6 ms·

I asked this on Twitter, but perhaps I'll get better responses here: T-mobile is dying; it has no plans for the future. They don't have the iPhone (and are unl

by Xuzz 15y ago

I asked this on Twitter, but perhaps I'll get better responses here: T-mobile is dying; it has no plans for the future. They don't have the iPhone (and are unlikely to get it, due to working on a different set of 3G frequencies). They don't have any plans for LTE deployment, unlike AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint. Their parent company wants to get rid of them. To me, this just seems like the government has done very little here for consumers, they will still likely end up with only 2-3 carriers. Why is it better for consumers if T-mobile just dies out rather than is bought to improve AT&T? (Also, many people think AT&T has a worse network than Verizon. Wouldn't this deal have, then, increased competition?)

jerrya 15y ago
Actually in the past 4 days or so, there have been reports that T-Mobile is "refarming" some of its towers and there is now 3G support for iPhones in some parts of the northwest. http://www.tmonews.com/2011/12/unlocked-iphone-spotted-running-on-t-mobiles-3g-network-its-true-sort-of/ http://www.tmonews.com/2011/12/unlocked-iphone-spotted-runni... Also the iPhone 4s is a quad-GSM phone with HSPA+ support and so could conceivably, if I just mix and match acronyms, get 14M to 42M down on Tmo's network. I am not sure of the magic behind this, but I believe it's the same as bringing over a quad band GSM Galaxy Nexus from Canada/Europe and putting it on Tmo's network, with the exception that the Nexus is carrier unlocked and the iPhone 4s is not. (I believe.)
- cjdavis 15y ago
  You can actually buy the iPhone 4s unlocked straight from the Apple website. I just did last week as an xmas gift for my dad, with the intention of trying it out with his current account on Cincinnati Bell Wireless. I believe they use the same frequencies as T-Mobile.
  - jerrya 15y ago
    Ah ha. Thank you.
- bryanlarsen 15y ago
  galaxy nexus is penta-band, which is why it works on tmo.
  - pkulak 15y ago
    Yup, and which is why the iPhone won't work on T-Mobile. No support for the frequency. Maybe they have a bit of spectrum in a market or two, but there is no way they will ever get full 3G coverage in the frequency that the GSM iPhone expects.
    - jerrya 15y ago
      P, or Bryan, Would one or both of you expand on your responses. I don't quite get it yet. (Also, lots of googling finds lots of "quad band Galaxy Nexus" references.) Thanks,
      - pyre 15y ago
        All of the frequencies that cellphones operate (well at least 3G and 4G, I'm not 100% sure on GSM/CDMA frequencies) on are regulated (unlike the bands that WiFi networks work on which are unregulated). Phones need to be able to deal with these frequencies. They need to have antennas that can pick up those frequencies, as well as chips that can handle them. This is the reason that you can use a AT&T GSM phone on T-Mobile's network, but not be able to access the 3G or 4G portions of the network (basically only ever be able to use Edge). Those phones aren't built to be able to receive/transmit in the bands that T-Mobile's towers are using for 3G and/or 4G. Talking about quad-band and penta-band phones are talking about newer generation phones that can operate on more bands than just the ones used be a specific carrier's network. Note that the bands used can vary between countries, etc. Just because a country is using GSM for all of their cell networks doesn't mean that their 3G or 4G bands are the same as the one that your phone knows how to deal with. Someone else can probably follow up with some Wikipedia links. Specifically there is a table in Wikipedia listing carriers from a huge list of countries and the bands that they are using.
      - runningdogx 15y ago
toomuchtodo 15y ago
Reducing the number of carriers reduces the amount of competition. Improving the quality of AT&Ts network has nothing to do with increasing competition amongst carriers.
nextparadigms 15y ago
I think a lot of people said the same thing when the banks started merging, too. And look where that got the US economy because of "too big too fail banks". I would've preferred capitalism followed its natural course, and let one or two smaller banks die, than to get in a situation where a handful of huge banks can wipe out the entire economy if they are allowed to fail. The thing about capitalism is that it needs to let parts of it fail, so it can thrive overall and in the long term. Also, I don't think T-mobile will disappear. Worst case scenario it will be bought by an international carrier, but at a smaller price.
- neilc 15y ago
