Jump to content

T-Mobile LTE & Network Discussion


CriticalityEvent

Recommended Posts

Totally not a photoshop expert but this should be mostly accurate.

 

Unless it changed since 2013, New Mexico was an Ericsson market for Tmo. I used to run into Ericsson Tmo installs all the time. ABQ has a lot of AIR units.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless it changed since 2013, New Mexico was an Ericsson market for Tmo. I used to run into Ericsson Tmo installs all the time. ABQ has a lot of AIR units.

I'm also pretty sure Florida is a mixed market. Fairly certain the Destin market uses AIR off hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless it changed since 2013, New Mexico was an Ericsson market for Tmo. I used to run into Ericsson Tmo installs all the time. ABQ has a lot of AIR units.

 

 

Crappy photoshops incoming..

 

dPTEQxH.jpg

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Legere ignored questions for complete RRH upgrades for GMO lte 1900.

 

Also he said that no new equity issued for 600mhz auction, only new debt; I find that fantastical. Aws3 was ~$40bil for 5 blocks of 10mhz paired so $8bil per 5x5.

 

How much will 5x5 of 600mhz be?

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For some reason I think when and if the auction happens there are going to be some carriers that walk with minimal amount of 600...

 

8+ billion is a Lotta change for a small block.. Dunno where Tmo and sprint are going to fit in... As far as getting a decent amount...

But when the merger was in talks weren't sprint /Tmo going to bid together??

 

Wonder if son has something up his sleeve still.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For some reason I think when and if the auction happens there are going to be some carriers that walk with minimal amount of 600...

 

8+ billion is a Lotta change for a small block.. Dunno where Tmo and sprint are going to fit in... As far as getting a decent amount...

But when the merger was in talks weren't sprint /Tmo going to bid together??

 

Wonder if son has something up his sleeve still.

If there's anything up his sleeve it ether be $10-$20bil cause that's all that's gonna help sprint.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there's anything up his sleeve it ether be $10-$20bil cause that's all that's gonna help sprint.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Lmao it might take more than that.

Wouldn't surprise me if they sold some 2.5 to vzw/att to whack dish, use that and sons 10-20 billion on $600... Then have network on size with att/vzw coverage wise... Then putting dish and Tmo in a bind.. Just guessing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lmao it might take more than that.

Wouldn't surprise me if they sold some 2.5 to vzw/att to whack dish, use that and sons 10-20 billion on $600... Then have network on size with att/vzw coverage wise... Then putting dish and Tmo in a bind.. Just guessing

but you also need the infrastructure upgraded and new towers in order to expand the network not just spectrum by me on the highway all the carriers work great and sprint is doing spark deployment in my area but the tower by me hasnt been touched by them since 2013 so I wonder when network vision 2.0 comes along into full swing they will get that tower...but all the other carriers work fine by me....so it's really a matter of when and where they build new towers in areas they don't cover in order to compete and that on itself costs a lot of money ...it will be interesting to see who expands into new areas and deploys the quickest ....that will be interesting to watch !
Link to comment
Share on other sites

but you also need the infrastructure upgraded and new towers in order to expand the network not just spectrum by me on the highway all the carriers work great and sprint is doing spark deployment in my area but the tower by me hasnt been touched by them since 2013 so I wonder when network vision 2.0 comes along into full swing they will get that tower...but all the other carriers work fine by me....so it's really a matter of when and where they build new towers in areas they don't cover in order to compete and that on itself costs a lot of money ...it will be interesting to see who expands into new areas and deploys the quickest ....that will be interesting to watch !

 

Yes, while band 26 helps to mask the deficiencies of Sprint's network, they will need to densify their network with new sites. Sprint has not really gone on a substantial site building spree since way back in the 2006 timeframe. If they want to play with the big boys they need to spend some money.

Edited by bigsnake49
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the long run, it may still have to come down to merger because I'm concerned there simply won't be enough spectrum open up in 600 MHz. I know I'll hear the usual complaints, so I'll just leave there. It would be very interesting to me, however, to see what T-Mo would be able to do with national low band and 200 MHz of spectrum per market. That's what a combined company would possess.

 

The combined company may well be TMUS doing business as SoftBank or Sprint. I have reached the point where I would be fine with that. I used to be afraid of that but I'm simply not afraid of that anymore.

 

OK S4GRU posters direct your incoming fire to me now. :lol:

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the long run, it may still have to come down to merger because I'm concerned there simply won't be enough spectrum open up in 600 MHz. I know I'll hear the usual complaints, so I'll just leave there. It would be very interesting to me, however, to see what T-Mo would be able to do with national low band and 200 MHz of spectrum per market. That's what a combined company would possess.

