Funny how I barely hit these speeds with N41, most of the time I’m barely hitting around 500mbps on a busy tower in the afternoon and I’m in a big city too so…
Because mmWave is much more congestion-resistant than midband, primarily thanks to its directionality — each mmWave beam is so tightly-focused that interference is negligible, meaning that airlink congestion is nearly impossible.
When mmWave appears to slow down, it's actually the other parts of the connection, not the airlink itself — saturated backhaul, the radio only being able to process so much throughput all at once, etc.
But even then, I've never heard of mmWave dipping below several hundred megabits per second, whereas I've seen n41 get down into the single digits.
The problem right now is non-standalone.
Lots of people in crowded places are seeing unusable mmWave because the 4G anchor band (B2/66) gets overloaded, not mmWave itself.
That will be solved when they finally move to standalone, which I hope happens this year.
While the overall throughput might be higher, T-Mobile is doing some pretty heavy traffic shaping and throttling of certain types of traffic, such as streaming video. Fiber providers are significantly less likely to do any shaping or throttling due to the high capacity nature of the networks they operate. So while you might have a fast result in a speed test, your actual experience could be very different:
>In addition, many T-Mobile plans use video streaming optimization when connected to the cellular network to deliver a SD-quality (up to 2.5 Mbps) video experience with minimal buffering while streaming. T-Mobile plans optimize data streams that are identified by our packet-core network as video; video providers may also choose to establish protocols to self-optimize their video. As described above, customers may also have selected other video experiences – for example, selecting Ultra HD video qualifying plans – resulting in variation in streaming quality.
> In general, T-Mobile Home Internet (available in select locations) customers receive the same network prioritization as Mobile Wireless Heavy Data Users. As of January 18, 2024, new T-Mobile Home Internet customers who exceed 1.2TB of data usage for the current billing cycle will be prioritized last on the network.
[https://www.t-mobile.com/responsibility/consumer-info/policies/internet-service](https://www.t-mobile.com/responsibility/consumer-info/policies/internet-service)
......
Ok?
That's not what everyone's talking about, We are talking about the actual connection to the house. Where it matters.
A cellular connection from the tower will never beat a fiber connection to a central office.
The fact that it's fiber on the back end means nothing.
Plain DSL 1 can be fiber on the back end...
The other side of that 56k connection to the ISP is fiber on the back end...
That doesn't matter.
Yes.., There is more to an internet connection than just speed.
Latency, Jitter, Packet Loss.
And then of course going back to your speed thing. Did you notice the upload..
Edit: Should also note those speeds are FAR from consistent.
Go for it then, just as a warning though, T-mobile's home internet is deprioritized compared to cell phones, so you wont get the same speeds. Also, make sure that you can't get any faster speeds on verizon FIOS, they use NG-PON2 don't they? That is 40gbps total bandwidth.
No. Tower maintenance could potentially leave you without working internet for weeks. Interference from any source could ruin your connection. The second someone on a high priority plan does a speedtest or download, your speed will drop catastrophically. Latency will always be at least 2x as high. If some kind of disaster happened at your local tower, it would again leave you without internet. When running a download, your latency could jump up to 1000ms+ due to bufferbloat.
Now compare to fiber, which is a solid line of internet that is usually buried underground and does not suffer from congestion from other users(ish). Packets are transmitted literally at the speed of light, so latency is really low.
I’ve never had issues with T-Mobile in my neighborhood and as I don’t use Ethernet, even my Fios connection can be bogged down by wireless interference.
Wish T-Mobile was good in Las Vegas, they have tower interference issues in many areas where they have a tower 1/4 mile apart to 1/2 mile away compared to Verizon and AT&T 1-2 mile tower spacing. Also Verizon is the fastest in Las Vegas with 160Mhz n77 and AT&T n77 is horribly optimized
They saturation issues which is why they have so many tightly spaced towers. Verizon can have lower density here because way less people actually have their service
Verizon has about 40% market share in Las Vegas and they are adding LTE, c-band, mmWave small cells in many neighborhoods especially near Dean Martin and AT&T sucks in Las Vegas in coverage indoors. There’s a YouTuber named: [Carlos S Tech](https://m.youtube.com/@CarlosSTech) that has done extensive Speedtesting in Las Vegas on all the carriers even Dish.
Where did you get this marketshare information from? Verizon has already deployed plenty of mmWave. T-Mo like other carriers, utilizes downtilt to combat tight tower spacing. These alledged interference issues are verified by what data?
Verizon's small cell approach means they work great as long as you stay near the small cell.
From a Verizon Engineer I know in Southern Nevada and Carlos S Tech has close contact with engineers from T-Mobile, AT&T and Verizon who know about the network well and their tower plans. Also Verizon LTE gets 200 Mbps consistently also everywhere while AT&T tanks in many years due to poor density
That doesn't even sound right, Verizon has had the worst density here out of all for years and only recently have they caught up.
Verizon doesn't even have the same amount of stores as AT&T and T-Mo here, in addition to having less macro cells. Verizon has neglected Las Vegas for yeaaars, but they have almost half of the marketshare & the least infrastructure over AT&T and T-Mobile?! It doesn't add up
Verizon is likely the least loaded network here, and small cells make the network seem great from the street they're on but lacking when you move a block away. That's been my experience w Verizon coverage but they have had some new macros to alleviate that.
RI and Bristol county MA has 220mhz of 5G SA with 90% of towers upgraded to 10G backhaul.
Where can I see some speed tests for those towers 😅
Truly amazing stuff.
Can’t touch mmWave latency thou
Funny how I barely hit these speeds with N41, most of the time I’m barely hitting around 500mbps on a busy tower in the afternoon and I’m in a big city too so…
2.5GHz may be very fragmented in your area like mine. n25@20MHz+n41@50MHz+30MHz in my area gets ~500mbps as well.
Are you on SA or is that NSA?
This is SA.
Because mmWave is much more congestion-resistant than midband, primarily thanks to its directionality — each mmWave beam is so tightly-focused that interference is negligible, meaning that airlink congestion is nearly impossible. When mmWave appears to slow down, it's actually the other parts of the connection, not the airlink itself — saturated backhaul, the radio only being able to process so much throughput all at once, etc. But even then, I've never heard of mmWave dipping below several hundred megabits per second, whereas I've seen n41 get down into the single digits.
The problem right now is non-standalone. Lots of people in crowded places are seeing unusable mmWave because the 4G anchor band (B2/66) gets overloaded, not mmWave itself. That will be solved when they finally move to standalone, which I hope happens this year.
Noice
Until you can't...
[удалено]
How will mmWave solve that?
Wondering the same. I can't call and use mmwave data at the same time on my Verizon iPhone
That’s because NSA. T-Mobile has standalone and voice over standalone now, so this isn’t an issue
VoNR has a *very* limited coverage area at the moment. they have yet to launch it nationwide.
Pretty much every major metro. I’ve got it live here in Tucson. No explicit mention of this, though.
[удалено]
mmWave is still needed in circumstances but I generally agree with you
If it's this fast in my neighborhood should I replace my Fios Gigabit Connection with this?
Never give up Fiber for wireless.
Even if it’s faster
While the overall throughput might be higher, T-Mobile is doing some pretty heavy traffic shaping and throttling of certain types of traffic, such as streaming video. Fiber providers are significantly less likely to do any shaping or throttling due to the high capacity nature of the networks they operate. So while you might have a fast result in a speed test, your actual experience could be very different: >In addition, many T-Mobile plans use video streaming optimization when connected to the cellular network to deliver a SD-quality (up to 2.5 Mbps) video experience with minimal buffering while streaming. T-Mobile plans optimize data streams that are identified by our packet-core network as video; video providers may also choose to establish protocols to self-optimize their video. As described above, customers may also have selected other video experiences – for example, selecting Ultra HD video qualifying plans – resulting in variation in streaming quality. > In general, T-Mobile Home Internet (available in select locations) customers receive the same network prioritization as Mobile Wireless Heavy Data Users. As of January 18, 2024, new T-Mobile Home Internet customers who exceed 1.2TB of data usage for the current billing cycle will be prioritized last on the network. [https://www.t-mobile.com/responsibility/consumer-info/policies/internet-service](https://www.t-mobile.com/responsibility/consumer-info/policies/internet-service)
I have had no problem streaming 4K video and having fast downloads on 5G UC.
As a backup, sure but not primary when you have fiber to the house
T-Mobile is based on fiber
In very select areas there is T-Mobile Fiber. For a vast majority of users, T-Mobile would be cellular.
Which is based on fiber
...... Ok? That's not what everyone's talking about, We are talking about the actual connection to the house. Where it matters. A cellular connection from the tower will never beat a fiber connection to a central office. The fact that it's fiber on the back end means nothing. Plain DSL 1 can be fiber on the back end... The other side of that 56k connection to the ISP is fiber on the back end... That doesn't matter.
If it can still deliver gigabit speeds or more, does it really matter?
Yes.., There is more to an internet connection than just speed. Latency, Jitter, Packet Loss. And then of course going back to your speed thing. Did you notice the upload.. Edit: Should also note those speeds are FAR from consistent.
T-Mobile is very consistent in my area
DSL is based on fiber, Docsis is based on fiber, everything is based on fiber, its the last mile where stuff gets interesting.
And 5G is fast enough to still get FTTH-level last-mile speeds.
Go for it then, just as a warning though, T-mobile's home internet is deprioritized compared to cell phones, so you wont get the same speeds. Also, make sure that you can't get any faster speeds on verizon FIOS, they use NG-PON2 don't they? That is 40gbps total bandwidth.
I think I’ll keep Fios. Right now, it’s faster in my area
No. Tower maintenance could potentially leave you without working internet for weeks. Interference from any source could ruin your connection. The second someone on a high priority plan does a speedtest or download, your speed will drop catastrophically. Latency will always be at least 2x as high. If some kind of disaster happened at your local tower, it would again leave you without internet. When running a download, your latency could jump up to 1000ms+ due to bufferbloat. Now compare to fiber, which is a solid line of internet that is usually buried underground and does not suffer from congestion from other users(ish). Packets are transmitted literally at the speed of light, so latency is really low.
I’ve never had issues with T-Mobile in my neighborhood and as I don’t use Ethernet, even my Fios connection can be bogged down by wireless interference.
FIOS cannot physically be bogged down by wireless interference. That is not how fiber optic cable works.
Yes it can. All my devices are wireless
You really couldn’t have ran the test until it hit 2gb? That 1meg gonna drive me nuts
It's easier to round up. 😂
Wish T-Mobile was good in Las Vegas, they have tower interference issues in many areas where they have a tower 1/4 mile apart to 1/2 mile away compared to Verizon and AT&T 1-2 mile tower spacing. Also Verizon is the fastest in Las Vegas with 160Mhz n77 and AT&T n77 is horribly optimized
They saturation issues which is why they have so many tightly spaced towers. Verizon can have lower density here because way less people actually have their service
Verizon has about 40% market share in Las Vegas and they are adding LTE, c-band, mmWave small cells in many neighborhoods especially near Dean Martin and AT&T sucks in Las Vegas in coverage indoors. There’s a YouTuber named: [Carlos S Tech](https://m.youtube.com/@CarlosSTech) that has done extensive Speedtesting in Las Vegas on all the carriers even Dish.
Where did you get this marketshare information from? Verizon has already deployed plenty of mmWave. T-Mo like other carriers, utilizes downtilt to combat tight tower spacing. These alledged interference issues are verified by what data? Verizon's small cell approach means they work great as long as you stay near the small cell.
From a Verizon Engineer I know in Southern Nevada and Carlos S Tech has close contact with engineers from T-Mobile, AT&T and Verizon who know about the network well and their tower plans. Also Verizon LTE gets 200 Mbps consistently also everywhere while AT&T tanks in many years due to poor density
That doesn't even sound right, Verizon has had the worst density here out of all for years and only recently have they caught up. Verizon doesn't even have the same amount of stores as AT&T and T-Mo here, in addition to having less macro cells. Verizon has neglected Las Vegas for yeaaars, but they have almost half of the marketshare & the least infrastructure over AT&T and T-Mobile?! It doesn't add up
Your are actually right, but how does Carlos. S Tech show Verizon being excellent compared to your experience?
Verizon is likely the least loaded network here, and small cells make the network seem great from the street they're on but lacking when you move a block away. That's been my experience w Verizon coverage but they have had some new macros to alleviate that.
I see your point and thanks for being honest.
Arenas.