tMobile Network: Expanding, Contracting, or Static?

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

(Pete Cresswell) - 29 Mar 2005 01:58 GMT

Probably not contracting.... but is tMobile adding new areas to it's network, or
just sort of riding on what it's got now?

Signature

PeteCresswell

Reply to this Message

Cyrus Afzali - 29 Mar 2005 05:17 GMT

>Probably not contracting.... but is tMobile adding new areas to it's network, or
>just sort of riding on what it's got now?

The general trend has been enhancing existing coverage areas, but
there has been some expansion through some roaming agreements here and
there. The biggest improvement probably has been seen by those with
850 mHz-capable handsets who are now able to roam on certain networks
that were previously inaccessible.

The last big coverage news was a couple of years ago when a roaming
agreement was signed with the former AT&T Wireless. But even then,
that deal wasn't a huge boon for TM users.

Reply to this Message

JP - 29 Mar 2005 09:10 GMT

I thought T-Mobile operated exclusively on the 1900Mhz Band.

JP

>>Probably not contracting.... but is tMobile adding new areas to it's
>>network, or
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> agreement was signed with the former AT&T Wireless. But even then,
> that deal wasn't a huge boon for TM users.

Reply to this Message

Joseph - 29 Mar 2005 14:50 GMT

>I thought T-Mobile operated exclusively on the 1900Mhz Band.

They do! Some of the new roaming partners however are 850 Mhz
providers (likely former TDMA operators)

>JP
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>> agreement was signed with the former AT&T Wireless. But even then,
>> that deal wasn't a huge boon for TM users.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Reply to this Message

(Pete Cresswell) - 30 Mar 2005 01:12 GMT

Per Cyrus Afzali:

>The general trend has been enhancing existing coverage areas,

Any idea how much area a single cell tower covers?

One of the things I've been wondering about is why they don't do building
complexes.

I'm a contractor and have done work for a couple of clients where there are
thousands of people in just a few buildings (2,000 where I'm working now, close
to 8,000 on the last job) and some providers' phones work a-ok while others are
all but useless - the result being that people are talking about how poor the
faulty provider's coverage is in an enviroment where word travels...

"Negative Buzz", if you will...

Seems like a rational move would be to concentrate on situations like that -
unless a single cell tower costs mils instead of thousands and covers square
miles instead of meters....

Signature

PeteCresswell

Reply to this Message

Cyrus Afzali - 30 Mar 2005 06:13 GMT

>Per Cyrus Afzali:
>>The general trend has been enhancing existing coverage areas,
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>all but useless - the result being that people are talking about how poor the
>faulty provider's coverage is in an enviroment where word travels...

Well, they do complexes, in a matter of speaking. Carriers will go to
venues like Disneyland, airports, etc. and make sure there's coverage
available. They can't put an emphasis on buildings because of the
inherent difficulties in getting what is essentially a glorified
two-way radio to work indoors. There are just too many variables that
affect whether or not you have indoor service, and in major cities,
it's especially a pain.

That's why all carriers are clear to include in their disclaimers that
there are coverage limitations.

>"Negative Buzz", if you will...
>
>Seems like a rational move would be to concentrate on situations like that -
>unless a single cell tower costs mils instead of thousands and covers square
>miles instead of meters....

Even if cost were no issue, getting them placed is a huge deal in an
of itself.

Reply to this Message