T-Mobile LTE & Network Discussion

[Epic4G25]

So, what just leave the market completely where it is? Out of most people I've met one of their biggest problems with Sprint and their perceived image was their coverage footprint. While I can agree that comes from a lot of conditioning from VZW over the years if Sprint/SoftBank is a serious as they sound about being #1 then the coverage footprint will have to be addressed.

 

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.

[maximus1987/lou99]

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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

The comparison HAS been made between made between roads and wired infrastructure: on 1800s, many private toll roads existed but the state legislatures bought them and merged them into a state network.

 

I'm sure the NSA would love it if there were only one network controlled by the government.

 

So it's not gonna happen, especially not under Comrade Obama and the most transparent administration.

[maximus1987/lou99]

So, what just leave the market completely where it is? Out of most people I've met one of their biggest problems with Sprint and their perceived image was their coverage footprint. While I can agree that comes from a lot of conditioning from VZW over the years if Sprint/SoftBank is a serious as they sound about being #1 then the coverage footprint will have to be addressed.

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

If you're talking about dropped calls and no signal within a Sprint coverage area, that's one thing.

 

But otherwise, as AJ addressed, most people live in metro areas and Sprint, unlike TMO, has coverage outside the metro areas.

 

Where they don't have native coverage is in the truly rural areas and his point is: so what? How many Chicago-people are going to go in the truly rural parts of Illinois?

 

The problem to which you're alluding is the one that Tmobile has: plenty of rural coverage, in certain areas, but it's all 2G with no plans to upgrade it. In fact, CEO of DT called EDGE "a world class technology" (in this thread not too far up).

Sprint won't have that problem.

[WiWavelength]

So it's not gonna happen, especially not under Comrade Obama and the most transparent administration.

 

You should rescind the above statement.  If you are one of those fools who thinks that President Obama is an Islamic socialist or that socialism is an evil four letter word, then I will take you to task.  But S4GRU tries not to engage in political discussion, as it just leads to acrimony.

 

AJ

[S4GRU]

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?

 

Ask yourself why it never has been done?  It's because there is no return on the investment.  In rural areas, you need a 30-40 share to get it pay for itself.  If there is already two large carriers, it's not possible to get enough as the third carrier to make it profitable.  You are asking Sprint to lose money to expand coverage.  And then you would probably complain if Sprint raised their prices to pay for the unprofitable network expansion.

 

Sprint monitors roaming very closely.  They know very well the areas that roaming is occurring and the amount of usage the site would sustain.  They do add sites in high roaming areas all the time.  And I believe SoftBank will add even more.

 

However, asking them to add unprofitable coverage for bragging rights is not a good way to run a business.  I have a lot of confidence in SoftBank.  They will add lots of coverage where it makes sense.  The old Sprint often couldn't afford to add sites even when there was a pay off.  The New Sprint under SoftBank will never say no because they cannot afford it.  However, I do expect them to say no where it isn't going to pay off.

 

Robert

[maximus1987/lou99]

 

 

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?

 

 

Ask yourself why it never has been done? It's because there is no return on the investment. In rural areas, you need a 30-40 share to get it pay for itself. If there is already two large carriers, it's not possible to get enough as the third carrier to make it profitable. You are asking Sprint to lose money to expand coverage. And then you would probably complain if Sprint raised their prices to pay for the unprofitable network expansion.

 

Sprint monitors roaming very closely. They know very well the areas that roaming is occurring and the amount of usage the site would sustain. They do add sites in high roaming areas all the time. And I believe SoftBank will add even more.

 

However, asking them to add unprofitable coverage for bragging rights is not a good way to run a business. I have a lot of confidence in SoftBank. They will add lots of coverage where it makes sense. The old Sprint often couldn't afford to add sites even when there was a pay off. The New Sprint under SoftBank will never say no because they cannot afford it. However, I do expect them to say no where it isn't going to pay off.

 

Robert

As an engineer, I can't imagine staying to work for Sprint throughout the network degradation. I think I would've crawled under my desk singing Barney songs lol.

[S4GRU]

As an engineer, I can't imagine staying to work for Sprint throughout the network degradation. I think I would've crawled under my desk singing Barney songs lol.

 

Yeah, I have been in similar positions with companies before.  When we all know what we need to do, but either bad management prevents us from doing it, or we do not have the money to do it.  It's a demoralizing and depressing experience.  It would have been hard to endure that period.  Thankfully, that period is just about over.

