T-Mobile LTE & Network Discussion V2

[sbolen]

I think they are. They brought a COW to Fair St. Louis this year too, and it was even a high capacity setup (no band 41). Last year only Verizon and AT&T had one.

I live a short jog away from Forest Park and can tell you that the COW has decongested the load on the towers around me.

[EvanA]

I live a short jog away from Forest Park and can tell you that the COW has decongested the load on the towers around me.

Unfortunately the COW was taking way too much load.  When I was connected to it (spent lots of time on B41), I couldn't pull more than 2Mbit/s down on B25 or 26.

 

Anyways, back on topic...

[Mr.Nuke]

I love that the new tmonews head guy lives in Omaha. Only a slight step up from Cam in England.

[WiWavelength]

I love that the new tmonews head guy lives in Omaha. Only a slight step up from Cam in England.

 

PhoneDog is just trying to ease the TmoNews transition -- in baby steps.  First replacement editor, outside the US.  Second replacement editor, in a license protection market.  Next replacement editor, in an official but LTE spectrum limited market.  I predict Cincinnati.

 

 

AJ

[centermedic]

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

She is playing chess. If she cant stop the "Magneta Madness" then she may be setting the stage for a forced spectrum swap.

[centermedic]

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.

This suddenly becomes interesting when you consider that Verizon is loaded with debt. How much would they be able to spend on the auction?

[tybo31316]

This suddenly becomes interesting when you consider that Verizon is loaded with debt. How much would they be able to spend on the auction?

If that's the case then AT$T will be loaded with debt too. If the Direct TV deal is approved.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6

[JeffDTD]

If Son is convinced that 600mhz winnings must be substantial, could Softbank show up and bid on the unreserved portion independent of its subsidiary (sprint)? Its really not a matter of access to funds, with or without debt, for Softbank. Son could wipe the floor with everyone else, if he was convinced it was a worthwhile investment. So the MIL$ question remains, whats he thinking...

 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[derrph]

If Son is convinced that 600mhz winnings must be substantial, could Softbank show up and bid on the unreserved portion independent of its subsidiary (sprint)? Its really not a matter of access to funds, with or without debt, for Softbank. Son could wipe the floor with everyone else, if he was convinced it was a worthwhile investment. So the MIL$ question remains, whats he thinking...

 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

I don't see Sprint nor SoftBank sitting out on this auction. They will walk away with a nice chunk. Honestly I think that Sprint will be a true competitor to AT&T and Verizon when it's all said and done.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fraydog]

She is playing chess. If she cant stop the "Magneta Madness" then she may be setting the stage for a forced spectrum swap.

Nah, she might be playing checkers and the others are playing chess. SoftBank is playing chess, T-Mobile is playing chess (poorly if they can't acquire Dish but they are playing) and Verizon is still in solid position even if they don't buy Dish (which I think they should using the eventual Bell Atlantic sell off to generate capital.)

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[caspar347]

Nah, she might be playing checkers and the others are playing chess. SoftBank is playing chess, T-Mobile is playing chess (poorly if they can't acquire Dish but they are playing) and Verizon is still in solid position even if they don't buy Dish (which I think they should using the eventual Bell Atlantic sell off to generate capital.)

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

AT&T really is in a messy position from what I can tell.

[Arysyn]

AT&T really is in a messy position from what I can tell.

AT&T is trying to do and be too many things at once. Verizon, being its main competitor, has a much better overall business strategy, even if Verizon were to try purchasing Dish, at least they'd be getting a lot of spectrum out of the deal.

 

It seems as if AT&T's big reason for purchasing DirecTV, is so they can get better deals in negotiating with content providers for better rates from them. Regarding wireless, this would have been great had net neutrality not been passed, then AT&T could have offered these servicees in order to entice customers with data-free or cheaper access data specifically for this.

 

Now, they'd have to significantly reduce their data rates altogether for people to afford to access this content. Unless, AT&T is doing this deal with DirecTV for purely non-wireless reasons, which would show even more how distanced they've become towards their wireless issues.

[travismheim]

AT&T is trying to do and be too many things at once. Verizon, being its main competitor, has a much better overall business strategy, even if Verizon were to try purchasing Dish, at least they'd be getting a lot of spectrum out of the deal.

 

It seems as if AT&T's big reason for purchasing DirecTV, is so they can get better deals in negotiating with content providers for better rates from them. Regarding wireless, this would have been great had net neutrality not been passed, then AT&T could have offered these servicees in order to entice customers with data-free or cheaper access data specifically for this.

 

Now, they'd have to significantly reduce their data rates altogether for people to afford to access this content. Unless, AT&T is doing this deal with DirecTV for purely non-wireless reasons, which would show even more how distanced they've become towards their wireless issues.

Many seem to forget that AT&T Mobility is just one part of AT&T. The DirecTV acquisition likely has little to do with their wireless business. 

[Arysyn]

Many seem to forget that AT&T Mobility is just one part of AT&T. The DirecTV acquisition likely has little to do with their wireless business.

True, although in a sense, I'd think they'd want to make some use of DirecTV for wireless, in the sense Dish wants to. Otherwise, the only benefit to the purchase of DirecTV I've heard of at least, is for better negotiations with content providers. Seems to me though that is a lot of money and resources if only for that.

[travismheim]

True, although in a sense, I'd think they'd want to make some use of DirecTV for wireless, in the sense Dish wants to. Otherwise, the only benefit to the purchase of DirecTV I've heard of at least, is for better negotiations with content providers. Seems to me though that is a lot of money and resources if only for that.

Not to mention elimination of one of their competitors. It also allows them to reach more customers with video services than uverse alone.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[Arysyn]

Here is an interesting story I read on the newly somewhat improved TmoNews :

 

http://www.tmonews.com/2015/07/t-mobile-transparency-report-shows-that-it-got-more-government-requests-than-other-carriers/

 

An excerpt from the site :

 

"During 2014, T-Mobile got a total of 351,940 government requests for info on T-Mo and its customers. That includes 177,549 subpoenas, 97,440 emergency/911 calls, 34,913 court orders, 3,087 wiretap orders, 849 customer requests for their own info, and a total of 8 requests from foreign governments. To compare, Sprint got 308,937 requests, Verizon got 287,559, and AT&T got 263,755."

 

So, imagine the number if Sprint were to merge with T-Mobile. Hypothetically, if these numbers were the same in a year the two carriers were together, that number would have been 660,877 governmental requests.

[Arysyn]

Not to mention elimination of one of their competitors. It also allows them to reach more customers with video services than uverse alone.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

That definitely is the true, rarely mentioned reason for it.

 

Now, while I know there are some people here on S4GRU who are against a Sprint/T-Mobile merger, for one reason being the idea of John Legere managing both companies, which I understand and certainly don't want to see him in charge, I don't understand how the FCC could approve the merger of AT&T/DirecTv, but not approve the merger of Sprint/T-Mobile. For instance, if the merger between AT&T/DirecTv is approved, here where I live there will be three choices for television service; Comcast, Dish, and AT&T. Even though it'll be between AT&T Uverse (which is what I have now) and AT&T DirecTv, its still only three companies.

 

Surely, this doesn't apply nationwide, as there are other service providers throughout the country, but after this merger is approved, most people will be limited to three provider options. So then why is FCC so finicky about there being four nationwide wireless carriers, among the dozens of different MVNOs, and the few remaining regional providers, other than the FCC trying to protect AT&T and Verizon's interests.

 

I make no secret of the fact I want there to be a merger with T-Mobile together either with Dish (which I'm much less supportive of now than I was in the past) or with Sprint, as long as John Legere has nothing to do with it. I mentioned in a post the other day how I'd like for Softbank to find some sort of workaround the FCC, where SB buys the TM stock from DT, runs TM separately from Sprint, but the two share the same network and spectrum. Perhaps Softbank could purchase Dish, then there'd be an awesome trifecta!

[belusnecropolis]

Here is an interesting story I read on the newly somewhat improved TmoNews :

 

http://www.tmonews.com/2015/07/t-mobile-transparency-report-shows-that-it-got-more-government-requests-than-other-carriers/

 

An excerpt from the site :

 

"During 2014, T-Mobile got a total of 351,940 government requests for info on T-Mo and its customers. That includes 177,549 subpoenas, 97,440 emergency/911 calls, 34,913 court orders, 3,087 wiretap orders, 849 customer requests for their own info, and a total of 8 requests from foreign governments. To compare, Sprint got 308,937 requests, Verizon got 287,559, and AT&T got 263,755."

 

So, imagine the number if Sprint were to merge with T-Mobile. Hypothetically, if these numbers were the same in a year the two carriers were together, that number would have been 660,877 governmental requests.

 

That's a lot of government.

[joshuam]

Does this mean more scumbags chose T-Mobile than any other carrier? Lol

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[greenbastard]

Are MVNO customers included? Because that would explain the higher numbers.

Edited July 7, 2015 by greenbastard

[EvanA]

Are MVNO customers included? Because that would explain the higher numbers.

And how would MVNOs have any significant effect on government requests?

[greenbastard]

And how would MVNOs have any significant effect on government requests?

Who said they do? I'm simply asking if these numbers only reflect those networks' subscribers, or do they also include MVNO users that use their networks. Since T-Mobile and Sprint are the networks used by most of the popular MVNOs, then that would explain why their networks have bigger numbers than Verizon/AT&T.

[EvanA]

Who said they do? I'm simply asking if these numbers only reflect those networks' subscribers, or do they also include MVNO users that use their networks. Since T-Mobile and Sprint are the networks used by most of the popular MVNOs, then that would explain why their networks have bigger numbers than Verizon/AT&T.

Still not understanding how an abundance of MVNOs explains higher information requests...

[Arysyn]

Still not understanding how an abundance of MVNOs explains higher information requests...

I think the issue is how many of these numbers are coming from MVNO subscribers in contrast with the carriers' main customers. The reason why there are higher numbers possibly in relation to the MVNOs, is because typically there are a lot less security loopholes for MVNO customers to go through than with the main carriers.

 

In particular, many MVNOs don't require any social security information, even things like personal identification and credit are not always required either. It makes these networks more available to criminals the government goes after.

[centermedic]

Nah, she might be playing checkers and the others are playing chess. SoftBank is playing chess, T-Mobile is playing chess (poorly if they can't acquire Dish but they are playing) and Verizon is still in solid position even if they don't buy Dish (which I think they should using the eventual Bell Atlantic sell off to generate capital.)

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't know about that. It seems that the argument is already being made that some companies already have more than enough spectrum so if they acquire 600 MHz spectrum they should be forced to divest other spectrum holdings. Sounds like she is trying to position AT&T into a win win proposition.