Reuters: T-Mobile looking to spend $3B on acquiring Verizon’s unused spectrum


Yesterday evening a report broke on with some very interesting news regarding our favorite carrier. According to its sources, T-Mobile US is looking to buy spectrum from its rival, Verizon. As T-Mobile itself has said, the company is looking in to as many avenues as possible to boost its own coverage, with the main challenge being not owning enough spectrum to offer as much coverage as it would like.

This deal won’t come cheap though, as it’s likely magenta will have to pay up to $3 billion for the airwaves. At least, that’s according to an analyst’s estimates. According to Reuters, T-Mobile refused to comment on the rumor and Verizon representatives were “not immediately available for comment.” In other words, nobody wants to say anything.

Saying that, it’s clear that T-Mobile has had a plan like this up its sleeve for a little while now. After all, when a company announces that it plans to sell up to $1.8 billion in stock, I doubt it would do so unless there was a clear strategy in place. The company has maintained that the reason for this common offering of stock was to raise money for buying existing spectrum. It’s also said that it won’t be bidding for the H Block spectrum on offer at a U.S. government auction in January.

It’s clear that if T-Mobile wants to be truly competitive in the current market, it needs to expand and improve the quality of its coverage. Verizon has spare spectrum available that it wants to sell, as long as the buyer can meet its valuation. From my point of view, it’s a win-win situation for both companies. Only time will tell if this rumor turns in to reality or not.

Via: Reuters

Tags: , , , ,

  • mmmmaxheadroom

    maybe this will resolve everyones number one issue with T Mobile ,coverage

    • kalel33

      They would need to put up a ton of towers where they have roaming, which is most of the country, to fix the coverage issue.

      • Danny Lewis

        Really carriers have sort of out-sourced towers. I would say the majority of towers running along interstate corridors and in rural areas are owed by communications companies that build the tower and put the equipment up that you need. For example, if you go to and zoom into central Kentucky, for example, you will see one tower in Lexington. It is impossible for that one tower to provide T-Mobile coverage for the surrounding cities. They have clearly gone with third-parties to host their service on other towers.

        Now I would like to know is why they have not gone to those third-parties and have them provide HSPA or better yet.

  • Guest

    I want to put this in a nice way cause I know you have a life outside this blog. I just find it difficult to retain viewers when we are reading about yesterday’s news today.

    • dead to me

      I’m reading about it here for the first time so speak for yourself.

      • Edgar

        Reuters made the report yesterday. So its yesterdays news.

        • Paul

          Did you read it on Reuters as soon as it was posted?

        • Edgar

          No and I don’t have to. I don’t run a blog. That doesn’t change the fact that was yesterdays news. The article was at 2:32 pm so it wasn’t late night article.

        • edgar is a troll

          You don’t run a blog. So don’t run your mouth. You don’t know the work that goes into it and how you have to squeeze it in between life and other jobs you have since posting on a blog doesn’t may sH*t. I have run blogs and forums and sometimes life delays the free or dirt cheap work you do for these things. You got your news elsewhere, go elsewhere. We’re plenty happy without your bitterness.

        • Edgar

          I’m not a troll. I have been a fan of this blog for some years. you call me a troll because you don’t want to admit that the article was from a yesterday news. Go and hit the link and see of there is any chance you can change the date on Reuters article. I’m not complaining about it, all I’m saying is the fact.

        • edgar is a fool

          Thanks for your useless contribution. He stated it was yesterday in the first sentence. Many read it here first.

        • Edgar

          Everybody has the right to speak their opinion. Someone else thought it was yesterdays news and he was right. If you don’t want to admit the fact its OK. I will continue to come here and if I want to comment something, I will. If you don’t like my comments then I suggest to go some place else. I like this site

        • edgar is so smrt. S-M-R-T

          Again – the first word of the article is YESTERDAY. I never said it wasn’t true. Neither did the poster. You haven’t stated an opinion except to prove you have nothing to contribute except pointing out something that was the first word of the article. Thanks for that, genius! I can’t wait for your next golden nugget!

        • Edgar

          Look you can say David was not on time some days, but he was on time most of the time and people have the right to express the fact that they think it is a late post. Since other blogs posted earlier than him. Your missing the point, few people here are saying it is late, not just that was from yesterdays news. I was just stating that they have the right to think that way and it is not that far from the truth.

        • edgar is a fool

          In fact the first word in the article is yesterday! Thank you captain obvious!

    • Newmexican

      So if this is old news, show us where it was published. I read technology blogs a lot (daily). This was news to me.

      ????? Trollalarm ????

      • Alex Zapata

        Reuters reported it yesterday.

        • Dakota

          I posted it yesterday and wondered why the blog was so behind since so much of the content is often ‘news’ that is on a bunch of other websites. The post above clearly says “yesterday” but I wonder if this is part of what happens with the time difference in the UK. Something can be reported in the evening in the US but its the middle of the night in the UK. But then again, if people are wanting to know Tmobile news as it happens, they can add the keyword to Google News.

      • Roger V

        Yeah, don’t feed the troll.

      • Tina

        It’s true, it was also on phone scoop. Com yesterday 11/19/2013. This site always scoops other sites stories a day or two later. Hell I could be the blog writer too!

        • Newmexican

          Not everybody reads all blogs, blogs cross-post, which is fine, if they credit the source. David had a lot of firsts that have been re-posted even on Engadet or Gizmodo. I never saw anybody complain about that. If it was on Reuters, I am still glad that it was also posted here, as this is where I go first to find out about TMO news

    • besweeet

      It’s better to have knowledge a little late than to not have it at all.

  • Aurizen

    This is really good considering I’m from Philadelphia and Verizon has the best coverage in the city. So this could be good and better in building coverage.

  • mistermix

    Are there any phones that use 700 MHz currently?

    • Alex Zapata

      Pretty much every TMO LTE device supports 700MHz band 17, but I don’t think there’s one that supports band 12 (which is what I believe Verizon is selling).

      • ChristianMcC

        Why in the heck would Verizon be selling their main lte band spectrum?

        • Alex Zapata

          Their main band is band 13, not band 12. This is the unused lower A block.

        • besweeet

          So what would that mean for device compatibility?

        • Alex Zapata

          It probably means that we’ll be taking advantage of JUMP! Unless TMO can get baseband updates to all the current LTE handsets. This is all speculation though. I’m very curious to see exactly which band they’re going to buy.

      • cameo

        Where did you get that band 12 info? There are several other bands that use 7xx MHz uplink frequency besides 17 an 12. Such as 13 and 14. Knowing what T-Mo is planning to buy now would be helpful for those of us planning to get a new handset in the near future, though outside of iPhone 5s I can’t think of any that support band 17 and 13 and none that do band 12 and 14. Maybe some future handsets will.

        • Alex Zapata

          My understanding so far is that TMO was looking at buying Verizon’s lower A block licenses (which are the only ones they’re really sitting on at this point). The lower A block is considered to be in band 12. They could be after other spectrum though, who knows.

    • Jay J. Blanco

      I know my SGH I717 Supports 700mhz

  • Paul

    Does this spectrum have any advatages? I know Magenta’s network have issues with buildings.

    • besweeet

      Lower frequencies = theoretical better building penetration, and the signal can travel farther. They would need fewer towers to cover many areas as opposed to higher frequencies, also saving money in that regard.

      • Paul

        That’s what I was curious about. So this is would be a good purchase.

      • Paul

        Then this is a good purchase for the network.

  • Deacon

    i approve

  • auser72

    That’s the best news from Tmobile i have heard in a long time. They already have great plans, and they improved their handset selection. Coverage is the last piece of the puzzle.

  • jake

    Att supports that band, as well as a lot of regional carriers whom were unable to deploy it yet. This will allow for roaming agreements with at least us cellular, cspire and att.

  • jake2

    If the smaller players plus tmobile deploy 700 mhz a band they will have very close to nationwide lte on that band including areas where tmobile may not have coverage. This is excluding att. Will help tmobile be more competitive.

    • kalel33

      They have nationwide LTE now but it hardly covers the nation. They’d have to deploy a massive amount of towers and backbone to service the area that Verizon and AT&T cover.

      • JAke2

        What I meant was that they would have 700 mhz lte, to complement their aws LTE.

  • Mr.Magenta

    Very excited with the latest news, yes investing in broader and improved coverage/spectrum is the next piece of the pie that needs to be aggressively addressed to be at least the number 3 not 4th player in the market.

    I approve of this plan.

  • RefarmAllPCSnowPlease

    I don’t want to sound pessimistic since a lot of people here are excited.

    I think Verizon has earned so much more than $3 billion for sitting in that A block spectrum (also on some B and C blocks sold to at&t later) for years that prevented other carriers from acquiring. So much more $$ for sitting on AWS licences for longer time than 700Mhz that slowed down the 3G expansion of t-mobile, metropcs, cricket and others.

    Verizon will not lose anything really if they just give those spectrum up. They have earned all those investments already.

  • breenda

    Ok i know this probably has nothing to do but my tmobile xperia Z and my mans tmobile lg g2 when we go to network settings search networks it finds available networks att edge ,att lte , verizon LTE? I have heard that tmobile phones works on att so i wasnt surprised when it found att but verizon lte???i tought it was a glitch tried it again both phones again finds att and verizon available no sprint. Then when i turned on data roamimg on the xperia z nothing happens but on the lg g2 when i press turn on data roaming a message comes out saying i might be charged a lot and that roaming in CDMA mode might be limited soo does the tmobile lg g2 have a cdma band? because the xperia didnt say that only the lg..

    • kevev

      Verizon owns some 1700/2100Mhz spectrum and they are beginning to use it for LTE.

  • Dakota

    I don’t know if you guys have seen the recent Verizon commercials where they have people looking at LTE coverage maps and the ones from Tmobile (and others) look so sparse that it doesnt even look like the outline of the US, and then the Verizon one is almost filled out. Is this accurate? It looks like even now TMobile LTE is available in tiny pockets. It looked pretty bad and can’t imagine that all those white spaces are just small rural areas.

    • kalel33

      When the commercial was made a few months ago it was accurate. T-mobile has expanded some areas since then but not substantial. That’s the reason why T-mobile doesn’t have a 4G LTE map on their site. You try to cover up your weaknesses, which is basic business practice.

      • philyew

        If you read the small print in the previous ad, the data VZW used could have been as old as Q1 2013, it certainly missed cities like Houston. The new ads fix that, though it’s not clear how much is still missing.

    • Nick Gonzalez

      For the most part, it is true. Verizon does have the best coverage throughout the U.S.. But, it comes at a big price for customers. At least from what my peoples who have Verizon tell me.
      From where I live (Denver) to where I travel the most (L.A. & Chicago) T-Mobile rocks it with LTE. But I know that isn’t the same for everyone else.

      • kalel33

        Go East or West on I-70 and see that LTE drop to 2G and GPRS, while roaming. I live in Colorado Springs and am up in Denver sometimes.

        • Nick Gonzalez

          Hows LTE in the Springs? I haven’t been down there in a while…

        • kalel33

          LTE is actually good. There’s still the normal holes in coverage where you drop down to 2G or drop calls but that’s to be expected with such unforgiving terrain.

        • Michael

          I’m up in the Evergreen Area and it is pretty spotty. I am getting 4G service on parts of 74 which I didn’t get before. No service works at my house. Sprint occasionally connects, but nothing to write home about. Denver LTE is super fast. Just hoping they start filling in some of the holes in the metro area.

        • Nick Gonzalez

          Agreed! How about some LTE on top of Mt. Evans? For Instagramming purposes lol

        • Stone Cold

          That is a scary road to travel there. But we do have major holes in the Metro area too.

      • breenda

        Over here in los angeles as of nov 2013 verizon has 3G on the Griffith observatory and on the park right there att is lte but no 3Gu cant call but use data weird ,tmobile is hspa 3G aka 4g but no lte same on el dorado national forest verizon is 3G no lte ,att is 3G same with tmobile i know because i took a trip recently to those places with the gurls from work one had att another verizon and me tmobile verizon was the worse LOL even att worked better i was shocked tmobile Also worked better .

        • caligurlalldaway

          i agree from someone who has verizon ,verizon doesnt do that well outside the city have u been to la quinta resort in palm springs?? i tought o u know since la quinta is kinda a touristy type of place cell coverage would be fine at least on verizon, dam was i wrong tmobile and at&t worked ALOT better both had hspa they didnt have lte but there hspa was fast enough to do most things,fb,email,twitter,gps etc, verizon was sloow 3G EVDO ALL the way my verizon galaxy s4 became useless also in the resort all my calls were dropped and didnt go tru and the ones that managed to go tru call quality was horrible and after 2 mins they would drop.. my mom on tmobile had no problems and no dropped calls same with my sis in law on att no problems and no dropped calls ..

        • bleeew

          Certain areas in Bell Gardens suxk if you have Verizon. I usually jump from LTE to 1X and then 3G and it usually goes back to 3G or 1X on my Droid DNA.

        • breenda

          Dam i wud of neva tought verizon sukd in bell gardens my anunt lives there well in east la and montebello same thing on verizon it jumps from 1x to 3g to lte gets frustrating tmobile works much better in those places..

      • KingCobra

        They do have the best coverage. LTE is everywhere. In the cities it has slowed down considerably though due to congestion. I can barely get above 10mbps these days on my iPad Mini. But yeah they have LTE in many rural areas that TMO is Edge. I can’t bear to use them for my phone service though because they’re CDMA and they don’t offer unlimited data.

        • Jay J. Blanco

          cdma = less selection of phones.

        • Nick Gonzalez

          10mbps on LTE? Ouch bruh. To me it wouldn’t even be worth it because doesn’t LTE consume battery faster? May as well set your mini to stay on 3G. Would be just as fast or faster maybe…

        • KingCobra

          CDMA 3G is slow. It would be around 1mbps if I switched it to 3G only. Plus iPads have tons of battery life compared to phones so it’s not a big deal on that front.

    • Jay J. Blanco

      that map is so inaccurate lol but they took it and ran with it.

      • kalel33

        If it was inaccurate then T-mobile would filed a grievance with the FTC or threatened a lawsuit for displaying inaccurate information about their coverage. There wasn’t a peep from T-mobile or Legere about the commercial or any inaccuracies.

        • Deon Davis

          Well old maps from july 2013 read the small print in the commercial

        • kalel33

          That is when the commercial was shot. T-mobile’s map isn’t much different now than it was then, when it comes to how much pink would be on the map for LTE. Yes, they have more cities lit up but the map would look more like a pimply face teenager.

        • Jay J. Blanco

          the maps verizon was using was old. its n o big deal though because that what competition does. like when at&t claimed they have the largest lte “4G” network

        • dkbnyc

          I live in NYC. Everyplace I go I have fair to great coverage. I don’t plan in being in the boonies anytime soon so I don’t really care what the coverage map looks like. If I ever move to West Bubblephuck, then I’ll check out another provider. Also, if providers sued the competition every time they flat out lied about something, the courts wouldn’t have time for any other cases.

        • kalel33

          If you think the “boonies” is 90% of the US then you are correct. I could understand someone who never ventures out of NY to have this ignorance.

          By the way, companies get sued all the time for misleading ads. Apple was sued over Siri ad, Verizon sued Sprint over “highest call quality” ads, Dish Network sued Direct TV over misleading ads, Verizon sued Time Warner over misleading ad, T-mobile was sued for their “unlimited” data a couple of years ago and they had to stop that claim without putting in fine print, AT&T tried to sue Verizon over the 3G map commercials, Comcast sued Direct TV over misleading ads, a few colleges were sued for misleading potential students in ads, etc. I could keep going and put hundreds of similar but this makes my point.

        • philyew

          There was a big change in the TM map when the new set of ads started running this month. The original series, which was still running in October didn’t even show large markets like Houston. Someone at VZW got wise that they couldn’t carry on that degree of misrepresentation any longer, with or without help from Legere.

    • dontsh00tmesanta

      Do you care about coverage in places 300-2000mi away or within your area?

  • dontsh00tmesanta

    Hells yea

  • dontsh00tmesanta

    Do you care about coverage in places 300-2000mi away or within your area? Its about your area not what other people have lol

    • kalel33

      What about coverage 3 miles outside of my town, because that’s where I lose signal and I’m in a city of 400,000. If you’re on the East coast then you might not have that issue much but every where else it doesn’t take much to hit roaming.

      • Jay J. Blanco

        ive noticed that in the west

        • kalel33

          I’m East of the Rockies. West of the Rockies is desolate for most carriers until you get to populated areas again, except for regional carriers.

        • Jay J. Blanco

          I know if DT & Tmo had put up cash for the 700hmz auction back in 2011? We would have been in a better position today to deploy decent service in rural area

        • Stone Cold

          That is so true even trying to go through the Rockies sucks for service at times.

      • dontsh00tmesanta

        That’s when you. Change carriers

        • kalel33

          And that’s exactly the reason why T-mobile will never challenge AT&T or Verizon.

        • dontsh00tmesanta

          Oh really? I seem to remember everyone scrambling to copy tmobiles jump, not something you do when they arent a threat

        • kalel33

          No, you copy good ideas that increase revenues for the company. T-mobile didn’t introduce Jump! out of the kindness of their heart. They installed it to induce customers to pay them more money. Microsoft and Apple copy ideas from smaller companies but that doesn’t mean they consider them a threat. They consider that they came up with a good idea.

          T-mobile doesn’t have the network to play in the same league as the two big boys, nowhere close. T-mobile gets the customers where T-mobile has service, who don’t travel much or care more about saving money than having a good coverage. If T-mobile had the network to compete with AT&T and Verizon then they would have already been #1 years ago, because they charge less than the other carriers.

        • dontsh00tmesanta

          No copying takes time they came out with theirs within a week that’s desperation

        • dontsh00tmesanta

          You say that about tmos network like it’s a bad thing lol

  • bydavidrosen

    Would be beautiful. So many holes in Las Vegas with no signal, and forget about when you leave the city area. Huge expansive areas of nothingness. Coverage is the #1 thing I want to see fixed.

    • gentleman559

      Im not sure what your talking about. I live in Las Vegas and have excellent service everywhere I go. Although if you travel outside the city i can agree its the slowest internet on the planet but in city I have never had a problem.

      • bydavidrosen

        Town Square it’s almost always bad, the intersection of Durango and Warm Springs (which I go to stuff there all the time cause I live by there) is like a black hole. Lots of areas near the south east are just riddled with holes of edge or worse. Also the Red Rock, Suncoast and Palms casinos have huge dead zones by the movie theaters. And forget about out near Red Rock / Valley of Fire / Mt. Charleston. And all these examples I’ve listed are places that the people next to me on at&t or Verizon seem to have signal.

        I’m not talking about being able to make a call, I’m talking about being able to start to load a Web page or update Facebook and it simply never loads or even tells me no network when I have at least edge.

        Anyway, that’s my experience on every smart phone I’ve had with them so thats… 5 phones I think…

  • Edgar

    I hope this is to expand the coverage. They needed so badly and I know it cost too much, but the “Uncarrier” won’t carry us all the way, it will help us for a while but we need coverage. There is no other way around it.

  • Darrell

    cel-fi signal boosters are now available…

    • kalel33

      They’ve been available for years.

      • Old&New

        Yes, but those were 3g boosters. Now they have 4g boosters. Tho I had the old model and got a newer 4g one at least where I’m at it didn’t seem to make much difference.

