10 ms·

Not surprising. T-Mobile has always been a GSM network, CDMA is what they inherited from Sprint.

by hk1337 5y ago

DebtDeflation 5y ago
>CDMA is what they inherited from Sprint Furthermore, what they're specifically referring to here is Sprint's 3G network. Sprint's 4G LTE network is currently planned to be de-commissioned on June 30 2022, but that will almost certainly get pushed as well.
acwan93 5y ago
It seemed strange that T-Mobile would have a CDMA network, until you remembered that it came from Sprint. This seems like good news. I'm glad that starting with LTE all the carriers started agreeing on a single platform with SIM cards. Even though there are little nuances between each carrier, the fact that you can buy a single phone and have it work with the four (three now) major carriers is a big deal.
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  Not only are phones cross network compatible, with eSIM support, you can provision new service within minutes on any supported carrier, no physical SIM required.
  - kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
    Unless you're AT&T, then it takes a couple hours.
  - aidenn0 5y ago
    Except that at least some spectrum owners won't let MVNOs provision eSIMs.
  - criddell 5y ago
    I just activated a new phone with T-Mobile and they basically insisted on a physical SIM card. When I asked why they said they can do an eSIM but then I wouldn't get 5G. Is that true? If not, then why are they pushing physical SIM cards so hard?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - toomuchtodo 5y ago
      I can confirm that an eSIM should work with 5G without issue on Tmobile.
      - criddell 5y ago
        I wonder why are they so insistent on installing a SIM card?
        toomuchtodo 5y ago
        TMO customer service is hit or miss. Most TMO customer service is not aware of how eSIM works.
      - markus92 5y ago
        I can first-hand confirm it actually works on their network.
- Causality1 5y ago
  Not really. There have always been smartphones that supported both GSM and CDMA. The three major carriers not only use different LTE bands, but also Verizon and shortly AT&T (in February) have adopted a whitelist model where only select handsets can be activated on their networks. It's a much less open marketplace than it was five years ago.
  - petra 5y ago
    How is this legal?
    - basilgohar 5y ago
      Ask Ajit Pai.
    - mdasen 5y ago
      This doesn't really go into how it's legal, but the situation around VoLTE has been difficult. It hasn't just been every phone working perfectly. Beyond that, it's possible to buy a phone that sort-of works. For example, let's say that you're an AT&T customer and AT&T has 700MHz, 850MHz, 1900MHz, 1700MHz, and 2300MHz spectrum. You buy some foreign phone that supports 1900MHz. Great, now you're running a device that won't have coverage everywhere that AT&T has coverage. You're running a device that won't be using the full AT&T network and your speeds will be really slow compared to devices that fully support the network. You go somewhere with friends and you're like, "AT&T never works when I leave <city-name>!" Except that AT&T isn't the problem - you're the problem. You complain that your device is always slow and how AT&T is crap - but it's your device that's the problem. Semi-compatible devices are just terrible for network operators. Let's say that AT&T wants to move that 1900MHz spectrum to 5G - but now you have a device that will stop working. Do they need to reach out to you? Do they need to offer you an upgrade? Sure, you and 90% of people would be like, "I knew what I was getting in for and it's my problem." But omg the 10% of people that will yell and scream and the meetings you'll need to have with regulators and the delays in your plans and the free devices you'll offer them as part of a settlement and all the mailings and admin. Offering tech support isn't cheap and it's more expensive when you're dealing with random crap from users. Now you have some rep on the phone who doesn't totally know what they're talking about trying to figure out why they're getting bad coverage on their kid's device while their device has good coverage. They don't want to hear, "well, you shouldn't have bought some POS off Amazon that isn't even meant for the US market." They're going to say that it's a compatible phone - compatible being a black/white issue, not something that's only partly compatible and will technically get coverage 80% of the time, but even then won't be able to use most of the network. Part of it is a cultural thing. Americans are willing to accept that companies are evil and don't allow something. You'll go online and say, "how is this legal" and then go back to your life and the company has spent no money on you. But once something is allowed, there's no concept of "we'll allow this, but you're on your own if anything goes wrong and we'll charge your account $100 if you call us for support." Once you've been accepted as a paying customer, you (and by you, I mean at least 10% of the people who will do that) will demand the same premium service for your dollar. "AT&T only allows certain phones." Ok, companies are crap, but we're all used to that. If they allow you to put a crappy device on their network, there's so much bad word of mouth, regulator crap, support complaints, etc. I'm not saying the world should be this way, but it certainly is. So many restrictions that exist are there because the company loses almost nothing from the restriction while the pain in the ass they receive from not having that restriction simply isn't worth it. Keep that in mind when thinking about why companies do things that seem to have no benefit. A bunch of people were likely a complete pain in the ass over something that was the customer's fault, but that the company ultimately had to deal with. And I think the big area is foreign phones. Phones made for the US that have the right network support for the carrier are good to have. Someone grabs a Galaxy A32 meant for non-US markets (rather than the A32 5G) and it doesn't support bands 12/13/17 which are the main coverage bands for T-Mobile/Verizon/AT&T. It does support bands 2 and 5 and AT&T and Verizon probably have ok coverage in cities with band 2, but in-building coverage will be worse and speeds will be slow. I think they have some band 5 LTE, but they weren't necessarily anticipating that being one of the bands customers would really be relying on. And now there's an angry customer, spreading their anger to their friends, tying up support resources and costing you money, using your network inefficiently, and demanding that the carrier fix the situation and the only way you can fix the situation is basically by giving them a free phone. In terms of how it's legal, spectrum licenses didn't come with open access requirements. The one exception was Verizon's 700MHz licenses. Except that Verizon kinda redefined open-access to mean that they wouldn't lock their phones - not that you could use any phone you wanted on their network. Google had pushed for the open access requirements, but a decade later Google didn't care and regulators didn't care.
flyinghamster 5y ago
They also inherited a small CDMA network from MetroPCS, which they wasted no time sunsetting once they turned Metro into their budget brand.
mdasen 5y ago
This is mostly about drama around Boost Mobile. T-Mobile wanted to shut down their CDMA network on January 1, 2022. Boost (now owned by Dish) doesn't want to upgrade users that have handsets that don't work with VoLTE. Upgrading users involves sending them notices, giving them options of free handsets, shipping those handsets, getting the users to actually activate them, etc. While T-Mobile gave Boost nearly double the required time, Boost complained that it wasn't enough and regulators don't like the idea of customers losing access. T-Mobile delayed the shutdown for three months to quell the situation. Dish is notoriously cheap. They're supposed to be building out their own 5G network, but it's looking like they don't want to spend the money to do that. Dish has also been losing the wireless customers it acquired and so they might be souring a bit on the business.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ehPReth 5y ago
  Are they legally required to offer replacement phones? Or is it just customer retention?
  - selectodude 5y ago
    They’re a pay as you go MVNO so there’s no legal requirement on either end. Might have to deal with the fallout though.
  - mdasen 5y ago
    In general, no they aren't required. However, if we're talking 5% of your customer base, you might not want to lose them. In Boost's case, they might legally have to. Dish bought Boost as part of T-Mobile's deal to buy Sprint. I don't remember all the specifics of the agreement or what was committed to in terms of non-VoLTE Boost customers. T-Mobile had to give Dish 6 months notice before shutting down the CDMA network and they gave 14-months (now 17 months with the 3-month delay). I don't know if Dish committed to upgrading those customers as part of the deal (I know that it's their responsibility, but I don't know if they're required to upgrade them or if they can just wave goodbye to customers that don't want to migrate). Ultimately, I think Dish is at least informally required. Dish is likely going to be looking for goodwill from regulators in the coming years. They have major build-out requirements coming due soon and they don't seem to have made much progress - and they have licenses worth tens of billions at stake (worth more than the company's market cap). Angering regulators at this point isn't a great move for Dish.
joecool1029 5y ago
>CDMA is what they inherited from Sprint. ... and MetroPCS, of which they efficiently staked that CDMA dead years ago now.
imglorp 5y ago
Why did they buy Sprint if it was not for their national CDMA network? Just to snag some subscribers? Were they assuming it would all depreciate away and they'd be left with the tower sites anyway?
- jrockway 5y ago
  The big asset is spectrum allocation, right? Anyone can put buildings on the ground, just get some metal and a backhoe, but only one chosen winner gets the right to use a certain part of the RF spectrum.

