Without T-Mobile, AT&T's LTE Will Cover Only 80% of U.S.
Clarification: Without T-Mobile, AT&T will CHOOSE to cover only 80% of US
AT&T has extant spectrum to cover greater than 80% of the US population. But, if the T-Mobile acquisition is blocked, then AT&T will DECIDE to limit its rural LTE deployment to a smaller population base. With or without T-Mobile, AT&T has a CHOICE. AT&T's claim to the contrary is little more than a disingenuous threat.
"Give us what we want. Otherwise, screw you guys. We're taking our ball and going home."
AJ
"Give us what we want. Otherwise, screw you guys. We're taking our ball and going home."
AJ
...
Not exactly. QWhat they mean is they've GOT the spectrum assets today to cover 80% of the US population with 4G LTE with options to fallback to HSPA+ in more rural areas. not too shabby....but they WANT to deploy 4G LTE across the entire AT&T network.
This is why they made the BID to aquire T-Mobile USA. T-Mobile accepted the bid and agreed this was a good strategic course of action considering the similar technologies and ease of integration.
This is why they made the BID to aquire T-Mobile USA. T-Mobile accepted the bid and agreed this was a good strategic course of action considering the similar technologies and ease of integration.
...
Naaaah. They Bought Tmobile because Sprint would have been able to sit right next to them in the top 3.
...
If the sale of T-Mobile fall thru, AT&T could use Verizon's LTE in the remaining 20% of the country not covered by its LTE customers.
It seems like Verizon planned ahead and put their money where their mouth was and bid enough to cover 100% of the U.S.A. I guess beggars can't be choosy?
😎
It seems like Verizon planned ahead and put their money where their mouth was and bid enough to cover 100% of the U.S.A. I guess beggars can't be choosy?
😎
...
well, yeah.... but nobody was grilling Verizon over the Alltel purchase....even when it created a behemoth with 85 million+ customers. seems odd.
...
Yes Verizon was smart enough and came across with enough money to cover the whole country, good. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with buying Alltel. But wo if AT&T does anything similar. Or if those KC cry babies call Sprint couldn't cut the deal with TMO.
Just because Sprint and Clear couldn't pull it off, don't blame other companies which are more able.
Just because Sprint and Clear couldn't pull it off, don't blame other companies which are more able.
...
planethulk said:
Naaaah. They Bought Tmobile because Sprint would have been able to sit right next to them in the top 3.
Then Sprint should have when they had a chance, they couldn't or wouldn't, or didn't like the terms.
...
AT&T's current spectrum for LTE is extensive, but it definitely does NOT cover the whole country:
https://www.phonescoop.com/articles/article.php?a=18 ... »
https://www.phonescoop.com/articles/article.php?a=18 ... »
...
Rich Brome said:
AT&T's current spectrum for LTE is extensive, but it definitely does NOT cover the whole country:
https://www.phonescoop.com/articles/article.php?a=18 ... »
Rich...
No, AT&T's Lower 700 MHz spectrum does not cover the entire country, nor did I assert that it does (for population or geographic area). But AT&T does hold spectrum in every single county in the US. (And a general rule of thumb is that anywhere that AT&T has spectrum it has a minimum of 50 MHz bandwidth, which is more than sufficient for rural LTE deployment.)
As such, AT&T's Lower 700 MHz holdings are only part of the story because AT&T is not limited to Lower 700 MHz for LTE. LTE is spectrum agnostic. It does n...
(continues)
...
True. Except...
It's more difficult to design phones that work on that many bands. The more technologies x bands a phone has to support, the more complex the radio circuits and antenna design. Qualcomm may balk and refuse to create chips supporting those bands, or if they do make the chips, it may take longer (and cost more) for manufacturers to bring such phones to market, putting AT&T behind.
Here's an example of Qualcomm saying "nope, that's too hard, we can only cram so many bands into one chipset":
http://www.mediaaccess.org/2011/04/att-cellular-sout ... »
That's why most carriers try to limit the number of bands each technology operates on. For example, Verizon has both 700 MHz and AWS (17...
(continues)
It's more difficult to design phones that work on that many bands. The more technologies x bands a phone has to support, the more complex the radio circuits and antenna design. Qualcomm may balk and refuse to create chips supporting those bands, or if they do make the chips, it may take longer (and cost more) for manufacturers to bring such phones to market, putting AT&T behind.
