03-13-2014 11:59 PM - edited 03-14-2014 1:12 AM
For those who didn't know in July, 2013, AT&T purchased leap wireless (better known as: Cricket), pending approval from the FCC. It just got approved today by the FCC. Now what did AT&T gain? A few things: The acquisition includes 4.6 million customers, as well as spectrum, more towers, network equipment, and other assets, all of which will be transferred from Leap wireless to AT&T.
Wait a minute, is AT&T now officially the #1 largest carrier both network and customer wise? AT&T just got a whole lot more spectrum and towers from this deal. Network wise, both AT&T and Verizon where already super close to begin with, but Crickets towers alone covered 97 million people. AT&T now owns all those extra Cricket towers, and is suppose to convert them over to AT&T GSM usage, so AT&T after this should have more towers than Verizon. Also, Leap's spectrum covered 137 million people in both PCS and AWS band, and now AT&T owns that too, giving AT&T more spectrum. Wouldn't that now make AT&T officially larger network wise than Verizon? Or am I missing something?
One article reads: "Leap's spectrum holdings, which land in the PCS and AWS bands covering 137 million people, now purchased by AT&T. In all, Leap wirless (Cricket) owns AWS spectrum in 100 markets, spectrum that AT&T can turn into extra LTE capacity relatively quickly." AT&T purchase of Cricket is now making room for high-capacity "20x20" LTE in the future as customer data demands grow"
NOW my question is: will they use this extra spectrum and towers to benefit us AT&T customers? Cricket customers are benefiting HEAVILY from this, as Cricket customers will have access to AT&T 4G network, after the CDMA to GSM conversion is complete... But are us current AT&T customers going to benefit at all from this? Is AT&T going to use all those EXTRA towers they got from Cricket, and all that EXTRA spectrum they got to IMPROVE the AT&T network? If you think about it, Cricket had to have thousands of towers to cover 100 million people, as Cricket wasn't as small as some thing it was a nation-wide carrier. That means AT&T just gained thousands of extra towers in this deal, in addition to lots of extra spectrum. I really hope AT&T turns around and INVESTS this into their NETWORK, because if they did AT&T would literally become the king of all wireless carriers.
NOW... Who here thinks this will greatly benefit us AT&T customers?? Or do you guys think that AT&T is simply going to "sit on it" and be stupid and not really do anything with the extra towers and extra spectrum?
03-14-2014 5:23 AM - edited 03-14-2014 5:25 AM
The Leap aquisition isn't going to make AT&T's network larger. It will increase their spectrum depth for better capacity in the Leap regions for both AT&T customers and Leap to AT&T converts.
AT&T already owns more towers than Verizon, even prior to the Leap aquisition. The number of towers they own doesn't necessarily equate to a physically larger network.
03-14-2014 2:47 PM
Are you sure about the towers? Yeah, I know that they gained PCS AND AWS spectrum bands, and AWS spectrum was in 100 different markets (that's a lot of markets to use turn around and use that spectrum to improve LTE, etc)... But I heard they gained "towers, tower equipment, etc from Crickets network, which AT&T will turn around and convert those CDMA Cricket towers over to AT&T GSM network"
-- so that right there, if I'm reading correctly, is saying AT&T is about to take "natitive Cricket towers" and turn them into AT&T GSM towers --- which means AT&T is about to gain all those extra Cricket towers. That's a lot of towers. Cricket's network covered nearly 100 million people with it's network, and now that network is being converted from CDMA to GSM, and the towers converted over to AT&T, from what I read. If this is correct, AT&T should be now larger than Verizon, since they where nearly "tied" to begin with, this new merge should make AT&T officially the largest network
Also, I didn't know AT&T already had more towers. Do you know of any link that says that? I searched many times but can't find anything. I know number of towers doesn't always mean larger network, but in this case it very well could, assuming AT&T gained a large number of towers and spectrum.
03-27-2014 3:53 PM