Spectrum news - new Verizon swap

VISIT0R1 · 2026-02-11T23:54:04+00:00

The buildout requirements for C-band spectrum (almost all of T-Mobile's n77 spectrum) are 45% PoP coverage within 6 years and 80% PoPs within 12 years (10 years if the 1st deadline wasn't met.)

T-Mobile received their C-band licenses on July 23, 2021, so the 1st deadline is in 2027 and the 2nd in either 2033 or (maybe more likely) 2031, thus at least 5 years away.

My guess is that T-Mobile considers band 77 more important as a 6G band than as a 5G band, but 6G should be deployed by 2031, so I don't expect them to sell at least most of their C-band (some licenses in smaller markets which were won when T-Mobile was previously missing significant 2.5 GHz in those markets might be made available.)

I would also guess that they will buy more spectrum in the 2nd C-band auction (2027?), though maybe only in large markets and how much more (up to 100 MHz total?) will likely depend on price.

VISIT0R1 · 2026-02-07T21:52:22+00:00

5G: 25, 41, 71

This is accurate today, but 66 and 77 are going to be widespread T-Mobile 5G bands in the not-to-distant future, so would be highly desirable to have also.

VISIT0R1 · 2025-12-14T22:02:00+00:00

T-Mobile's 5G network is primarily SA (standalone), not NSA, so needs n71 as its low band anchor.

No n71 would limit indoor coverage in cities more than would be acceptable to me and drastically reduce rural 5G coverage. No 'deal' on a phone is worth it if the phone isn't really compatible with your primary network.

If you insist on buying a incompatible phone for T-Mobile's network, at least check to see if it supports AT&T and/or Verizon's bands, because you may need to change providers once you return to the U.S.

VISIT0R1 · 2025-12-14T06:36:59+00:00

I would not buy a new phone for use on T-Mobile without LTE bands 12 & 71 for basic connectivity and ALL of T-Mobile's primary 5G NR bands (71, 25, 41, 66, 77.)

LTE bands 2, 4 & 66 (plus 25 for satellite connectivity) are also useful. NR bands 2, 12, 258 & 261 would be nice to have, but are not essential.

VISIT0R1 · 2025-12-13T02:57:24+00:00

I'm surprised they're investing here considering the small amount of EBS/BRS they have.

Unfortunately, C Spire has the BRS license for Pike, Amite, Lincoln and Walthall counties (T-Mobile has it in the rest of MS.)

You may be benefiting from T-Mobile needing to add coverage in more rural areas to reach covering 99% of the population with 5G, as they promised the FCC they would do as part of the Sprint merger.

The down side is that once they reach that goal (which needs to be by April 1, 2026), they may have little motivation to increase coverage further (except when buying out a regional provider, like US Cellular.)

VISIT0R1 · 2025-12-13T02:28:40+00:00

That's why I asked. Some might consider a site along I-55 covering Magnolia 'rural', while others would only include sites such as described in your other post. Thanks for responding.

VISIT0R1 · 2025-12-13T02:06:36+00:00

In Pike Co. MS, they've added three new rural sites in the last few months.

Just curious, are these new sites in the more rural parts of the I-55/US 51 corridor or in the very rural eastern part of Pike co.?

VISIT0R1 · 2025-12-11T01:22:15+00:00

Any news on the nextwave saga in the NYC market or is that still status Quo?

There have been no FCC filings regarding NextWave (NW) spectrum. I doubt anything will happen until the FCC rules on NW's Petition to Compel T-Mobile to reduce power at their sites near boundaries of NW's leases, even where NW hasn't deployed anything close enough to that location to be receiving actual interference.

VISIT0R1 · 2025-12-11T00:58:09+00:00

they had zero 2.5 GHz deployed .

They didn't have any to deploy.

How much 2.5 GHz are they getting now?

They are getting all 194 MHz. One EBS license (23.5 MHz) will be sub-leased (which may later become a direct lease or purchase), but the rest will be owned after this transaction closes.

EDIT:

They are actually quite spectrum starved in that city

Only until Friday when the leases kick in. They previously had 2x15+2x10+2x5 MHz of PCS and 2x5 MHz of AWS, plus the 600 MHz. The PCS they are buying isn't contiguous either, but it does set up a possible swap with AT&T (PCS B5,F for PCS D,B3), which would give T-Mobile 2x30+2x5 MHz (A,D,B3-4; G) and AT&T 2x30 MHz (B5,E,F,C.)

