Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 76

Thread: T-Mobile: Layer3 TV Hindered by High Programming Costs

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    14,854
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by skylar_G View Post
    They promised those savings right after they bought layer3, so now they can only offer those savings if they merge with Sprint because layer3 costs a lot of money to operate?
    Again, that's more information that you're making up. I'm reading their press release of the acquisition and I don't see any specific mentions of savings:

    https://www.t-mobile.com/news/uncarrier-tv-close

    In fact the word "savings" isn't even found in that press release. So where is this "promise"?

    The press release and John's video at this link both state that they plan to "Un-carrier your TV".

    https://www.t-mobile.com/tv

    In the article posted in this thread I don't see anywhere where they are saying that they can't un-carrier your TV without Sprint.

    Yes, they saying that there will be big savings for consumers with Layer3 if they are allowed to merge with Sprint. Sprint has a lot of high-band spectrum that will be great for delivering video content to homes. But nothing in the article states that they won't be able to incorporate Layer3 to un-carrier your TV without the Sprint merger.

    Quote Originally Posted by skylar_G View Post
    Link me to my dire concern.
    If you're asking others for links maybe you can provide a link where T-Mobile said:

    "they bought layer3 and did zero homework on what it would cost to run"

    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur101 View Post
    You post your opinions as facts. That's wrong on so many levels
    Actually I quoted exactly what was in the article. No opinions were posted as fact. That's a completely false statement on your part.

    You don't spend millions or billions for that matter and then sit on it unless you either don't have a plan or the original plan didn't work out
    And neither applies in this case. T-Mobile will still deploy Layer3 with or without Sprint. They have not stated anything to the contrary.

    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur101 View Post
    As much money as i paid TMobile over the years I have a right to complain
    If I go to a restaurant and I get bad food or poor service, I don't keep returning year after year to get more of the same over and over again. I go somewhere else.

    It's not a badge of honor to say that you've paid for bad service for so long when other choices exist.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    1,981
    Carrier(s)
    TMobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    Again, that's more information that you're making up. I'm reading their press release of the acquisition and I don't see any specific mentions of savings:

    https://www.t-mobile.com/news/uncarrier-tv-close

    In fact the word "savings" isn't even found in that press release. So where is this "promise"?

    The press release and John's video at this link both state that they plan to "Un-carrier your TV".

    https://www.t-mobile.com/tv

    In the article posted in this thread I don't see anywhere where they are saying that they can't un-carrier your TV without Sprint.

    Yes, they saying that there will be big savings for consumers with Layer3 if they are allowed to merge with Sprint. Sprint has a lot of high-band spectrum that will be great for delivering video content to homes. But nothing in the article states that they won't be able to incorporate Layer3 to un-carrier your TV without the Sprint merger.



    If you're asking others for links maybe you can provide a link where T-Mobile said:

    "they bought layer3 and did zero homework on what it would cost to run"



    Actually I quoted exactly what was in the article. No opinions were posted as fact. That's a completely false statement on your part.



    And neither applies in this case. T-Mobile will still deploy Layer3 with or without Sprint. They have not stated anything to the contrary.



    If I go to a restaurant and I get bad food or poor service, I don't keep returning year after year to get more of the same over and over again. I go somewhere else.

    It's not a badge of honor to say that you've paid for bad service for so long when other choices exist.
    Never said it was a badge of honor. Not sure where you get that claim from. I said I have the right to complain. I can speak from experience. Nothing wrong with that

    We know you work for TMobile but don't take it so personal when someone voices a complaint. They aren't a part of you

    When you worked at walmart as a door greeter you also got upset when I complained about the quality of some of their products. It wasn't anything personal just me voicing my experience and complaints.

    You don't make sense

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    14,854
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by skylar_G View Post
    I mean why would you buy something, then disclose how expensive it is to run, you'd think you would of already known how expensive it would be before you bought it.
    And even though you accused them of not knowing the costs, you never have posted any source to backup your accusation despite being given multiple opportunities.

    The article simply stated facts about Layer3's content costs. It never says T-Mobile didn't know them beforehand or didn't know what they were buying. You went into this whole bit about, "I question their decision making abilities. This should of all been researched BEFORE buying the service, not as a surprise afterward. "

    Except T-Mobile never said that they didn't research it. You apparently made such an assumption with no facts whatsoever.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    14,854
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur101 View Post
    Never said it was a badge of honor.
    I never stated that you said it. That was my statement in saying that it's not a badge of honor to constantly complain about something you're paying for. There are no long-term commitments in wireless any longer. One can switch any time that one wants. So I don't understand why someone would pay for something that they're not satisfied with. It's not something that I would ever do.

    We know you work for TMobile
    I don't know who this "we" is. But I've never worked for T-Mobile in any capacity. That's clearly a fabrication that you made up.

    When you worked at walmart as a door greeter you also got upset
    I have also never worked at Walmart. I guess you can't keep yourself from stating such falsehoods.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    14,854
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by skylar_G View Post
    I gave an either or scenario
    Except it wasn't an either/or scenario like you described.

    The article does state the high amount of Layer3's current costs. It also states things like

    “The new 5G network’s speeds, capacity, and low prices will allow consumers to ‘cut the cord’ and use their mobile wireless service as their broadband service both inside and outside the home and pocket the savings from eliminating an unnecessary and costly wired broadband bill month after month,”

    But it doesn't state: "they didn't do their homework before they bought layer 3"

    Nor does it state: "they can only offer those savings if they merge with Sprint"

    Those were your statements not found in the article. You're trying to state that it's an either/or. But you've shown that neither are true and the fact is neither must be true.

    For T-Mobile never said that they now couldn't incorporate Layer3 into T-Mobile (without Sprint) and still run it profitably.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    11,200
    Device(s)
    iPhone XS Max
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T Wireless
    Feedback Score
    0
    Some of you have forgotten that discussing each other is not an option here at HowardForums. If you want to argue, do so respectfully--there's no reason to discuss each other at all. If you can't get along with someone and always end up arguing, your only option is to block them or ignore them...constant bickering won't work for those who use and rely on this site for information.

    Become a Premium Member or Advertiser here!
    Want to use a referral link in your signature, support the forums by becoming a Premium Member!
    Have you read the forum rules lately?
    If you have a problem with a post for any reason, please report it rather than responding to it, and a moderator will be along shortly.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    4,545
    Device(s)
    S9
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by @TheRealDanny View Post
    There are plenty of threads where you critique why anybody would care about the financials of the T-Mobile brand, T-Mobile USA, DT or the sort. Why the sudden dire concern?

    I agree that if T-Mobile pursued their OTT TV strategy the same way as everyone else (status quo) they would be at a disadvantage but we're talking about the Uncarrier here so I'd reserve judgement. I believe a lot of companies (not just TMUS) are going to be innovators in the 5G NR space and will think along the lines of an entrepreneur no matter some random paid analyst may think.

    Netflix didn't win by going about it like your typical cable TV company and we are all glad they didn't.
    Thanks for adding some insight. Agree 100% if T-Mobile follows the same status quo as all the other OTT TV services nothing will change and whatever they rename Layer 3 will fall to the sideline. However, that isn't the way John Legere became disruptive to AT&T, Verizon and Sprint that changed the way all four networks do business that drastically lowered cost and improved all the mobile consumers market place.

    John Legere promised to become the Uncarrier of the TV distribution and shake things up by being disruptive of the other players. That won't happen if T-Mobile plays the Status quo on the current TV distribution business. Al Carte TV where someone can buy the few channels they watch would be the most intelligent way be disruptive because I don't need hundreds of channels. However the most disruptive thing John Legere can do to the cable companies is provide home fixed wireless broadband. Both AT&T and Verizon are planing on 5G NR fixed wireless broadband in selective markets this year.

    If anyone been paying attention AT&T's real enemy in competition isn't T-Mobile, it is Comcast that is attacking AT&T with their Liars Group TV Advertisement claiming only 10% of AT&T Directv customers can get the 50 Mbs speed that AT&T contracted to provide over the internet. Top that off with both Comcast & Charter are going into the mobile cell phone business as a MVNO from Verizon and their own hybrid Hotspots.

    Comcast knows that both AT&T and Verizon are coming with Fixed Wireless and 5G and want to damage the AT&T brand before it is available. In the Metro areas where AT&T and Verizon can afford to build out their mmWave spectrum with 5G NR is going to damage the cable companies. Even without T-Mobile getting involve via OTT TV service there is a major price battle coming to the TV industry.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,923
    Carrier(s)
    TMobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Would love to see TMobile tv do well so hopefully tmobile makes the right choices. I think getting sprint is integral with their tv plans

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    4,545
    Device(s)
    S9
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by themanhimself View Post
    Would love to see TMobile tv do well so hopefully tmobile makes the right choices. I think getting sprint is integral with their tv plans
    Agree on that. With just T-Mobile they won't have the spectrum for fixed wireless broadband. Sprint's ton of 2.5 Ghz will work maybe in the rural areas but even T-Mobile and Sprint's total spectrum can't handle large populated areas unless they get a lot more mmWave spectrum. The November 28 Ghz spectrum FCC Auction doesn't have any 28 Ghz for sale in the Top 25 markets since Verizon owns 71% of it except for the six Top 25 cities that T-Mobile owns 28 Ghz. In the following 24 Ghz FCC auction, AT&T already owns 41% of that 24 Ghz spectrum.

