T-Mobile LTE & Network Discussion

[lou99/maximus1987]

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.

It wasn't over competition that led to falling behind in lte. It was very high 3G auction fees that sucked money from 4g CAPEX.

 

The goal should be #1 in speed?

So the goal Should be for sprint to be #1 in speed here? Epenis not big enough?

How did you not see that coming?lol

 

Hmmmmm where have i heard that before? AJ, Robert wanna jump in and tell me who on this forum has said this?

 

 

The connection should be fast enough to do what is commonly done on mobile.

Why does it matter if we're 18th if our speeds are fast enough? Sprint is not competing with Vodafone and orange in UK. I never understood this talking point.

 

I've been to Eastern European country with an iPhone 4S and the speeds were good enough to do FaceTime for 1 hour without dropped call in a dinky village that had recently gotten plumbing.

 

 

We've already gone over why we have high prices with 4 carriers fraydog:

the unequal and unfair distribution of lowband 3G spectrum.

How many times does it have to be repeated?

Once sprint and TMO get their current 5fdd lte rolled out, things will get better.

Once they each get 10fdd 600mhz, things'll get even better. Meaning vzw and att arpu will decrease because of competition.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fraydog]

It wasn't over competition that led to falling behind in lte. It was very high 3G auction fees that sucked money from 4g CAPEX.

 

The goal should be #1 in speed?

So the goal Should be for sprint to be #1 in speed here? Epenis not big enough?

How did you not see that coming?lol

 

Hmmmmm where have i heard that before? AJ, Robert wanna jump in and tell me who on this forum has said this?

 

 

The connection should be fast enough to do what is commonly done on mobile.

Why does it matter if we're 18th if our speeds are fast enough? Sprint is not competing with Vodafone and orange in UK. I never understood this talking point.

 

I've been to Eastern European country with an iPhone 4S and the speeds were good enough to do FaceTime for 1 hour without dropped call in a dinky village that had recently gotten plumbing.

 

 

We've already gone over why we have high prices with 4 carriers fraydog:

the unequal and unfair distribution of lowband 3G spectrum.

How many times does it have to be repeated?

Once sprint and TMO get their current 5fdd lte rolled out, things will get better.

Once they each get 10fdd 600mhz, things'll get even better. Meaning vzw and att arpu will decrease because of competition.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The whole problem is that you're counting on the JOINT BID of T-Mobile and Sprint for 600 MHz spectrum to equal the playing field:

 

http://tmo.rocks/2015/02/t-mobile-submits-comments-to-fcc-for-600-mhz-auction-bidding-rules/

 

I disagree here because I only see the 600 MHz auction being a giant, galactic clusterfuck. Think on the scale of that UMTS auction you mention. That's a preview of coming attractions if the FCC over regulates this.

[lou99/maximus1987]

The whole problem is that you're counting on the JOINT BID of T-Mobile and Sprint for 600 MHz spectrum to equal the playing field:

 

http://tmo.rocks/2015/02/t-mobile-submits-comments-to-fcc-for-600-mhz-auction-bidding-rules/

 

I disagree here because I only see the 600 MHz auction being a giant, galactic clusterfuck. Think on the scale of that UMTS auction you mention. That's a preview of coming attractions if the FCC over regulates this.

If they set aside 40mhz, joint bidding not necessary.

 

And maybe we should address sonny and softy. He should give to sprint money to bid.

Can't help those who won't help themselves.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bigsnake49]

The FCC has to realize that the huge amounts that were just spent on the AWS-3 auction are going to slow down investment in the industry. The amounts spent are ridiculous and have distorted the economics of spectrum. Even Verizon had to sell assets to be able to afford the spectrum they have just bought. Verizon of the 43% margin . The big monkey wrench is still Dish. Nobody wants to pay the insane prices they're going to want for their spectrum. I believe nobody want to host their spectrum because I believe that Dish is going to want to do it on the cheap. So their only two viable strategies is to spend around $10B to host their spectrum themselves or merge with T-Mobile. I don't think that Sprint wants to deal with Ergen and they definitely don't need his spectrum. 

 

Sprint & T-Mobile have to spend approximately $10B each to secure a 10x10 600MHz slice so where are they going to find the money to do that. Neither one is banking !

[lou99/maximus1987]

The FCC has to realize that the huge amounts that were just spent on the AWS-3 auction are going to slow down investment in the industry. The amounts spent are ridiculous and have distorted the economics of spectrum. Even Verizon had to sell assets to be able to afford the spectrum they have just bought. Verizon of the 43% margin . The big monkey wrench is still Dish. Nobody wants to pay the insane prices they're going to want for their spectrum. I believe nobody want to host their spectrum because I believe that Dish is going to want to do it on the cheap. So their only two viable strategies is to spend around $10B to host their spectrum themselves or merge with T-Mobile. I don't think that Sprint wants to deal with Ergen and they definitely don't need his spectrum.

 

Sprint & T-Mobile have to spend approximately $10B each to secure a 10x10 600MHz slice so where are they going to find the money to do that. Neither one is banking !

As an anti merger hawk, I would still be in favor of them jointly bidding for 30mhz and then deploying it on both their networks (where not co-located) but in that scenario you can't have reserves. Can't double dip.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bcltoys]

The FCC has to realize that the huge amounts that were just spent on the AWS-3 auction are going to slow down investment in the industry. The amounts spent are ridiculous and have distorted the economics of spectrum. Even Verizon had to sell assets to be able to afford the spectrum they have just bought. Verizon of the 43% margin . The big monkey wrench is still Dish. Nobody wants to pay the insane prices they're going to want for their spectrum. I believe nobody want to host their spectrum because I believe that Dish is going to want to do it on the cheap. So their only two viable strategies is to spend around $10B to host their spectrum themselves or merge with T-Mobile. I don't think that Sprint wants to deal with Ergen and they definitely don't need his spectrum. 

 

Sprint & T-Mobile have to spend approximately $10B each to secure a 10x10 600MHz slice so where are they going to find the money to do that. Neither one is banking !

Verizon want's out of wireline,they were going to sell that even before they bought their chunk.

[bigsnake49]

Verizon want's out of wireline,they were going to sell that even before they bought their chunk.

They are not selling their NYC properties, I can guarantee you that!

[lou99/maximus1987]

They are not selling their NYC properties, I can guarantee you that!

They said they like their east coast network.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Paynefanbro]

They are not selling their NYC properties, I can guarantee you that!

 

 

They said they like their east coast network.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Also, I'm willing to bet that they'd get into a lot of trouble over that too. They have a franchise agreement with the New York City Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications that they would build its "state-of-the-art fiber-optic network throughout the entire City by mid-year 2014." They already missed that deadline and are under fire because of it. Also, they are skipping out on many homes in the process. They claim to have wired the area that I live in, but that simply isn't true. In fact, no homes on my block have FiOS service available.

[lou99/maximus1987]

Also, I'm willing to bet that they'd get into a lot of trouble over that too. They have a franchise agreement with the New York City Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications that they would build its "state-of-the-art fiber-optic network throughout the entire City by mid-year 2014." They already missed that deadline and are under fire because of it. Also, they are skipping out on many homes in the process. They claim to have wired the area that I live in, but that simply isn't true. In fact, no homes on my block have FiOS service available.

Then how are they getting away with that? Must be a clause somewhere.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Paynefanbro]

Then how are they getting away with that? Must be a clause somewhere.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I checked just now and they said that I could request FiOS at my home location. It would take anywhere from 6-12 months to do though. They acknowledge that they have service in my area, just not in my home location.

[mrknowitall526]

I checked just now and they said that I could request FiOS at my home location. It would take anywhere from 6-12 months to do though. They acknowledge that they have service in my area, just not in my home location.

Sometimes even though FIOS passes a building it's still not available because the building owners wouldn't let them in to do the install, already have a contract with cable, etc. But if you live in a single home, that's just Verizon being dumb old Verizon! They do what they damn well please and that's that. Same reason they won't give me any more than 3 Mbps on my DSL line, even though it can more than handle it.

