dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
Guess AT&T Didn't Need T-Mobile to Reach 97% LTE After All
Blocked Deal Winds up Spurring Network Investment
by Karl Bode 10:30AM Thursday Nov 08 2012
Yesterday AT&T announced their new $14 billion network expansion plan. The effort involves spending $6 billion to extend U-Verse to 8.5 million additional people, extending slightly-faster DSL to another 25 million, then cutting landlines for about 25% of their footprint -- shoving them toward pricey LTE. While I focused on the wireline aspect of the story yesterday, the LTE expansion promises AT&T made are also worth taking a look at -- and are getting more than a little scrutiny for some fuzzy AT&T arithmetic.

Click for full size
On the LTE side, AT&T is promising to spend $8 billion of their $14 billion network expansion total to extend their LTE network to 300 million covered people by the end of 2014. This expansion will involve using 10,000 new macrocells, 40,000 small cells and 1,000 distributed antenna systems (DAS) across the network footprint.

AT&T says that their LTE network expansion will result in 97% of the customers in the country being able to get the service. David Goldman over at CNN (who are you and what have you done with CNN?) appears to be the only tech journalist to remember that AT&T insisted they wouldn't be able to obtain the level of coverage without acquiring T-Mobile:
quote:
One of the deal's fiercest battle points was 4G access outside major cities. Without T-Mobile, AT&T said it was "very unlikely" that it would expand 4G-LTE service beyond the 80% coverage threshold it already planned to reach by 2013. "In some of these [less-populous] areas, AT&T simply lacks the spectrum necessary to deploy LTE," the company told the Federal Communications Commission in a written defense of its proposal.

The FCC called AT&T's bluff. It released a damning report on the scuttled merger saying it believed AT&T would expand its 4G deployment with or without T-Mobile. AT&T hit the roof, complaining that the FCC's analysis directly contradicted AT&T's "documents and sworn declarations." It got particularly irate about the FCC's prediction -- "based purely on speculation" -- that AT&T would eventually expand its LTE deployment to 97% of the population even if it didn't get T-Mobile.
Fast forward almost a year, and AT&T is suddenly magically able to expand LTE coverage without eliminating a national competitor to do it -- and for a small fraction of the $39 billion T-Mobile deal price tag. As we noted in the summer of 2011 leaked documents showed AT&T's numbers and claims of spectrum poverty were always nonsense -- and AT&T has struck 40 different spectrum acquisition since that time. Consumer advocates have now spent the last few days laughing at the fact that government regulation spurred network investment, something AT&T policy folk will breathlessly insist simply isn't possible.

view:
topics flat nest 
Angrychair

join:2000-09-20
Jacksonville, FL

Applies to corporations, too!

How can you tell a major corporation's mouthpiece is lying to you?

Their lips are moving!

GNH
tolle causam
Premium
join:1999-12-20
Arlington, TX

Where there's a will...

...there's a way.

FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

After AT&T lost TMO, it acquired a lot of spectrum for LTE

They did need more spectrum. They didn't get it from TMO merger in 1 big deal. So they got it elsewhere in many deals. Doesn't mean that they didn't need more spectrum.

»www.thetelecomblog.com/2012/11/0···um-path/

To that end, this year alone AT&T has entered into 40 new spectrum deals, some already approved with others still going through the regulatory process. It’s an opportunistic strategy, Stankey explains, that will situate AT&T well in the mobile market for the next two years, after that the future becomes a lot more uncertain.


--
Impeach Obama and tie up government for next 2 yrs
ISurfTooMuch

join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

Re: After AT&T lost TMO, it acquired a lot of spectrum for LTE

But what they didn't get was to remove a competitor from the market, which is what they really wanted. And not just any competitor but the only other national carrier using GSM/UMTS, which is the only place that disgruntled AT&T users could go without needing to get new phones.
clocks11

join:2002-05-06
00000
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 recommendation

Re: After AT&T lost TMO, it acquired a lot of spectrum for LTE

said by ISurfTooMuch:

But what they didn't get was to remove a competitor from the market, which is what they really wanted. And not just any competitor but the only other national carrier using GSM/UMTS, which is the only place that disgruntled AT&T users could go without needing to get new phones.

It may be news to you, but T-Mobile badly wanted to get out of the US market. It's not like they were victims being taken over by an evil giant.

So now instead, we have Germany, UK, and Japan owning/controlling a majority of our cellular market. Oh, and and Mexico/Carlos Slim, since he controls a huge chunk of the prepaid market.
ISurfTooMuch

join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

Re: After AT&T lost TMO, it acquired a lot of spectrum for LTE

I'm aware that DT wanted out. They felt that T-Mobile USA wasn't performing as well as they wanted. My theory is that this is a problem of their own creation, since they aren't expanding coverage into rural areas, a move that completely eliminates the possibility of getting customers outside big cities and even turns off some city residents who travel to these areas.

However, just because DT was a willing seller and AT&T was a willing buyer, that doesn't mean the deal should have been approved. The reason is that these companies are using a finite, publicly-owned resource: spectrum. They may license it, but it still belongs to us, so they have to receive approval for a deal like that.

As for Japanese, German, British, and Mexican companies owning wireless networks, what's the problem? I have no belief whatsoever that AT&T will treat me any better than them simply because it's based in this country. And, with any publicly-traded company, nationality is an illusion, since, if it's, say, Japanese, and shareholders in the U.S. end up buying a controlling interest, then it's a U.S. company.

Jovi
Premium
join:2000-02-24
Mount Joy, PA
At&t had been sitting on the most unused spectrum at the time the Tmo deal was announced. They didn't need more then or now. Hoarding comes to my mind.

»news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20058494-266.html
--
"Some people have no respect for logic."

Rambo76098

join:2003-02-21
Columbus, OH

AT&T's Statements About the Merger were Lies?

Say it isn't so!



Sad part is you know they aren't going to catch hell for it anywhere other than here.
en103

join:2011-05-02
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable

There was always a way...

It just wasn't the way that AT&T wanted.
AT&T wanted to pwn T-Mobile as well as their spectrum and customers and have 'bragging rights' as #1 and eliminate a competitor.

T-Mobile is now with MetroPCS.
Sprint is now with Softbank

AT&T has more powerful competitors, and Verizon is still kicking their a$$ on new subs.
VerizonCynic

join:2006-10-25
Lakewood, CA

Re: There was always a way...

what would Paul Ryan and Ayn Rand say...its a horrible thing when mega corps dont get what they want..!
VerizonCynic

join:2006-10-25
Lakewood, CA

oh one other point we forgot...

you users will be paying for this expansion, both thru taxes and your bills. lol gotcha
Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Re: oh one other point we forgot...

We pay now. AT&T only made $3.6 billion dollars last quarter (or something like that). Surely they can use some of that very small profit to help fund some of this.
VerizonCynic

join:2006-10-25
Lakewood, CA

Re: oh one other point we forgot...

no that profit all likely got sent to Karl Rove..doh! I think his phone is busy right now with people wanting refunds
en103

join:2011-05-02

Re: oh one other point we forgot...

but those were 'donations' and charitable 'contributions'

Dan Jones

@cmp.com

As per the call, which I listened to

They said 99% coverage in the 22-state area they have wired coverage in.
VerizonCynic

join:2006-10-25
Lakewood, CA
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

Re: As per the call, which I listened to

In the city of Los Angeles (0.5 mi away from posh uverse city of Pasadena) ATT tricked us into dropping att dsl to get att uverse. but guess what? No fiber to the node on street so speed is the same as dsl. Lol. I was told to upgrade each streetside box from dsl to fiber is over 130k. So att take some of that cash and give is the damn u verse you said we were getting

In "theory" we already have att LTE (per fake maps) but att got us to buy "fake" 4g phones (hspa "plus") last year
--
Lakewood Accountability Action Group | »www.LAAG.us | Demanding action and accountability from local government
BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH

Less than with T-Mo

It's good, but still less than they could have done with T-Mo.

FastiBook

join:2003-01-08
Newtown, PA

This area......

This area has 4G LTE now. Took a month but it's here now!
--
LETS GO METS!