 

Robert

[Epic4G25]

I'm not at all talking about dropped calls. I also said nothing about T-Mobile and their coverage. My point simply is people have been conditioned by VZW and their coverage maps. You're going to have people that live in Sprint service areas, and they will most likely never travel outside of them, but they'll look at Sprint and then at AT&T and VZW and will decide "Wow Sprints coverage is smaller than AT&T and VZW." After that it'll be down to AT&T and VZW. People will make decisions based on coverage maps.

If you're talking about dropped calls and no signal within a Sprint coverage area, that's one thing.

But otherwise, as AJ addressed, most people live in metro areas and Sprint, unlike TMO, has coverage outside the metro areas.

Where they don't have native coverage is in the truly rural areas and his point is: so what? How many Chicago-people are going to go in the truly rural parts of Illinois?

The problem to which you're alluding is the one that Tmobile has: plenty of rural coverage, in certain areas, but it's all 2G with no plans to upgrade it. In fact, CEO of DT called EDGE "a world class technology" (in this thread not too far up).
Sprint won't have that problem.

[maximus1987/lou99]

I'm not at all talking about dropped calls. I also said nothing about T-Mobile and their coverage. My point simply is people have been conditioned by VZW and their coverage maps. You're going to have people that live in Sprint service areas, and they will most likely never travel outside of them, but they'll look at Sprint and then at AT&T and VZW and will decide "Wow Sprints coverage is smaller than AT&T and VZW." After that it'll be down to AT&T and VZW. People will make decisions based on coverage maps.

 

 

If you're talking about dropped calls and no signal within a Sprint coverage area, that's one thing.

 

 

But otherwise, as AJ addressed, most people live in metro areas and Sprint, unlike TMO, has coverage outside the metro areas.

 

 

Where they don't have native coverage is in the truly rural areas and his point is: so what? How many Chicago-people are going to go in the truly rural parts of Illinois?

 

 

The problem to which you're alluding is the one that Tmobile has: plenty of rural coverage, in certain areas, but it's all 2G with no plans to upgrade it. In fact, CEO of DT called EDGE "a world class technology" (in this thread not too far up).

 

Sprint won't have that problem.

 

 

If that were true to a large degree, rest assured Hesse will tell Son and they'll spend $$$ to expand coverage where needed.

 

My girlfriend's parents are exactly like this: if you mention switching to another carrier, they'll knee jerk into "nope Verizon has the best coverage" but people like this will cling to Verizon even if Sprint, tomorrow, could expand coverage EVERYWHERE; they're the "uncovertables".

 

So I guess I see AJ's point.

[Epic4G25]

If they can start to expand in places they need it then that's great. Something just needs to be done the coverage area has been sitting unchanged for years, and on top of that the network was allowed to degrade to the point it's at now (in not NV completed/majority completed areas). Now the question is, if the network hadn't been allowed to degrade to the point it's at, and NV wasn't necessary, where would we be now? Also, I would willingly pay more if it meant expansion. I would have absolutely no issue with that. I've already been paying $10 while I carry a Curve that with BIS probably uses less data than most dumbphones.

 

Ask yourself why it never has been done?  It's because there is no return on the investment.  In rural areas, you need a 30-40 share to get it pay for itself.  If there is already two large carriers, it's not possible to get enough as the third carrier to make it profitable.  You are asking Sprint to lose money to expand coverage.  And then you would probably complain if Sprint raised their prices to pay for the unprofitable network expansion.

 

Sprint monitors roaming very closely.  They know very well the areas that roaming is occurring and the amount of usage the site would sustain.  They do add sites in high roaming areas all the time.  And I believe SoftBank will add even more.

 

However, asking them to add unprofitable coverage for bragging rights is not a good way to run a business.  I have a lot of confidence in SoftBank.  They will add lots of coverage where it makes sense.  The old Sprint often couldn't afford to add sites even when there was a pay off.  The New Sprint under SoftBank will never say no because they cannot afford it.  However, I do expect them to say no where it isn't going to pay off.

 

Robert

Edited June 29, 2013 by Epic4G25

[S4GRU]

I'm not at all talking about dropped calls. I also said nothing about T-Mobile and their coverage. My point simply is people have been conditioned by VZW and their coverage maps. You're going to have people that live in Sprint service areas, and they will most likely never travel outside of them, but they'll look at Sprint and then at AT&T and VZW and will decide "Wow Sprints coverage is smaller than AT&T and VZW." After that it'll be down to AT&T and VZW. People will make decisions based on coverage maps.

 

Sprint cannot and does not need to compete with a nationwide coverage map that is flashed on the TV screen for 5 seconds.  The people who rely on just that to make up their minds are sheep.  I call them sheeple.  They basically are asking marketers to make up their mind for them.  Most people just want to know what the coverage is in the places they go.  And for those people, Sprint is competitive.

