dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
14
share rss forum feed


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

Re: You know something

said by sparc:

They have $39 billion to spend on T-mobile because it's an enormous value to them. If T-mobile had to be replicated by AT&T, it would cost far far far more than $39 billion to do that. When the sale was first announced, there were many that indicated there could be somewhere near $40 billion in cost savings alone. i.e. AT&T basically gets T-mobile for free.

Plus they get all that done immediately without waiting years for a real build out.

If you were a business executive in AT&T, there's little alternative but buying T-mobile. Keeps the investors happy, your fat compensation keeps rolling in, compatible technologies, and the customers have little choice with only two other primary competitors.

They could just buy Spectrum from one of the spectrum hoarding company. All they are going to do is turn around and shut down T-Mobiles HSPA+ infrastructure and migrate everyone over ASAP. They claim they are doing it for the AWS spectrum. But thats pathetic, its not like they are going to build out rural areas with AWS spectrum anyways. 700Mhz is needed, they are already behind Verizon and this isn't going to help.
--
2010 Ford Fusion Sport


tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1
said by iLive4Fusion:

They could just buy Spectrum from one of the spectrum hoarding company.

Who would that be? Who would they buy from, and which spectrum is available?

All they are going to do is turn around and shut down T-Mobiles HSPA+ infrastructure and migrate everyone over ASAP.

Indeed they are.

They claim they are doing it for the AWS spectrum. But thats pathetic, its not like they are going to build out rural areas with AWS spectrum anyways. 700Mhz is needed, they are already behind Verizon and this isn't going to help.

Haha, right. Well, tell that to ATT. You can build out a good sized network with AWS. They'll use their 700mhz spectrum in some areas, but they have more AWS spectrum than 700 spectrum already. With T-Mobile they'll have even more in many markets, plus they'll have nationwide spectrum.

I'm always disappointed when I see people who equate poor network engineering (Clear/ATT), or business decisions (TMO/ATT/Sprint) with spectrum limitations.

Whatever the spectrum, so long as the network is properly engineered (with proper cell sizes, microcells/picocell deployments, and correct carrier-usage it doesn't matter what spectrum is used - all spectrum can be used for rural or urban deployments.
--
"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


hoch51

@sunflowertelco.com
buying t-mobile will not accomplish any rural return for at&t. T-mobile is city oriented with contracts with rural carriers to suplement their lines. In eastern Colorado, we use a Cross-tie with Viaero for service. Their network is shakey at times and service goes from excelent to marginal in a heartbeat. spectrum has less to do with it than poor distribution oif towers and maintenance on that equipment. They just do not want anyone else getting their hands on the system as it will impact their size ratio to Sprint and Verizon. Both companies need t- mobile also. Their signal structure sucks out here. The viaero contract and many others like it are the pursued portions for these giants in communications.


tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1
said by hoch51 :

buying t-mobile will not accomplish any rural return for at&t. T-mobile is city oriented with contracts with rural carriers to suplement their lines. In eastern Colorado, we use a Cross-tie with Viaero for service. Their network is shakey at times and service goes from excelent to marginal in a heartbeat. spectrum has less to do with it than poor distribution oif towers and maintenance on that equipment. They just do not want anyone else getting their hands on the system as it will impact their size ratio to Sprint and Verizon. Both companies need t- mobile also. Their signal structure sucks out here. The viaero contract and many others like it are the pursued portions for these giants in communications.

on an interesting note, I *just* went on another drive from St Louis to Denver and experienced precisely what you were referring to with Viaero. "Edge" data all the way, but not very reliable. Marginally faster than TMO's GPRS til Hayes, KS.

On a more interesting note, however, I of course have T-Mobile (and Sprint, but I didn't have it with me during that trip), while the other 2 people with me had an ATT iPhone and a Verizon iPhone. Logic would dictate that the cheap guy with T-Mobile would have the worst service, followed by the ATT customer, then the Verizon one. Especially in the Rocky Mountains, right?

Totally wrong.

The friend with the Verizon iPhone had to consistently switch to wifi for internet access, since cellular data continuously failed. The ATT iPhone fared far better, however it surprisingly lost data entirely while my little ol T-Mobile phone had 4 bars of fast HSPA+ available in multiple places south east of Estes Park, as well as north of Grand Lake into RMNP. In fact, a running theme for the trip was me making fun of their iPhones for not being able to access data, and them using my GalaxyS on T-Mobile to check their facebook pages, etc.

Go figure.

T-Mobile: Faster. More Bars. No dropped data.

And cheaper.
--
"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