Not surprising. T-Mobile has always been a GSM network, CDMA is what they inherited from Sprint.

by hk1337 5y ago

Not surprising. T-Mobile has always been a GSM network, CDMA is what they inherited from Sprint.

>CDMA is what they inherited from Sprint Furthermore, what they're specifically referring to here is Sprint's 3G network. Sprint's 4G LTE network is currently planned to be de-commissioned on June 30 2022, but that will almost certainly get pushed as well.

acwan93 5y ago

It seemed strange that T-Mobile would have a CDMA network, until you remembered that it came from Sprint. This seems like good news. I'm glad that starting with LTE all the carriers started agreeing on a single platform with SIM cards. Even though there are little nuances between each carrier, the fact that you can buy a single phone and have it work with the four (three now) major carriers is a big deal.

toomuchtodo 5y ago
Not only are phones cross network compatible, with eSIM support, you can provision new service within minutes on any supported carrier, no physical SIM required.
- kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
  Unless you're AT&T, then it takes a couple hours.
- aidenn0 5y ago
  Except that at least some spectrum owners won't let MVNOs provision eSIMs.
- criddell 5y ago
  I just activated a new phone with T-Mobile and they basically insisted on a physical SIM card. When I asked why they said they can do an eSIM but then I wouldn't get 5G. Is that true? If not, then why are they pushing physical SIM cards so hard?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - toomuchtodo 5y ago
    I can confirm that an eSIM should work with 5G without issue on Tmobile.
    - criddell 5y ago
      I wonder why are they so insistent on installing a SIM card?
      - toomuchtodo 5y ago
        TMO customer service is hit or miss. Most TMO customer service is not aware of how eSIM works.
    - markus92 5y ago
      I can first-hand confirm it actually works on their network.
Causality1 5y ago
Not really. There have always been smartphones that supported both GSM and CDMA. The three major carriers not only use different LTE bands, but also Verizon and shortly AT&T (in February) have adopted a whitelist model where only select handsets can be activated on their networks. It's a much less open marketplace than it was five years ago.
- petra 5y ago
  How is this legal?
  - basilgohar 5y ago
    Ask Ajit Pai.
  - mdasen 5y ago
    This doesn't really go into how it's legal, but the situation around VoLTE has been difficult. It hasn't just been every phone working perfectly. Beyond that, it's possible to buy a phone that sort-of works. For example, let's say that you're an AT&T customer and AT&T has 700MHz, 850MHz, 1900MHz, 1700MHz, and 2300MHz spectrum. You buy some foreign phone that supports 1900MHz. Great, now you're running a device that won't have coverage everywhere that AT&T has coverage. You're running a device that won't be using the full AT&T network and your speeds will be really slow compared to devices that fully support the network. You go somewhere with friends and you're like, "AT&T never works when I leave <city-name>!" Except that AT&T isn't the problem - you're the problem. You complain that your device is always slow and how AT&T is crap - but it's your device that's the problem. Semi-compatible devices are just terrible for network operators. Let's say that AT&T wants to move that 1900MHz spectrum to 5G - but now you have a device that will stop working. Do they need to reach out to you? Do they need to offer you an upgrade? Sure, you and 90% of people would be like, "I knew what I was getting in for and it's my problem." But omg the 10% of people that will yell and scream and the meetings you'll need to have with regulators and the delays in your plans and the free devices you'll offer them as part of a settlement and all the mailings and admin. Offering tech support isn't cheap and it's more expensive when you're dealing with random crap from users. Now you have some rep on the phone who doesn't totally know what they're talking about trying to figure out why they're getting bad coverage on their kid's device while their device has good coverage. They don't want to hear, "well, you shouldn't have bought some POS off Amazon that isn't even meant for the US market." They're going to say that it's a compatible phone - compatible being a black/white issue, not something that's only partly compatible and will technically get coverage 80% of the time, but even then won't be able to use most of the network. Part of it is a cultural thing. Americans are willing to accept that companies are evil and don't allow something. You'll go online and say, "how is this legal" and then go back to your life and the company has spent no money on you. But once something is allowed, there's no concept of "we'll allow this, but you're on your own if anything goes wrong and we'll charge your account $100 if you call us for support." Once you've been accepted as a paying customer, you (and by you, I mean at least 10% of the people who will do that) will demand the same premium service for your dollar. "AT&T only allows certain phones." Ok, companies are crap, but we're all used to that. If they allow you to put a crappy device on their network, there's so much bad word of mouth, regulator crap, support complaints, etc. I'm not saying the world should be this way, but it certainly is. So many restrictions that exist are there because the company loses almost nothing from the restriction while the pain in the ass they receive from not having that restriction simply isn't worth it. Keep that in mind when thinking about why companies do things that seem to have no benefit. A bunch of people were likely a complete pain in the ass over something that was the customer's fault, but that the company ultimately had to deal with. And I think the big area is foreign phones. Phones made for the US that have the right network support for the carrier are good to have. Someone grabs a Galaxy A32 meant for non-US markets (rather than the A32 5G) and it doesn't support bands 12/13/17 which are the main coverage bands for T-Mobile/Verizon/AT&T. It does support bands 2 and 5 and AT&T and Verizon probably have ok coverage in cities with band 2, but in-building coverage will be worse and speeds will be slow. I think they have some band 5 LTE, but they weren't necessarily anticipating that being one of the bands customers would really be relying on. And now there's an angry customer, spreading their anger to their friends, tying up support resources and costing you money, using your network inefficiently, and demanding that the carrier fix the situation and the only way you can fix the situation is basically by giving them a free phone. In terms of how it's legal, spectrum licenses didn't come with open access requirements. The one exception was Verizon's 700MHz licenses. Except that Verizon kinda redefined open-access to mean that they wouldn't lock their phones - not that you could use any phone you wanted on their network. Google had pushed for the open access requirements, but a decade later Google didn't care and regulators didn't care.

flyinghamster 5y ago

They also inherited a small CDMA network from MetroPCS, which they wasted no time sunsetting once they turned Metro into their budget brand.

mdasen 5y ago

This is mostly about drama around Boost Mobile. T-Mobile wanted to shut down their CDMA network on January 1, 2022. Boost (now owned by Dish) doesn't want to upgrade users that have handsets that don't work with VoLTE. Upgrading users involves sending them notices, giving them options of free handsets, shipping those handsets, getting the users to actually activate them, etc. While T-Mobile gave Boost nearly double the required time, Boost complained that it wasn't enough and regulators don't like the idea of customers losing access. T-Mobile delayed the shutdown for three months to quell the situation. Dish is notoriously cheap. They're supposed to be building out their own 5G network, but it's looking like they don't want to spend the money to do that. Dish has also been losing the wireless customers it acquired and so they might be souring a bit on the business.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ehPReth 5y ago
Are they legally required to offer replacement phones? Or is it just customer retention?
- selectodude 5y ago
  They’re a pay as you go MVNO so there’s no legal requirement on either end. Might have to deal with the fallout though.
- mdasen 5y ago
  In general, no they aren't required. However, if we're talking 5% of your customer base, you might not want to lose them. In Boost's case, they might legally have to. Dish bought Boost as part of T-Mobile's deal to buy Sprint. I don't remember all the specifics of the agreement or what was committed to in terms of non-VoLTE Boost customers. T-Mobile had to give Dish 6 months notice before shutting down the CDMA network and they gave 14-months (now 17 months with the 3-month delay). I don't know if Dish committed to upgrading those customers as part of the deal (I know that it's their responsibility, but I don't know if they're required to upgrade them or if they can just wave goodbye to customers that don't want to migrate). Ultimately, I think Dish is at least informally required. Dish is likely going to be looking for goodwill from regulators in the coming years. They have major build-out requirements coming due soon and they don't seem to have made much progress - and they have licenses worth tens of billions at stake (worth more than the company's market cap). Angering regulators at this point isn't a great move for Dish.

joecool1029 5y ago

>CDMA is what they inherited from Sprint. ... and MetroPCS, of which they efficiently staked that CDMA dead years ago now.

imglorp 5y ago

Why did they buy Sprint if it was not for their national CDMA network? Just to snag some subscribers? Were they assuming it would all depreciate away and they'd be left with the tower sites anyway?

jrockway 5y ago
The big asset is spectrum allocation, right? Anyone can put buildings on the ground, just get some metal and a backhoe, but only one chosen winner gets the right to use a certain part of the RF spectrum.