 

Sprint is not the carrier for every person.  In fact, no carrier is.  S4GRU advocates education about wireless networks.  And a more educated and informed population can then make up their minds about what it important to them.  Everyone should chose the carrier that is best for their needs.  The old Sprint and the new Sprint will not be the best carrier for them all.  But Sprint needs to make sure that people know what they offer that differentiates themselves from their competition.

 

I am more excited about Sprint expanding coverage than I ever have been.  They likely will be adding some coverage in new areas where they have to meet FCC buildout requirements for the PCS G Block.  In these areas they will likely add all their bands of service too.  If things go well in these areas, I can see SoftBank pushing to expand coverage in these areas even further and add stores.  It's a great time to see what Sprint can do in new coverage areas.  A little experiment.

 

Robert

[WiWavelength]

I'm not at all talking about dropped calls. I also said nothing about T-Mobile and their coverage. My point simply is people have been conditioned by VZW and their coverage maps. You're going to have people that live in Sprint service areas, and they will most likely never travel outside of them, but they'll look at Sprint and then at AT&T and VZW and will decide "Wow Sprints coverage is smaller than AT&T and VZW." After that it'll be down to AT&T and VZW. People will make decisions based on coverage maps.

 

But Sprint's native + roaming coverage map is at least the equal of and arguably superior to those of VZW and AT&T because Sprint has the widest roaming agreements in the industry.  Unlike VZW and AT&T, Sprint does not shy away from providing roaming coverage on its competitors.

 

So, I do not quite see your point.  I agree that most potential wireless subs already live in Sprint markets.  But what turns many of them off is Sprint coverage within those markets.  For that discussion, see a post that I wrote yesterday in this very thread:

 

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

[Moropo]

 

But what turns many of them off is Sprint coverage within those markets.

^ At least someone gets it.

 

I see everyone here blaming Sprint's lack of rural coverage but here in urban areas no one cares about rural coverage.

 

I live in a city and everyone hates Sprint but it is NOT because of its lack of rural coverage. It's actually because WITHIN the city, it's coverage and signal penetration sucks.

 

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

[WiWavelength]

I live in a city and everyone hates Sprint...

 

Basically, everyone loves Raymond, and everyone hates Robert (but not our Robert).

 

AJ

[maximus1987/lou99]

 

 

 

 

But what turns many of them off is Sprint coverage within those markets.

^ At least someone gets it.

 

 

 

I see everyone here blaming Sprint's lack of rural coverage but here in urban areas no one cares about rural coverage.

 

 

 

I live in a city and everyone hates Sprint but it is NOT because of its lack of rural coverage. It's actually because WITHIN the city, it's coverage and signal penetration sucks.

 

 

 

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

May I ask which city? I'd like to go to the sponsor maps that indicate the "NV finished" sites to compare to my city.

[maximus1987/lou99]

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

Would this only apply to 600 MHz roaming since the licenses haven't yet been issued?

Or can the FCC require LTE roaming retroactively on any band it wants to?

 

LTE band 5 is a subset of Band 26 so that'd be a good candidate for forced roaming when V regards it.

[S4GRU]

^ At least someone gets it.

 

 

 

I see everyone here blaming Sprint's lack of rural coverage but here in urban areas no one cares about rural coverage.

 

 

 

I live in a city and everyone hates Sprint but it is NOT because of its lack of rural coverage. It's actually because WITHIN the city, it's coverage and signal penetration sucks.

 

 

 

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

 

Some markets Sprint PCS density is better than others. I have no problems with urban coverage in New Mexico. I believe a lot of Sprint's urban coverage woes will be solved by 800MHz. Except for Baton Rouge.

 

Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

[maximus1987/lou99]

Verizon believes the 3G network reached its peak utilization earlier this year, but it will keep that system up and running at least through 2019, she said.

 

http://m.computerworld.com/s/article/9240403/Verizon_notches_500th_LTE_market_declares_initial_rollout_done

What's interesting is the shutdown date WAS 2021 so I wouldn't be surprised to see it slide further.

 

"Verizon Wireless (NYSE:VZ) plans to shutter its 2G and 3G CDMA networks by 2021, giving the carrier close to a decade to move its customers off those networks and onto its LTE network."

 

Read more: Updated: Verizon Wireless to sunset 2G and 3G CDMA networks by 2021 - FierceWireless http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/verizon-wireless-sunset-2g-and-3g-cdma-networks-2021/2012-10-10#ixzz2XdgE5jKz

Subscribe at FierceWireless

[S4GRU]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Would this only apply to 600 MHz roaming since the licenses haven't yet been issued?

 

Or can the FCC require LTE roaming retroactively on any band it wants to?

 

 

 

LTE band 5 is a subset of Band 26 so that'd be a good candidate for forced roaming when V regards it.

The FCC can dictate even after the fact further regulation by order if a carrier is prohibiting roaming as a means to be anticompetitive. And that can be on any band.

 

I don't think that the FCC will be very keen on removing roaming CDMA coverage on Cellular or PCS bands and replace with non roaming LTE. I expect that the FCC would step in and require LTE roaming on those bands if Verizon tried to do that.

 

Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

 

[WiWavelength]

Some markets Sprint PCS density is better than others. I have no problems with urban coverage in New Mexico. I believe a lot of Sprint's urban coverage woes will be solved by 800MHz. Except for Baton Rouge.

 

The Sprint native network is like a body, but you cannot think of it as following the standard anthropomorphic form.  The head, the arms, the legs -- they can be anywhere in the network.  However, the poop chute definitely is Baton Rouge.

 

 

AJ

[S4GRU]

 

 

Some markets Sprint PCS density is better than others. I have no problems with urban coverage in New Mexico. I believe a lot of Sprint's urban coverage woes will be solved by 800MHz. Except for Baton Rouge.

 

 

The Sprint native network is like a body, but you cannot think of it as following the standard anthropomorphic form. The head, the arms, the legs -- they can be anywhere in the network. However, the poop chute definitely is Baton Rouge.

 

 

AJ

Kansas City is the heart. Chicago is the Achilles heel. Detroit is the armpit. Milwaukee is the beer hole. And in West Denver, right over Charlie Ergen's house is the middle finger.

 

Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

 

[maxsilver]

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.

This isn't true. T-Mobile has 50k+ of sites total in the US. (the sum of both GRPS/EDGE sites and HSPA+/LTE sites). T-Mobile owned all of these sites before MetroPCS ever merged.

 

37,000 of them are already semi-modernized already (in that, they run either HSPA+ 21 or HSPA+42, today). All of these sites will get LTE (eventually) if they haven't already gotten LTE.

 

The other 25% of those sites are GRPS / EDGE, and will remain EDGE-like speeds.

 

Sometimes, when the equipment fails, TMO puts HSPA+ on old EDGE sites. But it's usually just an equipment replacement, not a backhaul upgrade, so they get "2G" only speeds. (Similar to what Sprint did pre-network-vision where they slapped EVDO radios on a single T1 line, and called it "3G", T-Mobile is replacing failed GRPS / EDGE sites with HSPA+ 21 radios, but leaving the backhaul at a single T1 and calling it "3G")

 

 

MetroPCS's sites don't figure into either of the two above numbers in any way (those numbers were announced before the TMO / Metro deal was officially announced).

 

 

Its could also be AWS. I hear that due to lower allowed transmission power it has a reduced coverage radius compared to PCS.

This is a common myth. AWS is really close / essentially identical in terms of transmission power and coverage radius. Many people believe AWS is lower, because T-Mobile chooses to run their sites at reduced power. But that's not a symptom of the AWS spectrum, that's a choice T-Mobile makes. (And I'm not a T-Mobile engineer, so I don't know why they make that choice.)

 

You can see this for yourself by doing a site survey. Find a tower where T-Mobile and MetroPCS are colocated, you can measure the output on AWS. MetroPCS (usually) runs their AWS at full power, and you can measure this at a noticable increase over T-Mobile, who (usually) runs their AWS slightly underpowered.

 

I don't know why they do this, but I have measured it, and can confirm it does happen.

 

There is only one national roaming partner for T-Mobile and thats AT&T and they are not playing ball.

I don't believe this is true. My understanding is that, as part of the T-Mobile + AT&T aquisition failing, T-Mobile got a complete, nationwide, 3G roaming agreement at a fixed price for a long length of time (something like 7 years).

 

However, T-Mobile has a bad habit of purposely blocking roaming in many areas. AT&T is available, it works, runs fine, but T-Mobile specifically disallows all of their subscribers from connecting to AT&T in many areas.

 

This leads to a big split in usable coverage. Sprint's roaming with Verizon works almost everywhere, so a user gets a lot more effective coverage. T-Mobile's roaming with AT&T is blocked (on T-Mobile's side) in a good chunk of areas, so users get less usable roaming coverage.

[maximus1987/lou99]

 

 

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.

