maxsilver

However, T-Mobile's issue is that it has not kept up with the size of cities that have expanded in both population and SIZE such as Austin, San Antonio, Las Vegas. Austin city center is great on T-Mobile but heading beyond the "city limits" from 15 years ago and you will find tons of dead/roaming only areas.

This is my biggest complaint as well.

I'm ok with T-Mobile saying "we're a urban/suburban carrier, we don't service freeways/rural areas". That's fine as stated, I have no problem with that.

But T-Mobile and I seem to have different definitions of cities. If an area is large enough to support a Best Buy, I consider that an "urban" or "suburban" area. But according to their coverage, T-Mobile doesn't.

Yep. When I was in holland, mi my sister on TMO had no service on the beach near a $$$ marina....Sprint has 38k total but I guess they're better placed? Idk

West Michigan is a bit of an anomaly. It's a metro area of more than 1 million people, but both Sprint and T-Mobile have equally terrible networks here.

T-Mobile has no service at all in places like Muskegon, Grand Haven, Traverse City, and EDGE only in Rockford, Byron Center, ect. But Sprint has 2G-only data service in places like Grand Rapids and Holland. Even LTE, where it exists in Grand Rapids, only gets slow 3G speeds at 1mbps down) It's basically a terrible tradeoff on either side.

The main problem is both Sprint and T-Mobile are critically short on towers in this market (running roughly half the total number of sites that AT&T and Nextel run in this market). But T-Mobile self-imposes an additional problem on their network -- they run their AWS gear underpowered by about 10 to 15dbm. That's why you'll see T-Mobile drop indoors in places where Sprint still has "1 bar" of service.

(This gets really obvious with MetroPCS. In West Michigan, MetroPCS LTE and T-Mobile HSPA+ both run on identical AWS spectrum, but MetroPCS LTE usually works indoors, where T-Mobile drops to EDGE, because MetroPCS runs AWS at full power, and T-mobile runs AWS under-powered a bit)

If you want the absolute best data service in West MI, you run AT&T. If you want a fairly priced, but still usable data service, you run MetroPCS CDMA + LTE. (It's not fast, but it's cheap and reliable, which is why the majority of those Boost mobile dealers switched to MetroPCS dealers in the last 12-24 months, and why Metro's new BYOD TMO GSM initiative hasn't started here yet)

T-Mobile and Sprint cater and fight for 2nd and 3rd tier customers who value paying less money a month in exchange for a lesser network experience.  Walk into any Sprint store and it's like going to the DMV.  I've had to deal with their retail (corporate owned employees and Business reps alike for years.  They stand out and not always in a good way. 

 

Sprint customers looking to buy accessories have to compete with customers trying to pay their 2 month past due statements in cash.

This is correct. "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"

It's true, T-Mobile/MetroPCS stores are sometimes very "ghetto". But any insult slammed at a MetroPCS store can equally be slammed at a Sprint/Boost Mobile store, which are also very "ghetto". They're effectively identical in terms of the stereo-typically poor clientele they cater to.

There's no point in trying to pretend one is "less ghetto" than the other. It's common knowledge they're both chasing the same market.

Everything Everywhere is a joint venture.  That is very different from a spin off or an acquisition.  Plus, it calls itself Everything Everywhere (and not T-Mobile) for a reason.

 

For another relevant example, look at SoftBank Mobile.  It does not still brand itself Vodafone KK.  Nope, the name went back to the UK when Vodafone sold off its Japan operations to the new entrant.

 

AJ

Virgin Mobile USA is owned by Sprint, and is not owned or operated in any way by Virgin Mobile UK or Virgin Media, but still keeps the brand name "Virgin Mobile" even after Sprint bought out Virgin Group's ownership. This isn't completely identical to the T-Mobile situation, since Virgin is a MVNO, and T-Mobile has it's own network.

But if we're being fair, there is at least a little bit of precedent for the brand to stick around after purchase.

One thing I've noticed on the Fulton Heights tower (Michigan ST), that tower seems to have been changed after launch.

Originally it covered all of Fulton Heights and Midtown with LTE. But recently (within the last two weeks) it's been changed. Reception is a lot lower than it used to be, LTE cuts out on Fulton ST and Easttown, or when indoors.

I don't know what's specifically changed (lowered transmit power? or moved / changed / removed a sector?). But I no longer get LTE in places I used to in that area, and the EVDO coverage seems unaffected.

