T-Mobile To Boost Its LTE Speeds To 400 Mbps (thenextweb.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

T-Mobile To Boost Its LTE Speeds To 400 Mbps (thenextweb.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Tuesday September 6, 2016 @11:30AM from the theory-of-relativity dept.

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.

73 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Ooh by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-06 11:34 · Score: 0

If you can pay for unlimited hotspot data, say goodbye to Comcast!
1. Re: Ooh by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-06 11:41 · Score: 0
  
  It's capped at 26 GB.
2. Re:Ooh by clonehappy · 2016-09-06 12:01 · Score: 1, 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?
3. Re:Ooh by jandrese · 2016-09-06 12:10 · Score: 1
  
  For a good number of people their choices are either hideously expensive satellite, landline phone modem, or cell. Cell is the only reasonable choice. The good news for you is that those people tend to live in more sparsely populated areas, so they won't be stepping on other people quite as much.
  
  --
  
  I read the internet for the articles.
4. Re:Ooh by by+(1706743) · 2016-09-06 12:11 · Score: 1
  
  I think it's a reflection on the current fixed-line internet options available to some people. I'd bet that if these people had the option of reasonably priced ~100Mbps symmetric connections, they wouldn't consider using cell as their primary ISP.
5. Re: Ooh by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-06 12:12 · Score: 0
  
  It could work and it's not unreasonable IF they put up 10 times more cell towers than what is currently up so they can shrink the size of each "cell".
6. Re: Ooh by sexconker · 2016-09-06 12:15 · Score: 1
  
  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.
7. Re:Ooh by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-06 12:23 · Score: 0
  
  Unfortunately this is the case for many. Lousy service, lousy speed and lousy excuses. And then there's the industrial and commercial areas which have little to no internet access unless you enjoy paying $2000 a month for a T1 like I have too.
8. Re:Ooh by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-06 12:57 · Score: 0
  
  I wish I had a reasonably priced 10/1 low latency connection available. Alas, I am beyond cable and AT&T DSL is no longer activating service in the boonies (only 3/384k was available when they did offer it).
  So, my options are Verizon LTE or AT&T LTE. LOS to an AT&T Tower, so great connection as far as bandwidth goes(40/20). Unfortunately the microwave relays are a bit jittery on latency, so gaming isnt an option. On the bright side, I have unlimited data (Average ~300GB per month for the past year).
9. Re:Ooh by JackieBrown · 2016-09-06 13:27 · Score: 1
  
  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
10. Re: Ooh by AvitarX · 2016-09-06 23:26 · 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.
  
  --
  Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
11. Re:Ooh by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-07 00:50 · Score: 0
  
  Thank the state for this mess and their wonderful regulations. You got a cable monopoly, you voted your party, now suck it.
12. Re:Ooh by MightyYar · 2016-09-07 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
13. Re: Ooh by Type44Q · 2016-09-07 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I found Cricket's max of 8mb/s to be preferable to 26.4kb/s dial-up.
  Anything else I can answer for you?? ;)
14. Re:Ooh by wolrahnaes · 2016-09-07 12:35 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
I would like more that 2G speed at my house by jfdavis668 · 2016-09-06 11:36 · Score: 1

I have lightning fast service from T-Mobile where I work, but still 2G at my house. I wish they would fill in the gaps while upgrading the speed everywhere else.
1. Re:I would like more that 2G speed at my house by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-06 12:04 · Score: 0
  
  Do you have Wi-Fi? What the heck do you need more than 2G at home for?
2. Re:I would like more that 2G speed at my house by jandrese · 2016-09-06 12:11 · Score: 1
  
  Is that on some other company's tower? I don't think T-Mo has any 2G only towers left.
  
  --
  
  I read the internet for the articles.
3. Re:I would like more that 2G speed at my house by sexconker · 2016-09-06 12:17 · Score: 1
  
  T-Mobile is either done or nearly done with killing off 2G.
4. Re:I would like more that 2G speed at my house by jfdavis668 · 2016-09-06 12:28 · Score: 1
  
  No, it's T-Mobile 2G. The whole area I live in has 2G T-mobile coverage. So does the area north and west of where I work (I live south). Just to the north of my house there is 4G non-LTE coverage, then LTE just to the north of that.
5. Re:I would like more that 2G speed at my house by jfdavis668 · 2016-09-06 12:29 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I have Wifi at home. The whole area around it is 2G, and I do go places in the area other than my house. 4G would be handy.
6. Re:I would like more that 2G speed at my house by jandrese · 2016-09-06 13:41 · Score: 1
  
  Something has gone wrong then. They were supposed to be finished over a year ago. That's why I thought it might be some third party tower.
  
  --
  
  I read the internet for the articles.
7. Re:I would like more that 2G speed at my house by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-06 17:28 · Score: 0
  
  T-Mobile is a fucking horrible company, so is it a surprise something went wrong? Only one worse than T-Mobile is Sprint.
8. Re:I would like more that 2G speed at my house by SeaFox · 2016-09-06 18:42 · Score: 1
  
  T-Mobile is either done or nearly done with killing off 2G.
  I believe you're mistaken (and thinking of AT&T). They're the ones getting ready to turn off 2G service. T-Mobile plans to keep it around a little longer. 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.
9. Re:I would like more that 2G speed at my house by macmouse · 2016-09-06 19:16 · 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]
10. Re:I would like more that 2G speed at my house by sexconker · 2016-09-07 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  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/...
Range not speed by markdavis · 2016-09-06 11:39 · 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.
1. Re:Range not speed by clonehappy · 2016-09-06 12:00 · Score: 0
  
  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 somewhat.
  As for the 700Mhz not being available in your area, if their current native network isn't sufficient for you, why would you continue to use a carrier that doesn't provide the coverage that you need it to? If T-Mobile doesn't have 700MHz service live in a given location, it's because they don't own a license to use that spectrum there. That means Verizon, AT&T, or more likely US Cellular owns the license and one of those three providers would probably serve you better. If they do own a license, it should be online soon enough.
  The gimmicky "video transcoding" (actually just throttling of video streams to 1.5Mbps, no transcoding happens) is also fine by me. I'm all for net neutrality, but I don't need 4K video on my cellphone. If I need to watch videos on the go, I'd much rather be conservative with my use of the shared wireless resources and still be able to consume my content. My home internet is where I need blazing speeds for UHD video and downloading large files, and people who are using their cellphone as a home internet replacement are a large part of the congestion problems we're seeing today.
2. Re:Range not speed by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-06 12:05 · Score: 0
  
  >"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.
  He He He. He said, "penetration" . . . twice.
3. Re:Range not speed by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-06 12:24 · 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.
4. Re:Range not speed by ArmoredDragon · 2016-09-06 14:16 · Score: 1
  
  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.
5. Re:Range not speed by Stinky+Cheese+Man · 2016-09-06 15:22 · Score: 1
  
  stop the incessant nagging text messages about "your bill is due"
  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.
6. Re:Range not speed by ThatsMyNick · 2016-09-06 16:40 · Score: 1
  
  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.
7. Re:Range not speed by markdavis · 2016-09-06 17:05 · Score: 1
  
  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.
8. Re:Range not speed by markdavis · 2016-09-06 17:07 · Score: 1
  
  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.
9. Re:Range not speed by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-06 18:35 · Score: 0
  