[Conan Kudo]

The FCC has to realize that the huge amounts that were just spent on the AWS-3 auction are going to slow down investment in the industry. The amounts spent are ridiculous and have distorted the economics of spectrum. Even Verizon had to sell assets to be able to afford the spectrum they have just bought. Verizon of the 43% margin . The big monkey wrench is still Dish. Nobody wants to pay the insane prices they're going to want for their spectrum. I believe nobody want to host their spectrum because I believe that Dish is going to want to do it on the cheap. So their only two viable strategies is to spend around $10B to host their spectrum themselves or merge with T-Mobile. I don't think that Sprint wants to deal with Ergen and they definitely don't need his spectrum. 

 

Sprint & T-Mobile have to spend approximately $10B each to secure a 10x10 600MHz slice so where are they going to find the money to do that. Neither one is banking !

If you factor out Dish, then the amount of money spent in the auction is exactly what was predicted on the top end. Dish is the only reason it went up by $11-13 billion (depending on whether the FCC approves Dish's DE bidding credits).

 

I find it very shocking that people here keep saying that Sprint needs low-band spectrum to be able to roll out nationally. Sprint already has a national ESMR footprint. While it has taken a long time to get there, we have it now. For Sprint, 600MHz isn't really going to help very much, because we already know that low-band spectrum won't change Sprint's plans on deployment and expansion.

 

As for T-Mobile, I do not believe T-Mobile will bid for 600MHz in areas that they hold 700MHz unless it's cheap. If you take a look at T-Mobile's 700MHz footprint, there aren't a lot of major areas where T-Mobile lacks low-band spectrum. The areas where T-Mobile lacks it today are the same areas that don't get very much bidding, generally. So T-Mobile will not likely have a problem affording the spectrum.

 

You have to realize that outside of the top 25 markets, the pricing for spectrum was quite low, well within the range of reasonable purchase cost (though there are a few exceptions). For T-Mobile, that's perfect.

[bigsnake49]

If you factor out Dish, then the amount of money spent in the auction is exactly what was predicted on the top end. Dish is the only reason it went up by $11-13 billion (depending on whether the FCC approves Dish's DE bidding credits).

 

I find it very shocking that people here keep saying that Sprint needs low-band spectrum to be able to roll out nationally. Sprint already has a national ESMR footprint. While it has taken a long time to get there, we have it now. For Sprint, 600MHz isn't really going to help very much, because we already know that low-band spectrum won't change Sprint's plans on deployment and expansion.

 

As for T-Mobile, I do not believe T-Mobile will bid for 600MHz in areas that they hold 700MHz unless it's cheap. If you take a look at T-Mobile's 700MHz footprint, there aren't a lot of major areas where T-Mobile lacks low-band spectrum. The areas where T-Mobile lacks it today are the same areas that don't get very much bidding, generally. So T-Mobile will not likely have a problem affording the spectrum.

 

You have to realize that outside of the top 25 markets, the pricing for spectrum was quite low, well within the range of reasonable purchase cost (though there are a few exceptions). For T-Mobile, that's perfect.

 

I have no idea what you consider reasonable. $42B is not reasonable and I don't care whether they are concentrated in the top 25 or not. Your favorite CEO called it a disaster for consumers. I wonder why? Mark my words, both T-Mobile and Sprint will bid heavily on the 600MHz auction. While both might have some low band spectrum, they want more.

Edited February 23, 2015 by bigsnake49

[bcltoys]

They are not selling their NYC properties, I can guarantee you that!

I would not hold my breath.It may not happen within the next few years. Their copper plant here in Maryland is a mess.

[Conan Kudo]

I have no idea what you consider reasonable. $42B is not reasonable and I don't care whether they are concentrated in the top 25 or not. Your favorite CEO called it a disaster for consumers. I wonder why? Mark my words, both T-Mobile and Sprint will bid heavily on the 600MHz auction. While both might have some low band spectrum, they want more.

First of all, if you exclude Dish from the equation, then it was about $30 billion. The majority of that was split between AT&T and Verizon. And here's the thing, most markets did not go for the prices of the top 25. For example, NYC went for about $5/MHz/person. Atlanta went for under $3/MHz/person. Then there were markets like Tupelo and Corpus Christi, which went for under $0.50/MHz/person.

