T-Mobile adds 1.2 million!!!

[Janus]

T-Mobile USA is growing very fast indeed! they added 1.2 million customers in the first quarter alone and now have 14.3 million customers. I am still of the opinion that T-Mobile should aim to supersede Sprint by acquiring some smaller carriers like Dobson and continue to grow this fast!

check out this link!

[larry]

That's pretty much the only way most carriers can and have superseded Sprint. Sprint has done everything alone to get where they are (and please, nobody bring up the affiliate thing again because they are part of Sprint and count the exact same).

[jayc]

Originally Posted by larry That's pretty much the only way most carriers can and have superseded Sprint. Sprint has done everything alone to get where they are (and please, nobody bring up the affiliate thing again because they are part of Sprint and count the exact same).

Now if only T-mobile was profitable... they aren't going to be aquiring anybody anytime soon.

As for the affiliate thing... I've only said that because that was given as a reason why their coverage is so poor here so I felt it was only fair to seperate the two.

It is horizon's responsibility to maintain the network here... right?

[bobolito]

I bet Matt is happy...

1.174 Million new subs.....better than Sprint!

[Matt]

Here are the complete results for only TM USA here:

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/040513/126030_1.html

As for profitability, that won't affect whether or not they buy someone at all.

Larry - Affiliate discussion matters if you are talking about anything financial except subscriber figures. There is no question about that - they are different companies. In my opinion, subscriber figures can be stated either way, as long as they are accurately noted as with or without affiliate.

TM churn was down slightly, ARPU up slightly, and they added 770 cell sites in the quarter - more than 8 every day!

[Matt]

bobolito - LOL. I hadn't seen your post when I began my reply. A record number of adds for TM USA; the third or 4th time they've topped a million. I haven't had a chance to review the numbers yet, but the net loss down to $150 M is good, they spent the most ever in capital expenditures and did not expand their covered POPs for the 5th quarter in a row. Substantially ALL of the money is being poured into improving the existing network.

[Matt]

This other article was interesting too for the part I'll quote:

http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/040513/telec...mobile_2.html3

T-Mobile also says it is winning customers by converting users of its Wi-Fi short range high-speed Internet service in cafes and bookstores to its wireless calling plans. At least 30 percent of its Wi-Fi users have signed up for wireless phone accounts, one official said recently.

[ComicalMoodyDan]

All carriers seem to have done well this quarter except AT&T Wireless. I just read that on ALLTEL's website they added a impressive 737,000 gross wireless customer additions this quarter and Post-pay wireless churn improved to 1.93 percent.

Those are pretty impressive numbers for a company the size of ALLTEL. They now appear to have over 8 million customers and are the holding stronge as the Nation's 7th largest wireless provider.

[Matt]

Gross additions don't account for churn though. They did add 158K net, which they said was their best in 5 years.

[larry]

Originally Posted by jayc Now if only T-mobile was profitable... they aren't going to be aquiring anybody anytime soon. As for the affiliate thing... I've only said that because that was given as a reason why their coverage is so poor here so I felt it was only fair to seperate the two. It is horizon's responsibility to maintain the network here... right?

Yes unfortunately it is Horizon's responsibilty to maintain the network (I wish Sprint would go ahead and just buy them out) But Horizon is operating under Sprint's licenses and offering Sprint service so they are still part of Sprint.

[bobolito]

Originally Posted by Matt ....they spent the most ever in capital expenditures and did not expand their covered POPs for the 5th quarter in a row. Substantially ALL of the money is being poured into improving the existing network.

It's good to see that they are finally prioritizing quality over quantity. It was about time. That's the only way they will be able to lower their churn and accelerate growth.

[Matt]

Well, "finally" means all of 2003 and 2004 so far. I was just highlighting the trend continuing. It just takes a bit of time to see the improvements They have added over 4000 cell sites since the beginning of 2003.

[Bugwart]

With T Mo and Verizon growing quickly at AT&T's expense, I wonder what is going to be left for Cingular to merge with?

[agentHibby]

Originally Posted by Janus T-Mobile USA is growing very fast indeed! they added 1.2 million customers in the first quarter alone and now have 14.3 million customers. I am still of the opinion that T-Mobile should aim to supersede Sprint by acquiring some smaller carriers like Dobson and continue to grow this fast! check out this link!

I don't think T-mobile wants Cellular??
I think they would only buy PCS companies. They don't have many they could buy.
I could be wrong
Are there any phones that T-mobile sells that can use GSM on Cellular??

[agentHibby]

Originally Posted by Bugwart With T Mo and Verizon growing quickly at AT&T's expense, I wonder what is going to be left for Cingular to merge with?

They will be merging with this

[larry]

What's T-Mobile's ARPU? (I'm sure Matt will give me a quick answer )

[ComicalMoodyDan]

T-Mobile needs to buy out SunCom Wireless

[WirelessBeachBum]

That would be a good fit, of course it would also eliminate one of my competitors, since T-Mobile and Suncom both have coverage in my area...I'm all for it. It would give T-mobile Carolina's coverage that they are currently using with Cingular....

[Matt]

Originally Posted by larry What's T-Mobile's ARPU? (I'm sure Matt will give me a quick answer )

$54 in Q1 04, up from $53 in Q4 03, and $50 in Q1 03. They benefitted beginning in March from the 86 cent cost recovery fee they began to implement.

Data services now are nearly 5% of service revenues.

IIRC, the APRU rankings are:

Nextel
Sprint
AT&T
TM
Cingular
Verizon

I might have the bottom 2 reversed, but I know TM is ahead of both. AT&T lost about 5% on ARPU this quarter, now below $60 - about $58 I think.

[agentHibby]

VerizonWireless wants to be #1 in ARPU
do you see this happening?? I don't see that any time soon.
If they did for $7 off peak at starts at 7 they could move up in ARPU

[Bugwart]

Originally Posted by agentHibby VerizonWireless wants to be #1 in ARPU do you see this happening?? I don't see that any time soon. If they did for $7 off peak at starts at 7 they could move up in ARPU

If I am not mistaken, the ARPU figures lag subcriber figures. I do not think that the effect of LNP churn is reflected in the ARPU, at least not yet.

ARPU increases are good, but only if a provider's subscriber base is relatively stable. You need to look at the total picture. If AT&T lost only low paying subs through LNP, their ARPU will increase. However with fewer subs, they will have less revenue to cover their fixed costs. AT&T's financials may look worse even with an increase in ARPU.

[bobolito]

Originally Posted by Matt Well, "finally" means all of 2003 and 2004 so far. I was just highlighting the trend continuing. It just takes a bit of time to see the improvements They have added over 4000 cell sites since the beginning of 2003.

Wow! 4000 cell sites. PCS networks really need a lot of investments to become better. Imagine if those 4000 cell sites were 850Mhz! That would cover so much more.

BTW, I am surprised T-Mo has higher ARPU than VZW since T-Mo is the cheapest of all and VZ the most expensive.
__________________

[Matt]

Verizon has been at the bottom of the ARPU charts, around $50 give or take, for some time. They are a long way from #1 in ARPU - they would have to increase their ARPU by 40% (approx $20) to match Nextel.

Bugwart - ARPU is generally defined as total service revenues for the quarter divided by the average number of customers for the quarter. So, LNP changes would be taken into effect. AT&T must have lost some high paying customers as well, as IIRC (from memory) AT&T ARPU was down about $2.80 or so.

bobolito - TM has somewhere around 27,000 cell sites now after Q1. TM ARPU has been rising over the past year, up $4. Something like 40% (again, from memory) of customers have some sort of add-on (minimum $2.99 SMS), and almost 5% of their total revenue is now data, double the percentage from last year. 12% of my bill before taxes etc is data, and that's only the cheaper t-zones plans.

[Matt]

Verizon's Q1 ARPU was $48, up 1.8% YOY. Part of that is that VZ users use their phones less than most. Their monthly MOU was 531 (up from 402 YOY) but the TM number is 817 for Q1. Of course, part of the higer MOU for TM is that you get more minutes for your money compared to VZ

[GoodmanR]

Originally Posted by Bugwart If I am not mistaken, the ARPU figures lag subcriber figures. I do not think that the effect of LNP churn is reflected in the ARPU, at least not yet. ARPU increases are good, but only if a provider's subscriber base is relatively stable. You need to look at the total picture. If AT&T lost only low paying subs through LNP, their ARPU will increase. However with fewer subs, they will have less revenue to cover their fixed costs. AT&T's financials may look worse even with an increase in ARPU.

LNP churn has been virtually zero. Churn rates across the board have not really increased.

[larry]

Originally Posted by bobolito Wow! 4000 cell sites. PCS networks really need a lot of investments to become better. Imagine if those 4000 cell sites were 850Mhz! That would cover so much more. BTW, I am surprised T-Mo has higher ARPU than VZW since T-Mo is the cheapest of all and VZ the most expensive. __________________

Isn't it true that GSM carriers typically need many more cell sites to cover an area because the sites aren't quite as efficient as CDMA sites are? A good example of that is here in CA where Cingular/T-Mobile are still having capacity trouble even though they've added hundreds and hundreds of new sites which are very close together. It's pretty amazing what they have had to do. They'l build one new cell site and 3 months later another will go up just 1/4 mile away! CDMA carriers on the other hand would virtually never need to put 2 cell sites 1/4 mile apart.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Rock T-Mo has to be profitable before they even think of buying another company. I don't see profit coming anytime soon though.

Is that your opinion? It's certainly not a fact. A company that is losing money can just pay for the purchase with shares of stock. In T-Mobile's case, their parent, Deutsche Telekom would technically be doing the buying anyway, and they are profitable. As for TM USA's profit chances, sometime this year most likely.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by larry Isn't it true that GSM carriers typically need many more cell sites to cover an area because the sites aren't quite as efficient as CDMA sites are? A good example of that is here in CA where Cingular/T-Mobile are still having capacity trouble even though they've added hundreds and hundreds of new sites which are very close together. It's pretty amazing what they have had to do. They'l build one new cell site and 3 months later another will go up just 1/4 mile away! CDMA carriers on the other hand would virtually never need to put 2 cell sites 1/4 mile apart.

The efficiency is mostly on the capacity side as opposed to distance I believe. So, it may have an effect, but not as much as the 1900 vs 800 issue IMO. I don't know much about the cell sites out west except that they are much, much shorter than the ones I've seen on the East coast.

[bobolito]

I don't think GSM carriers need more towers. Sprint has more towers than T-Mobile in my town. In almost every other place I visit, usually T-Mobile and Sprint sites are on the same tower or very close together. Therefore, they have about the same coverage here with Sprint being somewhat better. But then again, Sprint has more towers. I guess that depends on which of the two has more customers in a particular area. For what I've seen, Sprint is VERY popular in NJ/NYC.

[larry]

Yeah but the point I was trying to make is that GSM cell sites typically have less capacity available to them than CDMA sites do. I've been reading this on various forums and wireless web sites for years. So in large cities where heavy usage occurs T-Mobile would need more sites to cover the same area than Sprint would (because of capacity restraints). That could explain why they are adding more new sites than other carriers are.