T-Mobile LTE & Network Discussion V2

[EvanA]

Yeah, it is the band 12 Lower 700 MHz A block from AT&T/Leap Wireless. Who knows how much T-Mobile had to pay for that chunk of spectrum, though? Financial terms were not disclosed. And do not expect any usable deployment until late this year or early next year.

 

https://newsroom.t-mobile.com/news-and-blogs/t-mobile-secures-new-spectrum-to-deliver-extended-range-lte-to-chicago-area.htm

 

AJ

The deal doesn't actually close until Q4, so I highly doubt deployment this year.

[richy]

That Reddit thread indicated from the spectrum holding company press release that the purchase price is $420 million -- double what Leap Wireless paid in its acquisition of the Chicago BEA Lower 700 MHz A block a few years ago.

 

Good.  Pay through the nose, T-Mobile, pay through the nose.  You want low band spectrum?  You have to pony up the cash.

 

And you deserve all of the financial pain that you can bear -- because you want people actually to believe that you can be a little man's VZW or even the equal of AT&T in the span of just a year or two.  Not to mention, some of your executive team conduct themselves like such frat boy asshats.

 

AJ

 

Ouch, some unresolved anger issues there But I don't disagree over their exec team. Sadly it seems to be working.

 

Your comment re them being the equal, it's funny how they seem to think its ok to say one thing and then flip later. When the sprint merger was a thing I remember JL saying that t would take decades for tmo to grow organically to match verizon / att. Now for marketing purposes that is totally forgotten. On one level its smart that they are trumping their real network gains, but its sad they are trying to position themselves as an equal on network terms to verizon. I like tmos service but honestly they are just not in the same league. Even att isnt in the same league here. On one level it annoys me because its mostly lies but I try and balance that against the fact that its marketing which is basically all lies. I try and focus on the fact that both sprint and tmo are making huge strides in their networks. I know there is a big fuss about their capex spend but even the reduced capex is 3x higher than it was 10 years ago. capex will always fluctuate and quality of spend is just as important as quantity. Sprint has a plan, it seems to make sense, lets see how the results pan out.

[Paynefanbro]

The biggest question mark will be how they choose to deploy the spectrum. Does L700 go on every site, or every other site, or every 4th site? That's the million dollar question.

 

In rural and suburban markets, deploying L700 at full power helps blanket the area with coverage, but does nothing for capacity.

Likely every site but at a low power level just like in NYC. Sprint did the same. In these cases it isn't the best for increased coverage but for capacity it works decently.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[Arysyn]

That Reddit thread indicated from the spectrum holding company press release that the purchase price is $420 million -- double what Leap Wireless paid in its acquisition of the Chicago BEA Lower 700 MHz A block a few years ago.

 

Good.  Pay through the nose, T-Mobile, pay through the nose.  You want low band spectrum?  You have to pony up the cash.

 

And you deserve all of the financial pain that you can bear -- because you want people actually to believe that you can be a little man's VZW or even the equal of AT&T in the span of just a year or two.  Not to mention, some of your executive team conduct themselves like such frat boy asshats.

 

AJ

 

Despite my being glad T-Mobile got this spectrum, I do agree with what AJ said here. Its not only that though, but all the complaints T-Mobile reps probably heard from customers in the lesser spectrum markets, especially those without low-band spectrum where people complain about dead zones in an industry where every carrier really ought to have some low-band spectrum. This is why while I know Sprint could have done a better deal for low-band spectrum years ago, at least they went about it while the timing was right and have served customers with that low-band spectrum for many years now, other than in those IBEZ areas people here talk about.

 

I'd still say T-Mobile had a better opportunity on it, but waited too long. Still, it is nice to know they have it here in the Chicago market now and so unless there is some super miraculous deal that gets offered to me for switching to Sprint or AT&T, looks like T-Mobile will be a pretty great alternative considering the rate my mother and I get, along with having the dead zones covered with this spectrum. Now we'll see what happens with the 600mhz spectrum.

[Fraydog]

Yeah I'm sure Sprint has zero affect on Att and Verizon in Chicago..

I'm speaking in the second paragraph more about where I live. Sprint doesn't sell to my ZIP code.

The biggest question mark will be how they choose to deploy the spectrum. Does L700 go on every site, or every other site, or every 4th site? That's the million dollar question.

 

In rural and suburban markets, deploying L700 at full power helps blanket the area with coverage, but does nothing for capacity.

There's definitely some in-building issues in the city itself that can be resolved with this coverage. Spectrum wise, there needs to be greater densification.

While having the ability to cover more POP is great, but to be honest, I see very little merit in deploying 5x5 700 in a market that is completely capacity strained.

Suburban and a good chunk of downstate down to Bloomington and Clinton are served by this license. USCC holds most of the rest including large areas they no longer serve. T-Mobile already holds 700 A in primarily rural Southern Illinois counties along the Indiana and Kentucky borders like Massac, White, and Lawrence counties.

The deal doesn't actually close until Q4, so I highly doubt deployment this year.

Usually T-Mobile comes swinging out of the gate with deployment. That said, how much they cover is an open question.

 

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[WiWavelength]

Compared to what values are post AWS-3, I must dissent here. I don't think that TMUS is overvaluing Chicago at all.

 

Who said that T-Mobile is "overvaluing" this spectrum?  Only that T-Mobile is paying a pretty penny, close to half a billion dollars.  Good.  Get out the checkbook.

 

Do you know what Sprint paid for its entire first tract of PCS 1900 MHz spectrum?  PCS A/B block 30 MHz (15 MHz FDD) spectrum that covered most of the country.

 

Take a look...

 

 

Sprint was bidding as WirelessCo -- for those who are unfamiliar.  But just a little over $2 billion.  Well played.

 

The online peanut gallery commenters like to crap on Sprint all of the time.  Sprint never does anything right.  Wrong.

 

During the Bill Esrey CEO era, Sprint came out of the first PCS 1900 MHz auction with a treasure trove of spectrum that still is its core to this day and would be almost impossible to assemble to that breadth and depth today for any price, let alone, just a little over $2 billion.

 

AJ

[Arysyn]

I still think spectrum is too expensive. Understandably it is worth it for carriers to pay when they really need the spectrum and I don't think carriers should avoid purchasing the spectrum at these rates. However, I would like it if the spectrum cost less and carriers could purchase more of it while still having money to spend on upgrading their networks. I know there are the two forms of opinion on what to do, whether to buy more spectrum at higher rates then deal with its deployment the best way possible, or use the spectrum carriers have in the most efficient ways by focusing on site expansion, upgrades, etc. I believe both ought to be possible. I hate how there almost always seems to be sacrifses to achieve something that will never be "complete". Yes it is the way the world works, but I really think people ought to be striving for something better.

[WiWavelength]

I still think spectrum is too expensive.

 

If spectrum is "too expensive," then it should not be auctioned/sold/leased in the first place.  It should be assigned to one and only one infrastructure entity to deploy -- anybody else can buy capacity to sell services over that spectrum.

 

Otherwise, spectrum will cost whatever the market will bear.  And the FCC has a Congress mandated fiduciary responsibility to the US Treasury.

 

AJ

[Fraydog]

The online peanut gallery commenters like to crap on Sprint all of the time. Sprint never does anything right. Wrong.

 

During the Bill Esrey CEO era, Sprint came out of the first PCS 1900 MHz auction with a treasure trove of spectrum that still is its core to this day and would be almost impossible to assemble to that breadth and depth today for any price, let alone, just a little over $2 billion.

 

Unfortunately Esrey got fired over a tax case that ended up being complete BS. That had much greater ramifications than people realize even to this day. Sprint lost their best leader at a time when they needed steady leadership.

 

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[Arysyn]

If spectrum is "too expensive," then it should not be auctioned/sold/leased in the first place.  It should be assigned to one and only one infrastructure entity to deploy -- anybody else can buy capacity to sell services over that spectrum.

 

Otherwise, spectrum will cost whatever the market will bear.  And the FCC has a Congress mandated fiduciary responsibility to the US Treasury.

 

AJ

 

I'm not a fan of the auction system and have spoken to some people about this issue lately who have different ideas as to how it could be allotted better than by auction. I think there ought to be the same discussion going on with carriers in a way they can organize a mutual group of reformers that could lobby the FCC for changes, even minor changes that make it easier to get spectrum would be a good start.

[payturr]

I still think spectrum is too expensive. Understandably it is worth it for carriers to pay when they really need the spectrum and I don't think carriers should avoid purchasing the spectrum at these rates. However, I would like it if the spectrum cost less and carriers could purchase more of it while still having money to spend on upgrading their networks. I know there are the two forms of opinion on what to do, whether to buy more spectrum at higher rates then deal with its deployment the best way possible, or use the spectrum carriers have in the most efficient ways by focusing on site expansion, upgrades, etc. I believe both ought to be possible. I hate how there almost always seems to be sacrifses to achieve something that will never be "complete". Yes it is the way the world works, but I really think people ought to be striving for something better.

There's no such thing as "too expensive" in a capitalist market.

 

Spectrum is a finite resource much like oil, except far more finite since we have an exact idea of what frequencies we can use and for what. Because of this, the cost of spectrum per individual it can cover is of course gonna be a fortune. Once all the spectrum has been divided and sold, it's gone forever (unless someone goes bankrupt or this ridiculous incentive auction).

 

If there's someone willing to pay, it's not too expensive.

[reedacus25]

The biggest question mark will be how they choose to deploy the spectrum. Does L700 go on every site, or every other site, or every 4th site? That's the million dollar question.

 

In rural and suburban markets, deploying L700 at full power helps blanket the area with coverage, but does nothing for capacity.

10 MHz of deployed LTE does nothing for capacity? B25 is a 10 MHz carrier. Does 2c B25 not matter because it's just 10 MHz?

 

While having the ability to cover more POP is great, but to be honest, I see very little merit in deploying 5x5 700 in a market that is completely capacity strained.

 

Spectrum/capacity constrained + spectrum/capacity = little merit?

 

Sure it's not going to help post 900 Mb speed tests, but it's going to add 33% more capacity to the LTE RAN, and greenfield at that, without cannibalizing PCS yet. So calling 5x5 not good for capacity is without merit.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Arysyn]

There's no such thing as "too expensive" in a capitalist market.

 

Spectrum is a finite resource much like oil, except far more finite since we have an exact idea of what frequencies we can use and for what. Because of this, the cost of spectrum per individual it can cover is of course gonna be a fortune. Once all the spectrum has been divided and sold, it's gone forever (unless someone goes bankrupt or this ridiculous incentive auction).

 

If there's someone willing to pay, it's not too expensive.

 

Spectrum is finite, but it really doesn't have to be as limited as it is. Even as I prefer there being a three carrier wireless market in the U.S. (my opinion, not meaning to argue the positives and negatives of this), I still believe there could be more spectrum allotted to carriers in the current four carrier U.S. market, though I still do advocate for a particular arrangement of spectrum with a three carrier market..

 

However, I don't see how there couldn't be a system where each carrier in the current four carrier market couldn't have 30x30 low-band, 30x30 mid-band, and 30x30 high-band. This would resolve much of the congestion issues on the networks. There would need to be some difficult changes made to do this, but with technology advancing though I still  believe it could be quicker in the wireless market if certain things were done, there ought to be some changes made to the access of spectrum.

 

Again I know the importance of site expansion and equipment solutions to resolve some of the spectrum shortage issues making more efficient use of existing spectrum in place, though admittedly I definitely think more about increasing spectrum allotments as much as reasonably possible making room for important public spectrum uses, such as radio testing, emergency response, defense, etc. 

[nexgencpu]

10 MHz of deployed LTE does nothing for capacity? B25 is a 10 MHz carrier. Does 2c B25 not matter because it's just 10 MHz?

 

Spectrum/capacity constrained + spectrum/capacity = little merit?

Sure it's not going to help post 900 Mb speed tests, but it's going to add 33% more capacity to the LTE RAN, and greenfield at that, without cannibalizing PCS yet. So calling 5x5 not good for capacity is without merit.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Combining low band with a very small chunk of spectrum is not really ideal.

 

Here in NYC is a perfect example of how easily that 10mhz gets saturated. Just ask any user that gets pushed back to B26 or B12 here in NYC, they'll tell yah.

[payturr]

However, I don't see how there couldn't be a system where each carrier in the current four carrier market couldn't have 30x30 low-band, 30x30 mid-band, and 30x30 high-band. This would resolve much of the congestion issues on the networks. There would need to be some difficult changes made to do this, but with technology advancing though I still believe it could be quicker in the wireless market if certain things were done, there ought to be some changes made to the access of spectrum.

 

The reason that doesn't exist is because they don't have the money, and if the FCC gave 30x30 of every band type the market would be BORING. Like SO BORING. Who would bother trying if they each have the same amount? It's unexciting, it's not sexy, and it makes for bad marketing.

 

The current situation makes stuff exciting! T-Mobile is FANTASTIC in NYC but is pure CRAP in Madison! That spurs competition that makes Sprint VZ and AT&T take shots at them, it keeps marketing fresh, innovation fresh, and the industry being something worth talking about.

 

Who would make MIMO if we all have the same amount spectrum? There's no point

[Arysyn]

The reason that doesn't exist is because they don't have the money, and if the FCC gave 30x30 of every band type the market would be BORING. Like SO BORING. Who would bother trying if they each have the same amount? It's unexciting, it's not sexy, and it makes for bad marketing.

 

The current situation makes stuff exciting! T-Mobile is FANTASTIC in NYC but is pure CRAP in Madison! That spurs competition that makes Sprint VZ and AT&T take shots at them, it keeps marketing fresh, innovation fresh, and the industry being something worth talking about.

 

Who would make MIMO if we all have the same amount spectrum? There's no point

 

Carriers don't advertise spectrum amounts though. Really the only people who know about spectrum besides the FCC, carrier employees and engineers, people in the industry pretty much, are people who read about wireless technology online. Carriers do however advertise their network, which while spectrum is an important part to the network, it isn't much a part of the marketing. Most consumers when they here about network, they think of which carrier has the most towers in the area in which they travel or are located in. They may even search online for tower maps and reviews of area-specific network experiences from other people who write about it online. In most cases, those reviews will be about the signal quality and data speed, sometimes along with tower information, though certainly not as detailed to the extent as what can be found and learned here on S4GRU.

 

Yet, rarely anything much about spectrum, and probably is a major reason why in cases such as with Sprint, they advertise saying stuff like "Spark"  back when that term was used, and now "LTE Plus". Sprint doesn't come out saying "Enjoy 50% off on the amazingly fast 2x carrier aggregation network which uses 40mhz of spectrum that can be used in a variety of ways to service the download or the upload, whereas our competitors who in some areas though no where near as much as ours, use 40mhz as 20x20 spectrum. They can't be as flexible with their spectrum as we can with our spectrum. We simply have the best spectrum, period!" Same way T-Mobile doesn't advertise their band 12 700mhz spectrum as just that. Instead, it is the  "Extended Range LTE".

 

Regarding the carriers having the same amount of spectrum nationwide as boring, really doesn't apply here. Just ask anyone what their network experiences would be like going from one well-built area to another using 30x30 spectrum. Say if this spectrum amount were true across the four nationwide carriers. Then tell people about it and hear their reactions as they go around with their devices in these well-built areas (in terms of network build) rarely ever going into a congested area, pretty much most of the time getting a minimum of 15mbps to 18mbps which is the speed I've heard from some power users they'd be acceptable/comfortable with for a speed cap if this speed could be maintained. However, in the scenario of 30x30 spectrum nationwide across carriers, most people would get speeds far greater than that much of the time without a speed cap set to that.

 

I'd very much guarantee most of the people asked what they think under those network conditions would say how wonderful things have become for them using the networks. Of course, there ought to be appropriate safeguards to prevent network abuse I'd imagine could still greatly hinder even a 30x30 x 3 network. Oh, one correction, on high-band it wouldn't be 30x30, but 60mhz. I just like using the average equivalent it could be run at with 3xca which I believe high-band ought to be TDD, while the mid-band and lower-band remain FDD. The point however, is I seriously doubt people would be saying this situation as "boring" I doubt people actually like seeing their network quality fluctuate to being crappy in certain areas and thinking, "Well, at least this 5x5 network isn't 30x30. Those much better speeds I'd be getting then would be oh so boring!"

[avb]

 

However, I don't see how there couldn't be a system where each carrier in the current four carrier market couldn't have 30x30 low-band, 30x30 mid-band, and 30x30 high-band. 

 

4 carriers each having 30x30 low-band, 30x30 mid-band, and 30x30 high-band?  That's 120x120 total spectrum of each band type (and eliminates regional carriers from operating).  There isn't that much spectrum currently available for use today.

[tyroned3222]

john posted this yesterday evening. So, this means they will have a big Q2.. neville ray is very aggressive with the network roll-out... more profits coming in. How much longer can they keep up the momentum?

 

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

[payturr]

Carriers don't advertise spectrum amounts though. Really the only people who know about spectrum besides the FCC, carrier employees and engineers, people in the industry pretty much, are people who read about wireless technology online. Carriers do however advertise their network, which while spectrum is an important part to the network, it isn't much a part of the marketing. Most consumers when they here about network, they think of which carrier has the most towers in the area in which they travel or are located in. They may even search online for tower maps and reviews of area-specific network experiences from other people who write about it online. In most cases, those reviews will be about the signal quality and data speed, sometimes along with tower information, though certainly not as detailed to the extent as what can be found and learned here on S4GRU.

 

Yet, rarely anything much about spectrum, and probably is a major reason why in cases such as with Sprint, they advertise saying stuff like "Spark" back when that term was used, and now "LTE Plus". Sprint doesn't come out saying "Enjoy 50% off on the amazingly fast 2x carrier aggregation network which uses 40mhz of spectrum that can be used in a variety of ways to service the download or the upload, whereas our competitors who in some areas though no where near as much as ours, use 40mhz as 20x20 spectrum. They can't be as flexible with their spectrum as we can with our spectrum. We simply have the best spectrum, period!" Same way T-Mobile doesn't advertise their band 12 700mhz spectrum as just that. Instead, it is the "Extended Range LTE".

 

Regarding the carriers having the same amount of spectrum nationwide as boring, really doesn't apply here. Just ask anyone what their network experiences would be like going from one well-built area to another using 30x30 spectrum. Say if this spectrum amount were true across the four nationwide carriers. Then tell people about it and hear their reactions as they go around with their devices in these well-built areas (in terms of network build) rarely ever going into a congested area, pretty much most of the time getting a minimum of 15mbps to 18mbps which is the speed I've heard from some power users they'd be acceptable/comfortable with for a speed cap if this speed could be maintained. However, in the scenario of 30x30 spectrum nationwide across carriers, most people would get speeds far greater than that much of the time without a speed cap set to that.

 

I'd very much guarantee most of the people asked what they think under those network conditions would say how wonderful things have become for them using the networks. Of course, there ought to be appropriate safeguards to prevent network abuse I'd imagine could still greatly hinder even a 30x30 x 3 network. Oh, one correction, on high-band it wouldn't be 30x30, but 60mhz. I just like using the average equivalent it could be run at with 3xca which I believe high-band ought to be TDD, while the mid-band and lower-band remain FDD. The point however, is I seriously doubt people would be saying this situation as "boring" I doubt people actually like seeing their network quality fluctuate to being crappy in certain areas and thinking, "Well, at least this 5x5 network isn't 30x30. Those much better speeds I'd be getting then would be oh so boring!"

It's boring because no one would try, that's what you're missing. If I have 240MHz of spectrum and the guy next to me has 240MHz and the guy behind me also has 240MHz, what's the point? I'm not making new tech to squeeze the most out of it. I'm just gonna chill cause regardless of the situation we will all have the same speeds and capacity at the end of the day. Tech innovation ceases, no one has "lightning fast" or "extended range" LTE. Because it's ALL THE SAME.

 

The way the system is makes people get to WORK. Verizon knew CDMA wasn't gonna last, they needed more. What did they do? Throw 20MHz, a TINY SLIVER, at LTE and made a network exponentially faster than the existing one. That's innovation. The threat of death because of small spectrum holdings keeps carriers on their toes. If everyone has equal holdings, nothing is interesting. I am interesting and you are interesting because I am me and you are you. If we had the same opinions and thoughts, we'd be boring.

[Fraydog]

The reason that doesn't exist is because they don't have the money, and if the FCC gave 30x30 of every band type the market would be BORING. Like SO BORING. Who would bother trying if they each have the same amount? It's unexciting, it's not sexy, and it makes for bad marketing.

 

The current situation makes stuff exciting! T-Mobile is FANTASTIC in NYC but is pure CRAP in Madison! That spurs competition that makes Sprint VZ and AT&T take shots at them, it keeps marketing fresh, innovation fresh, and the industry being something worth talking about.

 

Who would make MIMO if we all have the same amount spectrum? There's no point

Madison, WI? T-Mobile barely has spectrum there. Might explain why they suck there.

 

NY isn't that spectrum rich either but the head engineer there, Salim Kouidri, is really good.

 

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[Fraydog]

john posted this yesterday evening. So, this means they will have a big Q2.. neville ray is very aggressive with the network roll-out... more profits coming in. How much longer can they keep up the momentum?

 

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

I'm surprised the big two hasn't done more to respond. AT&T brought back Unlimited but that is attached to DirecTV and strikes me more as a gimmick. Pricing on the big two has to drop a little more to slow Tmo gains. That said, we won't see real competition until the T-Mobile people steal the top end customers. To do that, they almost need an integrated or business play. Most corporate still rolls with Verizon or AT&T. Business mobility is still a huge profits center for the bigs. I'm not sure how T-Mobile cracks that market without a big acquisition of some sort.

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[red_dog007]

Dang, $420million.  Average price for the two 10MHz blocks in AWS3 was $575million.  Doesn't seem like 600MHz will be all too cheap?

 

Spectrum would still be worthless if it wasn't for this explosive demand for mobile data! Demand drives prices.  If there was no demand, there would be no need for additional spectrum for cellular.  People see money, businesses and the government a like want to profit off that.  After all these years of just giving away spectrum to get people and businesses to use it and innovate uses for it, cellular is that gold mine everyone was waiting for.

[tyroned3222]

I'm surprised the big two hasn't done more to respond. AT&T brought back Unlimited but that is attached to DirecTV and strikes me more as a gimmick. Pricing on the big two has to drop a little more to slow Tmo gains. That said, we won't see real competition until the T-Mobile people steal the top end customers. To do that, they almost need an integrated or business play. Most corporate still rolls with Verizon or AT&T. Business mobility is still a huge profits center for the bigs. I'm not sure how T-Mobile cracks that market without a big acquisition of some sort.

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

I agree! T mobile should continue to grow the rest of the year! Buisness/corporate is a huge part of the buisness ( there buisness plans are attractive). T mobiles pricing is starting to be similar to verizon t mobile has a lot more value with there price.. at the rate t mobile is growing now it will take them 13 years to catch verizon (if verizons growth declines). Maybe t mobile and dish will set up a deal

 

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

[tyroned3222]

I'm surprised the big two hasn't done more to respond. AT&T brought back Unlimited but that is attached to DirecTV and strikes me more as a gimmick. Pricing on the big two has to drop a little more to slow Tmo gains. That said, we won't see real competition until the T-Mobile people steal the top end customers. To do that, they almost need an integrated or business play. Most corporate still rolls with Verizon or AT&T. Business mobility is still a huge profits center for the bigs. I'm not sure how T-Mobile cracks that market without a big acquisition of some sort.

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Also, the big 2 have 120 million plus subs.. so im sure there not worried about until they start losing a million customets a quarter

 

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

[payturr]

Madison, WI? T-Mobile barely has spectrum there. Might explain why they suck there.

 

NY isn't that spectrum rich either but the head engineer there, Salim Kouidri, is really good.

 

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Proves a point - T-Mobile doesn't even have 100MHz of spectrum in NYC, but they innovated to make a total of 60MHz KILL. Giving everyone an equal footing will not breed innovation.