T-Mobile LTE & Network Discussion V2

[shaferz]

Anybody care to give a TLDR for the 2-3 pages before this one? I lost interest and quit reading when I saw paragraphs posted by Arysyn .

[Fraydog]

"Brevity is the soul of wit." - William Shakespeare

 

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[laqn1283]

Do you have that information somewhere in terms of cost of service between Sprint and T-Mobile?

 

Also, the roaming isn't THAT liberal, 100mb on new plans and 100 minutes. Pretty good if you ask me.

[laqn1283]

Do you have that information somewhere in terms of cost of service between Sprint and T-Mobile?

 

Also, the roaming isn't THAT liberal, 100mb on new plans and 100 minutes. Pretty good if you ask me.

You can find that info on sprint and T-Mobile quarterly income statement. Each quarter tmobile's cost of service is about 1.35 billion but for sprint that figure is 2.3. To me it is very perplexing. They spend more on capital expenditure but their network is still inferior in the cities. Their cost of service is higher but customers still rate them less favorable.

[atomic50]

They're deploying 5x5MHz band 2 in a ton of markets right now. I see a new post about it almost every day.

 

10+10 if PCS spectrum available too. Enough leftover to run narrow DC-HSPA+ and a couple GSM channels still too.

[avb]

LTE band 2 has been spotted in Houston.  This is good because I'm seeing a lot of areas with congestion nowadays so hopefully this will relieve the problem areas. (I have one T-Mobile line and one Sprint line).

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/tmobile/comments/4h0jc8/band_2_lte_spotted_in_houston/

[WiWavelength]

Responses to example here such as since I believe there ought to be three carriers in the U.S., and each carrier ought to be given a certain amount of spectrum which I've stated I believe ought to be a minimum of 30x30. I'll revise that a bit by saying that optimally what I'd like to be done though not realistic in terms of social/political realities and what not ("not realistic" being a respectful way of disagreeing, rather than using insulting statements such as "wireless fantasy land"), is for each of the three carriers (I'd like there to be an AT&T/T-Mobile just a bit more than a Sprint merger with T-Mobile, as Sprint I'd prefer to merge with U.S. Cellular and the other remaining regional/local CDMA-based carriers, then leave Verizon as is, since Verizon already is made from several older companies merged together to form Verizon) to get 45x45 spectrum on low-band and another 45x45 on mid-band, and then the equivalent of 90mhz each on TDD high-band I'd like to see established as an alternative to FDD on the other bands.

 

See, that is part of the problem, Arysyn.  You want equal/proportional spectrum for 3-4 national operators.  You want the government to pick winners and losers in an attempt at spectrum parity.  And you basically want the government to lock in VZW, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint (or Sprint-T-Mobile) as those national operators everywhere for all time.

 

But what about the smaller operators?  Where/how do they get their equal/proportional spectrum?  Your plan would be unfair to smaller operators/new entrants and foolish to cement the future already.

 

In urban markets, for example USCC in Milwaukee, where it is a Cellular incumbent, your attitude essentially is for the FCC to say, "Thanks for the multi decade head start, USCC, but get out of there.  Merge or go out of business.  VZW should have your Cellular A block spectrum to be on par with AT&T."  The same would hold true for USCC, its Cellular B block spectrum, and VZW in Tulsa.

 

In rural markets, for example Union Wireless in Wyoming, where it is a Cellular incumbent for half of the state, should the FCC tell Union, "The time has come.  AT&T needs your Cellular A block to gain parity with VZW.  So, we appreciate your service, Union, but goodbye?"

 

That is called robbing Peter to pay Paul.  In your wireless fantasy, there is little, if any room for other operators outside of the big 3-4. And that is practically nationalized oligopoly.

 

Well, if you are going down that path, why bother with even a big 3-4?  Just go with a big one.  The public spectrum and infrastructure company.

 

"VZW, AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint, Comcast, Charter, etc., you did some good things but failed on too many levels, broke too many promises.  We are revoking your licenses and franchise agreements.  And you are going to sell your networks to the government.  Using one standard, vendors will interconnect your existing networks, removing redundancy and especially expanding to every nook and cranny in this country -- because you refused to do so.  You can retain your brands and subscribers, but all of your services henceforth will be sold over the top (OTT) of the public spectrum and infrastructure network.  Plus, hundreds or thousands of others may join in becoming virtual operators on the public spectrum and infrastructure network."

 

If you are going to lean on or even force smaller operators to merge with the big 3-4, tit for tat, it would be fair to lean on or even force the big 3-4 (and the cable cabal) to merge with the government.

 

Now, there would be your spectrum parity.

 

Mic drop...

 

AJ

[Arysyn]

See, that is part of the problem, Arysyn.  You want equal/proportional spectrum for 3-4 national operators.  You want the government to pick winners and losers in an attempt at spectrum parity.  And you basically want the government to lock in VZW, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint (or Sprint-T-Mobile) as those national operators everywhere for all time.

 

But what about the smaller operators?  Where/how do they get their equal/proportional spectrum?  Your plan would be unfair to smaller operators/new entrants and foolish to cement the future already.

 

In urban markets, for example USCC in Milwaukee, where it is a Cellular incumbent, your attitude essentially is for the FCC to say, "Thanks for the multi decade head start, USCC, but get out of there.  Merge or go out of business.  VZW should have your Cellular A block spectrum to be on par with AT&T."  The same would hold true for USCC, its Cellular B block spectrum, and VZW in Tulsa.

 

In rural markets, for example Union Wireless in Wyoming, where it is a Cellular incumbent for half of the state, should the FCC tell Union, "The time has come.  AT&T needs your Cellular A block to gain parity with VZW.  So, we appreciate your service, Union, but goodbye?"

 

That is called robbing Peter to pay Paul.  In your wireless fantasy, there is little, if any room for other operators outside of the big 3-4. And that is practically nationalized oligopoly.

 

Well, if you are going down that path, why bother with even a big 3-4?  Just go with a big one.  The public spectrum and infrastructure company.

 

"VZW, AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint, Comcast, Charter, etc., you did some good things but failed on too many levels, broke too many promises.  We are revoking your licenses and franchise agreements.  And you are going to sell your networks to the government.  Using one standard, vendors will interconnect your existing networks, removing redundancy and especially expanding to every nook and cranny in this country -- because you refused to do so.  You can retain your brands and subscribers, but all of your services henceforth will be sold over the top (OTT) of the public spectrum and infrastructure network.  Plus, hundreds or thousands of others may join in becoming virtual operators on the public spectrum and infrastructure network."

 

If you are going to lean on or even force smaller operators to merge with the big 3-4, tit for tat, it would be fair to lean on or even force the big 3-4 (and the cable cabal) to merge with the government.

 

Now, there would be your spectrum parity.

 

Mic drop...

 

AJ

 

AJ,

 

I've been very clear in my posts I've written about this throughout various threads where people have brought up various facets of my ideas as part of this, such as devices, the political aspects, and the spectrum aspects, that I understand there is a level of separation from realism in these ideas. I've made it as a disclaimer actually in some of the posts I've written about how I'm deliberately writing my opinions because I'm not interested in having factual discussions and debates over things I'm frustrated about. I don't mind such things like commenting on something odd T-Mobile/John Legere does, or about a new device, discussing Sprint news, that sort of stuff more realism news and info I can get into well enough keeping completely on how things are, etc. However, when there is something being done by a carrier or within the wireless industry that I think is really bad or wrong in ways where I'm instantly thinking "why?", well then is when I don't like just saying such iand such is wrong, here is why I think that, without then following up with what I'd do to change it. Actually, I'd rather not even waste time saying why it's wrong and just get to my opinions on fixing it, because facts are so easily disputable not whther they are real, but its an easy way for people to get hooked onto sides, like Samsung loyalists and Apple loyalists arguing over the patent lawsuits. I never got involved in those, and had I done so, it wouldn't be to take part in the debate, but rather just state how I'd end the lawsuit to make peace.

 

This is what I don't think some people here understand of me. I'm not here to create chaos and belittle other people's ideas and opinions, or try to get into tech battles and flame wars. Granted, S4GRU is much more dignified of a site in general and while I don't see much of those going on here, from time to time I've seen tensions rise a bit, though it has been awhile. I'm a very peaceful person, but then again I really don't like how things are, I could go on for walls of text longer than the Great Wall of China here about everything I think is being done wrong in the world and how I'd fix it, but then again this is a wireless site, so I try keeping my posts here about that. The spectrum issue being one of those, along with the greater aspect of the issue which is to get wireless service the best it could be for customers. To me, that is more important even than what is fair for issues such as fair competition, or worrying about there not being enough of it, when fewer competition regulated properly could provide fairness to customers in a much better network experience for customers using fewer networks to do it.

 

People here are absolutely correct when they say wireless spectrum is finite, so there just isn't enough wireless spectrum to be given to multiple carriers and also maintain enough spectrum on each to provide a truly great near congestion free experience. T-Mobile has become significantly worse in many areas just from BingeOn, and while they have the least amount of spectrum, it isn't that much less than AT&T and Verizon individually, which they duopoly has many more customers than T-Mobile. So, it is a matter of these carriers to be very careful monitoring their networks and charging customers higher rates to keep from too much data being used. Not that I'm advocating data abuse though, but even 15gb monthly on their networks is quite expensive. So, I'm just stating my opinions of what I'd do if the real barriers that exist making these ideas less realistic were to subside, basically meaning that the carriers and the FCC were to truly work together for a better wireless industry without all the battling over these issues of realism they've instituted. These are things that at least could change, though due to societal nature, isn't realistic. Although, it is not quite wireless fairyland here. I'm not promoting radical technological ideas that would give coverage everywhere or magically create multiple layers of spectrum out of dividing cloud particles, etc. That stuff is fantasy.

 

To quickly address the mention you made about outside operators. I've written in other posts that I'd really like to see the regional/local CDMA operators be acquired by Sprint, such as U.S. Cellular and the other companies discussed here on S4GRU Sprint works closely with on roaming agreements. Merging with Sprint would be a lot of additional value for the customers of these carriers, as long as there were safety nets on whatever rate deals they have. I know consolidation often means rate hikes, but I believe this could be prevented and deals made in exchange for a real positive arrangement for these carriers to not have such spectrum crunches. I'll mention this now as I haven't yet; I know that there is concern among wifi users regarding usage of unlicensed spectrum for 5G. Carriers should not have to go this route, if they were able to work out better deals on licensed spectrum. I'll eventually give my technological plan on this sometime soon, and see if people here think it is a technical possibility or not. I'm not asking for whether or not that is realistically possible, only technically. Again, I'll get to that soon hopefully.

[WiWavelength]

Arysyn, as a suggestion, why not start your own S4GRU fantasy wireless league?  You can hold operator, spectrum license/band, and even CEO drafts.

 

AJ

[SkyGuy98]

See, that is part of the problem, Arysyn. You want equal/proportional spectrum for 3-4 national operators. You want the government to pick winners and losers in an attempt at spectrum parity. And you basically want the government to lock in VZW, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint (or Sprint-T-Mobile) as those national operators everywhere for all time.

 

But what about the smaller operators? Where/how do they get their equal/proportional spectrum? Your plan would be unfair to smaller operators/new entrants and foolish to cement the future already.

 

In urban markets, for example USCC in Milwaukee, where it is a Cellular incumbent, your attitude essentially is for the FCC to say, "Thanks for the multi decade head start, USCC, but get out of there. Merge or go out of business. VZW should have your Cellular A block spectrum to be on par with AT&T." The same would hold true for USCC, its Cellular B block spectrum, and VZW in Tulsa.

 

In rural markets, for example Union Wireless in Wyoming, where it is a Cellular incumbent for half of the state, should the FCC tell Union, "The time has come. AT&T needs your Cellular A block to gain parity with VZW. So, we appreciate your service, Union, but goodbye?"

 

That is called robbing Peter to pay Paul. In your wireless fantasy, there is little, if any room for other operators outside of the big 3-4. And that is practically nationalized oligopoly.

 

Well, if you are going down that path, why bother with even a big 3-4? Just go with a big one. The public spectrum and infrastructure company.

 

"VZW, AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint, Comcast, Charter, etc., you did some good things but failed on too many levels, broke too many promises. We are revoking your licenses and franchise agreements. And you are going to sell your networks to the government. Using one standard, vendors will interconnect your existing networks, removing redundancy and especially expanding to every nook and cranny in this country -- because you refused to do so. You can retain your brands and subscribers, but all of your services henceforth will be sold over the top (OTT) of the public spectrum and infrastructure network. Plus, hundreds or thousands of others may join in becoming virtual operators on the public spectrum and infrastructure network."

 

If you are going to lean on or even force smaller operators to merge with the big 3-4, tit for tat, it would be fair to lean on or even force the big 3-4 (and the cable cabal) to merge with the government.

 

Now, there would be your spectrum parity.

 

Mic drop...

 

AJ

That's kinda how I feel. Here in Iowa, Verizon and AT&T are the only decent major carriers. Sprint sucks outside of major cities and has some problems even inside the cities, and T-Mobile doesn't even have service here*.

 

However, because of current and past rules and actions, USCC is very strong everywhere in Iowa. Additionally, (here comes the explanation for the asterisk) iWireless is also a small, but strong carrier here. They are only in Iowa, but they are a roaming partner w/T-Mobile, so T-Mobile kinda has service (It's just native roaming).

 

Now, it's not to say that all carriers should keep what they have and continue to survive, I do wish that some spectrum (especially PCS) had been divided more smoothly (More carriers having continuous blocks instead of mixed and matched blocks), but I understand that the history of several blocks of spectrum like PCS and 700MHz are complicated, and it isn't always possible to have everything neat and orderly (maybe that's just my OCD kicking in [emoji6]).

[anthony.spina97]

Arysyn, as a suggestion, why not start your own S4GRU fantasy wireless league? You can hold operator, spectrum license/band, and even CEO drafts.

 

AJ

For this website, that's actually not that bad of an idea to be honest. If I were you, I would be copyrighting this idea ASAP.

 

-Anthony

[bigmachine]

For this website, that's actually not that bad of an idea to be honest. If I were you, I would be copyrighting this idea ASAP.

 

-Anthony

Ok. I'll play. Set the clock to October 1983 and I'll have dibs on CLR A spectrum in every market for free.

[Arysyn]

Arysyn, as a suggestion, why not start your own S4GRU fantasy wireless league?  You can hold operator, spectrum license/band, and even CEO drafts.

 

AJ

 

So, AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile are fantasy wireless carriers? Hmm... I know I've written quite a lot here lately, but I don't recall ever writing about any fantasy wireless carriers here that don't exist, nor have I even tried making anything up like that. Nor have I even bothered getting into the whole CEO mess. Seems your the one obsessed  with fantasy here, AJ. As I do recall, some here weren't too impressed with your political ramblings here recently. Perhaps you could start your own fantasy political blog here and see how that works out.

[WiWavelength]

So, AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile are fantasy wireless carriers?

 

Arysyn, if you cannot catch that fantasy football/baseball/basketball reference, then you have not been living in the real world, ironically, for at least the past decade.

 

AJ

[Arysyn]

Arysyn, if you cannot catch that fantasy football/baseball/basketball reference, then you have not been living in the real world, ironically, for at least the past decade.

 

AJ

 

I don't pay attention to sports. I don't wish to support men making millions of dollars just to play work.

[Destroyallcubes]

They're deploying 5x5MHz band 2 in a ton of markets right now. I see a new post about it almost every day.

They already have Band 2, a 5x5 carrier in the GMO sites here in eastern texas, south of tyler. Band 12 is active around I 20 east of dallas, and band 4 is at 15x15mhz. Compared to verizon with a 10x10 700mhz, and 15x15 band 4. Att is killing is with a 10x10 in Band 2, band 12, and at least a single  5x5 block in band 5. And I want to say band 30 is here, or almost here. Sprint is running 2 5x5 band 25, and a single 5x5 b26 carrier.

[Arysyn]

Arysyn, if you cannot catch that fantasy football/baseball/basketball reference, then you have not been living in the real world, ironically, for at least the past decade.

 

AJ

 

A more accurate representation in an analogy between fantasy sports and fantasy wireless would be such where people would deal in wireless spectrum trading, tower swapping, snatching up device exclusivities, and the one thing you mentioned that may be correct, is executive trading. Actually, executive trading probably would be the closest in similarity. However, I don't recall my ever proposing any sort of executive trading, which had I done so probably would have involved many detailed posts of why Marcelo Claure would make a better executive than John Legere, and how they could trade him for say, Braxton Carter. Possibly place bets on mix and match to form the best team by laying out pros and cons of each executive and then wager how long it would take for such and such executive combination to executive enough fine strategy to grow the business, of course based on a multitude of various qualifications.

 

I really can't remember ever talking much about any of that. Some people here have ignored my clear indication that in my ideas I've presented, would give all carriers the same amount of spectrum and that it would be the carriers complete responsibility to grow their own networks with that spectrum, not the FCC. It would be a simple tradeoff of one thing only, that is spectrum for an ironclad agreement not to charge over a certain dollar amount. I've never given an exact number figure for what that should be, just that I'd like it to be something that would give customers more money to spend on devices so that it would help the device market. I believe strongly in device becoming more technically advanced quicker than what they have been for awhile. Nothing wrong for wanting that to happen, but I believe an important way for that to happen is to give people more money to spend it on, which lowering monthly service spending is a great way at doing that.

 

Yet, it also is important for these devices to have the best connections which rely on networks not to be congested. More spectrum means less congestion, either that or raising the rates higher so people can't afford to use their devices connected to the networks. I, along with most consumers would rather service be more affordable so there is more value in owning a device, which is the only way devices can sell better if more people are using them for everything they are intended for. Yet, the carriers have the responsibility of building their networks, not the FCC nor government. So, if carriers were given the spectrum equally at a fair price, which the cheaper rate for the spectrum is the part of the deal in exchange for giving customers a lower service rate, carriers would then be able to expand their networks to use that spectrum even better, which creates a better U.S. wireless industry that attracts device manufacturers to, that could sell their products to willing customers who can afford them because of it and their affordable service rates.

 

Nothing "fantasy" about wanting it, and since it is technically possible, it isn't "fantasy" in that regard either. The only thing I'll admit to here, is that it is less realistic only due to the nature in which people operate. People should be able to change to work better together and playing wireless "fantasy" game isn't going to help it, meaning based on its closest likelihood to the example analogy between it and fantasy sports, trading executives to match the best possible team of industry leaders, well, isn't going to do it either. Hence why again, I've never, not now, now ever will play "fantasy wireless" as trading executives sure isn't going to lead to giving good ideas, such as what I've proposed. Now, everyone will have a differing opinion of course. Some don't like the idea of consolidating carriers, which I completely understand. People here seem fine with just discussing how things are and commenting on the latest news, which is fine too, nothing wrong with that. It would be wrong of me to criticize what works here on S4GRU, and really there isn't much to criticize. This is a very good website.

 

However, if people come along to join S4GRU who like talking about their ideas for the wireless industry, I'll be the last person to ever condemn and criticize them for talking "fantasy". Even if they actually do talk "fantasy" here, which equates to my earlier examples of things like turning the clouds into wireless spectrum then having automatic flying drones shoot particle shifting lasers through the sky to turn vapor into the equivalent of 900x900 FDD wireless spectrum the carriers could use by aiming rotating detection equipment connected to cell towers to pick up and distribute over tiny advanced antennas providing 1000 square miles of equal coverage, then while that certainly is "fantasy", I still won't ridicule them for it. After all, sometimes bold fantastical ideas can eventually become reality, no matter how silly they may sound at one point.

[Fraydog]

I'm not going to rip anyone for having different opinions. But could we shorten things a little? Is that too much to ask? I personally would love having the US Spectrum alignments changed a little, but there's common sense ways to do that without blowing up the system like B28 and things like that.

 

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[MacinJosh]

.................

 

Now, there would be your spectrum parity.

 

Mic drop...

 

AJ

What you described is the perfect scenario for socialism or even a possibility of communism, where the government controls everything. I'd call that the "Dark Ages of Wireless".

 

Canada just recently pulled out of that in the last couple decades, and look how that's worked out. The major carriers up there still price gouge people's limbs off for service. I'd never want anything like that here in America!

[Arysyn]

What you described is the perfect scenario for socialism or even a possibility of communism, where the government controls everything. I'd call that the "Dark Ages of Wireless".

 

Canada just recently pulled out of that in the last couple decades, and look how that's worked out. The major carriers up there still price gouge people's limbs off for service. I'd never want anything like that here in America!

 

Canada actually is a country where my opinion differs a bit from here in the U.S., in that I believe Canada ought to not have any national providers, but instead have two or three dedicated carriers in each province. Canada is too large for a carrier to cover properly while also having reasonable service rates. If a carrier there raised rates in order to have a really great national network, customers would be purchasing devices even less, and from what I've heard, they have long-term contracts which limits people from regularly upgrading their devices. With that said, I've never heard Canada mentioned as a really great example of wireless network experience excellence.

 

Perhaps Canada would do well having a similar idea to mine, though on province only levels. However, being that there are many more rural areas in Canada not all having access to the internet, there is more importance for people there to have their broadcasters to have more spectrum here, where the U.S. is getting very close to having everything be able to operate over the internet once every area here where there is a population can have access to broadband internet at reasonable rates. This is important to be able to free up more spectrum that can be used by wireless carriers. In Canada though, this is a lot more difficult to do. Hence a reason for the price gouging in Canada. However, here in the U.S. a lot of prices are increasing, device releasing is slowing, and networks are becoming more congested. Hence thee need for some sort of action here to lower costs while improving the networks and get more device choices here.

[WiWavelength]

Ok. I'll play. Set the clock to October 1983 and I'll have dibs on CLR A spectrum in every market for free.

 

Just the Cellular A block?  The Cellular B block is more useful -- because of the 2.5 MHz FDD Cellular B high segment.

 

Regardless, with the number one pick in the S4GRU Arysyn fantasy wireless draft, AJ selects the entire Cellular 850 MHz band.  The Cellular cross ownership rule is long gone.  So, I could run three CDMA1X carriers or one W-CDMA carrier and 20 MHz FDD all in that 50 MHz (25 MHz FDD) of low band spectrum.

 

AJ

[MacinJosh]

Canada is too large for a carrier to cover properly while also having reasonable service rates.

 

That's not entirely true. Wind Mobile, Canada's newest wireless carrier, has been making strides to provide affordable service to their customers in all areas of Canada, not just their native network. Over the last year and a half, after launching service in certain "major" cities up north, Wind started working with the other 3 major carriers on roaming agreements that started less than stellar. But as of now, they have a $60/mo plan (*limited time only) that offers 2400 minutes of calling anywhere in Canada & the US outside of their native network as well as 1GB of data, plus unlimited global texting, yet they continue to expand their network a little at a time at great cost being the smallest Canadian carrier.

[Arysyn]

That's not entirely true. Wind Mobile, Canada's newest wireless carrier, has been making strides to provide affordable service to their customers in all areas of Canada, not just their native network. Over the last year and a half, after launching service in certain "major" cities up north, Wind started working with the other 3 major carriers on roaming agreements that started less than stellar. But as of now, they have a $60/mo plan (*limited time only) that offers 2400 minutes of calling anywhere in Canada & the US outside of their native network as well as 1GB of data, plus unlimited global texting, yet they continue to expand their network a little at a time at great cost being the smallest Canadian carrier.

 

hmm... I didn't know Canada had a 4th carrier. Every time I've read about Canada in a post or comment that is wireless related, always is a complaint about the three carrier system there, too expensive, and three-year contracts.

[Arysyn]

Just the Cellular A block?  The Cellular B block is more useful -- because of the 2.5 MHz FDD Cellular B high segment.

 

Regardless, with the number one pick in the S4GRU Arysyn fantasy wireless draft, AJ selects the entire Cellular 850 MHz band.  The Cellular cross ownership rule is long gone.  So, I could run three CDMA1X carriers or one W-CDMA carrier and 20 MHz FDD all in that 50 MHz (25 MHz FDD) of low band spectrum.

 

AJ

 

There is no "Arysyn" wireless draft, AJ. btw, you are way too occupied with using the word "fantasy". It is a bit disturbing coming from someone who tries to be/is a wireless expert. After all, I thought you were all about dealing in real. Is thinking of fantasies, sports, and Seinfeld, along with bullying people as a staff member on a wireless forum helping you age well, AJ?

[Arysyn]

They already have Band 2, a 5x5 carrier in the GMO sites here in eastern texas, south of tyler. Band 12 is active around I 20 east of dallas, and band 4 is at 15x15mhz. Compared to verizon with a 10x10 700mhz, and 15x15 band 4. Att is killing is with a 10x10 in Band 2, band 12, and at least a single  5x5 block in band 5. And I want to say band 30 is here, or almost here. Sprint is running 2 5x5 band 25, and a single 5x5 b26 carrier.

 

AT&T has a lot of 10x10 spectrum frequencies here in the Chicago area, but one of them just recently went to 15x15. I can't remember if it was AWS or PCS though.