T-Mobile LTE & Network Discussion

[WiWavelength]

What are you saying? Consumers shouldn't pick the best value? You wanted MORE people on Sprint's network to "help it out"?

Sprint couldn't even handle its current customers with its T1s.

 

R-E-V-E-N-U-E!  There, I spelled it out for you.

 

AJ

[Deval]

yeah thats definitely the solution...way to be blindfolded...

 

Do you know another viable one? If something doesn't work, and a person continues to use it as such, who's fault is it? Things are being worked on, being fixed daily. Nothing can change that. 

[maximus1987/lou99]

R-E-V-E-N-U-E! There, I spelled it out for you.

 

AJ

What? I don't understand.

I read back all posts related to this conversation and I don't get what REVENUE has to do with a consumer picking a working network as a opposed to a non-functioning one so that later, it can raise prices to provide BETTER service.

[WiWavelength]

What? I don't understand.

I read back all posts related to this conversation and I don't get what REVENUE has to do with a consumer picking a working network as a opposed to a non-functioning one so that later, it can raise prices to provide BETTER service.

Do VZW and AT&T rely on charity for CAPEX?

 

 

AJ

[Rawvega]

You're clearly equating me to a completely uninformed consumer, when in fact a typical consumer has no awareness of any of these projects. 

 

Which was exactly my point.

 

I posted something about today's press release from T Mobile in which the CTO took a shot a Sprint, and I really don't appreciate your condescension.

 

1) I wasn't being condescending towards you.

2) I really don't care about what you do or do not appreciate.

 

 

I'm not calling you any names, and I don't feel the need to say something nasty in reply, but I don't think it's constructive to ostensibly say that the way I feel about the state of NV is the same conclusion that an idiot would draw.

 

 

 

I didn't call you any names either so what's your point? I am not responsible for your incorrect comprehension of what I posted. 

[lilotimz]

Thread is on temporary time out until you all can chill out.

 

This thread is to discuss T-mobile and what they're up to and not for attacking other members be it administrator, sponsor, or regular members. 

 

*Thread Reopened* 

Play nice guys. 

Edited July 11, 2013 by lilotimz
Thread Reopened

[maxsilver]

Can't backhaul be shared? Does it really require a new cable to be run to the tower for each carrier on the tower?

 

If each backhaul cable can be scaled to 1Gbps, why can't connections be temporarily shared between carriers?

It doesn't look like anyone answered your question directly:

 

Your absolutely correct. The lines to a tower can be shared. In fact, they already (usually) are.

 

Most towers already have fiber, and most Sprint towers already have fiber (even the non-NV ones). This fiber was installed years ago, and is already lit and in use by AT&T, Verizon, MetroPCS, and T-Mobile, among others.

 

This happened long ago because most towers aren't owned or operated by any specific carrier. They are operated by third party companies like American Tower, Crown Castle, GTP Sites, ect. The local telco's run fiber to the site, and any carrier on the site can pay to use that fiber to offer service.

 

When you hear folks say "Sprint had to wait for fiber", Sprint's not (usually) waiting for people to "trench" new fiber lines to the tower. Sprint's waiting for something else (like the local telco to provision the line for their access, to "turn on" that fiber for Sprint).

 

Here's a practical example. The link below goes to a GTP Site 'US-MI-5241'. Sprint is on this site. It's not a NV site (yet), but it's not "waiting on backhaul", because fiber from AT&T has been run to this tower years ago, and Verizon LTE, AT&T LTE, and MetroPCS LTE are all using it today. When Sprint adds LTE to this site, they won't have to "dig" anything, but Sprint might still be "waiting on backhaul" if Sprint has ordered service, and it's not setup and provisioned for them yet.

http://www.gtpsites.com/site-locator/site-detail-macro.aspx?SiteNo=US-MI-5241

 

Sprint's sort of at the mercy of local telco's when it comes to installation and provisioning times. And local telco's aren't in any rush to move quickly. (Here for instance, AT&T isn't hating on Sprint specifically, they are equally slow whenever anyone orders fiber on their lines, even if your just using it for your own business.)

 

 

- - -

 

T-Mobile doesn't have to "wait for backhaul" because they already pay for fiber service, so there's no new equipment or provisioning. Even if Sprint and T-Mobile are on the same tower, using the same fiber line, T-Mobile might be able to move faster because their service is already active (and Sprint might have to wait, through no fault of their own, while someone like AT&T sets up their fiber access).

 

- - -

 

Now, this doesn't apply to all sites (Sprint has sites unique to only their network, that they have to run their own fiber to, that are truely waiting on "trenched in the ground" fiber).

 

But for most leased sites, especially in cities / suburbs / freeways, "waiting on backhaul" doesn't have anything to do with folks putting fiber into the ground, and really means something else (like waiting on the backhaul provider to turn on service.)

[khammondnm]

I have a feeling they were digging new trenches for fiber in New Mexico, since century link tried using copper back haul that didn't meet Sprint specs. Robert talked about this in the New Mexico market forum, almost all the backhaul had to be out back out to bid with for pure fiber installs. If fiber existed at these sites before, why would they have tried to hook up backhaul to anything other than fiber?

 

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

 

[maxsilver]

I have a feeling they were digging new trenches for fiber in New Mexico, since century link tried using copper back haul that didn't meet Sprint specs. Robert talked about this in the New Mexico market forum, almost all the backhaul had to be out back out to bid with for pure fiber installs. If fiber existed at these sites before, why would they have tried to hook up backhaul to anything other than fiber?

 

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

That's totally possible.

 

I'll repeat what I said above -- there are sites where Sprint literally has to wait on fiber to be "dug into ground trenched" installed. I'm not arguing against that. (And I know nothing about New Mexico or Sprint's network there)

 

However, "waiting on backhaul" doesn't always (I would say, doesn't usually) mean folks are digging anything. In Michigan, for example, almost every metro/suburban third party site has fiber backhaul already. (We're already a LTE market for three carriers). And the vast majority of Sprint's sites here are leased from someone else. So Sprint is (almost) never waiting on people to "dig trenches and install" fiber lines here.

 

However, they are (likely) waiting for fiber to be turned on at some sites. They've never purchased it here before, and AT&T Wireline is notorious for taking forever to touch anything here (Fiber lines, phone lines, Uverse installs, ect)

 

This is (usually) what I think is meant by "waiting for backhaul."

[S4GRU]

It doesn't look like anyone answered your question directly:

 

Your absolutely correct. The lines to a tower can be shared. In fact, they already (usually) are.

 

Most towers already have fiber, and most Sprint towers already have fiber (even the non-NV ones). This fiber was installed years ago, and is already lit and in use by AT&T, Verizon, MetroPCS, and T-Mobile, among others.

 

This happened long ago because most towers aren't owned or operated by any specific carrier. They are operated by third party companies like American Tower, Crown Castle, GTP Sites, ect. The local telco's run fiber to the site, and any carrier on the site can pay to use that fiber to offer service.

 

When you hear folks say "Sprint had to wait for fiber", Sprint's not (usually) waiting for people to "trench" new fiber lines to the tower. Sprint's waiting for something else (like the local telco to provision the line for their access, to "turn on" that fiber for Sprint).

 

Here's a practical example. The link below goes to a GTP Site 'US-MI-5241'. Sprint is on this site. It's not a NV site (yet), but it's not "waiting on backhaul", because fiber from AT&T has been run to this tower years ago, and Verizon LTE, AT&T LTE, and MetroPCS LTE are all using it today. When Sprint adds LTE to this site, they won't have to "dig" anything, but Sprint might still be "waiting on backhaul" if Sprint has ordered service, and it's not setup and provisioned for them yet.

http://www.gtpsites.com/site-locator/site-detail-macro.aspx?SiteNo=US-MI-5241

 

Sprint's sort of at the mercy of local telco's when it comes to installation and provisioning times. And local telco's aren't in any rush to move quickly. (Here for instance, AT&T isn't hating on Sprint specifically, they are equally slow whenever anyone orders fiber on their lines, even if your just using it for your own business.)

 

 

- - -

 

T-Mobile doesn't have to "wait for backhaul" because they already pay for fiber service, so there's no new equipment or provisioning. Even if Sprint and T-Mobile are on the same tower, using the same fiber line, T-Mobile might be able to move faster because their service is already active (and Sprint might have to wait, through no fault of their own, while someone like AT&T sets up their fiber access).

 

- - -

 

Now, this doesn't apply to all sites (Sprint has sites unique to only their network, that they have to run their own fiber to, that are truely waiting on "trenched in the ground" fiber).

 

But for most leased sites, especially in cities / suburbs / freeways, "waiting on backhaul" doesn't have anything to do with folks putting fiber into the ground, and really means something else (like waiting on the backhaul provider to turn on service.)

 

 

You're right...but you are assuming way too broadly.  Probably 50% of Sprint sites have fiber near the tower from some vendor.  But that vendor may or may not have capacity, and may or may not have reasonable terms...or may not even want to sell Sprint service.  Sprint is often using AAV backhaul so they are not beholden to an ILEC (especially AT&T and Verizon).  So of that 50%, how many of the AAV's have fiber to the site?

 

Also, there is a lot of microwave installed at these 50% sites you're counting from the other carriers.  For instance, many believe that Verizon does not use microwave, and use all fiber.  However, here in Northern New Mexico, every single Verizon site has microwave backhaul, as either a donor or recipient.

 

Also, Sprint is upgrading it's entire network at once.  Verizon and AT&T started with just urban sites (and not every one, just for complete coverage).  They started with a small scope, and just add incrementally.  T-Mobile is only doing urban sites.  Sprint is being ambitious and adding every site, including many virgin sites that no one has brought upgraded backhaul to.

 

So your point is valid about a lot of other wireless carriers already bringing backhaul into their sites, and Sprint benefits from that to some extent when getting backhaul.  However, it is not over most of their network.  Not even close.

 

Robert

[maximus1987/lou99]

You're right...but you are assuming way too broadly. Probably 50% of Sprint sites have fiber near the tower from some vendor. But that vendor may or may not have capacity, and may or may not have reasonable terms...or may not even want to sell Sprint service. Sprint is often using AAV backhaul so they are not beholden to an ILEC (especially AT&T and Verizon). So of that 50%, how many of the AAV's have fiber to the site?

 

Also, there is a lot of microwave installed at these 50% sites you're counting from the other carriers. For instance, many believe that Verizon does not use microwave, and use all fiber. However, here in Northern New Mexico, every single Verizon site has microwave backhaul, as either a donor or recipient.

 

Also, Sprint is upgrading it's entire network at once. Verizon and AT&T started with just urban sites (and not every one, just for complete coverage). They started with a small scope, and just add incrementally. T-Mobile is only doing urban sites. Sprint is being ambitious and adding every site, including many virgin sites that no one has brought upgraded backhaul to.

 

So your point is valid about a lot of other wireless carriers already bringing backhaul into their sites, and Sprint benefits from that to some extent when getting backhaul. However, it is not over most of their network. Not even close.

 

Robert

If Sprint is bringing backhaul to virgin sites, can Tmobile use the same backhaul at that site?

 

If it can't, then will it benefit TMO at all if it wants to bring backhaul to a virgin site nearby?

[iansltx]

If Sprint is bringing backhaul to virgin sites, can Tmobile use the same backhaul at that site?

 

If it can't, then will it benefit TMO at all if it wants to bring backhaul to a virgin site nearby?

 

Unlike what Verizon attempted to do with the cable companies, Sprint hasn't set out to make itself the exclusive customer of site backhaul, to my knowledge. So yes, T-Mobile could use the backhaul if it sees fit. The catch is that T-Mobile may not feel like upgrading those sites anyway, and in some areas the AWS spacing of T-Mobile, as compared to the PCS spacing of Sprint, or other reasons, means that T-Mobile is using different sites anyway.

[bigsnake49]

I have a feeling they were digging new trenches for fiber in New Mexico, since century link tried using copper back haul that didn't meet Sprint specs. Robert talked about this in the New Mexico market forum, almost all the backhaul had to be out back out to bid with for pure fiber installs. If fiber existed at these sites before, why would they have tried to hook up backhaul to anything other than fiber?

 

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

Well, there are multiple providers that bid for providing backhaul to Sprint for each market. Sprint chose the winners most probably by low cost and did not take into account whether they actually need to run new fiber or just use existing fiber. Sprint did not care as long as the fiber was there by the deadline. Now I don't know who's doing the project management, whether it's the deployment vendor or Sprint, but it is a matter of coordinating the fiber deployment and provisioning so that backhaul is there when you're ready to test it.

Edited July 11, 2013 by bigsnake49

[S4GRU]

I'm sure there were ways that Sprint could have deployed faster using different vendors or spending more money. But those decisions were made years ago. Network Vision is pretty much set in stone. And when it completes, it will still be the fastest that amount of work has ever been done. Regardless of what Tmo's Legere says.

 

And when Sprint is complete, it will have a much larger percentage of their network with LTE coverage than AT&T and T-Mobile. Verizon is the only other carrier committed to going LTE over its entire network.

 

Once you compare beginning to end of LTE deployment on Sprint and Verizon, history will show Sprint took about the same amount of time (or less) for a lot more scope of work.

 

Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

[irev210]

T-Mobile's LTE build-out is substantially done in Boston.

 

 

 

Here is what I've noticed:

• Ping times are always VERY good.
• Speeds seem to be limited to backhaul - I question when/if the carriers get more loaded if T-Mobile will add more capacity.
• On speedtests, my uploads seem to get stuck - not sure why.  I think there is some sort of uplink issue, sometimes I have issues loading sites, etc.

[maximus1987/lou99]

Verizon is the only other carrier committed to going LTE over its entire network. Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

"AT&T 4G LTE is expected to cover 300 million people by year-end 2014."

 

http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=2943

[WiWavelength]

Well, I have John Legere (or, more likely, his Twitter assistant) on the line based upon my tweet today in response to his Sprint "deadline" statement yesterday.

 

https://twitter.com/wiwavelength/status/355342540326707200

 

AJ

[S4GRU]

"AT&T 4G LTE is expected to cover 300 million people by year-end 2014."

 

http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=2943

 

I have not seen a quote that I can specifically see where AT&T plans to take LTE over its entire network.  I just occasionally see POP references.  Verizon and Sprint have said specifically they have.  The last thing I specifically I remember Randall Stephenson saying was they were going to put LTE on 95% of their sites.  I live and spend most of my time in that 5%, as do many people around S4GRU.  Not that I would switch to AT&T anyway...

 

Robert

[S4GRU]

Well, I have John Legere (or, more likely, his Twitter assistant) on the line based upon my tweet today in response to his Sprint "deadline" statement yesterday.

 

https://twitter.com/wiwavelength/status/355342540326707200

 

AJ

 

I thought he handled that fairly.  That is the best way he could have responded, really.  It would be nice if we had that kind of access to Sprint executives.  Even if just their Twitter handlers.

 

Robert

[maximus1987/lou99]

I thought he handled that fairly. That is the best way he could have responded, really. It would be nice if we had that kind of access to Sprint executives. Even if just their Twitter handlers.

 

Robert

Do you really expect even his twitter handle to actually honestly respond publicly? Anything he says ATT will skewer.

"Well Andrew, we're never gonna upgrade to 3G past the 228 million we currently have now cause DT won't let us spend the money".

[S4GRU]

Do you really expect even his twitter handle to actually honestly respond publicly? Anything he says ATT will skewer.

"Well Andrew, we're never gonna upgrade to 3G past the 228 million we currently have now cause DT won't let us spend the money".

 

No I don't.  That's why I said I was even surprised that he answered as honestly as he did.

 

Robert

[bigsnake49]

No I don't.  That's why I said I was even surprised that he answered as honestly as he did.

 

Robert

 

Well he kind of deflected on the T-Mobile part of AJ's tweet. He continued to attack Sprint however.

[S4GRU]

Well he kind of deflected on the T-Mobile part of AJ's tweet. He continued to attack Sprint however.

 

Really?  Maybe I'm blindly optimistic in my assessment of the conversation.  I interpreted John's "Yes they are" statement to mean he acknowledges Sprint is overhauling their entire network in 2-1/2 years...and that's an admirable feat.

 

He did make reference that if it's not done by 2016, he expects you to come to T-Mobile.  And that's fair.  If Sprint can't get Network Vision done in the next 2-1/2 years, we all should hold them accountable and perhaps become Tmo customers.  That's a fair criticism of the competition, I think.

 

All in all, I rate that as a fair exchange.  The onus is on Sprint now.  And under SoftBank, I think the next few years should be concerning for Tmo.  Because Sprint is going to kick it.  The media is already starting to cover Sprint more and more fairly about the future and possibilities.  The new "Sprint Corporation" just needs to deliver.

 

Robert

[bigsnake49]

Really?  Maybe I'm blindly optimistic in my assessment of the conversation.  I interpreted John's "Yes they are" statement to mean he acknowledges Sprint is overhauling their entire network in 2-1/2 years...and that's an admirable feat.

 

He did make reference that if it's not done by 2016, he expects you to come to T-Mobile.  And that's fair.  If Sprint can't get Network Vision done in the next 2-1/2 years, we all should hold them accountable and perhaps become Tmo customers.  That's a fair criticism of the competition, I think.

 

All in all, I rate that as a fair exchange.  The onus is on Sprint now.  And under SoftBank, I think the next few years should be concerning for Tmo.  Because Sprint is going to kick it.  The media is already starting to cover Sprint more and more fairly about the future and possibilities.  The new "Sprint Corporation" just needs to deliver.

 

Robert

 

He totally avoided AJ's tweet: @john_legere Meanwhile, T-Mobile hasn't done likewise in 7 yrs since the AWS-1 auction. That is my objection in the interest of fairness.

[S4GRU]

He totally avoided AJ's tweet: @john_legere Meanwhile, T-Mobile hasn't done likewise in 7 yrs since the AWS-1 auction. That is my objection in the interest of fairness.

 

He definitely avoided it, no doubt.  But I wasn't expecting him to answer it though.  Tmo just needs to withdraw their useless EDGE coverage and save a lot of operational expenses.  Roaming costs for just phone calls in these areas can't be much.  If they want to be the urban provider, they need to just embrace it.

 

Robert