dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
19
share rss forum feed

Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY
reply to verizon12345

Re: Karl although I love your commentary..

said by verizon12345 :

T-Mobile has been losing customers for over 2 years. Tell me how they are such a competitive disruptive force in our industry?

Cheapest post-paid plan:

Verizon/AT&T 450 minute plan: $39.99/mo + fees
T-Mobile 500 minute plan: $39.99/mo + fees

Cheapest Unlimited talk/text plan:

Verizon/AT&T: $90/mo
T-Mobile: $60/mo

Cheaper rate plans available if you bring your own hardware:

AT&T/Verizon: No
T-Mobile: Yes

Seems relatively disruptive to me....

said by verizon12345 :

DT has no plans to pour the billions and billions in capital required to build out a nationwide LTE network for T-Mobile much less fill in all their GPRS only areas with HSPA +. How is a company like this in any good shape to operate competitively on its own?

I have no idea what DT/T-Mobile are going to do with regards to 4G data networks. I do know they are a very competitive option for people who only need voice. I do know if you live in one of their upgraded areas they are a very competitive option for people who use data.

said by verizon12345 :

The FCC themselves have stated the "dire needs," of spectrum needed by wireless telcos like AT&T yet in the same draft they claim they have "more than enough." Total discrepancy here.

Then why didn't AT&T just try to buy some of that spectrum that T-Mobile supposedly isn't going to build out? Could have done that for a lot less than $39,000,000,000. Of course that wouldn't have eliminated the sole remaining nationwide carrier that doesn't match AT&T and Verizon's pricing, would it?

BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH
Actually, Virgin and Boost are the most price-disruptive, and they are run by Sprint. However, Boost, Virgin, T-Mobile, Metro, etc don't compete with AT&T and Verizon. They compete with each other. T-Mobile could be half the price and it wouldn't matter, those of us who actually need a phone that works more than 5 feet off of the freeway will always go with one of the big players (or USCC who has world-class coverage in their areas and a roaming agreement with big red).

Allowing the merger throws this duopoly out of balance and could be better for the consumer. At minimum, it doesn't hurt, as T-Mobile can't compete with 4G networks anyways, and there isn't enough room for that many players. Other new players are popping up like Metro and Leap, so they can serve the bottom-scrapers.


fuziwuzi
Not born yesterday
Premium
join:2005-07-01
Atlanta, GA
Pure bullsh*t. Not one of your statements are factual, just your already-proven biased conjecture you pull out of your a**. Nobody believes your crap.
--
Teabaggers: Destroying America is Priority #1

BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH
I don't care if people choose to believe reality or not... that's their problem.


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

Actually, Virgin and Boost are the most price-disruptive, and they are run by Sprint. However, Boost, Virgin, T-Mobile, Metro, etc don't compete with AT&T and Verizon. They compete with each other. T-Mobile could be half the price and it wouldn't matter, those of us who actually need a phone that works more than 5 feet off of the freeway will always go with one of the big players (or USCC who has world-class coverage in their areas and a roaming agreement with big red).

HAHAHAHAHA



Allowing the merger throws this duopoly out of balance and could be better for the consumer. At minimum, it doesn't hurt, as T-Mobile can't compete with 4G networks anyways, and there isn't enough room for that many players. Other new players are popping up like Metro and Leap, so they can serve the bottom-scrapers.

Oh you're pretty funny. You're a great example of why it's impossible to take anyone seriously who thinks that "4g" matters more than actual results.

1. Metro and Leap don't have nationwide spectrum. Period. This already makes them non-viable for a LOT of consumers (myself included).
2. Their data networks are an afterthought - at best. Their 2g networks are slow as molasses (putting even Sprint's to shame). Metro's LTE network lacks coverage, or devices capable of using it.
3. Even the spectrum they have is extremely small. Think 10mhz total in their markets, rather than 40mhz total. It's clear you won't understand the significance of that, but it essentially means that if they fill up their spectrum, they'll see a a lot more dropped calls/texts, or they'll have to raise prices to limit how many people use their network.

According to real world speed tests (and not ATT/VZW marketing), TMO's HSPA+ network competes quite handily with LTE. It blows Clear's WiMax out of the water.

let's see:








--
"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

BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH
I am serious about coverage. You can pry my AT&T iPhone out of my cold, dead hands (unless you have a Verizon DROID RAZR or something for me), as I want the thing to work when I'm out in the sticks.

Real 4G matters mostly in terms of capacity and scalability, not so much in raw speed. It is also a big deal in marketing, and right now, only Verizon can claim to have wide coverage of true 4G LTE, which they are doing a good job at differentiating from HSPA+ and WiMAX.

1. Metro and Leap still offer a price-competitive alternative, and offer roaming on Sprint. Cricket also is nationwide now, as an MVNO through Sprint, in addition to being facilities-based in some area.
2. Yes, their data networks are pretty pathetic, but so it's T-Mobile and Sprint's native 3G coverage. Admittedly, Sprint and T-Mo are better than Metro and Leap. Metro is also working on EVDO in some areas, although I don't know why they don't put it in all their markets, as if they could get decent data speeds they could really cash in on the smartphone craze. However, looking at competition, T-Mobile has never offered the competition that Sprint does through Boost and Virgin.
3. From what I understand, they don't have as many customers as the big boys, and they have fairly dense cell site spacing in the urban markets that they serve to keep good coverage on the PCS and AWS bands, so they are not capacity limited.

Those speed tests are impressive, but the coverage is very limited. T-Mobile is serving a weird niche, as most subscribers who want speed also want coverage, and right now Verizon is top dog in that department, plain and simple. Most people who are looking for cut-rate service are more than happy with Virgin's 1.8mbps (and yes, I've actually speedtested it).


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

I am serious about coverage. You can pry my AT&T iPhone out of my cold, dead hands (unless you have a Verizon DROID RAZR or something for me), as I want the thing to work when I'm out in the sticks.

I was north of Boulder, CO (ie in the Rockies) over the summer with some friends. One had a VZW iPhone. The other had an ATT iPhone. I had my T-Mobile phone with me. Just about wherever they had service, I had service on my TMO phone. In some cases, I had service where they did not. In other cases, the VZW phone would have service where the ATT and TMO phones did not. YMMV.
In all cases though, my data speeds were faster than the VZW or the ATT phones.
With regards to coverage, ATT covers 98% of the population. TMO is at 97%. Feel free to eat up all the marketing bullshit you want. I'm not going to pay 2x as much for a 1% bump in places that don't matter to me (Idaho, North Dakota, et al)

Real 4G matters mostly in terms of capacity and scalability, not so much in raw speed. It is also a big deal in marketing, and right now, only Verizon can claim to have wide coverage of true 4G LTE, which they are doing a good job at differentiating from HSPA+ and WiMAX.

"Real 4g" is a marketing term. Science is science. The 3gpp (you know, the standards body which is developing BOTH HSPA+ and LTE) already has literature with regards to the small spectral efficiency bump that the excessive LTE buildout expenditure creates over HSPA+. That's why almost every single network that has HSPA+ is skipping LTE deployment in favor of LTE-Advanced when that's ready. LTE just isn't worth it to most companies that have HSPA+. CDMA networks need LTE to compete. LTE provides little benefit over HSPA+.

1. Metro and Leap still offer a price-competitive alternative, and offer roaming on Sprint. Cricket also is nationwide now, as an MVNO through Sprint, in addition to being facilities-based in some area.

Cool. For voice, that's great. For data, they do not compete at all.

2. Yes, their data networks are pretty pathetic, but so it's T-Mobile and Sprint's native 3G coverage. Admittedly, Sprint and T-Mo are better than Metro and Leap. Metro is also working on EVDO in some areas, although I don't know why they don't put it in all their markets, as if they could get decent data speeds they could really cash in on the smartphone craze. However, looking at competition, T-Mobile has never offered the competition that Sprint does through Boost and Virgin.

This isn't 2008. If you're in or near a city, you have T-Mobile HSPA+. And that HSPA+ is a helluva lot faster than the competition. And that's on their production network that's been live for years. Not an empty network that no one yet uses.

And it's a helluva lot cheaper too.

Once you get outside of the metro areas, things drop back down to EDGE, true. But I find that I don't have much need for anything above EDGE when i'm going 90 down the interstate. My Sprint service is definitely faster on the road, but again, I haven't had much use for 1mbps vs 200kbps on the road.

3. From what I understand, they don't have as many customers as the big boys, and they have fairly dense cell site spacing in the urban markets that they serve to keep good coverage on the PCS and AWS bands, so they are not capacity limited.

