Jump to content

T-Mobile LTE & Network Discussion V2


lilotimz

Recommended Posts

I look at those numbers and it reminds me of why I'd love for Sprint and T-Mobile to merge. Although, I know many Sprint enthusiasts here really don't want that to happen.

 

However, for those here who don't like the idea of a Sprint/T-Mobile merger, I'll state that while I like the idea, I prefer a merger between AT&T and T-Mobile even more. If Trump wins (not meaning to be political, just making a point regarding wireless merger business), I think there stands a good chance this very well may happen, if AT&T is at all interested. My thinking is they are, though they realize they won't get this to pass the FCC under a Democrat administration, although I think it might be easier with Hillary than with Obama. Still, the best chance is with Trump, and personally I'm curious if it may even go further than just AT&T/T-Mobile.

 

I know an AT&T merger would be great for my new phone, the Vivo Xplay 5 Elite, scheduled to arrive to me this approaching week. It'll work with all of T-Mobile's bands, except for band 12 which I'm not all that concerned about right now being in the Chicago market with no band 12 availability.

Damn it Arysyn you were doing SO WELL up until AT&T/T-Mobile merger. While totally possible, this would DESTROY EVERYTHING DECENT about the wireless industry as well as ruin the happiness of millions of subscribers and really hurt Sprint.

 

I say leave the four major carriers four separate major carriers. I want them all to build super power fast wireless 4G/5G networks and then just sell the infrastructure to MVNOs, who we then purchase service from. More competition, more choice.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, European regulators have increasingly soured on the "three wireless carriers" model, even though they at least have more customer portability due to their lack of boutique LTE bands. http://www.economist.com/news/business/21699143-country-mergers-blocked-mobile-phone-firms-europe-must-now-find-other-ways

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't. I would absolutely love Sprint to expand its coverage instead of relying so heavily on roaming everywhere outside major metros. You can't really make an argument about not giving T-Mobile credit where it's due when Sprint hasn't even made an effort. Of course Sprint can repair it's brand in a similar fashion like T-Mobile did if it had the right focus and executed their plans at a faster pace. It's been proven possible by T-Mobile.

I like that they at least rely on roaming in a lot of areas I venture. Having roaming 3G and LTE with decent sized 300MB bucket beats TMo no service and 2G with 50MB bucket.  And if I get on cell edge like in the deep woods/mountains 1x goes forever.

 

Just depends where you live and what you need/do.  I like Sprint, have a good time.  But my neighbor could have a radically different experience.  Something simple like a DAS is all it could be to change the outcome of who someone likes.  

 

However, I don't like TMo cause they get a lot of no service at peoples houses I go too even though the area is well within the "fair" lte coverage.  Once 700A goes online hopefully fix that, so long as they don't install on just a few towers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn it Arysyn you were doing SO WELL up until AT&T/T-Mobile merger. While totally possible, this would DESTROY EVERYTHING DECENT about the wireless industry as well as ruin the happiness of millions of subscribers and really hurt Sprint.

 

I say leave the four major carriers four separate major carriers. I want them all to build super power fast wireless 4G/5G networks and then just sell the infrastructure to MVNOs, who we then purchase service from. More competition, more choice.

 

I definitely understand how people differ in these opinions and such, and I admit there are advantages to leaving the four carriers as they are. I'm very one-tracked minded on the issue though as what I'd like to see, despite the disadvantages, which is my wanting a spectrum superpower. Infrastructure is very important too though, and can help to resolve shortcomings in spectrum. However the hassles which carriers receive from towns trying to keep carriers from installing towers and other zoning issues, I feel it might be too much for carriers to wait for getting this done when they could just merge under an acquisition-accepting administration. I do see too few carriers as a problem though, as I wouldn't want the number to go below three. Yet, I'm very curious as to what may happen after the elections are over and do have some speculative ideas that I'm going to just have to see what does end up happening.

