|
If they want to be #3...the bottom line is, they need to improve their overall coverage. It doesn't matter how fast their data is, if it doesn't work.
I've considered T-Mobile before(I'm on Sprint), but while they have good pricing, their coverage just doesn't compare to what I get from Sprint, especially off the beaten path. | |
|
| |
Re: If they want to be #3...Precisely! Up to now, T-Mobile has focused on covering medium to large cities, as well as major highways and the smaller cities along them. Well, that strategy just isn't going to cut it anymore. The problem with not covering more rural areas is that, not only are they missing out on potential subs in those areas, but many people in urban areas travel out into the boonies, and they may not be willing to choose a carrier that offers no coverage there.
It comes down to this: T-Mobile has to decide if they want to be a primarily urban carrier or a national carrier. And, if they want to move up to #3, they need to be a truly national carrier. They simply can't have it both ways. | |
|
| | pandora Premium Member join:2001-06-01 Outland |
pandora
Premium Member
2011-Jan-20 11:39 pm
Re: If they want to be #3...The fastest way for T-Mobile to realize it's dream of being Sprint would be to purchase Nextel. Then announce an exclusive on a new WebOS phone.
Karl, if this ever were to happen in real life, please be gentle, many could wind up dying with laughter at the news, depending on how it was presented. | |
|
| tiger72SexaT duorP Premium Member join:2001-03-28 Saint Louis, MO |
to Chuck_IV
Massive expansion |
said by Chuck_IV:the bottom line is, they need to improve their overall coverage. It doesn't matter how fast their data is, if it doesn't work.
I've considered T-Mobile before(I'm on Sprint), but while they have good pricing, their coverage just doesn't compare to what I get from Sprint, especially off the beaten path. I have both Sprint and T-Mobile service, and for the most part, their coverage is nearly identical. I'm sorry, but as a customer of both, I find it very hard to take seriously a T-Mobile customer complaining about Sprint coverage, or vice versa. In some areas one is better. In some areas the other is. That said, they plan on leapfrogging their 2g network with a 3g/4g network that meets Verizon's in size. | |
|
| | |
Re: If they want to be #3...T-Mobile's coverage in the Seattle metro is excellent, and in fact I have never had any issues with them on the west coast.
The east coast is a completely different story. Back in Poughkeepsie, I can't even get a signal in the mall of all places. And guess what - no T-mo store in the mall either, just VZ and Sprint. Coverage was awful as I was using my HD7 along the thruway from Buffalo to Albany. My parents have Sprint and they don't have any issues.
Back when I lived in NYS 5 years ago, none of the GSM carriers had any sort of network presence. Maybe AT&T's improved somewhat since, but Tmo is just as bad as they were back then. | |
|
| | Alcohol Premium Member join:2003-05-26 Climax, MI |
to tiger72
That is a very idealistic map. | |
|
| | |
to tiger72
That coverage is absolutely terrible | |
|
| | | tiger72SexaT duorP Premium Member join:2001-03-28 Saint Louis, MO |
tiger72
Premium Member
2011-Jan-24 12:46 pm
Re: If they want to be #3...That's honest native data coverage. Not ATT's map which includes their significant roaming, or Verizon's exaggerated map which entirely avoids street-level network quality coverage. But hey, you have fun with your 800kbps "3g". | |
|
| digiblur Premium Member join:2002-06-03 Louisiana |
to Chuck_IV
said by Chuck_IV:the bottom line is, they need to improve their overall coverage. It doesn't matter how fast their data is, if it doesn't work.
