Comments on: Will Google buy T-Mobile? Not a chance

By: Kevin Fitchard

Kevin Fitchard — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 21:26:06 +0000

Hi Keith,

I’m not sure why everyone keeps saying I’m ignoring the fact that Google would inherit all of T-Mobile’s infrastructure and customer service operations. I believe I’m doing nothing of the sort. In fact, the point I’m trying to make is that Google does inherit all of T-Mobile’s operations and the baggage that goes along with. Suddenly the T-Mobile customer rep you’re so angry at becomes a Google service rep. I don’t know about you but I’ve never gone three months without becoming absolutely livid at my operator, whether for a network outage, a billing problem or just bad coverage. I have far few problems with Google because 99.9% of the time its services work fine.

As for the byte-pinching, I see your point about it being a good problem to solve and solving it would benefit the industry, but I don’t think a company in the innovation business willingly puts those restrictions on its developers unless its forced to. And as of now Google isn’t forced to.

By: Keith Tyler

Keith Tyler — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 21:13:28 +0000

All of your points seem to ignore the fact that a purchase of TMO would come with all the hard iron and customer support groups that TMO currently has. Buying TMO is a turnkey wireless solution. It’s not even fair to say that TMO is failing. It’s just more of a pain in the neck to run a US wireless company than it is to run, say, a German wireless company, and that reality means that TMO US has always given DT indigestion.

As to whether Google would self-implode over limitation of bandwith, your assessment is very worst-case. As you say, Google Online benefits from fat pipes, while Google Mobile would not be able to provide them. Why not? It would be in Google Online’s interest for Google Mobile to drive its bandwidth upward; and that increase would also make Google Mobile more attractive to customers. On the flip side of the coin, the difficulty or limitations of increasing bandwith (which is a problem not just limited to TMO but to all carriers) would drive byte-pinching improvements to Google Online apps so that Google Mobile customers could use them effectively. And then non-G-MO customers would also benefit from the reduced bandwidth footprint.

Google being what it is, I would venture that such difficulties between applications and provisioning would drive some excellent research into both areas.

By: Kevin Fitchard

Kevin Fitchard — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 05:53:56 +0000

Actually, that was true a few months ago, but VZ is well over 200 million pops coverage now, while T-Mo is at 182 million pops for 42 Mbps. I would agree with you on the experience being the same though when you’re talking about smartphone. There’s not much difference between 5 Mbps and 10 Mbps when looking at 4-inch screen (and that’s really the important thing. Verizon’s network is undoubtable faster, while using the same amount of spectrum. While that may not matter to the end customer, it gives Verizon a huge competitive advantage as it can support near double the capacity as T-Mobile. When, and if, T-Mobile gets to 84 Mbps the two networks will be more on par.

By: Kevin Fitchard

Kevin Fitchard — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 05:45:53 +0000

Not to argue, but I should point out Verizon’s network is much faster than T-Mobile’s 42 Mbps network, both theoretically and in a real world speed tests (though VZW’s is much less loaded currently). MHz for MHz the two networks are equal, but LTE uses MIMO, which gives VZW some significant advantages. T-Mobile’s move to 84 Mbps HSPA+ is all about adding MIMO, which is when you can really start pitting one technology versus the other. Even then, though, those capacity advantages you referred to will make a big difference. HSPA+’s more fragile air link will mean much bigger differences in peak and edge speeds for T-Mobile customers. So while the theoretical ceilings of the networks will be the same, LTE will provide a much more consistent experience (higher speed connections more often) than HSPA+. If it were only about brute force peak speeds, then you’d be right no one would bother with LTE, but those capacity gains make all the difference in the world.

By: saykredcow

saykredcow — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 07:12:51 +0000

This article seems to ignore the fact that LTE is over hyped. HSPA+ 42 actually gives customers the same experience of LTE when using an HSPA+ 42 device. T-Mobile’s HSPA+42 is actually has better coverage in the United States than Verizon LTE. I guess I’m the only one who’s seen the America’s Largest 4G network ads???

By: saykredcow

saykredcow — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 07:07:57 +0000

Are you insane??? T-Mobile USA has some of the fastest internet speeds in the country AND the best nationwide coverage of those speeds. You think a near bankrupt company like Clearwire who has barely deployed their useless WiMax technology ANYWHERE is the future of wireless over T-Mobile? Boy, what are you smoking?

By: UMA Fan

UMA Fan — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 06:55:35 +0000

Let’s also not forget, the first two Nexus devices released on T-Mobile first. So T-Mobile service is clearly not a problem for Google employees. In fact, Google employees at their recent music event were spotted using the international GSM HSPA+ Galaxy Nexus running on T-Mobile USA versus the Verizon LTE variant.

But Clearwire? They’re better off starting a new company from scratch. They’re in debt! T-Mobile USA brings in net profits the way it operates.

By: UMA Fan

UMA Fan — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 06:38:40 +0000

People keep saying this, but I don’t see how. Why can’t a cell phone service company make it’s own hardware (Motorola) with it’s own software (android). In theory, carriers do this already, they brand their own name and lock hardware to only work on their network. Carriers indirectly are selling hardware as their own. If it was cost effective to manufacture their own, they would. It’s not so they license manufacturers to make hardware for them and brand it themselves.

By: UMA Fan

UMA Fan — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 06:33:24 +0000

You have a lot of things wrong in this article. First of all, LTE is over hyped. HSPA+42mbps gives the same performance to the CONSUMER (who matters!) that LTE does. LTE is a more efficient technology from a carrier perspective. T-Mobile USA has plenty of backhaul and it’s spectrum is underused. They won’t face a capacity crisis for years and that’s where LTE comes into play is managing capacity better. Even if they had the spectrum to deploy LTE now, what difference would it make to the consumer who’s been breezing along speedily on HSPA+ 42? It would be a complete waste. It’s sad but the majority of the industry has been brainwashed by Verizon Wireless marketing that they’re deluded from reality. Let’s also not forget T-Mobile’s HSPA+ 42 has better nationwide coverage than Verizon’s LTE.

None of us really know what Google intends on doing, however I recalled something interesting from a while back: http://androidcommunity.com/google-goes-mvno-in-spain-with-sim-cards-for-workers-20110923/

Google has ALREADY tread waters of being an MVNO operator in Spain. See the Google Sim Card? So it looks like they have no objection to being the operator. T-Mobile USA is known for it’s great customer service already, there’s no reason why they would replace any of the staff. Plus, a G-Mobile would be the boost to T-Mobile’s brand that it needs. Because that’s all that’s wrong with T-Mobile right now… a branding PERCEPTION problem.

By: Adam-Guest

Adam-Guest — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 22:31:20 +0000

Deal will no doubt be block due to monopoly.