 

Definitely no rate hikes though. I'm against those, even with mergers often resulting in them. I'd like some fair pro-consumer stipulations if there are to be more mergers. Also, I'm really against the idea of Comcast acquiring Sprint or T-Mobile, so if a merger between them or AT&T gets involved, if a merger is going to happen regardless, better it be them involved then with Comcast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are your thoughts on how they should structure their rate plans after such a merger?

 

Great question. I love discussing rate plans as everyone here knows.

 

I've often written of what I'd like rate plans to be, but also what I think they could realistically be, based on a natural progression from the current plans. However, I've been surprised by some of the rate hikes that have happened, as I figured the rates would be lowered by the increased competition lately. In some ways they have, but not in the majority of what coincides with data growth. Those rates, such as unlimited data, have increased, where I expected carriers to decrease the rates while introducing some form of data speed capping. That was one thing I actually expected to see, not just my opinion. I really wanted T-Mobile to expand this concept onto Binge-On, giving all forms of data the same fair treatment as video, which I think would help their congestion issues a bit where they have less spectrum.

 

However to get back to pricing on after-merger scenarios, if Sprint and T-Mobile merge, I both believe and would like them to have a Cricket-like structure, which could be something like unlimited data at these monthly rates/speed caps : $60 for 9mbps, $75 for 18mbps, $90 for 30mbps. Those could be a bit different when implemented, but something similar to it, I think, eliminating the non-speed capped unlimited data plans altogether. Possibly offer something around $3 per gb on top of a monthly rate for those not wanting unlimited data. Perhaps $45 for the 1st Line, $30 for the 2nd Line, and $15 per Line thereafter, unlimited everything except data, $3 per gb. I think something similar to that non-unlimited plan could happen if AT&T merge with T-Mobile, but at $5 per gb instead of $3 per gb. AT&T very likely will get rid of Binge-On, but they might have a $90 unlimited plan at a slightly higher speed cap than Cricket, perhaps around 15mbps-18mbps.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Hmm... I'm a bit surprised you don't like the idea, gusherb, other than from a general market outlook though which I can understand being against it for. Although as long as AT&T didn't increase your rate, your service would boost quite a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Market concentration is an issue here. Do we want three equal powers or two superpowers without competition? If AT&T ended up getting TMUS after all this the end would be doubly disheartening.

 

It would also mean Sprint would have no choice but to open negotiations with Verizon.

 

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Market concentration is an issue here. Do we want three equal powers or two superpowers without competition? If AT&T ended up getting TMUS after all this the end would be doubly disheartening.

 

It would also mean Sprint would have no choice but to open negotiations with Verizon.

 

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

You brought up a point I've been thinking about, fraydog

 

I've been wondering if the new administration happens to be pro-merger, if there is a possibility that AT&T will get T-Mobile, while Verizon will get Sprint. I'm not saying I want that to happen, well other than the AT&T/T-Mobile merger because I often complain about T-Mobile's spectrum constraints which AT&T would really help them resolve that issue being merged together. Sprint doesn't need Verizon for any technical reason, so a merger between Verizon and Sprint would just be bad for Sprint customers. Especially if Verizon dumped Sprint's voice codecs for Verizon's.

 

In other news, I'm thinking perhaps I'm not meant to have a smartphone. I really need one for emergency contact, but for some reason I end up with duds or really odd shipping issues. The Vivo box was pre-opened and had finger smudges over the tape and outer covering. Both of the security tabs had been cut. I didn't open the box past the other cover though, as the company I got it from has strict protocols on the return policies, so I didn't want to get further than that knowing something was not right. I'm very disappointed and not feeling well about this. Just the delay in waiting for it over a month has me lost a lot of interest in wireless technology. I don't even feel like posting here much, so it'll be less often for the near future for all I can say. I appreciate the staff here for having me here though, both through good and bad. Also for those who've helped me here with everything in both agreements and disagreements. Regardless of anything, I'll always have respect for this site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I've been wondering if the new administration happens to be pro-merger, if there is a possibility that AT&T will get T-Mobile, while Verizon will get Sprint.

