T-Mobile LTE & Network Discussion

[Deval]

I think what everyone tends to forget is that while T-Mobile is touting POPs and EDGE to LTE conversions, the core focus of their network, those big 20 markets; they all perform well. The site density is there, coverage is there, and the highest churn population is there.

 

I'll never defend them, because I think their CEO is a tool, but the smart move in focusing all the efforts in the locations which offer the most potential customers is a smart thing. I'll use our friend Fraydog as an example. His market has token T-Mobile coverage, and no real growth in sight. Why? Because the core population there is < 100,000 (IIRC) and most of those are not going to churn away from AT&T or Verizon.

[lou99/maximus1987]

http://m.bbc.com/news/business-31144009

 

BT and EE are a thing now, DT and Orange have THAT off their hands. British market is a mess and that is with four providers.

Whys it a mess?

[maxsilver]

I'm not completely convinced that the chase for 300 MM POP's of coverage on T-Mobile's end might not end up being a net loser for them. I don't think all Magentans are on board either, there's the crowd that thinks that every tower erected on North Dakota soil comes out of their bill directly. While I don't think that's really true, it might affect T-Mobile's ability to meet investor guidance. Considering they're on tight watch from the German fatherland, the inability for them to sell outside the footprint might be a problem. 

 

Internet commenters are ignorant. I wouldn't worry about them. And I see no evidence they're on any kind of "tight watch", just because they want to sell their shares.

 

We've been conditioned to think that networks are pricy to run. It's simply not true. They aren't cheap but they aren't expensive, and I've got numbers from sites I've spec'd, along with a dozen other local wireless guys here who all have the numbers to prove it (even using the best American Tower sites, or fiber backhaul).

 

According to T-Mobile's own ARPU, T-Mobile should only needs about 90 smartphone subscribers to break even on an average tower. That shouldn't be hard for them to do in a lot of these small towns. Even if they're lacking 700mhz.

 

 - - - 

 

Harrisburg, IL, for instance, has a population of about 9,000. From each carriers coverage map, it looks like there is no native Sprint or T-Mobile coverage there today. T-Mobile could throw two LTE sites up in the town -- if they get just 180 of those 9,000 people to switch (just 2% of the market) -- they break even.

 

Those numbers aren't unreasonable. In fact, they aren't much different than a small suburb in a big city. (Hudsonville, Mi has 2k less pops than Harrisburg, IL. T-Mobile covers Hudsonville just fine with wideband LTE on three sites).

 

I don't think most people will ever leave Verizon or AT&T in these rural areas. But find it highly unlikely T-Mobile's network expansion will be a "net loser" for them in any significant manner -- it's likely T-Mobile will pick up a few people in these rural towns and that's all they really need to cover the costs.

 

Honestly I would have been OK with them stitching up native coverage. There's lots of fringe areas they could fix with more cells and modernization of what they have over expanding.

 

Folks take a look at T-Mobile's cell grid in downstate Illinois.

 

(photos of areas lacking site density)

 

That needs lots of work, even in places like Springfield and Decatur that are somewhat populated.

 

Your absolutely right -- there should be greater density there (and almost everywhere). I also agree with you -- I'd love to see them densify native coverage first. But I don't think they'll bother with that until they have to (where "they have to" means, their average speeds start dropping below AT&T because of congestion).

 

But based on the maps you posted, I don't know that they actually need to do a lot of work. They only appear to be one or two sites behind Sprint in most of those areas. That adds up, but it's not a crazy stretch. And that's all they really need to stay competitive.

 

Additionally, for the most part your talking about hyper-rural areas. The cities you show all look fine. (For example, from the photos you submitted, Decatur has roughly identical site density as Grand Rapids, even though Grand Rapids has 2.5x the population.)

[lou99/maximus1987]

Has anyone had a chance to test the signal strength on gmo 1900 lte?

What I mean is: outside, do you get lte on all 4 pink shades?

[cdk]

We've been conditioned to think that networks are pricy to run. It's simply not true. They aren't cheap but they aren't expensive, and I've got numbers from sites I've spec'd, along with a dozen other local wireless guys here who all have the numbers to prove it (even using the best American Tower sites, or fiber backhaul).

 

Out of curiosity what might those cost be?

[lou99/maximus1987]

Out of curiosity what might those cost be?

 

I'm curious too.

* total cost of new cell site broken down by:

**cost of equipment - antennas, basestations, etc - for a new cell site on existing tower

**cost of labor to instead equipment

 

* cost of backhaul per month for, let's say, 100mbps symmetrical

* cost to build tower (only) itself - say 100feet - if no existing tower.

[maxsilver]

Out of curiosity what might those cost be?

 

 

I'm curious too.

* total cost of new cell site broken down by: (stuff)

 

I've never built a tower, I've only spec'd leases for existing. So I can't comment on that. (Although some of the guys I've talked to have built their own. They have a lot of clever ways to do that for crazy cheap. But they're also in the middle of nowhere, and I'm not entirely convinced they followed full building code / filed the proper permits ---- anyway)

 

Here's the approx costs for the most recent site I spec'd out, early last year :

 

$900/month - an American Tower site, in suburban Grand Rapids. (Next to a freeway, near-line-of-sight to one urban/dense neighborhoods, and two suburban neighborhoods).

$2,000/month - Backhaul from a local CLEC, usually fiber. 200x200Mb fixed. (No one ever needs all that upload, but most of the LEC's I deal with only sell symmetrical, so we end up getting it anyway)

$1,200/month - Equipment Costs, Installation Costs, minor utilities, Insurance (Amoritized across 36-60 months, depending)

 

Total cost: (approx $4,100/month for 3-5 years).

 

Note that I usually work with Wireless Internet Providers ("WISPs"), not cellular, so there are some differences. A few things in our favour :

 

- Our gear is presumably cheaper on some sides (Ubiquiti is presumably much cheaper than Nokia, or ALU gear)

 

- Our gear isn't always cheaper -- sometimes the gear costs the same (our DragonWave's are presumably identical to their DragonWaves, if they're still using those for microwave links).

 

- Our people are probably cheaper (most of these guys do the tower installs themselves, or have a full-time on staff tech who's certified + insured for climbing. Labor is almost never outsourced, unlike cell carriers)

 

- Our spectrum is "free" or "almost free". (I've only ever worked with, or seen people use unlicensed ISM bands for most access. A few of the backhaul links are FCC licensed, but it's not like cellular spectrum, the cost for that is much cheaper and non-exclusive).

 

- Bigger carriers sometimes put expensive stuff on the ground near sites. (Usually racks. Occasionally generators). WISPs put almost nothing on the ground. Ground space costs extra (anywhere from $100 - $600/month, depending on how much you want). It's also not usually available, if other carriers are already on a cell site.

 

- Our gear usually has lower weight than big carriers. And we use less sectors. (This matters, both for leasing costs and weight / wind load).

 

- We use CLECs almost exclusively. (Competitive local exchanges). T-Mobile, to my knowledge, also does this, only with much bigger CLECS (like Zayo). Sprint only uses ILECs (incumbent, monopoly providers, AT&T, Comcast, Charter, etc -- according to what I've been told here at S4GRU).

 

 

- - - 

 

However, T-Mobile (or Sprint) should get better, cheaper pricing than we do, in almost every other factor: 

 

For instance, the American Tower sales rep calls me every six months, asking me to lease more sites. If we did, he claims we'd get cheaper leases on all of our sites. None of the groups I work for have the capital to have more than a couple of sites at any time -- and even if they did, WISPs generally need less density since they don't provide "coverage", but pure line-of-sight to specific buildings. But an large entity like Sprint/T-Mobile should need lots of sites and high density, and should get cheaper lease costs on every site because of this.

 

Similarly, our lease length are pushed as short as we can to reduce risk (Usually 3 years, as this is the shortest lease we can usually get). But that bumps our cost up too. An entity like Sprint / T-Mobile can probably jump straight into 5-year or longer leases, which reduces the monthly cost even further.

 

We pay retail for our gear, since most of these guys buy in small quantities. An entity like Sprint / T-Mobile is probably buying thousands of units at once, they are (hopefully) negotiating volume discounts for their stuff.

 

Our insurance is sort of silly expensive. Cell providers, being a large enough entity, probably doesn't need the same kind of insurance we have, and save a lot of money there. (If a single tower of gear gets wrecked, a WISP might loose their multiple month's of margin overnight. If a single tower goes out from T-Mobile, they can just pay cash money to replace the whole thing pretty quickly -- the have such huge scale it probably doesn't even effect their financials).

