T-Mobile + Sprint/Nextel

Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> amazed us all with the
following in news:fvp0e9$ktl$1@aioe.org:

> At 05 May 2008 23:25:34 -0500 The Bob wrote:
>
>> Agree 100% and it makes me wonder what magic pill T-Mo has to cure
>> it.CDMA/GSM makes no more sense than CDMA/iDen.
>
>
> True, but this might simply be a spectrum grab. Sprint is bleeding
> customers, so given the churn rate, the customer base itself isn't
> really worth much- T-Mo would really just be buying licenses,
> infrastructure, and headaches!

You need to look at ARPU before making that statement. While churn is
high, there are still 50+ million paying customers on the books, far more
than T-Mo can claim. If they were simply looking for pectrum, buying the
Nextel portion of the portfolio would make more sense.

>
> (The old) AT&T and Cingular certainly had some hurdles converting
> their
> TDMA networks to GSM, but they managed to pull it off in the long run.
> T- Mo might be thinking that adding Sprint's spectrum (if you'll
> pardon the pun!) is worth the pain of migrating one technology to the
> other. Like with the GAIT and GSM/TDMA handsets offered by Cingular
> and AT&T during the transition, a few GSM/CDMA combo handsets (like
> the "world" Blackberries and Global Q Sprint and Verizon offer now,
> but reworked to use American GSM as well) could ease the transition to
> whatever technology (most likely GSM, to leverage their international
> networks) T-Mo settles on, and give customers instant access to both
> networks without waiting for any conversion.
>
>
> It wouldn't be easy, or pretty, to pull off, but no one besides T-Mo
> (or maybe Alltel) is really capable of acquiring Sprint- with the
> recent 700 MHz auctions, both AT&T and Verizon are close to, at, (or
> over) the 95 MHz spectrum "soft cap" in many markets, and couldn't
> acquire Sprint without some serious divestiture (most likely to T-Mo
> anyway!)
>
>
>
>

At 06 May 2008 19:25:55 -0500 The Bob wrote:

> You need to look at ARPU before making that statement. While churn is
> high, there are still 50+ million paying customers on the books, far more
> than T-Mo can claim. If they were simply looking for pectrum, buying the
> Nextel portion of the portfolio would make more sense.


You're right, of course. What I was trying to say (very badly!) that
Sprint's customer base would have little or no value if T-Mo tried to mass
convert 40+ million customers to GSM, since they could take the opportunity
to shop around if forced to switch to new T-Mo GSM equipment. "Old" AT&T,
and to a lesser extent, Cingular, ran into this during the TDMA-to-GSM
migration- a LOT of ATTWS customers, particularly, who "traded down" from a
robust TDMA/analog network to an unfinished GSM one, ended up jumping to
Verizon or, in lesser numbers, to Sprint.

Frankly, if T-Mo could marry Sprint's spectrum and customer base with T-
Mo's exemplary customer service, they'd be a force to be reckoned with.

The real problem is what to do with Sprint's network- trying to integrate
them and migrate one company's customers to the other would be expensive
and very risky (the "jump ship" opportunity I mentioned above.) If T-Mo
instead forgoes trying to integrate them, but instead leaves them be for
the near-to-mid term, and holds off integrating until they can choose a
single 4G upgrade path for both networks, (like LTE) they might pull it off.

Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> amazed us all with the
following in news:fvr2ug$fp6$1@aioe.org:

> At 06 May 2008 19:25:55 -0500 The Bob wrote:
>
>> You need to look at ARPU before making that statement. While churn
>> is high, there are still 50+ million paying customers on the books,
>> far more than T-Mo can claim. If they were simply looking for
>> pectrum, buying the Nextel portion of the portfolio would make more
>> sense.
>
>
> You're right, of course. What I was trying to say (very badly!) that
> Sprint's customer base would have little or no value if T-Mo tried to
> mass convert 40+ million customers to GSM, since they could take the
> opportunity to shop around if forced to switch to new T-Mo GSM
> equipment. "Old" AT&T, and to a lesser extent, Cingular, ran into
> this during the TDMA-to-GSM migration- a LOT of ATTWS customers,
> particularly, who "traded down" from a robust TDMA/analog network to
> an unfinished GSM one, ended up jumping to Verizon or, in lesser
> numbers, to Sprint.
>
> Frankly, if T-Mo could marry Sprint's spectrum and customer base with
> T- Mo's exemplary customer service, they'd be a force to be reckoned
> with.
>
> The real problem is what to do with Sprint's network- trying to
> integrate them and migrate one company's customers to the other would
> be expensive and very risky (the "jump ship" opportunity I mentioned
> above.) If T-Mo instead forgoes trying to integrate them, but instead
> leaves them be for the near-to-mid term, and holds off integrating
> until they can choose a single 4G upgrade path for both networks,
> (like LTE) they might pull it off.
>
>
>
>

Hmmmm- trying to manage a customer base using two different technologies.
Where I have heard that one before? :-)

At 06 May 2008 21:41:39 -0500 The Bob wrote:

> > If T-Mo instead forgoes trying to integrate them, but instead
> > leaves them be for the near-to-mid term, and holds off integrating
> > until they can choose a single 4G upgrade path for both networks,
> > (like LTE) they might pull it off.
> >
>
> Hmmmm- trying to manage a customer base using two different technologies.

> Where I have heard that one before? :-)

I never said it'd be easy! ;-) Seriously, though, Cingular managed ok
back when they were TDMA east of the Rockies and GSM to the west, so it can
be done, apparently...

Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> amazed us all with the
following in news:fvrcfa$qnv$1@aioe.org:

> At 06 May 2008 21:41:39 -0500 The Bob wrote:
>
>> > If T-Mo instead forgoes trying to integrate them, but instead
>> > leaves them be for the near-to-mid term, and holds off integrating
>> > until they can choose a single 4G upgrade path for both networks,
>> > (like LTE) they might pull it off.
>> >
>>
>> Hmmmm- trying to manage a customer base using two different
>> technologies.
>
>> Where I have heard that one before? :-)
>
> I never said it'd be easy! ;-) Seriously, though, Cingular managed
> ok back when they were TDMA east of the Rockies and GSM to the west,
> so it can be done, apparently...
>
>

True, but that was because they were originally TDMA everywhere and did an
overlay with GSM starting on the east coast.

But your post gave me an interesting thought. ATT Wireless, Verizon,
Cingular, T-Mobile and Alltel all ran dual technologies at some point in
their lifetime while going from analog to digital platforms. The only two
major carriers to not have any experience running two technologies at the
same time? That would be Sprint (digital from day one) and Nextel (always
iDen). Maybe that explains the integration problems.

At 07 May 2008 18:35:20 -0500 The Bob wrote:

> > I never said it'd be easy! ;-) Seriously, though, Cingular managed
> > ok back when they were TDMA east of the Rockies and GSM to the west,
> > so it can be done, apparently...
>
>
> True, but that was because they were originally TDMA everywhere and did
an
> overlay with GSM starting on the east coast.


I was really referring to the pre-conversion days, when Cingular was formed
by the combination of SBMS (TDMA), BellSouth Mobile (TDMA), and PacTel (GSM)
they ran the two separate networks for years. I always found it ironic
when traveling in the west with my SBMS-market TDMA phone, that I had to
roam on AT&T or Verizon when the air above me was filled with unusable
Cingular signal!

> But your post gave me an interesting thought. ATT Wireless, Verizon,
> Cingular, T-Mobile and Alltel all ran dual technologies at some point in
> their lifetime while going from analog to digital platforms. The only
two
> major carriers to not have any experience running two technologies at the
> same time? That would be Sprint (digital from day one) and Nextel
> (always iDen). Maybe that explains the integration problems.


Good point! ;-) (Although, AFAIK, T-Mo's always been GSM, back to
Voicestream, Omnipoint, Aerial, etc.)

But kidding aside, generally the examples you mentioned (AMPS-to-TDMA or
AMPS-to-CDMA) were overlays with full backwards compatiibity with the old
technology, so users "upgrading" never LOST coverage as a result.

Contrast that with (old) AT&T conning (um, I mean "encouraging") customers
to switch from their excellent AMPS/TDMA network to their then still
unfinshed GSM network- many users lost coverage in many areas, as well as
losing a ton of roaming coverage.

The confusing part of operating two completely incompatible networks is
educating customers (and employees!) about the network differences - back
in the AT&T TDMA/GSM fiasco, now with Sprint/Nextel, and perhaps with a
future "T-Sprint", you have the problems of separate coverage maps, perhaps
separate rate-plans, etc. depending on equipment chosen. How do you
(easily) explain to a customer that his CDMA phone works in East Cupcake,
Nebraska, but his wife's GSM phone on the same family plan can't? Or why
your buddy's T-Mo phone works all the way up and down Route 66, but yours
cuts out completely between exits 7 and 17?

Hybrid GSM/CDMA phones would be an answer, but like with old AT&T, that
adds to confusion, and limits phone selection vs. other carriers ("why do
you only sell these two phones that work on your whole map? ALL of
Verizon's and AT&T's phones work on theirs...")

Like I said- it wouldn't be easy or pretty, but long term it might make
sense- after the 700 MHz auction, T-Mo, and to a lesser extent, Sprint, are
very "spectrally challenged" compared to Verizon and AT&T, limiting future
capacity. Together Sprint and T-Mo can be a strong third player, while
separately they're probably always going to be marginal sideline players,
subsisting on whatever market share slips out of Verizon's and AT&T's
fingers.