I've considered T-Mobile before(I'm on Sprint), but while they have good pricing, their coverage just doesn't compare to what I get from Sprint, especially off the beaten path. Same here.. Sprint doesn't have the best of coverage here but they far exceed what TMobile has. I think in the past 5 or 6 years I've seen one TMobile phone in someones hand in this state. | |
|
FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ 1 edit |
FFH5
Premium Member
2011-Jan-20 1:59 pm
Selling off towers to get money to expand» T-Mobile Wants To Be Nation's #3 Carrier [33] commentsA company statement says they're exploring various options to "acquire additional spectrum The way they are going to get money to buy more wireless spectrum is by selling off their infrastructure: » news.cnet.com/8301-30686 ··· 1_3-0-20But the company will need more spectrum for growth in the future. To help fund the purchase or partnership for more spectrum, Obermann said that T-Mobile USA will sell "non-core assets," such as wireless towers. T-Mobile wouldn't be the only one doing this. The other major wireless providers have outsourced the ownership and maintenance of much of their wireless tower infrastructure to 3rd parties. » www.cellularphonenews.co ··· ower.htmCrown Castle International & American Tower are the 800 pound gorillas in this market: » www.wikinvest.com/stock/ ··· 28CCI%29Crown Castle International is the largest cell phone tower company in the U.S. It leases antenna space on its over 24,000 towers to wireless service providers, including Verizon Communications (VZ), Sprint Nextel (S), T-Mobile, Alltel, and AT&T (T). » www.wikinvest.com/stock/ ··· 28AMT%29American Tower leases over 27,000 cell phone towers to wireless service providers, including Verizon Communications (VZ), Sprint Nextel (S) and AT&T (T). It operates over 20,000 wireless towers in the U.S. With a US market share over 40%, the company is one of the largest wireless tower operators in the country, just behind leader Crown Castle International (CCI). | |
|
| |
Re: Selling off towers to get money to expandI could see TMO doing the same thing as Sprint-Nextel. Selling their towers that they still own. and then bringing another company in to mantain the network. American Tower is one of the largest (if not the largest) tower company in the country. Between them and Castle Tower; most cell phone companies do lease tower space in more than half of the country. | |
|
| | en102Canadian, eh? join:2001-01-26 Valencia, CA |
en102
Member
2011-Jan-20 2:19 pm
Re: Selling off towers to get money to expandI agree - after the Sprint / Nextel acquisition, in many urban markets, Sprint / Nextel has a LOT of sites. This is actually good from a cell site/capacity perspective in many areas, and is good for the deployment of WiMAX. The bad part is having all of these sites on the books. | |
|
| | | |
Re: Selling off towers to get money to expandyep! that's why you sell them off and just lease them. less cost over time. you don't have property taxes or anything of that sort. just what the site owner requires. | |
|
88615298 (banned) join:2004-07-28 West Tenness |
88615298 (banned)
Member
2011-Jan-20 4:00 pm
#3 hmmmm..way to aim for the middle t-mobile. | |
|
| openbox9 Premium Member join:2004-01-26 71144
1 recommendation |
openbox9
Premium Member
2011-Jan-20 4:05 pm
Re: #3 hmmmm..In TMobile's defense, #3 would move them out of last place of the serious wireless carriers. It's nice to see that the company is at least talking about growing. Now about that coverage.... | |
|
| | |
Re: #3 hmmmm..time for them to pick up some other carriers and expand. | |
|
| | | tiger72SexaT duorP Premium Member join:2001-03-28 Saint Louis, MO |
tiger72
Premium Member
2011-Jan-21 10:01 am
Re: #3 hmmmm..which ones, exactly?
ATT bought them all up. | |
|
chlenEthically Challenged Premium Member join:2001-01-16 Saratoga, NY |
chlen
Premium Member
2011-Jan-20 4:24 pm
North EastIf T-Mobile wants to be a serious carrier they need the northeast.
Their coverage is simply not enterprise or even family class in the NE corridors of BOS-CT-NYC-PHI and BAL-DC. Sprint, say what you will, will at least roam on VZ and not charge you and Sprint is good in the woods and covers every highway with reliable service.
Sprint is very close to VZ in terms of reliability and network, unlike ATT where dropping calls is a part of life and TMobile which simply does not have data services outside cities.
I need 3G on the road. I am a power user. My cell phone is my home phone and my work phone, I am the ideal customer.
If TMO could partner somehow with Sprint or expand to give you good coverage I would switch. | |
|
| |
Re: North Eastthey would both have to use the same technology as voice and data. TMO has no plans right now on changing technology past GSM until after they run out of upgrade options.
It would be nice to see them both use the same technology and roam on each other. Hell I'd be nice to see Sprint merge with TMO and take TMO's CS Operations and merge the networks together to one over time. It would give them BOTH the needed resources. In Coutry support. a Great Customer Service Experience as far as people know shit at TMO, great phones, and not required to have contracts! Now just the technology. But they'd be smart to merge in all the prepaid customers too on the no-contract side of the group if that were to happen. | |
|
amungus Premium Member join:2004-11-26 America |
amungus
Premium Member
2011-Jan-20 6:17 pm
Good luckWell, good luck...
It's clear that more people in America prefer CDMA based networks... I don't know the #'s, but I do know that between Verizon, Sprint, U.S. Cellular, and whoever else, that more people are on CDMA networks in this country and most have fewer dropped calls, arguably more reliable coverage in more places, and less issues all around...
I really wish they'd all standardize on something for wireless. GSM really isn't that great here, especially for voice... even if the rest of the world uses it.
The current differences between Qualcomm's CDMA and "GSM" are just insane. Maybe someday we'll see a standardized cellular technology that kicks ass, isn't patent encumbered (cough - CDMA - ahem), doesn't drop calls like wet footballs (cough - GSM - ahem), and devices can be run on it as easily as old fashioned landline phones, or as easily as current "wi-fi." I guess it did take AGES for "ma bell" to open up to phones that THEY didn't provide, so I'm not all that surprised. | |
|
| |
Re: Good luckPeople in America have CDMA only because those carriers cover more rural areas. Sprint built their CDMA network from the ground up and while they were busy building ATT Wireless (at the time) and Cingular were busy covering the major areas. VZ's former companies were busy covering their service areas. And when they all merged you got HUGE ass CDMA carriers compared to smaller GSM companies; TMO (compressed of several small GSM carriers) and ATT (tons of other carriers).