 

 

I think AT&T merging with T-Mobile and Verizon merging with Sprint is as likely as you getting hit by lightning while winning the lottery and giving birth to a unicorn, after drinking beers with a leprechaun. Actually, the latter scenario is probably a bit more likely. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think AT&T merging with T-Mobile and Verizon merging with Sprint is as likely as you getting hit by lightning while winning the lottery and giving birth to a unicorn, after drinking beers with a leprechaun. Actually, the latter scenario is probably a bit more likely. 

 

Currently it may be very unlikely, though with a major pro-business FCC in place after the elections if it goes that way, then it may be likely, probably more so than Donald Trump naming John Legere as VP while he has a drunk leprechaun riding around on a unicorn with lightning rods for horns in the shape of "11" for Uncarrier 11, offering T-Mobile customers free birth control pills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Currently it may be very unlikely, though with a major pro-business FCC in place after the elections if it goes that way, then it may be likely, probably more so than Donald Trump naming John Legere as VP while he has a drunk leprechaun riding around on a unicorn with lightning rods for horns in the shape of "11" for Uncarrier 11, offering T-Mobile customers free birth control pills.

More like pro-monopoly. There's no competition between AT&T and Verizon as it stands! They just hangout and do what they can and don't even bother to make the other work cause they essentially have equal footing in terms of subscribers. In a world where they're the two only carriers, it would be crap for everyone, nobody wins everybody loses. In fact I bet everyone would give up on 5G and start charging $80 a GB. 

 

Everybody needs to drop talk about anybody merging after the new administration comes to office, its never gonna happen. Especially a Sprint/T-Mobile merger. The US government had to investigate for quite awhile when Softbank bought Sprint and the deal seemed very volatile at the point. 2 years later Softbank is struggling because of Sprint, and people think its plausible that Masayoshi Son will further burden his company with debt. Softbank has enough debt operating on its own as well as the buyout from Sprint and Clear. Sure they can do a leveraged buyout, but that can blow back HARD and then we're left with two carriers.

 

The US needs four carriers. Twin bells don't compete, they just sit back and make money because they're both equally respected. No one who has AT&T says Verizon sucks and vice versa. It's just a matter of who would you rather give your money up to. Sprint offers cheap unlimited data while T-Mobile breaks everything that a traditional carrier does and makes it sexy for everyone, and now all four are building superfast reliable networks. Any of them merging will screw up a careful balance in place and honestly, there are no benefits if anyone merges.

 

EDIT: Verizon CEO's comment on buying a big network company: https://twitter.com/FierceWireless/status/735081759621009413

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

More like pro-monopoly. There's no competition between AT&T and Verizon as it stands! They just hangout and do what they can and don't even bother to make the other work cause they essentially have equal footing in terms of subscribers. In a world where they're the two only carriers, it would be crap for everyone, nobody wins everybody loses. In fact I bet everyone would give up on 5G and start charging $80 a GB.

 

Everybody needs to drop talk about anybody merging after the new administration comes to office, its never gonna happen. Especially a Sprint/T-Mobile merger. The US government had to investigate for quite awhile when Softbank bought Sprint and the deal seemed very volatile at the point. 2 years later Softbank is struggling because of Sprint, and people think its plausible that Masayoshi Son will further burden his company with debt. Softbank has enough debt operating on its own as well as the buyout from Sprint and Clear. Sure they can do a leveraged buyout, but that can blow back HARD and then we're left with two carriers.

 

The US needs four carriers. Twin bells don't compete, they just sit back and make money because they're both equally respected. No one who has AT&T says Verizon sucks and vice versa. It's just a matter of who would you rather give your money up to. Sprint offers cheap unlimited data while T-Mobile breaks everything that a traditional carrier does and makes it sexy for everyone, and now all four are building superfast reliable networks. Any of them merging will screw up a careful balance in place and honestly, there are no benefits if anyone merges.

 

EDIT: Verizon CEO's comment on buying a big network company: https://twitter.com/FierceWireless/status/735081759621009413

Just a correction, although Sprint is Softbank's largest burden, they are far from "struggling". That's like saying Verizon's $100 Billion buyout of Vodafone shares left them "struggling". They lost a lot of money, but they have a lot more.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If ATT bought TMobile, things would be a lot different, but how would be very interesting.  

 

Maybe Softbank wouldn't by Sprint, and Sprint would be a dead horse right now.  But, then I think that would leave Sprint to be the only one to make the few remaining large acquisitions.  I doubt VZW or ATT would be allowed to acquire MetroPCS and/or Cricket so these would have been acquired by Sprint.  Increase their subs some 15 million, Sprint would be in the ~72million range from those two acquisitions right off the bat and if they did some aggressive marketing could be in the 80+million range right now.   They would have acquired some solid PCS spectrum holdings and have some 700A+AWS reserves. 

 

Not sure what this would do going from 4 to 3 major carriers.  But myself I am all for a fifth major carrier.  I'd love to see Dish+Comcast or Dish+Charter do an MVNO.  Do regular popular MVNO pricing like say 3GB of data for $30/mo but then have it where when you ride Dish's airwaves it doesn't count against your data bucket.  So you get VZW LTE coverage through the MVNO that gets unlimited data when riding Dish LTE. And just have Dish deploy their spectrum in the major pops.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Not sure what this would do going from 4 to 3 major carriers. But myself I am all for a fifth major carrier. I'd love to see Dish+Comcast or Dish+Charter do an MVNO. Do regular popular MVNO pricing like say 3GB of data for $30/mo but then have it where when you ride Dish's airwaves it doesn't count against your data bucket. So you get VZW LTE coverage through the MVNO that gets unlimited data when riding Dish LTE. And just have Dish deploy their spectrum in the major pops.


This sounds like an MNO, no V for virtual.

If it's running on their spectrum, they are the mobile network operator. M


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Tmobile just announced they bought 700 spectrum in chicago. Good news for anyone living in there. (i tagged you arysyn since you live there and are always talking about there spectrum)

 

Sent from my LG-H901 using Tapatalk

Edited by Camcroz
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, it is the band 12 Lower 700 MHz A block from AT&T/Leap Wireless.  Who knows how much T-Mobile had to pay for that chunk of spectrum, though?  Financial terms were not disclosed.  And do not expect any usable deployment until late this year or early next year.

 

https://newsroom.t-mobile.com/news-and-blogs/t-mobile-secures-new-spectrum-to-deliver-extended-range-lte-to-chicago-area.htm

 

AJ

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, it is the band 12 Lower 700 MHz A block from AT&T/Leap Wireless. Who knows how much T-Mobile had to pay for that chunk of spectrum, though? Financial terms were not disclosed. And do not expect any usable deployment until late this year or early next year.

 

https://newsroom.t-mobile.com/news-and-blogs/t-mobile-secures-new-spectrum-to-deliver-extended-range-lte-to-chicago-area.htm

 

AJ

That leaves St. Louis and Charlotte as the lone major places where T-Mobile doesn't own 700 A.

 

Here's a better list:

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/tmobile/comments/4kzj6v/tmobilelaserchicago/d3ja3ce

 

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That leaves St. Louis and Charlotte as the lone major places where T-Mobile doesn't own 700 A.

 

Here's a better list:

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/tmobile/comments/4kzj6v/tmobilelaserchicago/d3ja3ce

 

That Reddit thread indicated from the spectrum holding company press release that the purchase price is $420 million -- double what Leap Wireless paid in its acquisition of the Chicago BEA Lower 700 MHz A block a few years ago.

 

Good.  Pay through the nose, T-Mobile, pay through the nose.  You want low band spectrum?  You have to pony up the cash.

 

And you deserve all of the financial pain that you can bear -- because you want people actually to believe that you can be a little man's VZW or even the equal of AT&T in the span of just a year or two.  Not to mention, some of your executive team conduct themselves like such frat boy asshats.

 

AJ

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, for the record, VZW paid $152 million for the Chicago BEA Lower 700 MHz A block when it was first sold at FCC Auction 73 in 2008.  I would say that T-Mobile paid the piper.

 

If you want to see 700 MHz spectrum valuations today compared to those of 2008, you can view the auction results.

 

http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/default.htm?job=auction_summary&id=73

 

AJ

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Compared to what values are post AWS-3, I must dissent here. I don't think that TMUS is overvaluing Chicago at all. It is an area where they have had weak coverage for a long time. Paying big for spectrum to solve a weak point in an urban area is a good move for them. It isn't like they paid over value for 700 MHz in Bum Fuck Egypt or somewhere like that. Chicago is a very important market for any carrier. Now I could argue the city of Chicago still needs far greater density for T-Mobile given they still won't be spectrum rich there.

 

I'm glad someone is at least making Verizon and AT&T look over their shoulder a little bit out here. If not for Uncarrier I'd still be at $2800 for a two year value of a smartphone plan over where I'm at on Verizon now which is closer to $2300 on the same time frame.

 

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad someone is at least making Verizon and AT&T look over their shoulder a little bit out here. If not for Uncarrier I'd still be at $2800 for a two year value of a smartphone plan over where I'm at on Verizon now which is closer to $2300 on the same time frame.

 

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Yeah I'm sure Sprint has zero affect on Att and Verizon in Chicago.. ;)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tmobile just announced they bought 700 spectrum in chicago. Good news for anyone living in there. (i tagged you arysyn since you live there and are always talking about there spectrum)

 

Sent from my LG-H901 using Tapatalk

 

Yay!!!

 

I'm glad for T-Mobile. My mother's over a decade old Samsung bar-style phone is on its last bit of life. I wrote to my contact at T-Mobile about it the other day, and she had a coworker friend of hers call us today. I talked to him for around 30 minutes, very nice guy who upgraded my mother's prepaid plan to a second of our great $45 monthly unlimited deals. Now my mother and I both have one of each of these great legacy loyalty unlimited plans, and they are sending my mother a completely free Apple IPhone 6s 16gb smartphone. To say I'm impressed is an understatement. Now finding out here T-Mobile is getting the 700mhz spectrum they so desperately need here in the Chicago market, is very excellent news!

 

I'm also glad I didn't switch to the Cricket unlimited plan or to the AT&T unlimited plan now, because the one thing I was concerned about being on T-Mobile is those areas around here where the AWS and PCS spectrum doesn't reach, specifically in the basement or over at my aunt's which seems to be in between towers in a semi-dead zone. Now that ought to be covered by the extra reaching 700mhz spectrum, though lately when I've been to my aunt's I've been relying on a recently installed AT&T WiFi access zone free with my aunt's internet service, though she doesn't have a WiFi router in her home. So, I've been connecting to the public AT&T access service instead. If that ever goes down though, I'll connect to T-Mobile. Now I just need to get a smartphone and a headphone amplifier.

 

Anyways, thank you for the information, Camcroz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Compared to what values are post AWS-3, I must dissent here. I don't think that TMUS is overvaluing Chicago at all. It is an area where they have had weak coverage for a long time. Paying big for spectrum to solve a weak point in an urban area is a good move for them. It isn't like they paid over value for 700 MHz in Bum Fuck Egypt or somewhere like that. Chicago is a very important market for any carrier. Now I could argue the city of Chicago still needs far greater density for T-Mobile given they still won't be spectrum rich there.

 

I'm glad someone is at least making Verizon and AT&T look over their shoulder a little bit out here. If not for Uncarrier I'd still be at $2800 for a two year value of a smartphone plan over where I'm at on Verizon now which is closer to $2300 on the same time frame.

 

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

The biggest question mark will be how they choose to deploy the spectrum. Does L700 go on every site, or every other site, or every 4th site? That's the million dollar question.

 

In rural and suburban markets, deploying L700 at full power helps blanket the area with coverage, but does nothing for capacity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest question mark will be how they choose to deploy the spectrum. Does L700 go on every site, or every other site, or every 4th site? That's the million dollar question.

 

In rural and suburban markets, deploying L700 at full power helps blanket the area with coverage, but does nothing for capacity.

While having the ability to cover more POP is great, but to be honest, I see very little merit in deploying 5x5 700 in a market that is completely capacity strained.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...