  I would've preferred capitalism followed its natural course, and let one or two smaller banks die, than to get in a situation where a handful of huge banks can wipe out the entire economy if they are allowed to fail. I'm curious what makes you think one outcome is the "natural course" of capitalism, while the other is not.
  - MatthewPhillips 15y ago
    When one outcome is influenced by market forces and the other is not.
    - aidenn0 15y ago
      What's a non-market force?
      - blake8086 15y ago
        Government
      - wwweston 15y ago
        Gravity?
  - nextparadigms 15y ago
    There has to be the risk of failure in the market. Otherwise a lot of money would be wasted and invested badly. Failure gives the incentive to be efficient and to do the job properly. If you remove the existence of failure by saving them everytime, you teach them that doing the actions that led to failure are not that bad, and they can continue to do them, as long as it makes the people at the top wealthy.
brudgers 15y ago
T-mobile, of which I am a customer, offers something that none of the large US carriers offer - a monthly discount if you own your own phone rather than purchasing a subsidized phone (of course it is not the easiest thing to find on their website).
- simoncion 15y ago
  A quick search reveals news that indicates that one is required to enter into a two-year contract to receive this discounted rate.
  - ConstantineXVI 15y ago
    That's fair enough. The normal on-contract rate is subsidizing the $300+ discount on your phone. If there's no phone to subsidize, it's logical that the subsidy gets bounced back to you.
  - commandar 15y ago
    This may have changed, but that wasn't the case when I bought my G2 and switched to a 500 min/unlimited data plan about a year ago.
untog 15y ago
T-Mobile is still a very valuable target for a buyout- just not from one of the existing cellphone companies. I would not be at all surprised if someone like Time Warner Cable (or Dish, as the TechCrunch article mentions) took an interest. Verizon can offer a "quad-play" internet/home phone/cellphone/TV plan, and I suspect their competition would love to do the same. Also, don't forget that T-Mobile just earned $4bn from AT&T. That can do them a lot of favours.
- ErikRogneby 15y ago
  DT the parent company gets the $4B, not T-mobile USA. (which is actually $3B + spectrum)
  - fpgeek 15y ago
    Presumably T-Mobile USA gets the spectrum, right? What would DT do with random spectrum in the USA outside of T-Mobile?
    - gonzo 15y ago
      sell it or lease it.
      - fpgeek 15y ago
        In terms of selling or leasing, isn't the spectrum most valuable when combined with all of the other spectrum T-Mobile USA owns?
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
kin 15y ago
As a T-Mobile customer, I follow iPhone news pretty closely and there's been so many reports of T-Mo reps claiming to get the iPhone. I mean, they already have unlocked ones running under them at 2G speeds. But, they're also upgrading to HSPA+ 42 Mbps (instead of LTE) and in the process supposedly changing the bands to iPhone 3G compatible. Of course, this doesn't change that they are dying. They've seen positive trends from their new value plans and hopefully upcoming Droid + Ice Cream sandwich launches lets them catch up.
- Zhenya 15y ago
  T-Mobile will never have Droid phones. Droid is a marketing brand that is used by Verizon to sell android phones. On the other hand they were the first Network in the US to carry Android phones. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)
smackfu 15y ago
You are predicting the future as a starting point for your argument. But you are basing that on assumption that may not be true in the future: that the iPhone will continue to be important, and that LTE will be a selling point for customers.
tptacek 15y ago
T-mobile's US assets are worth a significant amount, so they're unlikely to simply shutter and go away. Think about this regulatory hurdle not as dooming T-mobile, so much as sending their assets to some company other than AT&T. I wasn't upset at all about the merger (quite the contrary), but I don't think the outcome is as bad as you say it is.
- jerrya 15y ago
  Other carriers, Leap Wireless, Cricket, ... seem to want Tmo's assets, and ... AT&T had offered to sell it to them. http://www.mobileburn.com/17966/news/att-reportedly-having-difficulties-selling-t-mobile-assets http://www.mobileburn.com/17966/news/att-reportedly-having-d... But if AT&T doesn't buy Tmo, one of these might merge instead with Tmo or buy those assets directly. At other times, there has been speculation (or even work done) on a Sprint / Tmo merger which would bring two weak players together but also allow for more direct competition between the GSM and CDMA world with an LTE path going forward.
  - wanorris 15y ago
    They use completely different technologies with incompatible handsets and cell towers, so a Sprint/T-Mo merger is likely to be worth considerably less together than separate.
nantes 15y ago
I heard from a T-Mobile engineer, back when this whole thing started, that it didn't significantly change their network engineering plans for the next couple of years. Indeed, they were planning on expanding regardless. Again, just what I heard.
eande 15y ago
What makes you think that one of the biggest telecom conglomerate with backing of the German government will disappear? I think it is good that this deal did not go through, good for the consumers. Because T-Mobile as well as AT&T have to stay creative to keep customers happy and prices down. In general I think there is to much concentration of power into single large cooperations anyway.
theoj 15y ago
Some big assumptions in this post: 1. Assumption #1: T-mobile "has no plans for the future." You can't possibly know that. If anything, the negotiated spectrum transfer and payout on deal failure is a small indication that they do have some plans for the future. 2. Assumption #2: Any carrier without the iPhone is doomed to failure. Metro PCS does not offer the iPhone. I don't think they are going away anytime soon. 3. Assumption #3: The government needs to plan for cellular market consolidation in order to benefit the consumers. Actually, cellular market consolidation is not good for the consumers. Consumers benefit the most when there's more competition. Having more carriers leads to more competition and gives consumers lower prices and better service -- it's simple economics.
- Xuzz 15y ago
  My point here is that T-mobile, as it currently is, just isn't competition for AT&T and Verizon anyway. 1. The only thin I can find at all on Google related to T-mobile building is this post, suggesting they need a partner to start working on LTE in — get this — 2015: http://www.slashgear.com/t-mobile-lte-plans-suggest-spectrum-partner-by-2015-10-leave-for-att-iphone-21127585/ http://www.slashgear.com/t-mobile-lte-plans-suggest-spectrum... 2. It's certainly helpful; I don't believe this alone would doom a carrier, but without other benefits (Metro PCS, your example, has very cheap pre-paid plans and is really a different service than AT&T, Verizon, or T-mobile) this does hurt them. Just look at the millions of customers that switched to AT&T from 2007 to 2010 before Verizon got the iPhone. 3. I didn't say and, in fact, do not believe that "consolidation" will necessarily benefit customers. My only belief here is that that the government did here — keep a independent — is not useful because T-mobile is simply not competition. If T-mobile isn't actually competition in the future for AT&T or Verizon, how does it help for it to exist or be broken up among other companies? (I do, however, believe it is possible (definitely not guaranteed, but possible!) that this move, in fact, could help consumers: AT&T currently has the generally accepted worst coverage, and so if they improved that by acquiring T-mobile, Verizon now would have both a slower network and a worse telephone network, and would need to improve to compete with AT&T's faster speeds and now-better coverage.)
  - theoj 15y ago
mdasen 15y ago
To answer your question: T-Mobile has a tiny bit more spectrum than Sprint and it's all standard (PCS/AWS) spectrum. T-Mobile has a decently standard GSM/UMTS stack. Sprint is running two non-integrated networks. On a per-customer basis, T-Mobile isn't so bad on spectrum. 33.7M customers with 50MHz of spectrum. That's actually a better ratio than any other carrier. For comparison * T-Mobile: 1.48MHz/million customers * Sprint: 0.92MHz/million customers (excluding 100MHz+ via Clearwire) * AT&T: 0.93MHz/million customers (including pending 6MHz gain from Qualcomm) * Verizon: 0.82MHz/million customers* * The Verizon numbers exclude substantial purchases recently announced which will probably increase Verizon's spectrum depth by nearly a third. So, T-Mobile isn't in a terrible spectrum position and the spectrum AT&T has to give them as part of the break-up will only help that. Likewise, $3B is a lot of money that could go toward an LTE rollout. In terms of LTE, Sprint didn't have an LTE plan until mid-October of this year and doesn't expect to have any LTE devices until the third quarter of 2012. If T-Mobile put together an LTE plan today, they wouldn't be behind the times. I mean, they'd be behind Verizon and AT&T, but they could roll out as fast as Sprint (which just raised $4B for its LTE rollout - barely more than the $3B in cash that T-Mobile is getting as a breakup fee). Plus, LTE in America is a bit ahead of the curve. Mostly that's because carriers in other countries can stretch HSPA+ (as T-Mobile is doing) to provide much higher speeds than 3G.