dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
42
share rss forum feed


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

ISurfTooMuch

join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL
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.


iLive4Fusion
Premium
join:2006-07-13
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!

patcat88

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