T-Mobile LTE & Network Discussion

[lou99/maximus1987]

I have been watching the new antenna structure applications on the FCC website and Verizon has always had by far the most new applications for new towers then anyone.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That's good cause they have the fewest towers currently.

[Deval]

I have long admired Verizon. They do care about their network. They are also the provider most likely to stay up after a power failure. They are expensive, but if you want reliability and consistency, they are the provider to get. 

 

And that's why people flock to them. Eventually some customers will step out to check the grass, but the majority will just stay and continue to pay, because they know their service will work.

 

I forgot who said it, but the truth is that people will gladly pay a little more for reliable service.

[Deval]

That's good cause they have the fewest towers currently.

 

Verizon? Impossible.

[Fraydog]

Verizon? Impossible.

Might have been true in the past... but they are densifying at a blistering pace. I doubt they're the least dense now.

[Deval]

Might have been true in the past... but they are densifying at a blistering pace. I doubt they're the least dense now.

 

That's why they deserve credit. Might be money grubbing folks, but they provide a solid service.

[Trip]

Tower registration doesn't really tell you anything.  I would argue that most towers in use by most cell companies are probably owned by a tower company like Crown Castle or American Tower.  That Verizon is building new towers isn't a bad thing, but it doesn't mean that one of the other guys isn't having one of the tower companies construct towers for them.

 

- Trip

[lou99/maximus1987]

Verizon? Impossible.

Might have been true in the past... but they are densifying at a blistering pace. I doubt they're the least dense now.

That's why they deserve credit. Might be money grubbing folks, but they provide a solid service.

Piecyk also noted that with Verizon Wireless’ current nationwide network of approximately 48,000 cell sites compared to around 65,000 cell sites used by AT&T Mobility, Verizon Wireless may need to dip into a greater bucket of spectrum in order to cater to capacity issues.

 

http://www.rcrwireless.com/20141208/carriers/carrier-wrap-sprint-could-seek-3b-in-new-funds-tag2

[Fraydog]

Piecyk also noted that with Verizon Wireless’ current nationwide network of approximately 48,000 cell sites compared to around 65,000 cell sites used by AT&T Mobility, Verizon Wireless may need to dip into a greater bucket of spectrum in order to cater to capacity issues.

 

http://www.rcrwireless.com/20141208/carriers/carrier-wrap-sprint-could-seek-3b-in-new-funds-tag2

I don't know where Piecyk gets the information he has. That said, VZW is still the leader nationwide in speeds, they're closing in on 20 Mbps on NetIndex and they're at the top on more of the RootMetrics markets that I see.

 

Greedy? Yes! Great network? Absolutely.

[Deval]

I don't know where Piecyk gets the information he has. That said, VZW is still the leader nationwide in speeds, they're closing in on 20 Mbps on NetIndex and they're at the top on more of the RootMetrics markets that I see.

 

Greedy? Yes! Great network? Absolutely.

 

The part that gets me is that Piecyk is saying Verizon is refarming due to "chewing through their spectrum holdings", which is something T-Mobile is doing daily, with 1/3 the customer base.

[lou99/maximus1987]

I don't know where Piecyk gets the information he has. That said, VZW is still the leader nationwide in speeds, they're closing in on 20 Mbps on NetIndex and they're at the top on more of the RootMetrics markets that I see.

 

Greedy? Yes! Great network? Absolutely.

Leader in nationwide speeds doesn't contradict the site num. Vzw is expensive per gig so if course its subs are gonna use less which means faster speeds

[Fraydog]

Leader in nationwide speeds doesn't contradict the site num. Vzw is expensive per gig so if course its subs are gonna use less which means faster speeds

I could make the converse argument VZW doesn't need the extreme site density yet because most of the unlimited plans there are gone as well as their advantageous low band position. That said, they do need it in the future but I predict they'll get it with their capital spend of $10 billion a year.

[lou99/maximus1987]

I could make the converse argument VZW doesn't need the extreme site density yet because most of the unlimited plans there are gone as well as their advantageous low band position. That said, they do need it in the future but I predict they'll get it with their capital spend of $10 billion a year.

We'll see if they need more sites for volte-only voice.

[milan03]

The part that gets me is that Piecyk is saying Verizon is refarming due to "chewing through their spectrum holdings", which is something T-Mobile is doing daily, with 1/3 the customer base.

He is absolutely right. Verizon with sites spaced for CLR, and almost three times more subscribers than T-Mobile would either need to build more cell sites, or deploy more spectrum in order to keep up with the capacity demand. They happen to have large swaths of greenfield AWS which they've been deploying, but in markets like NYC they're obviously refarming PCS as well. 

 

Deploying spectrum is significantly cheaper than building new sites, so you can expect duopoly to ride that option until they can't anymore.

[lou99/maximus1987]

He is absolutely right. Verizon with sites spaced for CLR, and almost three times more subscribers than T-Mobile would either need to build more cell sites, or deploy more spectrum. They happen to have large swaths of greenfield AWS which they've been deploying, but in markets like NYC they're obviously refarming PCS as well.

 

Deploying spectrum is significantly cheaper than building new sites, so you can expect duopoly to ride that option until they can't anymore.

Can vzw do volte-only with current tower density?

[milan03]

They've been doing it since last summer. 700MHz LTE definitely helps, and VoLTE doesn't require massive amount of spectrum resources, so even the loaded Band 13 network is perfectly sufficient for VoLTE.

[lou99/maximus1987]

They've been doing it since last summer. 700MHz LTE definitely helps, and VoLTE doesn't require massive amount of spectrum resources, so even the loaded Band 13 network is perfectly sufficient for VoLTE.

I meant "are they confident enough to stop including CDMA in their smsrtphones"

[milan03]

Most definitely not.

[MacinJosh]

He is absolutely right. Verizon with sites spaced for CLR, and almost three times more subscribers than T-Mobile would either need to build more cell sites, or deploy more spectrum in order to keep up with the capacity demand. They happen to have large swaths of greenfield AWS which they've been deploying, but in markets like NYC they're obviously refarming PCS as well.

 

Deploying spectrum is significantly cheaper than building new sites, so you can expect duopoly to ride that option until they can't anymore.

And yet in vegas, the Duopoly has deployed at least 15-20 new cell towers in 2014, and I haven't finished my research yet. I still have 3 cities to look at. I've only seen the county records.

 

That's 15-20 combined between the 2.

 

Sent from Josh's iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk 3.1.1

[milan03]

And yet in vegas, the Duopoly has deployed at least 15-20 new cell towers in 2014, and I haven't finished my research yet. I still have 3 cities to look at. I've only seen the county records.

 

That's 15-20 combined between the 2.

 

Sent from Josh's iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk 3.1.1

Good! In Vegas Verizon only owns enough AWS for 10MHz FDD LTE. Even their PCS holdings are light, and they should be building macros or DAS/SmallCell at the very least.

[MacinJosh]

Good! In Vegas Verizon only owns enough AWS for 10MHz FDD LTE. Even their PCS holdings are light, and they should be building macros or DAS/SmallCell at the very least.

I don't think they have much for concern, because I've never heard a complaint in vegas for crappy Verizon service. Slow, probably, but overall service quality has always been decent there.

 

 

Sent from Josh's iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk 3.1.1

[milan03]

I don't think they have much for concern, because I've never heard a complaint in vegas for crappy Verizon service. Slow, probably, but overall service quality has always been decent there.

 

 

Sent from Josh's iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk 3.1.1

I'm not sure if anyone is challenging Verizon's overall quality of service, especially voice/text. But in this day and age of exponential growth in mobile data consumption, that data user experience is what operators have to constantly keep up with. If they're capable of providing a few mbps on average now, it doesn't mean they'll be able to provide the same in a year from now. This is why it's crucial for wireless operators to predict the pattern and preemptively invest into upgrades before the performance becomes abysmal.

[tommym65]

I don't think they have much for concern, because I've never heard a complaint in vegas for crappy Verizon service. Slow, probably, but overall service quality has always been decent there.

 

 

Sent from Josh's iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk 3.1.1

 

(I know this is a bit off-topic.) Actually, I heard a complaint just this week. I was working a trade show at the South Point Exhibit Hall (far south Las Vegas Blvd) , and the woman in the booth next to me couldn't get the internet on her Verizon hot spot,  so I let her log onto my Sprint Livepro, which got solid indoor B41 LTE all week. Take THAT,  Verizon! 

[MacinJosh]

(I know this is a bit off-topic.) Actually, I heard a complaint just this week. I was working a trade show at the South Point Exhibit Hall (far south Las Vegas Blvd) , and the woman in the booth next to me couldn't get the internet on her Verizon hot spot, so I let her log onto my Sprint Livepro, which got solid indoor B41 LTE all week. Take THAT, Verizon!

Thank you. I stand corrected.

 

 

Sent from Josh's iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk 3.1.1

[S4GRU]

Verizon is smart to keep expanding the network now through increasing density and adding spectrum.  And they are in a position that they can "out plan" most of their competition for the future too.  

 

AT&T has had to get very crafty to maximize the leverage of their position, which is significantly less advantageous than VZW.  That's why AT&T is left with the nation's strongest LTE network message.  Because they have been densifying and turning up their LTE radios to the max (a good and bad thing).  No rest for the wicked!  

 

Tmo is sitting good now.  But it has the weakest spectrum position for the long term growth.  That can change, of course.  But that's the way it is now.  We will see how they ended up with AWS-3 and how (or if) 600MHz goes.  And Sprint's future begins and ends with Band 41, of course.

[Fraydog]

T-Mobile has according to the more generous estimates tossed out by analysts spent $3 billion in the AWS-3 auction. I don't know if they had enough buys in the long run. Sprint has a more comfortable position with a lot of 2.6 GHz in their kitty and they can debate on whether they can sell it to gain more money or deploy it. It's odd to sit here and say Sprint is in the catbird seat but for once, that might be right.