    That leaves only the 3.5 Ghz CBRS FCC Auction but the FCC is still fighting with everyone since that is a shared spectrum and no one has agreed to the rules yet. Also, 3.5 Ghz isn't the solution for fixed wireless in large Metro populated areas. Granted people that use little data can survive now using their phones for internet and those people will have a lot more data coming soon. Sometimes I wonder what I was thinking buying a Ultra 4K TV.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    70
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by shilohcane View Post
    Thanks for adding some insight. Agree 100% if T-Mobile follows the same status quo as all the other OTT TV services nothing will change and whatever they rename Layer 3 will fall to the sideline. However, that isn't the way John Legere became disruptive to AT&T, Verizon and Sprint that changed the way all four networks do business that drastically lowered cost and improved all the mobile consumers market place.

    John Legere promised to become the Uncarrier of the TV distribution and shake things up by being disruptive of the other players. That won't happen if T-Mobile plays the Status quo on the current TV distribution business. Al Carte TV where someone can buy the few channels they watch would be the most intelligent way be disruptive because I don't need hundreds of channels. However the most disruptive thing John Legere can do to the cable companies is provide home fixed wireless broadband. Both AT&T and Verizon are planing on 5G NR fixed wireless broadband in selective markets this year.

    If anyone been paying attention AT&T's real enemy in competition isn't T-Mobile, it is Comcast that is attacking AT&T with their Liars Group TV Advertisement claiming only 10% of AT&T Directv customers can get the 50 Mbs speed that AT&T contracted to provide over the internet. Top that off with both Comcast & Charter are going into the mobile cell phone business as a MVNO from Verizon and their own hybrid Hotspots.

    Comcast knows that both AT&T and Verizon are coming with Fixed Wireless and 5G and want to damage the AT&T brand before it is available. In the Metro areas where AT&T and Verizon can afford to build out their mmWave spectrum with 5G NR is going to damage the cable companies. Even without T-Mobile getting involve via OTT TV service there is a major price battle coming to the TV industry.
    I must be part of that 10%. I have the Fiber 1,000mbps plan from AT&T. Listening to Comcast is like listening to a drug dealer tell you Coke is safe. Name:  IMG_0315.jpg
Views: 174
Size:  30.5 KB

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,923
    Carrier(s)
    TMobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jtrell89 View Post
    I must be part of that 10%. I have the Fiber 1,000mbps plan from AT&T. Listening to Comcast is like listening to a drug dealer tell you Coke is safe. Name:  IMG_0315.jpg
Views: 174
Size:  30.5 KB
    How well is that working out? Is it pretty reliable?

    I think TMobile is in a real bind with their tv plans (currently). As time passes it seems like they have less chance of making it competitive compared to what the competition is coming up with. Reports have stated that TMobile will struggle to bring in anything even at 50 a month and couldn't keep that long term. With what att is doing I see a tough road unless they come up with something

    TMobile keeps waiting on their tv plans while others are making moves.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    4,545
    Device(s)
    S9
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by themanhimself View Post

    I think TMobile is in a real bind with their tv plans (currently). As time passes it seems like they have less chance of making it competitive compared to what the competition is coming up with. Reports have stated that TMobile will struggle to bring in anything even at 50 a month and couldn't keep that long term. With what att is doing I see a tough road unless they come up with something

    TMobile keeps waiting on their tv plans while others are making moves.
    As Danny said T-Mobile TV must be completely different than how everyone else does it today to be disruptive. John Legere said he is going to pull the Uncarrier on the TV distribution market and disrupt them. Al Carte TV paying for only the channels you want to watch is one way to be disrupted. Another disruptive idea is using Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) that provides wireless internet to a home router is major disruptive idea where T-Mobile could sell discounted TV streaming. TV is moving towards the Internet and Netflix, Hulu, YouTube TV and Amazon are all proving scripted TV shows to compete with the ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox that most people can get free with OTA.

    I have friends that have Sling TV but they still have to buy the internet access from Comcast to get Sling. My daughter's family only has home internet from the cable company and uses a OTA TV but streams ESPN for sports. After 5G NR there will be much more capacity to for Advanced Wireless Services (AWS). The only reason I have Comcast cable today is I need Internet. Bottom line is the real market is AWS and TV is just a discounted give away for basic TV service but adding Al Carte TV will be very disruptive to the cable companies.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,923
    Carrier(s)
    TMobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by shilohcane View Post
    As Danny said T-Mobile TV must be completely different than how everyone else does it today to be disruptive. John Legere said he is going to pull the Uncarrier on the TV distribution market and disrupt them. Al Carte TV paying for only the channels you want to watch is one way to be disrupted. Another disruptive idea is using Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) that provides wireless internet to a home router is major disruptive idea where T-Mobile could sell discounted TV streaming. TV is moving towards the Internet and Netflix, Hulu, YouTube TV and Amazon are all proving scripted TV shows to compete with the ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox that most people can get free with OTA.

    I have friends that have Sling TV but they still have to buy the internet access from Comcast to get Sling. My daughter's family only has home internet from the cable company and uses a OTA TV but streams ESPN for sports. After 5G NR there will be much more capacity to for Advanced Wireless Services (AWS). The only reason I have Comcast cable today is I need Internet. Bottom line is the real market is AWS and TV is just a discounted give away for basic TV service but adding Al Carte TV will be very disruptive.
    I think in the long run TMobile will have something competitive but I'm guessing it may take longer than they originally planned.

    I'm hoping they treat the tv stuff and pump in some uncarrier just like they did with wireless. If that happens things could go well for TMobile

    I'm hoping the sprint deal passes also
    Last edited by themanhimself; 06-24-2018 at 09:13 AM.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    4,545
    Device(s)
    S9
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by themanhimself View Post
    I think in the long run TMobile will have something competitive but I'm guessing it may take longer than they originally planned.

    I'm hoping the sprint deal passes also
    I expect T-Mobile to run something like Starry then T-Mobile TV could sell a discounted TV Al Carte. I was a big fan of Aereo TV and it's co-founder Chaitanya “Chet” Kanojia. If Chet thinks he can do mmWave as Advanced Wireless Service (AWS) in Boston, LA, Miami... etc then he can make it happen. It took the that the Supreme Court shut down Aereo TV that was was converting local OTA networks to the internet for like $10 a month but he wasn't giving the local TV networks a penny. The Supreme Court ruled his renting everyone two TV antennas to pick up local OTA broadcast that were free that he connected to the internet was stealing network content and shut down Aereo TV.


    " Starry uses local antennas to beam internet directly using millimeter wave band technology — the same short-range, high-speed frequency range that 5G technology will be relying on, although Starry predates the formal 5G standard and isn’t technically 5G. For now, the company is only promising 200 Mbps download speeds, but the ultimate goal is for Starry to deliver gigabit speeds completely over the air.

    Starry, founded in 2016 by Aereo co-founder Chaitanya “Chet” Kanojia, sells its service for $50 a month, a price that includes the company’s Starry Station Wi-Fi hub / router, with no contracts or data caps. In addition to LA and DC, Starry is also hoping to offer service in over a dozen markets later this year, including New York, Cleveland, Chicago, Houston, Dallas, Denver, Seattle, Detroit, Atlanta, Indianapolis, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Miami, and Minneapolis."
    Boston startup Starry expands its wireless broadband beta service to LA and DC


    Aereo Loses at Supreme Court, in Victory for TV Broadcasters
    Last edited by shilohcane; 06-24-2018 at 09:44 AM.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    1,507
    Device(s)
    Samsung Galaxy S9
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by shilohcane View Post
    As Danny said T-Mobile TV must be completely different than how everyone else does it today to be disruptive. John Legere said he is going to pull the Uncarrier on the TV distribution market and disrupt them. Al Carte TV paying for only the channels you want to watch is one way to be disrupted. Another disruptive idea is using Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) that provides wireless internet to a home router is major disruptive idea where T-Mobile could sell discounted TV streaming. TV is moving towards the Internet and Netflix, Hulu, YouTube TV and Amazon are all proving scripted TV shows to compete with the ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox that most people can get free with OTA.

    I have friends that have Sling TV but they still have to buy the internet access from Comcast to get Sling. My daughter's family only has home internet from the cable company and uses a OTA TV but streams ESPN for sports. After 5G NR there will be much more capacity to for Advanced Wireless Services (AWS). The only reason I have Comcast cable today is I need Internet. Bottom line is the real market is AWS and TV is just a discounted give away for basic TV service but adding Al Carte TV will be very disruptive to the cable companies.
    The way this is worded is a little confusing. So is the idea that they're planning on repurposing some of their B4/B66 AWS holdings for wireless internet on top of B71 or is the term Advanced Wireless Services being used in another way?

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-19-2004, 11:18 AM
  2. TV Phone By Samsung / Why Can't SE DO IT??
    By fbakirdan in forum UIQ
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-12-2003, 03:05 PM
  3. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12-15-2002, 03:40 PM
  4. Is T-Mobile still being bought by Cingular?
    By crashx22 in forum T-Mobile
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-15-2002, 03:07 PM
  5. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-14-2002, 03:35 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks