Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I got a Nexus One on T-Mobile. My bill with 500 minutes (free nights and weekends) unlimited text, data plus taxes and fees comes to $65. Compare this to an AT&T plan and you pay more for just phone (less minutes). I would switch to the iPhone as soon I as can have it on my plan.

Steffen

depends on who you are. my bill with 500 more minutes and rollover, 1500 text and unlimited data is only $7 more than yours. of course I have had my voice plan for almost 8 years

and tmobile is simply awful
 
Why on earth did T-Mobile decide to build out a network that was so strange that no one else isues it and basically phones are going to have custom radios in them to work.

If T-Moblie used more of a stardard frequency, they would be running MILLIONS of iPhones right now even though you can't buy one from T-Mobile.

Operators need to buy rights to spectrum, and there are practical limits to the number of operators that can use a particular chunk of spectrum. T-Mobile can't use the more "standard" frequencies because they don't have licenses for them, and additional licenses may not be available.

Of course, if you really want to use an iPhone on T-Mobile, you can get an unlocked one and run it on GSM.
 
I don't understand why T-Mobile is using 700/2100 instead of 2100 up and down. The iPhone and other handsets support 2100 but not 700.
 
My guess is that T-Mobile wasn't able to acquire enough 2100 spectrum to go both ways. That's just a guess though, and I don't know why it's not using 1700 in both directions.
 
AWS-1 (a.k.a. UMTS Band IV) is a standard in the U.S. and Canada. I think Japan has also allocated AWS-1 (to eMobile). It is constructed out of two parts: 1710 to 1755 MHz and 2110 to 2155 MHz. Devices which support AWS-1 are commonly labeled "1700." Quite simply, that's the spectrum that was available to put up for auction. T-Mobile and Wind Mobile either could bid on that spectrum and use it for 3G service or not. Mobile device manufacturers can now produce AWS frequency products if they want to sell through these carriers or not. It's Apple's choice whether to play or pass.

Years ago, European nations did not adopt the same frequency allocations that the U.S. did for the world's first cellular service (824-849 MHz paired with 869-894 MHz). It's hardly unusual that different groups of countries have different allocations, primarily because of existing services that were already licensed but also occasionally for political reasons.

There are all kinds of variations in spectrum allocations between countries and regions. The U.S. has allocated spectrum in the 700+ MHz range for LTE services (which Verizon in particular plans to use). Europe and Asia use 2100+ MHz for 3G while the U.S. doesn't. Europe has allocated 900+ MHz and 1800+ MHz spectrum to GSM (and now some 3G) while the U.S. has allocated the AMPS (824-849/869-894) and 1900+ MHz ranges. AWS-1 is just another set of frequencies which Apple either will or won't support.

If Apple does support AWS-1, it would significantly improve the compatibility of their products in North America. It isn't a particularly difficult engineering issue. (Fairly trivial, actually.) Nokia has already done so with the N8 which supports GSM/EDGE on 850/900/1800/1900 and 3G on 850/900/1700/1900/2100.
 
The AWS 1700/2100 is a weird beast. And yes, the FCC, as well as TMobile, would have rather harmonized the band allocation with the rest of the world.

The problem is, the reverse allocation (phone to "tower") in the european 2100 band overlaps our existing american 1900 band.

So the FCC had to come up with some weird split band with the free allocations it had, creating a really weird beast that requires custom radios on both the handset and "tower" side.

Also, in case anyone is wondering, the 1800 band has been allocated to the US federal government. Among many other things, a benefit of which is to operate ad-hoc/covert communication networks using commodity european band GSM gear. Go figure.

With the AWS allocation, we will never have a 1800 band either even if the feds ditch it.

In terms of this "analyst" report, what a bunch of idiots. I also highly doubt that apple would create a special iPhone or modify its globally distributed product for what may only be 1-3 million subscribers a year from now. Especially since AWS band handsets will need additional RF circuitry at additional cost due to its obscurity and lack of support on multiband chipsets.