  The article mentions about using 4X4 MIMO. This can mean two things. One is that the speed to an individual can be increased and also this might also be used to increase the coverage. So I am sure that the coverage will increase. In articles like these they tend to describe only about speed as that is the most publicly recognized metric.
10. Re:Range not speed by TheRaven64 · 2016-09-06 21:54 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
11. Re:Range not speed by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-07 01:33 · 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 current job and have been trying for years to find something that will allow me to purchase a house/land and live a non-apartment life, only to find that every opportunity that's a perfect fit for me isn't allowed because of others' fears and laziness. If they asked questions (which they can't), and didn't make the natural Human immediate judgments (which are subconscious and take a very wise and tolerant person to overcome), I would be in a near-100k/yr job by now.
  It's also about control. I want to control when monies enter and exit my accounts. When bills become due, there is a grace period until payment. If they automatically withdrew from my account, it would, on a monthly basis, put me in the red and "bounce" checking withdrawals and "fail" check card transactions at the beginning of the month. The next paycheck(s) more than compensates for that, but more expenses are then incurred which eat that up. My physical limitations mentioned above also require lots of expensive and overpriced medications to, you know, survive.
  Everyone has a different reason, and each one has a different tilt, but mostly there are "groups". Just like race, groups are judged, not understood, not tolerated, and punished in the most clean and legally-sanitized ways possible. Hence, not letting auto-pay occur for the payee's forecasting and near-guaranteed payments. They can't tell you to fuck off, belittle you, or harass you, so they just apply a fee and justify it as "...[an] expense incurred that results from having to manage unpaid accounts and the human effort put into collecting those unpaid [monies]..."
  Also, there is always the grouping of people together as objects of lazy-handling. In this case, I'm referring to some people not having auto-pay and NOT paying their bills on time (or at all), and compensating for those lost monies by fees collected from others in the same group. Simplified, "insurance for non-payment" is the fee. Others suffer because of the ones that cost the payee the most. Basically the charge for not being auto-pay isn't an extra charge; the lack of that charge is a benefit given to those who DO auto-pay to help the company ensure a certain amount of base income, sans overdraws/failed payments on auto-pay. Those are lumped into a heavy punishment fee for that "group".
  Now if we could only find that source of unlimited energy with near-zero conversion cost....... The idea of a society that survives based on a collective intelligence with freedom of individual choice with zero loss (like Star Trek TNG and above) seems like a great idea, but the more you think about it, the more prone to abuse it appears. Unless we have at least two generations of all human kind that have no idea what money is and support each other with unlimited zero-loss energy, there isn't going to be a change like THAT happening. In the mean time, a multiple repeated series of wars to clean the money pipes, so to speak, is what we will repeat. Again and again. Until the next war, we
12. Re:Range not speed by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-07 01:52 · Score: 0
  
  No, in the US, the way you get similar reasonable guarantees is to use a credit card. If you use a debit card or bank transfer, reversing the transfer is much more effort and if they, say, charge you for more than is in your bank account, then you are charged a fee (~$30/transaction with a balance below $0 in your bank account) that won't get refunded even if you do get the charge reversed (called "overdraft protection" just to be confusing).
13. Re:Range not speed by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-07 06:46 · Score: 0
  
  Holy shit, I thought Beavis had disappeared!
14. Re:Range not speed by ArmoredDragon · 2016-09-07 13:14 · Score: 1
  
  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 still part of Phoenix.
Funny by puterg33k · 2016-09-06 11:40 · Score: 0

You would have never noticed had they not told you.
SGS5 by darkain · 2016-09-06 11:43 · Score: 0

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.
1. Re: SGS5 by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-06 12:02 · Score: 1
  
  An update won't change your radio or modem hardware.
2. Re:SGS5 by PRMan · 2016-09-07 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  The S5 doesn't support MIMO. Of all their phones, only the S7 does.
  
  --
  Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Coverage by sanosuke001 · 2016-09-06 11:46 · Score: 1

I think better coverage in less populated areas would help me more...

--
-SaNo
1. Re: Coverage by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-06 12:14 · Score: 0
  
  What else you need? We're here to help.
2. Re:Coverage by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-06 12:30 · Score: 0
  
  Verizon and AT&T have that usage case covered.
3. Re:Coverage by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-07 01:04 · Score: 0
  
  No one wants to see you livestreaming your porking session with your cousin.
I love t mobile. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-06 11:53 · Score: 0

I think t mobile is great. They're a foreign company and isn't so much cronyism anti comeptition that the other telecoms are. If we see improvements, its typically from t mobile upping the bar. For example no corp has contractual service anymore since tmobile broke down those walls.
1. Re:I love t mobile. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-07 00:16 · Score: 0
  
  Now only if you could actually get a phone call through their service...
2. Re:I love t mobile. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-07 01:26 · Score: 0
  
  I've been a TMO customer for 5 years and never had a problem getting a call through their service.
Now you can hit your b/w cap faster! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-06 11:57 · Score: 1

This speed doesnt do any good at all as long as there are data caps on it.
One question: why? by PsychoSlashDot · 2016-09-06 12:01 · Score: 1

I'm not trying to be sarcastic, asking honestly.

