dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2009-11-20 14:47:43: There's been a flurry of rumors lately surrounding T-Mobile owner Deutsche Telekom, and their desire to improve T-Mobile's fourth-place fortunes in the U.S. wireless market. ..

page: 1 · 2 · next


del ftl

@algx.net

hmmm

ATT doesn't make a ton of sense, but then neither does CDMA 1x only network from metro pcs.

Clearwire maybe, but I just dont see the point.

There are still several smaller gsm service providers in the country, like in wyoming, in the carolinas and so on, that could prove attractive, although not a ton of subscribers would come from them.

I would wonder about something with a Canadian provider going with a unified no roaming all over north America network. That's something ATT and vzw dont have, and could prove fairly popular especially in the east where people often travel between the countries.

patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1

1 recommendation

tmobile

Clearwire or sprint is probably DT's best bet. Tmobile already uses proprietary spectrum that few devices support (AWS/1700). Just keep choosing proprietary/niche technologies such as WiMAX. Its sad that ATT bought all the starbucks wifi hotspots from TM/Starbucks Corp. Tmobile should just buy US Cellular and inherit an 800 mhz network. Whats Tmobile's 700 mhz spectrum look like? Their coverage is crap. Building penetration is crap. And engineering wise they went on the cheap side. Sprint has better coverage and slightly better building penetration, and can always in-market roam onto Verizon. Tmobile NEVER in-market roams onto ATT. MetroPCS and Cricket are showing Tmobile, if you will have a limited coverage cheap crap network with no [in-market] roaming, people expect to be compensated for it by much lower prices or much more features.


kapil
The Kapil

join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL

Well...

I agree that the time's ripe for DT to do something. But it's hard to tell what that something may be.

Sprint's a bad fit. Clearwire makes more sense but is owned 51% by Sprint and that will either A) setup a merger with sprint down the road when DT and Sprint share a 4G platform thanks to their shared ownership or Clearwire or B) will make for an uneasy marriage a la Vodafone+Verizon=VZW.

AT&T is too big as it is so regulators aren't going to allow another competition-reducing merger that involves it.

Some of the smaller/regional carriers like USCellular, Cricket, MetroPCS et al...I don't see the point aside from bulking up subscriber numbers for an eventual sale to a bigger fish...but A) There are no bigger fish looking/able to buy and B) I thought DT wanted to remain a player in the US market.

The only viable option may be for DT to go it alone. Which means lots of capital expenditure and winning customers the old fashioned way. Not sure if investors will be that patient.

DT could also partner-up with or sell to another overseas player. Vodafone/Verizon are both rumored to be interested in exiting their partnership. Maybe Vodafone would want to enter the US on its own? SK Telecom? An Indian or Chinese provider?

No easy options. The market is saturated and the economy sucks. Tough time to make big moves.
--
»www.VoIPTrunk.com

iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL

Clear seems the most logical, followed by MetroPCS

Clear has a ton of spectrum, though I hear that T-Mobile isn't terribly far behind. Clear and T-Mobile are both focused on building out fast networks (T-Mobile with HSPA+ and LTE, Clear with WiMAX and possibly LTE). If they work together they can offer their customers better service, thus stealing customers away from Verizon and AT&T.

MetroPCS is also a rather sensible option. MetroPCS looks to be going directly from 1xRTT to LTE, and is non-contract like T-Mobile is trying to push. They're also the cost-cutting king though service quality is still quite good. The only question is what T-Mboile (GSM and HSPA) is going to do re: MetroPCS's current CDMA-only network.

AT&T's only good side with doing business with T-Mobile is that both run GSM + WCDMA networks. AT&T has shared towers with T-Mobile in SoCal, but their paths are diverging with T-Mobile's new AWS 1700 3G network. So while T-Mobile phones can roam on AT&T 3G, the reverse isn't possible. Also, T-Mobile has rather solid network quality, and AT&T tends to not have a similar level of network quality. So I'd think the match would be a tenuous one.


FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

1 recommendation

Make a deal with TelCel(America Movil)

I am sure Carlos Slim who controls all the telecom(wired & wireless) in Mexico and much of South America would like to move in to the US as well. He has a history in the US with MCI when he sold to Verizon.

Deutch Telekom would find a partner with deep pockets in Carlos Slim.

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telcel
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Sli···adership
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page



joako
Premium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
kudos:6
reply to iansltx

Re: Clear seems the most logical, followed by MetroPCS

said by iansltx:

AT&T has shared towers with T-Mobile in SoCal, but their paths are diverging with T-Mobile's new AWS 1700 3G network.
That ended a while ago: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Mob···cilities

said by iansltx:

Also, T-Mobile has rather solid network quality, and AT&T tends to not have a similar level of network quality. So I'd think the match would be a tenuous one.
What is your definition of "network quality?"
--
PRescott7-2097

BosstonesOwn

join:2002-12-15
Wakefield, MA
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to FFH5

Re: Make a deal with TelCel(America Movil)

I think Slim would be a good starting point , as well as a gsm canadian based provider as well.

Think of the costs savings , especially in the unification of the SA and NA markets. It would make one hell of a calling foot print.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!"

ISurfTooMuch

join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

It's the network

If DT wants T-Mobile to grow, then they have to grow their network, and that means putting up lots of cell sites. At some point, T-Mobile (more probably VoiceStream) made the decision that it wanted to be a provider that only covered urban areas and Interstates. That attracted some customers, just as MetroPCS and Cricket also attracted customers who don't travel with their phones a lot. However, that customer pool is pretty much tapped out, with the remaining folks out there preferring a carrier that works in more rural areas. As for me, I'd love another alternative, and I'd like it to be GSM, but, as it stands, T-Mobile's network just isn't big enough.

One other thing. With their choices in terms of 3G smartphones being so slim, they're at a severe disadvantage when it comes to getting business accounts. Getting the BlackBerry Bold 9700 is a good start, but they really need to keep working on this aspect of their business.

It sounds like DT has decided it wants to be a first-tier carrier. That's fine, but it's going to need a first-tier network, not one that just follows the major highways.

jay_rm

join:2002-04-12
Netville
reply to patcat88

Re: tmobile

said by patcat88:

Tmobile already uses proprietary spectrum that few devices support (AWS/1700).
Too be technically correct, that statement SHOULD note that this is just the UMTS 3G part of T-Mobiles US spectrum. T-Mobile USA is also the LARGEST occupant of the 1900 MHz band, used mostly for 2G+ services, and uses pretty much the same dual-band GSM RF architecture handsets as ATT Mobility. A typical T-MO handset can roam on ATT Mobility and vs-vs

This is only a guess, but if they have enough contiguous spectrum at 1900 in their markets, they could certainly run 3G services (unless prohibited - not 100% up-to-date on the do's and don'ts of some of the FCC part 24 spectrum )
--
3500/512 5.7 GHz Motorola Canopy Wireless; FoxValley.net
'It looks just like a Telefunken U47 !'


tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1
reply to patcat88
Your lack of understanding of the FCC, licensing, cellular technologies, competition, and even basic timelines makes me giggle. Keep on bringing the funny.


TSWYO
Premium
join:2003-05-03
Cheyenne, WY

1 edit
reply to del ftl

Re: hmmm

Not like they are big enough to consider, but that Wyoming route is a Family / Local proud company. I doubt they would go foreign. They sure do have the best back country service in Wyoming and Northern Colorado though.

patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1

1 edit
reply to jay_rm

Re: tmobile

said by jay_rm:

Too be technically correct, that statement SHOULD note that this is just the UMTS 3G part of T-Mobiles US spectrum. T-Mobile USA is also the LARGEST occupant of the 1900 MHz band, used mostly for 2G+ services, and uses pretty much the same dual-band GSM RF architecture handsets as ATT Mobility. A typical T-MO handset can roam on ATT Mobility and vs-vs
But does it in-market roam on ATT? Could've would've should've, DOES IT?

WiMAX says WiMAX works from 2 GHZ to 66 GHZ. Will there ever be a product that will do that? No.