Leap and Metro have both already had issues with delivering MMS/SMS in a timely fashion due to their capacity constraints. Not sure what they've done to solve those issues, but the FCC has all of the documentation available. They needed AWS spectrum to simply deploy their 2g CDMA network in some areas. Only Metro has a plan for LTE deployment at this point, and even though were the first to deploy LTE in the USA, they only have it in, what, 2 markets?

Those speed tests are impressive, but the coverage is very limited. T-Mobile is serving a weird niche, as most subscribers who want speed also want coverage, and right now Verizon is top dog in that department, plain and simple. Most people who are looking for cut-rate service are more than happy with Virgin's 1.8mbps (and yes, I've actually speedtested it).

You keep saying "limited", but I'm not sure what you mean by that. I live in a city. I travel to cities. Most families live in cities. Most Americans visit their families in cities. Most Americans travel to cities for business. As I mentioned above, I don't need coverage in Back-Asswards, ID... If you do, good for you though! Feel free to pay more for coverage in places you don't go.

I'd rather pay for coverage in places that I do go: Cities and suburbs.
--
"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

BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH
In general, T-Mobile has very, very weak coverage compared to AT&T or Verizon, goes to GPRS a lot, and roams a lot. AT&T is native more often, and has a 3G footprint that is larger than anyone else's network except Verizon. That 97% number is also based on roaming agreements.

LTE-advanced is already available, the US carriers just aren't using it. Teliasonera has been using it for longer than Verizon has had any regular LTE.

Real 4G is not marketing. Real 4G is real 4G. You can argue that WiMAX is, but there is no argument for HSPA+. It might be fast, but it is evolved 3G. I like HSPA+, I use it on my iPhone every day, but when it comes down to it, it's enhanced 3G. LTE brings new spectrum into the mix for AT&T, as well as lower latency.

Ok, fair enough, Metro isn't really data competitive, but Virgin and Boost sure are.

T-Mobile isn't much cheaper than the big guys. Sure, there are some cheap plans if you bring your own device and barely use any minutes or don't use very much data, but for regular plans that are comparable to Verizon, there isn't that much price difference, and Verizon offers much better coverage.

Also, the customers who want a cheap service are not the ones who are wanting insane speeds are the latest and greatest toys. Those folks want Verizon's 4G LTE network with their nationwide 3G network.

What if you stay somewhere that doesn't have 3G, or even EDGE? T-Mobile still has towers with GPRS, whereas AT&T is at least all either EDGE or HSPA+.

Metro has to use AWS because in the northeast market, they don't own PCS. They have big licenses for LTE, they just haven't really used them yet.

What about going on vacation? T-Mobile is crap anywhere off the beaten path. In northern New England, GSM is rough, but at least AT&T can cobble together halfway decent coverage, as they have towers here and there. T-Mobile doesn't have much of anything.


fuziwuzi
Not born yesterday
Premium
join:2005-07-01
Atlanta, GA
said by BiggA:

In general, T-Mobile has very, very weak coverage compared to AT&T or Verizon, goes to GPRS a lot, and roams a lot.

Proving yet again you really don't know WTF you're talking about. I've told you previously all the places I travel and I have excellent coverage and it is extremely rare that I see anything less than full HSPA+ signal on T-Mobile. Like the previous guy, I not hiking the wilderness, I'm in cities and get city-wide HSPA+ coverage in every metropolitan area I travel. And I pay SIGNIFICANTLY LESS for it than you do. You can bullsh*T all you want about juggling minutes and crap, but I have UNLIMITED ANYTIME CALLING, unlimited text messaging, and unlimited (5GB full-speed) data for $59/month. And I don't have to wonder if I have enough rollover minutes for a phone call or whether it is a landline or not or what time of day it is. I can call anybody, anytime and that's how i like it.

But, you seem to spend most of your time regurgitating AT&T propaganda and bullsh*t information that isn't based on any reality other than the crap between your ears. Get a life, dude. You're downright creepy.
--
Teabaggers: Destroying America is Priority #1

BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH
Oh god, it's you again. And you still don't know how to do math.


fuziwuzi
Not born yesterday
Premium
join:2005-07-01
Atlanta, GA
said by BiggA:

Oh god, it's you again. And you still don't know how to do math.

You don't know math nor the truth. You keep saying $100 is less than $60 and that AT&T has the consumer's best interest at heart. Have you ever spoken the truth in your life?
--
Teabaggers: Destroying America is Priority #1

BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH
They are within 20% of the price of each other. Not exactly disruptive. No wonder AT&T gains customers while T-Mobile loses them.


fuziwuzi
Not born yesterday
Premium
join:2005-07-01
Atlanta, GA
said by BiggA:

They are within 20% of the price of each other. Not exactly disruptive. No wonder AT&T gains customers while T-Mobile loses them.

Mostly due to the FUD generated by AT&T. Just look at the latest Consumer Reports issue which rates carriers. In EVERY METRO AREA OF THE US, AT&T is dead last in customer satisfaction, in EVERY CATEGORY. T-Mobile is first in many metro areas. AT&T is rated as a very poor value.

And thank you for confirming you have absolutely no grasp on reality. You think 20% is insignificant? I guess to you, sponging off your mom, it is. But most of us have to support ourselves. Grow up.
--
Teabaggers: Destroying America is Priority #1

BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH
Ok, so my friend's T-Mo phone can beat mine in a speedtest. But even he admits the coverage sucks, and he would buy an iPhone if he could. I am very happy with AT&T, they are top dog in network and coverage quality, they are cheaper than the other carrier, and their iPhone is 3x as fast as the others.

A 20% pricing difference when they are so different in quality of network and coverage is pretty significant. There's a bunch of MASSIVE coverage holes in CONNECTICUT with T-Mobile. That's PATHETIC. I can't find their 3G vs. 4G vs 2.75G vs. 2G coverage, HOWEVER, I know that they still have areas with GRPS, unlike AT&T, and I'm pretty sure that T-Mobile doesn't have 100% 3G coverage in CT. AT&T does, at 850mhz. Gee, which one is better there?

When I assume liability for my own phone, I will be staying with the best: AT&T. It's not worth giving up my iPhone and the best coverage and network for $15/mo, or 18%. Considering that my cell phone is something I use constantly, having the best coverage is worth the price without question.


fuziwuzi
Not born yesterday
Premium
join:2005-07-01
Atlanta, GA
Buy what works for you. I get EXCELLENT coverage with T-Mobile everywhere I travel. EVERYWHERE. I travel to every major metro area of the US and have had no problems and I've never dropped down to GPRS speed. And since I have to pay for my phone MYSELF, I appreciate that I get unlimited anytime calling, unlimited text, and unlimited data (5GB unthrottled) for $60/month. Why on Earth would I want to pay any more for service that is more complicated and doesn't offer me any advantage?

Evidently, the vast majority of Consumer Reports readers who were polled feel the same as me. AT&T is a very poor value. They are way down at the bottom in EVERY metro area of the country. AT&T is one of the most reviled companies on the planet, and for very good reason. And I should know, I retired from them. And yes, I draw a pension check from AT&T and I could get a retiree discount, but I still would never use their service.
--
Teabaggers: Destroying America is Priority #1

BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH
Try traveling somewhere that isn't dominated by asphalt and concrete, and you'll pretty quickly see that T-Mobile's coverage is crap.

AT&T is the best value in the business, period. They are cheaper than their one competitor (a tier II, super-regional, or tier III carrier doesn't compete with tier I coverage), they offer more flexibility, and they have cheaper plans, rollover, etc. The only big downside is phones, their competitor has better Android phones. I'm perfectly happy with my iPhone though, on the iPhone's home network, and the only network that offers speeds up to 3x faster on the iPhone.

Consumer Reports has their good points, but anything electronic is not one of them. They have continuously botched TV, computer, and electronics reviews, used metrics that make no sense, and done ridiculous things like not given the iPhone 4 an editor's choice because it had an antenna issue that couldn't be reproduced in normal use because the phone had to be taken out of it's case to make the problem occur! Granted, I wouldn't have given a good review to the iPhone until iOS5, BUT their reasoning was completely flawed. I've also found over the years that their reviews often don't even align with the models on the market, or totally skip important products in a category.


fuziwuzi
Not born yesterday
Premium
join:2005-07-01
Atlanta, GA
Thank you for confirming yet again just how out of touch with reality you are.
--
Teabaggers: Destroying America is Priority #1

BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH
Out of touch with reality? You're wrong, but I'd like to hear why you think that anyways.