T-Mobile LTE & Network Discussion

[maximus1987/lou99]

 

 

 

And it also specifically dated they're gonna upgrade all 37k sites.

 

 

The backhaul description is of their network TODAY not their network forever.

 

 

 

If they're never gonna upgrade rural backhaul, what's the point of installing LTE equipment everywhere?

 

 

You're missing a key fact that their network consists of 51K towers. The 37K IS a subset:

 

http://gigaom.com/2012/09/28/t-mobile-sheds-its-towers-in-exchange-for-a-2-4b-infusion/

 

Check out the article, it specifically states the total number of towers T-Mo operates.

This has already been refuted by the mods. Do a search on the forums.

[maximus1987/lou99]

 

 

And it also specifically dated they're gonna upgrade all 37k sites.

 

 

The backhaul description is of their network TODAY not their network forever.

 

 

 

If they're never gonna upgrade rural backhaul, what's the point of installing LTE equipment everywhere?

 

 

You're missing a key fact that their network consists of 51K towers. The 37K IS a subset:

 

http://gigaom.com/2012/09/28/t-mobile-sheds-its-towers-in-exchange-for-a-2-4b-infusion/

 

Check out the article, it specifically states the total number of towers T-Mo operates.

Whether TMO has 37k or 51k total towers, 37k LTE towers is 2k towers less than Sprint will have upgraded so for the money, 37k LTE will provide very good coverage.

[Boosted20V]

Whether TMO has 37k or 51k total towers, 37k LTE towers is 2k towers less than Sprint will have upgraded so for the money, 37k LTE will provide very good coverage.

 

I'm still researching DT ever publically stating their LTE network will do anything but supplement their existing HSPA footprint. I haven't found anything. Also, Sprint has the same number of towers relatively but with 800mhz and PCS spectrum vs. AWS. That isn't a very good comparison.

[maximus1987/lou99]

 

 

Whether TMO has 37k or 51k total towers, 37k LTE towers is 2k towers less than Sprint will have upgraded so for the money, 37k LTE will provide very good coverage.

 

 

I'm still researching DT ever publically stating their LTE network will do anything but supplement their existing HSPA footprint. I haven't found anything. Also, Sprint has the same number of towers relatively but with 800mhz and PCS spectrum vs. AWS. That isn't a very good comparison.

How do you know that AWS is so much worse coverage than PCS?

If power limits are the same, AWS has better uplink distance and worse downlink distance.

 

Go to the Tmobile PREPAID coverage page and my guess (and hope) is ALL THAT will be Tmobile's future HSPA+ and LTE coverage.

 

Another issue is: if Tmobile upgrades their current native coverage, they'll STILL have way less LTE than Sprint both because of pure tower count and 800 MHz.

So, can TMO compete with even less LTE than that i.e. only deploying to their CURRENT HSPA+ as you suggested? I don't think so.

[S4GRU]

Actually, I was disproven a long time ago. You may have missed it. T-Mobile has 51,000 sites total. Of which 37,000 are HSPA/HSPA+. The remainder are GPRS and EDGE only.

 

Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

 

[Boosted20V]

A great place to find info is Earnings Conference Calls. The analysts typically ask decent enough questions: 

 

Robin Bienenstock - Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., LLC., Research Division

So your LTE network will clearly be better in the U.S., in the densely populated parts of the country, but it'll still be thinner in terms of coverage in the less-dense parts of the country. So I'm wondering, to what extent do you think that reduces the addressable market for you in the U.S.? And then secondly, I just had a question about your working capital, which is going to be a big negative number, it looks like, this year, a lot bigger than last year, lots of restructuring charges in there. And I'm wondering if you can help me think about what that means, if anything, for margins next year and what I should think about in terms of potential costs there next year as well.

René Obermann - Chairman of the Management Board and Chief Executive Officer

Right. Robin, the LTE question, allow me to answer that in -- entailing the HSPA coverage as well because, after all, for customers, it does matter, the network speed and throughput, and capacity matters, not so much whether you are on LTE or 3G. And from my own and, personally, your own user experience, I suggest that you don't care whether you see the LTE signal or the 3G signal. In Germany, we launched LTE and it's still somewhat spotty. And for me as a user, all that matters is high-speed coverage. And therefore, our HSPA network is with 225 million POPs coverage in spring, and the successful spectrum migration onto the 1,900 band is going to be an important component in the game. And then next year, in the course of the year, we'll cover up to 200 million POPs and that, in combination, still having EDGE as a world-class technology available to the customer and seamless upgradable to 3G and 4G proposition. In that combination, I think, we'll be more competitive and the network perception will improve. But also, to be honest, it's grinding work because we are coming from very low perception and we need to move up the ladder. And it's grinding work and it will take some time, but we are coming and we will have a good competitive environment -- network, sorry, not environment. [indiscernible].

