Jump to content

T-Mobile LTE & Network Discussion


CriticalityEvent

Recommended Posts

Boosted20V, on 28 Jun 2013 - 10:30 AM, said:

 

 

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).

Since Sprint is upgrading almost 39k sites to LTE, will it in the near future increase site count to put further distance between Tmobile?

 

It seems that Sprint would need to because it is setting itself up as an alternative to Verizon/ATT and their coverage, and not Tmobile.

Sprint better start deploying that 800 MHz far and wide so it doesn't get stuck (in perception) between Tmobile and ATT/Verizon which would be bad for business: more expensive than bargain-mobile but not as much coverage as V-ATT; with the 800 MHz AND Softbank-daddy, there really are no more excuses.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

From my point of view the deeper entrenched an affiliate is to one carrier's technology the less and less attractive they are to competing carriers. Will Verizon/AT&T view Shentel as a candidate for buyout? Maybe, but then they are left with towers they have to completely rollout on. It'd be cheaper for Sprint, for instance, to pay a higher amount in the buyout than Verizon simply because the capital they need to use those towers is so much less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this thread should be renamed: "Why Tmobile's LTE Network will suck (royally)"

 

The reason: they're only upgrading 37k out of 51k towers to LTE; the rest will be EDGE forever.

 

For more details, see the other Tmobile thread.

They had 35-36,000 of their own sites the rest of the 51,000 are MetroPCS sites. They don't need to upgrade the MetroPCS sites since those will be shutdown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since Sprint is upgrading almost 39k sites to LTE, will it in the near future increase site count to put further distance between Tmobile?

 

It seems that Sprint would need to because it is setting itself up as an alternative to Verizon/ATT and their coverage, and not Tmobile.

Sprint better start deploying that 800 MHz far and wide so it doesn't get stuck (in perception) between Tmobile and ATT/Verizon which would be bad for business: more expensive than bargain-mobile but not as much coverage as V-ATT; with the 800 MHz AND Softbank-daddy, there really are no more excuses.

 

No, I disagree.  Most of the US population lives in urban areas with adequate breadth of native coverage.  They rarely leave those urban areas, and even if they do, they are likely still within roaming coverage.  So, they do not perceive T-Mobile as having poor coverage overall; they perceive T-Mobile as having poor coverage even within their own markets.

 

So, the real problems that both T-Mobile and Sprint face are urban dead zones/RF shadows and in building coverage.  This is why I find the 37,000/51,000 T-Mobile site count ludicrous.  If that is accurate, then T-Mobile should have much better in building coverage than Sprint does.  But, if anything, the opposite is true.  T-Mobile has even worse in building coverage.  Meanwhile, Sprint is about to knock those problems out of the park with SMR 800 MHz -- except for you sad saps living in the IBEZ.

 

AJ

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I think this thread should be renamed: "Why Tmobile's LTE Network will suck (royally)"

 

 

The reason: they're only upgrading 37k out of 51k towers to LTE; the rest will be EDGE forever.

 

 

For more details, see the other Tmobile thread.

 

 

They had 35-36,000 of their own sites the rest of the 51,000 are MetroPCS sites. They don't need to upgrade the MetroPCS sites since those will be shutdown.

Please provide your source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please provide your source.

"While MetroPCS's CDMA network will be shut down by the end of 2015 - T-Mobile is turning off 10,000 of MetroPCS's 11,000 cell sites - the brand will continue, and T-Mobile will migrate customers to less expensive and more capable GSM/HSPA+ phones, Legere said...."

 

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2412948,00.asp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I disagree.  Most of the US population lives in urban areas with adequate breadth of native coverage.  They rarely leave those urban areas, and even if they do, they are likely still within roaming coverage.  So, they do not perceive T-Mobile as having poor coverage overall; they perceive T-Mobile as having poor coverage even within their own markets.

 

I've been thinking about this the last couple of days between this chat and a couple others.  If Verizon is moving somewhat quickly to VOLTE and refarming EVDO carriers to LTE, once they get to a point where they have less CDMA and possibly no EVDO coverage wouldn't a large part of Sprint's roaming area all but disappear?

 

With no roaming on LTE, what would Sprint's roaming coverage look like then?  I know this is a long way off, just wondering.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been thinking about this the last couple of days between this chat and a couple others.  If Verizon is moving somewhat quickly to VOLTE and refarming EVDO carriers to LTE, once they get to a point where they have less CDMA and possibly no EVDO coverage wouldn't a large part of Sprint's roaming area all but disappear?

 

With no roaming on LTE, what would Sprint's roaming coverage look like then?  I know this is a long way off, just wondering.

