Dear T-Mobile, The Point Of 3G Is For Data Speeds
from the you-can't-be-serious dept
T-Mobile was the one national US mobile operator who really didn't have much of a strategy when it came to upgrading its network. While Sprint, Verizon and AT&T all were working on 3G options, T-Mobile kind of sat around twiddling its thumbs. Then it finally realized that it was way behind and made an effort to catch up. Years after everyone else got around to launching stuff (and as they're all now setting plans for their 4G options), T-Mobile is finally launching its 3G wireless service. But in a move that makes absolutely no sense, it's only for voice -- not for data. If it's only for voice... there's no reason to move to 3G. The very purpose of the 3G mobile network was to enable higher bandwidth for data. This is like building an entire highway next to a perfectly good bike trail... and then saying the highway is only for bicycles. Why bother? Update: Well, phew. Turns out the original story was simply not true. T-Mobile launched with voice and data...
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 3g, broadband, data, wireless
Companies: t-mobile
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
why bother?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
why bother?
Why bother? don't you know, all bad business decisions are made in the name of profit "margins". Not profit itself, not return customers. Just profit margins.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
why bother?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
using t-mobile edge
Any body know of another carrier that can add another line for $10? It's always been $20 with verizon, sprint and at&turd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: using t-mobile edge
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: using t-mobile edge
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: using t-mobile edge
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: using t-mobile edge
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tmobile
they are in all fairness a pretty decent provider for people who have decent technical knowhow
30$/month for unlimited 3g is not bad, now if only it were faster than 56k ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: tmobile
I'll stick with T-mo even if they never go 3G-data
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why?
On a digital voice network, phone calls are carried as data just like everything else. However, in order to fit as many calls on the network as possible, the sound is compressed, and at high levels of compression it can get pretty bad.
Many systems use adaptive compression that can give better quality when the network is not congested and then degrade if it gets busy; if your network is often highly loaded (as I'd expect in many major cities), moving to a faster network will generally improve voice quality.
(Also, there have been reports that, despite T-Mobile's announcement, the 3G speeds are being seen on data. I am not a T-Mobile customer, so I don't know.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who stands still
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
T-Mobile has always seen themselves as a "Voice" company first and data company second. I mean, if you buy a phone you usually do so to make calls first. (last I checked anyways) and it doesn't allow you to make voice calls, what good is it when it comes to that 2 or 3% who want to use data exclusively.
Its hillarious that the billboard across from TMO HQ is a Verizon ad. LOL! Verizon = +1. TMO = par
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WHERE THE HELL YOU GUYS GET INFO?
I mean first of all how do GUYS from a proported technology blog not know that you can't separate data and voice on a UMTS network. This is what they get when they try to be a jack of all trades and a master of none. You have "REPORTERS" who don't know the first thing about wireless technology.
info from engadgetmobile is 100% wrong
got 3G service here, both voice and internet
the editor should check this thread
http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php?t=1364669
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spectral Efficiency
The best example I can bring up is Hutchison "3" in the UK. Remember in 2003 they launched 3G services to MUCH fanfare, promising awesome data services, video conferencing, etc? Remember how they launched this "awesome", premium-branded data network and nobody signed up?
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20030821/111423.shtml
After Hutch realized that they were not being effective in marketing 3 as a premium brand, they got a little desperate. They had a network, and no users. They needed to attract customers. They took advantage of the greater spectral efficiency of 3G, and started offering calls cheaper than other UK cellular carriers:
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20040329/144823.shtml
Because of their fundamentally better 3G spectral efficiency, this actually worked:
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20040820/121310.shtml
By 2005, the advantage of lower costs had set Hutch 3 on stable financial footing.
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20050331/101201.shtml
But they sacrificed the premium brand image in order to survive as a "low cost" provider. This is essentially where they remain today.
Flash forward to today in the US. T-Mobile's brand in the US is already that of a "low cost" provider, so it's a natural fit to leverage 3G to keep costs of voice calls down. I think you are wrong to chastise them for focusing on this element of 3G. For them, it is a good fit.
3G provides dual benefits: lower costs per minute, and better data services. What's wrong with TMo focusing on the former, and taking advantage of the latter in due time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bike lanes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
highway for bikes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Add a line
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, nevermind. That would only be something a credible journalist would do.
http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/05/t-mobile-clears-everything-up-3g-rollout-with-data-is-on/
Good to see that you haven't changed a bit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sorry, been at a conference, so missed the official announcement. Have updated the post, noting that the story was wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]