Nope, its still spotty from m6 & kzoo to the east and south. I'm towards Dutton and I get 4g at my house but it is slower than 3g. Otherwise downtown and all other areas of GR are normal around 8-12 mbps download speed for me on my note 2.

The downtown site (McKay Tower) still has no LTE, even after the market launch announcement.

Folks can sometimes pick up LTE from scattered towers (the one north of GR on alpine, or the one south of GR by Grandville ST / Chicago Drive) but there's still zero LTE in downtown, and 3G speeds are bad.

I'm pretty sure it's pure marketing that Grand Rapids has "launched" and is not reflective of any noticable service improvements. Some of the suburbs have gotten better (each mall now has half-coverage of LTE) but in Grand Rapids proper, nothing's noticeable changed since Lansing "launched".

Why won't TMO do what Robert said and pull out of rural EDGE markets?

I don't see how pulling out of EDGE markets helps T-Mobile, or anyone really.

EDGE towers aren't all that expensive to run. They allow the potential for cheaper data costs than roaming. They allow calls to continue seamlessly between cities (otherwise, they'd drop when switching to roaming, and drop again when re-entering a TMO market, since TMO blocks in-market roaming).

They are also already scouted, leased, licensed (where necessary), installed, and operational. If they decide, for any reason, they need better coverage there, they'd have to re-pay those costs.

- - -

It's not like T-Mobile is ever going to drop the spectrum. If T-Mobile didn't have their EDGE network, they'd still hang on to all that PCS spectrum in those areas, and no one would be allowed to use it.

Surely some EDGE is better than no service?

- - -

I think T-Mobile's already doing what others mentioned and "embracing the urban-only carrier". I think their EDGE network is a testament to that. From everything I've seen so far, it appears that cheapest thing T-Mobile could do in the short term is simply not touch the EDGE network. And right now, that looks like what they are doing.

(It's also worth noting that, when EDGE sites break down right now, they are typically replacing them with HSPA+ radios and panels. Granted, they are still attached to single T1 lines, so speeds are still effectively EDGE-like. But you get the benefit of lower latency)

I have a feeling they were digging new trenches for fiber in New Mexico, since century link tried using copper back haul that didn't meet Sprint specs. Robert talked about this in the New Mexico market forum, almost all the backhaul had to be out back out to bid with for pure fiber installs. If fiber existed at these sites before, why would they have tried to hook up backhaul to anything other than fiber?

 

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

That's totally possible.

I'll repeat what I said above -- there are sites where Sprint literally has to wait on fiber to be "dug into ground trenched" installed. I'm not arguing against that. (And I know nothing about New Mexico or Sprint's network there)

However, "waiting on backhaul" doesn't always (I would say, doesn't usually) mean folks are digging anything. In Michigan, for example, almost every metro/suburban third party site has fiber backhaul already. (We're already a LTE market for three carriers). And the vast majority of Sprint's sites here are leased from someone else. So Sprint is (almost) never waiting on people to "dig trenches and install" fiber lines here.

However, they are (likely) waiting for fiber to be turned on at some sites. They've never purchased it here before, and AT&T Wireline is notorious for taking forever to touch anything here (Fiber lines, phone lines, Uverse installs, ect)

This is (usually) what I think is meant by "waiting for backhaul."

Can't backhaul be shared? Does it really require a new cable to be run to the tower for each carrier on the tower?

 

If each backhaul cable can be scaled to 1Gbps, why can't connections be temporarily shared between carriers?

It doesn't look like anyone answered your question directly:

Your absolutely correct. The lines to a tower can be shared. In fact, they already (usually) are.

Most towers already have fiber, and most Sprint towers already have fiber (even the non-NV ones). This fiber was installed years ago, and is already lit and in use by AT&T, Verizon, MetroPCS, and T-Mobile, among others.

This happened long ago because most towers aren't owned or operated by any specific carrier. They are operated by third party companies like American Tower, Crown Castle, GTP Sites, ect. The local telco's run fiber to the site, and any carrier on the site can pay to use that fiber to offer service.

When you hear folks say "Sprint had to wait for fiber", Sprint's not (usually) waiting for people to "trench" new fiber lines to the tower. Sprint's waiting for something else (like the local telco to provision the line for their access, to "turn on" that fiber for Sprint).

Here's a practical example. The link below goes to a GTP Site 'US-MI-5241'. Sprint is on this site. It's not a NV site (yet), but it's not "waiting on backhaul", because fiber from AT&T has been run to this tower years ago, and Verizon LTE, AT&T LTE, and MetroPCS LTE are all using it today. When Sprint adds LTE to this site, they won't have to "dig" anything, but Sprint might still be "waiting on backhaul" if Sprint has ordered service, and it's not setup and provisioned for them yet.

http://www.gtpsites.com/site-locator/site-detail-macro.aspx?SiteNo=US-MI-5241

Sprint's sort of at the mercy of local telco's when it comes to installation and provisioning times. And local telco's aren't in any rush to move quickly. (Here for instance, AT&T isn't hating on Sprint specifically, they are equally slow whenever anyone orders fiber on their lines, even if your just using it for your own business.)

- - -

T-Mobile doesn't have to "wait for backhaul" because they already pay for fiber service, so there's no new equipment or provisioning. Even if Sprint and T-Mobile are on the same tower, using the same fiber line, T-Mobile might be able to move faster because their service is already active (and Sprint might have to wait, through no fault of their own, while someone like AT&T sets up their fiber access).

- - -

Now, this doesn't apply to all sites (Sprint has sites unique to only their network, that they have to run their own fiber to, that are truely waiting on "trenched in the ground" fiber).

But for most leased sites, especially in cities / suburbs / freeways, "waiting on backhaul" doesn't have anything to do with folks putting fiber into the ground, and really means something else (like waiting on the backhaul provider to turn on service.)

Did they boost the throttle speeds? When I was a Tmo customers, it was 60kbps, but that was some time ago.

It's still about 60kbps.

I've heard rumors that this may vary by market, but I've been all over the midwest, and never seen it above 60k. My experience was identical to this guy's video -

lynyrd65 might be confusing the throttle speed with "2G" EDGE speeds (which are often around 120-130k). T-Mobile claims to bump you down to "2G speeds" but really they mean "half of EDGE speed".

It also is only on the backhaul side, T-Mobile never jumps you "down to 2G" or "up to 3G". You always connect to the best/fastest air interface available, regardless of whether your throttled or not. This means, if you use up all of your data allotment, you will still be connected to HSPA+ or LTE and getting 60k-ish speeds.

Can you point out a specific location on the map, near metro areas, where Tmobile doesn't have voice coverage and doesn't allow roaming?

Sure!

Grand Haven + Muskegon, Michigan. Population 500,000 people. MetroPCS CDMA has full LTE covering the entire region, and has for a few years now. Sprint has a few towers there as well (Sprint's rolling out some 3G + PCS LTE there now). T-Mobile GSM has no coverage in that region, and AT&T roaming is blocked there.

I'm not saying it's a huge epidemic or anything. A lot of the larger metro areas have better EDGE overlays around them (like NYC, Boston, Philidelphia, ect). But there are a few places where MetroPCS footprint is larger than T-Mobile's footprint.

I think I've "figured out" whether Tmobile will expand LTE to more than their current 225 mil HSPA+: yes, it will.

 

Comments?

I think there's a lot of speculation in your logic.

I'd love to see T-Mobile rollout LTE on every tower. (Or at least, "4G" HSPA+ on every tower).

But I don't think competition alone will *make* them do this. (Competition from Sprint 3G, or MetroPCS LTE, or AT&T / Verizon LTE has never made them to do this before). And John Legere's made some pretty silly remarks about 'cornfields' that make it look like his priories don't involve the EDGE network.

- - -

AIO wireless is interesting, and their pricing looks like it's targeting T-Mobile specifically. (Especially the 7GB LTE for $70 plan, which seems like a clear shot at T-Mobile's "Unlimited LTE" plan).

I do find it interesting that AIO is only targeting places where T-Mobile is fairly strong and not places where AT&T is strong and T-Mobile is comparatively weaker. AIO seems to only serve areas where AT&T and T-Mobile are close to parity in network quality (areas they might feel real heat from T-Mobile.)

Just how much do you think the ghetto-PCS customers roam?

Seriously? "ghetto" MetroPCS customers?

Think of the places where there's no Tmobile roaming. It's so far from the metro areas where their target market is located that its irrelevant.

Sounds like you didn't read my post :

T-Mobile (and MetroPCS GSM) *does* allow roaming on AT&T in places "far" from metro areas.

T-Mobile (and MetroPCS GSM) **block** roaming in places near metro areas (the kind of areas that 'ghetto MetroPCS' CDMA customers often travel to).

Shouldn't TMO first concern itself with their lack of even 3G in rurals?

Ideally, yes, I would agree. But it takes a lot of time + money for them to build out rural coverage (tower leases, extra backhaul, new equipment, ect).

It would take 30 seconds to 'flip the switch' and let T-Mobile + Metro GSM roam on AT&T nationwide. And there is already fairly-strict limits, strictly enforced on how much those customers are allowed to roam (for example, there's a hard 50-100mb cap on roaming data)

I just don't see why they would sell GS3 for $100 less on Metro AND have $10/month cheaper rates.

 

The other way it would make sense: phone is cheaper but $10/month x 24 months = net gain of $140.

 

Whatever.

This doesn't seem that uncommon to me. Sprint does something very similar :

Sprint Galaxy S3 -> $100 to free (depending on the sale) + $79/month for 24 months = $1896 to $1996

Virgin Mobile Galaxy S3 -> $400 + $35/month for 24 months = $1240

It's obviously not identically to the MetroPCS - T-Mobile situation, but it doesn't seem unusual to me for the lower priced plans to get lower prices devices.

I just feel sorry for the MetroPCS subs who are unwittingly going to lose substantial roaming coverage by switching from CDMA2000 to W-CDMA/GSM.

Yes! This is a bigger deal than it seems.

MetroPCS CDMA phones roam near-flawlessly across two major networks + others, nationwide.

T-Mobile GSM phones roam on one major network + others, and only in very specific designated areas.

If T-Mobile would just stop blocking AT&T roaming, then their roaming would be (roughly) equally useful to MetroPCS's and it wouldn't be an issue. But since they block a large portion of roaming right now, their roaming coverage can't be depended on.

No, Macro DAS are full power. Micro DAS, such as repeaters in office buildings and package stores are low power, low gain.

Oops, I am wrong, and you are absolutely correct.

I'm flipping through too many PDF's right now. Gotta slow down before posting. 

Also worth noting, both the 2007 report bigsnake49 found, and the 2008 report I added, have a footnote #10 that mentions :

"Cell sites are defined as the total number of sites in service at the end of the period, excluding small low power, low gain access sites."

Which I would interpret to mean "this number does not include DAS's".

If that interpretation is true, the 52,000 number does not include DAS's, and is equally comparable to Sprint's site number.

EDIT : this interpretation is probably incorrect.

That's from the year end 2007. As you can see they only had 37,900, and from the 2008, they only added 1,100, so where did the other 5000 sites come from?

 

Do you see why we are sceptical?

Yes, I see why folks are skeptical.

But that chart ends at 2007.

Here's that *same exact report* from 2008 :

Note that now the count for "Quarter 4, 2008 cell sites on air" is now up to 44,000. In 2008.

http://s.tmocache.com/Cms/Files/Published/0000BDF20016F5DD010312E2BDE4AE9B/0000BDF20016F5DE011FB943D848D0CB/file/TMUSQ4PressReleaseFINAL.pdf

But that brings up more questions, as in why would they be adding 1,100 GSM/GPRS/Edge only sites at the same time they're expanding their 3G network to cover 100 Million people during 2008?

They've added EDGE (or "edge-like" 3G) sites here over the last year. Not a lot, but about 12 over the last 18 months.

I'm guessing they do it to reduce AT&T roaming costs. (I don't have evidence of this, but I have observed that they block AT&T roaming for a few months before the new EDGE sites near here came online).

So, you might want to take note of that when you put so much credence in the info from T-Mobile PR.

Right. And if it was just T-Mobile PR, you'd have an argument here.

But it's not just T-Mobile PR. It's also numerous T-Mobile executives (Neville Ray, Dave Mayo), and they are all saying the same thing.

You seemingly consider anything that fits your world view a "fact." Anything that runs counter to that view is an "opinion." This needs to stop.

You already know this isn't true.

I'm quoting documents and statements from staff. I don't work for T-Mobile. I don't pretend to have inside information. I'm just repeating the information available to me (and directly linking to it for others to examine as well).

Look, reportedly, you are quite the T-Mobile shill at other sites.  If you are here largely to troll for T-Mobile, you will not last.  Consider yourself warned.

This isn't an argument. This is an attack on my character. Your just calling me names now.

Neither Sprint nor T-Mobile have been historically known as DAS rich carriers. Metro on the other hand...

Your right. Neither are on as many DAS's as they should be. (I personally believe they should be on *every* DAS, but I understand there are financial limitations involved).

All of a sudden this 51,000 site number appears without an announced large scale new site buildout program. So color me a sceptic.

I don't think that's true. I don't think the 51,000 number "appeared out of nowhere", I think T-Mobile just doesn't like to mention it because those towers are "unloved". (Not maintained, not improved, not upgraded.)

I mean, if I worked in T-Mobile HR, I'd be pretty embarrassed about the EDGE portions of the network. I'd never mention them.

If it helps, here's yet another source : Dave Mayo (Senior VP at T-Mobile), who's quoted in Light Reading, from just last week, saying "We're upgrading about 37,000 of our 52,000 cell sites". http://www.lightreading.com/wireless-backhaul/tmobile-to-debut-ltea-features-in-2013/240157256

Listen, pal, you need to get off your high horse.  Repeating press releases is not the same as verifying facts.  The latter is what we are actually trying to do.  That T-Mobile has 51,000 discrete cell sites is not yet a proven fact.

Woah buddy, no need to get all defensive. (Did you see the smiley? It's an international symbol for a statement made in jest).

I get that you don't like the press release. I understand that it challenges some closely-held opinions. I'm not trying to persuade you of anything. (I'm not in here claiming T-Mobile's coverage or service is better, or anything like that).

But it does insult your own experience, to challenge an official statement with your own personal ancetodes. Surely, someone with your knowledge and experience will appreciate this sentiment.

If someone came in here and said "I used a Sprint phone and it sucked, therefore all of Sprint sucks," everyone here would (completely understandably) challenge that statement with facts. But for some reason, if someone says the same of T-Mobile, it passes as a valid argument.

All I'm trying to do is promote consistency. We used Sprint documents (internal and external) as reference. I see no reason why T-Mobile's documents can't hold equal weight about their network.

http://www.tmonews.com/2013/06/t-mobile-sending-out-event-invites-for-july-10th-rolling-out-their-boldest-moves-yet

 

Perhaps this banging' announcement of "boldest moves yet" includes some kind of swan song about upgrading those 14,000 odd GSM only sites.  Nice to dream, isn't it?

I'd love to see that happen, but I'm not holding my breath. Seems *highly* unlikely to me.

Keeping 14k 2G sites in operation with no ongoing plans to upgrade doesn't seem like the strategy of a carrier that is in it for the "long haul"... it sounds like a carrier looking for consolidation.  I've always thought that about tmo's rural coverage

I don't think those towers are there to attract customers. They are there to prevent roaming. It's cheaper for T-Mobile to keep those towers running, rather than pay AT&T crazy-high roaming rates for all their subscribers usage in those areas.

Let me reiterate my disbelief that T-Mobile had 51,000 macro sites before the merger. They were always 1-2,000 sites behind Sprint. I am not convinced. I will find the truth even if it kills me or I have to use the wayback machine.

That's ok. Don't let facts get in the way of your opinion.   

The way that the confusion may arise is that T-Mobile might have 37,000 HSPA+ sites and about 14,000 GSM sites, but they are colocated.

The 'colocation' argument has already been debunked, by the T-Mobile press release. T-Mobile doesn't double count HSPA + GSM sites (just as Sprint doesn't double count 1X + EVDO sites).

It's not just me that has doubts. AJ, our local guru, is also incredulous and we have been around for awhile.

I'm sure you guys have been around a while, that's all well and good, but even if the number turns out to be artificially high, this argument holds absolutely no value, and is a logical fallacy.

- -

In all honesty, my guess is that the T-Mobile 51,000 number includes DAS's as a single site. (For instance, if they throw a DAS all throughout a university, that counts as a "site"). T-Mobile is on a *lot* of DAS's, far more than Sprint is (in my market, anyway). 

T-Mobile's number isn't unusually high in any way. Sprint's number seems oddly low. Sites are, by far, the most important metric in network quality. This is where I would start investigating.

Sprint does not count DAS in their site totals.

Are you certain of this? Do you know why not?

It seems odd to me that they wouldn't include these. (Obviously not every site, but I would assume that "State University DAS" should count as one "site", just like a single tower would count as one "site")

DAS's are just as important for proper data coverage as a regular site.

Some quick math :

51,000 (old T-Mobile) + 11,500 (MetroPCS) = 62,500 (total Metro+TMO today)

62,500 - 10,000 (soon to be closed redundant sites) = 52,500 (future T-Mobile USA)

That's roughly 1,500 sites net gained through the merger, which sounds about right to me.

I know in my market, Metro has a larger footprint than T-Mobile does, and Metro LTE covers an additional few cities of about 500,000 people, that T-Mobile has no service at whatsoever (no 3G, no EDGE, no roaming).