So when you only at one time had one choice of a carrier- you went with that one- and most likely it was a CDMA carrier. And those carriers never bothered to convert technologies to GSM or GSM to CDMA.
And GSM doesn't always drop calls. TMO has a very stable network overall. If your area had lots of dropped calls it would be a local issue. | |
|
| ditka_b Premium Member join:2001-10-05 Barrington, IL |
to amungus
With LTE coming they'll all be on the same plane as GSM and CDMA will die off like TDMA did. | |
|
| tiger72SexaT duorP Premium Member join:2001-03-28 Saint Louis, MO 1 edit |
to amungus
HSPA+ very competitive with backwards compatibility | LTE easily integrates when necessary |
There is one. It's called UMTS, genius. And that's what T-Mobile (and ATT, and ~450 other operators around the world) is deploying. Unfortunately though, you seem to have the perception that just because ATT couldn't engineer a network to save their lives, that GSM is crap. Sorry to burst your bubble, but not only does that defy logic, it defies reality. And it actually misses the entire point too, since T-Mobile is pushing for UMTS/HSPA to cover the nation and catapult them past Sprint - not GSM. Their only plan for GSM is to start winding it down so they can use that spectrum for 3g/4g UMTS/HSPA+. | |
|
|
T-Mobile Plans to offer 4G to 290 Million Americans By 2013» www.download-telekom.de/ ··· 6790.pdfThat new German CEO who took the helm this year was not kidding when he said he was going to seriously shake up this company. As a sidenote Verizon also plans to expand their LTE network to cover similar POPS by 2013 as well. | |
|
| airtouch25 |
Re: T-Mobile Plans to offer 4G to 290 Million Americans By 2013Oh sorry guys scroll down to Page 42 of that presentation | |
|
| | |
Re: T-Mobile Plans to offer 4G to 290 Million Americans By 2013Wow. I will be amazed if they pull that off. We just need a 5th competitor to bring down prices a bit. | |
|
|
tc1uscg
Member
2011-Jan-20 10:19 pm
Won't be hard to push sprint to the bottomT-mo-bile should have problems push past Sprint. When you read about wireless telecom, Sprint is hardley mention and for good reason. Thare are a threat to no one but themselves. | |
|
|
4G?T-Mobile needs to get it's network to at least have EDGE ubiquitously in my area first, and I am in New Jersey! Forget 4G for now, I live where there is only GPRS! How fast! Not to mention the largest coverage gaps of any carrier in this area.
Which is why I have Verizon. | |
|
| |
Re: 4G?Sterling: This company is being ran by a new machine now. Times have changed. What was in the past isn't anymore. This is a good thing.
In the past T-Mobile USA couldn't spend CAPEX unless its German owners said so. Now the German operator wants the US unit to use it's own money to build out but in return it has to bring in more revenue, decrease churn, increase ARPU etc. otherwise the credit card w/o limits will be confiscated.
New site turn-ups will be HSPA or HSPA + only in most areas. The 4G network will at some point eclipse the current 2G network as the new proposed coverage map link I posted shows.
No sense in retrofitting all areas with EDGE that don't have it now. In 2010 they were still putting up hybrid sites as they expanded which were 2G/3G/4G compatible. Now it looks like new sites will be 3G HSPA (at the minimum pending available space/spectrum) and definitely 4G HSPA + everywhere else. | |
|
TMMerlinThe Devil made me do it join:2003-06-19 Oxford, MI |
T-Mobile Wants To Be Nation's #3 CarrierHummmm .. all this rant about 3G & 4G's and I have more towers than you do !!
My Sprint service gives me just what I want .. crystal clear phone calls.
Isn't that why they call them Cellphones and Smartphones ?
Phones are for "voice calls"... ! | |
|
| tiger72SexaT duorP Premium Member join:2001-03-28 Saint Louis, MO |
tiger72
Premium Member
2011-Jan-21 10:08 am
Re: T-Mobile Wants To Be Nation's #3 Carriersaid by TMMerlin:Hummmm .. all this rant about 3G & 4G's and I have more towers than you do !!
My Sprint service gives me just what I want .. crystal clear phone calls.
Isn't that why they call them Cellphones and Smartphones ?
Phones are for "voice calls"... ! Huh? I have both Sprint and T-Mobile service. I actually get better signal on my TMO phone (and clearer calls) on my TMO phone than my Sprint one. That said, they're both great voice networks. Not like ATT's trash network that drops calls, or Verizon's which is almost constantly using half-rate voice codecs now. | |
|
| |
to TMMerlin
"Smart" phone implies that it does more than just make voice calls. Any dumb phone can make a voice call. | |
|
|
tech making it possibleThe technology part of the strategy is probably on the right track.. but one important factor to gaining subscriber base being rooted in BOTTOM LINE PRICE to the subscriber. Tmobile's never been the cheapest & best value for the money (as a national carrier). Not in the 90's 00's... we'll see about the next decade. | |
|
|
|