 

The combined company may well be TMUS doing business as SoftBank or Sprint. I have reached the point where I would be fine with that. I used to be afraid of that but I'm simply not afraid of that anymore.

 

OK S4GRU posters direct your incoming fire to me now. :lol:

You offer unbiased perspective on BOTH sides. I appreciate that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the long run, it may still have to come down to merger because I'm concerned there simply won't be enough spectrum open up in 600 MHz. I know I'll hear the usual complaints, so I'll just leave there. It would be very interesting to me, however, to see what T-Mo would be able to do with national low band and 200 MHz of spectrum per market. That's what a combined company would possess.

 

The combined company may well be TMUS doing business as SoftBank or Sprint. I have reached the point where I would be fine with that. I used to be afraid of that but I'm simply not afraid of that anymore.

 

OK S4GRU posters direct your incoming fire to me now. :lol:

 

I will not argue with you. I have long advocated that in order to compete with the big two, T-Mobile and Sprint need to merge. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the long run, it may still have to come down to merger because I'm concerned there simply won't be enough spectrum open up in 600 MHz. I know I'll hear the usual complaints, so I'll just leave there. It would be very interesting to me, however, to see what T-Mo would be able to do with national low band and 200 MHz of spectrum per market. That's what a combined company would possess.

 

The combined company may well be TMUS doing business as SoftBank or Sprint. I have reached the point where I would be fine with that. I used to be afraid of that but I'm simply not afraid of that anymore.

 

OK S4GRU posters direct your incoming fire to me now. :lol:

 

I thought I addressed this "3 equal carrier" thing.

 

see there's 3 equal sized carriers about as expensive as att, vzw. That's a good thing?

 

Let's see the Japanese's regulator's opinion on Softbank and company

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/23/softbank-son-oligopoly-idUSL3N0N83E020140423

 

"You could say the mobile market is an oligopoly of the three big companies," Communications Minister Yoshitaka Shindo said at a regular news conference this month.

================================================

 

Or France before Free Mobile joined.

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2012-04-06/frees-low-rates-rattles-french-telecom-industry

 

Free’s foray into mobile has already shaken the country’s top three operators—France Télécom’s Orange, Vivendi’s SFR, and Bouygues Télécom—which until now controlled 90 percent of the market and charged the highest rates in Europe.

=================================================

 

Or the recent 4 to 3 merger in Austria

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/dba557c8-9c91-11e3-b535-00144feab7de.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3QhcWD8O3

“We warned that prices would rise,” says Theodor Thanner, Austria’s competition regulator who questioned the EU approving Hutchison’s takeover of Orange last year. “Our forecast has been fulfilled.”

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-02-25/hutchison-austria-seen-as-lesson-for-eu-in-e-plus-o2-probes

Price increases “were one of our fears and they became true,” Thanner said. “For the future, and this concerns Ireland and Germany, one is well advised to look carefully at Austria’s experience.”

 

 

 

=================================================

 

Not enough money to support 4 players?

ATT: More than $11 billion returned to shareowners in 2014 through dividends and share repurchases.

http://about.att.com/story/att_fourth_quarter_earnings_2014.html

 

There's plenty of money but it's all going to dividends and share repurchases. Which I'm fine with. But no one can say there's not enough money for 4 carriers.

 

 

3 equal sized companies is the WORST for the consumer and I cannnnnoooot understand why people keep hoping for it as if it'd help you!

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will not argue with you. I have long advocated that in order to compete with the big two, T-Mobile and Sprint need to merge.

What convinced you sprint and TMO need to merge? That sprint is losing postpaid phone subs.

 

Why is that?

Sprint has more geographic lte

Sprint beat TMO in rootmetrics nationwide

 

So what's up?

Could it possibly be that sprint still only has 5x5 1900 in at least one 25 market? Hmmmmmm.

Yeah I think that's it.

 

THAT is NOT a good reason to allow merger.

 

Here's why 3 equal carriers is NOT a good idea.

 

see there's 3 equal sized carriers about as expensive as att, vzw. That's a good thing?

 

Let's see the Japanese's regulator's opinion on Softbank and company

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/23/softbank-son-oligopoly-idUSL3N0N83E020140423

 

"You could say the mobile market is an oligopoly of the three big companies," Communications Minister Yoshitaka Shindo said at a regular news conference this month.

================================================

 

Or France before Free Mobile joined.

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2012-04-06/frees-low-rates-rattles-french-telecom-industry

 

Free’s foray into mobile has already shaken the country’s top three operators—France Télécom’s Orange, Vivendi’s SFR, and Bouygues Télécom—which until now controlled 90 percent of the market and charged the highest rates in Europe.

