Conan Kudo

Ice bridge

I never said that they couldn't. In fact, I expect 1X voice to persist under ESMR, because there's no point in getting rid of it and it could be useful. ESMR LTE, ESMR CDMA 1X-A, PCS GSM (for M2M), PCS HSPA+42, PCS G LTE, AWS LTE, and BRS+EBS LTE could all coexist just fine.

That is true. And you are right that reception doesn't mean much if you can not transmit powerfully enough for the cell site to receive it. I was basically trying to prove that there's a power problem when it comes to CDMA/LTE gear. 20W over 1.25MHz bandwidth is functionally equivalent to 80W over 5MHz bandwidth, but 20W over 5MHz bandwidth is weaker than 20W over 1.25MHz bandwidth, is it not? And yes, I know there's some bending of this rule with LTE, since it uses subcarriers, but the principle should basically hold true, ne? And this causes the reception problem that many of you experience.

VoLTE uses at most 64 Kbps for voice. For video, it uses no more than 1 Mbps. However, current deployments of VoLTE will use 16 Kbps of bandwidth. Latency is the key factor, and VoLTE demands below 150ms of IP latency. On a bits per Hertz level, VoLTE is fantastically more efficient than CDMA 1X-A at the same voice codec bit rate.

I am aware of this, but the key factor of Shannon-Hartley and virtually any property of wireless is the power levels used. For example, one vendor's CDMA/LTE gear supports up to 20W for CDMA 1X and 60W for LTE, but when both are being used, LTE is limited to 20W. That same vendor's UMTS/LTE gear allows up to 80W for UMTS and LTE simultaneously. All things equal, you are correct. But if an "overlay" or secondary network did not share radio paths with the CDMA network, LTE can use higher power levels. Sprint does not do this with ESMR or PCS, but it will do this with BRS+EBS. And I expect that you know that power levels are a critical deciding factor in coverage. And you know very well that there are ways to work around limitations in power levels, even without more cell sites.

Can you cite anyone from DT saying they wanted to? Looking at various financial statements gives a far better picture than any rumor story could ever do. More to the point, can you prove DT wants to sell TMUS now? Because all evidence points to the contrary.

200MB per month, for the life of the tablet on the T-Mobile network

Future Sight

They've been calling it that with their M2M stuff. I work for a company that does M2M stuff, so we've been talking to carriers about M2M cellular service for months. Oh, I know it is. I even know the radio characteristics of each generation of cellular tech. That doesn't change the fact that Sprint and Verizon refer to 1xRTT as 2G anyway. I'd like to know where you got that idea, because it seemed to me that LTE has more tolerance of a weaker signal than CDMA 1X does. Also, the repeated FUD you push about VoLTE. VoLTE has some problems related to software implementation details, but I don't ever recall there being coverage issues. Have you ever used VoLTE in the real world to see how it works? Remember, it doesn't work the same way as Skype or other VoIP packages do. You seem to be spreading a lot of FUD yourself, along with A.J. I guess I'll need to provide counterpoints... On Deutsche Telekom: T-Mobile US provides almost a third of the entire Group's revenue, and almost a quarter of the entire Group's profits. The only other unit more profitable than T-Mobile US is Telekom Germany. All the other units of DT aren't doing that well and are under major restructuring and redevelopment plans. Despite TMUS' redevelopment work, it is still highly profitable for DT. It is also the only reason DT's balance sheet isn't in the red like all the other European operators (except Vodafone). DT didn't want to sell T-Mobile US to AT&T initially. But AT&T persuaded them with a very hefty purchase price and generously favorable breakup fee terms. It didn't help that the German government (who owns ~30% of DT stock) was pressuring them to rationalize (simplify and reduce) the cost structure of the Group in order to improve focus on Germany. Those pressures have gone away, so I don't expect this to happen again. On John Legere: I have no idea where you got the idea that Legere is only there to "pretty up" T-Mobile for sale. Are we talking about the same Legere who rejected a purchase offer for Global Crossing, turned the company around, and only sold the company on the direction of the board and shareholders? I would agree if I had seen any indicators showing Deutsche Telekom wanted to sell T-Mobile US, but I have not. Deutsche Telekom and Legere have made open-ended comments about the structure of the deal. However, that is practically required in order to give shareholders confidence in them, as well as assure Wall Street that options are available, if need be. Those comments are also the reason why T-Mobile's latest debt and stock offerings went so well. The market was reassured that the stock issuance that reduced DT's stake didn't trip up the lockup agreement. TMUS has the flexibility to offer stock as part of any deal to acquire another company. This would reduce DT's stake through dilution of existing shares, but it doesn't matter as long as DT retains more than 30% of the common stock of the company. Company bylaws state DT is to be treated as majority and controlling shareholder as long as DT owns 30% or more of the common stock of TMUS. On rural coverage: I'm guessing you are more than a little bitter about your area not being upgraded. I can completely understand. I was bitter about mine not being upgraded for quite some time, too. Heck, I'm still bitter that my dad's home is just outside an upgraded zone, so it doesn't get the HSPA+/LTE coverage that exists there. But T-Mobile has actually been doing rural upgrades. If you look at the coverage maps and the documentation in Howard Forums and other places, you can see that T-Mobile is steadily reducing the number of GSM-only areas. And unlike Sprint, T-Mobile is also expanding the total coverage area. New cell sites are being constructed and approved, when needed. The major reason HSPA+ coverage didn't reach all over T-Mobile's existing footprint by now was because of the recession started around the same time T-Mobile was given permission to start deploying its new network. And of course, when T-Mobile was going to begin that three-year program to actually do it in 2011, AT&T killed it. It's only now started up again. T-Mobile has been very unlucky in that respect, but I think it is finally turning that around. T-Mobile is actively negotiating with all Lower 700MHz licensees to acquire Band 12 spectrum (largely A block, but also B and C block that isn't under the control of AT&T). An announcement of the sale of Verizon's assets will come this week, and others will follow soon enough. T-Mobile raised enough money to buy out everyone in cash, but will try not to spend only cash with Verizon, since its licenses are the priciest.

CellMaps defines 1xRTT as 2G, just like Verizon and Sprint do. Not everyone everywhere will go to VoLTE. WCDMA voice will be required for devices originating from countries where IP voice systems are prohibited by law, or otherwise handicapped (such as LG smartphones from South Korea, which use a non-standard authentication scheme for IP voice that breaks when used outside of the home network). Not to mention that a UMTS carrier can fit into 1.25MHz and 2.5MHz slices in Release 12, if need be. However, I expect ESMR to be used entirely for LTE, with maybe 1.25MHz allocated to CDMA 1X for legacy services. WCDMA service also carries the benefit of inbound roaming revenue. One of Sprint's aspirations is to become a preferred roaming partner for the US market, but that is hampered by the frequency bands and technologies it uses. PCS A-F has CDMA2000, and PCS G has LTE. Band 25 (for PCS G) has not be well-received outside of the Sprint sphere, so it's an island. ESMR has CDMA 1X and LTE. The CDMA 1X is a non-issue, and the LTE is on an island band that was crafted basically for Sprint. However, ESMR LTE on Band 26 will become more interesting as NTT DoCoMo and Telus adopt it. If PCS A-F shifted to WCDMA, then it can become a preferred roaming partner for Eurasia, as tri-band UMTS 900/1900/2100 devices are very common due to the large amount of economic efforts between Eurasia and Latin America. ESMR can retain CDMA 1X for backwards compatibility, and LTE on ESMR, PCS G, AWS, and BRS+EBS would enable great compatibility globally. Without T-Mobile, the only thing it lacks is AWS. That's fine, too. Band 41 LTE TDD networks can be configured to also support Band 38 LTE TDD devices, provided that an LTE carrier is in the Band 38 frequency range. A UMTS/LTE Sprint would be a powerhouse that would be a preferred partner for virtually all operators all over the world.

Everybody does this. AT&T does this with blues, Verizon does it with reds, and Sprint does it with greens. If you want to use an alternative coverage map, there are five or six options for T-Mobile, three of which have different color schemes. That source isn't unverified. CellMaps is made by Mosaik Solutions, formerly known as American Roamer. They receive the data from the operators themselves.

Race track

A CDMA monopoly isn't really possible because of the large number of CDMA operators in the country. There are still super-regional operators that offer CDMA service. Also, in the marketplace, CDMA is considered a technology of limited scale. The disappearance of CDMA would not be nearly as problematic, since there are no markets outside of the United States where CDMA is the dominant technology (or even used anywhere near how much GSM/UMTS is). Verizon Wireless, for example, is planning on exiting the CDMA ecosystem within the next 8 months. Remember a monopoly is only such if it is deemed valuable. The CDMA ecosystem has been losing value over the last five years, and continues to do so.

No, they refer to the same air interface. I thought that part was at least obvious...? Honestly, I think this would probably be the only thing permitted, since the companies would still be operating separate strategies and "compete" for customers. Network sharing is commonplace throughout the world, and it can work when it is set up right.

UMTS == HSPA == HSPA+ == WCDMA == W-CDMA. The terms are interchangeable from a network planning perspective (even though HSPA/HSPA+/WCDMA are different portions of the UMTS standard). T-Mobile runs GSM and UMTS on PCS. T-Mobile runs UMTS and LTE on AWS. MetroPCS has a few locations with LTE on PCS, but those are being shut down. LTE on PCS is in the minority, not the majority. You may not like it, but the dominant network is likely to be T-Mobile's in the face of a merger. Like Sprint's "Network Vision", T-Mobile's recent deployment is a modernization effort. It just doesn't have fancy marketing names like Sprint's does. It's also moving along much more smoothly than Sprint's.

Well, Verizon doesn't do it anymore, and you don't see truckloads of fraud from it. AT&T and T-Mobile never did that. I never said that SIM locking is evil. I said disabling the functionality built into the hardware is. A normal SIM lock works well enough to prevent people from switching operators before the subsidy is paid off. I'm not disputing that at all. Sprint (and previously Verizon) went above and beyond that.

I think people would be rather confused. Unlike Japanese people, who don't actually know what "SoftBank" would mean, it would be very weird for such a name to be used for a mobile phone company in an English-speaking country.

American Cellular Corporation

Unfortunately, Sprint requests manufacturers to do evil things like this: SIM unlocking will do you no good if you can't access the functionality anyway. This "commitment" doesn't address that at all. It's worthless.

T-Mobile already has VoLTE on its network. It inherited it from MetroPCS. While GSM/UMTS/LTE handsets do not have VoLTE active (they use CSFB by default instead), T-Mobile will relaunch VoLTE on Lower 700MHz A block spectrum with a new class of GSM/UMTS/LTE handsets.

Because combining Sprint's >200MHz of spectrum with T-Mobile's ~80MHz of spectrum is more than twice the spectrum screen limit for any operator. Further subdividing into spectrum classes, the only spectrum they wouldn't be required to divest is 700MHz, ESMR 800MHz, and Cellular 850MHz spectrum. They'd have to get rid of either some PCS or AWS, and a great deal of its BRS+EBS would have to be divested, because there's no rational public interest benefit to Sprint controlling damn near the entire 194MHz of the 2.6GHz band.

By that logic, PCS would be a better divestment, because everyone uses PCS. Every operator would love to get their hands on parts of Sprint's PCS D+B+E+F spectrum throughout the country, since it's smack in the middle of the band and goes well with all currently deployed technologies except LTE from an ecosystem perspective.