T-Mobile: Going Bananas for Low-Band

T-Mobile is poised to get its hands on 700MHz 4G spectrum from Verizon later this year that it says will enable it to offer better in-building, suburban, and rural coverage over time.

The 700MHz A-Band spectrum that T-Mobile US Inc. bought from Verizon Wireless for $2.4 billion this January was a main topic for executives from the carrier at the Deutsche Bank Media, Internet & Telecom Conference Monday. (See T-Mobile Spends $2.4B on Verizon Spectrum .)

"We're very confident we'll close in Q2... So we can start offering service within the year," said T-Mobile CTO Neville Ray. " 'Fifteen will be a much larger year than 14 but we'll get started in 14."

The 700MHz A-Band spectrum will allow T-Mobile to improve in-building coverage in dense urban areas and add coverage in suburban fringe and rural areas more economically than it could with the AWS (1700/2100MHz) and PCS (1900MHz) spectrum it already holds. "It's not cost effective to build out in these vast geographies with high-band or medium-band," Ray said.

The spectrum covers 70% of T-Mobile's existing customer base and 158 million PoPs. This includes nine out of the top 10 markets and 21 of the top 30 markets, he said.

Just as he told Light Reading in January, Ray has initial markets in mind where the 700MHz service will start towards the end of the year. These include Philadelphia, Dallas, Houston, Miami, and Minneapolis. (See T-Mobile CTO: On the Road to Low-Band.)

The CTO will also try and work around potential interference problems with Channel 51 TV broadcasters in affected areas, such as New York. For instance, Ray said, he can still deploy a network in parts of Long Island even if New York City is out for now and boost that prized "suburban fringe" coverage. (See T-Mobile: Channel-51 Interference a Non-Issue.)

The operator is also hoping to buy more A-Band and get potentially get more low-band 600MHz spectrum in the planned mid-2015 incentive auction from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) .

T-Mobile made it clear that it considers the auction a milestone for the wireless industry. "There needs to be adequate regulatory protections to ensure the duopolists do not come out with all the spectrum again," T-Mobile CFO Braxton Carter told the conference crowd.

And just like the banana distribution industry, the CFO believes that three major competitors -- not four -- is the magic number for major mobile operators in the US. "It's not a question of if, it's a question of when," Braxton said when asked about the prospects for consolidation in the industry.

"To take a third-scale national player that has the scale benefits with the right business model could be very competitively enhancing," the CFO suggested. There has been talk of a T-Mobile-Sprint tie-up but the FCC appears to be downbeat about that combination. (See Tough Road Ahead for Sprint/T-Mobile?)

— Dan Jones, Mobile Editor, Light Reading

Page 1 / 2   >   >>
Carol Wilson 3/10/2014 | 6:28:53 PM
A tough argument to make? So as several folks have pointed out, Sprint's Masayoshi Son hopes to convince Washington regulators that the mobile market would be better off with three stronger competitors than two giants and two smaller fish, nationally. But he is making that argument not long after saying that cutting the field down to three would be bad - when AT&T was trying to buy T-Mobile. 

So now the argument evolves to be about the duopolists. Wonder if that will fly. 
DanJones 3/10/2014 | 6:32:33 PM
Re: A tough argument to make? Son is talking to Washington tomorrow so we should get a clearer idea very soon.
Mitch Wagner 3/10/2014 | 9:05:19 PM
"Yes, we have no bananas." Why is three the magic number for national service providers, rather than two or four? And why does T-Mobile think #3 will be them, as opposed to Sprint or someone else. (Assuming #1 and #2 are AT&T and Verizon?)
DanJones 3/10/2014 | 9:14:19 PM
Re: "Yes, we have no bananas." The logic runs that T-Mobile and Sprint alone can't get the scale to reach AT&T/Verizon subs numbers. They would need to combine to get to close to the 100M subscriber mark. T-Mobile assumes it would be part of number 3 because there's way the above math works if it isn't a combo of T-Mobile & Sprint, no other US carriers get close.
myhui 3/10/2014 | 9:42:06 PM
Can the newest phones already handle Low-Band with just a software download? I am referring to this latest batch:



DHagar 3/10/2014 | 9:43:35 PM
T-Mobile: Going Bananas for Low-Band @Dan, sounds like a smart move with a well thought-out business model.  Someone focused on filling the gaps and creating a good package designed for the right markets may just have the right combination.

Sarah Thomas 3/11/2014 | 11:02:29 AM
Re: "Yes, we have no bananas." T-Mobile has also always assumed it will be their brand that takes hold, not Sprint's, although that's probably fair given the success the Uncarrier strategy has had relative to Sprint's struggling band. But, is Sprint too big and well entrenched to be treated as a pile of spectrum, as T-Mo once said?
Sarah Thomas 3/11/2014 | 11:03:30 AM
Re: T-Mobile: Going Bananas for Low-Band hmm okay. Are you talking about the mobile market or banana market?
DanJones 3/11/2014 | 11:06:31 AM
Re: "Yes, we have no bananas." I'm not convinced that T-Mobile expect a merger to happen any time soon. "Sooner or later" is proably the important element to Braxton's words.

They can *probably* afford to play a slightly longer game and see what happens when the next changing of the guard happens at the FCC.
spc_isdnip 3/11/2014 | 11:51:52 AM
It's not about scale T-Mobile and Sprint are disadvantaged because they don't own the backhaul wires; AT&T and VZ do, and scratch each others' backs to the disadvantage of the smaller players.  Nothing but regulated special access (writ large, revoking forbearance from Carrier Ethernet) pricing can fix that.

A 3-carrier market screws MVNOs badly.  The big two players sell direct.  Players 3 and 4 accept wholesale.  A 3-carrier market makes #3 bigger and less interested in wholesale, with no competition for it.  The market thus loses all of the innovation that comes from MVNOs.  Bad for consumers, though a modest ain for shareholders.  Of course we know who controls Washington.
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
Sign In