T-Mobile LTE & Network Discussion

[maxsilver]

Some in-market areas are allowed. Lots of out-of-market areas are blocked...

 

There seems to be zero rhyme or reason behind it.

 

It's like they threw darts at a map one day and said "in these areas, and only these areas, we will allow AT&T roaming". And it's stuck that way ever since.

 

It's ironic, because it would save them a lot on the coverage issue. Sprint allowing roaming on Verizon pretty much solved the 'coverage' issue, because anytime someone worried about coverage, Sprint could just say 'no worries, we roam on Verizon for 'free', your never without coverage'. With the flip of a switch, T-Mobile could do the same with AT&T.

 

I think John Legere is preventing it -- It would require him to admit they have better coverage, and he's physically incapable of saying anything about AT&T that could ever possibly be interpreted as a positive.

[Nickel]

Some in-market areas are allowed. Lots of out-of-market areas are blocked...

 

There seems to be zero rhyme or reason behind it.

 

It's like they threw darts at a map one day and said "in these areas, and only these areas, we will allow AT&T roaming". And it's stuck that way ever since.

 

It's ironic, because it would save them a lot on the coverage issue. Sprint allowing roaming on Verizon pretty much solved the 'coverage' issue, because anytime someone worried about coverage, Sprint could just say 'no worries, we roam on Verizon for 'free', your never without coverage'. With the flip of a switch, T-Mobile could do the same with AT&T.

 

I think John Legere is preventing it -- It would require him to admit they have better coverage, and he's physically incapable of saying anything about AT&T that could ever possibly be interpreted as a positive.

It's kinda funny that they're giving away international data for free yet they don't allow much roaming here.

[IamMrFamous07]

Man I'm not going to lie but I might jump ship to tmobile once my contract ends. Only is holding me back is their lack of lower band frequency.

 

But I know sprint and SoftBank are working on things behind the scenes so I'm going to wait. Right now I have my work phone (pay $10 a month) and my consumer through sprint. Might just have a tmobile phone and a sprint phone.

[Conan Kudo]

Some in-market areas are allowed. Lots of out-of-market areas are blocked...

 

There seems to be zero rhyme or reason behind it.

 

It's like they threw darts at a map one day and said "in these areas, and only these areas, we will allow AT&T roaming". And it's stuck that way ever since.

 

It's ironic, because it would save them a lot on the coverage issue. Sprint allowing roaming on Verizon pretty much solved the 'coverage' issue, because anytime someone worried about coverage, Sprint could just say 'no worries, we roam on Verizon for 'free', your never without coverage'. With the flip of a switch, T-Mobile could do the same with AT&T.

 

I think John Legere is preventing it -- It would require him to admit they have better coverage, and he's physically incapable of saying anything about AT&T that could ever possibly be interpreted as a positive.

If T-Mobile could afford to enable roaming across the entire country, it would. But AT&T does not offer roaming on a national basis for domestic roaming. Roaming rates differ based on location. In some areas, AT&T simply charges too much to enable any roaming. In others, AT&T charges a more reasonable rate.

 

Sprint's situation with Verizon is unusual, and has not been repeated by anyone else since the original Alltel disappeared. 

[Nickel]

If T-Mobile could afford to enable roaming across the entire country, it would. But AT&T does not offer roaming on a national basis for domestic roaming. Roaming rates differ based on location. In some areas, AT&T simply charges too much to enable any roaming. In others, AT&T charges a more reasonable rate.

 

Sprint's situation with Verizon is unusual, and has not been repeated by anyone else since the original Alltel disappeared. 

I don't quite remember the specifics, but I thought part of the failed AT&T deal was a flat roaming rate? 

[Conan Kudo]

I don't quite remember the specifics, but I thought part of the failed AT&T deal was a flat roaming rate? 

No. No one mentioned a flat roaming rate. However, T-Mobile has the option of enabling AT&T voice and data UMTS roaming anywhere it can afford to. AT&T gets to rate-limit T-Mobile to CSD speed, though. 

[maxsilver]

If T-Mobile could afford to enable roaming across the entire country, it would. But AT&T does not offer roaming on a national basis for domestic roaming. Roaming rates differ based on location. In some areas, AT&T simply charges too much to enable any roaming. In others, AT&T charges a more reasonable rate.

 

Sprint's situation with Verizon is unusual, and has not been repeated by anyone else since the original Alltel disappeared.

I'm fairly certain this is not true, AT&T roaming is never so expensive that T-Mobile could not afford it.

 

I don't have hard numbers to back it up offhand, but numerous sources (including T-Mobile's own press release) state that the roaming agreement rates were "favorable to T-Mobile"

 

T-Mobile may choose to not pay for roaming in certain areas, for whatever reason they'd like. (AT&T 'charging to much' likely means too many T-Mobile customers would rack up AT&T roaming charges that T-Mobile chooses not to pay, not that AT&T network access is so expensive on a given tower that T-Mobile can't afford to pay them).

 

Besides, it's not like they could't charge for domestic roaming. Lots of subscriber would pay an extra $10/month just to have 50mb to 100mb of nationwide AT&T data roaming. (Just as Sprint charges extra for Verizon data roaming).

 

http://gigaom.com/2011/12/20/t-mobiles-consolation-prize-a-whole-lot-of-airwaves/

http://www.engadget.com/2011/12/20/t-mobile-usa-and-atandts-seven-year-umts-roaming-agreement-gets-d/

[Conan Kudo]

I'm fairly certain this is not true, AT&T roaming is never so expensive that T-Mobile could not afford it.

 

I don't have hard numbers to back it up offhand, but numerous sources (including T-Mobile's own press release) state that the roaming agreement rates were "favorable to T-Mobile"

 

T-Mobile may choose to not pay for roaming in certain areas, for whatever reason they'd like. (AT&T 'charging to much' likely means too many T-Mobile customers would rack up AT&T roaming charges that T-Mobile chooses not to pay, not that AT&T network access is so expensive on a given tower that T-Mobile can't afford to pay them).

 

Besides, it's not like they could't charge for domestic roaming. Lots of subscriber would pay an extra $10/month just to have 50mb to 100mb of nationwide AT&T data roaming. (Just as Sprint charges extra for Verizon data roaming).

 

http://gigaom.com/2011/12/20/t-mobiles-consolation-prize-a-whole-lot-of-airwaves/

http://www.engadget.com/2011/12/20/t-mobile-usa-and-atandts-seven-year-umts-roaming-agreement-gets-d/

Favorable is something as simple as being able to pick and choose what areas would have roaming enabled, and flexibly calculate the fees incurred based on that.

[Fraydog]

Whoever said that Legere just hates AT&T that much, probably nailed it.

 

Paying a little more for roaming would help out T-Mobile immeasurably but he doesn't want to do anything to help his customers, because he'd have to admit that AT&T awoke from their network slumber and started taking their network building seriously.

 

I know the network end takes time since T-Mobile has to do rebuilds of almost all of their rural sites. A little relief in the meantime would be nice.

[Conan Kudo]

Whoever said that Legere just hates AT&T that much, probably nailed it. Paying a little more for roaming would help out T-Mobile immeasurably but he doesn't want to do anything to help his customers, because he'd have to admit that AT&T awoke from their network slumber and started taking their network building seriously. I know the network end takes time since T-Mobile has to do rebuilds of almost all of their rural sites. A little relief in the meantime would be nice.

And where did you get the idea that Legere hates AT&T? For goodness' sake, he learned the ropes of telecom while working there, alongside Dan Hesse and other stalwarts in telecom today!

 

I doubt he hates AT&T. However, it's a sound strategy to pick a fight like he's doing. The "us vs them" mentality is easy to fall into, and Legere is making it "us" to be T-Mobile, and "them" to be AT&T. Invoking that "underdog" and "challenger" imagery with T-Mobile as the "good guy" and the other three as the "bad guys" helps rally the troops and it is helping to turn around the company.

 

Sprint is no stranger to this, but it hasn't been executing well to back up its marketing. So it has somewhat fallen flat.

[Fraydog]

I disagree, I don't think Sprint has been marketing well at all lately. SoftBank's first heads lopped off are in sales and marketing, not on the network side.

 

I mean, the zombie commercials? I'd fire people over those too. Now the network side? Let's see what happens with band 41. Now if they don't have better performance by the middle of next year, then you may see people like Azzi and Bey out the door. Given the massive scale of rebuilding an entire network, it's not time to show them the door. Yet. However if Sprint falls behind targets again, I can see major changes again.

[IamMrFamous07]

I disagree, I don't think Sprint has been marketing well at all lately. SoftBank's first heads lopped off are in sales and marketing, not on the network side.

 

I mean, the zombie commercials? I'd fire people over those too. Now the network side? Let's see what happens with band 41. Now if they don't have better performance by the middle of next year, then you may see people like Azzi and Bey out the door. Given the massive scale of rebuilding an entire network, it's not time to show them the door. Yet. However if Sprint falls behind targets again, I can see major changes again.

Sprint cannot afford anymore delays. They can talk the talk all they want about how fast and great their network will be once network vision is completed but new customers and existing customers doesn't care. We want a better network now.

 

I understand what's sprints doing and why it's taking long but the average consumer doesn't. They have a perception "Why is Verizon, AT&T and now tmobile deploying faster than sprint the must suck etc"

 

I just hope that by mid next year sprint has LTE on 1900 nationwide. And a good amount of LTE on 800 and 2600 deployed

[IamMrFamous07]

Btw I'm not complaining lol. I just hope at least June of next year we have a lot of LTE deployed across all 3 bands

[jamesinclair]

The tmobile international thing is huge.

 

Sprint needs to wake up. In my opinion, they have by far the worst international services of the big 4. Their Mexico rates are ludicrous and they only just started offering removable sims. When it comes to international, Sprint still thinks its the 1960s.

[Rawvega]

People were using cell phones in the 1960s?!  :jester:

[WiWavelength]

The tmobile international thing is huge.

 

Yeah, 128 kbps is huge.  A huge waste of time.  If you like that, then you like CDMA1X.  So, stop complaining.

 

AJ

[Fraydog]

The tmobile international thing is huge.

 

Sprint needs to wake up. In my opinion, they have by far the worst international services of the big 4. Their Mexico rates are ludicrous and they only just started offering removable sims. When it comes to international, Sprint still thinks its the 1960s.

No, let's just get an unlocked SIM plan for the countries we travel to. I can be in the UK for a month, get an EE SIM for £33 and have 3GB of LTE data with speeds similar to what AT&T/Verizon have here. Sounds better than unusable EDGE and per minute voice charges.

 

Of course people don't seem to realize this.

[lordsutch]

Yeah, 128 kbps is huge. A huge waste of time. If you like that, then you like CDMA1X. So, stop complaining.

I respectfully disagree. Most of the basic services people need traveling overseas on a smart phone when they're out of range of a Wi-Fi hotspot (access to email, light web browsing, maps and navigation, translation) should be fine at EDGE speeds. You can certainly do them at 1X on Sprint.

 

At least in some countries with crappy data offerings (Canada, for example) you'd pay a lot for a local SIM that does little more than what T-Mobile is offering gratis. Most of the EU countries are better due to the stronger competitive environment that everyone being on WCDMA/UMTS provides though, but if you're only there a few days getting a local SIM often isn't with the hassle.

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4

[Nickel]

No, let's just get an unlocked SIM plan for the countries we travel to. I can be in the UK for a month, get an EE SIM for £33 and have 3GB of LTE data with speeds similar to what AT&T/Verizon have here. Sounds better than unusable EDGE and per minute voice charges.

 

Of course people don't seem to realize this.

Yup, just buy a a 520 (or similar device) then get the SIM card over there.

[WiWavelength]

I respectfully disagree.

 

Well, I counter that with my own rebuttal.

 

I am no stranger to international travel.  But I am far more apt to spend a few days in New Mexico than in Mexico, in Georgia than in Georgia -- the latter an inside joke for the few people anymore who actually know world geography.

 

My point is that Sprint has strong domestic roaming agreements.  In the US, a VZW, AT&T, or T-Mobile sub is more likely to have no voice or data access than is a Sprint sub.  Take care of home first.  Wireless isolationism is fine with me.  In fact, we could use more of it -- the Eurasian centric 3GPP is a "big bag of hurt."  And only a meager percentage of US wireless subs travel overseas.

 

So, if some people need global roaming on a regular basis, they can afford international travel, which is a racket unto itself.  They can afford to pay global roaming rates.  If those few do not like that, then they can go somewhere else.  Go to domestically challenged T-Mobile for all I care.

 

AJ

[nebody00]

It's ironic, because it would save them a lot on the coverage issue. Sprint allowing roaming on Verizon pretty much solved the 'coverage' issue, because anytime someone worried about coverage, Sprint could just say 'no worries, we roam on Verizon for 'free', your never without coverage'. 

 

Is this true for Sprint in all areas?  That's what I don't understand, I see people on other forums complaining about drop calls this or crappy phone signals while on Sprint while touting how Verizon is so much better.  I'm there confused and puzzled thinking doesn't Sprint just roam on Verizon if there's no signal?

[Fraydog]

Well, I counter that with my own rebuttal.

 

I am no stranger to international travel.  But I am far more apt to spend a few days in New Mexico than in Mexico, in Georgia than in Georgia -- the latter an inside joke for the few people anymore who actually know world geography.

 

My point is that Sprint has strong domestic roaming agreements.  In the US, a VZW, AT&T, or T-Mobile sub is more likely to have no voice or data access than is a Sprint sub.  Take care of home first.  Wireless isolationism is fine with me.  In fact, we could use more of it -- the Eurasian centric 3GPP is a "big bag of hurt."  And only a meager percentage of US wireless subs travel overseas.

 

So, if some people need global roaming on a regular basis, they can afford international travel, which is a racket unto itself.  They can afford to pay global roaming rates.  If those few do not like that, then they can go somewhere else.  Go to domestically challenged T-Mobile for all I care.

 

AJ

 

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4i1t8_beatles-back-in-the-u-s-s-r_music

 

I get the joke.

 

Here's the thing... the GSMA wants Europe to be more like the US in how it deals with spectrum.  I don't think it's the 3GPP screwing things up there, it's the Eurocrats causing most of the damage, starting with the UMTS auction debacle. GSM, for its time, was an ingenious system that unified a fractured mobile landscape in Europe. Now Europe finds itself behind because of the way they regulated their mobile industry over there.

 

For all the warts of our mobile system, we beat Europe hands down in regards to 3GPP LTE adoption. Now would it be nice to have one phone and attach it to any of our mobile networks? Of course it would be nice, but it's not worth blowing up the entire mobile system over. 

 

http://gsmamobileeconomyeurope.com

 

This is a pretty good read for the Euro-centric crowd. I think government over-intervention is why they're sinking over there on LTE adoption and we're doing much better. 

[Nickel]

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4i1t8_beatles-back-in-the-u-s-s-r_music

 

I get the joke.

 

Here's the thing... the GSMA wants Europe to be more like the US in how it deals with spectrum.  I don't think it's the 3GPP screwing things up there, it's the Eurocrats causing most of the damage, starting with the UMTS auction debacle. GSM, for its time, was an ingenious system that unified a fractured mobile landscape in Europe. Now Europe finds itself behind because of the way they regulated their mobile industry over there.

 

For all the warts of our mobile system, we beat Europe hands down in regards to 3GPP LTE adoption. Now would it be nice to have one phone and attach it to any of our mobile networks? Of course it would be nice, but it's not worth blowing up the entire mobile system over. 

 

http://gsmamobileeconomyeurope.com

 

This is a pretty good read for the Euro-centric crowd. I think government over-intervention is why they're sinking over there on LTE adoption and we're doing much better. 

What was the UMTS auction debacle? 

 

Also, prepare for people to tell you that the reason for lack of LTE adoption over is because they have 3G speeds that are fast enough (DC HSPA) for them and don't want to fork over more money. 

[Fraydog]

What was the UMTS auction debacle? 

 

Also, prepare for people to tell you that the reason for lack of LTE adoption over is because they have 3G speeds that are fast enough (DC HSPA) for them and don't want to fork over more money. 

 

http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~tedb/Courses/Ec100C/Readings/hownottorunauctionsklemperer.pdf

 

This pretty much explains the problem with the UMTS auctions, and as for DC-HSPA being fast enough, ask the mobile operators in the UK not named EE how that's going, when EE is trouncing them in all the RootMetrics tests done in the UK.

[WiWavelength]

What was the UMTS auction debacle?

 

Many of the European operators grossly overpaid for their "3G" spectrum at the height of the tech bubble, circa 2000, and that left them strapped for capital the next several years.

 

Also, prepare for people to tell you that the reason for lack of LTE adoption over is because they have 3G speeds that are fast enough (DC HSPA) for them and don't want to fork over more money.

I will stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that few other operators besides T-Mobile USA have deployed DC-HSPA+.  In many cases, overseas operators do not have two 5 MHz FDD adjacent spectrum blocks.

 

AJ