 

VZW has announced no plans to refarm Cellular 850 MHz, only PCS 1900 MHz.  And that comes as no surprise.  Cellular 850 MHz regulations include strict geographic area coverage requirements.  With current site density, LTE is not going to cut it.  Loss of coverage would mean a violation of VZW's license terms and/or a contraction of VZW's licensed area.  So, EV-DO may fall by the wayside sooner rather than later, but expect CDMA1X to stick around until roughly 2020.  And that should present little disruption to Sprint roaming, since few Sprint PRLs enable EV-DO roaming on VZW anyway.

 

AJ

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I've been thinking about this the last couple of days between this chat and a couple others. If Verizon is moving somewhat quickly to VOLTE and refarming EVDO carriers to LTE, once they get to a point where they have less CDMA and possibly no EVDO coverage wouldn't a large part of Sprint's roaming area all but disappear?

 

With no roaming on LTE, what would Sprint's roaming coverage look like then? I know this is a long way off, just wondering.

 

 

VZW has announced no plans to refarm Cellular 850 MHz, only PCS 1900 MHz. And that comes as no surprise. Cellular 850 MHz regulations include strict geographic area coverage requirements. With current site density, LTE is not going to cut it. Loss of coverage would mean a violation of VZW's license terms and/or a contraction of VZW's licensed area. So, EV-DO may fall by the wayside sooner rather than later, but expect CDMA1X to stick around until roughly 2020. And that should present little disruption to Sprint roaming, since few Sprint PRLs enable EV-DO roaming on VZW anyway.

 

AJ

 

So is that when Sprint is gonna buildout its 800mhz LTE?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

No, I disagree. Most of the US population lives in urban areas with adequate breadth of native coverage. They rarely leave those urban areas, and even if they do, they are likely still within roaming coverage. So, they do not perceive T-Mobile as having poor coverage overall; they perceive T-Mobile as having poor coverage even within their own markets.

 

 

I've been thinking about this the last couple of days between this chat and a couple others. If Verizon is moving somewhat quickly to VOLTE and refarming EVDO carriers to LTE, once they get to a point where they have less CDMA and possibly no EVDO coverage wouldn't a large part of Sprint's roaming area all but disappear?

 

With no roaming on LTE, what would Sprint's roaming coverage look like then? I know this is a long way off, just wondering.

I agree with AJ. And I would further add that by the time CDMA roaming starts to disappear en masse, Sprint will probably have VoLTE devices out and Verizon will likely be providing LTE roaming either by choice or FCC requirement.

 

Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So is that when Sprint is gonna buildout its 800mhz LTE?

 

Nope, I do not think that will ever happen to the extent that some of you hope.  I have said this time and again, but you have to realize that VZW and AT&T (arguably, collusively) bought up a quarter century of Cellular 850 MHz deployment.  Sprint cannot compete with that, probably not ever.  It is akin to allowing Ford to buy out the Interstate Highway System, then expecting GM to construct its own national highway system in parallel.

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

No, I disagree. Most of the US population lives in urban areas with adequate breadth of native coverage. They rarely leave those urban areas, and even if they do, they are likely still within roaming coverage. So, they do not perceive T-Mobile as having poor coverage overall; they perceive T-Mobile as having poor coverage even within their own markets.

 

 

 

 

I've been thinking about this the last couple of days between this chat and a couple others. If Verizon is moving somewhat quickly to VOLTE and refarming EVDO carriers to LTE, once they get to a point where they have less CDMA and possibly no EVDO coverage wouldn't a large part of Sprint's roaming area all but disappear?

 

 

 

With no roaming on LTE, what would Sprint's roaming coverage look like then? I know this is a long way off, just wondering.

 

I agree with AJ. And I would further add that by the time CDMA roaming starts to disappear en masse, Sprint will probably have VoLTE devices out and Verizon will likely be providing LTE roaming either by choice or FCC requirement.

 

 

 

Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

 

 

 

Or Sprint could just buildout its own 800 MHz LTE in 6 years time and acquire more SMR where it doesn't have enough for 5x5 LTE and 1x.

 

For the remaining SMR license holders like Southernlinc, will they have any alternative but to sell to Sprint given that Direct Connect and LTE Band 26 will be the only use for their spectrum?

 

Seriously, 6 years and we're still talking about Sprint roaming on Verizon? Kinda pathetic. Actually REALLY pathetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously, 6 years and we're still talking about Sprint roaming on Verizon? Kinda pathetic. Actually REALLY pathetic.

 

No, go back and read my previous post.

 

A pro big business previous administration that could not see the forest for the trees and allowed the two biggest children of Ma Bell to acquire anti competitive market share in the new telephone paradigm is PATHETIC.  And your attitude that Sprint must be self sufficient under those anti competitive circumstances is PATHETIC.

 

AJ

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

So is that when Sprint is gonna buildout its 800mhz LTE?

 

 

Nope, I do not think that will ever happen to the extent that some of you hope. I have said this time and again, but you have to realize that VZW and AT&T (arguably, collusively) bought up a quarter century of Cellular 850 MHz deployment. Sprint cannot compete with that, probably not ever. It is akin to allowing Ford to buy out the Interstate Highway System, then expecting GM to construct its own national highway system in parallel.

 

AJ

I call double standard.

 

1) You fault VZW and ATT for not overbuilding but just buying their way into rural America yet you give a pass to Sprint for applying the same logic.

 

2) If it weren't for SoftBank-daddy-warbucks I would happily concede that it would be irresponsible for Sprint to attempt ubiquitous buildout in the face of T and V BUT Sprint has the moola now.

 

3) But the most salient - not sure of use - point is that we're talking about 6 YEARS! I can concede that it would be foolish for Sprint, even with daddy-Softbank, to attempt a whirlwind rollout in 1-2 years, and expect a quick ROI, but not even an incremental rollout over 6 years, slowly expanding native coverage at the fringes?!?!?

I mean at the very least, wouldn't such an incremental expansion reduce roaming costs over time AND slowly change perception in rural America of Sprint's rural coverage?

It'd possibly advertise itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Or Sprint could just buildout its own 800 MHz LTE in 6 years time and acquire more SMR where it doesn't have enough for 5x5 LTE and 1x.

 

For the remaining SMR license holders like Southernlinc, will they have any alternative but to sell to Sprint given that Direct Connect and LTE Band 26 will be the only use for their spectrum?

 

Seriously, 6 years and we're still talking about Sprint roaming on Verizon? Kinda pathetic. Actually REALLY pathetic.

You are asking Sprint to do something that no one has ever done. Build a nationwide network organically. VZW and ATT haven't even done that. They bought those networks to expand their coverage. Sprint would lose a lot of money doing it.

 

Sprint's name is mud right now. Building new coverage in new areas will not mean new customers enough to justify the costs. They need to reduild their brand first. Then when they show up in new places, they might have a chance to compete and take customers away from the duopoly.

 

I can tell you the old Sprint had no interest in expanding new coverage into new areas, except when it made sense because roaming costs in the area was high. However, the New Sprint under SoftBank may have a desire to branch out further. But if they do, it will be because they see a path to making it profitable.

 

And that's the bottom line. The New Sprint will probably be open to all kinds of ideas, but there has to be a return on it. They are going to he very competitive with the duopoly, no doubt. And coverages are going to improve, both within the existing network and outside. But the scale is not known yet. And it probably will be less than what we'd prefer.

 

Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Seriously, 6 years and we're still talking about Sprint roaming on Verizon? Kinda pathetic. Actually REALLY pathetic.

 

 

No, go back and read my previous post.

 

A pro big business previous administration that could not see the forest for the tree and allowed the two biggest children of Ma Bell to acquire anti competitive market share in the new telephone paradigm is PATHETIC. And your attitude that Sprint must be self sufficient under those anti competitive circumstances is PATHETIC.

 

AJ

Sprint has SMR for voice and LTE, they have the cash-backing of SoftBank and they could expand native coverage over at LEAST 6 years.

And we haven't even gotten to 600 MHz, which I think you've said could be activated by 2017?

 

What's wrong with that thinking?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) You fault VZW and ATT for not overbuilding but just buying their way into rural America yet you give a pass to Sprint for applying the same logic.

 

They are the freaking spawn of Ma Bell -- the biggest monopoly ever broken up in this country.  Do you think it coincidence that the two biggest RBOCs are now the two biggest wireless operators?  Do you actually think it is because of their superior vision and direction or because of their regional monopoly money over the past 30 years?

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Or Sprint could just buildout its own 800 MHz LTE in 6 years time and acquire more SMR where it doesn't have enough for 5x5 LTE and 1x.

 

 

 

For the remaining SMR license holders like Southernlinc, will they have any alternative but to sell to Sprint given that Direct Connect and LTE Band 26 will be the only use for their spectrum?

 

 

 

Seriously, 6 years and we're still talking about Sprint roaming on Verizon? Kinda pathetic. Actually REALLY pathetic.

You are asking Sprint to do something that no one has ever done. Build a nationwide network organically. VZW and ATT haven't even done that. They bought those networks to expand their coverage. Sprint would lose a lot of money doing it.

 

 

 

Sprint's name is mud right now. Building new coverage in new areas will not mean new customers enough to justify the costs. They need to reduild their brand first. Then when they show up in new places, they might have a chance to compete and take customers away from the duopoly.

 

 

 

I can tell you the old Sprint had no interest in expanding new coverage into new areas, except when it made sense because roaming costs in the area was high. However, the New Sprint under SoftBank may have a desire to branch out further. But if they do, it will be because they see a path to making it profitable.

 

 

 

And that's the bottom line. The New Sprint will probably be open to all kinds of ideas, but there has to be a return on it. They are going to he very competitive with the duopoly, no doubt. And coverages are going to improve, both within the existing network and outside. But the scale is not known yet. And it probably will be less than what we'd prefer.

 

 

 

Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

 

 

 

I agree with all that and the point that I'm fixated on is that Sprint will NEVER expand to cover 100% like V+T.

I'm taking about 6+ years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something that's never been done? Is that really a reason to totally cast aside the idea of this? Sprint was the first to build out a complete fiber optic network in the US, why not have them be the first to build out and go head to head with the Baby Bells?

You are asking Sprint to do something that no one has ever done. Build a nationwide network organically. VZW and ATT haven't even done that. They bought those networks to expand their coverage. Sprint would lose a lot of money doing it.

Sprint's name is mud right now. Building new coverage in new areas will not mean new customers enough to justify the costs. They need to reduild their brand first. Then when they show up in new places, they might have a chance to compete and take customers away from the duopoly.

I can tell you the old Sprint had no interest in expanding new coverage into new areas, except when it made sense because roaming costs in the area was high. However, the New Sprint under SoftBank may have a desire to branch out further. But if they do, it will be because they see a path to making it profitable.

And that's the bottom line. The New Sprint will probably be open to all kinds of ideas, but there has to be a return on it. They are going to he very competitive with the duopoly, no doubt. And coverages are going to improve, both within the existing network and outside. But the scale is not known yet. And it probably will be less than what we'd prefer.

Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Edited by Epic4G25
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

1) You fault VZW and ATT for not overbuilding but just buying their way into rural America yet you give a pass to Sprint for applying the same logic.

 

 

They are the freaking spawn of Ma Bell -- the biggest monopoly ever broken up in this country. Do you think it coincidence that the two biggest RBOCs are now the two biggest wireless operators? Do you actually think it is because of their superior vision and direction or because of their regional monopoly money over the past 30 years?

 

AJ

Pardon me but I'm not seeing the connection between my quoted post and your response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something that's never been done? Is that really a reason to totally cast aside the idea of this? Sprint was the first to build out a complete fiber optic network in the US, why not have them be the first to build out and go head to head with the Baby Bells?

 

 

You are asking Sprint to do something that no one has ever done. Build a nationwide network organically. VZW and ATT haven't even done that. They bought those networks to expand their coverage. Sprint would lose a lot of money doing it.

 

 

Sprint's name is mud right now. Building new coverage in new areas will not mean new customers enough to justify the costs. They need to reduild their brand first. Then when they show up in new places, they might have a chance to compete and take customers away from the duopoly.

 

 

I can tell you the old Sprint had no interest in expanding new coverage into new areas, except when it made sense because roaming costs in the area was high. However, the New Sprint under SoftBank may have a desire to branch out further. But if they do, it will be because they see a path to making it profitable.

 

 

And that's the bottom line. The New Sprint will probably be open to all kinds of ideas, but there has to be a return on it. They are going to he very competitive with the duopoly, no doubt. And coverages are going to improve, both within the existing network and outside. But the scale is not known yet. And it probably will be less than what we'd prefer.

 

 

Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

 

He answered it in what you quoted: they can't lose money doing it otherwise it's pointless.

If you lose money rolling out coverage everywhere, what have you gained?

 

Sprint's not gonna do something just to be the first to do it.

They built out the fiber because they guessed I would make money, not to be the first to do it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with all that and the point that I'm fixated on is that Sprint will NEVER expand to cover 100% like V+T.

I'm taking about 6+ years.

 

Try this analogy.  If Walmart and Kmart are already in a market of small towns, does it make sense for Target to expand into that market, too?  What if having three, four, five competitors subdivides the market so much that it is no longer profitable for any competitor?  Is that a desirable result?

 

This is more and more why I believe that our wireless network -- at the very least, in rural areas -- should be nationalized.  Then, let countless wireless operators buy capacity on that national network.

 

AJ

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pardon me but I'm not seeing the connection between my quoted post and your response.

 

You accuse me of a double standard.  Well, my point is that VZW and AT&T deserve a different standard because of their RBOC natural monopoly advantage.  They would disagree, but they erroneously think that the market by itself efficiently chooses winners and losers in this case.

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...