=================================================

 

Or the recent 4 to 3 merger in Austria

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/dba557c8-9c91-11e3-b535-00144feab7de.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3QhcWD8O3

“We warned that prices would rise,” says Theodor Thanner, Austria’s competition regulator who questioned the EU approving Hutchison’s takeover of Orange last year. “Our forecast has been fulfilled.”

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-02-25/hutchison-austria-seen-as-lesson-for-eu-in-e-plus-o2-probes

Price increases “were one of our fears and they became true,” Thanner said. “For the future, and this concerns Ireland and Germany, one is well advised to look carefully at Austria’s experience.”

 

 

 

=================================================

 

Not enough money to support 4 players?

ATT: More than $11 billion returned to shareowners in 2014 through dividends and share repurchases.

http://about.att.com/story/att_fourth_quarter_earnings_2014.html

 

There's plenty of money but it's all going to dividends and share repurchases. Which I'm fine with. But no one can say there's not enough money for 4 carriers.

 

 

3 equal sized companies is the WORST for the consumer and I cannnnnoooot understand why people keep hoping for it as if it'd help you!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason that I advocate a merger is the ability to spread capex over a much larger customer base. This is a capes intensive industry. Both T-mobile and Sprint spend an ungodly amount of money. It would have been much better if they had shared that expense. Price cutting is not helping either company.

 

Sprint will fix their network problems and so will T-Mobile. But the capex will continue. They both will need 600MHz spectrum. They both will need to densify their networks further. It is not cheap to compete in the US. Let's face it. DT does not want to compete and they know better than most what it takes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason that I advocate a merger is the ability to spread capex over a much larger customer base. This is a capes intensive industry. Both T-mobile and Sprint spend an ungodly amount of money. It would have been much better if they had shared that expense. Price cutting is not helping either company.

 

Sprint will fix their network problems and so will T-Mobile. But the capex will continue. They both will need 600MHz spectrum. They both will need to densify their networks further. It is not cheap to compete in the US. Let's face it. DT does not want to compete and they know better than most what it takes.

Sprint doesn't need capex. They have plenty of spectrum. They need low band spectrum, plane and simple.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason that I advocate a merger is the ability to spread capex over a much larger customer base. This is a capes intensive industry. Both T-mobile and Sprint spend an ungodly amount of money. It would have been much better if they had shared that expense. Price cutting is not helping either company.

 

Sprint will fix their network problems and so will T-Mobile. But the capex will continue. They both will need 600MHz spectrum. They both will need to densify their networks further. It is not cheap to compete in the US. Let's face it. DT does not want to compete and they know better than most what it takes.

Seems like price cutting is helping tmobile. They're gaining postpaid phones while att is losing them.

You're right about DT: they don't want to COMPETE. they want to rake it in like vzw because they are the vzw of Germany so that's not an objective indicator of the viability of 4 carriers.

 

TMO's network is densifying just fine. I live on border of suburban and rural and every so often I notice a hugely improved signal.

 

Why don't we just have 1 carrier? That'll truly solve CAPEX issue.

 

Legere said that no new equity will be issued for 600 auction. Sounds like they've got it handled. Meanwhile, analysts are saying sprint is on track to run out of liquidity.

 

 

Sounds like you're taking sprint's problems and projecting them onto TMO.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sprint doesn't need capex. They have plenty of spectrum. They need low band spectrum, plane and simple.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

CAPEX is for spectrum too.

And if they were so set with CAPEX they wouldn't have used vendor financing.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Price isn't everything. I think the first assumption I disagree with is that T-Mobile is competing on price. By T-Mobile's own admission, they aren't competing on price. They are competing on value and value does not necessarily equate to price.

 

I want network quality and value. Price in and of itself isn't a factor to compete on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Price isn't everything. I think the first assumption I disagree with is that T-Mobile is competing on price. By T-Mobile's own admission, they aren't competing on price. They are competing on value and value does not necessarily equate to price.

 

I want network quality and value. Price in and of itself isn't a factor to compete on.

K. So this supports a 4 to 3 because …

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

K. So this supports a 4 to 3 because …

 

Because you have a lot of myopic regulators who don't look at everything that creates value, that's why. Europe had over-competition that led to that continent falling behind on LTE deployment. The same myopic regulators clearly don't have an economic model that values the moves that T-Mobile has made. I would pay no mind to the horror stories of 4>3 because these people aren't factoring in the changes in the industry.

 

Secondly the U.S. is what, 18th in mobile broadband speed? The goal should be #1. I would argue that creates value as much as being inexpensive. Finally, the U.S. already has some of the very highest mobile prices on Earth with four carriers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...