T-Mobile LTE & Network Discussion V2

[joshuam]

Cisco is firmly against LTE-LAA as well. I'd be so upset if it interfered with my home WiFi network. Especially since the 2.4 ghz level is so crowded.

True story! I live in a townhouse...5Ghz is the only way I can get wifi speeds above 2Mbps because 2.4Ghz is so crowded.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Vince]

True story! I live in a townhouse...5Ghz is the only way I can get wifi speeds above 2Mbps because 2.4Ghz is so crowded.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep. I had to buy my father-in-law a 5ghz router for Christmas a few years ago because of this problem in his apartment. Every channel was slammed with interference, and he was getting less than 1mbps when paying for 30mbps.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone 6

[maxsilver]

Here's an FCC filing from Public Knowledge, LTE-U and LTE-LAA gut WiFi and make it unusable in a lot of test cases.

 

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001105564

 

Everyone should read this filing by Public Knowledge. Lots of innovation comes from the unlicensed bands and WiFi, like the Republic Wireless and Cablevision mobile plans that extensively use WiFi. The only way LTE-LAA should be kosher is to see the 3GPP and IEEE sit down and come up with a neutral approach that doesn't gut free and open WiFi.

Agree completely.  5ghz is unlicensed for a reason, and there's precious little unlicensed spectrum available.

 

I believe cellular companies should be blocked from using unlicensed spectrum in this way -- they have plenty of privately owned spectrum between themselves, and multiple large swaths of new AWS/600 spectrum coming soon. Not to mention the large blocks of spectrum they already own that's unused or underutilized.

 

 

This is all part of T-Mobile's plan to Recarrier, I'm afraid. And if Sprint continues to shoot itself in the foot, T-Mobile will fall more in line with the Duopoly.

 

I get that it's a unwritten rule here to hate on T-Mobile, but I don't see how this statement has anything to do with LTE-U.

 

Verizon is also testing unlicensed LTE.  Are they part of T-Mobile's "Recarrier" plan too?

 

And when Sprint and AT&T jump onto LTE-U, is that part of T-Mobile's "Recarrier" plot too? If Verizon and T-Mobile are allowed to deploy unlicensed LTE and have any significant success with it, Sprint and AT&T *will* copy them on it eventually.

 

 

Remember what John Legere really wants is the Triopoly. He was going to be the CEO of T-Mobile after they ate Sprint, but Chairman Wheeler fortunately thought better of it.

 

Triopoly is a bad situation -- I agree with you on that completely. And I'm glad it was shot down.

 

 

But remember, it was Masa Son who begged the government to let him buy T-Mobile, he too really wanted that "Tripoly" situation. And in case we've forgotten the obvious, that man still owns and operates Sprint today.  Masa Son has literally gone on record asking the government for a Triopoly - http://www.forbes.com/sites/joanlappin/2014/03/13/softbanks-son-talks-his-sprintt-mobile-deal-directly-to-america/

 

There's no factual way to paint T-Mobile as "pro Triopoly", that doesn't equally place blame against Sprint/SoftBank. 

[bigsnake49]

Oh my god, look what's happening in the airline industry. They have at least 4 major carriers and then some some smaller ones as well. But prices are sky high and on top of that they are charging you for bags. The government is looking into collusion. So 4 carriers are not guarantee of competition as the airline industry so amply demonstrates. There is no way Sprint and T-Mobile will ever pay all that debt back particularly after the 600MHz auction. Then 5G will arrive in 5 short years. The idiots that run them should merge their networks at least or they will both be either bankrupt or subsisting for years or decades.

Edited July 3, 2015 by bigsnake49

[EvanA]

Oh my god, look what's happening in the airline industry. They have at least 4 major carriers and then some some smaller ones as well. But prices are sky high and on top of that they are charging you for bags. The government is looking into collusion. So 4 carriers are not guarantee of competition as the airline industry so amply demonstrates. There is no way Sprint and T-Mobile will ever pay all that debt back particularly after the 600MHz auction. Then 5G will arrive in 5 short years. The idiots that run them should merge their networks at least or they will both be either bankrupt or subsisting for years or decades.

5G in 5 years? Lol

[Fraydog]

Oh my god, look what's happening in the airline industry. They have at least 4 major carriers and then some some smaller ones as well. But prices are sky high and on top of that they are charging you for bags. The government is looking into collusion. So 4 carriers are not guarantee of competition as the airline industry so amply demonstrates. There is no way Sprint and T-Mobile will ever pay all that debt back particularly after the 600MHz auction. Then 5G will arrive in 5 short years. The idiots that run them should merge their networks at least or they will both be either bankrupt or subsisting for years or decades.

 

The current DoCoMo trials don't even have that time scale for 5G services. We don't even know what air interface 5G is going to use. If I had to guess, it would be a souped up version of OFMDA, hopefully with better distributed capabilities that mirrors what CDMA does in rural situations where it pulls signal off multiple towers, multiplied by four or five times, combined with increased small cell deployments in urban areas and use of licensed and unlicensed spectrum. 

[Fraydog]

Agree completely.  5ghz is unlicensed for a reason, and there's precious little unlicensed spectrum available.

 

I believe cellular companies should be blocked from using unlicensed spectrum in this way -- they have plenty of privately owned spectrum between themselves, and multiple large swaths of new AWS/600 spectrum coming soon. Not to mention the large blocks of spectrum they already own that's unused or underutilized.

 

 

 

I get that it's a unwritten rule here to hate on T-Mobile, but I don't see how this statement has anything to do with LTE-U.

 

Verizon is also testing unlicensed LTE.  Are they part of T-Mobile's "Recarrier" plan too?

 

And when Sprint and AT&T jump onto LTE-U, is that part of T-Mobile's "Recarrier" plot too? If Verizon and T-Mobile are allowed to deploy unlicensed LTE and have any significant success with it, Sprint and AT&T *will* copy them on it eventually.

 

 

 

Triopoly is a bad situation -- I agree with you on that completely. And I'm glad it was shot down.

 

 

But remember, it was Masa Son who begged the government to let him buy T-Mobile, he too really wanted that "Tripoly" situation. And in case we've forgotten the obvious, that man still owns and operates Sprint today.  Masa Son has literally gone on record asking the government for a Triopoly - http://www.forbes.com/sites/joanlappin/2014/03/13/softbanks-son-talks-his-sprintt-mobile-deal-directly-to-america/

 

There's no factual way to paint T-Mobile as "pro Triopoly", that doesn't equally place blame against Sprint/SoftBank. 

 

1. I agree with your statements on LTE-LAA, normally I'd let the 3GPP do their thing, but their thing might be too influenced by Qualcomm and Verizon in this case, so that goes to...
2. It absolutely is a part of T-Mobile's plan to Recarrier if T-Mobile, the disruptive and bold Uncarrier, suddenly marches in lockstep with the rival they want to knock off the block the most. That doesn't ring up alarm bells to you? 
3. Masa would have been the primary owner of T-Mobile under a merger, they would either do business as T-Mobile or SoftBank. Even if the combined company was headquartered in Overland Park, which probably wouldn't have happened, Legere and his team would have walked through there with a flamethrower. You and I both know this. I'm not saying Marcelo hasn't, he has, but I can't imagine it would be on the same scale as what would happen with Legere, Sievert, and Ray there. I can't imagine they'd want to move to Overland Park in any case, even if Masa himself said go there. 

[Fraydog]

http://www.attpublicpolicy.com/fcc/stop-the-magenta-madnessa-word-on-the-spectrum-reserve/

 

http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/the-uncarriers-un-mitigated-gall

 

You know AT&T and Verizon are pissed off when Verizon is citing, of all things, Scooby Doo, and Joan Marsh is yelling out "stop the magenta madness!" 

 

Oh, and if Joan reads this forum, hi! 

[jroepcke51]

http://www.attpublicpolicy.com/fcc/stop-the-magenta-madnessa-word-on-the-spectrum-reserve/

 

http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/the-uncarriers-un-mitigated-gall

 

You know AT&T and Verizon are pissed off when Verizon is citing, of all things, Scooby Doo, and Joan Marsh is yelling out "stop the magenta madness!" 

 

Oh, and if Joan reads this forum, hi! 

Those are some harsh words.  Interesting write ups.  Sprint is talked about only in inherent speak from ATT. 

[Fraydog]

Those are some harsh words. Interesting write ups. Sprint is talked about only in inherent speak from ATT.

I'm reading Ms. Marsh's comments as "we can only provide corporate aid to 'Merican conglomerates because 'Murica."

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[maxsilver]

It absolutely is a part of T-Mobile's plan to Recarrier if T-Mobile, the disruptive and bold Uncarrier, suddenly marches in lockstep with the rival they want to knock off the block the most. That doesn't ring up alarm bells to you?

Not really. Just because Verizon does something, doesn't make it inherently bad or evil.

 

Verizon and T-Mobile are in the same exact business, offering identical services on identical devices. So of course many of their actions will look identical, especially on the network side. For example :

• both run LTE over AWS. 
• both run LTE over 700 (in some areas).
• both use VoLTE.
• both support Carrier Aggregation. 
• both adding new cell sites to their networks.
• (new) both are investigating LTE-U

In all of these ways (and more), T-Mobile is "marching in lockstep with the rival they want to knock off the block the most". Yet despite matching Verizon in all of these areas, none of this has prevented T-Mobile from implementing a bunch of consumer-friendly policies. 

 

While I don't like LTE-U from the spectrum-usage standpoint, and agree with you completely that LTE-U shouldn't occur, I don't see how T-Mobile adding LTE-U makes them any more "Recarrier". 

 

 

Masa would have been the primary owner of T-Mobile under a merger, they would either do business as T-Mobile or SoftBank. Even if the combined company was headquartered in Overland Park, which probably wouldn't have happened, Legere and his team would have walked through there with a flamethrower. You and I both know this. I'm not saying Marcelo hasn't, he has, but I can't imagine it would be on the same scale as what would happen with Legere, Sievert, and Ray there. I can't imagine they'd want to move to Overland Park in any case, even if Masa himself said go there.

 

This is all true, but I don't see how that addresses anything I said.

 

Triopoly is bad, we agree on that. And both Sprint and T-Mobile are attempting to form the same exact Triopoly, we seem(?) to agree on that.

 

I don't think the rest of it even matters. Does it even matter if they are headquartered in Overland Park or Bellevue, or "who torches what". The combination would have major nationwide impacts far more significant than which suburb happened to keep some jobs.

[Rawvega]

http://www.attpublicpolicy.com/fcc/stop-the-magenta-madnessa-word-on-the-spectrum-reserve/

 

http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/the-uncarriers-un-mitigated-gall

 

You know AT&T and Verizon are pissed off when Verizon is citing, of all things, Scooby Doo, and Joan Marsh is yelling out "stop the magenta madness!" 

 

Oh, and if Joan reads this forum, hi! 

 

Indeed, when the Commission adopted the reserve framework last year, it created an unprecedented opportunity for two national carriers – T-Mobile and Sprint – to enjoy significant auction advantages over the two other national carriers in the most data-congested markets in the nation.  Never in the history of FCC auctions have two national carriers been given such preferences.

 

Yet, T-Mobile has demanded more – over and over and over again.

 

Let’s be clear. We never understood why the U.S. government needed to provide corporate welfare to two U.S. carriers owned by large, multi-national telecommunications conglomerates.

 

 

This is just so disingenuous. If Joan does read this forum perhaps she can remind us all as to exactly how AT&T and Verizon came to own the majority of 850 MHz spectrum in this country. At least, though, she has the stones to attach her name unlike whatever corporate bot penned the Verion piece.

[Fraydog]

This is just so disingenuous. If Joan does read this forum perhaps she can remind us all as to exactly how AT&T and Verizon came to own the majority of 850 MHz spectrum in this country.

I'd welcome it, actually. I doubt that's a question she would want to answer in person or anywhere else. Remember, this is the government affairs head for AT&T. Remember to rebut points with your local Senator and Congressperson.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[S4GRU]

http://www.attpublicpolicy.com/fcc/stop-the-magenta-madnessa-word-on-the-spectrum-reserve/

 

http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/the-uncarriers-un-mitigated-gall

 

You know AT&T and Verizon are pissed off when Verizon is citing, of all things, Scooby Doo, and Joan Marsh is yelling out "stop the magenta madness!"

 

Oh, and if Joan reads this forum, hi!

I hope she reads this forum. For S4GRU, Joan Marsh is the new Joan Lappin.

 

Using Nexus 6 on Tapatalk

[WiWavelength]

This is just so disingenuous. If Joan does read this forum perhaps she can remind us all as to exactly how AT&T and Verizon came to own the majority of 850 MHz spectrum in this country.

 

Well, if we are being entirely truthful, AT&T and VZW ultimately have paid for much of that originally free Cellular 850 MHz spectrum through mergers and acquisitions.  In some cases, they have paid several times over, as the licenses have changed hands multiple times.  But they paid shareholders, not the US Treasury.

 

AJ

[WiWavelength]

I get that it's a unwritten rule here to hate on T-Mobile...

 

The T-Mobile executive team is full of asshats.  That is why it is perfectly reasonable to "hate on T-Mobile" anywhere.  In fact, it is the primary reason.  If Magenta CEO and his gang would cut down on the douchebaggery and act more professionally, then there would be little reason to "hate on T-Mobile."

 

AJ

[S4GRU]

Well, if we are being entirely truthful, AT&T and VZW ultimately have paid for much of that originally free Cellular 850 MHz spectrum through mergers and acquisitions. In some cases, they have paid several times over, as the licenses have changed hands multiple times. But they paid shareholders, not the US Treasury.

 

AJ

That's not the issue in my mind though. Joan was being disingenuous when she said that Sprint and Tmo have more spectrum per subscriber than the poor Duopoly do. Boohoo.

 

But the issue always has been low frequency spectrum. And since that really is the subject...low frequency spectrum, she should have cited Tmo and Sprint low frequency spectrum assets per subscriber compared to the Duopoly. But she knows that graph looks awful and would add fuel to the fire.

 

She is a liar and trying to sway the masses by trying to change the argument. The discussion is about low frequency spectrum. Not spectrum in general.

 

Using Nexus 6 on Tapatalk

[WiWavelength]

She is a liar and trying to sway the masses by trying to change the argument. The discussion is about low frequency spectrum. Not spectrum in general.

 

I think Joan Marsh's argument (or AT&T's and VZW's argument) is that low band spectrum is no longer such a necessity -- because growing data capacity needs and fragile LTE propagation have dictated dense networks.  And those dense networks function best on the more ample bandwidth available in mid band or high band spectrum.  There is some truth to that, though it is certainly not the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

 

AJ

[bretton88]

What I'm seeing in T-Mobile's actions is a realization that no help is coming from the mother ship so there's increasing desperation. If Softbank gives Sprint capital, there's a real chance TMUS could get swept out of the auctions. Sprint and TMUS are not the only small entities eligible for the reserve, there will be other bidders that pick up the pieces in the reserve Sprint doesn't want.

[WiWavelength]

What I'm seeing in T-Mobile's actions is a realization that no help is coming from the mother ship...

 

Mother ship?  No, in this case, that would be the fatherland.  Sieg Heil!

 

AJ

[Ascertion]

What I'm seeing in T-Mobile's actions is a realization that no help is coming from the mother ship so there's increasing desperation. If Softbank gives Sprint capital, there's a real chance TMUS could get swept out of the auctions. Sprint and TMUS are not the only small entities eligible for the reserve, there will be other bidders that pick up the pieces in the reserve Sprint doesn't want.

Could you imagine if Softbank bought all 30mhz of the reserve? It'd be hilarious to see John's reaction.

[bretton88]

Could you imagine if Softbank bought all 30mhz of the reserve? It'd be hilarious to see John's reaction.

The interesting part of this is TMUS only chance at this spectrum is in the reserve. But if Softbank brings capital, why not also bid for more against the duopoly and use the reserve as fallback spectrum in markets they don't win bids on the main stuff? Everyone seems to think Sprint will only get spectrum from the reserve.

[Ascertion]

The interesting part of this is TMUS only chance at this spectrum is in the reserve. But if Softbank brings capital, why not also bid for more against the duopoly and use the reserve as fallback spectrum in markets they don't win bids on the main stuff? Everyone seems to think Sprint will only get spectrum from the reserve.

I think Sprint will most definitely bid on the unreserved portion, but the reserved portion is going to be a lot cheaper and more cost-effective since they won't be bidding against the duopoly.

[Arysyn]

Could you imagine if Softbank bought all 30mhz of the reserve? It'd be hilarious to see John's reaction.

I'm thinking of the reaction from T-Mobile defenders in the scenario T-Mobile doesn't end up getting much more than their pathetic results from the AWS-3 auction. The defenders kept saying how "smart" T-Mobile was in that auction, where they got so little spectrum not even to be worth the bother getting what they got out of it at all, something I view as worse of a deal than their 700mhz spectrum purchases.

 

Then again, I don't like how the system of broadband spectrum is set up, where carriers are forced to deal with whatever spectrum they can get, as its so needed to the operations of their networks, regardless of how their spectrum amounts, bands, types, etc. vary so much market to market.

 

Fortunately for Sprint, they have the most streamlined spectrum of all the carriers between their three spectrum holdings of 800, 1900, and 2500. I think it is smart they didn't bother with AWS, leaving that for the other carriers to go after while Sprint focused its efforts on what it could obtain more of and more steady across its network, rather than having so many variables market by market.

[Arysyn]

Oh, I got away from my focus about what these Legerinas likely would say in a scenario where Sprint got most of the reserved 600 mhz spectrum, even perhaps all of it. As we know, Softbank has the money to make this happen for Sprint, whereas DT is very unlikely to fund T-Mobile for this auction. If Softbank goes through with massive funding on this, I can see them getting all of the reserved 30 mhz of reserved spectrum, at least. This would make sense for Sprint to continue with their across the board spectrum holdings.

 

It also would leave T-Mobile's only opportunity at getting this spectrum, is to outbid AT&T and Verizon in areas where the "duopoly" doesn't care to have as badly, otherwise the duopoly could shut out T-Mobile by outbidding them in all areas too, if they wanted to. With that said, my guess is if Sprint goes full force with this, T-Mobile likely won't get more than a single 5x5 in a few areas where AT&T and Verizon let them win out of pity.

 

Then that's when the Legerinas will be bragging about how great and wonderful the "Uncarrier" is, how they were "smart once again" and something like "Well, the Uncarrier played it smart, considering our most wonderful leader, Jon Legere got screwed over by the FCC and made it so small carriers could get a fair deal out of this". Of course, you won't hear them admitting fair defeat by Sprint.

 

Granted, this is based on the scenario of Sprint going AllIn with this. If Sprint decides to go the route of not participating in the auction, which I now doubt they won't, as I'm sure Marcelo Claure would love for this scenario to happen. If though it doesn't, and T-Mobile getting the 30 mhz across the board, the fans will be claiming victory over all and praising Jon Legere as usual anyways.