GinaDee

Urban as in: "somewhere in South Dakota?" Regionally I live in an area that is night and day from you.

AT&T has excellent rural coverage in much of rural Southern California. I did notice however that backhaul is lacking along the long stretch of 15 FWY that connects Las Vegas to the populated areas of SoCal. Full bars HSPA+ but pokey speeds in some areas. On the same long rural stretch of HWY surprisingly Metro PCS has LTE but speeds appear limited to 5 Mbps down. I assume this long rural route will become part of T-Mobile's LTE network in 2014. Even my beloved Verizon, with all that red painted so pretty across the nation hides an ugly fact that much of those areas particularly around the Rocky Mountain west have very little backhaul. It's just "coverage." Right now only Verizon and Metro PCS have LTE between Vegas and SoCal along Route 15. T-Mobile only has LTE in certain patches along the same stretch so it would do them well to integrate Metro's network as soon as possible to improve the customer experience.

T-Mobile has more rural coverage than they are given credit for. It may not be LTE or 4G but they have lots of ground covered with 2G. Who has more native rural coverage sans roaming? Sprint or T-Mobile?

What do you consider worthless? Not being able to make/receive calls in rural areas or having slow 2G/3G data in areas with poor backhaul?

I think you just answered your own question. Most of the US population lives in higher density populated areas. Perceptions are based on everyone's individual reality.

http://9to5mac.com/2014/01/03/with-t-mobile-att-will-give-you-450-to-switch-kind-of/ Executive Statement This is a desperate move by AT&T on the heels of what must have been a terrible Q4 and holiday for them. I’m flattered that we have made them so uncomfortable! We used AT&T’s cash to build a far superior network and added Un-carrier moves to take tons of their customers – and now they want to bribe them back! Consumers won’t be fooled…nothing has changed; customers will still feel the same old pain that AT&T is famous for. Just wait until CES to hear what pain points we are eliminating next. The competition is going to be toast! -John Legere, CEO of T-Mobile USA

I agree additional funding always helps. Sprint got SoftBank for their funding. T-Mobile will eventually be bought out or merged. Whether it's Sprint, Dish, Vodafone, Carlos Slim etc. we'll likely know more later this year.

I hold the opinion that there will be alternate suitors rearing their heads in early 2014.

That's what paying customers are for and T-Mobie needs more for sure. They have to do it organically until a better choice rears its head.

Are you assuming that Sprint powered by Softbank is the ONLY option for T-Mobile USA to remain viable? This is the same argument AT&T used.

This is why I don't want Sprint to gobble Magenta up. If for this reason alone.

AT&T feeling the heat: http://www.geekwire.com/2014/att-offer-200-credit-tmobile-switchers-preemptive-strike-smaller-rival/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed:+geekwire+(GeekWire)

Is the goal right now to have 100 million POPS covered by LTE on the 2.5 GHz band by the end of next year?

I've been thinking about this a lot. I know AT&T has been getting in bed with Onstar, GM and Tesla. Google and Audi are now hooking up: http://www.engadget.com/2013/12/30/google-audi-to-announce-android-in-car/

I think Softbank will continue to fund Sprint network adventures but at a certain point they will turn off the tap if management can't show real progress to shareholders. That's who they all answer to anyways. Sprint has to show a return on investment and has to gain new net adds. I've been at wireless carrier network deployment meetings. They're ugly, full of arguments and bad blood. Everyone throws in their two cents; some argue for the customer experience while others argue on behalf of company profits.

The United States is a huge place. For T-Mobile users who keep in big cities and only travel to other urban locations via plane would probably rarely notice any adverse network conditions. Ever been to Hollywood, CA? Major tourist area. T-Mobile has LTE and HSPA+ even deep within the bowels of buildings. They build their network really dense in certain areas. You could probably imagine that people who keep within an area like this would give T-Mobile high marks. Even with my AT&T phone I have "coverage," practically everywhere but sometimes the quality isn't there, sites are sometimes spaced too far apart so my dBM readings are less than ideal and data doesn't always connect. T-Mobile just can't duplicate Hollywood, CA. coverage everywhere without forking over $10-$12 billion dollars in high frequency band rollouts. Spotty 700 MHz from Verizon will help in certain areas but I'm sure they'll need to snag additional 700 MHz licenses scattered throughout the country.

For T-Mobile's sake they've proven that they can be disruptive enough to cause the bigger guys to adjust their offerings even if mediocre in comparison.

Some of them hated Cam for a few days but he speaks the truth.

I thought it was an awesome commercial. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO_qOjv_1v4

Percentage of on contract customers who'd switch to new providers would likely switch to: Sprint: 9 % AT&T: 10 % Verizon 19 % T-Mobile: 26%

I agree. As it stands right now even AT&T can run the whole US industry to the ground right now if it mirrored T-Mobile's policies and rate plans. But they won't because once they open up Pandora's box there goes their higher revenue. Sprint is in a unique position right now where they have the financial backing and the largest deck of spectrum in our country to do real damage. At a certain point I can't keep blaming Verizon and AT&T for Sprint's woes if they fail to execute properly With Sprint's assets and a leader like Legere the company could so some serious damage.

T-Mobile USA is better at marketing for one.. this is my area of expertise. I know Legere is a bit off the cuff (as Romney would say) but the more people hate him the more people talk about him. All 3 carriers have adopted (in some way or another) copycat no contract rate plans. I thought he was a pile of rubbish at first but the more I've learned about him the more I admire his style. It's just my opinion and perception.

I'll forgive you this once since you are from TN. I'm ready to move on if you are. I agree with you. Carriers like T-Mobile and Sprint have to work harder for customers because they are underdogs. Once the underdog status goes away there is less reason to be consumer friendly. There is an article floating around but I must admit I cannot find it anymore... Where I read Softbank's CEO as being quoted as saying that Sprint "has to," offer unlimited data because of its status compared to their larger competition. centermedic, on 27 Dec 2013 - 09:35 AM, said: The tie up of Sprint and Nextel was touted as the "merger of equals," although people look back at it as more of a buyout. twospirits, on 27 Dec 2013 - 06:45 AM, said: I believe Sprint already is a formidable opponent of AT&T and Verizon. They just don't know how to execute. There are those who believe that should such a transaction go through the new combined company would be better off with T-Mobile execs at the helm replacing the current Sprint management team.

I don't mind invective but sometimes people cross the line. I'm a woman and I found that post offensive. I've said my peace.

This is interesting from Moffet: Writes Moffett, “One fascinating reading from a Washington expert with whom we conferred postulated that it was Sprint’s own Washington office that had floated the story in order to elicit a response from experts that would demonstrate to their Japanese owners that a merger simply isn’t feasible from a regulatory standpoint.”