* So, T-Mobile does have the ability to move forward if DT wants to. It has the spectrum, it has $3B in new cash, and it's profitable (which Sprint isn't). I think DT wants to see T-Mobile a bit more successful if it is to stay on in the US, but it is profitable. If T-Mobile can forge a joint venture with Dish Networks (which is interested) it would gain 40MHz of unused spectrum from Dish and might have a partner who would promote the service to its customers. We'll see. I'm definitely not saying you're wrong. T-Mobile needs a bit of energy and momentum to start gaining customers again. However, I think T-Mobile has the assets needed to keep going. -- The one area where I think you're spot on is in terms of competition with Verizon. When AT&T Wireless and Cingular merged, it increased competition. Verizon had been allowed to merge together greater assets than its competitors previously. Allowing AT&T Wireless and Cingular to merge meant that there was a real, nationwide competitor to Verizon with low-frequency spectrum that provided good coverage. Right now, AT&T and Verizon have decently similar assets (although the Alltel merger gave Verizon a slight edge). AT&T has a greater number of data customers which puts a bit of a strain on their network, but they should be able to manage it now-a-days (and the data shows that AT&T has a better dropped call/blocked call rate than Sprint, although slightly worse than Verizon's, and significantly faster data speeds). If the FCC allows Verizon to gobble up the licenses from Cox, Comcast, Time Warner, Leap, and others, it will again create an imbalance that will see Verizon having superior assets that make it hard for other carriers. * Before someone says, "but HSPA+ is offering 3-6Mbps while LTE is offering 20Mbps" I want to explain a bit. HSPA+ is backward compatible with HSPA and UMTS. So, when AT&T upgrades its UMTS network to HSPA+, there are tens of millions of voice and data customers on it. By contrast, the LTE networks we've seen have only had a couple million customers on them. As more customers use it, the spectrum will get more crowded and speeds will likely drop as a result. Likewise, there are many different HSPA+ versions. AT&T is running HSPA+ at 21Mbps while T-Mobile has it up to 42Mbps in some areas. However, even HSPA+ 14.4 has been showing average real-world speeds on the iPhone 4S of 3.2Mbps (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/11/18/nationwide-study-shows-att-has-fastest-iphone-data-speeds-sprint-most-dropped-calls/ http://www.macrumors.com/2011/11/18/nationwide-study-shows-a...). That's on a loaded network using 5MHz channels. The LTE speeds we're seeing are on a near-empty network using 10MHz channels (from launch to the end of the third quarter, Verizon has sold less than 3M LTE devices). None of this is to say that HSPA+ is superior, just that we're seeing LTE showing better numbers than it would under the same load HSPA+ networks are experiencing and that means the gap is actually smaller and explains how overseas carriers are using HSPA+ in the interim to offer customers a better experience without the cost of LTE (and it is a cost to the consumer as well as one can see from the price of HSPA+ devices against the cost of LTE devices).
stanleydrew 15y ago
It might be a long shot, but I would not be surprised if Google bought T-Mobile. Maybe that's just wishful thinking though. I, for one, love T-Mobile and would be very very disappointed if they died. They have a 4G network that I'm making use of right now. I can use Android's built-in WiFi hotspot at no additional cost. And they are the only phone company that I know of that discounts plan prices for out-of-contract customers: http://deals.t-mobile.com/no-contract-plan http://deals.t-mobile.com/no-contract-plan
- r00fus 15y ago
  Prior to their purchase of Motorola, and I'd have laughed at the idea. Now, it at least seems possible. Does T-Mo have any meaningful wireless patents?
  - gonzo 15y ago
    it's unlikely to be about the patents as much as it is to be about actually operating a carrier. You'll get your service for free, with an Android phone, but have to endure ads.
  - jmcqk6 15y ago
    whether or not they have patents, they do have spectrum, which is valuable by itself from my understanding.
guelo 15y ago
I don't know why Deutsche Telekom has decided it doesn't want to invest more money in T-Mobile, but some other foreign wireless operator might be up for it. Carlos Slim's América Móbil has already dipped its toes in the U.S. market with its TracFone subsidiary and might conceivably be interested in T-Mobile for a low enough price.

