T-Mobile LTE & Network Discussion V2

[Fraydog]

It appears T-Mobile may be going for a situation that looks like this; In major and some middle markets 5x5 700mhz spectrum and 5x5 600mhz spectrum, while lesser populated areas might only have 5x5 600mhz spectrum, if T-Mobile is even going to try getting nationwide 600mhz spectrum to cover more population.

 

I'd rather T-Mobile try less on the nationwide aspect and work to increase spectrum in larger markets, such as in Chicago, which would benefit greatly with 10x10 of the 600mhz spectrum.

 

Regarding network, I haven't heard much about density expansion. All the talk seems to still be on the 700mhz acquisitions.

 

 

Funny you mention that. Dallas is likely heading for top speeds of 262.5 Mbps theoretical with an extra 15 MHz of PCS LTE coming online for existing handsets that support 2x20 carrier aggregation on FDD. 

 

https://np.reddit.com/r/tmobile/comments/4ld4ah/update_dallas_15x15_pcs_lte_spotted/

 

My concern comes from in a lot of middle America markets, there isn't the spectrum to do that. Heck, there isn't even the spectrum to do that in most large metros. 

 

STL, ironically enough, is now the spectrum runt of the T-Mobile system. No low band here and 15x15 total of both PCS and AWS. 

[Arysyn]

T mobile will expand greatly with pcs on there capacity. If they can make the network more dense with small cells and more tower sites they will be fine with 700 or 600 mhz just being 5×5

 

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

 

I sure hope so. I'm glad for the purchase of the 700mhz spectrum here in Chicago, at least.

 

I'm also very glad for the nice free brand new non-refurbished Apple iPhone 6s they sent to my mother. T-Mobile is very nice to her, for sure.

[Arysyn]

Funny you mention that. Dallas is likely heading for top speeds of 262.5 Mbps theoretical with an extra 15 MHz of PCS LTE coming online for existing handsets that support 2x20 carrier aggregation on FDD. 

 

https://np.reddit.com/r/tmobile/comments/4ld4ah/update_dallas_15x15_pcs_lte_spotted/

 

My concern comes from in a lot of middle America markets, there isn't the spectrum to do that. Heck, there isn't even the spectrum to do that in most large metros. 

 

STL, ironically enough, is now the spectrum runt of the T-Mobile system. No low band here and 15x15 total of both PCS and AWS. 

 

Yet here I thought the Chicago spectrum amount was bad... yikes!

 

This is why I'd like to see some reform on spectrum, even if not for my idea, but something, you know? It really isn't fair to markets that can't even operate that well because of it. I'd really like for every market to have that kind of speed capability Dallas has, though no one really needs to have that speed on their telephone.

 

It would be good for every carrier to be able to ensure speeds of at least 9mbps, or 15mbps-18mbps on premium paying plans. That would work fine. I'm concerned for those who can't even get 3mbps. Then it gets down to non-operable speeds and signals getting cut off that is very bad. That really shouldn't be happening in an advanced technological society.

[Deval]

To a degree, but theres probably some wins to be had where companies need to cut their costs. Assuming tmobile does eventually get itself to the point where its network is legitimately on a level with att then it can slowly begin to win some big b2b clients. Tmo can probably score some wins and gain some b2b market share both at a corporate and smb level but I dont think they need it, its a side project for them. 

Personally I would consider setting up a mvno for businesses or a different brand for business. This teenage rebellion image tmo has is a hard sell to large clients.

 

That's why I said SMB specifically. The local guy who tows cars maybe, but not a 5000 line CL account with MPLS and integrated devices using Skype on their exchange platform. 

[Arysyn]

I was just reasing the T-Mobile Reddit and I found the posting about the Dallas PCS spectrum upgrade. What are the other spectrum amounts in Dallas for T-Mobile?

 

Also, as I'm aware of, T-Mobile has 15x15 AWS and 10x10 PCS spectrum on LTE in the Chicago market, though there also is another 5x5 being used for GSM and HSPA, of is it 5x5 for HSPA alone, with additional spectrum for GSM? I'd really like it if T-Mobile could get another 5x5 PCS spectrum here, and if they can't, they really ought to begin moving away from GSM here, though I know VoLTE still has some work to go before they do. The minimum amount of spectrum T-Mobile really needs for LTE here in Chicago is 15x15 AWS and 15x15 PCS. Similarly speaking, I believe LA ought to be at least 20x20 AWS and 20x20 PCS, while NYC ought to be at least 25x25 AWS and 25x25 PCS. I'm curious as to how my opinion of that relates to what those cities actually are operating on currently.

 

St. Louis ought to be at least 10x10 AWS and 10x10 PCS. 15x15 total is very weak for that sized market.

[gusherb]

I was just reasing the T-Mobile Reddit and I found the posting about the Dallas PCS spectrum upgrade. What are the other spectrum amounts in Dallas for T-Mobile?

 

Also, as I'm aware of, T-Mobile has 15x15 AWS and 10x10 PCS spectrum on LTE in the Chicago market, though there also is another 5x5 being used for GSM and HSPA, of is it 5x5 for HSPA alone, with additional spectrum for GSM? I'd really like it if T-Mobile could get another 5x5 PCS spectrum here, and if they can't, they really ought to begin moving away from GSM here, though I know VoLTE still has some work to go before they do. The minimum amount of spectrum T-Mobile really needs for LTE here in Chicago is 15x15 AWS and 15x15 PCS. Similarly speaking, I believe LA ought to be at least 20x20 AWS and 20x20 PCS, while NYC ought to be at least 25x25 AWS and 25x25 PCS. I'm curious as to how my opinion of that relates to what those cities actually are operating on currently.

 

St. Louis ought to be at least 10x10 AWS and 10x10 PCS. 15x15 total is very weak for that sized market.

I'm pretty sure the PCS LTE that is lighting up in Chicago is 5x5. When they eventually move that to 10x10 in the next year or so, and get that B12 going, they'll be running 60 MHz of LTE, which is where VZW is at in that market today.

[luvixuha]

...while NYC ought to be at least 25x25 AWS and 25x25 PCS. I'm curious as to how my opinion of that relates to what those cities actually are operating on currently.

 

NYC has 20x20 AWS LTE. That's as wide as LTE can get. an extra 5x5 wouldn't really make too much sense (carrier aggregate an additional 5MHz down? You can do that already with Band 12 in NYC.)

[Arysyn]

I'm pretty sure the PCS LTE that is lighting up in Chicago is 5x5. When they eventually move that to 10x10 in the next year or so, and get that B12 going, they'll be running 60 MHz of LTE, which is where VZW is at in that market today.

 

I thought T-Mobile had 10x10 PCS on LTE.  I know they have 15x15 AWS on LTE. However, I really want them to expand to 15x15 PCS on LTE from whatever they have now on PCS. I figured the LTE using PCS was 10x10, while HSPA was 5x5, If T-Mobile could move that to make 15x15 PCS for LTE, that would be great.

 

Also knowing that there isn't a way for T-Mobile to have exactly 15x15 of low-band spectrum, if they could get two 10mhz blocks of 600mhz spectrum, that could be used for a 10x10 of 600mhz spectrum. Along with the 5x5 of 700mhz spectrum, that is 15mhz being used for the download and 15mhz being used for the upload on low-band spectrum. That would match in terms of spectrum amounts to the AWS and PCS both being 15x15.

 

Doing this essentially would give T-Mobile 45mhz of spectrum for the download and 45mhz of spectrum for the upload, which really ought to be the minimum amount of spectrum a carrier should have in any mid market. Chicago is more than a mid market and should have more, though nonetheless it is what it is.

[Arysyn]

NYC has 20x20 AWS LTE. That's as wide as LTE can get. an extra 5x5 wouldn't really make too much sense (carrier aggregate an additional 5MHz down? You can do that already with Band 12 in NYC.)

 

I think T-Mobile should have tried getting more spectrum there when they had the opportunity to do so. Now they need to do what they can to make up for this, even with carrier aggregation.

[richy]

That's why I said SMB specifically. The local guy who tows cars maybe, but not a 5000 line CL account with MPLS and integrated devices using Skype on their exchange platform. 

Sorry wasn't trying to pick an argument. What I was trying to say (badly) was I agree for now, but I can see them testing the waters now with their smb offering then pushing that harder when they have learnt their lessons with the pioneer clients. Once they start to see b2c net adds slow and IF they manage to continue to grow their network like they have over the past 5 years I could see them making a small play for the b2b corporate market. I understand they arent and will never be vzw and lots of vzw's corp accounts are never going to move but I could see tmo taking 5-10% of that market if they get it right. Start with a few princess deals for a couple of companies looking to cut costs and lure in some low hanging fruit. They dont have to win the market, it would be enough to add more lines and hurt vzw along the way. They could also completely screw it up  

[NYC126]

I think T-Mobile should have tried getting more spectrum there when they had the opportunity to do so. Now they need to do what they can to make up for this, even with carrier aggregation.

They got the extra spectrum via the MetroPCS acquisition otherwise they would be in the worst shape. They should send a bottle of whiskey to the Sprint previous board for blocking Hesse from buying MetroPCS otherwise Tmobile would be in the death ropes by now.

[ericdabbs]

They got the extra spectrum via the MetroPCS acquisition otherwise they would be in the worst shape. They should send a bottle of whiskey to the Sprint previous board for blocking Hesse from buying MetroPCS otherwise Tmobile would be in the death ropes by now.

 

I couldn't imagine if Sprint owned MetroPCS right now.  They would have definitely made use of their PCS spectrum.  I think if Sprint bought MetroPCS, Tmobile would have been scrambling to buy up Leap to try to save face and try to strike a deal with Sprint for MetroPCS's AWS spectrum.

[WiWavelength]

Similarly speaking, I believe LA ought to be at least 20x20 AWS and 20x20 PCS, while NYC ought to be at least 25x25 AWS and 25x25 PCS. I'm curious as to how my opinion of that relates to what those cities actually are operating on currently.

 

Over a decade ago, T-Mobile gave up 10 MHz (5 MHz FDD) of its PCS spectrum in New York City to AT&T nee Cingular -- because T-Mobile had no network in California, and Cingular had no network in New York City.  Quid pro quo.

 

AJ

[Arysyn]

They got the extra spectrum via the MetroPCS acquisition otherwise they would be in the worst shape. They should send a bottle of whiskey to the Sprint previous board for blocking Hesse from buying MetroPCS otherwise Tmobile would be in the death ropes by now.

 

I'm specifically speaking about the spectrum in the Chicago market, which didn't have MetroPCS prior to the merger.

[Arysyn]

Over a decade ago, T-Mobile gave up 10 MHz (5 MHz FDD) of its PCS spectrum in New York City to AT&T nee Cingular -- because T-Mobile had no network in California, and Cingular had no network in New York City.  Quid pro quo.

 

AJ

 

I definitely don't like that. Trading spectrum within the same market is fine by me, but not in trading for spectrum outside that market. I really don't like it at all. This is a reason why I support carriers having nationwide spectrum deals, rather than by region and have trades based on that, though ultimately better if every carrier had enough spectrum to begin with so that trades wouldn't really be necessary.

 

However more realistically if I had been in place to develop a network and what spectrum to go for in auctions nonetheless, since nationwide deals are not standard in auctions, I would have developed the market strategy as rural, low, mid, high, and major. Farming towns and such would be considered rural, would get at least 5x5 AWS+PCS, or 10x10 in one. Small suburban-sized towns yet not actually a suburb of a city, would get 10x10 AWS+PCS, or 20x20 in one. Cities with non-existent or small suburban areas would get 15x15 AWS+PCS. Larger cities with significant suburban areas, such as Chicago, would get 20x20 AWS+PCS. Los Angeles and New York would get 25x25 AWS+PCS.

 

Regarding low-band spectrum I'd give nationwide 5x5, however in cities under 20x20 AWS+PCS would get 10x10 low-band spectrum, cities with 20x20 AWS+PCS and over would get 15x15 low-band spectrum. So essentially five groups of mid-band spectrum markets and three groups of low-band spectrum markets.

 

I believe if T-Mobile had went into the auctions with this planned and succeeded, they would have been better off at least over time when the appropriate auctions for this spectrum occurred. They could have started with more PCS then traded it in for more AWS later on as AWS became available, or simply funded for more AWS and sold off the unneeded PCS spectrum. 

[WiWavelength]

I definitely don't like that. Trading spectrum within the same market is fine by me, but not in trading for spectrum outside that market. I really don't like it at all. This is a reason why I support carriers having nationwide spectrum deals, rather than by region and have trades based on that, though ultimately better if every carrier had enough spectrum to begin with so that trades wouldn't really be necessary.

 

Hindsight is always 20/20.  Try second guessing some decisions that you made, circa 2004.

 

No matter.  Would you have preferred that T-Mobile have no marketshare, no network, nor even any spectrum presence in California?  That was the reality, circa 2004.  Not in Southern California.  Not in Northern California.  Two huge markets.  How would that have made T-Mobile appear as a "national" operator?  So, that was the reasoning behind the network sharing/spectrum swapping agreement with AT&T nee Cingular.

 

As for nationwide spectrum licenses, no way.  Not in a country of this size.  Arysyn, what you want is to lock in the big 3-4 operators as our national networks in perpetuity.  Why?  What is your interest?

 

Somewhat ironically, you bring up New York City and Los Angeles, yet I have never heard you talk of going outside of Chicago.  Should you not want Chicago to have as many competitors as possible?  You could have service in Chicago from a local operator that might not have a lot of spectrum, but it could have great site density and relatively few subs, hence those fast, faster, fastest data speeds that you crave.

 

AJ

[Arysyn]

Hindsight is always 20/20.  Try second guessing some decisions that you made, circa 2004.

 

No matter.  Would you have preferred that T-Mobile have no marketshare, no network, nor even any spectrum presence in California?  That was the reality, circa 2004.  Not in Southern California.  Not in Northern California.  Two huge markets.  How would that have made T-Mobile appear as a "national" operator?  So, that was the reasoning behind the network sharing/spectrum swapping agreement with AT&T nee Cingular.

 

As for nationwide spectrum licenses, no way.  Not in a country of this size.  Arysyn, what you want is to lock in the big 3-4 operators as our national networks in perpetuity.  Why?  What is your interest?

 

Somewhat ironically, you bring up New York City and Los Angeles, yet I have never heard you talk of going outside of Chicago.  Should you not want Chicago to have as many competitors as possible?  You could have service in Chicago from a local operator that might not have a lot of spectrum, but it could have great site density and relatively few subs, hence those fast, faster, fastest data speeds that you crave.

 

AJ

 

I want the network operators to have enough spectrum in markets that isn't a big discrepancy over other markets, such as I find it unfair that customers in one market would have a much better experience on a particular carrier than customers do in another market using that same carrier. I believe it is important for carriers to strive in providing the same quality experience in all markets. They can't do that without the appropriate amount of spectrum in a given market. Surely the network is important to regarding issues such as site density, etc., which is something carriers could better improve on with more money not spent on such expensive spectrum prices.

 

However, I believe it is important to first make sure there is enough spectrum both for the population being served and for potential growth of network usage within that given area. People shouldn't have to change carriers when they move to a market which vastly differs in these areas. Yet, network build-out is an understandable flaw for carriers not to have done in a market and is justifiable people switching from dissatisfaction over. Spectrum though being given by the FCC based on the highest bidder, is not so favorably designed for smaller national carriers as for larger carriers.

 

I'd really like for a more fair situation being given for carriers regarding spectrum, so carriers could focus more towards their networks. While I could be satisfied by a local carrier with great network density and little spectrum, add on more people to that, then the experience plummets. I just really believe in the essential aspect of spectrum and believe that the costs and time involved in building a new network carrier are really prohibitive of this happening from scratch ever again using the same/similar cellular technological system.

 

That is why while I'm not fond of giving wireless carriers more power, as I like competition to a degree, I just don't see there being any company with the time and money able to begin a new network from scratch, as I've said. Because of this, I think it is important to help he customers being served by the national carriers which cover the vast majority of wireless consumers, wit the best network experience available to them, meaning vast robust networks built upon lots of spectrum that will prevent congestion t the best of their abilities. I don't see the current system working as well as it could.

[WiWavelength]

I want the network operators to have enough spectrum in markets that isn't a big discrepancy over other markets, such as I find it unfair that customers in one market would have a much better experience on a particular carrier than customers do in another market using that same carrier. I believe it is important for carriers to strive in providing the same quality experience in all markets. They can't do that without the appropriate amount of spectrum in a given market. Surely the network is important to regarding issues such as site density, etc., which is something carriers could better improve on with more money not spent on such expensive spectrum prices.

 

Are you secretly Ralph Nader?

 

To use an imperfect but decent analogy, what you write above is akin to saying that all hotels nationwide should have similar number of rooms or proportional number of rooms according to demand.  And they should provide similar level of experience -- staff, pillows, bedsheets, swimming pools, etc.

 

Nope.  Hey, a Best Western in Peoria, IL may be the best, yet a Best Western in Peoria, AZ may be the worst.

 

The only consistency is inconsistency.  That is the nature of both business competition and human experience.

 

So, caveat emptor.  This is why we have subjective and objective rating services, such as the likes of Yelp, TripAdvisor, and for wireless, RootMetrics.

 

To continue to tie this back in with wireless, most people honestly do not move around that much.  As Deval has pointed out, most wireless users are on the same dozen or so cell sites day after day.  Does my current network give me reliable service around home, work, school, grocery store, etc.?  Most people do not care or should not care if the same network does likewise in Kalamazoo or Timbuktu.

 

Even if wireless operators were awarded certain, appropriate amounts of spectrum per market, that would not ensure consistent experience from market to market.  Not even within the same market.  Why does Bob get 40 Mbps -- while you get only 1 Mbps?  Because Bob is a block from the serving site -- while you are a mile from the same serving site.  As in real estate, location, location, location.  Other factors are in play, too many factors.

 

AJ

[red_dog007]

Just throwing spectrum, or doing equal amounts of spectrum for all will not get what you want.  You will have to dictate at the micro level to get what you want.  number of towers for each subscriber for a given coverage, backhaul, government, etc if you want an equal experience in each market across the USA for each carrier.  Then you'll also have to micro manage each company to guarantee the level of support, customer service and that networks stay up to date with the latest technologies across the entire network. 

 

Plus you also know a LOT more today then you did 10 years ago, 20 years ago.  20 years ago was 1996.  30 years ago was 1986.  If anyone could have seen the future of smartphones and LTE and the huge demand for data, the market would be so much more different.  But back 20 and 30 years ago the Internet went from no one has it to some people have 56k.  Sprint would not of ended up with the amount of 2.5GHz spectrum that they did. But we live in a world where that didn't really start until less than a decade ago.  It would have made things a lot easier if the feds could have got into their time machine back in the day and saw the need to set a side +500MHz of UHF spectrum for cellular.

[Fraydog]

I think Arysyn should watch this.

 

 

Britain has bad rural coverage. They also have no regionals. I honestly can't remember the last time I dropped a call on Verizon (on VoLTE!) Yet Britain has to deal with horrid rural coverage.

 

Yet compare the winning Root scores in Britain of EE and the winning Root scores of Verizon here. Verizon's are higher. Final kicker, Sprint is ahead of EE on most metrics as well.

 

 

EE is trying to plug the rural gap with small cells and more masts but they're more on the boat with Sprint and T-Mobile. 5 MHz block in band 20, aka Europe's 800 MHz.

 

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[Fraydog]

Back on topic: T-Mobile's offering a tourist plan for international visitors. Unlimited data with 2 GB at LTE speed, 1000 minutes, and unlimited text, for $30. Plan lasts for 21 days and doesn't renew.

 

 

http://prepaid-phones.t-mobile.com/prepaid-international-tourist-plan?clickid=Wc80fK3ugT8Cy3X38YR4A0kZUkSVSpxZQ0P10I0&iradid=189313&cmpid=WTR_AF_189313&irpid=10078&irgwc=1

 

I'm kinda underwhelmed by it compared to the $30 plan T-Mobile already offers.

 

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[runagun]

It's ingenious. Makes tmobile the defacto company for tourists. Man, I do like how the company is being ran.

[Paynefanbro]

It's ingenious. Makes tmobile the defacto company for tourists. Man, I do like how the company is being ran.

I'm not sure I'd call it ingenious. It's something that plenty of carriers abroad offer. My question is why didn't they do it sooner? In terms of international device/network compatibility it was going to be either them or AT&T and AT&T doesn't need the money that much.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[Arysyn]

Are you secretly Ralph Nader?

 

To use an imperfect but decent analogy, what you write above is akin to saying that all hotels nationwide should have similar number of rooms or proportional number of rooms according to demand.  And they should provide similar level of experience -- staff, pillows, bedsheets, swimming pools, etc.

 

Nope.  Hey, a Best Western in Peoria, IL may be the best, yet a Best Western in Peoria, AZ may be the worst.

 

The only consistency is inconsistency.  That is the nature of both business competition and human experience.

 

So, caveat emptor.  This is why we have subjective and objective rating services, such as the likes of Yelp, TripAdvisor, and for wireless, RootMetrics.

 

To continue to tie this back in with wireless, most people honestly do not move around that much.  As Deval has pointed out, most wireless users are on the same dozen or so cell sites day after day.  Does my current network give me reliable service around home, work, school, grocery store, etc.?  Most people do not care or should not care if the same network does likewise in Kalamazoo or Timbuktu.

 

Even if wireless operators were awarded certain, appropriate amounts of spectrum per market, that would not ensure consistent experience from market to market.  Not even within the same market.  Why does Bob get 40 Mbps -- while you get only 1 Mbps?  Because Bob is a block from the serving site -- while you are a mile from the same serving site.  As in real estate, location, location, location.  Other factors are in play, too many factors.

 

AJ

 

I'm not Ralph Nader nor am I a fan of his. I don't like forced socialism as much as I dislike forced capitalism.

 

The difference between the hotel room analogy to wireless, is that with hotel rooms, there can be an infinite number of rooms, so long as a hotel chain has enough money to spend on them, along with building all the buildings necessary to house all of them, the maintenance, cleaning staff, etc.

 

I realize since spectrum is indeed finite, there isn't enough spectrum to go around giving to any person, small group, or even a well-developed, intentioned, and planned out company with dreams and goals of building a wireless company. Hence why I've never made any notion of an idea to create a new carrier if only the best and brightest people in wireless technology outside of the main carriers got together to form such a group to establish a new carrier. It just wouldn't work.

 

I'm really not thinking as much of fantasy as I've been accused of here in the past. I realize the technical factors of wireless are just too much for a new company to bear in trying to build a new carrier. It is difficult enough for the smaller national carriers to exist as it is, hence the merger talks.

 

Regarding customers, technical factors of wireless are too much for many of them, which is why they don't care about all of this technical stuff. They just want stuff to work. While a good portion of them only care about it working where they are, others travel a lot and want it to work wherever they go. That is why Verizon does so well advertising coverage. If people didn't care so much about it working elsewhere, then many more people would be on T-Mobile and Sprint. They want an equal quality network wherever they go. If there is a major spectrum or network discrepancy, they won't be happy about it. They may not care about the technical reasons for it, but still they will complain if it doesn't work as well.

[Arysyn]

Just throwing spectrum, or doing equal amounts of spectrum for all will not get what you want.  You will have to dictate at the micro level to get what you want.  number of towers for each subscriber for a given coverage, backhaul, government, etc if you want an equal experience in each market across the USA for each carrier.  Then you'll also have to micro manage each company to guarantee the level of support, customer service and that networks stay up to date with the latest technologies across the entire network. 

 

Plus you also know a LOT more today then you did 10 years ago, 20 years ago.  20 years ago was 1996.  30 years ago was 1986.  If anyone could have seen the future of smartphones and LTE and the huge demand for data, the market would be so much more different.  But back 20 and 30 years ago the Internet went from no one has it to some people have 56k.  Sprint would not of ended up with the amount of 2.5GHz spectrum that they did. But we live in a world where that didn't really start until less than a decade ago.  It would have made things a lot easier if the feds could have got into their time machine back in the day and saw the need to set a side +500MHz of UHF spectrum for cellular.

 

You are right. I definitely support there being more network development that is just as important as the spectrum, just that from what I see from wireless, spectrum is an important thing to have before building up the network bigger, which likely is why networks started on low-band before there were mid-band spectrum requiring more network sites, etc. I'm sure there are other factors for this too happening over the years, but low-band spectrum sure was a good start.

 

On a side topic somewhat involved in this, it is beginning to storm quite badly outside here in Chicago. It was very sunny and great weather just a half hour ago. I'm impressed by carriers' ability to manage well during storms like this, especially interesting was the article posted on TmoNews of the storm emergency monitoring centers. A strong, well-built network is especially important for times like this and certainly worse times too.