T-Mobile LTE

Carrier claims independent tests put its LTE network ahead of other carriers

Along with sweeping changes to its international calling and data rates, T-Mobile is also announcing news related to its LTE network here at home. Coming in ahead of schedule according to CTO Neville Ray, T-Mobile is announcing today that its LTE network is now truly "nationwide," covering 233 metro areas across the country (that's 200 million POPs according to the carrier).

That number of markets is just over double the 116 that were live according to T-Mobile as of July, marking a pretty dramatic increase in LTE coverage in just a handful of months. Now we all know there are far more than 233 metro areas in the U.S. to cover, but this quick expansion has us hopeful that T-Mobile will keep ahead of schedule and expand LTE further.

Source: T-Mobile; T-Mobile Coverage Map

 

Reader comments

T-Mobile LTE network now 'nationwide,' available in 233 metro areas

130 Comments

I might have to kiss Sprint goodbye. I just hate the idea of an ETF.

It all depends on the pricing of the Nexus 5.

Posted via Android Central App

The overall value and the fact that you can be paying for a new device(Note 3) AND service for less than Sprint already makes it worth it...

Just pay the ETF. I did. And I'm glad I did it.

I paid mine and am not looking back. Granted I live in an are with pretty good T-Mobile service. Sprint still is expanding much slower than I would have ever thought in my area of Southern California. My friends with Sprint are consistently having connection issues.

I like Sprint and am rooting for them to put together an amazing LTE network but I just couldn't pay my monthly fees any longer. I'm pretty sure I'll stick with T-Mobile for a long time unless they drastically change their plans in a negative way.

Posted via G2 Android Central App

This article has nothing to do with Sprint but since you brought them up...you should know that Sprint is not just adding LTE like the other carriers. Sprint is doing an entire network rebuild from the ground up. They are replacing all network equipment on every tower which has required much more capital and time due to local government permitting. Sprint is future-proofing their network with state of the art equipment. This may not have been the best time to do it but the scope of work involved is not comparable at all. Upgrading the entire 3G network and increasing coverage substantially by adding 3G/voice on refarmed 800mhz Nextel spectrum, adding LTE on 1900mhz and 800mhz, adding HD Voice and LTE on Clearwire's 2.5ghz spectrum.

Again, Sprint's upgrades and entire network rebuild require considerably more time and capital expenditures and even so, they are just about on par with T-Mobile.

i love to hear this. : ). I don't have great Sprint 4G where I am but i do have faith and i just like them so much that I am so glad to hear they are doing what you say.

Then leave dude. I don't know what to tell you.

I travel all over the country and have good LTE service with Verizon and Sprint. Verizon covers more places but Sprint is in many major metros already and is still expanding but it takes time.

Sprint has been 'saying' such things for over three years since my original Evo 4g wimax.

I don't believe it anymore. At some point you have to call a lie a lie.

In Sprint's defense, they wanted to have 4G first, and thought WiMax was it. They were very wrong and the global industry started moving towards LTE. So they did the smart thing and cut their losses with WiMax and started working on LTE. They also have more spectrum than any other carrier too. I'd say in 10 years, they will rock. However, they took their sweet-ass time kicking people off that nice 800Mhz spectrum being occupied by Nextel phones. Why did it take so long to get those Nextel people off the old network or why did they set June 30, 2013 as the date to shutdown the old network? That's 8 years after buying Nextel. God, just give them some free phones to get them the hell off the Nextel network. I think that is what is really going to hurt them, they could have had 800Mhz LTE phones out by now or ready so they can start flipping switches on 800Mhz LTE.

They have their ducks in a row now, but they just need to start getting the network and devices in line.

Worst part about the Nextel mess was they were STILL SELLING Nextel phones 6 months before they started shutting down the iDen network. There were a LOT of people around my area really UPSET because Sprint was making them pay ETFs when they had SHUT DOWN THE TOWERS IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.
Anyway, One day, Sprint might get their act together...

Totally agree. Been hearing the same sad tale for close to a year now and still no definitive date for expansion to the Providence, RI metro area. 3G speeds are absolutely horrendous. I could not take it anymore and dropped them yesterday and went to T-Mo. So far, so good, with 3G and 4G speeds I could only dream about 48 hours ago, and a monthly bill more than $100 less each month. Hoping this good feeling continues.

T-Mobile is also doing an entire network re-build. Adding Tower top radios for all 3 technologies and replacing every Antenna. They had no LTE 6 months ago and now cover 200M POPS. They have spent close to $5B So whats your point?

Exactly and Sprint is replacing all cabinets at every site which the other carriers are not doing, the others are doing patchwork. Sprint is going from 3-4 cabinets in most sites to 1. It may not be the best time to do this but Sprint also has a green initiative they are trying to hit by 2017 by reducing their carbon footprint. So whether you care or not, they are the 3rd greenest company in the country.

That is very true. Sprint is rebuilding from ground up. But most people can't wait that long. Also Softbank ceo or something like that said the money that they are using for sprint won't affect it in the short run. They said look for more impact in 1-2 years. That is not good news for those that need a good network now. If I had the money I would cancel my sprint contract right now. I got my wife an htc one s with tmobile and although my town has full fledged sprint 4g lte her hspa+ tmobile phone is always faster. Plus it actually works indoors. If I want good indoor coverage I not only have to get a new phone that accepts the better frequency that sprint is starting to rollout but then I have to wait for them to actually roll it out in my town. If by december my current speeds haven't improved on sprint I will move my other line to tmobile. So far it's nothing but praise for magenta. I can honestly say I am comparing sprint and tmobile side by side and so far tmobile is blowing sprint away in most scenarios.

Besides their LTE, it's still a CDMA backend, right? And CDMA is known for causing battery drain when it has a weak signal, as well as also limiting you to no data when you're on a phone call. The CDMA network just sucks. Even if it's EVDO Rev B, it has a max speed of around 15Mb/s compared to HSDPA which can have 42Mb/s on a single 5Mhz block. CDMA is just archaic.

If they're spending the money to upgrade their entire network, they should have just switched everything over to 42Mb HSDPA, unless they are going LTE on EVERY single antenna they have (metro and rural).

My wife's Evo 4G LTE and my GN2 both do simultaneous voice and data, even on 3G. Also, check the T-mo forums and you'll find that most people on the 42mb/s network average about 12. And they are upgrading every antenna in the network.

42mb HSPA+ is dual carrier, I think you actually need 10Mhz to do 42
That's why T-mobile's HSPA+ in 1900 Mhz is only 21 at this point, they only have 5 Mhz.

Switching technology isn't as easy as you make it sound, every customer sprint and sprint mvno would need a new phone to use HSPA+ instead of cdma. At the very least they'd have to run two networks at the same time to support older phones, so you'd negate their spectrum improvements.

EVDO Rev B on 800Mhz is a good upgrade for Sprint, they just are taking way too long to do it and I wouldn't suggest customer's wait around for their upgrades, because they have a long history of making big claims and not following through.

The reason this is taking so long is they didn't upgrade backhaul when they upgraded to WiMax, which they should have, T-mobile upgraded backhaul awhile back and that's why their upgrades went so well.

T-mobile's LTE upgrades are going much better than Sprint's
The biggest reason T-mobile's upgrade went so well is because they thought ahead and already had the backhaul im place.

T-mobile was doing multiple things too
refarming some of the 2G capacity in 1900Mhz for HSPA+
then using some of AWS for LTE

Sprint's problem is the same as it's always been, poor planning and poor execution.
They could have upgraded their backhaul when they deployed Wimax, but they didn't.

It makes me laugh that people continue to believe Sprint's network upgrade marketing.
Maybe with the cash infusion and partial buyout they will get their act together.
But I wouldn't sit around dealing with Sprint 3G expecting it right away.
Switch to T-mobile, save some coin and wait and see what Sprint does.

Not to many purple knowknow that spring is already using the 800, 1900 & 2600 spectrums & that they're all lte, lte advanced & TD-lte... something which no network will be using for about 2 more years. In NYC & Chicago they have the full multimode network vision activated & there are 3 more areas that I can't remember right now. Either way imagine 800 MHz a sub GHz spectrum for lte 800, then there is also the fact that spring is buying the 1900 PCs H block spectrum to combine with there already PCs G spectrum *1.9 GHz* to make a 2x10 1900mhz lte, while the 2.6 GHz will be 2x20 & 2x40 by 2014. The only problem is that the only phone that support these lte spectrums is the lg optimus g2 & Samsung will follow also. So I'm waiting for my lg g2 to be in stores *NYC* & and use the farther reaching 800 MHz lte *15 miles* with there concentrated towers in the city the coverage should be crazy.

dark,
I've had it here in Toms River, but I don't really see any improvement in speeds over hspa+. Not sure whats up with it? It comes and goes, between it and hspa+

I get a pretty strong signal here in Glouster county. Just tested my download speed and got 32.1 Mbps. Thats almost as fast as my Xfinity internet!

Great here in Red Bank as well, > 20 Mbps and 40 - 50 ms ping times.
The total speed isn't much faster, but the overall ping time make apps and web page much more responsive on my GS4, I'm a happy camper.

Branchburg here. When I got my Nexus 7 a few weeks ago, I only had Edge coverage on T-Mobile. Now I have one or two bars of LTE and 13Mbps/3Mbps speeds. It's better further east along Rt 22.

Yeah honestly. One of the phases needs to be the announcement of rural area upgrade, even just their edge to 3g would be great.

No kidding I would kill for even 3G at this point. But I'm switching to Verizon with LTE soon, and skipping a couple generations.

There's no point in installing 3G/HSPA+ equipment now. LTE is more than the speed bump that 3G was. LTE will replace everything. Even voice calls will eventually be switched over to LTE (VoLTE). I have read comments on other blogs where people used to be on Edge and then they are seeing LTE now. It is a waste of money to install 3G when it will start to be shutdown once LTE deployment gets to a certain level.

The problem is that TMO is focusing on the metro areas right now. That's where the money is, but the more they make, the more they can spend on continued deployment. They have come a long way compared to Verizon or AT&T. Verizon started LTE deployment in Q4 2010 and AT&T in Q2 2011--TMO started Q1 2013 and already has 233 metro areas on LTE, which is double than what they had since July.

If LTE is added to a site that previously only had 2G, 3G will also be added. The extra cost is minimal. Eventually every site will have at least 3G. The reason they may not get LTE is due to the lack of availability of Fiber optic Ethernet circuits in rural areas. 3G can run on traditional T-1 circuits if necessary. LTE cannot.

"The problem is that TMO is focusing on the metro areas right now. That's where the money is, but the more they make, the more they can spend on continued deployment."

But if it takes them another two years to get around to it, where's the incentive to stay with them? I'm paying the same for spotty rural 2G as the metro customers are for HSPA+ or LTE. But at the same time, the metro customers were bumped from 2G to 3G to HSPA+ and now LTE with no additional cost.

At this point, the smart rural money goes to T-Mobile's competitors, who have at least 3G, if not LTE.

It's true smart rural money is leaving T-mobile, maybe you can come back and enjoy their great prices once they are able to get the cash to push the upgrade to rural markets.

For a business that was floundering last year, they have to invest where they will get the most bang for their buck first and that's metro areas, like where I live NJ between three major cities, LTE has sprouted up all over NJ really quickly.

Pre-paid is key, it lets me drift to whatever the best deal currently offered :)
Well that and a phone that's compatible with both AT&T and T-mobile.
Lots of options (mvno's and direct) on GSM and easy switching.

Lol. Not like Sprint. But Softbank wishes Sprint were more like T-Mobile now!

Posted via Android Central App

Its still not as large a foot print as they need. Once its as large as their 4g coverage then maybe its believable but there LTE is NOT everywhere yet. Its expanding but bragging about it now to me seems a bit premature.

T-Mobile you are getting better with age! I have been very lucky to get LTE early and now with the re-farming of cell towers around me switching phones from ATT to T-Mobile is painless. Just as fast and great coverage. Still you need to get out to the rural areas.

lol, we will see...I live 30 miles south of Kansas City, Missouri and still have 2g...not too damn impressed with them. Service is good, just not up to the other 3 big carriers in the rural areas.

I know right. I'm in Belleville, and there is no LTE here. I can pick it up in Edwardsville, Il where I work but I just started to get it reliably in the last 2 weeks there. I get 4g everywhere but no LTE except if I cross the river. And then it depends where I go. So, no TMo you are not ready for prime time yet. Getting there. Nationwide? Not so much.

Port Saint Lucie, FL on my S4 I got 29.15 Mbps down 4.70 Mbps up... LTE is in and out but overall pretty good. Before jumping to TMo 3 months ago I was getting 1 Mbps down and .5 Mbps up with Sprint on my EVO LTE.

11 - 26 mbps, 40 - 50 ms ping times.
It's a pretty good.
Not quite as fast as AT&T, but better ping times.
Faster than Verizon in my area.

55 MBS down & 17 to 21 MBS up, NYC... Reception everywhere. I wish I could post screenshots of speedtest. Oh & ping time is in the low 35.

It's here in Ct, Waterbury & New Haven. I'm in Stamford right now though, sometimes there's LTE, sometimes there isn't, in & out. But unlike Verizon, when LTE signal isn't present, T-Mobile is still fast!

Posted via Android Central App

I can get 4G way up in Hayward, WI on Verizon, but still no 4G for T-Mobile in Milwaukee or anywhere in Wisconsin. Hard to switch when that's the case.

Posted via Android Central App

Same problem here dude. Id switch to T-mobile if they had coverage where i live. There is absolutely no coverage in Berlin,MD

Despite living in a major metro area, I got zero service inside the house. I mean nothing, nada, zilch. No calls, texts, or data access and zero bars. I canceled them after 1 day and att has been great. So their "nationwide" claim is a big ole joke.

Posted via Android Central App on my white Nexus 4 with StraightTalk

Yeah drives me nuts. Great LTE when I'm out and about but once I'm in the office or commercial buildings, the signal drops to Edge or nothing at all. Shame because they are making all the right noises. I guess they prioritized their "footprint" than strengthening the existing signal.

Same here. Tried them last week & got a Note 3. Signal was good when out & about, mostly lte. But once I stepped into work, noting. I am at work 60+ hours per week.Returned the phone yesterday. Lucky for me the csr refunded everything & waived the restocking fee since I had no signal.

It may be joke for you but I am saving $100 each month comparing to wat I was paying to ATT. In a year I save enough to buy 3 top specs phones outright. $1200 + ($200x3) + ($39x3) = $1917.

Oh boy... Really? We're drumming on about savings when the guy can't get no coverage? What does it matter if the phone is useless? "I saved 20,000 dollars on a 2014 Camaro with NO ENGINE IN IT!" Seriously, dude... To each their own.

Posted via Android Central App

I'm glad it's working out for you and I wanted it to work for my 2 lines for the price. According to their coverage map, right over my place i was supposed to get "good" level service, not nothing at all. When I called their national cust service line I explained the situation I was having and that their map showed I was supposed to get decent service. All they said to me point blank was that my experience is consistent with their coverage map and that their map might not be overly accurate. Well thanks for wasting my time tmob! Not only was their service a complete waste of time, their maps are downright false advertising. So, I think I'll stick to my joke analysis of their service. But hey, if you can get service from them, great deal. I just can't stay within 25 feet of their towers at all times to maintain some semblance of service. As always, YMMV.

Posted via Android Central App on my white Nexus 4 with StraightTalk

Same here, outside reception is great but depending where you are one you step indoors you drop down to no days connection & even 2G signals won't penetrate... Suck's because once I get inside my building I have to switch to my spring Sim & I can get LTE even in the elevators. It ducks mainly because my nexus 5 32 gig Google play version still hasn't ota'd to use spark... So my lte speeds aren't faster than 25 MBS.

My next device will be the NEXUS 5. My work gives us two options for service: T-Mobile and AT&T. Which service should I use? I live in Sacramento, California. Travel to San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Antonio, Phoenix & Houston a lot.

Since you travel a lot I would go with AT&T. I tried T-Mobile and traveling a lot is an issue. If you are right in those metropolitan areas you will probably be fine, but if you are not in the downtown areas you will probably be an 2G. I didn't look at a coverage map, but I would think AT&T has LTE coverage in those cities. I have Straight Talk AT&T service and I have been very impressed with coverage and speed. I switched from Verizon to save money and have more freedom with phone selection. AT&T HSPA+ speeds are adequate (usually get 3-8 mbps consistently). I hear their LTE speed is fantastic.

Posted via Android Central App

I can't speak for many other cities but the whole idea that you need to be in a major metropolitan area is false in my opinion. Phoenix is a very large spread out area where you can have 50 miles from the far west valley to the east valley and I maintain LTE or hspa service just about 100% percent of the time. On a recent road trip up to Big Bear California I would periodically loss my data connection but that was literally in the middle of the desert population 0! In the town of Big Bear population 5, 000 I even had hspa service ( cant recall if LTE kicked on ) . I will agree that it either works for you or it doesn't but the idea that they don't cover anything but big cities is wrong.

Posted via Android Central App

In the meantime:

My town, home to one of the state owned universities, population about 8,000, with an interstate highway right between me and it, traffic audible from my house, still has 2G aka edge.

I'm still "waiting" for T-Mobile to care about us or at least the interstate travelers enough to provide us with that tasty HSPA+ and/or 4G. You'd think they'd at least cover the major highways even if the towns themselves turn up their noses with disdain.

Very true but sadly Sprint have been the same way. It really just depends on where you live. I was a Sprint customer for over 10yrs got tge first wimax evo all the way up to the evo 4g lte and Phoenix, which is a HUGE market is just finally getting some Sprint LTE LOVE !
Its wonderful when your city is one of the first but horrible when its one one the last .

Posted via Android Central App

Indeed. Sprint isn't doing a fantastic job either. I just get a bit tired of people beating the T-Mobile drum as if the entire population lives in cities.

As much good news Tmo has been getting this past year, you should go with AT&T for the moment. When you are in the cities, Tmo is fantastic, but it is the rural areas, even along interstates, you'll be reduced to 1G or 2G. I'd say in the next 5 years, this will change as the older networks will be totally replaced by LTE (LTE will carry voice calls eventually).

I agree with those saying that coverage deficits in rural areas need to be addressed. I continue to see frequent incidents of EDGE and GPRS on my non-4G GSM Galaxy Nexus. Today in Providence, RI, I had difficulty making a call, so I wonder what's up with their network there. And IN BUILDING coverage there is terrible. Also, as far as I know, HSPA+ is NOT true 4G yet everyone keeps referring to it as such. Isn't that just a suped-up 3G with T-Mobile's servers doing a lot of backhaul?

Yeah they call their 3G (4G) it's should really be named 3.5G, it's just a marketing thing. But where I live I have T-mobile's actual 4G LTE and it's fast. Just as fast as Verizon, but not as widespread.

Posted via Android Central App

I hate that HSPA+ (3.5G) was called 4G. I feel it takes away from LTE. AT&T did it too, but I feel they just slapped 4G on their 3G pig as my friends didn't notice a difference between 3G and HSPA+.

Hspa+ is a huge difference in speed. In many good t-mobile areas hspa+ is every but as fast as LTE. The ITU has stated that hspa+ can be called 4G. But even LTE isn't true 4G. LTE advanced is true 4G.

Posted via Android Central App

So I ditched vzw for t–mobile back in June. & im thrilled with my decision so far. I just couldn't justify that extra 40 bucks for 2 lines. But I have to say that I hope their other major markets are covered better than Boston is. There is coverage in "most" of the city. But the south shore where I live is spotty @ best. Hope they're Still working on "covered" areas to make them better.

Posted via Android Central App

I have Sprint, ATT, and VZW LTE where I live but EDGE for TMo, go figure. As soon as they get LTE here they most likely will have me as a customer.

I get EDGE way too freaking often.. and no 3g when you go outside of metro area. I get 2g all the time 15miles away from LA. tmo's coverage is pretty much a joke. only with them cuz of their $30 plan.... ugh

Same here. I'd consider a switch (or at least picking up a separate prepaid line/number just to test in the areas I frequent), but even their coverage maps confirm everything around me is only 2G, and I'd say about 45% of that is roaming on AT&T anyway. And it's spotty. They just aren't there yet in my area (aka the middle of nowhere).

That's all nice and dandy but they ARE NOT nationwide. Wisconsin is the the redheaded stepchild when it comes to 4G service with all carriers. Tmobile is no exception. Left us high and dry smh. At least the other carriers can pick up signal in "certain spots' but we still see ''EDGE" out here. What gives??

Posted via Android Central App

I can't help but think Wisconsin did something terrible to the telecoms year ago to get such treatment. Did you guys run over their dog or something?

Going from zero to 233 cities in 7-9 months is awesome. Verizon has been at this since Q4 2010 and AT&T since Q2 2011. Sprint's LTE cities didn't start showing up until Q3 2012.

Also, it won't be like last time where Tmo added HSPA+ to the big cities. LTE is more than the speed bump that 3G/HSPA+ was, it is replacing the legacy networks. Even voice will be carried over LTE--it's a Long Term Evolution after all.

Except they're using marketing spin when they say they're nationwide. The average consumer equates "nationwide" with "everywhere" and T-Mobile knows it. In the meantime, what it really means is "we have metros on both coasts covered."

In that case, not even is Verizon nationwide. About the last thing we should do, is get into technical discussion about terms used from carriers. They're all positively guilty of marketing spin, full-stop.

That said, this push from T-Mobile is impressive and a nice general move that should be of interest to consumers.

Wrong. You are thinking LTE is simply a speed bump like 3G was. Long Term Evolution is going to replace the legacy networks we use now and will eventually carry voice calls too. Once LTE deployment reaches a certain level, older technologies will be retired and even phones will start having LTE radios instead of GSM/CDMA. It is going to simply take time.

I call bull. If tmobile could get me lte at my house I would switch but no. Their map says I should full bars of lte, but I never get an lte signal,I actually tried it for a month. Still as bad as before, at least get me lte where I am suppose to get it. All the plans won't do crap if I don't even get service that is promised.

T-Mobile doesn't show LTE coverage yet on their maps. When they are referring to 4G they are talking about HSPA+. I checked their map now and it shows Lexington, KY the same shades of color as Richmond, KY which doesn't have LTE. They are talking about HSPA+ which both cities do have. I think they should start to fix this, but they are probably waiting for more deployment before updating.

However, if I'm not paying attention, I would think they are referring to LTE on their coverage maps.

Anywhere with excellent 3G/4G/LTE smartphone signal strength will usually be LTE. In my town the maps says excellent and it's LTE. where my mom lives map says very strong and I don't get LTE but I get really good hspa. I could be wrong

Posted via Android Central App

Perfect timing by T-Mobile to issue these press releases. The next Nexus arrives soon. What other carriers sold the Nexus 4? Loyalty base continues to grow.

Posted via Android Central App

Ah so it's just a marketing ploy. Great job t-mobile. Fool as many people as possible.

Posted via Android Central App

How is this a marketing ploy? Are you currently using tmobile and can say from first hand experience that none of this is true? I used to say that. Then I actually went out, bought a tmobile phone, activated tmobile service and compared it directly with my sprint service. Now my wife's line is on tmobile and I'm counting the days till I can switch mine. To get decent speed on my sprint phone I tether to my wife's tmobile phone and get over 6mbps on regular basis. Tmobile even gave me a $200 credit to cover the etf on my wife's line. They are offering me another $200 to bring over my other line by my etf is still over $250. Can't wait till december. If by then sprint still hasn't improved, my note 2 will be sold and I will buy one to magenta.

The bottom line is that T-Mobile showed Sprint how it's done. I've been a Sprint customer on and off since 1999. I've stuck with them through the whole Clearwire WiMax fiasco, and I've been following their Network Vision since 2011. So I'm very familiar with the intricate details of the process of building out their tri-band LTE network.

With that said, I just left Sprint last month for T-mobile and I haven't looked back. Sprint's LTE network in its current 5MHz form leaves much to be desired. It's spotty and highly inconsistent even in places where it's fully deployed. I understand that TD-LTE 2600MHz and 800 Mhz LTE will help alleviate this, but unless you wait to buy a phone, you're SOL as no current phones support tri-band LTE (The Sprint LG G2 isn't out yet).

I've been on Sprint LTE in multiple locations, and it's never been rock solid, with lousy building penetration. Sprint's 3g? It's basically edge speed. So with that said, i don't know how T-Mobile moved so fast, but their LTE network is great here in NYC. I average 15Mbps down/ 8 Mbps up everywhere. In the event that there's no LTE I have HSPA 42Mbps as a fallback. I do believe that Sprint will improve in the next year, but right now T-Mobile is vastly superior in every way in metro areas.

It's easy to say that when you're in one of their coverage areas. The problem is there are a LOT of non-coverage areas.

Well he specifically said metro areas. In his case NYC and in my case the whole east coast of MA

Posted via Android Central App

There's more to the world than metros. Ignoring those rural areas is NOT showing Sprint how it's done.

T-Mobile has hit the 5th level of tech/improvements in the metros and hasn't even upgraded rurals to the third. That's not the way to do it as far as I'm concerned.

Which method do you think affected more people? Starting LTE rollouts in the middle of nowhere and working your way to the cities or vice versa? When sprint started their rollout it was to these random middle of nowhere places. Even when they finally hit MA it was some random town instead of Boston. Pretty sure on a daily basis Boston has a ton more customer than some random town.

Posted via Android Central App

I understand it from a business standpoint. I don't care for all the T-Mobile drum beating as though it's the carrier for everyone.

T-Mobile could have spent a little of that LTE money giving 3G to its 2G customers over the past couple years but they haven't touched those areas at all. Instead of deprioritizing rural areas they simply ignore them.

Been sitting on my upgrade since September 1st for that exact reason. My Epic 4G Touch is showing its age and although I love the HTC One, I'll wait for a triband snapdragon 800 phone. Plus I have the nexus 4 as a companion device so that makes it easier to wait.

Posted via Android Central App

Sprint is building out the 3G service for all of the MVNO's that use their network. The LTE in my area is okay. I have coverage but the speed varies. Other providers, Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile all have 4G LTE in this area also. T-Mobile is very fast, as is AT&T, but the coverage is not that great. I am in the Winchester, VA area. The actual screenshot for the article is from Winchester!

I understand that T-Mobile has shoddy coverage in many rural areas. Every carrier has poor service areas. T-Mobile will need to address those areas to gain more customers At the end of the day, I always tell people to see which carrier offers the best bang for your buck in your area. Try your best to stay away from Verizon and AT&T if data is important and you don't want to get robbed. If they're the best carriers in your area, then by all means go for it.

Hoping T-Mobile LTE has upped its speed at home, Sacramento. Will check it out when i get back tomorrow.

Posted via Android Central App

Tmobile's problem is not LTE. It is the extent of it's 3g network. Most of it's network outside of major metro regions is still 2g. If you a traveling by google navigation on your phone will not work with 2g. If you are lost you are SOL. Their 3g is very usable. Focus on reach not necessary newest.

I still live in a T-Mobile 2G area despite living an hour away from Minneapolis, where obviously there is 4G, in the mean time Sprint, AT&T and Verizon ALL offer 4G LTE in my little town (2700 people)

And the Sprint service was Blazing fast too I had to switch back to T-Mobile and my wife's family plan due to savings but T-Mobile needs to start expanding further while improving. 2G speeds are horrible plus nowadays we all spend our money on nice Smartphones (I love my Galaxy Note 3) but when out and about I can't even decently upload a photo to facebook (for example) without it taking forever and Wi-Fi is not in every spot either.

T-Mobile is horrible when it comes to expanding it's data service.

I switched to TMobile recently, pretty happy with it in Oklahoma City and Tulsa, but it sucks when driving in between the two. Hwy coverage should be their next move. VZW I was able to stream a movie from netflix while moving except for data caps. So basically SOL one way or the other, but I figure Tmo was the correct future move since VZW said they were "never going to have unlimited data again" when I called them to let them know I wanted unlimited data back or I was leaving. So I voted with my dollars and decided I would rather Tmo take them from me. Sad thing is I only used about 1 gig a month per phone even before the caps but I wanted to be able to stream movies and such if I felt like it and after the caps I never would because I didn't want to pay $10 to stream a movie or two.