dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
19
« Nope
This is a sub-selection from Extremely unfortunate
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT
·Frontier FiberOp..
Asus RT-AC68

BiggA

Premium Member

Re: Extremely unfortunate

Here is why I support the merger, as I explained to someone on Hofo who messaged me asking why my signature said that I supported it:

As for AT&T&T, Well, first of all, I have a little bit of bias. I am an AT&T customer, and I live in an area that, while technically served by 6 networks owned by 5 carriers (Cellco/Verizon, AT&T Mobility, Sprint PCS, Sprint iDen, T-Mobile USA, and MetroPCS), the only viable options are Verizon and AT&T, as the others lack decent coverage.

There are several reasons that I support the merger:

1. Currently there is an ironclad duopoly in the US market if you want wireless coverage that actually works. The two companies, as of a few years ago, were virtually perfect mirrors of one another. Monkey see, monkey do. There were a few exceptions, like Rollover, but they were few and far between. There was some market differentiation as data became more prevalent, both on the device side, with Verizon marketing the DROID against AT&T's iPhone, and Verizon's 3G EVDO network with wider coverage going against AT&T's faster UMTS/HSPA network. However, as much as these have created small points of differentiation, they are still largely monkey-see, monkey-do.

The AT&T&T merger will throw this duopoly off-balance, by making AT&T much larger, with more spectrum holdings, requiring Verizon to differentiate themselves, and hopefully creating a back-and-forth between the two companies, even if it is still somewhat limited and slow.

2. T-Mobile can't survive on it's own. It is either going to be bought by AT&T, or bought by another company (I think Wal-Mart is the next company that would buy T-Mobile), but either way it is going to get bought. Having it get bought by Wal-Mart would be neat and all, but ultimately, it wouldn't help network capacity and spectrum positions very much. If T-Mobile is bought now by AT&T, it's resources will be put to good use, but if it continues to bleed subscribers before being bought up by someone else, then it will be worth a lot less, and it's spectrum will be even more under-utilized than it is now.

3. T-Mobile has not been disruptive. While they have offered some interesting plans with no contract, or discounts for not offering a device subsidy, fundamentally, they haven't been disruptive. They have offered similar plans to AT&T at a 20% discount for far less coverage. They just don't have a compelling set of plans, and now they are at even more of a disadvantage without the iPhone. They do offer several pre-paid plans, but in order to get a decent amount of minutes and data, you have to get up to the $60 level, which is getting close to the cost of the bigger players anyways. Virgin Mobile, on the other hand, has offered several low-cost plans below $50 that have a lot of minutes and data, in addition to low up-front costs on the phones without huge mark-ups.

4. From a spectrum position, it just makes sense. AT&T screwed up in the spectrum auctions, and didn't get a nationwide chunk of anything. As a result, they don't have spectrum for LTE in many places in the eastern half of the country, where they are strongest in 2G and 3G services, including much of Ohio, West Virginia, Michigan, and patches throughout the south. T-Mobile would get them a full nationwide license of AWS, which, combined with SMH licenses offers a decent lath to LTE, even if it is not as good as Verizon's nationwide 10mhz C block chunk. If you look at the PCS, it makes even more sense, however. T-Mobile is currently using all of their PCS for 2G, which is not a good use for the spectrum. AT&T could take it and almost immediately convert it to HSPA+, with T-Mobile 2G customers going to AT&T's existing CLR or PCS GSM blocks that are becoming under-utilized anyways as very, very few customers are left on the legacy GSM network. The overall result is two networks instead of 3, with increased spectral efficiency and use, with T-Mobile's AWS block being partially reclaimed for LTE. There are also two reasons why the reclamation isn't as bad as people are making it out to be. The first is that the areas that AT&T actually needs the AWS, T-Mobile doesn't have Faux G running on it, so T-Mobile's existing Faux G network could run on for a while in a semi-abandoned state. Secondly, even if it were shut off, the customers would be give upgrades to AT&T devices, and if they chose not to, their phones would continue to work with EDGE in the PCS or CLR bands.

To be continued...
BiggA

BiggA

Premium Member

Continued...

