T-Mobile and 3G

and the next cooler thing about 450 is that its a lower prequency and will go farther and penetrate walls better

 

I'm sure it has more to do with teh frequency allocation and the direction in which things were moving. Sure, it would make more sense to go from 850 to 1700, but I guess they started with 1900 (GSM) and 950 wasn't available. No idea whether 450 is still being played with.

Yes, but it's not practical to use in areas where you may need a lot of simultaneous connections as it can't support as many as higher frequencies. That's why Europe went from 900 to add 1800 -- they needed the extra capacity as the number of subscribers grew. Think of 450 as very rural... small number of people.

 

which would be good because some carriers like Sprint might not work as well out in the boonies where there arent as many people but signal longevity is crucial

 

I thought that the frequency of the spectrum didnt matter and one could launch watever they wanted on it.

 

thats what someone else told me when i said that they cant do EDGE on 850 cuz i was wrong.........

 

I could be wrong, but I believe there are CDMA networks deployed on the 450 MHz in some European countries; they're not just in the testing stage.

 

are they rural countries cuz i figured that almost all of Europe was GSM/GPRS/EDGE or UMTS/HSDPA

 

Except for government regulations... at least in the US

 

I believe Poland and Norway have CDMA networks. Apart from them I'm not entirely sure. I don't think the CDMA networks are operating at anywhere near the level of the GSM/UMTS/HSDPA.

 

Russia has recently started using CDMA, but I believe the emphasis is on data, not voice applications.

 

ohhh......so they arent large scale........okay thats wht i thought.....i figured all of those European and Asian countries had accepted GSM to be the unchangeable standard because its used everywhere.......

 

China Unicom starts to run CDMA 1x too

 

It's not so much a case of it being 'unchangeable', rather it's more the case that it would be very difficult to change it, and not very practical.

 

I just want to point out one thing so people don't get confused. We all know that tehre are 2 versions of 3G CDMA which are WCDMA (used by GSM operators for their UMTS) and CDMA2000 (used by the CDMA operators for their their 3G services of Evdo and 1x etc). So insome article we see come mention of WCDMA and it does not mean that the operator is changing its services to an acutal CDMA netwrok. So when one speeks of a certain country please use the care in clarifying and not grouping WCDMA with the actual CDMA.

 

very true...........

 

check t-mobile forum sticky in hofo
a earlybird testing is undergoing in Bellevue, WA

 

you mean like they are truning on some of their sites for technical testing........do they have any handsets out yet.........have manufacturers given T-Mobile a finished product yet???

 

http://www.nokia.com/nseries/index.html?lang=en&country=US#product,n75

The bands for this phone are WCDMA 850/1900 and GSM 850/9000/1800/1900.

With the other carriers on 850/1900, I would think any phones for T-Mobile would have to encompass all of the bands as the above example has, along with 1700/2100.

 

you mean like and eight band phone:

WCDMA: 850/1700/1900/2100
GSM: 850/900/1800/1900

???


a little confused by that post

 

hey u forgot 700/450 :browani:

 

I think now we have to go back to brick phones again. May be they will make one united phone that has all the GSM goodies combined with all the CDMA goodies and one can use the phone on GSM and roam on CDMA if there is no GSM service or vise versa.

 

In a perfect world, that would make sense.

I can see it now... "Welcome to One United Mobile. GSM, CDMA, TDMA, UMTS, WCDMA, yes, even AMPS! Our phones work EVERYWHERE!" :lol:

 

that would be awesome..........and i wouldnt care if my phone was thick.........just the size.........i dont want the height and width of my phone to be big but the depth can be as thick as it wants.........honestly i like phones with more depth cuz they are easier to hold i think..........but the RAZR makes up for its lost depth by being easy to fit into your pocket and is very wide

 

And with that we can all get stronger by carrying the phone as a weight & the battery time can go back to 15-30 minutes no matter what band your using.
And the Camera could have a telephoto lens and go up to 6MB.:lmao:

Man when I think about it, I don't miss those old brick phones.

 

yeah......i would die if a manufacturer thought they could get away with a brick phone like that but i liked the dimnsions of the phone like the Motorola i920 and i930 or the other phones like the i580.........they have more depth.....my feeling is.......if there is gonna be very little depth........make up for it by adding width.......

 

So I am reviving this thread. Some of the posts got pretty technical, but I'd like to go back to the original premise.

T-Mobile was supposed to be rolling out a 3G network in mid-2007. Well it's basically mid-2007 now and they are awfully quiet about it. Nothing to speak of on the T-Mo site about 3G (you have to do a search to find any references at all). No promotion of 3G phones, that I can see. No maps of 3G coverage.....What's up?


SW

 

Good question Steve, I haven't heard anything as well & maybe they are behind schedule on this or are having a problem with the phone manufactures on the 1700Mhz chips. (hope their not Qualcomm chips that have just been banned).

 

1. First of all, I thought it was late 2008 when they said they would be finished......

2. Second of all, they kept EDGE quiet........i think they might do the same with UMTS.........

some people including myself were talking over at T-Mobile Signal and some inside sources (employees included) have been told that when someone calls for information regarding 3G they are to tell people (and this is the truth not just a conspiracy by Tmo) that the initial goal of 3G will be to improve quality and capacity of the network......those extra services like TV and all those great things that come with won't be intro'd til later.........Tmos aim is to expand the network and give it strength...........when the current customers see potential........they will feel more confident about their network........and they will "spread the word"..........the word of "customer" mouth is an important weapon in the arsenal of big consumer companies.........T-Mobile will introduce those other theings later..........plus the insiders at T-Mobile Signal have told us that Tmos ARPU for data is higher than AT&T to begin with......higher data usage is not what T-Mobile needs............its more customers..............steady customers........

and I think Nokia was designated as the manufacturer........but the licenses that the FCC distributed were tweaked in such a way that they were not like frequencies that would occur over here...........these were more European.........so Nokia has to manufacture whole new handsets the are FCC-approved.........and they prolli have never worked with 1700 and 2100 before............i mean over in Europe they use 900 and 1800.........over here we use 800/850 and 1900...........1700 and 2100 are kinda new to the manufacturers and as far as i know...........Sprint might start using 2100 for WiMax when they give up the 800 iDEN so its gonna get bigger here in the U.S over the next couple of years

 

I don't know when they projected to be finished, but they definitely had plans to start this year. No sign of that to this point. I agree they are keeping it quiet at the moment, that's the source of my question. But here are a couple of T-Mobile press releases from their website.

There are also many press reports going back to 2005 that quote T-Mobile sources as saying there would be a rollout in 2007. You can find these easily with Google. It does seem like they have changed their plans.

I sympathize with their financial issues (not really, but I'm trying to be nice ), but as a customer I'm interested in better service. Better service, for me, would be T-Mo moving to the same data rates as the competition. There's no technical reason they can't do it - you're telling me they are not financially strong enough to do it. That's pretty sad.

Also, it's a little bit of a chicken and egg thing, isn't it? Most other companies are rolling out big and expensive marketing campaigns, along with new services, in order to convince customers to pay for things like music, video, location services, whatever. How are you going to get new customers on costly plans if you don't offer new services? Seems to me you have to spend money to make money.


SW

 

1. the reason that New York had that much of their network prepped for 3G was because Tmo was setting up 3G before they even got licenses......they knew they would get the spectrum they wanted

2. I didn't say that T-Mobile was financially unstable.........i just said that they were more concerned with increasing coverage and making current coverage stronger and able to handle more............they are prepping for those big services and there are road signs.........you just need to look.......now making my point again........the amount of money that Tmo currently makes off of data is the same as AT&Ts...........T-Mobile doesnt have to worry about all that..........3G services will come but they want to show off the skeleton first