T-Mobile to Raise $2 Billion for More Spectrum
Part of T-Mobile's resurgence as the self-professed "uncarrier" was thanks to the billions in roaming agreements, cash, and spectrum the company nabbed as part of a break up fee for their failed deal with AT&T. Now as T-Mobile works to deploy a more robust LTE network, the company has announced
a new stock offering that could infuse the company with $2 billion to be used on spectrum acquisitions.
The company intends to sell 66.15 million common shares in order to fund acquisition of numerous spectrum assets set for FCC auction -- most notably in the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz and 2155-2180 MHz bands, aka the Advanced Wireless Services (AWS-3) spectrum.
T-Mobile today stated they will not be bidding in the upcoming H Block spectrum auction scheduled for January 22
Re: used for?
said by TBBroadband:I've never hit a VZW roaming partner in New York State, which isn't to say that they don't use them, but AFAIK the network is all native around these parts. The last time I hit a VZW roaming partner was a small portion of my last road trip to New Hampshire. Previous to that was the stretch of I-81 through Maryland and West Virgina.
Is that ACTUAL coverage of VZW or "extended" aka ROAMING.
Of course, that's neither here nor there. Roaming partners don't bother me that much, except insofar as T-Mobile was never able to do seamless handoffs with their roaming partners, while VZW has always managed to do so in my experience. Perhaps that was a technological limitation of GSM vs. IS-95/IS-2000 and T-Mo has fixed it with their 3G/4G roaming partners. All I know is it was incredibly annoying to drop calls as I left the T-Mo native area, then have to wait for my phone to figure out it was okay to connect to AT&T before I could re-dial.
The way they used to set up their roaming agreements was also a PITA. You couldn't connect to AT&T in any AT&T LAC (location area code) that shared T-Mo native coverage, even if the native coverage didn't fully cover the LAC, so you'd end up with huge dead zones until you got far enough away from T-Mo's coverage area to be allowed to connect to AT&T. I suppose they did this so people couldn't force their phones to AT&T in native areas and ding T-Mo for roaming minutes, but it was still incredibly annoying to have to contend with 10-15 miles of dead zone on major interstate highways, to say nothing of more rural areas.
said by TBBroadband:I'm glad we agree. So you'll be calling Karl out on his hypocrisy the next time he whines about Verizon "hanging up" on POTS and declining to roll FiOS out to smaller/medium markets, right?
Because they're NOT redlining. They do NOT have to service you at all. The same as any other provider.
Re: used for?
said by Crookshanks:Apples and oranges comparison. Aren't most, if not all of the areas VZW and "at&t" hanging up on under-served for those services? I know if the thing that calls itself "at&t" these days dropped POTS service here in S.E. Michigan, there'd be no more POTS service. Period. However: You won't see me bitching about "at&t" not running U-verse in my neighbourhood, because it is served by Comcast. (I'd prefer competition, but you can't have everything.)
I'm glad we agree. So you'll be calling Karl out on his hypocrisy the next time he whines about Verizon "hanging up" on POTS and declining to roll FiOS out to smaller/medium markets, right?
Regardless of the carrier: There are areas they simply do not serve (yet), for whatever reason. My wife and I toured a portion of Michigan's Upper Peninsula last summer. We were on Sprint at the time. Sprint roams on Verizon. Nonetheless: For the most part: Outside of major towns and cities: No coverage. Not just poor, but none.
What is it with you guys whining about T-Mobile's lack of coverage? I don't get it. If you have somebody covering the area you want: Use them, and shut up about it, already.
Re: used for? Well, Verizon and AT&T haven't actually "hung up" on anybody yet to my knowledge, with the exception of those areas hit by Sandy (and Big Red is coming around on that) which is hard to blame them for if you take a dispassionate view. They might want to abandon their legacy markets but they've yet to actually do it.
In my case it's less about whining and more about wondering why T-Mo gets a pass for cherry picking profitable markets while Verizon is condemned for doing the same with FIOS. One also has to wonder if T-Mo could sustain their below-market rates if they invested in rural America the same way Verizon has.
I seriously dislike Verizon's business practices, but it's hard to argue with the fact that my phone has signal in areas where none of my friends (even those on AT&T) do.
The sad thing is I really liked T-Mo when I did business with them. I put up with the dead zones because they were a comparative bargain (1,000 minutes w/unlimited text for $40/mo back when VZW had no unlimited text option and offered 450 minutes for the same price) and I was a broke 20-something. Their customer service was amazing, truly a pleasure to deal with, and light-years removed from Verizon's "take it or leave it" arrogance. I only left them because I moved in with my SO and had zero coverage at our new address, this being an address that was located in a significant local neighborhood with hundreds of homes (i.e., not the sticks), only two miles away from my old apartment which had perfect coverage.
To the best of my knowledge they still haven't rectified that coverage gap, nor allowed AT&T roaming in that area, six years after I quit doing business with them. As I said, we just aren't a priority for them, which is disappointing to say the least.
N. VA, USA
·Verizon Online DSL
No 600mhz... T-Mobile really could use some better long-range and in-building coverage. I can understand them wanting to own more AWS spectrum as it fits in closely with the rest of their spectrum...but they really do need something lower than 1900mhz.
(Granted, the 1900mhz seems to work pretty decently indoors, but not as strong as AT&T's 900mhz band service)
If I was in charge of T-Mobiles network, my first priority would be to fill in most of the EDGE holes in the network (esp towers serving towns/cities), then go and find more air bandwith.
They have been -slowly- eliminating the EDGE, although in a pattern I cant understand. They refarmed the countryside outside of my town, but the town is still EDGE only - so farmland gets 4G LTE, and the town of 7000 people gets EDGE. Makes 0 sense, but it probably means nearby towers are due to get the new equipment whenever they can get Fiber to site. They are probably replacing equipment in semi-rural places when its about to go kaput, rather than following any logical deployment.
Re: No 600mhz...
said by Zenit:When I worked at a large university, every carrier except T-Mo brought in T1s (AT&T brought in 8 T1s) for their 3G cell sites.
They have been -slowly- eliminating the EDGE, although in a pattern I cant understand. They refarmed the countryside outside of my town, but the town is still EDGE only - so farmland gets 4G LTE, and the town of 7000 people gets EDGE. Makes 0 sense, but it probably means nearby towers are due to get the new equipment whenever they can get Fiber to site.
T-Mobile flat out won't do 3G/4G without fiber or microwave. I'm not sure how valuable 600mhz would be for them in rural areas where they don't have fiber.
I'd rather see them get more AWS spectrum because even on LTE in urban areas (eg. DC) there are some places where the network is just plain slow due to lack of AWS spectrum and high usage.
Re: T-Mobile needs to upgrade their data network along I-55 in Illinois, ok Let's upgrade a whole corridor just so very few people get lte access ?
How about we roll out high speeds services to the masses then upgrade the slight areas ?
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!"