 

 

Another piece from a previous conference call, again, 37k is the right number but this only entails their HSPA service footprint:

 

Philipp Humm

Yeah, so I think, the additional incremental CapEx basically reflect that we want to role out LTE to our total 3G, 4G footprint, which is about 37,000 sites. And so to achieve a full modernization and then LTE rollout, this is then the number we – at the end of the day we’ll need to do that.

 

 

So they're stating they're keeping EDGE and are touting that there is a seamless handoff to HSPA and LTE from there. Also, specificallys tating that only their HSPA/HSPA+ footprint will be upgraded (i.e. 3G/4G footprint).

[maximus1987/lou99]

Actually, I was disproven a long time ago. You may have missed it. T-Mobile has 51,000 sites total. Of which 37,000 are HSPA/HSPA+. The remainder are GPRS and EDGE only.

 

Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

 

Link please?

[S4GRU]

 

 

Link please?

I couldn't find it searching just now. However, I was corrected by Neal Gompa who is the definitive source around here when it comes to the Tmo network. He is the closest to an AJ equivalent on the Tmo side there is.

 

Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

 

[WiWavelength]

Actually, I was disproven a long time ago. You may have missed it. T-Mobile has 51,000 sites total. Of which 37,000 are HSPA/HSPA+. The remainder are GPRS and EDGE only.

 

I am sorry, but I still do not buy it.  The math just does not add up.

 

Sprint and T-Mobile have similar native footprints -- give a little here, take a little there.  But T-Mobile W-CDMA footprint is far smaller than Sprint overall footprint.  So, if T-Mobile truly has fully 37,000 upgraded sites in its little "archipelago" (great geographic analogy, cletus) of W-CDMA footprint while Sprint has 38,000 sites total, then T-Mobile site density has to be at least 25-50 percent greater than that of Sprint.  How can that be true?  I sense some fuzzy math.

 

And even if Neal says it is so, that does not make it so.  He is just repeating what someone inside T-Mobile may have told him, while we have actual site counts and locations.  I only wish such verification were available on the other three major carriers.

 

AJ

[S4GRU]

I am sorry, but I still do not buy it.  The math just does not add up.

 

Sprint and T-Mobile have similar native footprints -- give a little here, take a little there.  But T-Mobile W-CDMA footprint is far smaller than Sprint overall footprint.  So, if T-Mobile truly has fully 37,000 upgraded sites in its little "archipelago" (great geographic analogy, cletus) of W-CDMA footprint while Sprint has 38,000 sites total, then T-Mobile site density has to be at least 25-50 percent greater than that of Sprint.  How can that be true?  I sense some fuzzy math.

 

And even if Neal says it is so, that does not make it so.  He is just repeating what someone inside T-Mobile may have told him, while we have actual site counts and locations.  I only wish such verification were available on the other three major carriers.

 

AJ

 

I was on the same line of thinking too initially.  We have to consider all of Sprint's native footprint, not just corporate owned sites when comparing the two.  Start including Shentel, Swiftel, nTelos, Carolina Wireless, et al, to Sprint's 38,000 site total and the 51,000 site number for T-Mobile doesn't seem so far fetched.  It would be great to see a specific breakdown on the Tmo side, but I feel pretty comfortable with Tmo having 51,000 sites now.

 

And what does this really say?  Tmo does not provide more coverage than Sprint.  It means they have a lot of waste and redundancy that is costing them millions.  And now, they are bringing in MetroPCS sites on top of this 51,000 number.  Even more redundancy.  Tmo really needs a Network Vision style project to consolidate and standardize, and most importantly, reduce redundant cost and shed some of these useless sites.  And perhaps add some where they really need it.

 

And I have seen several quotes lately from Tmo executives claiming they have 37,000 HSPA/HSPA+ sites.  So if that is accurate, then the total count is a higher number to include non WCDMA sites.

 

Robert

[maximus1987/lou99]

 

 

I am sorry, but I still do not buy it. The math just does not add up.

 

Sprint and T-Mobile have similar native footprints -- give a little here, take a little there. But T-Mobile W-CDMA footprint is far smaller than Sprint overall footprint. So, if T-Mobile truly has fully 37,000 upgraded sites in its little "archipelago" (great geographic analogy, cletus) of W-CDMA footprint while Sprint has 38,000 sites total, then T-Mobile site density has to be at least 25-50 percent greater than that of Sprint. How can that be true? I sense some fuzzy math.

 

And even if Neal says it is so, that does not make it so. He is just repeating what someone inside T-Mobile may have told him, while we have actual site counts and locations. I only wish such verification were available on the other three major carriers.

 

AJ

 

 

I was on the same line of thinking too initially. We have to consider all of Sprint's native footprint, not just corporate owned sites when comparing the two. Start including Shentel, Swiftel, nTelos, Carolina Wireless, et al, to Sprint's 38,000 site total and the 51,000 site number for T-Mobile doesn't seem so far fetched. It would be great to see a specific breakdown on the Tmo side, but I feel pretty comfortable with Tmo having 51,000 sites now.

 

And what does this really say? Tmo does not provide more coverage than Sprint. It means they have a lot of waste and redundancy that is costing them millions. And now, they are bringing in MetroPCS sites on top of this 51,000 number. Even more redundancy. Tmo really needs a Network Vision style project to consolidate and standardize, and most importantly, reduce redundant cost and shed some of these useless sites. And perhaps add some where they really need it.

 

Robert

 

MetroPCS is bringing in 11.5k additional sites but TMO has announced they're gonna retire 10k of them.

 

I just called TMO customer service and for what it's worth, a "technical specialist" said "50k native and 7k roaming".

 

Also, do you have a link explaining Sprint's relationship with their "affiliates"? It sounds like they're part of Sprint but not really.

[cletus]

http://www.engadget.com/2013/06/28/t-mobile-buys-lte-spectrum/

 

 US Cellular just inked a deal to unload 10MHz of Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) spectrum, padding its pocketbook with a whopping $308 million in cash. Pending FCC approval, that wireless load will be making its way over to T-Mobile, which would then own the vast majority of AWS. It's good news for T-Mobile customers, no doubt, especially those in the Southeast -- according to a press release, the spectrum T-Mob just snatched up covers 32 million people in cities like St. Louis, Memphis, Little Rock and New Orleans.

[maximus1987/lou99]

http://www.engadget.com/2013/06/28/t-mobile-buys-lte-spectrum/

 

 

US Cellular just inked a deal to unload 10MHz of Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) spectrum, padding its pocketbook with a whopping $308 million in cash. Pending FCC approval, that wireless load will be making its way over to T-Mobile, which would then own the vast majority of AWS. It's good news for T-Mobile customers, no doubt, especially those in the Southeast -- according to a press release, the spectrum T-Mob just snatched up covers 32 million people in cities like St. Louis, Memphis, Little Rock and New Orleans.

 

How much did TMO have before this transaction in those markets?

Is there a map of the transfer?

[S4GRU]

Also, do you have a link explaining Sprint's relationship with their "affiliates"? It sounds like they're part of Sprint but not really.

 

No.  However, it is common knowledge for wireless enthusiasts.  Affiliates and partnerships with companies like nTelos and Shentel provide Sprint native service that is undetectable to Sprint customers.  It is Sprint native coverage, just the networks are not owned by Sprint.  The affiliate relationship with Shentel is very significant.  Coverage and usability of Shentel service is even better for Sprint customers than even their own corporate network.

 

If you wanted to do some Googling, you could find out quite a bit about Sprint affiliates and the long history.  Basically, Sprint had a very extensive affiliate network that made up over 50% of its coverage.  However, they ended up having to buy out most of them after the Nextel merger because of lawsuits.  Affiliates like Alamosa, iPCS, Ubiquitel and many more.  These are now Sprint corporate coverage.

 

Robert

 

Robert

[Boosted20V]

MetroPCS is bringing in 11.5k additional sites but TMO has announced they're gonna retire 10k of them.

 

I just called TMO customer service and for what it's worth, a "technical specialist" said "50k native and 7k roaming".

 

Also, do you have a link explaining Sprint's relationship with their "affiliates"? It sounds like they're part of Sprint but not really.

 

As for Shentel, they use each other's network interchangeable and it is all branded as Sprint. Shentel maintains the network in the areas they own. Sprint/Shentel have a formula they use based on how much usage occurs inside/outside their borders to determine how much $ Shentel is paid out of Sprint's revenue.

 

Also, they own ~600 towers (580 some I believe) in PA/MD/VA.

[maximus1987/lou99]

 

 

MetroPCS is bringing in 11.5k additional sites but TMO has announced they're gonna retire 10k of them.

 

 

I just called TMO customer service and for what it's worth, a "technical specialist" said "50k native and 7k roaming".

 

 

Also, do you have a link explaining Sprint's relationship with their "affiliates"? It sounds like they're part of Sprint but not really.

 

 

As for Shentel, they use each other's network interchangeable and it is all branded as Sprint. Shentel maintains the network in the areas they own. Sprint/Shentel have a formula they use based on how much usage occurs inside/outside their borders to determine how much $ Shentel is paid out of Sprint's revenue.

