Why even Project Dark can't save T-Mobile

[GSMinCT]

I have seen number of recent discussions about whether Project Dark is going to save T-mo, and how the DROID affects T-Mobile, which has, up until now, been the biggest supporter of Android.

Note that I am an AT&T customer, in part because of what I have to say here.

I think what it comes down to is their spectrum, and the effects that has on coverage. Project Dark is a neat idea, but its not going to ever make T-Mobile compete on the same level that Verizon and AT&T do, because of the spectrum and networks that they own.

T-Mobile's coverage is not only much smaller than that of the big 2, but the main issue is, it is using PCS, and NOT Cellular.

In many areas just outside of the cities, there are a limited number of locations for telecommunication towers. These towers were built in the 1990's before PCS was used for mobile phones, and were spaced for 850mhz AMPS. They have been converted to GSM and CDMA, and generally work well for cellular coverage on AT&T and Verizon, using GSM and CDMA at 850mhz. The issue is that T-Mobile uses 1900mhz PCS, which simply doesn't go as far, and is much more susceptible to foliage and building interference.

Where I go to school, there is a Cingular cell site located immediately adjacent to, and lower than a T-Mobile cell site. Nonetheless, my Cingular (AT&T) service FAR outperforms my friend's T-Mobile service inside buildings, simply because of the difference between PCS and Cellular.

The one redeeming aspect that T-Mobile has (although my friend's phone isn't able to use) is UMA. This can definitely address the at-home coverage, as well as coverage inside buildings and basements where no carrier will go. AT&T should activate UMA, even if they didn't offer plans for it, it would be a tiny additional expense to improve coverage in buildings, and it would pull load off of the far more expensive cellular network, as well as offer a really robust international roaming option.

The next point is that there are only two nationwide cellular networks in this country: AT&T and Verizon, and only Verizon truly has universal coverage. If I regularly roamed north of Mass, I would be on Verizon in a second, as they dominate in Vermont and New Hampshire, including long stretches of road that have no service from AT&T.

As for 3G coverage, AT&T's is here and there, and it seems to be a nice bonus where it is, when it works, although it is real pain for phones that can't be manually forced to 2G, since it is unreliable. Their EDGE is fast and rock-solid, and is across 100% of their national (non-roaming) footprint.

As for truly universal 3G coverage, Verizon is 100% EVDO in some states, and I think their EVDO network is actually larger than AT&T's GSM network, and covers almost all of their voice footprint. The maps are hard to tell, as they include roaming partners, which don't have the same level of service as the native networks. Their acquisition of Alltel has firmed them up as the coverage leader. In fact, I know someone who switched from T-Mo to Verizon, specifically because some relatives she stays with are in an Alltel-only coverage area with farms, long roads, and tall, single-deck towers that show no love for GSM at all.

Sprint is pretty much in the same situation that T-Mobile is in, but they don't have UMA, and they have little else other than the Pre, which will soon be finding a real home on Verizon.

Sprint and T-Mobile just can't compete, since they don't own the spectrum to build out reliable coverage, AND they don't have the footprint required to offer good coverage. The combination is a real killer, and doesn't leave them with much option except to scape the bottom of the market.

Using PCS also makes it very difficult to build out rural coverage. While urban towers are installed at low power in order to serve a smaller area, and avoid being overloaded, the whole idea with a rural tower is to build as high and as powerful as is legally and practically possible, and blast your signal to the absolute edges of what that tower can carry. If Cellular can keep a bar of service 1.5 times farther than PCS, then it can cover 2.25x as much area, with better foliage and building penetration towards the fringe. This might offer a factor of 2.5 or more.

Not only does this make it physically possible to coverage a much larger area with Cellular, but it makes PCS economically unfeasible outside of metro areas and interstates, because it won't cover enough users to make it worth building and maintaining the tower in the first place. There is also the issue that in rural areas, everyone would already have AT&T and Verizon, so there wouldn't be much point for T-Mobile or Sprint to build towers there.