UMTS and GSM also have many many bands in their standards that will never find a Nokia, Samsung, or LG phone for.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMTS_frequency_bands
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSM_frequency_bands


tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1

1 recommendation

reply to ISurfTooMuch

Re: It's the network


ATT's national network

T-Mobile's national network

Now you see how much ATT roams

TMO's native and roaming coverage matches ATT's coverage
said by ISurfTooMuch:

If DT wants T-Mobile to grow, then they have to grow their network, and that means putting up lots of cell sites. At some point, T-Mobile (more probably VoiceStream) made the decision that it wanted to be a provider that only covered urban areas and Interstates. That attracted some customers, just as MetroPCS and Cricket also attracted customers who don't travel with their phones a lot. However, that customer pool is pretty much tapped out, with the remaining folks out there preferring a carrier that works in more rural areas. As for me, I'd love another alternative, and I'd like it to be GSM, but, as it stands, T-Mobile's network just isn't big enough.

One other thing. With their choices in terms of 3G smartphones being so slim, they're at a severe disadvantage when it comes to getting business accounts. Getting the BlackBerry Bold 9700 is a good start, but they really need to keep working on this aspect of their business.

It sounds like DT has decided it wants to be a first-tier carrier. That's fine, but it's going to need a first-tier network, not one that just follows the major highways.
It was a basic question of physics. It takes 3 1900mhz towers to cover the same area as 1 850mhz tower. Unless TMO (and Sprint) wanted to spend 3x as much money for coverage in areas that would take 30 years to recoup the costs (Montana, Idaho, etc.), they'd stick to cities. And that's precisely what Sprint and TMO have done.

As for a "carrier that works in rural areas" check the attachments out.

ATT's roaming is as widespread as TMO's. It's just that TMO makes it clear up front. ATT's nationwide map does not show roaming - only after you zoom in. TMO's shows roaming immediately. This wouldn't be much of an issue if it were still the case that ATT's coverage was uniformly better than T-Mobile's. However, it is not. Simply compare the orange areas to the green areas (of all shades) and you'll see their their native + roaming network sizes are virtually identical.

For example, ATT lacks native coverage west of Salina, KSalong the heavily-traveled I-70 to Denver. T-Mobile, however, has about 50 miles of native coverage along that stretch. Also, look at Cheyenne, WY. ATT is roaming, while T-Mobile has (a bit) of native coverage. Are there areas that ATT has coverage that TMO doesn't have native coverage? Sure. But it's a two-way street.

Now, I don't fault consumers for having this misconception that ATT has great coverage, while T-Mobile doesn't. When it comes down to it, both ATT and T-Mobile HEAVILY rely on hundreds of regional GSM networks to roam on. And T-Mobile chooses to point that out which hurts them, while ATT chooses to not show that on their national coverage maps. Personally, I think TMO should follow ATT's lead, since I could really care less whether I'm roaming or not - as long as I get coverage. Roaming affects me in no way.

In the end, whether it's ATT or T-Mobile, wherever I drive (typically between Chicago, Denver, and Dallas) I get coverage the entire way.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara


tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1
reply to patcat88

Re: tmobile

said by patcat88:

said by jay_rm:

Too be technically correct, that statement SHOULD note that this is just the UMTS 3G part of T-Mobiles US spectrum. T-Mobile USA is also the LARGEST occupant of the 1900 MHz band, used mostly for 2G+ services, and uses pretty much the same dual-band GSM RF architecture handsets as ATT Mobility. A typical T-MO handset can roam on ATT Mobility and vs-vs
But does it in-market roam on ATT? Could've would've should've, DOES IT?

WiMAX says WiMAX works from 2 GHZ to 66 GHZ. Will there ever be a product that will do that? No.

UMTS and GSM also have many many bands in their standards that will never find a Nokia, Samsung, or LG phone for.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMTS_frequency_bands
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSM_frequency_bands
LOL
Yet Nokia, Samsung, and LG all have phones for the AWS band. Are you intentionally trying to torpedo your own argument?
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara

ISurfTooMuch

join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL
reply to tiger72

Re: It's the network

This is true, but in the Southeast, at least, AT&T has plenty of native coverage, even off the beaten path, and T-Mobile has to roam on the AT&T network in these areas. The problem that T-Mobile faces is that, in those roaming areas, it can't sign up customers of its own. Roamers can visit and use their T-Mobile phones, but residents can't. In addition, every time a customer roams, it costs T-Mobile money that it must pay to the roamer network.

I know that it costs a lot more money to build a network on 1900, but T-Mobile didn't have to go that route. They've recently missed chances to buy Unicel, Centennial, Alltel, and (on a more regional level) Corr Wireless. These would have all been good acquisitions because they all had 850 spectrum, and they all had extensive rural coverage, things that T--Mobile badly needs.

iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL
reply to joako

Re: Clear seems the most logical, followed by MetroPCS

Call competion rates, call quality, data congestion (average latency and jitter). Granted, T-Mobile loses out to AT&T in areas where T-Mobile either doesn't have 3G or is pushing a single T1 to the tower. However in T-Mobile's new 7.2 Mbps areas they blow AT&T away, and T-Mobile's 3G network will be all-7.2 by the end of 2010, with lots of HSPA+ 21 coming thereafter. They also plan on pushing coveage out to a lot more people...


iLive4Fusion
Premium
join:2006-07-13
reply to ISurfTooMuch

Re: It's the network

said by ISurfTooMuch:

This is true, but in the Southeast, at least, AT&T has plenty of native coverage, even off the beaten path, and T-Mobile has to roam on the AT&T network in these areas. The problem that T-Mobile faces is that, in those roaming areas, it can't sign up customers of its own. Roamers can visit and use their T-Mobile phones, but residents can't. In addition, every time a customer roams, it costs T-Mobile money that it must pay to the roamer network.

I know that it costs a lot more money to build a network on 1900, but T-Mobile didn't have to go that route. They've recently missed chances to buy Unicel, Centennial, Alltel, and (on a more regional level) Corr Wireless. These would have all been good acquisitions because they all had 850 spectrum, and they all had extensive rural coverage, things that T--Mobile badly needs.
Now T-Mobile has disabled AT&T roaming in the West Jefferson/Tuscaloosa county border area in Oak Grove. And T-Mobile barely has anything now.
--
I get 29 MPG in my Toyota Highlander Hybrid!

damox
Premium
join:2002-01-07
Olympia, WA

Hopefully not AT&T

I hate AT&T, formerly Cingular. I wouldn't mind seeing them merge with Clearwire, but I do not want them to become part of the current AT&T. I have always thought that if Verizon Wireless turns funky or in someway alienates me, I'd go with T-Mobile. I don't think I'd do that if they were T-Mobile/Cingular.
--
DAMOX

QLR

join:2009-06-23
Tallahassee, FL
Reviews:
·Comcast
I feel the same way. I love T-Mobile's services but unfortunately for me, I have a horrible signal in my apartment. I still have a prepaid account for kicks (only because of Gold Rewards). Verizon works perfect compared to everyone else... if I had to leave them, I would go to TMo. If I am going to get less than stellar service, I might as well pay less for it. I hope TMo is able to thrive in this country


FastiBook

join:2003-01-08
Newtown, PA
reply to patcat88

Re: tmobile

Clearwire? No. And sprint is failing miserably, i won't be shocked if it goes chapter 11 within 3 years. Att would make the most sense, since the combined coverage in both covered area, and equipment would be in both carrier's interests. Att/tmob would basically have the chance to get a 1700 mhz hspa/4G/LTE network up and running a LOT faster because of less spectrum constraints. Only issue is handsets would need to become 5 band to work properly across the patchwork of frequencies for a few years, and 5 or 6 band to be a "world phone". Also att has iPhone. And tmob is using former cingular towers back in 2004 i think it was, you'd effectively be expanding workable cell sites for future upgrades. Hey vzw, can you hear me now, cuz att could get even more bars in more places you arent even serving.

- A
--
LETS GO METS!


FastiBook

join:2003-01-08
Newtown, PA

Yes to att/t!

This would be good. I hope they partner with att. I still can't understand why people are so phobic of att, it's amusing actually... I guess folks like limited calling plans and slow networks spread thin over too large an area. It makes the most sense to go with att, because that coverage map needs to be solid, not striped. As for metropcs, uh no, it has hardly any coverage area, and when you roam it's 19 cents a minute (98% of the country). For me personally (and many other customers of both att and tmob) it would allow seamless voice and data without dropped calls, without needing to reset your 3G connection on the roam/native boundary when handoffs are unsuccessful between the 2 carriers. Not only this, but att has its sights set on the fastest wireless network ever built outside the military, no one else is going to come close or likely catch up.

