T-Mobile Launching First HSPA+ (21 Mbps) Devices

the ext antenna port might be useful

For the two dozen people who live close to T-Mobile's cell towers.

230 million people are covered by ATT's 3g. 205 million are covered by T-Mobile's. If you think ATT has a 3g network, then so does TMO.

Good try, though!

Have you looked at their coverage maps or are you just spouting off stuff you read from a paid shill?

This is what I could find for coverage maps. Looks pretty close with AT&T vs TMobile

Verizon vs AT&T
»www.talkiphone.com/wp-co ··· rage.jpg

Tmobile:
»images.intomobile.com/wp ··· -map.png

...just to be clear only the small dark magenta patches are 3g for tmobile. It is like the 97% coverage map that AT&T uses which is actually EDGE.

Even that is horribly outdated.This coming from an iPhone/ATT fanboi makes me laugh.
To answer the question: yep. And if I cared as much about the marketing (ie coverage map) as you seem to, I'd be paying more for Verizon - not ATT. I don't live in or go to Podunk, ID so I don't care about coverage there. If I did, ATT wouldn't be on my list of providers anyways.

I tend to agree - many of these 3g coverage comparisons are somewhat outdated.

Also, I don't live in the boonies, so I don't really care what kind of 3g coverage there is where I don't visit. If I did, I'd still have some coverage anyways, so it wouldn't bother me.

Where do you get that from? I like the phone (the os is pretty good, but the lack of physical keyboard sucks) but HATE AT&T. They are garbage.

T-Mobile's network just isn't there in terms of coverage in places that aren't metro. Sprint and VZW win that handedly.

Please don't speak unless you actually know what you are talking about.

I am a new(er) T Mobile customer and I get 3G in my town of 40,000 and a town that also has a population of maybe 5,000, probably less.

I love how people put down T Mobile in the news section forum here, but probably never even had their services. They just feel the need to randomly spit out stupid shit replies.

Anyway..here's to hoping T Mobile upgrades my area, I read they are upgrading every current area that has 3G to the new faster speeds. So its not just the west/east coasts..that's just whats up first to be upgraded.

And as far as Sprint goes..their network is crap. My mom has them and she can only get full bars on the main road in town.

It's interesting that you troll the TMO posts about how bad their network is, yet you didn't include ATT in beating TMO's network "handedly". But you included Sprint? Wait, what? Is there any method to your accusations?

Sprint's "coverage" is only "good" because they roam so heavily on Verizon's network. Unless you live in Kansas or Florida, their coverage is as meager as T-Mobile's. In parts of the Southeast - even worse. If one looks objectively at the factors behind this, it makes sense: 1900mhz doesn't go as far as 850mhz, so networks that rely on 1900 (TMO, Sprint, and ATT to an extent) typically have smaller coverage focused around higher population density areas due to the cost.

As for ATT's "coverage", they only look like they have great coverage because they don't make it as clear on their map just how much you roam like Sprint and TMO do. »Re: It's the network

Massive amounts of T-Mobile, ATT, and Sprint's networks are roaming, and yet no one mentions a thing about ATT and Sprint's small native networks. Why? Marketing. Nothing more.

So again, if you're going to make claims about TMO's network, you better take a close look at your own network first.

ATT's 3g is only larger by 25 million - even with a 4 YEAR head start.
ATT's total voice network is nearly identical in size to TMO's.
Sprint, being a 1900 network, is also focused heavily around the cities. If you like their coverage, it's because of VZW roaming.
VZW has, by far, the largest native footprint.

But most importantly: If you just want to be able to get some kind of voice coverage wherever you go in the United States, chances are you'll be good with ANY provider due to extensive roaming agreements... Although you'll be better off with CDMA.

T-Mobile-All of those diagonal lines=roaming

ALL of the beige=NOTHING!

Call me crazy, but I'd rather have the gray roaming (some of it 3G roaming) from your picture, than all of the beige NO SERVICE/911 only. Just sayin'...

Uggh, Jesus.

Yes, I agree. Hence my remark about
"chances are you'll be good with ANY provider due to extensive roaming agreements... Although you'll be better off with CDMA."

My criticism was more directed at ATT users who - for whatever reason - are deluded into thinking that ATT has a massive NATIVE footprint that is almost the same size as Verizon's, while T-Mobile doesn't get service outside of the cities at all. Case-in-point: the OP. They simply bought into the marketing.

Maps distort reality as population density obviously isn't uniform. Take a look at population density and those maps and you will see they have coverage where most of the people are.

People may not live along all parts of I-95, but I sure as shxt like to stream music along the whole thing. ESPECIALLY the sparsely populated areas with crap for radio stations.

Not to mention network access for maps downloads for my GPS software.

I'm no paid shill...I'm not impressed by T-Mobile's 3G network...but to say that it effectively doesn't exist is crap. I'm pretty sure they've got all of your larger cities covered, somewhat akin to the coverage AT&T had three years ago.

I know, I know, you don't want to go back to AT&T's coverage three years ago. But the 205 million people covered line is correct for TMo's 3G coverage (lots of people live in big cities) and for some folks that's all you need.

And T-Mobile's substantially lower price.

On what? Yes there's DataJack, but for a smartphone plan I can get a better deal through Sprint.

Voice, messaging, and data.

Please explain. While Even More plus is $10-$20 cheaper than Sprint's comparable plans, it requires you to pay unsubsidized prices for the phone up front (and Sprint subsidizes some of their phones by more than $240 off of retail) and it doesn't include navigation. Also, night and weekend minutes start at 9 p.m. instead of 7 p.m. and Sprint offers expanded M2M calling versus T-Mobile (Sprint users can call T-Mobile peeps for free thanks to Any Mobile though T-Mo folks can't do the opposite unless they shell out for the unlimited plan).

On the contract side T-Mobile is simply uncompetitive with Sprint; 500 minutes plus text and web for a smartphone costs $10 more than Sprint's equivalent, GPS-enabled, Any Mobile plan.

Additionally, if you go through Everything Plus you can get $10 off Sprint's limited-minute Any Mobile plans so they're right on par with T-Mobile's less feature-packed, no-subsidy Even More Plus oferings.

very good analysis.
Some of TMO's plans are quite competitive, but if you want the cheapest smartphone plan - Sprint's got the market beat. Their 3g/4g plan is also pretty strong.

I (somewhat) disagree on the navigation argument though - If you buy an Android or Nokia handset, you can get free navigation.

If you don't want the contract but want the Sprint coverage you go and buy the Blackberry from the Boost Side and activate it. CDMA all the way and $60 per month, all data, voice and everything else UNLIMITED! Even 3G data!

You can't roam with the Boost blackberry.

I hear you can be sitting on top of a T-Mo tower, yet you still won't get a signal. Strange right

You're talking about AT&T.

No. AT&T is you can be sitting on top of a tower and not being able to make a call with full signal. The problem with T-Mobile is actually getting a signal if you life more than a few miles from the interstate.

hahaha... No your (AT&T) map covering the game is fine we can see through it no problem!! Love it!

These are great numbers for T-Mobile's robust nationwide 3G network!

May I ask why you consistently post the exact same thing?

Actually it's terrible.

T-Mobile's coverage is far spottier than AT&T's . . .

You think AT&T MAP looks spotty, check out T-Mobiles.

Theres NOT a map for that! LOL

Since Port Orchard is served by both T-Mobile voice and 3G, I guess you're amongst the "two dozen people" who live close to T-Mobile's cell towers.

Trees. You live in Seattle. Trees. You must have significantly deeper penetration than a tower that makes it look like you're there.

what do trees have to do with anything?

It benefits them to increase speeds. That way you can reach your monthly bandwidth cap even faster.

but aren't T-Mobile's caps at 10g, whereas AT&T/Verizon cap you at 5g?

»www.t-mobiletowers.com/D ··· ult.aspx

I wonder how up to date it is.. I know two sites here that are not on the map.. I wonder if they are recent installs only.

I think those are T-Mobile's 'towers' only.
This would not include sites where T-Mobile co-locates on someone elses tower or a building.

I see

Launching HSPA+ in some markets but we only have EDGE here? This doesn't seem right...

AT&T and Verizon both have 3G here.

HSPA technology has received widescale support from leading manufacturers; one vendor recently announced plans to showcase live demonstrations of HSPA+ at peak theoretical throughput rates of 84 Mbps : at the upcoming 2010 Mobile World Congress in Barcelona.

Mobile World Congress in Barcelona opens Feb 17th... Maybe ythat is why Karl Bode made the T-Mobile announcement...

JR