Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

T-Mobile Says It Will Launch Nationwide 5G Network In Three Years (cnet.com)

Posted by msmash on from the race-to-5G dept.

T-Mobile announced today its plans for launching a "true" nationwide LTE beginning in 2019, with a complete rollout by 2020. From a report: The nation's third-largest carrier on Tuesday unveiled plans to build out its next-generation wireless network using the radio airwaves it just purchased in a government auction. The focus for its 5G network isn't necessarily speed, but instead broader coverage across the country. It's a surprising move given those airwaves operate on a lower band, which is great for covering long distances but won't give you tremendous speeds. The move goes against the conventional thinking about 5G, which has spurred excitement because of its ability to give you a seemingly supersonic connection to the network. Instead, T-Mobile is stressing a better signal everywhere and the ability to manage multiple devices beyond the phone.

32 of 59 comments (clear)

  1. In which nation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    T-Mobile operates in many nations. In which nation are they planning to launc hthis nationwide network?

    1. Re:In which nation? by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Informative

      To be pedantic: there are businesses called T-Mobile in various nations, but the company in the US is a distinct, publicly traded, separate entity from the others. I believe the German company still owns many of its shares, but it's not run by them and at this stage they're just another shareholder.

      The article is about the US company of that name, not the Germany company.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    2. Re:In which nation? by cb88 · · Score: 1

      T-Mobile USA, because that is what they are referring to when they are talking about the frequency Auctions which were held where T-Mo bought 45% percent of all the spectrum auctioned.

      T-Mo bought spectrum that covers the entire USA completely... excecpt for some areas in california where they already have very dense 700Mhz coverage and it would be redundant.

  2. Supersonic? by squiggleslash · · Score: 2, Funny

    Let me just be on record that I like my radiowave based light speed connections between my phone and the tower. I don't want to "upgrade" to something that's merely faster than sound!

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    1. Re:Supersonic? by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      While true, I'm actually glad the summary didn't suggest 5G was superluminal. On this planet, we obey the Law of Relativity!

    2. Re:Supersonic? by pushing-robot · · Score: 1

      Yeah, by 2020 I'll expect no less than superluminal.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    3. Re:Supersonic? by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Curse you, good sir [shakes fist]. You have beaten me to this very post!!!

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    4. Re:Supersonic? by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      That's because I was using a communications medium that runs at the (nearly) the speed of light, whereas you were stuck with a mere supersonic communications technology!

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    5. Re:Supersonic? by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      Yeah, by 2020 I'll expect no less than superluminal.

      If it is not subspace, then I'll go back to my fantasy world.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    6. Re:Supersonic? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Nope, it is merely an observed average.

    7. Re:Supersonic? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Golly, if only the speed of light could also be made to be supersonic at the same time!

      Oh, wait...

  3. If the 5G standard is ratified by then by ArhcAngel · · Score: 4, Informative

    AFAIK 5G still isn't official so building a "true" 5G network would need to wait until we know what one is. It aint even scheduled to be ratified until 2020!

    --
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    1. Re:If the 5G standard is ratified by then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I just want to say two things:

      1) ratification usually follows implementation

      2) 2020 is, like, the day after tomorrow.

    2. Re:If the 5G standard is ratified by then by halltk1983 · · Score: 2

      They were the first network with 4g-class speeds using HSPA+ back in 2011. Even today, they frequently outperform other networks on speed tests. Sitting on my couch, I get 100 mbps on my phone, which is twice the speed of my internet connection through Comcast.

      --
      Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
    3. Re:If the 5G standard is ratified by then by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      If you do that math and actually add 3 to the current year, you might discover that they're promising to use the standard once it is agreed and that there is nothing odd or missing from their claim.

    4. Re:If the 5G standard is ratified by then by cb88 · · Score: 1

      Eh? You man Wi-MAX?

    5. Re:If the 5G standard is ratified by then by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      They were the first network with 4g-class speeds using HSPA+ back in 2011. Even today, they frequently outperform other networks on speed tests. Sitting on my couch, I get 100 mbps on my phone, which is twice the speed of my internet connection through Comcast.

      HSPA+ is 3.5G, my point exactly.

  4. 5G?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    5G?

    5G?!

    5-fuckin-G?!!

    FIVE-G!!!!

    That's 5 - count'em: 1G, 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G -G's!!!

    Gee.

    1. Re:5G?! by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      my wifi has 11g. Count `em: eleven gees! Gee, WIz!

      If I get any more Gs I'm gonna need shoulder pads.

  5. Reach is more important by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Even though it's really nice to have a very high speed data connection, it's way more important that you can really use your phone even in more remote places.

    With this kind of approach they could surpass Verizon in real world coverage, which would be a huge deal for convincing customers to switch to T-Mobile.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  6. Correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I write about these things for a living. Almost everything in this article is incorrect or misleading.