 

- - - 

 

I'm by no means an expert at this. But I've seen regular folks with kids and mortgages set this stuff up, and I've run the numbers myself. If they can do it (in a state with crazy high unemployment and 20% lower-than-national-average wages), there's nothing preventing anyone else from doing it.

[lou99/maximus1987]

I've never built a tower, I've only spec'd leases for existing. So I can't comment on that. (Although some of the guys I've talked to have built their own. They have a lot of clever ways to do that for crazy cheap. But they're also in the middle of nowhere, and I'm not entirely convinced they followed full building code / filed the proper permits ---- anyway)

 

Here's the approx costs for the most recent site I spec'd out, early last year :

 

$900/month - an American Tower site, in suburban Grand Rapids. (Next to a freeway, near-line-of-sight to one urban/dense neighborhoods, and two suburban neighborhoods).

$2,000/month - Backhaul from a local CLEC, usually fiber. 200x200Mb fixed. (No one ever needs all that upload, but most of the LEC's I deal with only sell symmetrical, so we end up getting it anyway)

$1,200/month - Equipment Costs, Installation Costs, minor utilities, Insurance (Amoritized across 36-60 months, depending)

 

Total cost: (approx $4,100/month for 3-5 years).

 

Note that I usually work with Wireless Internet Providers ("WISPs"), not cellular, so there are some differences. A few things in our favour :

 

- Our gear is presumably cheaper on some sides (Ubiquiti is presumably much cheaper than Nokia, or ALU gear)

 

- Our gear isn't always cheaper -- sometimes the gear costs the same (our DragonWave's are presumably identical to their DragonWaves, if they're still using those for microwave links).

 

- Our people are probably cheaper (most of these guys do the tower installs themselves, or have a full-time on staff tech who's certified + insured for climbing. Labor is almost never outsourced, unlike cell carriers)

 

- Our spectrum is "free" or "almost free". (I've only ever worked with, or seen people use unlicensed ISM bands for most access. A few of the backhaul links are FCC licensed, but it's not like cellular spectrum, the cost for that is much cheaper and non-exclusive).

 

- Bigger carriers sometimes put expensive stuff on the ground near sites. (Usually racks. Occasionally generators). WISPs put almost nothing on the ground. Ground space costs extra (anywhere from $100 - $600/month, depending on how much you want). It's also not usually available, if other carriers are already on a cell site.

 

- Our gear usually has lower weight than big carriers. And we use less sectors. (This matters, both for leasing costs and weight / wind load).

 

- We use CLECs almost exclusively. (Competitive local exchanges). T-Mobile, to my knowledge, also does this, only with much bigger CLECS (like Zayo). Sprint only uses ILECs (monopoly providers, AT&T, Comcast, Charter, etc). 

 

 

- - - 

 

However, T-Mobile (or Sprint) should get better, cheaper pricing than we do, in almost every other factor: 

 

For instance, the American Tower sales rep calls me every six months, asking me to lease more sites. If we did, he claims we'd get cheaper leases on all of our sites. None of the groups I work for have the capital to have more than a couple of sites at any time -- and even if they did, WISPs generally need less density since they don't provide "coverage", but pure line-of-sight to specific buildings. But an large entity like Sprint/T-Mobile should need lots of sites and high density, and should get cheaper lease costs on every site because of this.

 

Similarly, our lease length are pushed as short as we can to reduce risk (Usually 3 years, as this is the shortest lease we can usually get). But that bumps our cost up too. An entity like Sprint / T-Mobile can probably jump straight into 5-year or longer leases, which reduces the monthly cost even further.

 

We pay retail for our gear, since most of these guys buy in small quantities. An entity like Sprint / T-Mobile is probably buying thousands of units at once, they are (hopefully) negotiating volume discounts for their stuff.

 

- - - 

 

I'm by no means an expert at this. But I've seen regular folks with kids and mortgages set this stuff up, and I've run the numbers myself. If they can do it (in a state with crazy high unemployment and 20% lower-than-national-average wages), there's nothing preventing anyone else from doing it.

 

How do I find a WISP? My aunt has satellite internet because comcast wants $20k to move their wires one house over.

I went to http://www.wispa.org/find-a-wisp but I got "page not found". 

[JossMan]

Well it looks like T-Mobile stood by their word on upgrading 2G EDGE to LTE.  I was just west of Church Hill, TN yesterday and a friend of mine has T-Mobile and locked on to LTE and kept a connection all the way to Rogersville, TN not to mention they added HSPA+ within the LTE footprint.  From the looks of it they are working their way north up I-81 towards the Tri-Cities region.  

[maxsilver]

How do I find a WISP? My aunt has satellite internet because comcast wants $20k to move their wires one house over.

I went to http://www.wispa.org/find-a-wisp but I got "page not found". 

 

Where's your Aunt located? Your usertag says your in Michigan, I might know offhand of someone local to her area.

 

Otherwise, there's a directory at http://wispdirectory.com/index.php?option=com_mtree&task=listcats&cat_id=28&Itemid=53 (fair warning, it's like a decade out of date. But a number of those entries are still valid and running)

[lou99/maximus1987]

Well it looks like T-Mobile stood by their word on upgrading 2G EDGE to LTE.  I was just west of Church Hill, TN yesterday and a friend of mine has T-Mobile and locked on to LTE and kept a connection all the way to Rogersville, TN not to mention they added HSPA+ within the LTE footprint.  From the looks of it they are working their way north up I-81 towards the Tri-Cities region.  

The hspa part is interesting because in the coverage tool, it looks like that site is a gmo 1900 lte which would only have gsm+lte 

[JossMan]

The hspa part is interesting because in the coverage tool, it looks like that site is a gmo 1900 lte which would only have gsm+lte 

I don't know and don't really care I don't have T-Mobile , I was only reporting what my friend's phone was reporting.  

 

I was unaware that T-Mobile's coverage tool displayed site locations along with what upgrades have been performed?  

[lou99/maximus1987]

I don't know and don't really care I don't have T-Mobile , I was only reporting what my friend's phone was reporting.  

 

I was unaware that T-Mobile's coverage tool displayed site locations along with what upgrades have been performed?  

Kinda. When you click on an area, it'll say: lte, lte with compatible device, 3g, 2g, roaming.

lte with compatible device means a gmo lte 1900.

 

The site locations part is an educated guess: the signal strength gradients make it pretty obvious where a site is located especially in rural areas where they're sparse.\

 

if you go to https://maps.eng.t-mobile.com/pcc-customer.php, select 2g

then

toggle between http://www.t-mobile.com/coverage.html

 

you can see where theres an un-upgraded tower.

[Deval]

I've never built a tower, I've only spec'd leases for existing. So I can't comment on that. (Although some of the guys I've talked to have built their own. They have a lot of clever ways to do that for crazy cheap. But they're also in the middle of nowhere, and I'm not entirely convinced they followed full building code / filed the proper permits ---- anyway)

 

Here's the approx costs for the most recent site I spec'd out, early last year :

 

$900/month - an American Tower site, in suburban Grand Rapids. (Next to a freeway, near-line-of-sight to one urban/dense neighborhoods, and two suburban neighborhoods).

$2,000/month - Backhaul from a local CLEC, usually fiber. 200x200Mb fixed. (No one ever needs all that upload, but most of the LEC's I deal with only sell symmetrical, so we end up getting it anyway)

$1,200/month - Equipment Costs, Installation Costs, minor utilities, Insurance (Amoritized across 36-60 months, depending)

 

Total cost: (approx $4,100/month for 3-5 years).

 

Note that I usually work with Wireless Internet Providers ("WISPs"), not cellular, so there are some differences. A few things in our favour :

 

- Our gear is presumably cheaper on some sides (Ubiquiti is presumably much cheaper than Nokia, or ALU gear)

 

- Our gear isn't always cheaper -- sometimes the gear costs the same (our DragonWave's are presumably identical to their DragonWaves, if they're still using those for microwave links).

 

- Our people are probably cheaper (most of these guys do the tower installs themselves, or have a full-time on staff tech who's certified + insured for climbing. Labor is almost never outsourced, unlike cell carriers)

 

- Our spectrum is "free" or "almost free". (I've only ever worked with, or seen people use unlicensed ISM bands for most access. A few of the backhaul links are FCC licensed, but it's not like cellular spectrum, the cost for that is much cheaper and non-exclusive).

 

- Bigger carriers sometimes put expensive stuff on the ground near sites. (Usually racks. Occasionally generators). WISPs put almost nothing on the ground. Ground space costs extra (anywhere from $100 - $600/month, depending on how much you want). It's also not usually available, if other carriers are already on a cell site.

 

- Our gear usually has lower weight than big carriers. And we use less sectors. (This matters, both for leasing costs and weight / wind load).

 

- We use CLECs almost exclusively. (Competitive local exchanges). T-Mobile, to my knowledge, also does this, only with much bigger CLECS (like Zayo). Sprint only uses ILECs (incumbent, monopoly providers, AT&T, Comcast, Charter, etc -- according to what I've been told here at S4GRU).

 

 

- - - 

 

However, T-Mobile (or Sprint) should get better, cheaper pricing than we do, in almost every other factor: 

 

For instance, the American Tower sales rep calls me every six months, asking me to lease more sites. If we did, he claims we'd get cheaper leases on all of our sites. None of the groups I work for have the capital to have more than a couple of sites at any time -- and even if they did, WISPs generally need less density since they don't provide "coverage", but pure line-of-sight to specific buildings. But an large entity like Sprint/T-Mobile should need lots of sites and high density, and should get cheaper lease costs on every site because of this.

 

Similarly, our lease length are pushed as short as we can to reduce risk (Usually 3 years, as this is the shortest lease we can usually get). But that bumps our cost up too. An entity like Sprint / T-Mobile can probably jump straight into 5-year or longer leases, which reduces the monthly cost even further.

 

We pay retail for our gear, since most of these guys buy in small quantities. An entity like Sprint / T-Mobile is probably buying thousands of units at once, they are (hopefully) negotiating volume discounts for their stuff.

 

Our insurance is sort of silly expensive. Cell providers, being a large enough entity, probably doesn't need the same kind of insurance we have, and save a lot of money there. (If a single tower of gear gets wrecked, a WISP might loose their multiple month's of margin overnight. If a single tower goes out from T-Mobile, they can just pay cash money to replace the whole thing pretty quickly -- the have such huge scale it probably doesn't even effect their financials).

 

- - - 

 

I'm by no means an expert at this. But I've seen regular folks with kids and mortgages set this stuff up, and I've run the numbers myself. If they can do it (in a state with crazy high unemployment and 20% lower-than-national-average wages), there's nothing preventing anyone else from doing it.

 

Now here is a question. That backhaul goes where? Is that point to point? Or just pure internet?

[maxsilver]

Now here is a question. That backhaul goes where? Is that point to point? Or just pure internet?

 

Depends on the group, the situation, their network, etc.

 

Some of them go back to a server in a CLEC's datacenter "point to point", and then out to the "pure internet". (That's what my numbers above are from. This is my recommended, ideal, perfect-world situation).

 

Sometimes they microwave to a central point, where a rack is hosted, and that goes to the internet over a CLEC connection. (This is more typical, there's a WISP here on three cell towers, that all backhaul over microwave to a downtown rooftop, which hosts server equipment and backhauls to CLEC's IP Port over fiber from there). It's not a nice controlled datacenter, with nice steady lines -- but you get basically the same setup, it's a perfectly safe/acceptable setup, and it can sometimes be a lot cheaper (fiber lines usually require right-of-ways, and those are taxed. It can get pricy).

 

Sometimes they take their CLEC's IP Port (or "pure internet") and plug it straight into a sector. This is a terrible idea for a bunch of probably-obvious reasons, but I know for sure one of them does it. And I yell at them not to. And they just shrug and do it anyway, because it *technically* works.

 

And when I object, they say, "But I can just throttle subscribers on the CPE firmware. Who cares about QoS? And what's a CALEA?". And then I sigh loudly and facepalm. These things are often passion projects. There's rarely any money in it.

[Deval]

Depends on the group, the situation, their network, etc.

 

Some of them go back to a server in a CLEC's datacenter "point to point", and then out to the "pure internet". (That's what my numbers above are from. This is my recommended, ideal, perfect-world situation).

 

Sometimes they microwave to a central point, where a rack is hosted, and that goes to the internet over a CLEC connection. (This is more typical, there's a WISP here on three cell towers, that all backhaul over microwave to a downtown rooftop, which hosts server equipment and backhauls to CLEC's IP Port over fiber from there). It's not a nice controlled datacenter, with nice steady lines -- but you get basically the same setup, it's a perfectly safe/acceptable setup, and it can sometimes be a lot cheaper (fiber lines usually require right-of-ways, and those are taxed. It can get pricy).

 

Sometimes they take their CLEC's IP Port (or "pure internet") and plug it straight into a sector. This is a terrible idea for a bunch of probably-obvious reasons, but I know for sure one of them does it. And I yell at them not to. And they just shrug and do it anyway, because it *technically* works.

 

And when I object, they say, "But I can just throttle subscribers on the CPE firmware. Who cares about QoS? And what's a CALEA?". And then I sigh loudly and facepalm. These things are often passion projects. There's rarely any money in it.

 

Makes sense, I'm just comparing it to Sprint's build.

[Mercurial1]

I'm curious too.

* total cost of new cell site broken down by:

**cost of equipment - antennas, basestations, etc - for a new cell site on existing tower

**cost of labor to instead equipment

 

* cost of backhaul per month for, let's say, 100mbps symmetrical

* cost to build tower (only) itself - say 100feet - if no existing tower.

I would also add the costs of supporting and surrounding towers. 2 sites in town wont get anyone to switch if the roads coming in and out are not covered as well. More towers would be needed and that increases the costs without adding additional subscribers potentially.

 

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

[lou99/maximus1987]

Because work is boring . . . let me know if this is feasible. I'll number them so when you address them, you don't have to quote the whole thing

 

Plan for TMO+DISH merger

(1) DT gets paid mostly in the combined company's stock

(2) T-Mobile makes use of AWS-4 40MHz supplemental downlink to aggregate with

    a) AWS-1 (band 4)

    b ) AWS-3 

    c) 700a (band 12)

    d) 600MHz 

(3) Spectrum transactions contingent on items (4), (5)

    a) All DISH/TMO AWS-3 spectrum to VZW, ATT 

    b )DISH's current 700de license to ATT.

    c) 700a: ATT's Chicago and Myrtle Beach to TMO/DISH 

(4) VZW, ATT agree to support on all their handsets (past a certain date) AWS-4 and item (2) i.e. the band aggregations

(5) Keeping the overall MHz * POPs identical, TMO attempts to realign its spectrum to build on its strengths i.e. urban

    a) 20x20 AWS-1 in the top X markets, 10x10 AWS-1 in the (X+1)th market to market Y, 5x5 AWS-1 in the (Y+1)th market to market Z.

    d) nationwide, TMO trades away excess PCS to get contiguous AWS-1 and remains with 5x5 PCS for hspa+21 and deploys WCDMA+ to increase voice capacity. 

    e) obviously gsm/gprs/edge must be shutdown prior to executing the aws/pcs re-ordering.

(6) DISH will be able to offer rural broadband using the 40MHz SDL (300mbps) + AWS-1/700a/600 aggregation to bundle with their TV.

    a) If TMO builds out enough, may be able to bundle in TMO cell service also.

(7) TMO will use DISH's scale in TV to launch some mobile TV thing.

(8) DISH sells to Sprint the H-block. With the recently announced FDD+TDD aggregation, H-block may be worth the trouble of replacing ALLLLL the panels AGAIN (or not, idk).

[cdk]

Because work is boring . . . let me know if this is feasible. I'll number them so when you address them, you don't have to quote the whole thing

 

Plan for TMO+DISH merger

....

 

(9) Steel cage death match between Legere and Ergen.

[lou99/maximus1987]

(9) Steel cage death match between Legere and Ergen.

 

Charlie may not have a choice. If ATT offers fixed wireless bundled with Directv and cell service . . .

[Fraydog]

(9) Steel cage death match between Legere and Ergen.

If Dish buys T-Mobile I see them fist fighting each other within a week of the deal closing.

 

With those two it would resemble this: Ergen as Beavis and Legere as Butt-head.

 

[WiWavelength]

(9) Steel cage death match between Legere and Ergen.

 

Weasel fight!

 

 

AJ

[S4GRU]

If Dish buys T-Mobile I see them fist fighting each other within a week of the deal closing.

 

With those two it would resemble this: Ergen as Beavis and Legere as Butt-head.

 

 

I'm so glad you made Legere be a butthead. So fitting.

[joshnys8913]

I'm so glad you made Legere be a butthead. So fitting.

LOL!!

[lou99/maximus1987]

If vzw buys dish and doesn't divest aws4 to TMO, game over for TMO.