4. From a site position, it just makes sense. We are currently running 5+ redundant networks in every major city, with different site locations (unlike in the suburbs where they are typically co-located on 5-8 deck towers), and slightly different coverage patterns. This type of redundancy requires each carrier to build out their own network, with their own backhaul, their own site surveys, etc, and it just makes no sense to have this many companies all trying to do the same thing. T-Mobile and AT&T's sites actually complement each other well. Because T-Mobile has historically been focused on urban markets and has used PCS spectrum, they have smaller and more closely spaced sites, which AT&T now needs to deal with the data boom. The combination of sites will add multiplicatively to the increase in spectral efficiency, making the overall network much more efficient. In certain areas, like in the bay area, T-Mobile has many, many more sites, making them hugely valuable to AT&T, given that the two big California markets are two of the last places where AT&T seems to have never-ending capacity problems (in my experience, Manhattan has rock-solid AT&T coverage outside of the subway or Macy's). Having a total 130 million customers with a fewer number of total sites will also free up more capital for construction of 4G LTE to compete even with Verizon's. Hopefully, it would also allow AT&T to finish building out their native network in rural areas that they currently roam, like northern New England, which is currently only well served by CDMA carriers.

5. Ultimately, there isn't enough capital in the country to support more than 3, if even that many, world-class 4G networks. There can't be 4, and in my opinion, there can't be 3. Thus, something has to happen to support 4G development. I think Sprint made a mistake going for WiMAX and now LTE, I think that they should focus on cheap prepaid, and reclaiming their SMR spectrum for CDMA and expanding their CDMA network, but we'll see what happens there.

6. It would create the ultimate network. The combination of T-Mobile's urban sites and spectrum, and AT&T's massive network would create effectively the ultimate network, with insane coverage and speed virtually everywhere, both at the Faux G and the 4G levels.

fuziwuzi
Not born yesterday
Premium Member
join:2005-07-01
Palm Springs, CA
Hitron EN2251
Nest H2D

fuziwuzi

Premium Member

Again, not one bit of factual information in your entire verbose diatribe. Your misinformation didn't work for AT&T and doesn't work for you, now. Give it a rest and move on, maybe you can spend your energy and time to move out of your mom's basement eventually.
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT

BiggA

Premium Member

I don't live in my mom's basement, and I find it weird that you care. What exactly is not factual in there? You can't seem to name anything in particular and why.

fuziwuzi
Not born yesterday
Premium Member
join:2005-07-01
Palm Springs, CA
Hitron EN2251
Nest H2D

fuziwuzi

Premium Member

What is weird is you continuing to spew misinformation that has been proven false, and continuing to champion a deal that is officially dead. Over and over and over on this website you have proffered nothing but effluvium that nobody believes or accepts, but you keep shoveling away. I must wonder why.
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT

BiggA

Premium Member

Like what? What do you think is false?
WiWavelength
join:2011-11-16
Lawrence, KS

WiWavelength to BiggA

Member

to BiggA
said by BiggA:

4. From a spectrum position, it just makes sense. AT&T screwed up in the spectrum auctions, and didn't get a nationwide chunk of anything. As a result, they don't have spectrum for LTE in many places in the eastern half of the country, where they are strongest in 2G and 3G services, including much of Ohio, West Virginia, Michigan, and patches throughout the south.

Where did you do your spectrum research???

AT&T is generally awash in spectrum; Michigan, Ohio, and West Virginia -- which you cite as spectrum deficient areas -- are hardly exceptions. In all but two of the 29 MSAs in those three states, AT&T holds at least 10 MHz of perfectly "green field" Lower 700 MHz and/or AWS 2100+1700 MHz spectrum with which to deploy its 4G LTE network. In all but four MSAs, AT&T holds at least 20 MHz of the aforementioned spectrum. And, overall, both median and mode spectrum holdings are fully 38 MHz. That is plenty of unused spectrum in which to launch and develop an LTE footprint over the next several years.

See the entire list that I have compiled for you below:

Detroit-Ann Arbor: 30 MHz
Cleveland: 30 MHz
Cincinnati: 38 MHz
Columbus: 30 MHz
Dayton: 40 MHz
Toledo: 50 MHz
Akron: 30 MHz
Grand Rapids: 50 MHz
Youngstown-Warren: 38 MHz
Flint: 30 MHz
Lansing-East Lansing: 50 MHz
Canton: 30 MHz
Saginaw-Bay City-Midland: 38 MHz
Huntington-Ashland: 38 MHz
Kalamazoo: 50 MHz
Lorain-Elyria: 18 MHz
Charleston: 38 MHz
Hamilton-Middletown: 50 MHz
Lima: 6 MHz
Battle Creek: 38 MHz
Wheeling: 38 MHz
Springfield: 28 MHz
Muskegon: 38 MHz
Benton Harbor: 18 MHz
Steubenville-Weirton: 38 MHz
Parkersburg-Marietta: 38 MHz
Jackson: 18 MHz
Mansfield: 6 MHz
Cumberland: 48 MHz

Not to mention, this assessment does not take into account any of the oft copious amounts (50 MHz) of Cellular 850 MHz and/or PCS 1900 MHz that AT&T also controls in these markets. That spectrum may or may not be in current use. But any unused spectrum of at least 10 MHz bandwidth can be put to use for LTE. And under utilized spectrum allotted to 2G GSM or 3G W-CDMA can "refarmed" for LTE as demand shifts to the 4G network.

Honestly, your justifications for the AT&T-T-Mobile merger sound as if they were researched primarily using AT&T's own "astroturfing" campaign as your primary sources. In short, they make good sounding talking points but frequently do not hold up under scrutiny for truth and accuracy.

AJ
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT
·Frontier FiberOp..
Asus RT-AC68

BiggA

Premium Member

No, actually I used Phonearena's maps of AWS and SMH licenses that were won by Cingular and AT&T, and they do coincide with the marketing material used by AT&T.

In about half of the area of those states, AT&T does NOT have AWS or SMH spectrum, and as they build out their HSPA+ network, their existing spectrum won't be around to re-farm. Of course you can make the argument that stuff like HSPA+ 84 is good enough to not need LTE, but that's another debate for another day.

In terms of real 4G, Verizon has a MASSIVE advantage, and will have that advantage until AT&T can come up with some more spectrum, especially SMH spectrum.

That's all my own writing, it's not based on AT&T's arguments or the counterarguments from Karl and people on Howardforums.
BiggA

BiggA to WiWavelength

Premium Member

to WiWavelength
I also fundamentally believe that there should only be at most three wireless operators in the US, because there can be, at most, only three world-class wireless operators, more likely two. Sprint has some beachfront spectrum, if anyone who knew what the hell they were doing was running that company, they have the resources to be another Verizon or AT&T, and the history in wireless and wireline to do it, which is why I fundamentally agreed with the demise of T-Mobile, since they didn't have the resources from any side to be world-class.
WiWavelength
join:2011-11-16
Lawrence, KS

WiWavelength to BiggA

Member

to BiggA
said by BiggA:

In about half of the area of those states, AT&T does NOT have AWS or SMH spectrum...

No, from its Qualcomm spectrum acquisition, AT&T has 6 MHz or 12 MHz of Lower 700 MHz unpaired spectrum in every county in the contiguous US. So, your point above is invalid.

Regardless, LTE deployment is not limited to AWS 2100+1700 MHz and Lower 700 MHz spectrum. Both Cellular 850 MHz and PCS 1900 MHz are also established LTE band classes. AT&T may have to learn the value of in band migration.
said by BiggA:

...and as they build out their HSPA+ network, their existing spectrum won't be around to re-farm.

AT&T has had six years to finish building out its W-CDMA overlay, yet about half of its native footprint remains GSM only. If AT&T is not finished by now, then AT&T is not likely to ever finish. Instead, AT&T needs to skip W-CDMA in any markets that are still GSM only and jump straight to LTE. Additionally, as AT&T deploys LTE in existing W-CDMA markets, AT&T most definitely can and should "refarm" some GSM and or W-CDMA spectrum as traffic shifts over to LTE.

In the end, AT&T cannot rationally justify a need for ~100 MHz of spectrum per market to run large, redundant allotments of GSM, W-CDMA, and LTE all in parallel. AT&T has long been a gluttonous, inefficient steward of our public spectrum and needs to shape up.

AJ
WiWavelength

WiWavelength to BiggA

Member

to BiggA
said by BiggA:

I also fundamentally believe that there should only be at most three wireless operators in the US, because there can be, at most, only three world-class wireless operators, more likely two.

In essence, what you are saying is that we should sell our souls to VZW and AT&T in the hopes that a true duopoly will motivate them to compete vigorously against one another and to provide LTE coverage of ubiquitous breadth and tremendous capacity.

That is a Faustian bargain of dangerous proportions, one that could just as easily backfire, with two fat and happy carriers, now too big to fail, both marching in slow lockstep.

No, I would rather have four or five pretty good wireless carriers for the competition, innovation, and consumer choice that they provide than have only two supposedly "world-class" carriers and potentially be stuck with a choice between a rock and a hard place.

AJ
« Nope
This is a sub-selection from Extremely unfortunate