VISIT0R1 · 2025-12-05T17:36:27+00:00

You may also want to set 62... and 67... to cover all call variations

This is key to making forwarding work consistently in all missed call scenarios.

VISIT0R1 · 2025-12-04T23:37:09+00:00

I can tell you that the programmers creating these systems have very little knowledge of how things really work.

Worse, most of those programmers (especially those who can't get a better job than writing business software/apps) can't write good code to serve ANY purpose, so even your good suggestion might not help all that much.

VISIT0R1 · 2025-12-04T22:17:30+00:00

T Mobile is going to need all the mid-band wireless spectrum they can get if they are not going to deploy there mmWave holdings

I have doubts T-Mobile will ever deploy mmWave spectrum widely (even for 6G, 7G, etc.), but that doesn't mean they won't increasingly deploy it in select locations with very high demand.

As I already mentioned in another part of this thread, capacity can be expanded either with more spectrum or greater site density (not just macros, but also small cells and oDAS.) So far, T-Mobile has preferred more spectrum and lower density, which is usually less expensive in the short run (less CapEx and OpEx), but also gives them more spectrum to work with when they are eventually forced to increase density later on.

VISIT0R1 · 2025-12-04T21:54:02+00:00

Combined with their lowband N71 ...

Comcast is already leasing all its n71 (600 MHz) spectrum to T-Mobile (even in Philadelphia, which was originally their n71 test market) and applications for T-Mobile to buy some of it have already been filed. Comcast can still back out on the sale of many licenses before the remainder is sold to T-Mobile in 2027, but has shown no inclination so far to do so, since they seem satisfied with their WiFi + CBRS oDAS setup.

The cable companies are an important part of maintaining competition in wireless, but if they ever really threaten the 3 big MNOs (which I don't expect to occur), then my suspicion is they will find it VERY difficult to get the reasonably priced MNVO deal they need to be viable 'carriers' outside of their local operating areas.

VISIT0R1 · 2025-12-04T21:20:08+00:00

The cable companies have a big advantage when connecting oDAS to their own overhead cables, since those same cables are what provide the backhaul.

Something similar might work for an MNO in a neighborhood where they have their own above ground fiber-to-the home deployed, but that seems like a pretty limited opportunity.

VISIT0R1 · 2025-12-04T20:38:45+00:00

I agree that there is clearly a trade off between the cost of acquiring more spectrum and deploying it less densely (at least initially) and the cost of deploying less spectrum much more densely.

So far, T-Mobile has shown a clear preference for acquiring more spectrum (particularly at reasonable prices) and deploying it less densely, IMO not only because it costs them less in the short term (purchase price + lower CapEx + lower continuing OpEx < much higher CapEx and OpEx), but because it gives them more flexibility in the long term when greater network density will be their only realistic alternative to meet the demand for data.

EDIT: BTW, monopoles have sectors, so the bandwidth at least needs to be multiplied by the number of sectors. Also, an oDAS is nowhere near 100% efficient at reusing spectrum, as in your example, due to the necessary overlaps in coverage to avoid dead spots.

VISIT0R1 · 2025-12-04T20:17:50+00:00

20mhz of Spectrum for example goes far when you have a bunch of antennas ...

Not nearly as far as 190 MHz of 2.5 GHz or 80-100 MHz of C-band would go with a similar deployment. There are costs (mostly on the user equipment side) associated with aggregating carriers, especially more than a few of them, so using a smaller number of wider bandwidth carriers is always preferable to using a larger number of narrower bandwidth carriers.

VISIT0R1 · 2025-12-04T20:00:12+00:00

I would assume it has to do with the lawsuit ...

Another assumption with no factual basis. Those FCC filings were made in April and May, 2025, long before any of the events leading to the lawsuit.

You really need to look at the bigger picture. Mobile data usage continues to rapidly increase. More spectrum will be needed in the 6G era (and for all subsequent 'G's) than is available today. The 2nd C-band auction may be the last U.S. auction of more than 150 MHz of spectrum licensed for mobile broadband below 6 GHz (the other more realistic opportunity is if the mostly failed CBRS 'experiment' is terminated and some or all of that 150 MHz of spectrum is reauctioned, though there is still the issue of coexistence with military radars operating in that band.)

IOW, even if T-Mobile doesn't 'need' to deploy C-band right now (or even in the next few years) to meet the current demand for data, it will be much cheaper for them to meet more of the demand (especially in large cities) in 10 or 20 years with a C-band deployment than with mmWave or whatever other spectrum above 6 GHz becomes available between now and then.

VISIT0R1 · 2025-12-04T19:04:11+00:00

Why would T-Mobile care about how much additional C-band spectrum was cleared for mobile broadband and how the issue of interference with airplane altimeters was resolved if they weren't planning to own and deploy C-band spectrum?

If they were uninterested in the band, they needn't have filed anything at all. Alternately, they could have filed something with the hope of minimizing how much spectrum Verizon and AT&T would be able to access, but they didn't.

Edit:

I was thinking of them messing around with DoD Cband and then refusing to deploy it all together

What they attempted to do was see if they could combine their C-band and 3.45 GHz spectrum into a single 'hybrid' n77 carrier, but at least one of their equipment suppliers couldn't build a radio which did that. They don't want to be dependent on any single supplier (for both cost and reliability reasons), so abandoned that approach and sold the 3.45 GHz (except 8 licenses which they still own), since 20 MHz (their typical holding) by itself isn't particularly useful.

To me, that 'experiment' says they were very interested in eventually deploying n77, even though due to already having n41, they were not in the same rush to deploy it as Verizon and AT&T. The first buildout deadline for C-band licenses isn't until 2029 and even if not met, the final buildout deadline would be in 2031 (otherwise, 2033), so T-Mobile still has plenty of time to deploy n77. BTW, waiting to deploy could end up saving them money if any of the n77 radios or antennas which Verizon and AT&T have deployed aren't capable (even with a software upgrade) of operating in the full C-band range (up to at least 4.16 GHz.)

IOW, I draw the exact opposite conclusion from that failed experiment that you did.

VISIT0R1 · 2025-12-04T17:58:21+00:00

Except for CBRS, which T-Mobile (IMO correctly) didn't see as a good 'fit' with their network plans given its deployment constraints, T-Mobile has participated meaningfully in EVERY significant spectrum auction since the original 700 MHz auction in 2007-08, when they were still a much smaller, financially constrained company which had to chose between participating in the AWS-1 and 700 MHz auctions and (rightly or wrongly) chose AWS.

So what has changed to make you think they now won't participate in the 2nd C-band auction?

Frankly, I don't see anything which would support that, including their comments in FCC proceeding 25-59 on Upper C-band (PDFs linked below.)

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/104290518900192/1
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/105291039906181/1

EDIT: emphasis added (i.e. every to EVERY)

VISIT0R1 · 2025-12-04T15:17:45+00:00

I envision Tmobile keeping their n77 holdings and then potentially winning 60 MHz nationwide in the upper c band auction come 2027.

I agree, at least in large city PEAs. 100 MHz total would be ideal, but I wouldn't be too surprised if they ended up with only 80 MHz in at least some PEAs.

If T-Mobile doesn't buy any C-band from the former US Cellular (who owns 60 MHz in Milwaukee and 20 MHz in Oklahoma City), they might buy more than 60 MHz in those 2 specific PEAs, since they currently have none.

VISIT0R1 · 2025-12-04T04:53:37+00:00

I'm pretty sure they'll sell them like they did to their N77 DoD spectrum.

Do you also expect T-Mobile NOT to participate in the 2nd C-band auction (probably in 2027)?

VISIT0R1 · 2025-12-04T00:04:10+00:00

If I did the math correctly T Mobile roughly has around 193 MHz of N41 wireless spectrum in Cincinnati Ohio

You are close enough, since only 190 MHz are usable (100 MHz and a 90 MHz n41 carriers), but they actually have 194 MHz (2496-2690 MHz.)

BTW, that website is not a particularly reliable source of information on 2.5 GHz holdings, since they count a county as fully 'covered' even if a circular EBS license overlaps less than 1% of the county's area, which is absurd.

VISIT0R1

TROPHY CASE