Jump to content
CriticalityEvent

T-Mobile LTE & Network Discussion

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

STL might have some Ericsson after all. I have to check more towers here. Damnit.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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 !

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have plenty of accountants and lawyers and I guarantee you THEY aren't spending any time trying to figure out how to save YOU money.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

 

 

51501.jpg?v=3

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Similar Content

    • By vanko987
      I'm new to this forum, and I've seen people mention cell sites with specific ID's (for example, SF33XC664). Is there any significance to these ID's, and is there a way to decode them? Also, how do I figure out what the cell site ID's are for towers near me?
      Thanks! I'm excited to start talking on this site more 😀
    • By lilotimz
      Samsung Network Vision equipment are highly distinct and fairly easy to spot compared to the equipment that other vendors are deploying. Sprint is Samsung's first extremely massive American contract (baring Clearwire) so there  should be no issues in confusing these equipment for another carrier which happens often with Ericsson NV equipment.

      Below are images of Samsung equipment which includes antennas, remote radio units, base stations, and their mounting configurations. 
       
      Samsung antenna with eSMR 800 RRU & PCS 1900 RRU

      A close look at a Samsung setup





      Next Generation Samsung Configuration
      RRH-P4 4T4R 1.9 GHz  | RRH-C4 4T4R 800 MHz| RRH-V3 2.5 GHz

      Next Generation 8 Port Dual Band Antenna Setup 
      4 port 800 MHz RRH-C4 800

      (source: dkyeager)

      (source: dkyeager)
      Narrow beam setup

      High Capacity Site with 2 Antennas & 3 RRUs (2x PCS & 1x SMR).
      Second antenna is PCS only for now.


      Canadian IBEZ (NO SMR)

      Special Case PCS Only Setup for Canadian IBEZ




      Close up of standard antenna connectors 

      Samsung Cabinets

       
       
      Powerpoint slides from Samsung / Sprint
      *disclaimer - all  powerpoint diagrams and images were found through public municipality online databases and is by no means misappropriated through malicious means*
      *Credit goes to those whom took pictures of these equipment. You know who you are*
    • By kckid
      Sprint announced at MWC trade show in Barcelona that 5G will go live with 4 cities starting in May  (Chicago, Atlanta, Dallas and Kansas City )
      https://phys.org/news/2019-02-sprint-5g-network-chicago-atlanta.html
       
    • By ActionJacksonWX
      Sprint announced the MVNO Google Fi will use its network for 5G in a press release (that is, once there are actually 5G capable phones compatible with Google Fi someday):
      https://newsroom.sprint.com/sprint-to-provide-5g-wireless-services-for-google-fi.htm
       
      This is the first I've heard about Fi and 5G so far. Google has pretty much kept mum on the topic, so I'm somewhat encouraged.
    • By lilotimz
      Samsung TDD-LTE gear which are being utilized in Clearwire priority sites. .   Clearwire - Samsung TDD-LTE RRH SLS-BD106Q & Antennas           Samsung TD-LTE RRUs mounted behind BRS/EBS Antenna     Sprint 2500-2600 mhz TD-LTE Setup Note the Antennas are much thicker and fatter than the antennas being utilized by Sprint Network Vision.  
       

       
      Clearwire TD-LTE Base Station / Cabinet
      May be subject to change as TD-LTE sites start being integrated into the Network Vision setups.
       

       

       

       
      Happy Hunting!
        I'll clean the post up this weekend when I have more time.   Courtesy of Sbolen from Missouri market. Samsung TDD RRH SLS-BD104Q1
      Samsung TDD RRH SLS-BD106Q
  • Posts

    • Akron, OH - Median download speed increased from 22.7Mbps to 30.8Mbps.  Baltimore, MD - Median download speed increased from 24.4Mbps to 32.8Mbps.  Charlotte, NC - Median download speed increased from 14.7Mbps to 22Mbps.  Des Moines, IA - Median download speed increased from 16.8Mbps to 23.8Mbps. Fort Meyers, FL - Median download speed decreased from 15.5Mbps to 8.6Mbps. Mobile, AL - Median download speed increased from 18Mbps to 29.9Mbps. 
    • Sprint can't afford to go private, they can't afford to buy back shares from stockholders, going private won't happen.  Either the merger will pass (60/40 chance at this point), if not Son will find a buyer for Sprint and take a loss (hello WeWork) and as a trader the way Sprint's shares are trading its almost as if market makers are already pricing in a merger failure.  Sprint would have to do some serious trimming off its balance sheet, sale portions of its network and subs, or even file Chapter 11.  I don't really see Sprint filing bankruptcy I've seen companies with worse earnings and survive.  Son just wants out of the U.S. wireless market and merging with T-Mobile is the fastest way to do so all while pitching this "5G for all" bs <--- I don't even have faith in T-Mobile post merger if it happens.  Sprint needs someone with deep pockets like Altice or another large cable company (and most certainly not Dish). 
    • Yes, some of you disagree with me.  That's to be expected.  Sprint sucks in some places.  But Sprint is not only great in my area, but they're actually the best.  And in most metro areas, they are perfectly usable.  But guess what?  T-mobile sucks in many places.  And I can tell you here in their home market, they're the worst carrier.  Verizon also stinks in places too.  I suppose if I lived in a crappy Sprint market, I'd go.  But I can tell you I see more and more people who leave Sprint and either come back or even if they don't, admit that the network wasn't as bad as they thought and there was a complete over dramatization in the disparity in networks.  Everybody's gotta do what's best for themselves.  And if leaving Sprint is best for you, I certainly wouldn't hold it against anyone.  I've seen many go over the years.  And I still sit here plugging away behind the keyboard.  But the one thing that won't continue is the overly negative drumbeat that's happening in this thread.  You all are starting to build off each other's negativity, causing the conversation to become one sided and pointless.  Don't want to hear ad infinitum the same droll negative grumblings.  Especially the same 'ol criticisms and Sprint can't be trusted.  Frankly, the drama is not true.  Sprint took longer, yes, but it did upgrade its network, and the performance is better.  And on the whole, it's better than its ever been.  So it cannot be said Sprint didn't do it.  They did. So let's stick to the thread discussion, which is the merger.  Not on the network performance on Lower Botswana Avenue and your thoughts on changing networks because of your block. Robert 
    • Boost founder has already said he would pay $2b for the brand back. 
    • Hi, Robert While I see your points, I respectfully disagree with some of them.  Properly managed, Sprint does have the resources to compete successfully.  But the key phrase is "properly managed", and that's where Sprint has shown critical weakness time and time again. Since Dan Hesse was screwed over in the Metro PCS debacle, and then dumped after Softbank took over, Sprint hasn't shown any signs of intelligent strategic management.  Tactically, they have tried hard to succeed, and have kept up with technology, and have tried to keep up with deployments.  But Softbank's refusal to provide capital (either directly or through 3rd parties), Claure's ham-handed cost cutting,  and Masa's tunnel-vision focus on merger have all combined to put Sprint in a desperate situation. So I agree with you that Sprint could compete in the future, but I think it is unrealistic to expect Masayoshi and Softbank to actually try to compete.  If the merger fails, I think that it is far more likely that Masa will basically dump Sprint just like he dumped Hesse, and loyal Sprint employees and the few remaining independent stockholders will be left swinging in the wind.  Sprint customers (I've been with Sprint for 20+ years) will also be hung out to dry.  I hope that I am wrong.  Actually, I hope the merger goes through, but if it doesn't, then I hope that I am wrong.  But I'm not counting on it.
  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...