Here's an example of Qualcomm saying "nope, that's too hard, we can only cram so many bands into one chipset":
http://www.mediaaccess.org/2011/04/att-cellular-sout ... »
That's why most carriers try to limit the number of bands each technology operates on. For example, Verizon has both 700 MHz and AWS (17...
(continues)
...
Rich Brome said:...
True. Except...
It's more difficult to design phones that work on that many bands. The more technologies x bands a phone has to support, the more complex the radio circuits and antenna design. Qualcomm may balk and refuse to create chips supporting those bands, or if they do make the chips, it may take longer (and cost more) for manufacturers to bring such phones to market, putting AT&T behind.
Here's an example of Qualcomm saying "nope, that's too hard, we can only cram so many bands into one chipset":
http://www.mediaaccess.org/2011/04/att-cellular-sout ... »
That's why most carriers try to limit the number of bands each technology operates on. For example,
(continues)
...
AT&T has said explicitly that it will use its own AWS 1700 spectrum for LTE, and that it will use T-Mobile's AWS 1700 spectrum for LTE as well. 700 MHz is the primary band, but AWS is what fills out the coverage whether they get T-Mobile or not.
AT&T's claim that it needs T-Mobile's spectrum to deploy LTE is specifically referring to AWS (and not 1900). They've been very clear about that. They will need to maintain 1900 as NOT LTE in order to support existing customers.
AT&T owns AWS over the entire west half of the country. If they don't get T-Mobile, that's what they'll use to fill the 700 MHz holes, not 850. They've been clear about that. It won't fill all the holes in the east, though, which is why they're still buying 700 MHz lice...
(continues)
AT&T's claim that it needs T-Mobile's spectrum to deploy LTE is specifically referring to AWS (and not 1900). They've been very clear about that. They will need to maintain 1900 as NOT LTE in order to support existing customers.
AT&T owns AWS over the entire west half of the country. If they don't get T-Mobile, that's what they'll use to fill the 700 MHz holes, not 850. They've been clear about that. It won't fill all the holes in the east, though, which is why they're still buying 700 MHz lice...
(continues)
...
Rich Brome said:...
AT&T has said explicitly that it will use its own AWS 1700 spectrum for LTE, and that it will use T-Mobile's AWS 1700 spectrum for LTE as well. 700 MHz is the primary band, but AWS is what fills out the coverage whether they get T-Mobile or not.
AT&T's claim that it needs T-Mobile's spectrum to deploy LTE is specifically referring to AWS (and not 1900). They've been very clear about that. They will need to maintain 1900 as NOT LTE in order to support existing customers.
AT&T owns AWS over the entire west half of the country. If they don't get T-Mobile, that's what they'll use to fill the 700 MHz holes, not 850. They've been clear about that. It won't fill all the holes in the east, though, which is
(continues)
...
LTE in the 1700 MHz band won't perfectly match the propagation characteristics of 850 MHz. AT&T didn't promise anyone "good" service form day one. Networks are often deploying imperfectly and then the holes filled in later as the network is optimized.
You're assuming that AT&T has a tower-by-tower plan for LTE 1700 in that specific area, and that the published map reflects that down to each square mile, and not only that, but how it will look from day one.
I don't assume that at all. I think you're looking it way more literally than AT&T intended. I assume AT&T said to themselves "we have spectrum and towers in that area, and there's population there worth covering, so that's what we'll plan to cover." Not shown - but implied - is that...
(continues)
You're assuming that AT&T has a tower-by-tower plan for LTE 1700 in that specific area, and that the published map reflects that down to each square mile, and not only that, but how it will look from day one.
I don't assume that at all. I think you're looking it way more literally than AT&T intended. I assume AT&T said to themselves "we have spectrum and towers in that area, and there's population there worth covering, so that's what we'll plan to cover." Not shown - but implied - is that...
(continues)
...
Rich Brome said:
You're assuming that AT&T has a tower-by-tower plan for LTE 1700 in that specific area, and that the published map reflects that down to each square mile, and not only that, but how it will look from day one.
I don't assume that at all. I think you're looking it way more literally than AT&T intended. I assume AT&T said to themselves "we have spectrum and towers in that area, and there's population there worth covering, so that's what we'll plan to cover." Not shown - but implied - is that the service may not work as well, or that it may require additional towers over time, to fill in the holes. I don't think there's anything dishonest about showing a map with those assumptions.
AT&T is ...
(continues)
...
This forum is closed.
