Beans5 join:2005-07-16 united state |
Beans5
Member
2013-Mar-12 5:03 pm
My honest opinion......is that even though they run on two seperate signals, I would use the cdma part from metro, since cdma has longer reach to get into the wireless home business, and use the gsm for moble.
Just my 2 cents. | |
|
| j1349705 Premium Member join:2006-04-15 Holly Springs, NC |
j1349705
Premium Member
2013-Mar-12 6:00 pm
Re: My honest opinion...Signal performance inside buildings has more to do with the carrier's build-out (cell site density and locations) and frequency band (lower is better for building penetration) than the network type. | |
|
|
Where are the CDMAGSM Handsets.I smell a compatibility issue. Remember the Sprint Nextel disaster with service quality going down down down. Or might we see the LTE post haste? | |
|
|
Metro NetworkThey're going to kill off the metro network by Q2 2015. Overall, this will allow T-mobile to stay competitive with the other big 3's spectrum holdings. | |
|
| |
Re: Metro NetworkYep, it's all about spectrum really, the customers are leaving metro in droves anyway, maybe T-mobile can do something about that. | |
|
| | |
Re: Metro NetworkThis deal is going to give them boucoup spectrum in the NE, Florida, and the West. Add in the AT&T spectrum in middle America and now they have excellent spectrum coverage. In some areas of Boston, SF, etc they will have close to 100 Mhz.
Add to the fact they upgraded to HSPA42 (where AT&T passed) and they will have a very robust fauxG network that they can use for years for prepaid. In fact the Mrs Nexus 4 happily gets over 10 Mbps (slower RTT) on ST w/ TMO network. Since ST roams on T for voice/data in fringe areas where I live, coverage is excellent. In the sticks (UNY) EDGE pops up and pleasantly surprise that Pandora will still stream and GPS is responsive, and web pages render about 2x slower but come up. It's not as bad as people make it out to be.
It's not on par w/ say Verizon, but I would say it's close to T and way better then Sprint which blows chunks in the NE. They are the ones to watch, IMHO w/ Softbank if they get their network ship shape.. | |
|
| | | jtel join:2005-06-28 Bristol, RI |
jtel
Member
2013-Mar-12 6:33 pm
Re: Metro NetworkMetroPCS was spectrum short in the Boston area, something like 10mhz.
Have you got a link to show combined assets are close to 100mhz in Boston? | |
|
| | | | michieru Premium Member join:2009-07-25 Denver, CO |
michieru
Premium Member
2013-Mar-12 8:34 pm
Re: Metro Network | |
|
FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2013-Mar-12 5:11 pm
Merger doesn't help coverage in suburbs, ruralBoth of these wireless companies are pretty strong in the big city cores. Neither have good coverage in farther out suburbs or rural areas. So this merger doesn't really help the merged company get a lot more customers. All it does is make their big city coverage stronger and maybe let them grab some competitor customers with lower prices and deals. | |
|
| |
Re: Merger doesn't help coverage in suburbs, ruralOne tower in a city can serve many more potential customers than one tower in a rural area. T-mobile's strategy has largely been to focus on areas where they can get a good ROI and serve the most people. They might expand coverage in less populated areas in the future, but for now they're focusing their investments on the 82% of Americans that live in cities.
This deal does help them gain and retain customers by helping them modernize their network into the future. | |
|
wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace join:2004-08-07 New York, NY |
Double standard?Karl, why is this announcement "unsurprising"? You are many of the other people on this site were crying up an uncompetitive storm during the proposed then failed ATT/Tmobile venture. If anything I would have thought you would tout this as some sort of Obama themed miracle of democracy.....
My feeling is that if they denied the ATT/Tmobile merger, then this one should also be denied. Now, I didnt personally think the ATT/Tmobile merger should be denied (although I didnt WANT it to happen), but consistency is usually a good practice when it comes to government. | |
|
|
1 recommendation |
Re: Double standard?AT&T have 107 million subscribers Verizon have 98.2 million Sprint have 55.6 million T-mobile have 34 million Metro PCS have 9.5 million
This is nothing like AT&T and T-mobile merging. Even T-mobile and Sprint merging wouldn't be the size of Verizon. | |
|
| djdanskaRudie32 Premium Member join:2001-04-21 San Diego, CA
1 recommendation |
to wifi4milez
said by wifi4milez:Karl, why is this announcement "unsurprising"? You are many of the other people on this site were crying up an uncompetitive storm during the proposed then failed ATT/Tmobile venture. If anything I would have thought you would tout this as some sort of Obama themed miracle of democracy.....
My feeling is that if they denied the ATT/Tmobile merger, then this one should also be denied. Now, I didnt personally think the ATT/Tmobile merger should be denied (although I didnt WANT it to happen), but consistency is usually a good practice when it comes to government. Two completely different companies. One is a small regional provider and the other is well, t-mobile. Metropcs needed a merger or something to compete with the big players. It had to happen. Even u.s. cellular is getting out of the business (or so it appears, calling it quits and selling off a chunk of the midwest and chicago to sprint). (Oh and i always take articles here with a grain of salt. The bias in articles is extreme and not needed a lot of times.) | |
|
IowaCowboyLost in the Supermarket Premium Member join:2010-10-16 Springfield, MA |
Verizon or Sprint should have bought themIt would be better for VZW or Sprint to buy MetroPCS as they operate on a CDMA network and integrating the existing fleet of handsets would be easier.
When then Cingular bought the former AT&T wireless, the transition was seamless as both carriers were GSM based. With a GSM carrier buying a CDMA carrier, one carrier's customers will have to buy new handsets to integrate into the combined network.
Verizon buying Sprint might not be in the distant future but VZ has a much larger footprint than Sprint so there would be no advantage (other than to snuff out a competitor) as they overlap each other. AT&T and T-Mobile overlap each other and AT&T wanted to snuff out a direct competitor so that deal was blocked. | |
|
| |
Re: Verizon or Sprint should have bought themIt has less to do with network type, but spectrum holdings. The last thing we need to do is let Verizon buy up more spectrum. The MetroPCS LTE network is also compatible with T-mobile's (soon to be) LTE. | |
|
| | djdanskaRudie32 Premium Member join:2001-04-21 San Diego, CA |
djdanska
Premium Member
2013-Mar-12 6:07 pm
Re: Verizon or Sprint should have bought themT-Mobile lit up their Lte network here in San diego this past weekend. Not letting users on but shows up on a network scan in lte only mode. Soon! | |
|
| j1349705 Premium Member join:2006-04-15 Holly Springs, NC |
to IowaCowboy
Everyone is moving away from CDMA2000, so that isn't a huge factor.
Also, it is possible for carriers operating with different technologies to merge without being a complete disaster. AT&T did it when they acquired some areas that were divested in the Verizon/Alltel merger (and is about to again now that they are acquiring what is left of Alltel). Verizon has acquired GSM carriers in the past and switched them over to CDMA2000.
The Sprint and Nextel merger was a disaster, but that doesn't mean all mergers or acquisitions involving different network technologies have to suffer the same fate.
MetroPCS is a very good fit for T-Mobile spectrum wise. Spectrum auctions don't happen very often, and they can be very expensive. Any time new spectrum is used for wireless services, the network infrastructure has to be updated (antennas and radios only work at certain frequencies), and phones have to be re-designed. This is not a fast or cheap process. Metro's spectrum works with what is on the market now, so this is a very smart move. | |
|
| | djdanskaRudie32 Premium Member join:2001-04-21 San Diego, CA |
djdanska
Premium Member
2013-Mar-12 6:57 pm
Re: Verizon or Sprint should have bought themNot to mention that t-mobile has plans on refarming metropcs's spectrum. Getting rid of cdma will happen rather quick it said. Apparently metropcs customers get new phones rather quickly vs. a normal postpaid account. | |
|
| | | j1349705 Premium Member join:2006-04-15 Holly Springs, NC |
j1349705
Premium Member
2013-Mar-12 7:58 pm
Re: Verizon or Sprint should have bought themAll very good points.
There's another reason why the issues that plagued Sprint and Nextel won't happen here. Nextel had a unique push to talk technology that was superior to any of the competing standards. Their customers were loyal to this technology, and at the time, there was not an acceptable alternative. As time went on, the old Nextel network didn't see any real upgrades, and it did not survive the widespread adoption of smartphones.
The MetroPCS network is nothing special. It just offers voice and data. It doesn't really do anything that the T-Mobile network can't do, especially when you consider that T-Mobile will probably have LTE in most major markets by the time the transaction closes.
Another option is for MetroPCS to sell phones that support CDMA and GSM/UMTS/LTE, and send customers SIM cards when they are ready to transition. | |
|
| | | | djdanskaRudie32 Premium Member join:2001-04-21 San Diego, CA |
djdanska
Premium Member
2013-Mar-12 8:01 pm
Re: Verizon or Sprint should have bought themNot to mention it's almost like MetroPcs is just cheap on LTE. keeps backhaul low on purpose. That's something t-mobile will fix asap. | |
|
|
SimbaSevenI Void Warranties join:2003-03-24 Billings, MT |
Spectrum in MTHmm.. Looks like Metro PCS has some spectrum in my state.
Hey, T-Mo.. How 'bout a tower or two here? Just nail the bigger areas (Billings, Bozeman, Missoula, etc.) first. | |
|
| |
Re: Spectrum in MTT-Mobile has plenty of spectrum here too, they just refuse to use it. Illegally, I will add, they're violating their build-out requirements.
P.S. to clarify, they're on legally sound enough ground but they're violating the INTENT of the law. | |
|
|
looklook at what they DO not what they say they're gonna do..
measures of success: MORE COVERAGE CHEAPER RATES
many companies "SAY" this, but none in wireless have done this for at least the last 5 years. if anything rates have gone UP!! Also, coverage after infrastructure damage is abysmal for all companies!! | |
|
|
|