opensignal.com/reports/2018/01/usa/state-of-the-mobile-network>
For the fourth straight report, LTE signal availability increased
across all four operators networks. That means LTE connections are
becoming easier to find for all consumers and 3G technology is
receding even further into the background. A year ago, no U.S.
operator had a 4G availability score above 90%. Now two operators,
Verizon and T-Mobile, can boast of that honor. As in our last report,
the two leading operators were extremely close in this metric, though
T-Mobile barely edged out Verizon for our 4G availability award in
the 4th quarter. Our testers on T-Mobile were able to connect to an
LTE network 93.1% of the time, while our Verizon users found a
similar connection 92.7%. That's less than a half a percentage point
separating them. That neck-and-neck race was evident in our 33-city
analysis where Verizon had the advantage. Verizon won our 4G
availability award outright in 11 markets, but it drew with T-Mobile
for the award in the remaining 22 markets.

also,
T-Mobile has clearly taken advantage of Verizon's 4G speed
challenges. While last year the two were tied in LTE speed, T-Mobile
is now clearly locked into the lead spot of OpenSignal's 4G speed
rankings. T-Mobile averaged LTE downloads of 19.4 Mbps in our Q4
measurements, compared to Verizon's average of 17.8 Mbps.

[JF Mezei]

On 2018-01-26 18:23, nospam wrote:

> receding even further into the background. A year ago, no U.S.
> operator had a 4G availability score above 90%. Now two operators,
> Verizon and T-Mobile, can boast of that honor.

Having 90% LTE within your own network does not increase network
coverage. It just means software/radios have been updated, doesn't mean
new ones added to increase coverage.

[nospam]

In article <JoRaC.349767$ET6....@fx38.iad>, JF Mezei

nope. it means coverage.

[JF Mezei]

On 2018-01-26 21:24, nospam wrote:

> nope. it means coverage.

T-mobile does not cover 90% of the United states.

[nospam]

In article <s7SaC.370129$EO4.1...@fx28.iad>, JF Mezei

<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>
> > nope. it means coverage.
>
> T-mobile does not cover 90% of the United states.

90% of where people actually are.

cows and cornfields don't have phones and don't really care.

[Elden]

On 2018-01-22, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> Too bad about their coverage.
>
> t-mobile's coverage is excellent and *very* fast.
>
> a decade ago it wasn't as good, but those days are long, long gone.

Not around here. We tried t-mobile and ended up going back to Verizon.
Tired of dropped calls on the main interstate highway. There is no
excuse for that. Coverage could suck in some places, but the interstate
highway should have good coverage, or else you're not even trying.

--
-=Elden=-

[nospam]

In article <3OGdnfOpMIVGfvHH...@giganews.com>, Elden

<use...@moondog.org> wrote:

> >> Too bad about their coverage.
> >
> > t-mobile's coverage is excellent and *very* fast.
> >
> > a decade ago it wasn't as good, but those days are long, long gone.
>
> Not around here. We tried t-mobile and ended up going back to Verizon.
> Tired of dropped calls on the main interstate highway. There is no
> excuse for that. Coverage could suck in some places, but the interstate
> highway should have good coverage, or else you're not even trying.

how long ago was that?

t-mobile *used* to be awful. it's not anymore.

[Elden]

On 2018-01-27, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> Not around here. We tried t-mobile and ended up going back to Verizon.
>> Tired of dropped calls on the main interstate highway. There is no
>> excuse for that. Coverage could suck in some places, but the interstate
>> highway should have good coverage, or else you're not even trying.
>
> how long ago was that?
>
> t-mobile *used* to be awful. it's not anymore.

Let's just say, it's within recent memory where we're not willing to try
that experiment again anytime soon.

