State of rural / semi-rural coverage, backup power, and network access

Straw man.

Our past discussions on this were about the relative speed of the huge capital investments required

I never disagreed about the eventual goal of matching the geographic coverage of the other two, just that funding that expansion should come out of the profits derived from being the best carrier in the areas where 90% of the population actually lives

Which latter goal I see as a much higher priority, and more worthy of obtaining funds from more speculative sources.


Careful, that statement goes totally against the prevailing mantra that T-Mobile is an urban carrier that does not and should not care about anything beyond the Top 25 markets, and has not even done anything outside of those Top 25 markets, LOL.
 
Last edited:
Straw man.

Our past discussions on this were about the relative speed of the huge capital investments required

I never disagreed about the eventual goal of matching the geographic coverage of the other two, just that funding that expansion should come out of the profits derived from being the best carrier in the areas where 905% of the population actually lives

Which latter goal I see as a much higher priority, and more worthy of obtaining funds from more speculative sources.
The "LOL" in my comment was supposed to indicate that I was making a joke, albeit a rather feeble attempt at it, evidently. But the fact behind the joke still remains, which is that there has always been a faction here in HoFo who have been adamant that T-Mobile should never invest in providing coverage outside of where those 99% of their existing and potential customers live. They never consider or accept the idea that those customers might at some point travel outside those Top 25 markets at any point in time and expect to have service available to them from T-Mobile at all. Their comment is always that those customers should just "Find another carrier" or "Buy a second phone to use in those areas", harking back to the old days of analog cellular service when you actually did need to carry 2 or 3 phones just to be able to have service in the surrounding communities from where you lived. Something that I am SO happy no longer exists in the US. I lived through that mess and never want to have to deal with that ever again.

Happily, the fact is that T-Mobile has always been expanding their service beyond those Top 25 markets all along, and now has arguably the most expansive 5G network in the country, extending into tiny towns of 50-100 people in some cases, and in some completely rural, sparsely populated areas as well. Just like AT&T and Verizon have been doing in some places, just not to an equal extent that T-Mobile has. T-Mobile's network coverage and density is not perfect at all, but they have been working on it and continue to work on it today, even as all these naysayers continue to deny that it is or should be happening. I am very glad that it is.
 
The "LOL" in my comment was supposed to indicate that I was making a joke, albeit a rather feeble attempt at it, evidently. But the fact behind the joke still remains, which is that there has always been a faction here in HoFo who have been adamant that T-Mobile should never invest in providing coverage outside of where those 99% of their existing and potential customers live. They never consider or accept the idea that those customers might at some point travel outside those Top 25 markets at any point in time and expect to have service available to them from T-Mobile at all. Their comment is always that those customers should just "Find another carrier" or "Buy a second phone to use in those areas", harking back to the old days of analog cellular service when you actually did need to carry 2 or 3 phones just to be able to have service in the surrounding communities from where you lived. Something that I am SO happy no longer exists in the US. I lived through that mess and never want to have to deal with that ever again.

Happily, the fact is that T-Mobile has always been expanding their service beyond those Top 25 markets all along, and now has arguably the most expansive 5G network in the country, extending into tiny towns of 50-100 people in some cases, and in some completely rural, sparsely populated areas as well. Just like AT&T and Verizon have been doing in some places, just not to an equal extent that T-Mobile has. T-Mobile's network coverage and density is not perfect at all, but they have been working on it and continue to work on it today, even as all these naysayers continue to deny that it is or should be happening. I am very glad that it is.

No doubt they’re expanding their rural coverage, but at the same time it’s got to be economical for them to do it. Got to be a return on their investment. So they might not get every area that AT&T and Verizon cover rurally. Have they gotten a lot better? Absolutely. Nobody can deny that.
 
Personally I think the day will come that TMO matches or exceeds the other two in geographical coverage.

By then no one will care about T&T protocols, DATA is everything.

However, to the extent they try to achieve that geographical coverage goal QUICKLY, that will erode their status as having "the best network" (fastest bandwidth available in practice) in the places where US residents actually live.

The "5G factor" helps with the latter goal much more so than with the former, which as I stated is the correct priority.

In the former goal, servicing travelers on high traffic roads in those sparsely settled areas comes first, and also of course necessary window dressing, making the maps look better for marketing / regulatory purposes.

90% is an admirable goal now, maybe 95% over the next decade or so. I am skeptical about 99% and think satellite-based service will be needed for that
 
In the former goal, servicing travelers on high traffic roads in those sparsely settled areas comes first, and also of course necessary window dressing, making the maps look better for marketing / regulatory purposes.
That day may come, but not until T-Mobile pushes Starlink. T-Mobile in some places (US-101 Santa Barbara county), T-Mobile has actually removed service, and has started to enable AT&T roaming. Its been +8 months where 1 tower was decommed. +5 months where the next adjacent has been deprecated. There is no ETA to 'repair' or restore service. The active tower issue is due to 'equipmentoverheating', not a broken tower, and has been down since 2023.
I don't have a ton of faith in T-Mobile's rural network. 2 years ago, a little up the coast, power went out, all 3 were colocated, yet T-Mobile's service was down. "Generator failure".
 
Network wise I'm very happy with tmobile. Its been the most reliable it's ever been now.

Will the US cellular assets (if they get some) generally be in rural spots? I've always read their network was mostly rural
 
No doubt they’re expanding their rural coverage, but at the same time it’s got to be economical for them to do it. Got to be a return on their investment. So they might not get every area that AT&T and Verizon cover rurally. Have they gotten a lot better? Absolutely. Nobody can deny that.
Evidently T-Mobile feels that there are enough economic benefits to them to have been expanding their coverage all these years even though all the naysayers rant that they aren't doing it and should never do it. That's the important part, they ARE going it and have been doing it all along. They have a long way to go but just on breadth of 5G coverage so far, they are on a great trajectory and I applaud them for this.

I rarely ever go anywhere without seeing 5G, or even 5GUC when I am in most cities and towns. I cannot say that about my AT&T work phone, a Pixel 8 on AT&T. The thread I have been commenting on in the AT&T forum has been where I have been reporting 5G that either is there where it isn't supposed to be or non-existent where it is supposed to be. I don't have all those problems with my personal T-Mobile phone.
 
Evidently T-Mobile feels that there are enough economic benefits to them to have been expanding their coverage all these years even though all the naysayers rant that they aren't doing it and should never do it. That's the important part, they ARE going it and have been doing it all along. They have a long way to go but just on breadth of 5G coverage so far, they are on a great trajectory and I applaud them for this.

I rarely ever go anywhere without seeing 5G, or even 5GUC when I am in most cities and towns. I cannot say that about my AT&T work phone, a Pixel 8 on AT&T. The thread I have been commenting on in the AT&T forum has been where I have been reporting 5G that either is there where it isn't supposed to be or non-existent where it is supposed to be. I don't have all those problems with my personal T-Mobile phone.

Yeah, if the return on investment is there, then yes simple economics will take over from there.
 
Evidently T-Mobile feels that there are enough economic benefits to them to have been expanding their coverage all these years even though all the naysayers rant that they aren't doing it and should never do it. That's the important part, they ARE going it and have been doing it all along. They have a long way to go but just on breadth of 5G coverage so far, they are on a great trajectory and I applaud them for this.

I rarely ever go anywhere without seeing 5G, or even 5GUC when I am in most cities and towns. I cannot say that about my AT&T work phone, a Pixel 8 on AT&T. The thread I have been commenting on in the AT&T forum has been where I have been reporting 5G that either is there where it isn't supposed to be or non-existent where it is supposed to be. I don't have all those problems with my personal T-Mobile phone.
In general, I agree. The issue that I typically have isn't the 5G/5GUC T-Mobile vs. 4G LTE AT&T, but rather the Emergency SoS vs. 4G LTE AT&T in rural areas. T-Mobile has the vast majority of its service on 5G/5G UC compared to its competitors. The issue is more of the rural areas in which T-Mobile has either 'No Service' or 'Roaming only'. While they are shrinking, in some locations Starlink roaming will most likely be T-Mobile's roaming partner in the near future, I suspect.
 
Yes, the 5G qualifier is a red herring wrt rural geographic coverage, even for the most basic T&T level of service.

TMO's 5G network is completely wonderful in the context of high data bandwidth and handling congestion in populated areas, they provide by far the best network in the places I usually go.

But conflating these two contexts is IMO a shibboleth of bad faith shilling.
 
Back
Top