T-Mobile To Boost Its LTE Speeds To 400 Mbps (thenextweb.com) 73
An anonymous reader writes from a report via The Next Web: T-Mobile plans to boost its LTE speeds to up to 400 Mbps in the very near future. The Next Web reports: "The company is getting ready to boost its maximum theoretical internet speeds to become the faster carrier in the U.S. by a wide margin. The network will soon support theoretical speeds up to 400 Mbps -- nearly half the speed of Google Fiber. There's a two-pronged approach to the upgrade. First is incorporating 4x4 MIMO (multiple input, multiple output) technology, which will supposedly double the speed from the current 7-40 Mbps customers tend to experience with T-Mobile (about the same as Verizon with LTE-A). This upgrade is available now in 319 cities, although it's a moot point because only the S7 and S7 Edge will be able to use the tech via a software update "later this month." In October, the company will roll out 256 QAM support to the S7 and S7 Edge (and again, more phones later), which increases the amount of bits per transmission. T-Mobile says this will lead to theoretical maximum speeds of 400 Mbps." The Next Web followed-up with T-Mobile to ask about what the real-world speeds would be after the upgrade. The company says "customers can expect to see real world peak speeds of 190 Mbps," which is over four times current peaks speeds, but also far below the theoretical 400 Mbps.
Re: (Score:2)
It's at the 9th percentile, which as of the last update was 26 GB.
If you're on the unlimited unlimited plan, after the 97th percentile you're deprioritized (QoS).
If you're on the not unlimited unlimited plans, you're straight throttled.
Re: (Score:1)
Are their unlimited hot-spot plans?
Because all tethering data is deprioritozed, and if you break the 97th percentile AND have majority of your data via tether, they reserve the right to kick you.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why would anyone in their right mind want to shit up the cellular network by using it as a fixed-line internet replacement. Are people really that cheap or just that stupid?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are there a lot of cell towers in these areas where cell service for internet is a viable option?
In any case, what you are stating just justifies companies having regional pricing
Re: (Score:2)
Are there a lot of cell towers in these areas where cell service for internet is a viable option?
I have 250/25 cable and theoretically 24/2 DSL (really 14/1.5) at my house. A friend of mine two miles away has no cable and theoretically 6/1 DSL that really delivers about 3/256k most days. The same T-Mobile tower covers both of our houses, off which my old Note 4 gets 65/30.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For the most part, it's not the "state" - it's your locality. Cable agreements in the US are almost universally done town-by-town. It's the exact opposite of "state" involvement. The companies were big enough that they could push for exclusive agreements.
Though we could get very in the weeds and argue that corporations themselves are built upon state charters, and that without this corporate invention and limited liability, companies would not get big enough to leverage a locality. Maybe.
Re: Ooh (Score:2)
Anything else I can answer for you?? ;)
It's a hoax article anyway (Score:2)
Good luck with that. This has to be a hoax article. The wireless companies and ISPs built their networks once, a long time ago. Since then they've just been raking in the money. I know this because I read it on Slashdot.
We're all still using 1G service because companies don't spend billions of dollars every year switching their entire nationwide network from cellular to PCS, then to GPRS, upgrading to CDMA, then GSM, then ...
Nope, none of that happens, I learned here on Slashdot. The companies aren't s
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the complaints are about the wired network, not the wireless. Wireless networks have some rent seekers, but there's just about enough competition that you can't get away without at least some network upgrades. In contrast, the US has spent a vast amount of taxpayers' money subsidising the phone companies to replace ageing copper infrastructure with something that can handle high speeds, and had most of that money spent on shareholder dividends rather than upgrades to any of the unprofitable areas.
Re: (Score:2)
No. See, wireless companies actually have this thing called COMPETITION, so they can't sit around on their lazy butts and do nothing. T-Mobile in particular has been great at competing.
Cable companies have this thing called MONOPOLY. This is where you get to sit around on your lazy butt, do nothing and then make up bogus new fees and charges every month for nothing because nobody can leave anyway.
I would like more that 2G speed at my house (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
T-Mobile is either done or nearly done with killing off 2G.
Re: (Score:2)
T-Mobile is either done or nearly done with killing off 2G.
I believe you're mistaken (and thinking of AT&T [rcrwireless.com]). They're the ones getting ready to turn off 2G service. T-Mobile plans to keep it around a little longer [connectedworld.com]. I'm using a 2G phone now with no issues. They should be hounding me to upgrade my handset if they are so interested in killing it off.
Re: (Score:2)
2G is dead on TMobile except for the "M2M" embedded shit and roaming agreements.
Last summer was the last time I heard a peep about them along the lines of upgrade your shit or fuck off.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
T-mobile isn't cutting 2G until at least 2020 [https://www.reddit.com/r/tmobile/comments/47eunc/commitment_to_gsm_for_m2m_through_2020/]
AT&T has cut 2G in most major markets, and 100% by the end of 2016 [https://www.att.com/esupport/article.html#!/wireless/KM1084805]
Range not speed (Score:5, Interesting)
>"T-Mobile plans to boost its LTE speeds to up to 400 Mbps in the very near future."
I don't care. Probably like most people, I would much rather have more coverage/range than crazy speed. Their precious 700Mhz didn't come to my 1.5+ million person area, and my area is certainly not alone. That means mediocre building penetration with existing service and spotty coverage in other areas.
I like T-Mobile, but I wish they would focus on:
* Maintaining low prices, and without catches.
* Coverage/penetration/range.
* Not penalizing people for not handing over direct access to their banking accounts, so-called "auto-pay".
* Stopping with the gimmiky stuff like video transcoding, and the misuse of the word "unlimited".
* Allow us to stop the incessant nagging text messages about "your bill is due" and "your bill is paid" and such.
Re: (Score:1)
1. Ubiquitous coverage
2. Fast speeds
3. Cheap cost
Pick 2. If all you need are coverage and low cost, a Verizon MVNO or possibly Cricket would probably work best for you.
Besides, that 400Mbps isn't so you can get that speed on your phone all by yourself, it's so hundreds or thousands of people can use one cell site at the same time without it becoming so bogged down that you can't load any data. Congestion is becoming a real issue for T-Mobile in many places, these things can help alleviate those problems s
Re: (Score:2)
I think GP assumes that "most people" (his words) absolutely must have coverage in remote bumblefuck nowhere places, of which verizon is marginally better at since T-Mobile can roam on most of AT&T's network, which is almost as big as Verizons. Though I have to say, he probably lives in bumblefuck nowhere if most people he knows need coverage there. As for myself, if I'm going to a place like that, I'm probably on vacation and the last thing I want is people bugging me.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I wasn't saying that at all. A 1.5+ million person area is not a "nowhere place". I generally have coverage most everywhere here. But not good coverage TYPE. Coverage at 3G or 2G is not what customers want in a metro area. Sure, I expect it when I *AM* in a nowhere area.
I am talking about wanting LTE everywhere in the metro area, including inside all buildings.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I wasn't saying that at all. A 1.5+ million person area is not a "nowhere place".
That doesn't tell me anything. Phoenix has a population of over 1.5 million. Not the Phoenix metro area; that's much larger. Just plain ol Phoenix. And, if you head to the Rio Vista district, which is a large area that is very much part of Phoenix, then you're officially out in bumblefuck nowhere while still being able to claim that the city you live in has a population of 1.5 million. Hell, you don't even need to go that far, North Gateway and Desert View also qualify as being bumblefuck nowhere, and they'
Re: (Score:1)
I'm curious why you wouldn't want to use credit-card autopay? Its very easy to initiate a chargeback if they continue to charge you after service is cancelled, and its not like direct access to your checking or savings account (I would never do either of those, that's dumb).
But I don't really see a great reason for caring about credit-card bill-pay, other than the inconvenience of having to get new cards and dispute a bunch of charges if their card database is ever breached.
Re: (Score:2)
its not like direct access to your checking or savings account (I would never do either of those, that's dumb)
Do you not have something equivalent to the Direct Debit Guarantee in the UK? We can happily let companies pull money from our accounts (well, less happily than if they provided their services for free), can cancel their ability to do so in a couple of clicks, and can undo any transactions that we dispute, at which point if they actually do believe that we owed them the money then they have to pursue it through the courts. I'd have thought any vaguely modern banking system would have something similar.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm curious why you wouldn't want to use credit-card autopay? Its very easy to initiate a chargeback if they continue to charge you after service is cancelled, and its not like direct access to your checking or savings account (I would never do either of those, that's dumb).
But I don't really see a great reason for caring about credit-card bill-pay, other than the inconvenience of having to get new cards and dispute a bunch of charges if their card database is ever breached.
It's about control and limitations.
I have a near paycheck-to-paycheck income and due to my physical limitations it's difficult for me to find a job without an interviewer getting freaked and immediately making the decision not to hire me just because they're afraid of what they don't understand and legally, in the US, can't ask. In case you're wondering, it's a huge scar that can't be hidden. Hence, with my far above genius intelligence and... wait, that scares people, too. Let's just say I'm stuck at my
Re: (Score:2)
The actual message I get is "If you haven't already, please refill your plan to ensure continued service." They own the phone company; they own the billing system. Don't they know if my plan has been refilled or not? These messages would be somewhat useful if they were only sent when I had forgotten to make a payment. But as it is, they are a worthless annoyance.
Re: (Score:2)
I am a post-paid customer and get paper bills (which is what I want). So I don't need reminders about paying a bill, or confirmation it is paid. Sprint never did that to me, and as a customer, there should be an opt out for such annoyances.
And yes, they are WORTHLESS noise. If they only sent a notice if the bill was NOT paid, then it would be something useful that I could address.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care. Probably like most people, I would much rather have more coverage/range than crazy speed. Their precious 700Mhz didn't come to my 1.5+ million person area, and my area is certainly not alone. That means mediocre building penetration with existing service and spotty coverage in other areas.
You probably live in a NIMBY area then. It is very expensive for them to provide coverage if no one wants to host at the ideal locations. Dont blame T-Mobile for being cost conscious, blame your neighbors.
SGS5 (Score:1)
Samsung Galaxy S5 user here on T-Mobile. 802.11ac with the phone, I can push roughly 350mbps with it at home, so it isn't raw processing power holding back bandwidth on phones right now. My current record with LTE with this phone is about 85mbps with LTE. But per usual, carriers don't give two shits about anything by latest and greatest handsets, so even through the SGS5 is a flagship phone, it isn't the "current" flagship phone, so no updates at all.
Re: SGS5 (Score:1)
An update won't change your radio or modem hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
Coverage (Score:2)
Now you can hit your b/w cap faster! (Score:1)
This speed doesnt do any good at all as long as there are data caps on it.
One question: why? (Score:2)
Aside from atypical usage (cell sticks and laptops), what is the usage model on a smartphone that benefits from more than about 10Mbps? I understand some day more bandwidth will be useful, but is theoretical throughput an issue today?
Re: (Score:1)
Why? Because on an LTE network the resources are shared between all users within the same server. The more users on LTE the slower it gets. By enabling 4x4 mimo, not only do you get faster speeds, you would also increase the number users the cell can handle which would actually enhance the throughput for all users.
Re: (Score:2)
Then get the railgun and camp by the quad..
Re: 400Mbps speeds this one spot (Score:2)
I was in Reno, NV last month and got LTE everywhere with T-Mobile.
I'm Canadian, and bought a Prepaid SIM while I was down there.
I think the issue is many people's phones don't support the proper frequencies or bands to utilize LTE everywhere it exists. My phone supports all of the T-Mobile frequencies and bands they provide.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)