In the 36 hours or so since AT&T and Deutsche Telekom announced that the American carrier would be buying the U. S. subsidiary of the German phone company, there has been plenty of speculation (some of it right here) about what this will mean for customers and the wireless industry, but not very much, frankly, about why T-Mobile is worth $39 billion to AT&T. It’s about more subscribers, we’re told as though that is obvious, and back-office savings, plus extra spectrum with some special plans for 4G, but that’s not the biggest reason at all. The biggest reason why AT&T wants T-Mobile is because of WiFi.
Subscribers are nice, as are back-office and marketing savings, but unused spectrum — while it has value — also costs billions (and more importantly years and years) to build-out. But many of AT&T’s current broadband service problems could be solved almost immediately by more creative use of WiFi, which is definitely coming.
For any 3G or 4G wireless carrier voice and voice backhaul have become tiny parts of its bandwidth budget. Voice and texting are together pretty much ignored in that calculation they are so small. It’s web surfing and apps, apps, apps that cost the big bandwidth bucks, and the people who utilize that digital bandwidth in prodigious amounts are generally concentrated in major metro areas — just like each telco’s WiFi hotspots.
T-Mobile has 7,000 cell towers in the USA but 30,000 WiFi hotspots. AT&T has another 30,000 hotspots of its own. T-Mobile’s hotspots are conspicuously connected by fiber with major bandwidth — more so than AT&T’s hotspots, which aren’t so bad themselves.
If hotspots and cells have comparable backhaul capability and I’m told many of them do, then T-Mobile has more than four times the broadband capability through WiFi than it has through the cell network. And remember that an urban cell can easily cover a square mile (640 acres) or more while hotspot rarely covers more than an acre, making the effective data density many times higher.
Now add to this the WiFi capability in our homes, which T-Mobile already has software to leverage — software that you can bet will be shortly used by AT&T as well. Clever use of other people’s bandwidth can add an order of magnitude to AT&T’s connectivity and backhaul for no marginal price at all. Suddenly the network expands, coverage gaps go away, yet backhaul bandwidth actually drops. Look for it.
What we’re likely to see, then, is more transparent use of WiFi on a combined AT&T/T-Mobile network. And I’ll bet a nickel that particular part of the network consolidation begins almost immediately because WiFi is WiFi and all the phones are ready to go. Why else would AT&T offered T-Mobile a $3 billion breakup fee if they didn’t want the Germans to start complying with certain consolidation terms even before the deal is approved?
So look for software updates that choose WiFi first and connect without asking, whether at home or McDonalds. Look, too, for new pricing plans that make WiFi connections not count against bandwidth limits, encouraging the cheaper among us to make a little more effort seeking-out that odd Starbucks or friendly neighbor.
With AT&T’s LTE 4G service rolling-out over the next couple years to settle the issues of dropped calls and lousy surfing speeds, AT&T still needs a quick fix to level the playing field with Verizon. Yes, all those other reasons for AT&T buying T-Mobile still apply, but the most pressing is WiFi integration because it can be turned-on almost immediately.
One thing that will help ubiquitous WiFi is when all of the free hotpots out there (and even some pay ones) work out some automatic “Yes I agree to your terms of service blah blah blah” protocol so that the phone can either alert you to OK it, or just do it. Right now with all such approvals requiring going through the browser, it is slow, error-prone (some places aren’t configured right and end up sending you to a site that their restricted pre-approval DNS doesn’t actually reference), and sometimes riddled with frames or flash, neither of which work well on phone browsers (I’m talking you, McDonalds…).
Having “an app for that” which you can just install and it automatically negotiates with the nearest free hotspot and signs off on that legality crap on your behalf would be a very useful thing.
I mean, it’s not like anybody reads that stuff…
You hit the nail on the head, Joe Shelby. One of the most annoying things about using an iPhone is all the popups for WiFi when I’m in a public place (ie airport). If I want to use their WiFi, I sit there waiting for ATT’s pokey network to connect to the legal T&Cs and usually just give up and use the pokey ATT network instead.
What would be nice is software to allow you to make voice calls over WiFi and have it not count against your minutes (or data). T-Mobile had something like that but you needed special phones to make it work.
