GinaDee

I won't even give Tmo kudos for excellent urban coverage. Unless I'm within 1/2 mile of a WCDMA site, I get no indoor coverage. There are so many places going indoors where I grab my four devices, and only Tmo has no coverage. It's not just a rural thing.

 

Tmo has the weakest coverage of all four carriers everywhere I go. The only thing Tmo does have going for it is if you do have a good Tmo signal, it will perform equal or better than its competitors.

 

Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

Urban as in:  "somewhere in South Dakota?"

Regionally I live in an area that is night and day from you.  

I totally agree at&t has significantly better rural coverage, I believe they got it in a trade with satan for their soul and the firstborns of their subscribers. I guess I am just a little shocked that anyone who would need rural coverage would leave at&t for tmo, you would have to be howling at the moon crazy.

 

It would be fun to market, they could offer a tmo refugee credit, anyone who leaves and comes back within the cooling off period gets an additional $100 bucks or something like that. Tmo has come up with some interesting concepts with the whole uncarrier thing. Maybe at&t can try some innovation of their own, at which point it may be wise to pick up some shares in pig parachutes.    

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?

How can he call tmobiles network superior? Yea their plans are better but come on tmobile is worthless outside most cities.

 

Sent from my LG-LS980 using Tapatalk

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 just can't get over the fact that literally 3/4 of their coverage is 2G with no (public) plans to modernize.  If I lived in the middle of NYC or CHI or something, I would totally be there.. but being a country guy all my life, they are worthless to me at this point.

 

 

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

No, but tmo and sprint will continue to need real money to constantly try and keep up.. merging would make it a lot easier..

verizon is said to be ready to start volte real soon.. handsets that support it should be out this year.

sprint is trying to get lte out, tmo is still trying to get rid of edge.. Both doing a lot of work just to saty in the game.

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.  

Not at all. They can remain independent if they really chose to, but they will have no money for spectrum and upgrades if they keep hurting margins.

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

Speech is free, expanding coverage will cost T-Mobile real money.

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. 

If T-Mobile goes it alone, do you really believe they can afford to keep offering such incentives?

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)

I agree. I'm sure SoftBank is patient but I'm sure they will not tolerate any delays.

 

I would think most of sprint smartphone customers will have a Triband phone by 2016 and onward considering all smartphones released in 2014 and onward will be triband. I just hope they have 2.5 somewhat nationwide by then

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 think y'all are missing the boat in that smartphone subscribers are just one of piece of a rapidly expanding pie. Millions of automobiles will soon be equipped with 4G LTE radios, and owners/passengers naturally want to connect their cars to the internet, especially if they want Netflix in the backseat TV screens.

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'm not saying that people should ignore now.  But in context to the conversation, I am referring to people drawing complete conclusions about SoftBank because of their current Sprint experience right now.

 

Robert

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.  

Unfortunately T-Mobile lacks the quality and quantity of service offered by AT&T and Verizon.  At either of my parent's homes in the heart of Tulsa T-Mobile only works if you are outdoors.  Even Sprint who uses a similar frequency for LTE and Voice connectivity offers a certain marginal level of indoor service inside my mother's partial brick home.  I had a T-mobile device for a few months both with a "real" T-mobile Sim and a trial of Solavei.  The service even around town was borderline pathetic, and at my apartment in Norman T-mobile signals are again only usable on the patio.  My neighbor Jon with a T-mobile iPhone 5S is sorely disappointed with their service. AT&T offers extremely high speeds in and around Tulsa and OKC.  Verizon is crippled by USCC holdings in Tulsa but still offers a competitive LTE service and a mildly robust voice network over PCS.  Sprint is somewhere in the middle.

-William

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.

AT&T would be crazy to do that, that would legitimize a smaller competitor and perhaps lose some customers who weren't aware of T-Mobile.

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.

Many of you might enjoy reading this piece.  Oddly, TmoNews is now edited by a Brit, and it shows in the article.

 

http://www.tmonews.com/2013/12/t-mobiles-2014-resolution-its-got-to-be-coverage-coverage-and-more-coverage/

 

 

AJ

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

So I saw a new T-Mobile commercial last night about their $0 down Samsung promotion and was surprised that they specifically singled out AT&T. Overall, the commercial seemed to feel a little too "urban low brow" stereotypical for me, but the aggressiveness of firing a shot across AT&T's bow was nice. I wonder if Sprint will start singling out the other providers once they complete more of their network.

I thought it was an awesome commercial.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO_qOjv_1v4

Thats exactly my point. The average cell phone consumer would gravitate towards switching providers if not for the contracts.

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%

Sprint has some major cash behind it right now. I would that cash be used to drive t-mo into the ground and pressure the other two than to add a bunch of customers who actually hate Sprint(increased churn), and add a bunch of debt that may financially restrict the company. I think the long play here is to build the network to attract the customers. Not a short cut that adds debt.

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. 

Enlighten us.  What has T-Mobile leadership done?  You know, besides play Santa Claus and act/talk/dress like a 1980s "Miami Vice" party scene extra.

 

AJ

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 believe you just said something earlier about an argument being weak when using sexist remarks as a rebuttal;  I'd argue that if you accept that premise as truth, then the same is true when attempting to use gender-based generalizations as well. Whether something crosses a line or not is often entirely subjective to every individual, even when it is assumed otherwise---it is not always a black and white unspoken universal truth for the entire gamut of society as a whole, nor in this case is it such for the entire spectrum of the female gender.   My girlfriend is a woman as well (go figure) and she found the comment quite humorous....probably because *gasp* she took it in the context it was obviously intended.  

 

You have every right to hold the opinion you do certainly, on this or any other topic...but don't be so presumptuous as to assume you're speaking for anyone but yourself, or express otherwise, when you choose to express it/them.

I'll forgive you this once since you are from TN.  

I'm ready to move on if you are.

If you don't think uncarrier doesn't go away or become nothing more than a marking tool your going to be quite surprised. Reduced competition is never good for the consumer and tmobile's move are unsestainable in the long run even if they merge with sprint. If this merge goes through you will start to see sprint act more like the big two.

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:

You are right Robert. As the rumor goes it is a buy out. I was talking in generic terms.

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. 

"GinaDee," you have not been around very long, so you do not know the backstory.  Robert and others previously countered Joan's diatribes, inaccuracies, and wishful thinking in the comments to her articles.  She may know investing, but she does not know spectrum.  And when it comes to Sprint, she is incorrigible.  Thus, we no longer give her credence or acknowledgement.

 

Would you like to join her?

 

AJ

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.

See:  Craig Moffett.

 

Some people just pursue vendettas against Sprint.

 

AJ

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.”