    • Ashley Faulstich

      I purchased one … it helps a little, I certainly wouldn’t advise paying the RETAIL price for a unit ($500+ if I recall correctly), so unless you qualify and can get a freebie from T-Mobile (I’m on a pre-paid plan and therefore didn’t qualify), pick one up off e-Bay, I got mine for about $100 and that’s about as much “boost” in signal as I’d say is worth, I picked up an extra bar maybe sometimes two bars it fluctuates … the best thing T-Mobile has going for it is that you can call and do utilize your phones over WiFi, that’s the real advantage.

  • Pat Fitzpatrick

    This would be great news if it happens, but I’m confused why Verizon would sell at any price that helps a competitor? Thoughts?

    • KingCobra

      They’re not using it and money talks. Even if it’s a competitor. Tmobile isn’t a big enough threat (not yet) to where Verizon would turn down $3B.

    • philyew

      Verizon has just bought out Vodafone’s share of VZW for a huge amount and will be looking to convert unused assets.

      I also think Verizon appreciate that, if TM pare away AT&T’s customer base, it helps their (VZW) relative position at the top of the market.

    • xmiro

      because Verizon is a huge, massive, debt hole? Also money?

    • fentonr

      The same reason Verizon has always said they approve of competitors mergers, they want to look like they’re playing nice so any request they have down the road will have less opposition. They know they’re the big fish in the pond and that customers are unhappy, if they can show regulators they play well with others and get cash for an asset they aren’t using, that’s a good deal.

  • Danny Stieben

    The important piece of information that’s missing here is that T-Mobile is looking at buying Verizon’s unused *700 MHz* spectrum. Getting this kind of spectrum is crucial for indoor and rural coverage. In other words, if they get enough of this spectrum, coverage will at long last cease to be an issue.

    • kalel33

      You need towers to expand that network. Getting the spectrum is only part of the solution.

      • Brian90

        700mhz travels much FARTHER than say the 2100mhz. The lower the mhz the bigger the sin wave and the longer the distance need between towers. LOWER is always better.
        This is why old AM radio waves can travel several states over but FM is only about a 30 mile radius. AM was given the first spectrum and the best! AM should be broken down and its spectrum sold off.

        • kalel33

          True, but it can’t travel 20-200 miles. They have huge holes in their network that would need to be filled in. The interstate I take back to my home town has hundreds of miles of roaming until I hit a T-mobile tower again. That 700mhz spectrum won’t help for a vast majority of their lack of coverage.

  • GinaDee

    This is a great start although most of this 700 MHz lower block spectrum left from Verizon to buy is in urban areas. The benefit eventually would be less holes and possibly better in building penetration inside of large cities and some of the suburbs that surround them which right now are areas T-Mobile could improve on. A noticeable exception would be most of Southern California including the remote mountain and desert regions where T-Mobile historically does not do much with.

    To expand rurally all over the US using the lower 700 MHz block T-Mobile would have to buy additional spectrum from other spectrum holders. This could eventually cost them between $5 and $7 billion dollars US.

    I’m hoping T-Mobile guns for as much 700 MHz as they can. Although the 600 MHz auction seems ideal it still a longer ways off and even if they do win some they wouldn’t be able to do anything with it till 2015 or 2016.

    If they want to starve off Sprint they have to stay offensive (ahead of the game) and not give any users any reason to move over to Sprint for any inherent speed improvements or coverage.

    • xmiro

      the 600Mhz has the possibility of being a total disaster. It has a lot of issues that are still to be worked out, and it can take a decade before a carrier even gets to use the spectrum

      • Mike

        Can you elaborate on this?

    • SouthernBlackNerd

      They will probably not be able to do anything with the 700Mhz until late 2014 to 2015 anyways. 700Mhz A still has interference issues with Channel 51 in much of america. Channel 51 will not go away until after the 600Mhz auction happens. It will be given priority in terms of clearing, but it basically will not be available until around the time 600Mhz is available to be deployed.

      Sprint is going to have that advantage until then and speed wise, Sprint is going to be top dog in 2015. They have already stated that by late 2014, they will be deploying 20+20Mhz of TD-LTE.