 

Also, they own ~600 towers (580 some I believe) in PA/MD/VA.

 

Who pays for the NV upgrades?

[lynyrd65]

Robin Bienenstock - Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., LLC., Research Division

 still having EDGE as a world-class technology available to the customer 

 

World-class may be the only way to refer to EDGE in a positive manner.

 

I wish someone would have the courage to call them out directly on their massive and deteriorating low speed footprint

[maximus1987/lou99]

 

 

 

 

Robin Bienenstock - Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., LLC., Research Division

still having EDGE as a world-class technology available to the customer

 

 

World-class may be the only way to refer to EDGE in a positive manner.

 

I wish someone would have the courage to call them out directly on their massive and deteriorating low speed footprint

Millions leaving should be enough to get their attention.

 

I wonder if he was snickering when he was saying "world class EDGE".

 

I wonder what DT will do if by end of year 2014, as they're finishing their upgrades, customers start leaving cause of the coverage issue.

 

[Boosted20V]

Who pays for the NV upgrades?

 

Shentel pays for all upgrades/maintenance in their footprint. And for their size, theres not a better company in my eyes.

 

EDIT - And that is the whole point of an affiliate. The affilieate pays to maintain the network they own. But they don't deal with branding/advertising/customer support which Sprint does. So Sprint pays them a cut based on usage/subs in their territory.

[maximus1987/lou99]

Shentel pays for all upgrades/maintenance in their footprint. And for their size, theres not a better company in my eyes.

 

EDIT - And that is the whole point of an affiliate. The affilieate pays to maintain the network they own. But they don't deal with branding/advertising/customer support which Sprint does. So Sprint pays them a cut based on usage/subs in their territory.

 

Why not just buy them? Sounds like they're already part of the company.

[digiblur]

Why not just buy them? Sounds like they're already part of the company.

 

That's the environment we are in, outsource and lease everything.

[cletus]

Why not just buy them? Sounds like they're already part of the company.

The reverse is also worth asking: Why not just leave them? In this arrangement Sprint has less risk and less capital expenditure. If Shentel runs into problems then Sprint can probably buy them for cheaper than they could now. If it was prohibitively expensive for Sprint to run subs there then Sprint would do a cost analysis and determine if it is is worth it to buy them out. TBH, Shentel is probably better at running it's area than Sprint is at managing it's entire network.

[maximus1987/lou99]

 

 

Why not just buy them? Sounds like they're already part of the company.

 

 

The reverse is also worth asking: Why not just leave them? In this arrangement Sprint has less risk and less capital expenditure. If Shentel runs into problems then Sprint can probably buy them for cheaper than they could now. If it was prohibitively expensive for Sprint to run subs there then Sprint would do a cost analysis and determine if it is is worth it to buy them out. TBH, Shentel is probably better at running it's area than Sprint is at managing it's entire network.

What if someone else buys them to screw with Sprint?

Verizon is still allowed to buy Tier 3 carriers and recently - cant find article - it even bought a GSM carrier which it stated it would convert to CDMA.

[digiblur]

What if someone else buys them to screw with Sprint?

Verizon is still allowed to buy Tier 3 carriers and recently - cant find article - it even bought a GSM carrier which it stated it would convert to CDMA.

 

Could you please post your ROI analysis on this "buys them to screw with Sprint" scenario?  

[S4GRU]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why not just buy them? Sounds like they're already part of the company.

 

 

 

The reverse is also worth asking: Why not just leave them? In this arrangement Sprint has less risk and less capital expenditure. If Shentel runs into problems then Sprint can probably buy them for cheaper than they could now. If it was prohibitively expensive for Sprint to run subs there then Sprint would do a cost analysis and determine if it is is worth it to buy them out. TBH, Shentel is probably better at running it's area than Sprint is at managing it's entire network.

What if someone else buys them to screw with Sprint?

 

Verizon is still allowed to buy Tier 3 carriers and recently - cant find article - it even bought a GSM carrier which it stated it would convert to CDMA.

Given the types of contracts Shentel has with Sprint, I don't see this happening. And since VZW and ATT already have a foothold in the Shentel area, the FCC may not be fond of the idea. It would appear anti-competitive.

 

Also, Shentel is much bigger than a wireless company. Sprint does not want to be a regional telecom with cable and landline telephone. They would probably have to turn around and try to split off the other business of Shentel.

 

The deal with Shentel works, and works very well. If anything, Sprint needs to buy out Swiftel or nTelos. Swiftel is a problem affiliate. And nTelos is risky. I could see a nTelos buy out from the duopoly or forming a new partnership with someone else. nTelos has PCS and AWS spectrum and provides roaming/native coverage to many companies.

 

Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta