T-Mobile Confirms 42 Mbps In 2011 > Not "As Fast"

said by ptrowski:

Right. Fast speed in 2 markets doesn't do much for the general population.

said by iLive4Fusion:

DING DING DING! We have a winner!

said by plz :

2 markets? Please. T-Mobile 3G is going to cover most of the original footprint by the end of the year. They changed their goal of 180 MILLION in HSPA+ coverage to 200 MILLION.

Someone with AT&T shouldn't really be talking about T-Mobile's 3G coverage.

said by ptrowski:

It was a comment about the 42 mbps service. no need to get defensive.

said by tiger72:

to to mention that iLive4Apple is simply trolling as he frequently does whenever it comes to T-Mobile.

Hey, if I had 300ms latency on "3g", i'd be catty too.

said by plz :

2 markets? Please. T-Mobile 3G is going to cover most of the original footprint by the end of the year. They changed their goal of 180 MILLION in HSPA+ coverage to 200 MILLION.

Someone with AT&T shouldn't really be talking about T-Mobile's 3G coverage.

said by iLive4Fusion:

Great and AT&T's HSPA+ will cover 250 MILLION people by the end of this year, still more than T-Mobile.

said by iLive4Fusion:

Great and AT&T's HSPA+ will cover 250 MILLION people by the end of this year, still more than T-Mobile.

said by tiger72:

Considering they haven't even started the rollout, that's a lot of talk without a bit of evidence. ATT originally stated that they'd be deploying HSPA+ last year, then they said that they'd deploy LTE this year, and now they're saying they'll *begin* deploying HSPA+ this year. I'll believe that when I see it.

Hell, T-Mobile even beat them to deploy 3g in places like Peoria, IL, and Manhattan, KS. As a matter of fact, Manhattan, KS actually got HSPA+ before ATT even got standard 3g HSDPA there. T-Mobile provides data service in Cheyenne, WY. ATT roams in that entire city. My point? As with ALL wireless carriers, YMMV when it comes to coverage, data speeds, and reliability. I know, your ego is hurt.

Sorry, but your constant trolling about TMO's lack of coverage is as lame and outdated as a George W Bush joke. We get it, years ago that was an issue. But it's 2010. Catch up with reality.

said by iLive4Fusion:

This is 2010 and in reality T-Mobile still is not a good choice for data, their 3G coverage is abysmal, and they STILL have GPRS SPEED'S on the majority of their network. And roaming on AT&T's EDGE isn't really something to be proud of either. I believe AT&T will deploy HSPA+ because they have way more money for network investment than T-Mobile ever will. T-Mobile is the smallest wireless player in the field with the smallest network and it doesn't look like that's changing any time soon.

said by tiger72:

ATT's "EDGE" network is more fluff than anything. In the few areas that TMO does roam ATT (western Kansas now - former alltel, and some parts of missouri), speed tests are around 700ms latency with 55kbps transfers. Makes sense. Kinda. 64kbps is a single channel on a T1. The latency is inexcusable though. My phone shows "Edge", but the speeds are certainly no faster than GPRS. Not that it's a phone problem - on other regionals in the area (northern missouri, south central missouri, arkansas, oklahoma, etc..) I get 120-200kbps and 350ms latency.

My point? Just because it shows "E" doesn't mean that's what you're getting. If you've got a single T1 feeding an 850 tower for both data and voice, then it's pretty easy to fill up the 24 channels. So, just like everything else from ATT: the marketing doesn't exactly match up with the reality. As thousands of news reports for the past 3 years have shown, ATT cuts corners on their network. Over the past couple months, that's certainly improved. (see, unlike you I can acknowledge recent developments)

ATT can roll out LTE-A tomorrow, but if the speeds are crap that's all that matters to me. Hence why - although I'm a customer of both T-Mobile and Sprint, when I need data, I'm relying on T-Mobile. It's consistently faster, cheaper, and with lower and more stable latency than Sprint/Clear's WiMax in more markets. The results are what matters to me. Not the BS marketing.

Speaking of Sprint, maybe you should check your facts. You say (and have repeatedly said) that T-Mobile has the smallest network. It doesn't. Sprint does. Go figure. And in rural areas where Sprint does have native "3g" EvDO coverage, the actual transfer speeds still aren't any faster than T-Mobile EDGE. It's amazing what you'll learn when you don't fall prey to marketing.

So again, when ATT rolls out HSPA+, i'll believe it. Until then, it's just more marketing fluff from a company that spends more on marketing than every other telecom company in the US.

said by iLive4Fusion:

Sprint's EVDO coverage is still significantly larger than T-Mobile's, and yes, I do have a T-Mobile HD2, an AT&T Nexus One, and a Sprint EVO. EDGE on any carrier is going to be high latency and slow, EDGE here pull's an average of 140-170kbps and 500ms latency, T-Mobile's GPRS here is more comparable to iDEN data speed's.

Sprint's rural EVDO coverage is still faster than EDGE though. Sprint's 3G coverage cover's about 75% of American's so I don't know how it's smaller than T-Mobile's network. And overall coverage, it's better than T-Mobile because it can pretty much roam off ANY CDMA network free. T-Mobile has pretty much pulled all AT&T and Unicel roaming here in Alabama.

said by tiger72:

ATT and T-Mobile roam on the same towers, except for the southeast that is. I'll easily concede that T-Mobile's coverage in the Southeast is lacking. Otherwise, ATT and T-Mobile roam on about the same 100 GSM regionals nationwide. And I thought you were referring to native coverage? Now roaming included? If you want to include roaming, then Sprint's network is identical in size to Verizon's.