      I feel as though TMUS should have went uncannier in 2010. I also think this play for 700Mhz is more of a backup plan, if 600Mhz auction becomes a total disaster. They are going to need something to stay relevant. Customers would probably leave in droves, if TMUS is the only carrier without lower band spectrum and Sprint becomes the fastest network with Spark.

  • KingCobra

    Well this is actually good news. 700mhz is already used in current handsets so customers won’t have to buy new phones like they would if TMO acquired 600mhz spectrum. Smart move on their part. It would greatly improve building penetration.

    • Joe

      I thought that would be the case too, but apparently 700mhz block A is called Band 12, which none of the current devices support (not even the Nexus 5 or the iPhone 5s). They only support Band 17 when it comes to the 700mhz spectrum, so new phones will have to be purchased. On the bright side the wait will be shorter than the one for the 600mhz auction and if all goes well, then next years LTE phones will carry band 12.

  • Jake

    Verizon just put upwards of 100 Billion dollars to buy itself from Vodaphone, they aren’t gonna say no to Tmobile ( here verizon take our money).

  • emcdonald75

    Does Verizon have nationwide A-Block Spectrum licenses? Will T-Mobile have to buy more spectrum from the regional carriers or allow domestic roaming on their A-Block spectrum, especially in more rural areas?

    • GinaDee

      Verizon has enough lower A block 700 MHz spectrum to sale to provide a 5×5 LTE network for T-Mobile in most urban areas and surrounding suburbs. T-Mobile would use this to compliment its existing AWS holdings.

      If T-Mobile wants to expand into rural markets using lower 700 then they will have to buy this spectrum from the dozens of other players who currently hold this spectrum scattered throughout the US.

      It will cost them a pretty penny though to get both Verizon’s lower 700 and others lower 700 block.

      • emcdonald75

        I went to the Spectrum Omega map and you are correct. Verizon owns some A Block Spectrum, but most of the spectrum is owned by regional carriers and cable companies. Tmobile would have to spend a great deal of money to secure not only Verizon’s spectrum but from the cable companies and other carriers who may not be willing to give up their spectrum. T-Mobile could form a rural alliance with cable companies and regional wireless carriers to allow unlimited data roaming in areas they have gsm only. Possibly?

  • macman37

    When Verizon bought the 700 Mhz spectrum Block A in 2008, they targeted urban areas; so this is really great for T-Mobile subscribers as they will have better obstacle/in-building penetration while in towns and the signal travels further. Hopefully, T-Mobile will be able to purchase enough 600 Mhz spectrum to cover more urban and rural areas from the upcoming auction. It’s great to see that Big Red Verizon is there again to help our carrier – 1st with giving T-Mobile more AWS spectrum when they acquired some from SpectrumCo, and now being willing to sell some sub 1 Ghz spectrum to T-Mobile. Great move Legere!!

    • philyew

      Both times TM had to grease the wheels first by attacking Verizon’s spectrum positions in submissions to the FCC.

      It’s not a cozy relationship, but Verizon probably appreciates that TM’s campaign attacking AT&T doesn’t hurt their position in the market, and the better provisioned TM is, the more damage AT&T sustains.

      • deceptive smiles

        I guess it’s like the age old saying, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”

    • UMA_Fan

      I remember when they were trying to get Verizon’s aws from the cable companies and they dismissed this spectrum as having high interference. Hopefully this is not the case

  • xmiro

    I believe this would be a sale+roaming deal.

    Verizon gets some hard cash to plug the giant, gaping, debt hole they’ve dug themselves into and their customers get roam on T-Mobile

    • fentonr

      Roaming? That wouldn’t make a whole lot of sense, with very few exceptions, Verizon phones can only roam onto T-Mobile’s LTE
      and a few onto their 2G. I’m not saying it won’t happen, I just don’t see why Verizon would bother with a roaming agreement.

  • mloudt

    People can say what ever they want to about At&t and Verizon but they are top for a reason. I am not one of the people on this site praising T-mobile and bashing the other Big 3. I want all 4 carriers to get better. I also wish people would drop the talk or even the slight consideration of a Sprint-T-mobile merger. Remember when we had Cingular, Nextel, and Alltel to make up the Big 7. Those are long gone and that is the reason we have a Big 2 duopoly. So lets keep it at a Big 4 and drop the concept of a more competitive 3 carrier if Sprint-T-mobile merged.

    Also, people that want T-mobile to buy US Cellular and all the rest of the regional carriers that is not a good idea also. If it wasn’t for Cricket and Metro Pcs all these years gaining millions of customers on there low prices do you think Sprint and T-mobile would be so low; not likely. Use common sense people if all the regional carriers go away and are now owned by national carriers then what is to stop Sprint and T-mobile from raising their prices; nothing. Now that T-mobile owns Metro and At&t will soon own Leap/Cricket they are subsidiaries of these two national carriers. Instead of C-Spire and US Cellular ( the two largest regional carriers left ) being bought up by national carriers I would rather see them expand and become like Cricket and Metro Pcs was before the national carriers bought them out. I think if they stay regional carriers then that will keep the Big 4 regulated from raising prices.

    On a side note they projecting the At&t deal with Leap/Cricket to close in January 2014. When that deal closes At&t I believe will have enough customers to surpass Verizon for the number one spot. It is for that sole reason why I truly believe that Verizon will buy out US Cellular. Verizon got 1.9 billion from At&t this year for spectrum and if this rumor turns out to be true another 3 billion will come from T-mobile; so in a span of a year 4.9 billion from its competitors. On another side note remember Verizon is going to buy out Vodafone for $130 billion and guess who has interest in buying Vodafone At&t; Sprint and T-mobile will never be able to compete money wise their best chance is to expand their coverage and gain as many customers as they can to turn a profit. Lastly, I am all for T-mobile acquiring N-Telos or Cincinnati Bell or both. Oh and as for Dish I think they should enter the cell market by acquiring a small regional carrier as oppose to buying T-mobile. I think Dish would be better suited purchasing US Cellular then like I said earlier expanding it to new markets and use some of Dish’s spectrum to make it happen and make it a more attractive regional wireless carrier..

  • mingkee

    Here is something interesting, how T-Mobile will use the spectrum?
    Surely, it will be used on LTE. But currently LTE is data-only except Voice over LTE is deployed (and this is rather easy because T-Mobile already has similar technology over Wi-Fi calling).

    • Zombiexm

      All they will have to do is put phones out with voip baked in. Release a dumb phone with VOIP (for the old people who still like flip phones) and start pushing people to use VOIP. Then slowly in ten years move the whole network into lte.

    • Alex Zapata

      In an ideal world they’d deploy ToLTE and implement SRVCC for when you don’t have LTE available.

    • UMA_Fan

      Does anyone know why they switched to ims WiFi calling? It seems like the least reliable iteration of it. The Gan lite version worked a lot better.

      • Alex Zapata

        My guess is cost, and the fact that the old UMA hardware just isn’t compatible with an IMS network. This solution should be very reliable, but I get the feeling that it was poorly implemented. Oh how I miss my UMA days…such smooth handover…….

        Apparently Republic Wireless has made a fairly good client on their Moto X that even has handover between WiFi and Sprint! (ewwww Sprint…)

  • Zombiexm

    What has yet to be said ..

    Could this be a move for a future us celluar rural alliance roaming thing or merger?

    While that still wont be a true “nation nation” wide coverage it would as it seems cover major areas with 700 mhz and even 800 mhz (if a merger or a roaming agreement)

  • Richard Finzel

    It is actually most likely that T-Mobile will be purchasing or renting the AWS spectrum that Verizon owns in most areas. In my area T-Mobile currently only has 10mHz of AWS spectrum, and if they were to get the Verizon AWS spectrum that isn’t being used, they would have a total of 30mHz of AWS spectrum. This seems to me to be the most likely of all the scenarios, because verizon isn’t letting their top dollar MVNOs come anywhere close to their LTE and the Executives keep saying it will be a long time before that will change.