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?

--
"Oh no... he found the .sig setting."
1. Re:One question: why? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-06 12:27 · Score: 0
  
  You know you're an idiot, right?
2. Re:One question: why? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-06 12:29 · Score: 0
  
  When you want to install a new app, you won't need to wait as long before using it.
  When you want to start a video, you won't need to as long (buffering) before it starts.
  Satellite view in map apps will refresh more quickly ....
  And depending on how that technology works, the cell tower won't saturate as quickly, or for a given number of clients, while previously the tower would downgrade you to 3G/2G speed, it might now be able to give you a decent bandwidth.
  Usually, with higher speeds comes lower latency (less wait to receive/send packets, although I'm not sure if that's significant anymore, it might be dwarfed by physical distance and delays within network nodes now), which is good for apps like multiplayer games or voice/video chat.
  And last, bandwidth increase must come before apps that can make use of it. Such apps won't be useful otherwise and thus won't be written.
3. Re:One question: why? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-06 12:39 · 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.
.. and then throttle to dialup? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-06 12:18 · Score: 0

Of course, if you create a VPN tunnel from phone to your home broadband, then you can do things like watch youtube at high speed with no carrier throttling! (Unless they see high traffic to only one IP and then throttle your home IP)
400Mbps speeds this one spot by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-06 12:28 · Score: 0

You'll get 400Mb/s in exactly this one spot, if you don't touch your phone and if you are in Kansas City.
Otherwise in the rest of the US, you are lucky if you get EDGE on T-Mobile.
1. Re: 400Mbps speeds this one spot by corychristison · 2016-09-06 14:47 · Score: 1
  
  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.
2. Re: 400Mbps speeds this one spot by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-06 23:36 · Score: 0
  
  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.
  No it has nothing to do with the handsets and has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that T-Mobile has no real network outside of major cities. Reno, NV counts as a major city. My guess is Reno is probably like everywhere else that T-Mobile is at, works right in town, go 5 miles outside of town...nothing.
  When I left T-Mobile I had a Nexus 5 which I'm pretty certain supported all of the bands T-Mobile supports(seeing that they were the ones selling it). Quite simply the problem is, T-Mobile has absolute shit coverage in suburban/rural areas.
  But you know..blame the user.
3. Re: 400Mbps speeds this one spot by PRMan · 2016-09-07 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  Well, to be fair, 5 miles outside of town in Reno IS nothing.
  
  --
  Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
4. Re: 400Mbps speeds this one spot by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-07 05:34 · Score: 0
  
  How far out are the brothels?
Re:I was hunted in Slab City by epyT-R · 2016-09-06 12:33 · Score: 1

Then get the railgun and camp by the quad..
Perfect! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-06 13:34 · Score: 0

You can now break through your extremely low bandwidth cap even faster now.
It's a hoax article anyway by raymorris · 2016-09-06 15:39 · Score: 1

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 spending $10 billion / year on upgrades, to 2G never happened, 3G never happened, 4G never happened. They built the networks once and it's been profit ever since. I learned that from Slashdot comments.
1. Re:It's a hoax article anyway by TheRaven64 · 2016-09-06 21:50 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
2. Re:It's a hoax article anyway by PRMan · 2016-09-07 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Just checked... by jcr · 2016-09-06 16:52 · Score: 1

My T-Mobile LTE just gave me 55.46Mbps down, 6.26 up. I've seen it as high as 90 in the middle of the day.
-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
T mobile.... needs better coverage! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-06 19:27 · Score: 0

I'm in a major city and get no service in the wrong parts of my house.... I don't need speed. I need coverage!