 

At the end of the day, the valuation is based on the trade-off of using more spectrum vs the cost of cell splitting to support the same group of people. In already dense markets, naturally this is a higher cost because it's harder to split cells more. In markets where it's difficult to provision new cells, this is still true. That's reflected in the cost of spectrum.

[Paynefanbro]

I would not hold my breath.It may not happen within the next few years. Their copper plant here in Maryland is a mess.

 

Post Sandy, Verizon upgraded a lot of their copper infrastructure to fiber. They seem more heavily invested in NYC than any other area and it has paid off for them.

[Hurrcayne_dre]

Post Sandy, Verizon upgraded a lot of their copper infrastructure to fiber. They seem more heavily invested in NYC than any other area and it has paid off for them.

Verizon only did that because of entire ordeal going public like it did and really it more repair work. Verizon is done rolling out Fiber.  If you don't have it you never get it unless you move to part of your area with it.

Those fines Verizon can eat because they are cheaper than rolling out Fiber.

[S4GRU]

Anyone without a 10x10 slice of low frequency spectrum for LTE is at a disadvantage. I expect both Tmo and Sprint to pursue a 10x10 600MHz license in every major market it can, regardless of their 800 or 700-A holdings.

 

I think Sprint and Tmo are fine with 5MHz low frequency channels in tertiary and rural markets, though. But really desire a more even footing in major markets. However, rural/tertiary licenses will not cost very much to pick up. It's the primary and secondary markets that went for beaucoup bucks in the recent auction.

[lou99/maximus1987]

Anyone without a 10x10 slice of low frequency spectrum for LTE is at a disadvantage. I expect both Tmo and Sprint to pursue a 10x10 600MHz license in every major market it can, regardless of their 800 or 700-A holdings.

 

I think Sprint and Tmo are fine with 5MHz low frequency channels in tertiary and rural markets, though. But really desire a more even footing in major markets. However, rural/tertiary licenses will not cost very much to pick up. It's the primary and secondary markets that went for beaucoup bucks in the recent auction.

 

 

The broadcasters also want the FCC to set a target of getting at least 126 MHz of spectrum from broadcasters for the auction.

 

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/cbs-open-selling-spectrum-600-mhz-incentive-auction-might-fetch-2b/2015-02-13?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Editor&utm_campaign=SocialMedia

 

AWS3 had 25fdd while 600mhz may have 50fdd which should help to decrease the price.

[Paynefanbro]

Verizon only did that because of entire ordeal going public like it did and really it more repair work. Verizon is done rolling out Fiber.  If you don't have it you never get it unless you move to part of your area with it.

Those fines Verizon can eat because they are cheaper than rolling out Fiber.

 

That's incorrect. The block that my high school was on got FiOS last year for the first time. One of my friend's homes got FiOS late last year for the first time. He said that they set up a booth and everything in order to advertise their service.

 

If you're saying that they're done expanding out of their service area, then I'd agree with you. They cover virtually every borough but if you tell them that you want FiOS, they'll build it out to your home.

[Houston_Texas]

That's incorrect. The block that my high school was on got FiOS last year for the first time. One of my friend's homes got FiOS late last year for the first time. He said that they set up a booth and everything in order to advertise their service.

 

If you're saying that they're done expanding out of their service area, then I'd agree with you. They cover virtually every borough but if you tell them that you want FiOS, they'll build it out to your home.

Side question: why are they done expanding to other cities? I know a lot of cities would enjoy fiber services.

[lou99/maximus1987]

Side question: why are they done expanding to other cities? I know a lot of cities would enjoy fiber services.

Wireless has a better return on capital

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Houston_Texas]

Wireless has a better return on capital

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So why is Google Fiber expanding? Google just had money to waste?

[lou99/maximus1987]

So why is Google Fiber expanding? Google just had money to waste?

Google isn't in the infrastructure business to make money from infrastructure but from eyeballs.

There's lots of theories why google is doing this from people smarter than me.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk