T-Mobile LTE & Network Discussion V2

[richy]

While it isn't forcing directly, it is indirectly. Sure, there is an option to turn it off, but by T-Mobile raising rates and discussing about removing unlimited data in the media (or at least leading towards that), it is moving in the direction of not giving people a choice but to accept it. The other issue I haven't mentioned, is the 25gb deprioritization point on unlimited data plans. Now before I talk about it here, please everyone understand I'm not advocating for data misuse, and I'll agree 25gb of data is quite a lot of data to be used at full speed before deprioritization activates. It is enough for eight one and a half hour 3gb HD movies I'm basing from one I own that is 3gb. However, there are people who might want to watch more than that. The reported deprioritized speeds from people on Reddit, TmoNews, etc. are too slow even for 480p viewing, basically forcing those people to activate BingeOn, as T-Mobile doesn't offer additional non-throttled data purchase options, unlike AT&T and Verizon.

 

So yes, T-Mobile is indirectly forcing this. That is why I've advocated here that T-Mobile do either one of two things, perhaps even both. Up BingeOn to 3mbps, which would enable 1080p, essentially eliminating all complaints over the issue, except for those net neutrality issues. Also, T-Mobile could extend a promotional feature from last year where they were offering additional data packs of 10gb for $10 each. That basically is like charging $1 per 1 gb. Based on the example I used here earlier of the 3gb HD movie I own, that would cost $3 per viewing over wireless, which is reasonable. If T-Mobile did this, it would go a long way to resolve the issues being criticized regarding BingeOn. T-Mobile wouldn't even need BingeOn restricting resolution, if they offered plans based on speed caps. That is a third idea which would help them too.  

 

The reality for all cellcos is that true unlimited attracts too many people using it as a home isp rather than as a cell phone for it to be viable. So what you have is a compromise, if you want an unmetered connection you accept that if you go above the magic line you be be slowed down but ONLY when you are in a congested area. The alternatives would be pay by the gb or capped use. True unlimited is gone, video and cockwombles killed it. Thats life. Personally I like the capped concept, it seems a fair option. The same goes for att and sprint who do similar. Its a reality, it could go away or it could remain with safeguards for the carrier. For me unlimited is about no bills shocks rather than absolute use. I use about 6-10gb a month plus bingeon streaming.Sometimes I do use a lot more but my bill remains the same.

 

If you want to watch HD videos over your cell phone connection you need to pay for it one way or another. You are facing two problems, one if the companies need to bill in a manner which extracts enough money in a way that makes sense and the disparity between the size of a webpage and the size of a HD movie means (i.e. if they make it a sensible enough price to watch a movie non movie users wouldn't be paying enough for the carrier to make money ) that its not the most feasible way of getting that content (its basically like trying to use a pizza delivery scooter to carry the cows to market). The second issue is network capacity, you complain about speeds yet you want unlimited and lots of HD video delivery? That needs capacity which at a minimum needs investment. 

 

There are 4 main carriers, several decent sized regional carriers and a plethora of mvno's, none of them seem to offer the plans you suggest, that may be a reflection of how reasonable and rational your demands are. Most of us would like true unlimited for cheaps, I'd also love for honda to put 200hp and a 400 mile range in that new Africa twin and sell it at the same price but it aint happenin. Outside of an unlimited plan or a scheme like bingeon hd video over phones will remain economically unreasonable for some time (5g and h265 should help move it closer to reality).

 

Seriously next subject please

 

btw, for reference, business prices from tmo hover around $4 per gb, even from tmo. Wholesale isnt much lower. Pricing data is tough but basically $1 a gb wont happpen for a few years yet.

[greenbastard]

The reality for all cellcos is that true unlimited attracts too many people using it as a home isp rather than as a cell phone for it to be viable. So what you have is a compromise, if you want an unmetered connection you accept that if you go above the magic line you be be slowed down but ONLY when you are in a congested area. The alternatives would be pay by the gb or capped use. True unlimited is gone, video and cockwombles killed it. Thats life. Personally I like the capped concept, it seems a fair option. The same goes for att and sprint who do similar. Its a reality, it could go away or it could remain with safeguards for the carrier. For me unlimited is about no bills shocks rather than absolute use. I use about 6-10gb a month plus bingeon streaming.Sometimes I do use a lot more but my bill remains the same.

 

If you want to watch HD videos over your cell phone connection you need to pay for it one way or another. You are facing two problems, one if the companies need to bill in a manner which extracts enough money in a way that makes sense and the disparity between the size of a webpage and the size of a HD movie means (i.e. if they make it a sensible enough price to watch a movie non movie users wouldn't be paying enough for the carrier to make money ) that its not the most feasible way of getting that content (its basically like trying to use a pizza delivery scooter to carry the cows to market). The second issue is network capacity, you complain about speeds yet you want unlimited and lots of HD video delivery? That needs capacity which at a minimum needs investment.

 

There are 4 main carriers, several decent sized regional carriers and a plethora of mvno's, none of them seem to offer the plans you suggest, that may be a reflection of how reasonable and rational your demands are. Most of us would like true unlimited for cheaps, I'd also love for honda to put 200hp and a 400 mile in that new Africa twin and sell it at the same price but it aint happenin. Outside of an unlimited plan or a scheme like bingeon hd video over phones will remain economically unreasonable for some time (5g and h265 should help move it closer to reality).

 

Seriously next subject please

 

btw, for reference, business prices from tmo hover around $4 per gb, even from tmo. Wholesale isnt much lower. Pricing data is tough but basically $1 a gb wont happpen for a few years yet.

Pretty much agree with all this. Wireless carriers would be better off getting rid of unlimited and focus on competitive ways of selling data allowances. For example, I like how Google only charges you for what you buy, thus making any gimmick 'rollover' promotion from at&t or T-Mobile pretty useless and stupid. We should all pay for what we use, that includes not paying for any excess data we don't use.

[Arysyn]

I like that this discussion of ideas here was productive. I'm definitely interested in different viewpoints here and hope mine have been helpful also.

 

I think unlimited needs to stay around at least in some form, until carriers can get down to the $1 per gb price point, otherwise I just can't see customers willing to pay much more than that for higher quality video on a limited data basis. It'll be interesting to see how it turns out in the following months, but first I imagine the main news we'll be hearing is regarding this upcoming auction. I doubt any price cuts/changes will occur for awhile until carriers get some of those issues settled.

[irev210]

Pretty much agree with all this. Wireless carriers would be better off getting rid of unlimited and focus on competitive ways of selling data allowances. For example, I like how Google only charges you for what you buy, thus making any gimmick 'rollover' promotion from at&t or T-Mobile pretty useless and stupid. We should all pay for what we use, that includes not paying for any excess data we don't use.

Or what rinplus has done. Very innovative.

[richy]

Theres a few factors which affect the price per GB. One of my jobs is a front desk manager for a hotel, the way we price is probably a lot similar. We have a fixed capacity like cellcos, we have variable usage (ours is by time but cellcos is by area and sub type) and when we have our yield meeting to set future pricing (usually 2 years out) we have a similar problem. We could price crazy low and run 100% occupancy all year round but this would upset some guests, be brutal on the hotel and staff, and also probably not get us as much money as charging a higher rate. We balance extra business against the change in revenue and the affect on our costs. Customers are smart, at least some of them are. If we gouge over the xmas period we risk upsetting people who come every year, even during the recessions. So we certainly could increase pricing at peak times but we would lose money in the long run. If cell subs see pricing that doesnt make sense they will bail, unless they are verizon subs, they just add an extra tablet. 

 

Tmobile and sprint have an idea how much their subs use, they have an idea how lowering or raising the price will affect usage. They want to balance how their pricing compares to the big two (they want a credible gap in pricing to justify any difference in service level) while still generating enough cash flow to cover their costs and grow. They could set the price at $1 per GB but the reality is that this would probably exacerbate capacity issues in higher usage areas as people would use more. It would also likely reduce overall income, even when factoring in an increase in subs. People who dont use much would be paying even less. In theory what you are asking for is a log \ sliding based pricing scale where the first 5 gb might cost $4 each, then the next 5gb costs $2 each and so on, increasing in price as it gets more. The problem is it is hard to justify that to the end users who dont use much. The actual cost per GB remains static.You can factor in some kind of bulk discount but if it gets too much you upset median and low users. 

 

Long story short, unless you accept limitations (such as 480p, or deprioratization in congested areas) or have a huge pile of money video over cellular makes little sense. Also never assume cellcos care for a second about our ideas, at least not on pricing. If they misstep on something like the 600kbps they will listen to a loud enough shout but on individual plan ideas honestly forget it. Its market and capacity driven. Expect gradual changes over time.

 

Now, on net neutrality, Bingeon may be against the wording of net neutrality, it may have been implemented very badly, but assuming they zero rate ALL video and music, keep the ability to turn it on and off, dont charge companies for access to it, and they dont launch their own video service then I think it is within the spirit AND way less of an issue than competitors service. tmo is in a mature market, its not like facebook offering free data in a developing country to monopolize the market. Tmo makes no money as it isnt preferring their own service like sprinttv or go90.  However, tmo makes so much noise about everything they do deserve more stick.

 

I don't know if they intended to be evil, I think its a very interesting idea and some welcome diversity to the market. It was implemented badly, almost with an appleesque arrogance, but I like the thinking if it was done right. I'm curious what the companies have to agree to and if the companies having to opt in is a legal issue?

[Arysyn]

I rarely ever mention much about net neutrality, because of many factors, one being that my opinion of it changes quite often, as many people share valid points on both sides of the issue and I know how many different actions in wireless can trigger complaints about how this or that is one of those in violation of net neutrality. BingeOn is one of those issues often tied to that. However, I'd rather talk about how BingeOn affects customers' experiences rather than about the legal ramifications of net neutrality. Although, I'll still listen to those who have varying opinions of it regarding net neutrality, people who are interested in those consumer protection related issues, which are just as impportant if not more than the customer experience issues I'm interested in.

 

There are many different interpretations in how carriers ought to price data from what I've read online. After alot of thought, I've found the one price plan that I think works perfect, though I admit it may very well not be possible for a while. I'd like to see speed caps placed on various price points which would control congestion. The downside to that though, is when a part of the network is underused. In those situations, speed caps are unneccessary. To that, it definitely could be compared to a hotel also. I've heard from hoteliers that price rooms based on occupancy and how that affects what they offer to these online room booking services.

 

Now, while I've suggesed the possibility of network variable speed caps that would monitor and adjust all customers' speeds based on network space availability at the time, location, amount of customers, usage levels, etc. While I could see such a system working for wireless, a price variable differential in data pricing among those terms, I cannot see that working at all, where the price of data is so varied. I've never liked roaming rates for the same reason, though at least that made sense in the matter of it based on moving off to other carriers' networks. Then again, I also favor carrier consolidation, with sensible regulation to make sure that customers don't get price hiked beyond oblivion.

 

I could go into this more, but then I'd be going into a lot of my personal viewpoints extending beyond wireless. For the sake of S4GRU's purposes, I try to respect that limiting what I mention personally to when I need to explain how that affects with my wireless needs, or if trying to explain a miscommunication here involving something I've said, etc. Although, I also like how so many people here have placed a great personal interest in wireless, and I believe such discussions from it are very important to have, which hopefully will end up being valuable to the wireless industry in some way through such knowledge gained here. Its from that which makes S4GRU such a wonderful site to be a part of.

[avb]

Now, while I've suggesed the possibility of network variable speed caps that would monitor and adjust all customers' speeds based on network space availability at the time, location, amount of customers, usage levels, etc. 

 

 

You don't need a variable speed cap to adjust customers' speeds when it comes to wireless.  The amount of capacity in a given area already does that.  Putting a speed cap will only slow down things even further.  If you're experiencing sub 1Mb/s speeds in a given area, everyone around you on the same network is experiencing the same and the network is being maxed out.

[Fraydog]

http://seekingalpha.com/article/3959795-dish-networks-hope-t-mobile-legere-play-nice?page=2

 

Seeking Alpha is playing up the Dish/T-Mobile connect again.

 

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[markjcc]

Central maui is finally 15x15 Mhz however it's still slow like a turd

[Arysyn]

Central maui is finally 15x15 Mhz however it's still slow like a turd

This could be a major indicator of how badly BingeOn is affecting T-Mobile's network congestion. Here in the Chicago market last year when there was an upgrade from 10x10 to 15x15, speeds increased quite a lot. I was here on S4GRU praising T-Mobile for it, but now looking at the spectrum situation even more for what it is now than then, I see there is a serious spectrum shortage, particularly in contrast with Sprint which has much more spectrum for around the same amount of customers.

 

T-Mobile could really use that spectrum, which is why a merger with Sprint would help a lot, even a merger with Dish, though Sprint is preferable at this point. Also, AT&T could be a very close competitor to Sprint in gaining a merger approval in the new governmental administration, as the technical combination would be less disruptive to customers in a merger with AT&T than it would be with Sprint. I could see a Sprint takeover of Dish, either just that spectrum, or possibly the entire Dish company. Adding television service could be very valuable in helping Sprint gain the extra income needed to finance its NGN plans.

 

In the meantime, T-Mobile needs to stop acting as though BingeOn isn't harming their network performance. Since BingeOn was introduced, there have been several complaints about speed reductions in service from people on many wireless tech sites, including some here on S4GRU. Also, T-Mobile's data reports from sources such as Root Metrics have been declining significantly too.

 

While it may sound surprising for me to say considering my heavy criticism of BingeOn since its inception, especially lately here on S4GRU, I'm not actually blaming BingeOn itself directly for the added congestion. What I think very well could be going on is a backlash from people on unlimited data plans turning off BingeOn and watching a lot more video in non- speed capped HD, in order to get the same amount of video viewing service being given to non- unlimited data BingeOn customers, which is unlimited video viewing.

 

Essentially, BingeOn has caused a surge in video viewing among non- speed capped unlimited data customers which has congested T-Mobile's network far more than BingeOn itself, as BingeOn users on a 1.5mbps connection to video streams really ought to help lower congestion on T-Mobile's network, but instead the influx of people objecting to BingeOn for various reasons such as lower quality resolution, net neutrality, etc, have caused an increased video usage of HD video on these non- speed capped unlimited data plans.

 

The other issue is with the price hike on unlimited data for new unlimited data customers. Due to the higher price, their usage watching HD video likely is being increased, due to wanting more value in what they are paying. It all could end up costing T-Mobile more than they are making in these price hikes with people leaving T-Mobile, due to worsening quality service. Anyways, I have a service plan idea I'll post here later as a compromise between the collaboration of ideas//opinions which have been shared and discussed here on S4GRU, as of late.

[tyroned3222]

It is still early in the year, but what all will t mobile accomplish this year by end of Q4? They haven't really spoken too much about the network progress this year.

 

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

[richy]

Central maui is finally 15x15 Mhz however it's still slow like a turd

Probably haven't upped the backhaul yet. I noticed even off peak it hits a wall at about 50mbps. If large swathes of LA can routinely show 70mbps free during peak times then maui meadows should be fine with 15x15 It might the big city to us farm folks but Wailuku has less people than a mainland costco.

[richy]

It is still early in the year, but what all will t mobile accomplish this year by end of Q4? They haven't really spoken too much about the network progress this year.

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

Deploy more 700 MHz and see how much the 600 MHz costs before they do much else. There is aws3 to deploy but that requires new equipment so maybe they wait and combine those two together except for congested markets.

[tyroned3222]

Deploy more 700 MHz and see how much the 600 MHz costs before they do much else. There is aws3 to deploy but that requires new equipment so maybe they wait and combine those two together except for congested markets.

Nice! Will they also expand coverage more they said by middle of this year they would expand again by another million square miles...for the aws 3 would they have to sort do a rip and replace like sprint?

 

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

[Arysyn]

Probably haven't upped the backhaul yet. I noticed even off peak it hits a wall at about 50mbps. If large swathes of LA can routinely show 70mbps free during peak times then maui meadows should be fine with 15x15 It might the big city to us farm folks but Wailuku has less people than a mainland costco.

 

Seems there are quite a few people from Hawaii here on S4GRU. While I'm not sure if I'd be comfortable so far away from mainland, Hawaii looks very beautiful from what I've seen on photos and videos. It certainly is my preferred life far better than my own (considering my awful health, etc.) to be in a tropical area in a nice house with a private swimming pool and beach bar. Would be very nice.

 

Anyways, how is wireless reception there in Hawaii? I've seen images of a lot of hills and figure that having coverage there could be a challenge for carriers, other than in the larger city areas.

[scubajwd]

 It certainly is my preferred life far better than my own (considering my awful health, etc.) to be in a tropical area in a nice house with a private swimming pool and beach bar. Would be very nice.

 

 

Only the 1% among us get this life style , Arysyn; take it from me it's no fun being poor in Paradise;

I tried it in my younger days!

[WiWavelength]

Essentially, BingeOn has caused a surge in video viewing among non- speed capped unlimited data customers which has congested T-Mobile's network far more than BingeOn itself, as BingeOn users on a 1.5mbps connection to video streams really ought to help lower congestion on T-Mobile's network, but instead the influx of people objecting to BingeOn for various reasons such as lower quality resolution, net neutrality, etc, have caused an increased video usage of HD video on these non- speed capped unlimited data plans.

 

No, I doubt that.  In considerable part, BingeOn video is causing T-Mobile network congestion.  T-Mobile brought this upon itself.  Just look at the name it chose -- BingeOn.  That flat out encourages people to watch more video with impunity.

 

And it is a mistake to think that low bit rate 1.5 Mbps "optimized" video cannot burden, say, a 15 MHz FDD sector.  Even with ample backhaul in place, that sector does not really supply a total of 110 Mbps.  That is not the real world.  That is in the lab or in a parking lot across the street from the cell site at 4am.

 

In the real world, because of RF fading, adaptive modulation, and retransmission, cut that 110 Mbps total capacity in half to 55 Mbps.  And that may be a best case scenario.  Then, put just 25 BingeOn users streaming video on that sector.  They constantly are sucking down 38 Mbps of that 55 Mbps capacity.  And, well, that sector is getting loaded.

 

People thinking that our current wireless networks can support them walking around watching streaming TV all the time is ignorance.  Wireless operators marketing such fantasy is practically fraud.

 

AJ

[markjcc]

Seems there are quite a few people from Hawaii here on S4GRU. While I'm not sure if I'd be comfortable so far away from mainland, Hawaii looks very beautiful from what I've seen on photos and videos. It certainly is my preferred life far better than my own (considering my awful health, etc.) to be in a tropical area in a nice house with a private swimming pool and beach bar. Would be very nice.

 

Anyways, how is wireless reception there in Hawaii? I've seen images of a lot of hills and figure that having coverage there could be a challenge for carriers, other than in the larger city areas.

It's pretty good on both Sprint and T-Mobile if you want the absolute best in Hawaii Verizon is the champion for coverage here.

 

Cell density T-Mobile vs Sprint i'd say Sprint is more dense than T-Mobile

[Arysyn]

No, I doubt that.  In considerable part, BingeOn video is causing T-Mobile network congestion.  T-Mobile brought this upon itself.  Just look at the name it chose -- BingeOn.  That flat out encourages people to watch more video with impunity.

 

And it is a mistake to think that low bit rate 1.5 Mbps "optimized" video cannot burden, say, a 15 MHz FDD sector.  Even with ample backhaul in place, that sector does not really supply a total of 110 Mbps.  That is not the real world.  That is in the lab or in a parking lot across the street from the cell site at 4am.

 

In the real world, because of RF fading, adaptive modulation, and retransmission, cut that 110 Mbps total capacity in half to 55 Mbps.  And that may be a best case scenario.  Then, put just 25 BingeOn users streaming video on that sector.  They constantly are sucking down 38 Mbps of that 55 Mbps capacity.  And, well, that sector is getting loaded.

 

People thinking that our current wireless networks can support them walking around watching streaming TV all the time is ignorance.  Wireless operators marketing such fantasy is practically fraud.

 

AJ

 

I generally agree with you here, AJ.

 

I'm not a T-Mobile apologist, far from it, and I'm especially critical of what they are doing wrong, both towards their customers and in my own personal experiences with them. However, while I know I can't claim to be knowledgeable on what the inner workings of T-Mobile's network are, I have expectations these carriers should be honest in their claims. The sad reality is that many times they are not and its even sadder that very little is being done about it, to change it.

 

T-Mobile claims it is so "data strong" their network can handle BingeOn. Yet, many reports are showing a decline in T-Mobile's network performance ever since T-Mobile introduced BingeOn. Despite this however, T-Mobile is claiming their network resources are being freed up BingeOn, there being less congestion, etc. If T-Mobile is to be believed, then a plausible explanation for their increased congestion would be the scenario I mentioned. Although, there certainly could be others, a combination of factors, etc.

 

Anyways, if it were to be as you explained it, AJ, which I'm not doubting you the possibility of this. Yet if you are correct, wireless customers of T-Mobile clearly are being lied to and therefore a much worse situation between that and the net neutrality implications of BingeOn.

 

[tyroned3222]

I generally agree with you here, AJ.

 

I'm not a T-Mobile apologist, far from it, and I'm especially critical of what they are doing wrong, both towards their customers and in my own personal experiences with them. However, while I know I can't claim to be knowledgeable on what the inner workings of T-Mobile's network are, I have expectations these carriers should be honest in their claims. The sad reality is that many times they are not and its even sadder that very little is being done about it, to change it.

 

 

T-Mobile claims it is so "data strong" their network can handle BingeOn. Yet, many reports are showing a decline in T-Mobile's network performance ever since T-Mobile introduced BingeOn. Despite this however, T-Mobile is claiming their network resources are being freed up BingeOn, there being less congestion, etc. If T-Mobile is to be believed, then a plausible explanation for their increased congestion would be the scenario I mentioned. Although, there certainly could be others, a combination of factors, etc.

 

Anyways, if it were to be as you explained it, AJ, which I'm not doubting you the possibility of this. Yet if you are correct, wireless customers of T-Mobile clearly are being lied to and therefore a much worse situation between that and the net neutrality implications of BingeOn.

 

Let's say T-Mobile never added binge on.... due to the growth of T-Mobile they still would have ran into the congestion issues

 

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

[tyroned3222]

I generally agree with you here, AJ.

 

I'm not a T-Mobile apologist, far from it, and I'm especially critical of what they are doing wrong, both towards their customers and in my own personal experiences with them. However, while I know I can't claim to be knowledgeable on what the inner workings of T-Mobile's network are, I have expectations these carriers should be honest in their claims. The sad reality is that many times they are not and its even sadder that very little is being done about it, to change it.

 

 

T-Mobile claims it is so "data strong" their network can handle BingeOn. Yet, many reports are showing a decline in T-Mobile's network performance ever since T-Mobile introduced BingeOn. Despite this however, T-Mobile is claiming their network resources are being freed up BingeOn, there being less congestion, etc. If T-Mobile is to be believed, then a plausible explanation for their increased congestion would be the scenario I mentioned. Although, there certainly could be others, a combination of factors, etc.

 

Anyways, if it were to be as you explained it, AJ, which I'm not doubting you the possibility of this. Yet if you are correct, wireless customers of T-Mobile clearly are being lied to and therefore a much worse situation between that and the net neutrality implications of BingeOn.

 

I personally dont think the unlimited data promotion or binge on had a thing to do with it... I think the whole "8 million new customers a year" thing has a hell of a lot more. Remember, a new tower takes about 18 months to build... our customer adds are outdoing our network adds.

 

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

[Paynefanbro]

I personally dont think the unlimited data promotion or binge on had a thing to do with it... I think the whole "8 million new customers a year" thing has a hell of a lot more. Remember, a new tower takes about 18 months to build... our customer adds are outdoing our network adds.

 

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

Or not due to the fact that people on capped data plans would be less encouraged/less incentive to watch videos on their device because they'd be afraid of hitting their cap.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[WiWavelength]

T-Mobile claims it is so "data strong" their network can handle BingeOn. Yet, many reports are showing a decline in T-Mobile's network performance ever since T-Mobile introduced BingeOn. Despite this however, T-Mobile is claiming their network resources are being freed up BingeOn, there being less congestion, etc. If T-Mobile is to be believed, then a plausible explanation for their increased congestion would be the scenario I mentioned. Although, there certainly could be others, a combination of factors, etc.

 

I do not have the absolute explanation, just a plausible explanation.  If you want to dig up the T-Mobile citation about BingeOn and reduced network resources, please do.  We can examine it to see how it is constructed, to see how it logically holds up.

 

For example, T-Mobile could make that claim with a straight face -- only because the video bit rate per subscriber has decreased with BingeOn.  For even further sophistry, T-Mobile could base it on a reduced video bit rate per sub per second.  Unless my calculus fails me, that would be a third derivative.

 

Now, maybe the amount of video data consumed per sub has decreased.  But has BingeOn enticed many more subs to consume mobile video?

 

These are questions to ask and be answered.

 

AJ

[Arysyn]

Let's say T-Mobile never added binge on.... due to the growth of T-Mobile they still would have ran into the congestion issues

 

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

 

Possibly so, but maybe not to the extent it seems to have

[reedacus25]

T-Mobile claims it is so "data strong" their network can handle BingeOn. Yet, many reports are showing a decline in T-Mobile's network performance ever since T-Mobile introduced BingeOn. Despite this however, T-Mobile is claiming their network resources are being freed up BingeOn, there being less congestion, etc. If T-Mobile is to be believed, then a plausible explanation for their increased congestion would be the scenario I mentioned. Although, there certainly could be others, a combination of factors, etc.

 

Let's assume a pretty predictable trajectory for network load as subscribers increase.

 

Explosive subscriber growth has caused this runway to the end of the trajectory to become much closer than it was say 1+ years ago.

 

Every time they add more LTE capacity, be it by L700 deployment or UMTS->LTE refarming for wider LTE channel width, it extends that trajectory out further, extending the runway from that point, but not changing the fact that the massive increase in subscriber growth, takes you way further down the trajectory than anything else.

 

For reference, total subscribers after 13Q1 were 33.968M, and after 15Q4/EOY were 63.282M. That's 29.314M subscribers added to the network in 11 quarters/less than 3 years, 86% more subscribers on a network in that amount of time.

[All numbers pulled from T-Mobile earnings reports from their investor relations site]

 

Where we are now is the intersection of being "too successful too quick" and being able to put money back into the network with tangible results. Densification, sector adds/splits, all to mitigate the congestion of the massive subscriber growth. It's just not happening quick enough to make everyone happy.

 

Another thing to remember is that it stands to reason that it is likely that a large majority of adds are in urban areas, which were already susceptible to congestion because that's where the majority of the existing subscriber base came from.

 

All this to say, BingeOn likely extends that runway trajectory, but not further than the net adds drags it right back down.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk