T-Mobile LTE & Network Discussion V2

[Paynefanbro]

The difference being NYC's macro site density on T-Mobile being unmatched. Verizon matches with their small cells and Sprint might be able to catch up with small cells.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[WiWavelength]

The difference being NYC's macro site density on T-Mobile being unmatched. Verizon matches with their small cells and Sprint might be able to catch up with small cells.

 

Should we really hold up NYC -- or Seattle, for that matter -- as a representative sample of T-Mobile?  After all, NYC was Omnipoint's major market 20 years ago.  It focused on NYC.

 

And slicked back Legere splits his time between residences in NYC and Seattle.  He does not drive in between.  He just flies in between.  Is it any surprise that NYC gets some priority?

 

Heck, I am not going to argue with you that Sprint is great everywhere just because it kicks ass in Kansas City.  And it does, despite the high market share here.

 

As for NYC, I had problems with T-Mobile band 4 LTE at Yankee Stadium when I was in town two weeks ago.  W-CDMA worked better.  Sprint/Clearwire band 41 LTE was no great shakes at just 1-4 Mbps.  But it worked.  Unlike T-Mobile.

 

AJ

[Deval]

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.

 

It's just extra capacity, nothing more.

[Deval]

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

 

That's what I was thinking as well. Would make the most sense but also would cost the most.

[Deval]

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

 

I didn't say that at all, was actually asking how they would deploy it, every site or every 3-4th site?

[Deval]

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

 

The difference is that SMB customers may look at T-Mobile, but no major company will ever switch because they look for more than just mobility. 

[richy]

The difference is that SMB customers may look at T-Mobile, but no major company will ever switch because they look for more than just mobility. 

 

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

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

[Arysyn]

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.

 

There would have to be some working in the current spectrum to make this possible. I think its more likely to work with three carriers though. I'm looking at spectrum in the 600, 700, and 800 bands, along with the 1700, 1900, mid bands where there is an issue where to find the extra spectrum there, but then on the high bands, there is 2100, 2300, 2500. I'm wondering if the AWS spectrum could be reworked to not separate the upload from the download between 1700/2100. I'm not sure of what it technically would take to do this, but if it could work, there'd be the 2100, 2300, and 2500 bands which could be used for high-band in the three nationwide carrier structure I believe is going to happen after the new administration takes place.

 

Again, there is plenty of low-band that could be restructured, I think this could be done with high-band, mid-band is a bit iffy with four carriers. Three possibly it could be done more easily, yet still work involved.

[Arysyn]

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.

 

The point of my idea here is that it would improve the service for many people. If the government worked out a fair deal among the carriers, which I admit it would be easier to do a 45x45 per company for three national carriers than to do a 30x30 per company for four national carriers, which is my preference. I know it isn't a popular opinion for many that there'd be only three national carriers in the U.S. than four, but it really seems to be headed towards that, which if it does, it would make it easier to not need these spectrum auctions, then simply divide the available spectrum as a whole, not just what isn't being leased. Rework those leasing agreements to give an equal share among the carriers for a fair flat fee "rental" of the spectrum to be paid over time. This will involve reworking how spectrum bands are planned out, which if the FCC and the carriers work together on this, it could give them a lot of spectrum among each carrier to officially put a near close to spectrum capacity concerns, and let the carriers compete on what matters, pricing and services.

 

There will still be fun things to discuss around here though. These carriers will have their focus on network sites and equipment even more than now, as they'll need to develop their networks to work with the new spectrum arrangements. This is what will carry them into the future and make things much better for consumers. Of course, as much as I am interested in the spectrum side of things with this, my main outlook is to get the network quality here in the U.S. so amazing and lucrative, it will drive interest in more competition here among device manufacturers. I'd like to see companies from Asia such as Vivo, Oppo, Meizu, Xiaomi, etc. all decide to sell devices for the U.S. market. That will help to improve technologies here at a higher rate bringing more meaningful value to consumers here than even spectrum will.

[payturr]

The point of my idea here is that it would improve the service for many people. If the government worked out a fair deal among the carriers, which I admit it would be easier to do a 45x45 per company for three national carriers than to do a 30x30 per company for four national carriers, which is my preference. I know it isn't a popular opinion for many that there'd be only three national carriers in the U.S. than four, but it really seems to be headed towards that, which if it does, it would make it easier to not need these spectrum auctions, then simply divide the available spectrum as a whole, not just what isn't being leased. Rework those leasing agreements to give an equal share among the carriers for a fair flat fee "rental" of the spectrum to be paid over time. This will involve reworking how spectrum bands are planned out, which if the FCC and the carriers work together on this, it could give them a lot of spectrum among each carrier to officially put a near close to spectrum capacity concerns, and let the carriers compete on what matters, pricing and services.

 

There will still be fun things to discuss around here though. These carriers will have their focus on network sites and equipment even more than now, as they'll need to develop their networks to work with the new spectrum arrangements. This is what will carry them into the future and make things much better for consumers. Of course, as much as I am interested in the spectrum side of things with this, my main outlook is to get the network quality here in the U.S. so amazing and lucrative, it will drive interest in more competition here among device manufacturers. I'd like to see companies from Asia such as Vivo, Oppo, Meizu, Xiaomi, etc. all decide to sell devices for the U.S. market. That will help to improve technologies here at a higher rate bringing more meaningful value to consumers here than even spectrum will.

My point is it would hinder services for people which you keep seeming to miss. 30x30 sounds great NOW that we have LTE but if it was 30x30 for everyone during the beginning of cellular networks with AMPS, no one would have moved pasted cdmaOne or GSM because there would be no point. All carriers would have equal spectrum holdings with equal speeds and would have little to no incentive to innovate. We all would suffer because of the equality on their level. It's bad for business, it's bad for us. They wouldn't give a damn about network tech, they would just build out coverage and charge for minutes and texts and whatever little data we get.

[greenbastard]

My point is it would hinder services for people which you keep seeming to miss. 30x30 sounds great NOW that we have LTE but if it was 30x30 for everyone during the beginning of cellular networks with AMPS, no one would have moved pasted cdmaOne or GSM because there would be no point. All carriers would have equal spectrum holdings with equal speeds and would have little to no incentive to innovate. We all would suffer because of the equality on their level. It's bad for business, it's bad for us. They wouldn't give a damn about network tech, they would just build out coverage and charge for minutes and texts and whatever little data we get.

Not necessarily. All major carriers would still want a way to differentiate themselves, so new technologies would have made their way to carriers one way or another in order to take customers from their competitors.

 

Also, you forget that other markets around the world are also pushing new technologies. LTE was first launched in Europe, not the U.S. It's not only American wireless carriers looking for new innovations.

[bigsnake49]

My point is it would hinder services for people which you keep seeming to miss. 30x30 sounds great NOW that we have LTE but if it was 30x30 for everyone during the beginning of cellular networks with AMPS, no one would have moved pasted cdmaOne or GSM because there would be no point. All carriers would have equal spectrum holdings with equal speeds and would have little to no incentive to innovate. We all would suffer because of the equality on their level. It's bad for business, it's bad for us. They wouldn't give a damn about network tech, they would just build out coverage and charge for minutes and texts and whatever little data we get.

 

Wow, what twisted logic!

[payturr]

Wow, what twisted logic!

Gotta admit, I'm pretty cynical.

 

Going to what you were saying about the word, I know the world would continue to advance in terms of tech and what not but like I was saying the US would have little incentive to adopt a newer tech & help develop existing tech. I think the current system of eratic, uneven holdings helps keeps the industry on its toes.

 

Just my 2 cents though!

[Arysyn]

My point is it would hinder services for people which you keep seeming to miss. 30x30 sounds great NOW that we have LTE but if it was 30x30 for everyone during the beginning of cellular networks with AMPS, no one would have moved pasted cdmaOne or GSM because there would be no point. All carriers would have equal spectrum holdings with equal speeds and would have little to no incentive to innovate. We all would suffer because of the equality on their level. It's bad for business, it's bad for us. They wouldn't give a damn about network tech, they would just build out coverage and charge for minutes and texts and whatever little data we get.

 

Even if that were true, carriers would still be stuck with the maximum theoretical speeds of those older technologies. The point of upgrading to newer technologies isn't just for greater efficiency but also for greater speeds which the carriers generally love to advertise, besides also marketing the scope of their networks' reach and coverage within that reach. Spectrum doesn't change that. Carriers still need to build their networks. Otherwise if carriers only grew their networks say for their 30x30 low-band spectrum, but not so much for their 30x30 mid-band spectrum or 30x30 high-band spectrum, then everyone would get stuck using the 30x30 low-band spectrum that then would become quite congested.

 

While my idea certainly would help things, it isn't the be all to end all idea. Carriers still would have the responsibility to grow their networks. If given a lot of spectrum evenly among carriers for a reasonable lease rate, there wouldn't be a spectrum advantage one carrier could claim against the other. There also wouldn't be unfair market advantages either between markets with some carriers being able to dominate a market based on spectrum alone. It would make carriers compete on network and price. Consumers would have greater choice this way since carriers could focus their spending in these areas consumers can choose from, rather than being stuck with whatever works yet often costs the most. This would very much give Sprint and T-Mobile the boost they need, perhaps even without merging, though I believe there should be a three carrier market to make this process much easier, etc. I'm in favor of there being Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint, with T-Mobile going to AT&T perhaps even as a super MNO replacing Cricket.

[greenbastard]

Gotta admit, I'm pretty cynical.

 

Going to what you were saying about the word, I know the world would continue to advance in terms of tech and what not but like I was saying the US would have little incentive to adopt a newer tech & help develop existing tech. I think the current system of eratic, uneven holdings helps keeps the industry on its toes.

 

Just my 2 cents though!

That's simply not true. If all carriers had the same amount of paired spectrum, then they would have even more reason to stand out against their competitors. At the end of the day, its all about the money, and Evdo, WCDMA, HSPA, and LTE would have been ways to gain a competitive advantage against competitors.

 

As a matter of fact, our wireless industry started out in a similar way you set your example. Two simple Cellular blocks for each market.

[Arysyn]

That's simply not true. If all carriers had the same amount of paired spectrum, then they would have even more reason to stand out against their competitors. At the end of the day, its all about the money, and Evdo, WCDMA, HSPA, and LTE would have been ways to gain a competitive advantage against competitors.

 

As a matter of fact, our wireless industry started out in a similar way you set your example. Two simple Cellular blocks for each market.

 

Indeed.

 

Also while I admit to the competitive advantages spectrum differences have on carriers, it is one I'd really like to see go. The reason being is quite simple, the government shouldn't have a role in which to decide if one company has the foundation to do better than another competitor.

 

I also believe that if this ever were to change in favor of an idea such as I've presented, there needs to be a serious look on how many national carriers there could reasonably be with enough of the finite spectrum there is, while being realistic about it. The FCC ought to take a look at all the spectrum there is nd figure out some number of the highest amount a carrier could theoretically have, then figure out a number that would suit a carrier well into the future.

 

I've listed a number I think is fair among the current four carrier system, that being 30x30 low, mid, and high, of course the TDD equivalent of it for the high-band spectrum, 60mhz. However, I admit that might be a difficult amount to give out to four carriers. I think it would certainly be reasonable to give that for three carriers, maybe even up to 45x45. I'm thinking of all the spectrum bands I'm aware of in the U.S. currently in use for wireless, though I'd imagine one or two other bands could be added to fit this model.

[greenbastard]

Indeed.

 

Also while I admit to the competitive advantages spectrum differences have on carriers, it is one I'd really like to see go. The reason being is quite simple, the government shouldn't have a role in which to decide if one company has the foundation to do better than another competitor.

 

The government may have had a role in giving out Cellular licences, but they no longer have a role in deciding who gets what. That's why they have an auction. If a company doesn't have the capital to purchase spectrum, what makes you think they have money to deploy it to begin with? See Exhibit Dish Spectrum.

I also believe that if this ever were to change in favor of an idea such as I've presented, there needs to be a serious look on how many national carriers there could reasonably be with enough of the finite spectrum there is, while being realistic about it. The FCC ought to take a look at all the spectrum there is nd figure out some number of the highest amount a carrier could theoretically have, then figure out a number that would suit a carrier well into the future.

 

That's impossible and counterproductive. Let the market sort it out.

I've listed a number I think is fair among the current four carrier system, that being 30x30 low, mid, and high, of course the TDD equivalent of it for the high-band spectrum, 60mhz. However, I admit that might be a difficult amount to give out to four carriers. I think it would certainly be reasonable to give that for three carriers, maybe even up to 45x45. I'm thinking of all the spectrum bands I'm aware of in the U.S. currently in use for wireless, though I'd imagine one or two other bands could be added to fit this model.

No. Will never work. It will create more headaches than it will create solutions.

 

Your best alternative is to let carriers sort themselves out by trading licenses in order to pair their spectrum, which they are doing now. Socialism won't work.

[payturr]

That's simply not true. If all carriers had the same amount of paired spectrum, then they would have even more reason to stand out against their competitors. At the end of the day, its all about the money, and Evdo, WCDMA, HSPA, and LTE would have been ways to gain a competitive advantage against competitors.

 

As a matter of fact, our wireless industry started out in a similar way you set your example. Two simple Cellular blocks for each market.

But our wireless industry didn't start out with 4 national guys, it was a bunch of tiny regional companies. Arysyn is talking about 4 companies controlling all the spectrum in equal divisions in all markets, not a small guy controlling half here and there.

[WiWavelength]

Your best alternative is to let carriers sort themselves out by trading licenses in order to pair their spectrum, which they are doing now. Socialism won't work.

 

Socialism will work if there is just one infrastructure entity for all wireless providers.  If you even want to call that socialism.  It would be fierce competition, hundreds to thousands of providers buying capacity and selling services over the top.

 

What should not happen is what Arysyn wants -- for VZW, AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint, and/or T-Mobile-Sprint to be deemed basically our national networks, then handed appropriate amounts of spectrum per band, per market.  Why should the government dignify those 3-4 private corporations?  Just because?  It would shut down and shut out all other competitors forever.

 

I already hate that my electricity provider is both a regulated monopoly and a private corporation.  It should not be a private corporation in the first place.

 

Nationalize these damn utilities.  Or screw it, and just let the free market run amuck.

 

AJ

[greenbastard]

Socialism will work if there is just one infrastructure entity for all wireless providers. If you even want to call that socialism. It would be fierce competition, hundreds to thousands of providers buying capacity and selling services over the top.

 

 

And who will that one entity be that builds, maintains, and upgrades the network and its infrastructure?

 

If your answer is the 'government', then your pipe dream is no better or worse than arsyns. In an perfect world? Sure. But we don't live in one.

[greenbastard]

But our wireless industry didn't start out with 4 national guys, it was a bunch of tiny regional companies. Arysyn is talking about 4 companies controlling all the spectrum in equal divisions in all markets, not a small guy controlling half here and there.

Even if it were 4 national carriers, they would still push themselves to find ways to gain a competitive advantage.

 

What you're talking about only happens when a monopoly holds control over a market. No competition = no incentive to improve.

[Arysyn]

Despite my disagreement with AJ's opinion of mine, I agree with him that it would be better to nationalize utilities, as the system of corporate control doesn't work. After all, I am a very strong supporter of The Zeitgeist Movement.

 

The issue with wireless, while I'd really like to see it become nationalized with people paying for usage equally under a huge system of spectrum without much concern over congestion, dead zones, etc., is that I really can't see it happening any time soon. Neither can I see utilities being nationalized, though that has a greater chance of happening than with wireless.

 

So in the meantime, I'd like to see the government and the national carriers work out a deal. Yes, I'll agree that this idea does shut out competitors from being able to make a new national carrier. Although considering the immense time and cost of building a new national network, it is highly doubtful there will ever be one anyways. There is just too much in terms of resources needed to do this.

 

I support dreaming big and achieving massive goals for a progressive society and all, though I do stop at realism where I know it very unlikely will go, yet what is possible I still think should be considered. While I don't believe in a way for another national carrier to grow from scratch, there are ways of improving what already is, even if it appears as fantasy based on social workability levels. As long as it is technically possible and could make things already in existence better, then I say go for it!

[Fraydog]

Ain't happening. Sorry.

 

Wish I had the energy to debate this, but look at society in general. I used to be utopian about spectrum like some of you. Then reality struck.

 

To guide this back on topic, T-Mobile still has a lot of improvement to make on rural even with B12. They are eventually going to need more rural sites deployed if they have the aspiration of really competing with the big guys. Otherwise they can comfortably settle in at 65-70 million, have a very good business and be profitable. That's not a bad thing. It just isn't what Legere seems to be selling.

 

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[Arysyn]

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

 

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

 

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

[tyroned3222]

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk