T-Mobile Gets Roaming Deal, Cash, Spectrum After Deal Collapse Is It Enough to Keep T-Mobile Viable For DT? Now that the AT&T deal is officially dead (unless they refile a new deal next year) T-Mobile's talking a little bit about that $4 billion consolation package they'll get from AT&T. As we've previously discussed, that package includes a combination of cash, spectrum, and network roaming deals both companies are talking more about now that the deal is officially in the grave. In a statement issued by T-Mobile owner Deutsche Telekom, the company notes that in addition to $3 billion in cash, T-Mobile gets a new seven-year roaming deal with AT&T -- and some delicious new spectrum to help with its 4G expansion ambitions: As part of the break-up fee, T-Mobile USA will receive a large package of AWS mobile spectrum in 128 Cellular Market Areas (CMAs), including 12 of the top 20 markets (Los Angeles, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Washington, Boston, San Francisco, Phoenix, San Diego, Denver, Baltimore and Seattle). The UMTS roaming agreement for the U.S. in T-Mobile USA’s favor has a term of over seven years and will allow the company to improve its footprint significantly among the U.S. population and offer its customers better broadband coverage for mobile communications services in the future... AT&T's recently on record saying the breakup fee really won't be that bad because Uncle Sam will pick up part of the tab courtesy of tax deductions, making the actual hit around $1.4 billion for AT&T. The question now is whether or not this little cash, spectrum and roaming boost will be enough to get T-Mobile over the hump and convince Deutsche Telekom that they want to remain in the U.S. wireless market. Obvious speculation will now lead to Sprint potentially acquiring T-Mobile, something that AT&T's deal was created, in part, to stop in the first place. But Sprint may be legally tired, and has plenty on their plate already with a massive upcoming LTE network build. An attempted Sprint acquisition of T-Mobile might depend on whether or not their LTE partners Clearwire and LightSquared financially implode, something that was a distinct possibility before AT&T/T-Mobile, and remains so after.
|
  tobyTroy Mcclure
join:2001-11-13
Seattle, WA
 ·OlyPen, Inc.
·CenturyLink
| NO tax deductions ever "Uncle Sam will pick up part of the tab courtesy of tax deductions"
Another reason why no company or person should be allowed tax deductions of any kind, ever.
Then we shall see what true taxes are being paid, until then we shall never know.
Just creates corruption and cheating on taxes. | |
|  | Reviews:
·Windstream
| Re: NO tax deductions ever This is an inane comment. What AT&T deducts, DT adds as income. I don't know how the international aspect of that plays out, but in general one entity's deduction is another's income, so that income is only taxed once. Home mortgage interest deducted by individuals is income to the mortgage provider.
Perhaps you'd prefer the simplest tax form of all, in 2 steps:
1) How much do you make?
2) Send it all in. | |
| | | tcopePremium
join:2003-05-07
Sandy, UT
kudos:2 | Re: NO tax deductions ever From AT&T? How could that be? Are you saying that they are trying to sell people on lies that are so obvious no one will believe them?
No... not AT&T.
It's simply AT&T trying to make it look like they are not the joke that they are.
I'm sure AT&T will start to tell people that the failed take over will actually help them and benefit all AT&T customers. | |
| | | Reviews:
 ·T-Mobile US
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| I think it should be pointed out that even if the DT income is taxed, it won't be taxed by the United States, but rather by Germany. Since the profits clearly are being paid to DT not to T-Mobile U.S.
--
If it ain't broke..... You didn't overclock it enough. | |
| | | tobyTroy Mcclure
join:2001-11-13
Seattle, WA Reviews:
·OlyPen, Inc.
·CenturyLink
| said by LostInWoods:This is an inane comment. What AT&T deducts, DT adds as income. I don't know how the international aspect of that plays out, but in general one entity's deduction is another's income, so that income is only taxed once. Home mortgage interest deducted by individuals is income to the mortgage provider.
Perhaps you'd prefer the simplest tax form of all, in 2 steps:
1) How much do you make?
2) Send it all in.
I'm afraid you fell for it.
Here is an example.
You make $1, you pay 25% taxes, you pay 25 cent taxes.
You make $1, you pay 35% taxes minus a special offer of 10% bonus bargain tax break just for you, you pay 25 cents.
See the difference? There isn't any.
Think of that 2nd problem multiplied by a bzillion crooked special bargains.
Keep it simple, keep it fair. | |
|
| openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | said by toby:Another reason why no company or person should be allowed tax deductions of any kind, ever. So you don't even claim your standard deduction? Without a total rewrite of our tax code, your wish simply isn't feasible. | |
| | | | | Re: NO tax deductions ever said by openbox9:said by toby:Another reason why no company or person should be allowed tax deductions of any kind, ever. So you don't even claim your standard deduction? Without a total rewrite of our tax code, your wish simply isn't feasible. 10% flat tax. No deductions no credits, pay as you go. | |
| | | |  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: NO tax deductions ever said by fifty nine:10% flat tax. No deductions no credits, pay as you go. That's a good first step, but the main problem is that like the current income tax it exempts people who don't report their income or who work under the table. I'd rather go with the FairTax or some other kind of national retail non-VAT sales tax... best part is everyone will pay something.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
| | | | |  elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO | Re: NO tax deductions ever said by pnh102:said by fifty nine:10% flat tax. No deductions no credits, pay as you go. That's a good first step, but the main problem is that like the current income tax it exempts people who don't report their income or who work under the table. I'd rather go with the FairTax or some other kind of national retail non-VAT sales tax... best part is everyone will pay something. issue with taxes like that is it makes every thing cost for for people on fixed incomes that were non-taxable in the first place
unless you plan to some how give these people more money in the first place | |
|
| | |  Matt3All noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | said by fifty nine:said by openbox9:said by toby:Another reason why no company or person should be allowed tax deductions of any kind, ever. So you don't even claim your standard deduction? Without a total rewrite of our tax code, your wish simply isn't feasible. 10% flat tax. No deductions no credits, pay as you go. Is this just the Federal Tax Rate, or are you including all Federally Mandated Taxes like FICA (Social Security) and Medicare? | |
| | | |  tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3
·Comcast
| said by fifty nine: 10% flat tax. No deductions no credits, pay as you go.
Make it around 20-25% and you could actually pay for what we have now and start to pay down (slowly) what we already spent.
let's allow 1 deduction, say $10-15k per person basic deduction, so a family of 4 gets the first $40-60 tax free, and flat rate on everything else
We would still be paying far less than the rest of the western world, and most would be far better off. | |
|
| pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by toby:Another reason why no company or person should be allowed tax deductions of any kind, ever. So you take no tax deductions at all, ever, for yourself, right?
And tax deductions are not the government paying for something, they are less money that is earned by someone that is going to the government. Saying anything else is a lie.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
| | Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA | I think companies and corporations should never be taxed for anything, i.e., 0% tax rate. No rebates or deductions -- just no tax, period.
Only real people should be taxed, either through a nationwide sales tax that entirely replaces the personal income tax, or via other person-paid taxes.
After all, companies and corporations are just names and legal creations -- they themselves use no resources. They're packaging, only. It is their executives, shareholders, officers and employees that actually use the resources. Introducing taxation to a company merely makes lopsided complex inefficient and overburdened taxation applied very unequally to the affected people, and hinders proper market forces and corporate morals. E.g., it is more advantageous for a corporation to become behemothly large to reduce the number of "packages" (companies/corporations) involved to reduce the number of tax targets, in order to reduce the tax toll, but that largeness creates inefficiencies and immorality. (Those two things would also be caused by many small companies, but at least a non-taxed large number of companies doesn't create artificial immorality like the large companies, that themselves are being subsidized via taxation of companies.) | |
|
| | $4 billion -> 1.4 billion after taxes? How does $4 billion turn into $1.4 billion after taxes? That would imply a tax rate of around 65% | |
| | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: $4 billion -> 1.4 billion after taxes? It's a guess. Nothing will be official until the taxman is paid and the auditors are happy.said by UBS AG :Analysts at UBS AG did the math. Their take: The cash hit of the breakup fee after taxes would be $1.5 billion to $1.8 billion — as little as half of AT&T’s cash payment to Deutsche Telekom. | |
| | tcopePremium
join:2003-05-07
Sandy, UT
kudos:2 | It's the same math they used when the merger would create 5000 jobs and give them the spectrum AT&T could not live without. Now the merger failure is only really going to cost 1.4 billion. But On top of that you and I are going to pay the difference.
 | |
| | |  jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | Re: $4 billion -> 1.4 billion after taxes? Just because you don't understand something (made obvious by your comments in this thread) doesn't make it evil.
Taking this loss reduces the taxes AT&T would have paid on their operating profit.
--
When the zombies come, he will be waiting. | |
| | | | tcopePremium
join:2003-05-07
Sandy, UT
kudos:2 | Re: $4 billion -> 1.4 billion after taxes? I can read.. but I can also understand a spin. If ATT pays TM 3 billion, TM still makes 3 billion. Its simple math. If ATT can than write off that 3 billion, great for them. But that _payment_ was still 3 billion. Easy enough to read? | |
|
| | | They're taking a deduction of the value of the spectrum transferred and thus getting tax credit based on that value, and then when saying only $1.4B after taxes they're conveniently referring to the spectrum as $0 cost so that their losses seem tinier. So, it seems more like somewhere around 25% tax rate with $4B deductions, and subtract that from the cash-only portion and you get $1.4B. | |
| | |  cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | Re: $4 billion -> 1.4 billion after taxes? said by kram1984j:they're conveniently referring to the spectrum as $0 cost so that their losses seem tinier. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that a standard accounting practice not to include costs/expenses that were realized in previous quarters. | |
|
 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 |  TMO & Sprint??
But what could be possible is a spectrum sharing deal, if TMO can get the money together somewhere to start their own conversion to LTE. | |
| | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: TMO & Sprint?? said by Linklist:And they have totally tapped out their financing avenues. Bingo. Sprint will be lucky to survive its current financial situation, let alone be in a position to do any M&A. | |
| | | BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: TMO & Sprint?? Yeah, and at least T-Mo has some concept of what they're doing for their network. HSPA+ 42 has a lot of life in it, and where they have coverage (i.e. not many places), their network is legitimately amazing. Sprint, not so much. They don't really have any idea of what they are doing. They were goofing around with Clearwire, and now they have some half-baked LTE plan with maybe SMR CDMA or something, who knows. | |
|
| | | said by Linklist:I just can't see Sprint merging with TMO. Sprint can barely deal with their own LTE conversion and infrastructure upgrade and with all the issues around Clearwire and Lightsquared. And they have totally tapped out their financing avenues.
But what could be possible is a spectrum sharing deal, if TMO can get the money together somewhere to start their own conversion to LTE.
Not to mention Sprint just spent $20 billion on iPhones. Why the devil would they spend another $20 billion+ on a completely incompatible network?
In fact where in the world would they get that money from? | |
| | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: TMO & Sprint?? said by sonicmerlin:Not to mention Sprint just spent $20 billion on iPhones. Why the devil would they spend another $20 billion+ on a completely incompatible network? They did it before with Nextel... 
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
| | | |  intellerSociopaths always win.
join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK | Re: TMO & Sprint?? yeah we see how well that worked out. | |
|
| Matt3All noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | said by Linklist:I just can't see Sprint merging with TMO. Sprint can barely deal with their own LTE conversion and infrastructure upgrade and with all the issues around Clearwire and Lightsquared. And they have totally tapped out their financing avenues.
But what could be possible is a spectrum sharing deal, if TMO can get the money together somewhere to start their own conversion to LTE.
There is a key word you used that could make this possible, merge. So many people are focused on a Sprint buyout of T-Mobile, but a merger with Sprint as the managing entity is completely possible.
I agree that Sprint is unlikely to find the capital for a buyout of T-Mobile outright, and/or vice-versa. | |
| | | | | Re: TMO & Sprint?? That doesn't preclude the "merger of equals" option in which a stock swap is made by each side.
--
If it ain't broke..... You didn't overclock it enough. | |
|
| | will t-mobile customer now be able to use AT&T radio bands? it will be awesome if t-mobile customer will be able to roam onto AT&T 3G radio bands. the second hand market is flooded with bargain priced AT&T phones which can easily be unlocked. there are far fewer nice t-mob phones available at decent prices.
another question if whether t-mobile MVNO's will also have access to the roaming?
simple mobile and/or walmart family talk with full at&t coverage would be awesome. | |
| |  GbcueP.E.Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8 | Re: will t-mobile customer now be able to use AT&T radio bands? And the iPhone, can't forget about that. | |
| | |
 n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY | UMTS Roaming The UMTS roaming has interesting implications, especially for folks with iPhone's who cannot currently use 3G with T-Mobile due to lack of 1700MHz support. Also, it is interesting to note that some people (as noted in the T-Mobile forum on this site) are seeing T-Mobile 3G service appear on 1900MHz in some markets. Perhaps T-Mobile has been anticipating the implosion of this deal and started making adjustments to their network to be more compatible with AT&T.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
| | | | Re: UMTS Roaming said by n2jtx:The UMTS roaming has interesting implications, especially for folks with iPhone's who cannot currently use 3G with T-Mobile due to lack of 1700MHz support. Also, it is interesting to note that some people (as noted in the T-Mobile forum on this site) are seeing T-Mobile 3G service appear on 1900MHz in some markets. Perhaps T-Mobile has been anticipating the implosion of this deal and started making adjustments to their network to be more compatible with AT&T.
Seeing service is likely due to roaming agreements. It's a HUGE boon to T-Mobile, as people with iPhones can now gain access to T-Mobile's awesome plans and 3G network. | |
| | | | | Re: UMTS Roaming said by sonicmerlin:Seeing service is likely due to roaming agreements. No. This is native T-Mobile W-CDMA 1900. In some markets where it has PCS bandwidth of 30-40 MHz, T-Mobile is taking 10 MHz of GSM 1900 capacity out of service and "refarming" that PCS 1900 MHz spectrum for W-CDMA 1900 (i.e. W-CDMA band class 2), which is compatible with several T-Mobile devices released this year, as well as all 3G capable iPhone models.
AJ | |
|
| | Will it be enough? I don't know, but I must point out here that many of T-Mobile's problems are of its own making, and, IMHO, Sprint shares the same issues. Still, I'll only pick on T-Mo for the moment.
The main problem, IMHO, is that DT never grew T-Mobile out past the cities and interstates. The United States is a huge country with many rural areas, and even city dwellers travel to these areas, and many also have relatives there. That presents two problems. First, no one wants a carrier that only works in some of the places they regularly visit. Second, many families and groups of friends migrate to the same carrier to take advantage of mobile-to-mobile calling. Therefore, if only part of a family can use T-Mobile, while the entire family can use Verizon, then Verizon has an advantage in getting their business.
T-Mobile could have corrected this in one of two ways, either by building their own network or buying other carriers. They've done neither. They could have gone after CenturyTel, Western Wireless, Alltel, or several others that have been gobbled up. And I suspect the reason they didn't is because these were carriers that used both 850 and 1900, and, for whatever stupid reason, both T-Mobile and Sprint seem incapable of grasping the concept that they need spectrum in the 850 band, especially in rural areas and for good in-building service.
So these two carriers have hit a natural barrier to their continued growth, something they seem to not realize. The model of an urban-only carrier might work in some countries, but it doesn't work here. Sorry guys, but if you want to be a big player, you need a big network. Sure, t costs more to operate, and your rates may have to go up, but if you can overcome the urge to be as greedy as AT&T and Verizon, you'll still get plenty of business. | |
| | | | Re: Will it be enough? Before AT&T announced their merger T-Mobile had revealed network expansion plans to its shareholders. Its goal was to create a Verizon-size network. This was enabled by Deutsche Telekom announcing they would allow T-Mobile USA to operate independently, including reinvesting all US based profits back into their network rather than draining the US subsidiary of its profits.
AT&T obviously did its part to harm T-Mobile's future plans, but the new spectrum and roaming agreements will do a lot to stabilize the company's finances until they can set up a real 4G network. | |
| | | BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Will it be enough? I can't see T-Mo ever becoming a viable third competitor in the US market. They have the low-band problem, and then they have a fairly small coverage area.
They have, however, built out a LOT of sites within their coverage area, in many areas denser than anyone else.
If they somehow managed to pull off a Verizon-sized network with HSPA+ 42 plus wifi calling it would be pretty freaking awesome. | |
|
| | I don't understand this though I don't get why AT&T would agree to pay 4 billion if the deal falls apart. I understand some insurance maybe a little some legal fees and some other things that AT&T should pay for I get that. But 4 billion. that's crazy. I mean I don't walk into a Store and say I want to buy this but if I don't I still owe you 10% of the price i was going to pay. That's just stupid, and AT&T gets Nothing for that 4 billion. Talk about having money to throw away. | |
| | | | Re: I don't understand this though said by mikesterr:I don't get why AT&T would agree to pay 4 billion if the deal falls apart. I understand some insurance maybe a little some legal fees and some other things that AT&T should pay for I get that. But 4 billion. that's crazy. I mean I don't walk into a Store and say I want to buy this but if I don't I still owe you 10% of the price i was going to pay. That's just stupid, and AT&T gets Nothing for that 4 billion. Talk about having money to throw away.
Because T-Mobile's potential investors and plans dried up while the plan was being debated. The parent company needs assurances there'll be some benefit to them even if the takeover falls through. | |
| | tcopePremium
join:2003-05-07
Sandy, UT
kudos:2 | Also because AT&T thought they were so big and could buy anyone's vote that the buyout could not possibly fail. Basically they just wanted the opportunuity. | |
| | | | said by mikesterr:I don't get why AT&T would agree to pay 4 billion if the deal falls apart. I understand some insurance maybe a little some legal fees and some other things that AT&T should pay for I get that. But 4 billion. that's crazy. I mean I don't walk into a Store and say I want to buy this but if I don't I still owe you 10% of the price i was going to pay. That's just stupid, and AT&T gets Nothing for that 4 billion. Talk about having money to throw away.
Every single merger has such a fee. There are many reasons for the fee. One of the reasons for the fee is to ensure the acquiring company is acting in good faith and not trying to damage the company that is being bought out. Another reason is to recoup lost revenue from customers and investors fleeing due to uncertainty. | |
| | | | I don't get why AT&T would agree to pay 4 billion if the deal falls apart. | |
|
 IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1 | Time for the iPhone.... Perfect time for Apple to swoop in with the iPhone....
Please do it Apple. | |
| |  Simba7I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT | Re: Time for the iPhone.... Most carriers actually don't benefit from the iPhone since most of the money is sent to Apple. The reason they want the iPhone is due to ignorant customers that "need" an iDevice.
If they don't have an iDevice, they'll flock to a service provider that does. *sigh* | |
| | | BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH | Re: Time for the iPhone.... I have one because it provides the best overall UX out there, and integrates with iTunes. I had an Android phone, and it was a half-baked experience. If I was on Verizon I would be getting DROID 4 soon as it came out. YMMV. | |
|
|  RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | said by IPPlanMan:Perfect time for Apple to swoop in with the iPhone....
Please do it Apple.
I read somewhere that the iPhone 4S chipset is capable of supporting T-Mobile's 1700 Mhz 3G needs but the phone has been crippled by not offering it. There are supposedly phones using the chipset that DO support 1700 Mhz and are in use on T-Mobile's Network (or the one in Canada that is compatible with T-Mobile).
Given the development time frame for the iPhone 4S (which started before AT&T floated their T-Mobile offer), there is no reason why the iPhone 4S (or the coming iPhone 5) would not be 1700 Mhz capable. This would allow Apple to say that it had T-Mobile 3G capability independent of if T-Mobile was going to see it - T-Mobile has 3% of the iPhone USAGE via their sale of iPhone mini-SIMs. | |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
| Going zombie? Layy Dignanat at Zdnet has a diffrent view
"The most likely scenario for T-Mobile is that it becomes a zombie carrier. It lacks the heft to compete with its largest rivals."
"The scenarios go like this:
•T-Mobile will continue to be a fourth rate carrier that lacks Apple’s iPhone. The faux 4G pitch will eventually wear thin for T-Mobile.
•T-Mobile will wither away over time without AT&T. It’s possible that T-Mobile becomes a zombie carrier that can’t be overly aggressive because it lacks the spectrum on its network.
•Financial engineering—joint ventures, a T-Mobile IPO and other changes—will be attempted so Deutsche Telekom can get it U.S. carrier off its books.
•Consumers are likely to see T-Mobile suffer from a lack of investment going forward.
In other words, the Federal Communications Commission and Department of Justice wanted a No. 4 wireless carrier in markets so bad that it was ready to risk potentially killing one to make a point."
Forget about Sprint; the FCC and Justice department’s message just made T-Mobile toxic. There is a lesson in all this, messing with the free market leaves us with sub-par service. | |
| | | | Re: Going zombie? said by Scatcatpdx:Forget about Sprint; the FCC and Justice department’s message just made T-Mobile toxic. There is a lesson in all this, messing with the free market leaves us with sub-par service.
The Dignan blog and your post are both ideological screeds, seemingly designed to fit your delusions about the so called "free market," which the wireless industry never has been and never can be, as the laws of physics create inexorable barriers to entry.
T-Mobile is the proverbial "canary in the coal mine." If it is unequivocally doomed to become a "zombie carrier," then that is symptomatic of serious anti competitive illness within the wireless industry. In such case, you do not kill off the patient by handing T-Mobile over to AT&T. No, you treat the illness. And the anti competitive practices of VZW and AT&T are the illness.
AJ | |
|
tkdslr
join:2004-04-24
Pompano Beach, FL | T-mobile Get's Roaming, but what does AT&T get... Roaming agreements are sometimes a two way street..
Will AT&T customers get access to portions of T-mobile's HSPA+ network? Don't be too surprised... | |
| | | | | | said by tkdslr:Roaming agreements are sometimes a two way street..
Will AT&T customers get access to portions of T-mobile's HSPA+ network? Don't be too surprised...
Many roaming agreements are reciprocal, but I doubt this one will be, since it was part of a package that T-Mobile would get if the deal fell through.
As for AT&T getting access to T-Mobile's HSPA+ network, that will only work for phones that can use AWS, and none of AT&T's current handsets can do that. | |
|
| | Gave up spectrum? Affect on AT&T's network load... ? I'm a little worried about "As part of the break-up fee, T-Mobile USA will receive a large package of AWS mobile spectrum in 128 Cellular Market Areas (CMAs), including 12 of the top 20 markets". Did AT&T really have that much spectrum (worth what, 1 billion or something?) laying around not being used or planned to be used for expansion or LTE?! I can't picture this NOT affecting AT&T somehow, either having to buy it back from someone else or having to cram more devices on less spectrum. I'll be pissed if the axing of this deal actually slows down LTE deployment for AT&T users or hurts coverage/service capacity!
I can understand handing over the cash and forced agreements to share cells but to hand away the main thing which makes wireless work, that kinda pisses me off. Unless it honestly was just sitting around not getting used to planned for future roll out. | |
| | | | Re: Gave up spectrum? Affect on AT&T's network load... ? said by Andrew :Did AT&T really have that much spectrum (worth what, 1 billion or something?) laying around not being used or planned to be used for expansion or LTE?! Bingo! That's exactly what they have. That's why this whole "we need T-Mobile because we're short on spectrum" BS never rang true with many folks. Both AT&T and VZW are sitting on AWS spectrum they've never made a move to use. They got it as a defensive measure so no other carriers could get it and compete with them.
As for LTE, AT&T's and VZW's deployment has been solely in the 700 MHz band. Currently, the only carriers I'm aware of using AWS are T-Mobile, Cricket, and MetroPCS. CenturyLink got a bunch, so they may re-enter the wireless market, and C Spire also got spectrum covering the Southeast, so look for them to use it, probably for their planned LTE rollout. | |
| | | | | Re: Gave up spectrum? Affect on AT&T's network load... ? So basically a HUGE help for TMo and really no change for AT&T because they haven't been using any services on the AWS spectrum. That makes sense now on why AT&T offered that up as a fail safe. | |
| | | | | | Re: Gave up spectrum? Affect on AT&T's network load... ? Yeah, they probably thought they'd never have to give it to T-Mobile, as I'm sure they were confident the deal would get approved. And they may have been willing to divest it as a concession for getting the deal approved, so they were probably prepared to lose it either way. But I'm sure they'd have preferred to sell it to Cricket or MetroPCS, who aren't a real threat to them, or to VZW, who would simply sit on it as a defensive measure. T-Mobile actually needs it, and, as much as AT&T was probably willing to lose it, I'm sure they would have rather any carrier besides T-Mobile ended up with it. Still, I'm sure that's the price DT demanded as a condition for entering into this potential buyout, and we all know that AT&T was willing to pay dearly to get a competitor out of the market. But, up to now, no one has ever said no to SBC/BellSouth/Cingular/AT&T, so they likely weren't prepared for this to get shot down. | |
|
| | Is Sprint Even Likely? I have to ask as considering Sprint's cost in upgrading it's own network and the fact that it does not use a GSM network like T-Mobile does, the cost here seem to outweigh the likely benefit of acquisition. | |
| |  mech1164I'll Be Back
join:2001-11-19
Lodi, NJ | Re: Is Sprint Even Likely? said by PapaMidnight:I have to ask as considering Sprint's cost in upgrading it's own network and the fact that it does not use a GSM network like T-Mobile does, the cost here seem to outweigh the likely benefit of acquisition.
GSM at the moment for Sprint would be a middling technology. Yes it would be incompatible. It would also mean that it would have to be run as a separate entity. That being said, if this were to happen. You would have sprint do a freeze on new gsm phones. Any of the phones Tmo would sell would be on Sprints new LTE network. This way as contracts end and people get new phones. they would all be on a unified standard. I'm not saying it would be easy, but it would make the most sense. | |
| | | | | Re: Is Sprint Even Likely? When did we start talking about Nextel... oh wait...  | |
|
| | T Mobile benefits from failed merger T Mobile looks like they will be in a strong postion to improve their network with the cash and spectrum they will get. They also will get beter roaming coverage with at&t. | |
|  IowaCowboyWant to go back to IowaPremium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
·Comcast
·Verizon Broadban..
| If DT does not want to keep T-Mobile If DT does not want to keep T-Mobile, then they should just split it off into an independent company. Motorola just split into two companies, one is Motorola Solutions (Police Radios, Barcode Scanners, and Handheld computers) and Motorola Mobility (Set-Top Boxes, Cell Phones, and Cable Modems).
A spin-off of T-Mobile would be better than merging with AT&T.
--
All of my CPE (including my EMTA) is customer owned. The only Comcast owned equipment in my house is the CableCards in the two TiVO boxes I own. | |
| | | T-mobile sucks Im surprised at&t would buy this company but now that the deal is dead t-mobile is history just like cricket and metropcs.....small companies can NOT compete in the 4g wireless world!!!!!!!!!! | |
| | | | Re: T-mobile sucks I actually think T-Mobile will be in a better position long term than Sprint. This whole merger failure could end up being the deal of the decade for TM | |
|
 SysOp
join:2001-04-18
Douglasville, GA
 ·voip.ms
·T-Mobile US
| The gamble paid off. With more AWS spectrum and a 7 year UMTS roaming deal, looks like it might be enough to stay in the game. At least for another 7 years. T-Mobile already has a good size network. »www.t-mobiletowers.com/TowerSearch.aspx
T-Mobile introduced a $30 Unlimited plan to increase new activations. This will be a game changer.
$30 monthly prepaid
5gb 3G/4G
unlimited 2G
100 voice, then 10 cents a min
unlimited MMS
My Samsung Exhibit II 4G Tri-Band UMTS phone will be here tomorrow! | |
|
| |
|
|
·
·