by Xuzz 15y ago

jerrya 15y ago

Actually in the past 4 days or so, there have been reports that T-Mobile is "refarming" some of its towers and there is now 3G support for iPhones in some parts of the northwest. http://www.tmonews.com/2011/12/unlocked-iphone-spotted-running-on-t-mobiles-3g-network-its-true-sort-of/ http://www.tmonews.com/2011/12/unlocked-iphone-spotted-runni... Also the iPhone 4s is a quad-GSM phone with HSPA+ support and so could conceivably, if I just mix and match acronyms, get 14M to 42M down on Tmo's network. I am not sure of the magic behind this, but I believe it's the same as bringing over a quad band GSM Galaxy Nexus from Canada/Europe and putting it on Tmo's network, with the exception that the Nexus is carrier unlocked and the iPhone 4s is not. (I believe.)

cjdavis 15y ago
You can actually buy the iPhone 4s unlocked straight from the Apple website. I just did last week as an xmas gift for my dad, with the intention of trying it out with his current account on Cincinnati Bell Wireless. I believe they use the same frequencies as T-Mobile.
- jerrya 15y ago
  Ah ha. Thank you.
bryanlarsen 15y ago
galaxy nexus is penta-band, which is why it works on tmo.
- pkulak 15y ago
  Yup, and which is why the iPhone won't work on T-Mobile. No support for the frequency. Maybe they have a bit of spectrum in a market or two, but there is no way they will ever get full 3G coverage in the frequency that the GSM iPhone expects.
  - jerrya 15y ago
    P, or Bryan, Would one or both of you expand on your responses. I don't quite get it yet. (Also, lots of googling finds lots of "quad band Galaxy Nexus" references.) Thanks,
    - pyre 15y ago
      All of the frequencies that cellphones operate (well at least 3G and 4G, I'm not 100% sure on GSM/CDMA frequencies) on are regulated (unlike the bands that WiFi networks work on which are unregulated). Phones need to be able to deal with these frequencies. They need to have antennas that can pick up those frequencies, as well as chips that can handle them. This is the reason that you can use a AT&T GSM phone on T-Mobile's network, but not be able to access the 3G or 4G portions of the network (basically only ever be able to use Edge). Those phones aren't built to be able to receive/transmit in the bands that T-Mobile's towers are using for 3G and/or 4G. Talking about quad-band and penta-band phones are talking about newer generation phones that can operate on more bands than just the ones used be a specific carrier's network. Note that the bands used can vary between countries, etc. Just because a country is using GSM for all of their cell networks doesn't mean that their 3G or 4G bands are the same as the one that your phone knows how to deal with. Someone else can probably follow up with some Wikipedia links. Specifically there is a table in Wikipedia listing carriers from a huge list of countries and the bands that they are using.
    - runningdogx 15y ago

toomuchtodo 15y ago

Reducing the number of carriers reduces the amount of competition. Improving the quality of AT&Ts network has nothing to do with increasing competition amongst carriers.

nextparadigms 15y ago

I think a lot of people said the same thing when the banks started merging, too. And look where that got the US economy because of "too big too fail banks". I would've preferred capitalism followed its natural course, and let one or two smaller banks die, than to get in a situation where a handful of huge banks can wipe out the entire economy if they are allowed to fail. The thing about capitalism is that it needs to let parts of it fail, so it can thrive overall and in the long term. Also, I don't think T-mobile will disappear. Worst case scenario it will be bought by an international carrier, but at a smaller price.

neilc 15y ago
I would've preferred capitalism followed its natural course, and let one or two smaller banks die, than to get in a situation where a handful of huge banks can wipe out the entire economy if they are allowed to fail. I'm curious what makes you think one outcome is the "natural course" of capitalism, while the other is not.
- MatthewPhillips 15y ago
  When one outcome is influenced by market forces and the other is not.
  - aidenn0 15y ago
    What's a non-market force?
    - blake8086 15y ago
      Government
    - wwweston 15y ago
      Gravity?
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  There has to be the risk of failure in the market. Otherwise a lot of money would be wasted and invested badly. Failure gives the incentive to be efficient and to do the job properly. If you remove the existence of failure by saving them everytime, you teach them that doing the actions that led to failure are not that bad, and they can continue to do them, as long as it makes the people at the top wealthy.

brudgers 15y ago

T-mobile, of which I am a customer, offers something that none of the large US carriers offer - a monthly discount if you own your own phone rather than purchasing a subsidized phone (of course it is not the easiest thing to find on their website).

simoncion 15y ago
A quick search reveals news that indicates that one is required to enter into a two-year contract to receive this discounted rate.
- ConstantineXVI 15y ago
  That's fair enough. The normal on-contract rate is subsidizing the $300+ discount on your phone. If there's no phone to subsidize, it's logical that the subsidy gets bounced back to you.
- commandar 15y ago
  This may have changed, but that wasn't the case when I bought my G2 and switched to a 500 min/unlimited data plan about a year ago.

untog 15y ago

T-Mobile is still a very valuable target for a buyout- just not from one of the existing cellphone companies. I would not be at all surprised if someone like Time Warner Cable (or Dish, as the TechCrunch article mentions) took an interest. Verizon can offer a "quad-play" internet/home phone/cellphone/TV plan, and I suspect their competition would love to do the same. Also, don't forget that T-Mobile just earned $4bn from AT&T. That can do them a lot of favours.

ErikRogneby 15y ago
DT the parent company gets the $4B, not T-mobile USA. (which is actually $3B + spectrum)
- fpgeek 15y ago
  Presumably T-Mobile USA gets the spectrum, right? What would DT do with random spectrum in the USA outside of T-Mobile?
  - gonzo 15y ago
    sell it or lease it.
    - fpgeek 15y ago
      In terms of selling or leasing, isn't the spectrum most valuable when combined with all of the other spectrum T-Mobile USA owns?
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

kin 15y ago

As a T-Mobile customer, I follow iPhone news pretty closely and there's been so many reports of T-Mo reps claiming to get the iPhone. I mean, they already have unlocked ones running under them at 2G speeds. But, they're also upgrading to HSPA+ 42 Mbps (instead of LTE) and in the process supposedly changing the bands to iPhone 3G compatible. Of course, this doesn't change that they are dying. They've seen positive trends from their new value plans and hopefully upcoming Droid + Ice Cream sandwich launches lets them catch up.

Zhenya 15y ago
T-Mobile will never have Droid phones. Droid is a marketing brand that is used by Verizon to sell android phones. On the other hand they were the first Network in the US to carry Android phones. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)

smackfu 15y ago

You are predicting the future as a starting point for your argument. But you are basing that on assumption that may not be true in the future: that the iPhone will continue to be important, and that LTE will be a selling point for customers.

tptacek 15y ago

T-mobile's US assets are worth a significant amount, so they're unlikely to simply shutter and go away. Think about this regulatory hurdle not as dooming T-mobile, so much as sending their assets to some company other than AT&T. I wasn't upset at all about the merger (quite the contrary), but I don't think the outcome is as bad as you say it is.

jerrya 15y ago
Other carriers, Leap Wireless, Cricket, ... seem to want Tmo's assets, and ... AT&T had offered to sell it to them. http://www.mobileburn.com/17966/news/att-reportedly-having-difficulties-selling-t-mobile-assets http://www.mobileburn.com/17966/news/att-reportedly-having-d... But if AT&T doesn't buy Tmo, one of these might merge instead with Tmo or buy those assets directly. At other times, there has been speculation (or even work done) on a Sprint / Tmo merger which would bring two weak players together but also allow for more direct competition between the GSM and CDMA world with an LTE path going forward.
- wanorris 15y ago
  They use completely different technologies with incompatible handsets and cell towers, so a Sprint/T-Mo merger is likely to be worth considerably less together than separate.