    T-Mobile already has a national 4G LTE network, and will use new 600 MHz spectrum to improve the coverage of that network.

    Separately, T-Mobile will build a true 5G network over the next three years. That network will use multiple bands, including some of the new 600 MHz band (it will be shared between 4G and 5G.) By using multiple bands, they can offer coverage and speed with both 4G and 5G networks. They very much intend to offer very high speeds with their 5G network.

  7. Confused by Dorianny · · Score: 1

    How is it "surprising" that they are using lower bands that you yourself explain are "great for covering long distances," to do exactly that?

    1. Re:Confused by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      distance, bandwidth, pick one. Longer wavelength has a lower shannon limit, so less speed.

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    2. Re:Confused by SeaFox · · Score: 3, Insightful

      distance, bandwidth, pick one. Longer wavelength has a lower shannon limit, so less speed.

      Uh, yeah. We know that. The point is the network will be operating in an area of spectrum that is better for penetration through buildings and other obsticles, but doesn't allow faster speeds. This is intentional. Yet somehow this is seen as "surprising".

      To use a car analogy. it's like me saying I want to buy a car that's easy to park and gets really high mileage for my commute, then somehow it's "surprising" that I bought Honda Fit instead of a Ford Mustang.

      I think this is more a case of bad editing in the submission. Because T-Mobile's move is surprising considering it "goes against the conventional thinking about 5G", which is the following sentence in the summary. Looks like someone meant to stick the adjective surprising there where the use of "move" as a noun appears a second time.

    3. Re:Confused by halltk1983 · · Score: 2

      Right, so you use the longer wavelengths to cover at distance improving range, and the shorter wavelengths to cover up close improving speed, and switch between them as needed. Moving the people at longer range off the shorter wavelength bands allows you to reduce the window for each device because you can assume a shorter round trip time, meaning there's less waste in each window, which further improves the total bandwidth of the higher-frequency radio.

      --
      Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
    4. Re:Confused by cb88 · · Score: 1

      The thing about current 4G ... is that it doesn't work all that great if you only have 2 bars.

      So chances are we will seem more reliable transmission, and potentially less bandwidth wasted to packet loss etc... hopefully we see some spectral efficiency increases as well.... honestly my Cellphone already has as much bandwidth as my cable connection... it's just super flakey!

      Fixing the flakeiness... will result in significant perceived improvement in service quality.

    5. Re:Confused by cb88 · · Score: 1

      Also, if you cover areas with 600Mhz that already have 4G .... you can use the 4G bandwith + the 600Mhz bandwith at the same time or possibly use the 600Mhz for voice and dedicate the entire 4G network for data etc... or make it so you have dedicated bandwith for hd voice calls on 600Mhz + some for reliable roaming data with decent bandwidth to supplement 4G's weak areas.

  8. T-Mobile Customer 12 Years by IonOtter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've been a customer for 12 years, and I work for their primary competitor. Even with my employee discount, my employer can't coax me over.

    But lemme tell you...

    Getting 5 miles out of any major metropolitan area, and seeing that little 4G icon vanish? It's annoying. Getting 10 miles outside of an MMA, and seeing no bars at all? It's frustrating.

    Being 100 miles into the sticks on a camping trip, and everyone using the competitor network has 5 bars, 4G and is streaming music to the bluetooth speaker?

    Yeah. Those are the times I'm tempted to turn to the Dark Side.

    --
    [End Of Line]
    1. Re:T-Mobile Customer 12 Years by rogoshen1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      that sounds like a really shitty camping trip.

      mental note: Only go camping with t-mobile users.

    2. Re:T-Mobile Customer 12 Years by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      A couple years ago I was up in the mountains foraging for mushrooms with some friends... dozens of miles outside of my coverage area... when suddenly somebody's phone rang! Turns out he had [some brand with lots of coverage].

      Of course, it also turns out that since he was way up in the mountains it did no good at all for him to answer the phone because he couldn't make it to the office that day, and if the phone call had just gone to voice mail he wouldn't have had to ask them to call back and leave the info on his voice mail...

    3. Re:T-Mobile Customer 12 Years by rogoshen1 · · Score: 2

      well, mushroom hunting might be one of those things where internet connectivity is a lifesaver (literally) -- being able to check if a mushroom is poisonous, because if you're like me, you'd forget to bring a book with that information. =)

  9. Re:Finally... by starblazer · · Score: 1

    Haven't you seen the projected t-mobile coverage at the end of 2017 map? http://www.tmonews.com/2017/02... It looks to me that USCC and T-mobile are going to be LTE roaming partners soon. The USCC Wisconsin half-state line is quite distinct.