In any case, no one in cdma land is going to be doing anything aside from switching away from cdma to wcdma and such.

- A
--
LETS GO METS!

jay_rm

join:2002-04-12
Netville
reply to tiger72

Re: tmobile

said by tiger72:

Your lack of understanding of the FCC, licensing, cellular technologies, competition, and even basic timelines makes me giggle. Keep on bringing the funny.
huuuuh ?
It you're referring to me, I don't understand the issue...
--
3500/512 5.7 GHz Motorola Canopy Wireless; FoxValley.net
'It looks just like a Telefunken U47 !'

patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1

3 edits
reply to tiger72
said by tiger72:

LOL
Yet Nokia, Samsung, and LG all have phones for the AWS band. Are you intentionally trying to torpedo your own argument?
So why doesn't this phone have AWS »www.phonescoop.com/phones/phone.php?p=2308 or »www.phonescoop.com/phones/phone.php?p=2314 or »www.phonescoop.com/phones/phone.php?p=2126 or »www.phonescoop.com/phones/phone.php?p=2220 or
»www.phonescoop.com/phones/phone.php?p=2148 or this nokia »www.phonescoop.com/phones/phone.php?p=2275 or this nettop »www.htc.com/www/product/shift/sp···ion.html ?

Every UMTS phone without 1700 is another phone that will never go on Tmobile USA.


WA resident

@genext.net
reply to FFH5

Re: Make a deal with TelCel(America Movil)

Carlos Slim moving into the US?.......I guess you don't have a clue who the owner of Tracfone, Net10 and Straight Talk is.

"TracFone Wireless is America's largest and number one prepaid cell phone provider in the U.S. With over 12 million subscribers, TracFone Wireless has been the undisputed leader in prepaid wireless since its founding in 1996. TracFone Wireless is a subsidiary of América Móvil S.A.B. de C.V. ("AMX") (BMV: AMX; NYSE: AMX; Nasdaq: AMOV; LATIBEX: XAMXL).

América Móvil is the fourth largest cell phone company in the world and the largest in all of the Americas with more than 194 million cell phone subscribers."

patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1
reply to tiger72

Re: It's the network

Click for full size
Click for full size
Swiss cheese TM coverage. No in-market roaming onto ATT. It would be better if you just imagine the light green TM area as having no service.


UNSuser

@optonline.net

Cable?

...actually i would like to see a partnership with a Comcast or Timewarner, or a cable company consortium. Verizon is starting to offer quadruple product,( home phone, tv, internet, cellular phone), I think this would be a good idea for cable companies. Certainly would help push the "tv anywhere".......

just my 2 cents


FastiBook

join:2003-01-08
Newtown, PA
They need cell sites not tv.

- A
--
LETS GO METS!

hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
reply to del ftl

Re: hmmm

Metro would make sense since they're going to LTE the same as TMO (when it comes out of the labs). Also that would be a HUGE chunk of customers TMO would gain as well if they were to merge the customers over to TMO. If not a customer merger Metro's customers would gain a HUGE area of roaming that they'll need once Sprint goes to WiMax.
--
www.two-pugs.com www.2pugs.etsy.com

hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
reply to FastiBook

Re: tmobile

TMO wouldn't want ATT has the issues with the iPhone and the Network of ATT. TMO wouldn't want that on their shoulder.

Clearwire would make sense. It's a proven technology they're deploying. The network is actually running and supports customers, something that LTE doesn't do yet. Clearwire also says they change to LTE without a problem if they needed/had to.
--
www.two-pugs.com www.2pugs.etsy.com

hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
reply to FastiBook

Re: Yes to att/t!

CDMA Networks not changing? LMAO! Where is ATT and their 4G network? It's still in the lab. Where is Sprint? They're busy spending the money with Clear and their partners to build out that network. You can actually use it as well. ATT only says 4G will be soon. Instead of putting their money where their mouth is they're off spending that money suing VZW over coverage maps and commercials. Sprint needs to get busy and start advertising their 4G network map compared to ATT, and VZW.
--
www.two-pugs.com www.2pugs.etsy.com