Now, this isn't to say that there aren't places where T-Mobile may outpace the other carriers in coverage- closely spaced PCS towers in more urban/ developed areas may very well best AT&T and Verizon's Cellular spaced towers, but across the whole country, Verizon > AT&T >>>>>>> Sprint = T-Mo.

Another factor that is not helping T-Mobile out is the commoditization of voice, and movement to texting and data. T-Mobile used to have a huge advantage over the big carriers price wise in their voice services, but voice has been commoditized and cheapened significantly in minute wars, with the big two offering so many minutes that no one could possibly use them all. With the new A-List and MyCircle plans (which T-Mobile pioneered with MyFaves) on top of M2M, N&W, and Unity (AT&T) , it would be virtually impossible to run out of minutes. In fact, their basic plans without the MyFaves-like features offer a gajillion minutes as it is when you count N&W and M2M.

A new reliance on data also puts a bigger emphasis on devices, and makes the network more prominent when the carriers are closer in pricing. In both the devices and the network, AT&T and Verizon are leading the pack.

As a result, T-Mobile never will be able to compete with the big boys, and users who demand a reliable network with wide coverage will be on AT&T, or even more so, Verizon, for many years to come.

While most people don't know the difference between PCS and Cellular, and don't understand the physics behind RF propagation, they do understand bars, dropped calls, and getting through. Even people who couldn't tell you what type of phone they have do understand the general sentiment "T-Mobile is cheap, but their service sucks, AT&T is better, and Verizon is the best", and this reputation isn't going to go away by adding some patchy 3G and filling in some gaps in PCS coverage, while being unable to even offer the coverage of AT&T, much less Big Red.

This all also makes me wonder why T-Mobile is bothering to do 3G. They can't compete with Verizon and AT&T's nationwide coverage for the Blackberry crowd, so why not focus on their low-end market that doesn't need 3G, and continue that reputation as the "other GSM carrier", the "value carrier", and the "bright, cheery, talkative carrier"? AT&T and Verizon aren't going to attack T-Mobile for not having 3G, as they are much too busy attacking each other, since people already know that AT&T and Verizon are the important players in this space.

It seems that for now, while Sprint has virtually nothing and is hurting because of it, at least T-Mobile is doing OK, and has introduced Project Dark, but in the long term, I don't think that even Project Dark will help them to get out of the bargain-basement low-end of the wireless world.

[tmobiley]

Actually... while Sprint and T-Mobile have 1900 spectrum. Their liscenses are far larger/expansive than VZW or AT&T.

Both Sprint and T-Mobile have nationwide PCS licenses. They could build in Montana, Alaska, Nevada, Florida, Kentucky, Maine, Ohio, Nebraska... anywhere in the USA. They just have to get approval for a tower.

Where as VZW and AT&T can only build towers where they have spectrum (which isn't everywhere) and they use both 1900 and 850 (depending on location; sometimes both) and this costs more by using two different ''technologies''.

It also depends alot on where you live. In my town the choices are Sprint, Nextel or T-Mobile (CDMA, iDEN, GSM - respectively) and we don't even have at&t or VZW so your claims are null-void in our area.

To be quite honest at&t's 1900 service is better than their 850 service.. not sure why... my guess would be that it has less users on it due to the phones preferring 850 over 1900.

Most places it depends on location. In certain areas T-Mobile is better than VZW or at&t. In other areas at&t is better than T-Mobile and VZW. And yet in others VZW is better than at&t or T-Mobile. And still in other places Sprint trumps them all. So it all really depends on the location of the towers, geography in the specific area and the licensing which a carrier has.

[blacknoi]

I think the argument of: Tmobile starting to push data services without a robust 3G network footprint + nice selection of 3G compatible handsets is a HUGE issue.

I think staying the value carrier thats good in more populated areas is their strength and they should play more to that.