--
-=Elden=-

[nospam]

In article <Lo2dnWoQTb-CZPHH...@giganews.com>, Elden

<use...@moondog.org> wrote:

> >> Not around here. We tried t-mobile and ended up going back to Verizon.
> >> Tired of dropped calls on the main interstate highway. There is no
> >> excuse for that. Coverage could suck in some places, but the interstate
> >> highway should have good coverage, or else you're not even trying.
> >
> > how long ago was that?
> >
> > t-mobile *used* to be awful. it's not anymore.
>
> Let's just say, it's within recent memory where we're not willing to try
> that experiment again anytime soon.

in other words, a quite a while ago.

[JF Mezei]

On 2018-01-27 16:13, nospam wrote:

> t-mobile *used* to be awful. it's not anymore.

I think you swallowed some of John Legère's reality distortion field
without knowing it.

Has T-Mobile improved since US govt glocked AT&T takeover? Yes. Improved
much.

But this does not mean that T-Mobile caught up or surpassed the 2 big
gorillas.

The incumbents got 2 unfair advantages: having started in the 1G/AMPS
days, they had at least 10 years time advantage to slowly build
coverage. And being incumbents, they also had access to existing
infrastructure and partner telcos. Some regional telcos went CDMA with
Verizon, othere went TDMA with AT&T (and then converted to GSM).

Omnipoint/Voicestream started from scratch in mid/late 1990s with urban
coverage. deutsche Telekon got Voicestream (which had just merged with
Omnipoint) in 2001.


> https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/how-the-iphone-led-to-the-sale-of-t-mobile-usa/?hp=

The above article notes how the 2007 launch of iPhone caused T-Mobile
USA to bleed high ARPU customers because T-Mo coudln't get the iPhone.

By 2010, T-Mobile has stopped investing in T-Mo, shipping for a
purchaser in USA because T-Mobile woudl have required too much
investment to get going (spectrum and infrastructure). The money was to
be spent in Europe. But the towel was thrown before that time, likely
in 2008-2009 time frame. I recall Deutsche Telekom making announcement
well before the AT&T deal was announced. (thsi was so it would redirect
its own capital to owt own networks in Europe instead of spending money
on networks in USA that needed too much capital to compete against
AT&T/Verizon.

By end of 2011, the AT&*T deal was killed, and Deutsche Telekom had to
turn to plan B, to resurrect T-Mobile and find another way to sell it.
The big difference is that the spectrum problem was solved because of
the big "gift" from AT&T as part of merger break up.

The merger with MetroPCS resulted in the merged company being pubnlicly
listed,(and this allows Deutsche Telecom to sell its shares over time).
I do not know what is DT's current ambitions with T-Mobile USA in terms
of whether they still want to sell it, or now see it as a viable
business that can return cash that helps it invest in its own european
network)

With regards to T-Mobile's coverage maps, they are highly optimistic,
especially in Northern New York where many places listed as covered are
not covered.

[nospam]

In article <B58bC.64886$k%2.3...@fx33.iad>, JF Mezei

<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>
> > t-mobile *used* to be awful. it's not anymore.
>
> I think you swallowed some of John Legère's reality distortion field
> without knowing it.

nope. one of my phones is on t-mobile and i know quite well what their
coverage is and how it's changed over the years.

> The above article notes how the 2007 launch of iPhone caused T-Mobile
> USA to bleed high ARPU customers because T-Mo coudln't get the iPhone.

2007 was a long time ago, and they bled because the iphone was
unavailable (without jumping through hoops), not due to their coverage.
sprint and verizon also bled customers. once it was possible to
jailbreak/unlock an iphone, t-mobile started supporting it.

in any event, what matters is t-mobile's coverage *today*, not what it
used to be ten year ago. they used to have shitty coverage. they don't
anymore. it's as simple as that.

[JF Mezei]

On 2018-01-27 18:47, nospam wrote:

> nope. one of my phones is on t-mobile and i know quite well what their
> coverage is and how it's changed over the years.

And what percehtage of their alleged coverage area in all fo continental
USA have you walked through to verifty their coverage?

Just vecause they improved covereage where you live does not mean that
similar improvements were made nationwide.

> 2007 was a long time ago, and they bled because the iphone was
> unavailable (without jumping through hoops), not due to their coverage.

The bleeding of customers and Deutsche Telekom no longer injecting much
capital reduced/stopped coverage expansion. The reduction in covage
expansion was the result of the loss of customers. But bad coverage was
also a cause for loss of customers. Vicious circle.

This is BIG when you are a young new company with limited nationwide
coverage (compared to the old established incumbents).

> sprint and verizon also bled customers. once it was possible to
> jailbreak/unlock an iphone, t-mobile started supporting it.

Until Apple added 3G on 1700, a jailbroken or unlocked iPhone would only
get 2G on T-Mobile since the only common frequency was 2G on 1900.
Uploading a picture to post on Twitter would time out because Twitter
servers never assumed it could take so long to upload a picture.

> in any event, what matters is t-mobile's coverage *today*, not what it
> used to be ten year ago.

On the surface, a perfectly correct statement. But today's coverage has
been impacted by T-Mobile's history. So it is wrong to ignore that
hostiry because as a newbie carrier, it stated with urban coverage in a
limited number of cities, and going from that to being considered a
nationwide carrier takes a long time and a lot of investment. And
T-Mobile hasn't had the time to do that yet.

[nospam]

In article <mp8bC.537855$iX.6...@fx39.iad>, JF Mezei

<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>
> > nope. one of my phones is on t-mobile and i know quite well what their
> > coverage is and how it's changed over the years.
>
> And what percehtage of their alleged coverage area in all fo continental
> USA have you walked through to verifty their coverage?

enough areas to see that it's improved over the years.

> > sprint and verizon also bled customers. once it was possible to
> > jailbreak/unlock an iphone, t-mobile started supporting it.
>
> Until Apple added 3G on 1700, a jailbroken or unlocked iPhone would only
> get 2G on T-Mobile since the only common frequency was 2G on 1900.
> Uploading a picture to post on Twitter would time out because Twitter
> servers never assumed it could take so long to upload a picture.

i used to use an iphone 3g on t-mobile. cellular was slow and coverage
was somewhat spotty, but wifi was fast and most of the time i was on
wifi. phone calls and texting was unaffected by it being non-aws.

> > in any event, what matters is t-mobile's coverage *today*, not what it
> > used to be ten year ago.
>
> On the surface, a perfectly correct statement.

more than just the surface.

> But today's coverage has
> been impacted by T-Mobile's history. So it is wrong to ignore that
> hostiry because as a newbie carrier, it stated with urban coverage in a
> limited number of cities, and going from that to being considered a
> nationwide carrier takes a long time and a lot of investment. And
> T-Mobile hasn't had the time to do that yet.

except they did do that.

[Elden]

["Followup-To:" header set to misc.phone.mobile.iphone.]

On 2018-01-27, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>> Let's just say, it's within recent memory where we're not willing to try
>> that experiment again anytime soon.
>
> in other words, a quite a while ago.

Less than two years ago. If that qualifies as "quite a while" for you
then yes.

--
-=Elden=-

[Elden]

On 2018-01-27, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>> Let's just say, it's within recent memory where we're not willing to try
>> that experiment again anytime soon.
>
> in other words, a quite a while ago.

I am at loss as to why you think your experience in your area has
anything to do at all with the coverage in my area.

--
-=Elden=-

[nospam]

In article <UqGdnXDe_5MLqfDH...@giganews.com>, Elden

<use...@moondog.org> wrote:

> >> Let's just say, it's within recent memory where we're not willing to try
> >> that experiment again anytime soon.
> >
> > in other words, a quite a while ago.
>
> I am at loss as to why you think your experience in your area has
> anything to do at all with the coverage in my area.

why do you think your experience is the same for everyone? and what
makes you think i've only sampled one area?

[Elden]

On 2018-01-28, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> I am at loss as to why you think your experience in your area has
>> anything to do at all with the coverage in my area.
>
> why do you think your experience is the same for everyone? and what
> makes you think i've only sampled one area?

Well, the coverage in my area is what it is. My experience really has
very little to do with it.

--
-=Elden=-