An Android app should be doable, and an iPhone app a little more tricky, especially because in order to receive calls you’d need to do some really clever push notification scheme or to get some serious help from Apple.
… we can dream.
The software currently does exist on the iPhone and works perfectly over WiFi *or* 3G, no problems with incoming calls. It is called Skype
You’re welcome.
Skype on iPhone is an intensely problematic app. It has great potential, but it is horribly slow and is a godawful power hog (especially considering that most of the time it is running it background). I am not exaggerating when I say that I can tell that I’ve left skype running by mistake, because my battery level goes down so dramatically fast compared to usual.
Given how awful the new Skype on OSX is, it seems optimistic to hope for Skype on iPhone to get better. So, yes, while in theory Skype should solve the problem, in practice not so much. Maybe in two years?
Th
There is also Viber for iPhone. The technology is there. It works. We just need bandwidth (also there) but more importantly, we need skilled management and developers -which AT&T lacks.
(Robert, have you considered installing an edit comment WP plugin?).
Actually the software in question is UMA (Unlicensed Mobile Access) and T-mobile has offered it along with select Blackberry, Nokia, Samsung, and (maybe) Android phones on and off for the past 6 years or so. It works by tunneling over WiFi to T-mobile’s servers and routing calls over TCP/IP instead of the cell network. The technology is wonderful and it is what brought me as a customer to T-mo, as I used to live in the deep woods of the Cascade Foothills NE of Seattle, where no cell signal penetrated, yet Comcast cable + wifi made my cell phones usable in the remote locale. Hand off was pretty much seamless and the customer service from T-mobile excellent (the reason, along with dropped calls & bad coverage I left AT&T a long time ago!)
I love UMA, but somehow I can’t see AT&T embracing it. AT&T is just such a customer-hostile company that I doubt they would ever allow such a thing to survive. Unlike Bob, I suspect UMA will be one of the first thing killed off when AT&T takes over T-mobile.
–chuck
I don’t just make this stuff up. The WiFi aspects were explained to me by a senior engineer from one of the affected mobile companies. This is the real deal.
I second on UMA – I am a Blackberry user on TMo, my day job has me in a basement with no cell coverage, yet I make and receive calls all day just fine over UMA via wifi. And I have never understood why AT&T with all of its bandwidth problems would not embrace UMA to take some of that load off, especially since they have Blackberry and other devices already on-network that could support UMA easily. I fear that UMA will go away with TMo’s acquisition which, in another twist, would make me reconsider being a Blackberry user – it was the smartest smart phone with UMA that I could find.
I agree that ATT will kill off anything good that Tmo offers. It is their nature. This merger will be good for no one other than ATT shareholders. I switched my wife from ATT to Tmo last year, she still keeps telling me how much better it is than “that awful AT&T”. I finally kicked my iPhone habit and switched to Android on VZ 4G LTE. What a difference!
But my biggest concern is that if ATT fires that hot girl in the pink dress in the Tmo TV ads, then all I can say is that the terrorists have won. Just sayin’
Just think, if AT&T buys them all out they will be come a true monopoly and won’t have to advertise at all. Since they will at that point become regulated, the money they save on ads must be used to either improve service or lower prices.
Or they could use it to buy a few more congressfolks.
> [WiFi calls in iPhone] … we can dream.
… or “we” can look up the apps in the store, instead of shooting the breeze.
There’s one called Viber that does exactly that.
“But many of AT&T’s current broadband service problems”
I assume you mean here WIRELESS broadband (as opposed to U-verse)?
But more to the point, I question whether these broadband issues are actually nearly as pressing as observers claim. The reason I say this is the long long history of ATT doing absolutely NOTHING to reduce the broadband load on its system.
The issue Joe Shelby discusses above is one obvious point. But there are many more. Let’s list a few examples
– Header compression: There is very aggressive technology defined in the various 4G specs for header compression of a variety of common protocols: definitely IP and TCP. But when I read this part of the spec, there seemed to me nothing there that was inherently restricted to 4G. If ATT were willing to modify the code in its towers, and the phone providers were willing to update their IP stack, it seems to me this could be implemented today. The tech is basically the same as Van Jacobson header compression as has been used in PPP for almost 30 years, though somewhat improved.
– Transparent compression of HTTP and SMTP/IMAP/POP. The technology for this is basically an LZ encoder/decoder in the tower and as part of the IP stack in the phones. I mean, god, we were doing this in modems back in the early 80s.
The bottom line is that when I look at ATT I see a company that seems to have no interest in actually using technology to solve any of its problems. The two examples I have described are mildly challenging, but hardly extreme — as I said, we’re talking 30 year old tech. They basically require a company that believes in technology and believes it understands technology — the sort of beliefs held by Google, or Apple, or even, god forbid, Microsoft.
But ATT is the company that, TWICE, after I signed up for U-verse, sent pairs of reps to my door asking me if I wanted to sign up. It’s the company that can’t consolidate my U-verse and my cell-phone bill. It’s the company that can’t even synchronize its auto-pay billing to my bill date — so that every month I get sent a bill telling me that my previous payment is past due. This is a company that seems to feel absolutely uninterested in mastering technology.
I do wonder how they run their cell network — do they basically fly in techs from Lucent or whatever who install the machinery, then ATT is terrified to ever touch it?
Oh, to add to what I said before about ATT’s utter ignorance of technology:
ZVW now REQUIRES that all phones on its network implement receive diversity (which basically means a device needs at least two independent antennas with two independent RF chains). This adds slightly to the device cost, but means that the device is far more robust to what is called fading, which is essentially the most common impairment to signal quality.
And it appears to pay off. The stereotype is that, while ATT’s network’s peak speeds are higher than VZW, VZW gives you a much more consistent experience which doesn’t seem to fail for no reason — precisely what antenna diversity is for.
There is no reason why ATT could not demand the same thing of devices on its network, and thus improve its image and user experience. Although you can do many smarter things, the most simple forms of receive diversity require ZERO protocol changes — they just require two RF chains and an intelligent combiner.
But, once again, ATT seems unaware that it is even possible to improve technology.
I tend to agree. Just look at the terrible job AT&T has done since taking over IBM’s network. They have a terrible bureaucracy that continually screws-up. But here’s the deal: eventually enough people complain that they try to figure out what to do. In the case of AT&T, the DNA to fix it simply isn’t there. Then what? Well you get some new DNA! I’m not saying it will work, mind you, but part of the motivation behind this acquisition is to import some smarter technical talent. We’ll see….
Meant to put this comment here rather than below.
One thing to remember: AT&T isn’t really AT&T. It is Southwestern Bell who bought part of the old AT&T and rebranded itself.
ATT is Southwestern Bell, who bought PacBell and then bought ATT and rebranded. Lots of evil/bad/awful customer service company DNA in there. I was a customer of all three companies and never was happy with any of them in how they handled customer relations or service. I am happy not to be a customer of them anymore. Verizon has its own problems but at least they have been consistent ones I can handle.
Thanks for that, as a former employee of the old Bell Labs! But as much as I hate to admit it, the old AT&T was also the company of one ringy-dingy…two ringy-dingy.
Normally I would agree with you. Part of the deal with IBM was to get good network DNA. Over the last few years I’ve watched AT&T stifle and suppress the great IBM talent they acquired. In the meantime AT&T has done immeasurable damage to IBM’s business. The talent they get from T-Mobile will either be laid off or will be misused.
“new pricing plans that make WiFi connections not count against bandwidth limit”
None of AT&T’s plans currently have any bandwidth limits. They’re unlimited (we all know what that means) but I’ve never seen any usage count towards my 3G limits.
https://www.att.com/shop/wireless/plans/data-plans.jsp
The new iPhone plans have limits (250 megs or 2 gigs per month expanded to 4 gigs if you pay for tethering) and they’ve just announced a 250-gig monthly limit for some DSL plans. Look it up: https://www.crunchgear.com/2011/03/14/att-dsl-adopts-250gb-monthly-bandwidth-cap/
One thing to remember: AT&T isn’t really AT&T. It is Southwestern Bell who bought part of the old AT&T and rebranded itself.
Trenton, your own link states the data caps which have become konwn as bandwidth limits. I guess technically bandwidth is the data rate and total data is the rate multiplied by the time, but these days who’s technical enough to care?
Sorry, I guess you really meant Wi-Fi usage didn’t count, which I agree should not since it’s not part of cell service unless the cell company is providing the back haul and the access point.
[…] Cringely says this mixed network technology is why AT&T acquired T-Mobile. “Clever use of other people’s bandwidth can add an order of magnitude to AT&T’s conne… […]
I believe there is a difference between what T-Mobile has on Blackberry and other phones, and what they are using on Android. The newer Android product is software, made by a company called Kineto and supplied to T-Mobile.
I tried out a hacked version (from XDA-Developers) of the Kineto software on my Nexus One, and the call quality was poor. Even the official authorized Android version of this software gets a lot of complaints on T-Mobile forums. On the other hand, everything I have read about UMA on Blackberry has been very positive.
So there is work to be done on the Android side if A&T-Mo wants to move voice over to hotspots.
I seriously doubt T-Mobile has fibre to every one or even a majority of its WiFi Hotspots. They simply don’t have the infrastructure to support that. I’m sure they use the same last mile everybody else uses – some form of DSL (yes, even T-1 lines are VDSL). AT&T hotspots are more prevalent and ubiquitous than T-mobile ever was. I can connect at Starbucks, McDonald’s and all manner of other places. I actually have Qwest service which gives me access to AT&T WiFi through a free roaming agreement as a feature of my home DSL service, in addition to my AT&T Wireless family plan. And AT&T, while not pushing it nearly as aggressively as T-Mobile, is providing microcells, although I’d still like to get one.
This is about two things, subscriber count and network. In order to catch up and surpass VZW on either count, they needed a Hail Mary, and this certainly qualifies. AT&T pays the standard $1000 or so per subscriber for acquisition costs and gets the network and unused/underutilized spectrum for free. Such a deal!
I surely hope this prediction is right. I’ve been a TMobile customer for several years, first for their great prices and lately for their WiFi calling (UMA).
I recently re-upped with Tmo for 2 more years and a BlackBerry, bypassing the latest Android phones and the iPhone on any other network for one reason — UMA.
Due to architecture and unlucky position, I get almost zero cellular signal from any carrier, so a phone without UMA is just a brick to me.
I figure the FCC and DoJ lack the intestinal fortitude to block the merger, despite any government jawboning.
If the new AT&T&Tmo ever get rid of UMA, then consider me gone, contract be damned. I won’t pay monthly or an early termination fee for non-functional service.
Concerning the WiFi side of your posting- WiFi first is all nice and that UNTIL those who are forced to carry the extra burden start packet shaping and sniffing at the store level and peerage at the corporate level. This will make the Netflix / Level 3 / Comcast fight look like a kindergarten shoving match as companies look to protect their bottom line by utilizing other company’s infrastructure.
Bob, there’s another piece to this, and it’s the timing.
AT&T knew what Verizon was getting into with the iPhone. Many who jumped to Verizon at the first opportunity to have a “Red iPhone” are now trying to jump back to AT&T.
AT&T’s issues do go much deeper than bandwidth and the bugginess of the iPhone itself, but they had to know something about the what would happen when the tech cognoscenti finally got an apples-to-apples (pun intended) comparison of the networks. The Verizon iPhone is slower, and you can’t talk while using data.
Simply put — Verizon wasn’t “better.” It just had different strengths.
Now that Red has a blemish, Blue adds Pink, and reinforces the idea that something that in retrospect didn’t entirely suck just got a whole lot better.
Lets see….
AT&T didn’t manage and plan their network capacity. The didn’t invest enough in their infrastructure, while charging their customers top-dollar for their services. Now to correct their short sightedness they are going to buy one of the mid-tier cell phone companies. This will hurt the mid-tier providers and reduce competition. Consumers pay more. Competition is weakened. AT&T is too big to fail, so they are allowed to buy their way out of their business mistakes without regard to the damage it will do to the market.
Yesterday while paying our bills we found a surprise on our AT&T land line account. We’re already paying way too much for the service. This month there was a surprise $20 charge. They are now letting third party firms charge us for goods and services we did not authorize. As we were investigating the charges we found out AT&T had allowed a second against our account. AT&T is now allowing disreputable firms attach charges to their customer’s accounts.
Unbelievable.
Last night we canceled our land line phone. The wires will be disconnected tomorrow.
Well Bob, You might be right, but then there’s the flip side of the coin too.
There’s really two reasons to buy a company, especially a competitor company:
1) To get their technology.
2) To stop them from doing something you don’t like.
T-Mobile has a lot of stuff that AT&T doesn’t necessarily like such as UMA as mentioned elsewhere in the comments. Verizon doesn’t necessarily like it either, but T-Mobile is more compatible with AT&T/Cingular as they both use the GSM stack than Verizon. May be there was a backroom deal going on; may be not. But either way, with T-mobile out of the picture they could shutdown such things without much problem, bringing the playing field to where they like it – not changing much from where it was 10 years ago.
Then again, the really only true 4G network will probably now be a 5G network – and that will be a pure data network where all voice traffic is VOIP and SMS gets converted to XMPP. Neither Verizon, AT&T, or Sprint are interested in such a network since it would mean having to go to unlimited data plans, competing with their DSL/Fibre networks, etc. That’s why we’re getting the 4G network that we are – which is really just a faster 3G network than the pure data network it was suppose to be.
It is all about the T-Mobile Towers in major Urban areas, the 1700MHz of T-Mobiles AWS-1 Spectrum as well as their massive 850MHz & 1900MHz spectrum that AT&T can incorporate into their existing HSPA+ network-which is all 850-1900MHz.
Prediction: AT&T plans to use T-Mobiles 1700Mhz spectrum as part of their planned LTE network. 1700MHz (AWS-1) for Phone to Tower feeds and 700MHz for Tower to Phone services.
Not sure of your comment about value of T-Mobile WiFi network over other WiFi deployments.
Does LTE use split spectrum in this way?
Most of the ideas that make 4G technology work better than 3G require each end of the channel to know the instantaneous channel conditions. This is arranged more easily and more efficiently by having the same frequency in use for both uplink and downlink, on the assumption (which is generally good) of “channel reciprocity”, ie the channel conditions I see in the packets I receive are the same as what you see in the packets you receive.
AT&T may lack technical competence, but they more than make up for it in spades with arrogance and hubris. They will likely implode within two years.
Howdy guys! 🙂 Now i’m curious about if an individual may possibly assist everybody out! Absolutely I would like to look at this special internet web site on a new ipad tablet, nevertheless it doesn’t current all the way up accurately, I really was basically thinking about if a person will propose to her us any kind of optimal remedy? I can’t find out yet , what is make the effort and just listen an modernize for the purpose of our software program system or another type? I realize this is often a product kinda from the subject matter, although be sure to replace me personally and also many thanks before in the enable! Sophie
SPAM!
I am so upset over this. The tethering and WiFi sharing that used to be free you have to pay for now and is lesser quality. It keeps knocking me out every once in a while. I can make WiFi calls too which I love but I am scared they will ruin that too. At&t has burned me so bad I never wanted to deal with them and now I have to. No, Southwesten Bell was better, it is At&t who bought out SWB because I never had any problem with them until At&t took over. If I had a question on my bill, it was taken care of. With At&t they will give me the run around until I tire and then succumbed to pay (2 years later). I also had SWB repair my line with no problem. Once At&t took over when I had problems, which a neighbor tapped my line and was stealing it, I had to accuse them with the utility commission for them to come fix it because just calling repeatedly and asking to fix what I was paying for did not take care of it
voip…
I, Cringely » Blog Archive » AT&T needs T-Mobile most for its WiFi – Cringely on technology…
From this perspective, it’s actually quite apparent why their economy has gone through 4 recessions in the last 20 years, and will continue to slide after the reconstruction blip. The aging population is the cause, not for the reason of an “aging-workforce” but “stubborn idealism” that is threatened like a guillotine on the younger workforce.
Well you’re either switching to Verizon
I have found the tech articlesector all together to generally be a challenging location to make a living. This is a remains tried every single day from the persons operating intended for congress really need to help us.
filme hot…
[…]I, Cringely » Blog Archive » AT&T needs T-Mobile most for its WiFi – Cringely on technology[…]…
My straighttalk mobile phone lasted for 2 1/2 months along with the battery went completely dead.
Wouldn’t get a charge.