This isn't true. T-Mobile has 50k+ of sites total in the US. (the sum of both GRPS/EDGE sites and HSPA+/LTE sites). T-Mobile owned all of these sites before MetroPCS ever merged.

 

37,000 of them are already semi-modernized already (in that, they run either HSPA+ 21 or HSPA+42, today). All of these sites will get LTE (eventually) if they haven't already gotten LTE.

 

The other 25% of those sites are GRPS / EDGE, and will remain EDGE-like speeds.

 

Sometimes, when the equipment fails, TMO puts HSPA+ on old EDGE sites. But it's usually just an equipment replacement, not a backhaul upgrade, so they get "2G" only speeds. (Similar to what Sprint did pre-network-vision where they slapped EVDO radios on a single T1 line, and called it "3G", T-Mobile is replacing failed GRPS / EDGE sites with HSPA+ 21 radios, but leaving the backhaul at a single T1 and calling it "3G")

 

 

MetroPCS's sites don't figure into either of the two above numbers in any way (those numbers were announced before the TMO / Metro deal was officially announced).

 

 

Its could also be AWS. I hear that due to lower allowed transmission power it has a reduced coverage radius compared to PCS.

This is a common myth. AWS is really close / essentially identical in terms of transmission power and coverage radius. Many people believe AWS is lower, because T-Mobile chooses to run their sites at reduced power. But that's not a symptom of the AWS spectrum, that's a choice T-Mobile makes. (And I'm not a T-Mobile engineer, so I don't know why they make that choice.)

 

You can see this for yourself by doing a site survey. Find a tower where T-Mobile and MetroPCS are colocated, you can measure the output on AWS. MetroPCS (usually) runs their AWS at full power, and you can measure this at a noticable increase over T-Mobile, who (usually) runs their AWS slightly underpowered.

 

I don't know why they do this, but I have measured it, and can confirm it does happen.

 

There is only one national roaming partner for T-Mobile and thats AT&T and they are not playing ball.

I don't believe this is true. My understanding is that, as part of the T-Mobile + AT&T aquisition failing, T-Mobile got a complete, nationwide, 3G roaming agreement at a fixed price for a long length of time (something like 7 years).

 

However, T-Mobile has a bad habit of purposely blocking roaming in many areas. AT&T is available, it works, runs fine, but T-Mobile specifically disallows all of their subscribers from connecting to AT&T in many areas.

 

This leads to a big split in usable coverage. Sprint's roaming with Verizon works almost everywhere, so a user gets a lot more effective coverage. T-Mobile's roaming with AT&T is blocked (on T-Mobile's side) in a good chunk of areas, so users get less usable roaming coverage.

 

1) can you provide a source/link for the 50k towers? Over in the "tmo LTE vs Sprint LTE" thread this has split even the mods.

 

2) what do you mean "for a fixed price"? Tmobile has domestic roaming limits which would make no sense if its users could have unlimited roaming for one fixed price to Tmobile.

 

https://t-mobile.jive-mobile.com/#jive-document?content=%2Fapi%2Fcore%2Fv2%2Fdocuments%2F3299

[maxsilver]

1) can you provide a source/link for the 50k towers? Over in the "tmo LTE vs Sprint LTE" thread this has split even the mods.

It's from an interview Fierce Wireless did with Neville Ray. I don't have the link on me at the moment, but I can dig it out and post it here in a few hours.

 

 

2) what do you mean "for a fixed price"? Tmobile has domestic roaming limits which would make no sense if its users could have unlimited roaming for one fixed price to Tmobile.

Oh, no, I must not have been clear. Your absolutely right, T-Mobile has strict limits on a subscribers usage of roaming.

 

I meant T-Mobile pays a fixed price for usage to AT&T, for the right to roam. As in, AT&T can't randomly jack up the rates it charges T-Mobile for each minute/sms/kilobyte, as they've agreed to a specific payment rate for the next few (7?) years.

 

The total cost isn't fixed to my knowledge (I assume T-Mobile pays for every single minute/sms/kilobyte), but the rate is fixed. This lets T-Mobile sign customers up for contracts on service (back when they still did 2 contracts per customer) without fear that AT&T will jack the prices up on them.

[bigsnake49]

T-Mobile CTO Neville Ray continues his rounds of discussion in New Orleans as CTIA continues, this time with a comment to Reuters on T-Mobile’s purported tower sale. T-Mobile has previously said it would explore the sale of 7,000 of 37,000 wireless towers to gain some financial independence from parent Deutsche Telekom.

 

http://www.tmonews.com/2012/05/t-mobile-cto-neville-ray-says-tower-sale-could-take-months/