I think that AWS will come only by chance when it just happens to be cheaper than the existing chipset they are using.
 
Here in Canada, we have:
Bell Mobility - 3G 850/1900 (official iPhone/iPad carrier)

Telus Mobility - 3G 850/1900 (official iPhone carrier)
Rogers Wireless - 3G 850/1900 (official iPhone/iPad carrier)
Microcell Telecommunications Inc (Fido) - 3G 850/2100 (official iPhone carrier)


Then there are some new startups that use the 1700/2100 AWS band and they have almost no handsets to use.
 
I have a relative who works for AT&T and has for over 10 years and uses T-Mobile. HAHA. They would like to get an iPhone.
 
I really hope T-Mobile isn't chosen...I had them for a year and a half and what horrible customer service. Not to mention that their coverage in Palm Springs, CA is horrible. Apple should go with Verizon, I did go with AT&T myself, but Verizon is rated highest of all the carriers for customer satisfaction and coverage.

I've been with T-mobile since the 1st sidekick and am still with them because of their customer service. They have the best CS IMO
 
There is simply no reason why T-Mobile could not have shared the spectrum with AT&T since other countries have independent competitors doing exactly that. See my post about concerning Canada and look at the UK and continental Europe.
 
I don't understand why T-Mobile is using 700/2100 instead of 2100 up and down. The iPhone and other handsets support 2100 but not 700.

because the 700 spectrum has theoretical data speeds much higher then the "standard" spectrum.

my family has been happy with t-mobiles service where we live for over 6 years and there rates are very affordable.

The only reason i went to ATT is because of the iPhone and if the iphones does come to t-mobile i will be switching back.
 
I'd rather have T-Mobile than Verizon just because of costs. T-Mobile actually has decent plans compared to other cellular companies.
 
because the 700 spectrum has theoretical data speeds much higher then the "standard" spectrum.

my family has been happy with t-mobiles service where we live for over 6 years and there rates are very affordable.

The only reason i went to ATT is because of the iPhone and if the iphones does come to t-mobile i will be switching back.
The speed has nothing to do with the frequency used. Those Canadian carriers I mentioned have a theoretical speed of 21Mbps (HSPA+) and they use the same frequencies as AT&T.
 
Yes, T-Mobile uses 2100 Mhz, which iPhone supports, but they also use 1700 Mhz, which no iPhone yet supports. You'd need both to use T-Mobile's 3G network.

It would be much easier to add the 1700 Mhz band than to create a CDMA iPhone, though I think both are likely.

Hopefully Verizon accepts fate and just switches to GSM like Bell and Telus (former CDMA stalwarts) did up here in Canada.

Mind you, Rogers, Fido, Bell, Telus and Virgin all sell the iPhone - all for the same price and same monthly fees. So competition isn't always better.
 
There's a reason why it'd be easier to make an AWS iPhone than a CDMA iPhone; CDMA is pretty much monopolized by Qualcomm, so if Apple wanted a CDMA iphone it'd probably cost quite a bit to make.

Of course, Apple could simply buy out Qaulcomm. I kinda look forward to the day Steve walks out on stage and starts bragging about Verizon's awesome coverage areas lol.

AWS isn't AFAIK monopolized by anyone and should be as easy to do as current GSM is. (I may be wrong)
 
Hopefully 1700mhz band is a hidden feature in iPhone 4, supposedly the hardware in the other iPhones cannot be made compatible with it.

I don't know why people on this board would be negative about the idea of ANY additional carrier getting the iPhone. Yes, I agree that no single carrier could have handled the data demands of the iPhone, thats why everyone will get the best possible experience if the iPhone is available on as many carriers as possible.

And speaking for T-Mobile, I think that major publications have rated them to have a perfectly fine network in most metropolitan areas, sometimes even the best single carrier in a particular region.

And their plans are appreciably cheaper than AT&T. Best of all, they offer plans without a contract and without a phone subsidy where they pass on the savings to you. In other words, BYO phone, and you can get unlimited data, unlimited texting, and 500 anytime minutes for $60/month. Equivalent plan from AT&T is $85/month with 2GB a data.

Even assuming T-mob cuts data allowance to 2GB, thats still a good deal compared to AT&T. I'd love to be able to shop aggressively for an iPhone, and then save ~$300+ year on the subscription rates.

More competition can't be bad for the consumer.
 
There's a reason why it'd be easier to make an AWS iPhone than a CDMA iPhone; CDMA is pretty much monopolized by Qualcomm, so if Apple wanted a CDMA iphone it'd probably cost quite a bit to make.

Of course, Apple could simply buy out Qaulcomm. I kinda look forward to the day Steve walks out on stage and starts bragging about Verizon's awesome coverage areas lol.

AWS isn't AFAIK monopolized by anyone and should be as easy to do as current GSM is. (I may be wrong)
Uh, you do realize that even Verizon is going to eventually abandon CDMA for LTE and that LTE is the 4th generation evolution of GSM technology?

Every carrier in North America, except for Sprint has plans to move to LTE. Every carrier outside of North America is either on HSPA/HSDPA already of plans on going with LTE in the future.

There is no 4th generation CDMA standard because it died on the planning table.

GSM technology went like this:
For Voice:
GSM->UMTS->LTE
For Data:
GPRS->Edge->HSPA/HSDPA->LTE
 
As opposed to what, the new CDMA iPhone? As was stated by screensaver400 it would be much easier to add a 1700 band than redesign for CDMA (though numerous rumors have suggested that Apple is preparing a CDMA iPhone.)

As for carriers, look what the iPhone does to networks, both here and abroad. How much complaining do you hear about AT&T and O2 as exclusive carriers? The huge strain on their networks balances out the publicity and business they've gotten from being the sole cell companies offering the iPhone. The unlimited data plan castration will follow the iPhone wherever it goes. It could make a comeback as networks improve, but I doubt it because bandwidth expansion is accompanied with larger/more complex files.

Add an iPhone potentially video conferencing over 3g plus multitasking and no carrier would be willing to shoulder that data load.

What people should keep in mind is that once another carrier is working with the iPhone, that decrease in usability (strain on their networks) will become an increase in usability as the additional users are spread over more carriers.
 
depends on who you are. my bill with 500 more minutes and rollover, 1500 text and unlimited data is only $7 more than yours. of course I have had my voice plan for almost 8 years

and tmobile is simply awful

Only your [minority] opinion. I have been a customer of T-Mo for more than a decade, and I have no complaints except coverage in remote areas (which might be alleviated only with a satellite phone). My 1,000 family minutes and 4 phones and 2 datas cost $177/month, btw.
 
T-Mobile Already in The Netherlands and Germany

Not everyone in the Netherlands and Germany is happy with it, but T-Mobile has been our exclusive provider of the iPhone 3G and 3GS since their launch and there is no end in sight for us. It would however be very easy and logical for Apple to choose to use T-Mobile in the US, not only because no hardware modification is necessary (I noticed myself last week in Boston that my European iPhone 3G 16GB defaulted to the T-Mobile network or alternatively AT&T when there was no coverage), and it would be a matter of adding an additional country to an existing contract with a company you are already dealing with as opposed to starting from scratch. You Americans may not like it but it is the most logical move for Apple even if it's not the preferred one.

:apple: 13" Macbook Pro 2.4 (2010), iMac 20" 2.66, iPhone 3G 16GB, Black Macbook 2.0, 600 & 900MHz 12" iBook G3's, G3 + G4 iMac's and much more going back to 1987 :apple:
 
T-Mobile requires AWS specifically which is not just 2100mhz. AT&T operates on 1900/2100. T-Mobile is 1700/2100 so it would need a new radio, if not a new radio ROM.
 
More analyst idiots spouting off crap that anyone can guess at. There are probably more competent analysts in these forums then on wallstreet...
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.