nantes 15y ago

I heard from a T-Mobile engineer, back when this whole thing started, that it didn't significantly change their network engineering plans for the next couple of years. Indeed, they were planning on expanding regardless. Again, just what I heard.

eande 15y ago

What makes you think that one of the biggest telecom conglomerate with backing of the German government will disappear? I think it is good that this deal did not go through, good for the consumers. Because T-Mobile as well as AT&T have to stay creative to keep customers happy and prices down. In general I think there is to much concentration of power into single large cooperations anyway.

theoj 15y ago

Some big assumptions in this post: 1. Assumption #1: T-mobile "has no plans for the future." You can't possibly know that. If anything, the negotiated spectrum transfer and payout on deal failure is a small indication that they do have some plans for the future. 2. Assumption #2: Any carrier without the iPhone is doomed to failure. Metro PCS does not offer the iPhone. I don't think they are going away anytime soon. 3. Assumption #3: The government needs to plan for cellular market consolidation in order to benefit the consumers. Actually, cellular market consolidation is not good for the consumers. Consumers benefit the most when there's more competition. Having more carriers leads to more competition and gives consumers lower prices and better service -- it's simple economics.

Xuzz 15y ago
My point here is that T-mobile, as it currently is, just isn't competition for AT&T and Verizon anyway. 1. The only thin I can find at all on Google related to T-mobile building is this post, suggesting they need a partner to start working on LTE in — get this — 2015: http://www.slashgear.com/t-mobile-lte-plans-suggest-spectrum-partner-by-2015-10-leave-for-att-iphone-21127585/ http://www.slashgear.com/t-mobile-lte-plans-suggest-spectrum... 2. It's certainly helpful; I don't believe this alone would doom a carrier, but without other benefits (Metro PCS, your example, has very cheap pre-paid plans and is really a different service than AT&T, Verizon, or T-mobile) this does hurt them. Just look at the millions of customers that switched to AT&T from 2007 to 2010 before Verizon got the iPhone. 3. I didn't say and, in fact, do not believe that "consolidation" will necessarily benefit customers. My only belief here is that that the government did here — keep a independent — is not useful because T-mobile is simply not competition. If T-mobile isn't actually competition in the future for AT&T or Verizon, how does it help for it to exist or be broken up among other companies? (I do, however, believe it is possible (definitely not guaranteed, but possible!) that this move, in fact, could help consumers: AT&T currently has the generally accepted worst coverage, and so if they improved that by acquiring T-mobile, Verizon now would have both a slower network and a worse telephone network, and would need to improve to compete with AT&T's faster speeds and now-better coverage.)
- theoj 15y ago

mdasen 15y ago

To answer your question: T-Mobile has a tiny bit more spectrum than Sprint and it's all standard (PCS/AWS) spectrum. T-Mobile has a decently standard GSM/UMTS stack. Sprint is running two non-integrated networks. On a per-customer basis, T-Mobile isn't so bad on spectrum. 33.7M customers with 50MHz of spectrum. That's actually a better ratio than any other carrier. For comparison * T-Mobile: 1.48MHz/million customers * Sprint: 0.92MHz/million customers (excluding 100MHz+ via Clearwire) * AT&T: 0.93MHz/million customers (including pending 6MHz gain from Qualcomm) * Verizon: 0.82MHz/million customers* * The Verizon numbers exclude substantial purchases recently announced which will probably increase Verizon's spectrum depth by nearly a third. So, T-Mobile isn't in a terrible spectrum position and the spectrum AT&T has to give them as part of the break-up will only help that. Likewise, $3B is a lot of money that could go toward an LTE rollout. In terms of LTE, Sprint didn't have an LTE plan until mid-October of this year and doesn't expect to have any LTE devices until the third quarter of 2012. If T-Mobile put together an LTE plan today, they wouldn't be behind the times. I mean, they'd be behind Verizon and AT&T, but they could roll out as fast as Sprint (which just raised $4B for its LTE rollout - barely more than the $3B in cash that T-Mobile is getting as a breakup fee). Plus, LTE in America is a bit ahead of the curve. Mostly that's because carriers in other countries can stretch HSPA+ (as T-Mobile is doing) to provide much higher speeds than 3G.* So, T-Mobile does have the ability to move forward if DT wants to. It has the spectrum, it has $3B in new cash, and it's profitable (which Sprint isn't). I think DT wants to see T-Mobile a bit more successful if it is to stay on in the US, but it is profitable. If T-Mobile can forge a joint venture with Dish Networks (which is interested) it would gain 40MHz of unused spectrum from Dish and might have a partner who would promote the service to its customers. We'll see. I'm definitely not saying you're wrong. T-Mobile needs a bit of energy and momentum to start gaining customers again. However, I think T-Mobile has the assets needed to keep going. -- The one area where I think you're spot on is in terms of competition with Verizon. When AT&T Wireless and Cingular merged, it increased competition. Verizon had been allowed to merge together greater assets than its competitors previously. Allowing AT&T Wireless and Cingular to merge meant that there was a real, nationwide competitor to Verizon with low-frequency spectrum that provided good coverage. Right now, AT&T and Verizon have decently similar assets (although the Alltel merger gave Verizon a slight edge). AT&T has a greater number of data customers which puts a bit of a strain on their network, but they should be able to manage it now-a-days (and the data shows that AT&T has a better dropped call/blocked call rate than Sprint, although slightly worse than Verizon's, and significantly faster data speeds). If the FCC allows Verizon to gobble up the licenses from Cox, Comcast, Time Warner, Leap, and others, it will again create an imbalance that will see Verizon having superior assets that make it hard for other carriers. * Before someone says, "but HSPA+ is offering 3-6Mbps while LTE is offering 20Mbps" I want to explain a bit. HSPA+ is backward compatible with HSPA and UMTS. So, when AT&T upgrades its UMTS network to HSPA+, there are tens of millions of voice and data customers on it. By contrast, the LTE networks we've seen have only had a couple million customers on them. As more customers use it, the spectrum will get more crowded and speeds will likely drop as a result. Likewise, there are many different HSPA+ versions. AT&T is running HSPA+ at 21Mbps while T-Mobile has it up to 42Mbps in some areas. However, even HSPA+ 14.4 has been showing average real-world speeds on the iPhone 4S of 3.2Mbps (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/11/18/nationwide-study-shows-att-has-fastest-iphone-data-speeds-sprint-most-dropped-calls/ http://www.macrumors.com/2011/11/18/nationwide-study-shows-a...). That's on a loaded network using 5MHz channels. The LTE speeds we're seeing are on a near-empty network using 10MHz channels (from launch to the end of the third quarter, Verizon has sold less than 3M LTE devices). None of this is to say that HSPA+ is superior, just that we're seeing LTE showing better numbers than it would under the same load HSPA+ networks are experiencing and that means the gap is actually smaller and explains how overseas carriers are using HSPA+ in the interim to offer customers a better experience without the cost of LTE (and it is a cost to the consumer as well as one can see from the price of HSPA+ devices against the cost of LTE devices).

stanleydrew 15y ago

It might be a long shot, but I would not be surprised if Google bought T-Mobile. Maybe that's just wishful thinking though. I, for one, love T-Mobile and would be very very disappointed if they died. They have a 4G network that I'm making use of right now. I can use Android's built-in WiFi hotspot at no additional cost. And they are the only phone company that I know of that discounts plan prices for out-of-contract customers: http://deals.t-mobile.com/no-contract-plan http://deals.t-mobile.com/no-contract-plan

r00fus 15y ago
Prior to their purchase of Motorola, and I'd have laughed at the idea. Now, it at least seems possible. Does T-Mo have any meaningful wireless patents?
- gonzo 15y ago
  it's unlikely to be about the patents as much as it is to be about actually operating a carrier. You'll get your service for free, with an Android phone, but have to endure ads.
- jmcqk6 15y ago
  whether or not they have patents, they do have spectrum, which is valuable by itself from my understanding.

guelo 15y ago

I don't know why Deutsche Telekom has decided it doesn't want to invest more money in T-Mobile, but some other foreign wireless operator might be up for it. Carlos Slim's América Móbil has already dipped its toes in the U.S. market with its TracFone subsidiary and might conceivably be interested in T-Mobile for a low enough price.