Neville Ray talks about current state of 5G in the US


Earlier today, T-Mobile’s President of Technology Neville Ray released a blog post where he discussed the current state of 5G. This blog post comes after the recent C-band auction and analyst days where wireless companies released plans on how to use it. 

Ray noted that the industry is already on the second phase of 5G, which is all about mid-band. The CEO shared that Verizon is playing fast and loose with the laws of physics when touting their C-band plans once again. This is something that the carrier also did with millimeter wave. 

But Ray encourages the public to keep an eye out for this announcement when Verizon announces its earnings later this week. 

The blog post published by Ray gives a reality check on how C-band (and physics) really work and how T-Mobile is driving its rivals to try and catch up. 

And this seems to echo the sentiment of an analyst, which said that “They [T-Mobile] will be the first to 5G, and they will be the best in 5G. Everything we heard from all three carriers over three days underscored that simple point.” 

Ray also shares that in this second phase, everyone in the industry is playing the same game. But he is confident that T-Mobile has a winning hand and a lasting advantage. 

You can read more about Ray’s blog post here

Tags: , ,

  • steveb944

    Wow he destroyed them.

  • Augustine

    Ray is playing fast and lose too. His post is meant to persuade his stock holders that T-Mobile is a better investment than Verizon, which has little to do with the quality of service delivered to its customers.

    – most of the C band spectrum that T-Mobile won will be available in 2022 and later.
    – the 2.5 GHz network still has to be built for normal devices, as high power ones are far and few in between.
    – by his own admittance, C band is equivalent to the 2.5 GHz band in dense urban areas, outside of which T-Mobile still has a lot of work to do to deploy mid band.
    – beam forming is available to both C and 2.5 GHz bands.

    I do agree that Verizon made a blunder focusing on mm wave and neglecting low and mid bands for about a year. Yet, it’ll continue being a formidable competitor and keeping T-Mobile honest.

    • marque2

      You also get 1/3 more data in a given bandwidth with C band. When Built out, T-mobile won’t win any speed records with 2.5ghz.

      Also because cells are closer there won’t be as many phones contending for the same tower. Since that is another 1/3 factor – assuming similar bandwidth, Verizon should end up with 2.35x the data capacity, (more than double T-mobiles speed) when built out.

      • Augustine

        T-Mobile has deployed up to 60 MHz in the 2.5 GHz band so far, that’s as much as Verizon won in the C band auction for deployment this year. The data throughput in 60 MHz bandwidth is the same, wether in the 2.5 GHz or in the C band. Both Verizon and T-Mobile will eventually have access up to 100 MHz bandwidth.

        The antenna density should be the same in urban areas for both networks. In rural areas, congestion is seldom an issue, since there usually are far fewer phones per cell. Though, congestion and backhaul wise, Verizon has a better track record than T-Mobile.

        All in all, I believe that both networks will be competing on about the same footing. Then again, Ray’s words were not meant for T-Mobile customers or about the quality of its service, but for investors and about its spending less capital than Verizon deploying mid band.

        • Shaun Michalak

          One thing to consider though, is the fact that Verizon is not going to build more towers just to satisfy the needs of getting good coverage with C-Band.. In that aspect, it will be good for use in cities.. But in rural areas, where towers are not close together.. This part will hurt Verizon and help T-Mobile more, as their 2.5 will go farther for more coverage with the higher speeds.. that is on the condition that it is set up right to get that coverage.

        • Augustine

          Indeed, but both have a lot of rural area to cover with mid band. My guess is that they’ll go for it with low band first in rural areas and focus on urban areas with mid band.

          Remember, in the country side, T-Mobile was sight unseen before band 12 and it used band 2 to serve rural areas. Even Sprint had better coverage using band 26 there, and, AFAIK, it had barely deployed band 41 in rural areas before merging with T-Mobile.

        • Shaun Michalak

          Sprint already said not to expect 5G on band 41 in rural areas before the merger happened.. So even if they did not merge, I doubt there would be any real difference on Sprint’s end with rural areas.

          As for T-Mobile being unseen before band 12.. Well, they really did not change much even after band 12 because they just did not buy enough of it from other companies.. Since they did not go and buy anything at those 700mhz auctions, that was their only way to play catch up.. So to use it to expand coverage was not that great by using it due to their lack of bandwidth.. I think they went more gung ho on the whole expanding in rural and country areas more when they got all that band 71 to use.. They won that auction, and that was when they went the most crazy with coverage.. Until then, they still stayed to state highways and small towns..

        • Augustine

          T-Mobile did a great job with B12 improving their rural coverage. Alas, it still falls short.

          Recently, on a long road trip through 3 states, even sticking to the interstate my phone would go all the way to 2G before going dark for several miles. My car, on the other hand, on AT&T, would only go down as far as 3G and never went dark.

        • marque2

          I get blackouts on I5 between San Francisco and Los Angeles, one of the busiest rural freeways in the US.

        • Shaun Michalak

          My point with band 12 was 2 things.. there was some places that they had no band 12 to install.. and some places where they only got 5 or 10 mhz of it to install.. Seen a lot of complaints back then about the service in some of those areas..

          As for your trip.. It all depends on the states you went through.. I live in the eastern half of the USA.. and I know coverage is much better on that half, then it is the western half.. But even here, I find some states that have excellent coverage on main interstates, and some that is very flakey.. West Virginia is very flakey.. virginia is flakey on the western half of it.. Ohio I found to be decently good on main interstates.. NY, about 90% on main roads, 80% on state roads.. PA, about 95% coverage on main interstates, but about 80% on state routes..

          The thing is.. I used to say that AT&T was better.. But these days, I find that they are about even.. Yes, AT&T has better density.. but there are places I have been that T-Mobile had coverage that AT&T didn’t, and vise versa.. I think the true test will be in a couple of years after T-Mobile gets Sprint towers fully upgraded and integrated into their network..

        • marque2

          I dispute that they stayed with state highways. Those are still problematic. Even interstates still have problems in rural area. It is just not as bad as it used to be.

        • Shaun Michalak

          I was talking more along the lines of.. Back before they had band 12 or 71, if they put up a tower, it was usually not in farm land type areas, unless there was a state or interstate route running through there.. and even then, it was still questionable.. Here in PA, go out into the middle of the mountains, small towns, etc.. things way away from main highways and cities, and they had nothing.. Not until they got band 12, and even then, it was still mainly in suburbs and stuff.. Farmland areas, almost nothing.. that was until a few years ago when they won band 71.. Coverage really went crazy after that..

        • marque2

          Are you sure about 60mhz of 2.5 ghz has the same data rate potential of 3.8? How could that be unless I completely misunderstand bandwidth?

          So you think no matter the frequency, a bandwidth of 60mhz around the center frequency always produces the same data rate? Why wouldn’t it go up with the frequency?

        • Augustine

          When people say that higher frequencies is faster, it’s misnomer due to the fact that there’s more unused spectrum to accommodate larger channels than in lower frequencies. The reason is that not only is the range better, but also the electronics to operate in lower frequencies is cheaper and uses less power, so, historically, it’s been occupied first.

          The signal modulation schemes used by digital radios, be it WiFi or 5G NR, encode so many bps per Hz of channel bandwidth (spectral efficiency), regardless of the carrier frequency. Thus a 20 MHz channel on 802.11n WiFi at 2.4 GHz yields the same data throughput as at 5 GHz: 78 Mbps. Likewise, a 5 MHz channel on 3G HSDPA yields the same data throughput at B5 as at B2: 21 Mbps. And a 10 MHz channel on 4G LTE at B13 yields the same data throughput as at B66: 38 Mbps. Finally, ditto for a 60 MHz channel at n41 as at n77: 160 Mbps.

        • marque2

          Your assertion is completely false and goes against a century of radio research.

          In general based on the encoding scheme, the data rate is proportional to the frequency. As in if I have an encoding scheme that allows 8 bits to be transmitted in 4 cycles. If I go from 4 – 8 cycles a second I will be able to transmit twice the speed (16 bits instead of just 8). Granted at higher speed more of my bits will be devoted to error correction which could cancel some of the gain.

          The data transmission rate in spread spectrum is proportional to bandwidth x frequency. I can’t tell you how much data is actually being transmitted (I don’t know the 5g data encoding scheme well enough) but I can tell you if you have 600mhz service with the bandwidth of 100mhz and 3.7ghz with a bandwidth of 100mhz the data transmission rate is about 6x more. (alternately if the 3.7ghz spectrum only had 15mhz bandwidth the two would be about the same) The other issue is the distance. The attenuation is much greater for higher frequency signals and yes at the edge of a higher frequency signal, due to error, I can get less data than from a strong lower power signal.

          I guess another issue, is you don’t have to use the full capability of the frequency. If you have 3.7ghz frequency, but only transmit at a rate easily supported by 600mhz, that is entirely possible, and no-one is stopping telecoms from doing that.

          Anyway, If I could I would attach the “prove me wrong” meme to this post.

        • Augustine

          You are not wrong in principle, just in this case. All 3GPP generations use multiple carriers within a wideband channel, while you’re assuming a single wideband carrier whose symbol rate is the same as the carrier frequency. As long as the symbol rate is the same, regardless of the carrier frequency, the data throughput is the same in any band.

        • marque2

          I am not commenting further.

      • Shaun Michalak

        Your comment is based on the fact that cells “will” be closer.. But the problem is, I highly doubt that verizon is going to build more sites so that cells will be closer.. In cities and towns, they should be fine with what is already there.. But in the country, or rural areas.. The customer base just is not there to justify the costs to build more towers for that to be done.. They will just say that their current bands, 2, 13, etc are good enough for where the C-Band does not reach..

        As for cell sites.. Right now, we really do not know what T-Mobiles cell density will actually be like in the end.. How many of Sprints sites do they keep.. How many do they stop using?? Where T-Mobile might have poor density now, it might change by keeping Sprint towers to fill in those areas..

  • Glenn Gore

    T-Mobile needs to do a LOT more work in densifying and expanding their low-band 5G network at the same time they launch the new short-range mid-band spectrum. They need to add lots more sites to fill in the gaps that cause phones to drop 5G and go back to LTE when they near the fringes of sites. It has now become common knowledge that Band 2 LTE coverage extends farther than Band 71 5G in real-world use.

    I realize that T-Mobile wants to raise download speeds so that they will be meaningfully higher than LTE and they can’t do that with Band 71 5G, but for simple reach and coverage, they are stuck with that Band 71 since C-Band will not have the reach of even Band 2, so it behooves them to continue expanding that Band 71 coverage.

    • Shaun Michalak

      Not sure why you are even mentioning T-Mobile with C-Band installations, considering that they have very little C-Band to start off with.. Not only that, but from what I have read, they really only got it in main cities type of area.. Not for mass rural distribution. But I do agree that they need to expand their 5G service, with both, band 41 and 71.

      • Glenn Gore

        The graphic above compares the reach of C-Band to 2.5 and comes from T-Mobile, so it’s fair game to mention it since they did. I would say that 2.5 is also more of an urban-appropriate spectrum as well. Not just major urban areas, as they have deployed that spectrum in a couple of cities of 15-20,000 people here in Oklahoma. 2.5 is not really appropriate for fully rural areas, but they have major work to do to get the 71 to perform as well as it should be able to.

        I spent a couple hours in a coffee shop yesterday with a T-Mobile 5G-equipped Band 2/71 site 1.2 miles away (the only T-Mobile site for 20 miles in any direction, so I know it was the one I was connected to) and my phone was on LTE the entire time with 2 bars. When I went outside to get in my cart, it switched to 1 bar of 5G, which is on Band 71. I think this illustrates that something strange is going on with their spectrum utilization and how it is performing. Band 2 should not be out-performing Band 71, indoors, even at that close range to the site, especially when the phone is set to prefer 5G data.

        • Shaun Michalak

          When I look at the coverage areas from a single cell tower.. same place.. going from 2G to 4G (Verizon), and then from 3G to 4G (AT&T), one thing I noticed in coverage.. In both cases, the 2 and 3G were 800mhz band 5, and 4G is 700mhz bands 12, 13, 17.. The coverage always got smaller with the newer technologies.. Even in places where no additional towers were put up to compensate.. 2G coverage was better then 3g, which was better then 4G.. Considering the 4G signal is actually lower, that leads me to believe that it has to do with the tech and not to expect too much from newer tech for coverage..So it just might be a tech thing, and not how things are set up..

          I just came across some info.. Not sure if you knew it or not, but according to an article I just read, Verizon has a total of 68,000 cell sites.. T-Mobile, with what they are keeping from Sprint, they will have a combined number of 85,000 cell sites.. that does not include the 35,000 sites that they will decommission either.. I was kind of wondering about that a while back, but could not find the info.. I guess I just did.. Not sure if you knew it or not..

        • Glenn Gore

          I did not know the exact number of sites that T-Mobile has or the exact number of Sprint sites that will be de-commissioned. The problem is that prior to T-Mobile’s big Band 71 expansion of a few years ago into small and medium-size cities and towns and rural areas, their coverage area was pretty much identical to that of Sprint, with just sites along interstate highways and in major metropolitan areas.

          So when they bought Sprint, they got Sprint sites along those interstates right alongside existing T-Mobile sites and they don’t need them since most of them are probably on the same towers. Those are the ones that will be de-commissioned and they will keep the rare ones who actually will possibly fill in a coverage hole somewhere.

          Sprint’s infrastructure only covered 20% of the land area of Oklahoma while at the time the sale was completed, T-Mobile covered 80% after a huge expansion a couple years earlier, so they did not gain anything here, and I would imagine all those Sprint sites will just be done away with, except in rare situations.

          As far as newer generations of technology covering less area than previous ones, that has always been a problem. When analog was shut down, gigantic areas of the country lost coverage and a lot of those places have never been re-served. And as you note, the same thing has occurred with each successive generation.

          The same goes with phones themselves. Analog phones and some early generations of CDMA, GSM, 2G, and 3G phones had external or extendable antennas, which are FAR better at receiving and transmitting than the little microscopic things in the “antenna lines” on current phones. This limits reach and usability, i.e. coverage. That’s why around here you see those WeBoost cellular antennas everywhere.

          Farmers, oilfield workers, service vehicles, you name it, people who work out in the country away from major highways and towns, they are all getting them because existing cellphone sites just don’t actually cover everywhere and the carriers are doing nothing to improve the situation. It’s not just a T-Mobile problem. Yes, it costs money to build sites and adequately cover what you claim to cover, but at some point it just should be done.

        • Shaun Michalak

          I can partly go with the T-Mobile and Sprint sites having the same coverage.. the reason why.. Part are the same.. But I believe that there are more that are different then what you would think.. The reason why.. Sprint never really had, or used any real low band for 4G, so for Sprint, they had to make their towers closer together to get coverage.. So while some are the same, Sprint had to put up a lot of towers in the middle of them to fill in those gaps..

          I knew that coverage dramatically dropped from analog to digital.. Heck, even the free TV OTA service, they had to put up amplifiers, or repeaters, or whatever.. so that they could extend service because service coverage dramatically dropped that much going from analog to digital.. But once they went to digital, I would have thought that coverage would have stayed more the same from then on.. I only realized how much each version of G dropped as technology increased after looking at actual coverage on cellmapper, looking at the coverage, and signal strength from one version to the next..

          I find the Oklahoma comment kind of ironic.. I just looked at Verizon’s coverage map for that state.. and according to them, Verizon has constant non stop coverage through the whole state.. Except one little area in the south east corner of the state.. At least T-Mobile does not try to make you think that they do..

          I am not sure if it is just around here, but one thing I have noticed with Sprint is the latency is high for them.. T-Mobile, I get times of about 60ms.. Every Sprint tower I have tried has been around 120 to 130 ms.. I have a sprint hotspot because of the price, but use Metro for my phone.. So I took the hotspot around town and did a bunch of speed tests off of different towers, some close to the tower, some farther away.. Not sure why their latency times are so high, but they are..

          As for the number of sites.. I was kind of curious about them.. I always heard people say that T-Mobile had less towers then either, Verizon or AT&T.. and to a point, in town, I could agree.. It does kind of make sense though.. If you remember right, when T-mobile first starting expanding a bit, they did a lot of advertising saying, “more coverage with less towers”, or something like that.. So it does make sense that, at that time, it was their concept.. But I guess over the years, they realized that with less towers, they also had less capacity, so service suffered because of it.. maybe that is why they are keeping so many of the Sprint towers now?? to make up for, and fix the problems of the past..

        • Glenn Gore

          The density of Sprint’s sites had no broad effect here. In the entire western half of Oklahoma, the only native coverage Sprint had was a string of sites along I-40. Nowhere else. T-Mobile built sites to cover the entire western half of the state including the sparsely populated panhandle, they just completed that project in the past year. I guess having closely-spaced sites would improve service along the interstate highway, but it had no effect anywhere else in the state. The problem is T-Mobile’s 20-mile spacing of the sites they built. It works OK for LTE on Band 2 but is not adequate for 5G on Band 71. You rarely ever lose LTE but you lose 5G quite easily if you’re more than 4-5 miles from a site.

          Verizon as you note, is sneaky. Their map shows everything as covered but it’s not all native Verizon. The only native Verizon service in the state is the northeast quarter and the southwest quarter. Those were the Alltel territories when they purchased Alltel in 2008. Verizon never built any new native coverage anywhere else in the state, they just roamed on other existing carriers. All that coverage in the northwest quarter, the panhandle, and in southeast Oklahoma is actually provided by partcipants in the LTE in Rural America program.

          In northwest Oklahoma it’s Pioneer Cellular. In the southeast quarter are Pine Cellular, Cross Wireless, and some other smaller LTEiRA partners. LTEiRA was a great way for Verizon to get same-as-native coverage without having to spend a dime and it was also a great way for the local carriers to get access to equipment and provide LTE to their customers. It was a win-win for both sides, but now it has become a bit of a liability since Verizon’s non-millimeter-wave 5G strategy is a huge debacle, and they have no way to fix it. They will try with C-Band but that’s not a wide-area coverage solution at all. AT&T is in the same boat with no low-band either. T-Mobile is in the catbird seat but they need to densify bigtime.

        • Shaun Michalak

          Here, Sprint did have towers closer together.. Because of that, they had more towers then T-Mobile along any area.. Not only that, but they filled in those areas between towers, where you get crappy service, quite nicely.. But even still, Sprint did not exactly have great coverage here either.. I would say that they had about 35% 4G coverage in my state.. By looking at a map of coverage, it looks like Sprint only had about 15% coverage in your state..

          One thing I never could figure out..What was up with Sprint and Mississippi?? All the states around it have something like 15% coverage by Sprint, but that one state had more like 90 to 95% coverage.. Why the heck did Sprint go so crazy at building out their network in that one state, but no others around it??

          Here, personally, I can not wait until T-Mobile finally gets the Sprint towers all converted over.. It is nice to be able to jump off of them for coverage.. But, the problem is, Sprint has so .little frequency to use, that when you do jump off of them, you get crappy service.. I do not think I have ever found a Sprint tower in the past year that I have gotten even 5 megs down off of.. Not that I tested at least.. Not only that, but the way that it is set up, coverage just does not go that far..

          That one I still can not figure out.. T-Mobile and Sprint can have tower right next to each other.. One uses band 2, the other band 25.. so basically about the same thing.. I can get 4 to 5 bars off of T-mobile, but lucky to get 2 off of Sprint.. for the same distance away.. Once they get those towers upgraded, it should be much better..

          I never realized that Verizon contracted with soo many carriers in that state.. If you look at their more detailed map, it shows 2 areas that say “extended 4G coverage”.. That usually means partner coverage.. But with just 2 places, covering only about 15% of the state, it makes it look like they have native coverage over the remaining 80% (taking 5% out for the no coverage area)..

        • Glenn Gore

          Right, Sprint never built much of anything here. Heck, they were based in Kansas and never built much there either. As you point out, Mississippi was an extreme outlier that they covered quite well for some unknown reason.

          A friend and his wife from Virginia who are here visiting went with us to dinner last night. They are Sprint customers back there who have not had to switch to T-Mobile yet, still using the Sprint system. I had absolutely no T-Mobile signal in the restaurant at all, no bars, nothing. Their phones had 4 bars of signal, perfectly functional. The difference being that Sprint roamed on Pioneer Cellular and there was a Pioneer tower a block from the restaurant, while the closest T-Mobile site is 11 miles from the town we were in.

          So, when they are forced to get T-Mobile phones and switch to that service, when they visit they will have a far worse situation than they do now because they will no longer be roaming on Pioneer and only using the extremely spotty T-Mobile service. Since Sprint never built anything here, there is nothing for T-Mobile to repurpose.

          I just took a look at Verizon’s maps, and they are obviously not showing the full extent of their “partner” coverage with the LTEiRA carriers. That partner coverage is now MUCH smaller than it used to be and they are showing it as native when it is not. It is “same as native” and uses Verizon equipment but is being provided by the partner, not Verizon. Over half of Verizon’s coverage in Oklahoma is not actually being provided by Verizon.

        • Shaun Michalak

          That may be true, but as for the coverage.. You never know..T-Mobile just might put up a tower in the area.. I have seen T-Mobile putting up towers in the area that not even AT&T has any coverage in.. But to be fair, there are some places that I have seen that Sprint was the dominant coverage in the area.. We went down to Luray, VA a couple years ago, and Sprint had decent coverage in the area.. All other carriers had spotty coverage.. I just wish I had access to those towers back then.. That is just one example of how there are some places that Sprint rains supreme in coverage in the area..

          Even still, T-Mobile is still doing a LOT of expanding.. They did not just stop after they new CEO took over. I have seen multiple new towers in my area.. I think 5 of them, none previously were Sprint towers either, that are all within about 100 miles of me, that are new this year.. Add in the Sprint towers, and even more. My point is, with they way that they are expanding, never count them out, because about the time that you say that coverage sucks, T-Mobile has been coming in adding new towers for better coverage..

          I was just reading an article, and they said that coverage, in square miles.. There is only about an 8% difference between the most, and least coverage of the big 3.. T-Mobile being the least.. But I highly doubt that the number includes some of the new towers.. or all of the Sprint towers too..

          That is one thing I can give to T-mobile.. They want to control everything.. This means, if the service sucks, they can upgrade the service in some way and not have to rely on partners to do it.. Just look at 5G.. It makes me wonder how many of those Verizon partners are going to jump to install 5G on their towers?? Also, if there are dead spots, they can just install a new tower and not have to worry about if their partner is going to fix it or not..

          I think Verizon is the worst when it comes to partner coverage.. AT&T I think mainly only has the problem in areas with US Cellular, and where they have coverage.. I know T-Mobile is like that too, but since they got all that spectrum from Sprint, and all that band 71 coverage, they have been going into US Cellular territory and not relying on them as much.

        • Glenn Gore

          LTE in Rural America partner Pioneer Cellular has not said a word about 5G, and it’s really no surprise. They have by FAR the best coverage around here, full 4-bar signal everywhere, in the cities, in the country and in the smallest of bump-in-the-road towns, in the western half of Oklahoma and the southern quarter of Kansas. They just cannot be beat in coverage and site density.

          But, the limiting factor is that they are using Verizon’s spectrum, that’s what the LTEiRA program is, and Verizon just does not have the spectrum necessary to provide 5G right now. MIllimeter-wave is useless outside of the biggest urban areas and that means it will never be used anywhere in this part of the country. Their cobbled-together Nationwide 5G LTE band-sharing is a joke and is why they have not deployed it to any meaningful land area.

          So, the LTEiRA partners are hamstrung right now and are pretty much ignoring 5G, giving T-Mobile a chance to really lock up the market. But they are going to have to densify to do that. I have no doubt that they will eventually. The naysayers said that T-Mobile would never serve small towns and rural areas anywhere, but they did it. It’s not great yet, but they did it. And it will get better. I am having serious doubts that I will stick with them in the immediate future or switch away and come back once they do improve the situation. 5G only reaching out 3-4 miles from a site and LTE on a much higher frequency going 10 miles is not what should be happening.

        • Shaun Michalak

          Well, partly right.. They should have the spectrum to “start” installing 5G, about now, or the very near future.. But only in C-Band spectrum, which is the problem.. Lack of coverage space.. they said that Verizon will pretty much immediately get 60mhz of C-Band, but the rest they will have to wait for.. But you are right about the 5G on the towers being a joke.. Most articles are even saying that with DSS shared spectrum, it gives priority to 4G, so 5G only gets what is left.. So their 5G is getting worse service then 4G does.. and this is what Verizon is bragging about.. In their words, “5G done right”.. When I saw that on their commercials I just started laughing..

          I kind of find it funny about your comment about the nah sayers saying T-Mobile will never do small towns and rural areas.. I just looked on cellmapper, and found that in rural PA, I thought that they had put up 5 new towers in the last year.. Well, I found a few more.. So including the ones that I thought might be towers to check service.. Well, they are now full working towers, and there is about 10 of them in that small area of PA.. all rural, mountainous and small communities in those areas.. All I can say is I am not complaining.. I do not have to jump off of AT&T any more when I go down that way.

        • Glenn Gore

          Both AT&T and Verizon are doing the “shared spectrum” thing, and neither version is in any way useful or an improvement over LTE. Options are a good thing, it means competition which drives the carriers to do better, so we will see what happens with C-Band.

          I noticed a very significant performance change yesterday after updating my iPhone 12 to iOS 4.5. I went from having just 1 bar of 5G and the phone switching to LTE indoors all the time to now having a consistent 2-3 bars of 5G and the phone has not switched off of 5G since the update.

          I know there was a big modem update in this new version of iOS, so it must have had a huge effect based on what I am seeing. My location is in a weak-signal area with the nearest T-Mobile site 6 miles away from this town, so if this modem update is responsible for improving fringe-area signal quality, this is great.

          My old OnePlus McLaren phone also has this problem of switching from 5G to LTE all the time, so this makes me wonder if the problem isn’t more of a modem/Qualcomm issue rather than a carrier issue. I would be interested to see what others are seeing after installing the 14.5 update.

        • Shaun Michalak

          I think that Verizon and AT&T both did the 5G thing the way that they did just to say that they had 5G.. I have not seen one article that has stated that their 5G is faster then their 4G.. It is actually the opposite. that 4G is faster. Personally, I have seen a difference in Verizon’s and AT&T’s attitude toward coverage since T-Mobile started their upgrades 7 years ago.. Verizon started buying out small areas where they rented use of the towers.. and AT&T.. They started expanding coverage a lot more, along with converting over areas that they neglected that only had 3G service on them, to 4 and 5G service.

          From what I have read, in the past 5 years, Verizon has only increased their coverage by about 10%.. AT&T has increased theirs by much more then that, and T-mobile.. What.. a 45% increase in the last 6 or 7 years.. That is more then I expected from Verizon, but I will give them that.. Still, that is not that much compared to the others..

  • JLaw

    Just traded in an LG l38c trscfone from 2013 for an a32 5g. No line add, just promo credit on existing line.
    For less than 30 bucks, taxes and shipping. Don’t see why the uncarrier moved has been reported yet?
    That’s real 5g move there. I mean, at least opening up for more people to join in.

    • marque2

      It was reported two weeks ago on tmonews.