[Evan702]

wow that's a lot of typing to make points that everyone around here probably already knows. but hey, you convinced me; everyone except for VZW and AT&T should just close up shop since they can't compete anyway. thanks for this moment of clarity.

[elecconnec]

Why do you assume that T-Mobile is trying to become the largest carrier?

They don't have the coverage or spectrum to out-Verizon Verizon, but I've been a T-Mobile customer since Oct. 2001. Their coverage (due in large part to roaming agreements with rural/regional GSM carriers) has greatly improved.

I carry a "backup" CDMA phone (on PagePlus) when I travel, and it has been used for a grand total of 1 voice minute in the year I've had it. (Prior to that I used to carry "Beyond Wireless" TDMA phones as backups. They were rarely, if ever, used as well.) If I didn't "know" from the "general knowledge" how lousy T-Mo coverage was, I would probably never notice!

Sure, coverage is less than Verizon or AT&T, but for the vast majority of the population who lives in the metro and suburban areas adequately covered by T-Mo and Sprint, it's "good enough" and it's significantly cheaper than the big two. There will ALWAYS be a tradeoff between coverage and price- just look at Metro/Cricket/etc. Plenty of customers flock to those carriers and their truly rotten coverage for the low prices. Why can't there be a "middle ground" for people who want to save $20 vs. Verizon/AT&T, but need better coverage than Cricket? I'm that guy. I used "full coverage" carriers for years and discovered I'm just not in Bumf--k, Iowa often enough to pay an extra $250/year to ensure coverage there. The "emergency" scenario inevitably follows- "What if your car breaks down a million miles from civilization?" or "What if a crazed axe-wielding murder attacks you 40 miles outside town?"

I ask the Verizon/AT&T "coverage snobs" all the time why they don't have satellite phones, since Verizon and AT&T have dead spots too. I mean, if I'm an idiot for not paying more every month for more complete coverage that I don't really need, aren't they also idiots for not paying more for more coverage than they need? They then respond that that's absurd, since Verizon/AT&T coverage is "good enough" and satellite phones are too expensive for such a small amount of extra coverage. BINGO! That's how we Sprint and T-Mo users feel!

Lastly, just as an anecdote, I used to be an 800MHz snob, too, but then I moved here to southwest suburban Denver seven years ago, and my Cingular TDMA 800MHz phones didn't work here (this was pre-merger and they roamed on ATTWS at the time), my Beyond Wireless TDMA/AMPS phone couldn't get a signal on either AT&T or Verizon, yet my "lowly" T-Mobile phone had full bars (I also discovered all of my neighbors used Sprint or T-Mo since neither AT&T nor Verizon worked in the entire 20 year-old subdivision.)

I discovered then that cellular reception and real estate have three things in common: "location, location, location." Tower location will trump tower technology every time. (For the record, Verizon started working here about two or three years after I moved in, and AT&T about a year later.)

[GSMinCT]

Actually... while Sprint and T-Mobile have 1900 spectrum. Their liscenses are far larger/expansive than VZW or AT&T.

Both Sprint and T-Mobile have nationwide PCS licenses. They could build in Montana, Alaska, Nevada, Florida, Kentucky, Maine, Ohio, Nebraska... anywhere in the USA. They just have to get approval for a tower.

Sure, they could build wherever they want to, but with PCS it doesn't make any sense. Even if, theoretically, they co-located on every Verizon site, Verizon would still have much better coverage.

Where as VZW and AT&T can only build towers where they have spectrum (which isn't everywhere) and they use both 1900 and 850 (depending on location; sometimes both) and this costs more by using two different ''technologies''.

850mhz is much more expensive, not just because it require two different frequencies, but because there is less spectrum, and it is much more expensive to acquire (and its all been long taken, so the only way to acquire it is to eat up another company, i.e. Cingular and ATTW, Verizon and Alltel.

The flip side is, the coverage is a whole lot better.

It also depends alot on where you live. In my town the choices are Sprint, Nextel or T-Mobile (CDMA, iDEN, GSM - respectively) and we don't even have at&t or VZW so your claims are null-void in our area.

To be quite honest at&t's 1900 service is better than their 850 service.. not sure why... my guess would be that it has less users on it due to the phones preferring 850 over 1900.

Most places it depends on location. In certain areas T-Mobile is better than VZW or at&t. In other areas at&t is better than T-Mobile and VZW. And yet in others VZW is better than at&t or T-Mobile. And still in other places Sprint trumps them all. So it all really depends on the location of the towers, geography in the specific area and the licensing which a carrier has.

Yes, there is local variation, and there are small pockets where T-Mobile or Sprint will be tops, but overall, AT&T and Verizon have the service. In fact, there are even a lot of areas that are virtual Verizon monopolies because no one else has good service.

wow that's a lot of typing to make points that everyone around here probably already knows. but hey, you convinced me; everyone except for VZW and AT&T should just close up shop since they can't compete anyway. thanks for this moment of clarity.

Personally, I think the only solution to this mess would be to create a single super-carrier that was owned in parts by all of the components that it would be made out of, both in terms of spectrum and networks. It would then be federally regulated to sell to MVNOs or its part owners only, not to customers, at certain fixed rates set by the FCC, and those companies would resell to consumers. This would allow much smaller companies to get in on the wireless pie, and create a huge amount of competition, all while providing a single 850mhz network that provided service everywhere that there is any cell service at all, and a consistent use of the cellular spectrum for CDMA/1xRTT, EVDO-RevA, GSM/EDGE, and UMTS services.

[missipp1]

This guy....

[GSMinCT]

This guy....

Yeah I know... its like posting the laundry list of reasons why the iPhone sucks in the AT&T forum... I am a very discerning customer, I have my 850mhz AT&T on a phone with a keyboard and multitasking...

[johnhere]

Im not sure if tmobile us will make it or not but the rumor is that DT is considering selling tmobile usa unless tmobile can turn things around within 6 months.

I like tmobile but i think for now the main selling point they have is value.

[GSMinCT]

It would be neat if AT&T ended up with them, although I'm not sure the government would allow that...

T-Mobile is really selling on being CHEAP, not value. Value to me is Verizon, as it works in the most places, even though it costs a lot more. The problem is that prepaid, especially ST could come in and eat their lunch too on that front.

[johnhere]

I do hope tmobile makes it. They are definitely more consumer friendly than verizon ( at least in my eyes).

Met my friend for lunch today and his tmobile phone had a stong signal in the rest. we were eating at while my att phone had between one bar and none so there are times where tmobile shines, just like all of the carriers.

I do think tmobile is better than they get credit for network wise. When you have a tmobile signal you are generally pretty much good to go call wise. The outage last night was a rarity from what it sounds like and tmobile seemed to be on the ball and fixed it in a timely manner. They deserve credit for that.

Oh yeah att buying tmobile us would bring up all kinds of scrutiny im sure.

[tmobiley]

It would be neat if AT&T ended up with them, although I'm not sure the government would allow that...

How so?

Why not just sign a network-wide roaming agreement with them. Therefore you still have competition and you get ''the network'' of both carriers.

Competition in America is a good thing - look at the telco's in Canada.

[XRISTO]

They have a lot of spectrum to grow into.

T-Mobile's new AWS licenses cover the whole country, including Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. To cover the whole country, T-Mobile opted to go after the larger, simpler (but more expensive) D-F blocks, which are divided by REAG.

http://www.phonescoop.com/articles/a...hp?a=99&p=1495

[TMoBoyinAL]

Im not sure if tmobile us will make it or not but the rumor is that DT is considering selling tmobile usa unless tmobile can turn things around within 6 months.

I like tmobile but i think for now the main selling point they have is value.

Source?? Valid source... not 'my friend, a t-mobile rep, customer care, etc'... I want to know your source for this claim.

[hillstrubl]

coverage snobs... haha