While we all wait for the FCC to approve the spectrum transfer that's a result of AT&T's failed bid to purchase T-Mobile, GigaOM has posted a map created by reader Andrew Shepherd of exactly where that spectrum will be. AT&T dropped large blocks in California, Arizona, and the Seattle area, Shepherd found, but also understandably made sure to keep enough spectrum in key areas to ensure its LTE network wouldn't be significantly hurt. If you're a T-Mobile customer in one of the highlighted areas, you should hopefully see improved service in the not-too-distant future. It all adds up to $1 billion worth of spectrum, which is in addition to $3 billion in cash and a seven-year roaming agreement.
T-Mobile's new spectrum: a map of what AT&T is giving up

There are 49 Comments. Add yours.
We get free upgrades, thanks AT&T -.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 11:06 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Damn. That’s all that $1 BILLION of spectrum is?
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 11:08 PM EST reply Recommend (9) Flag actions
Yeah, spectrum is expensive. Infrastructure is the major cost to cell companies. The bills aren’t all JUST for lining the CEO’s pockets :P.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 1:23 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I don’t really understand what this means. if AWS operates on 1700mhz what does at&t giving up 10mhz or 20mhz mean? Does that mean adjacent frequencies up to 20mhz (1680-1720) are free of non-t-mobile traffic which means less interferance?
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 11:11 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
So this is how this works… The FREQUENCY is 1700/2100Mhz PAIRED. The MHZ for the Spectrum is how much POWER or bandwidth, or “lanes of traffic out of 100” are allowed to be used for a particular carrier.
For instance, in San Francisco, where I live, T-Mobile held roughly 33% of all spectrum in multiple frequencies, meaning that they own 1/3 of all lanes of wireless traffic available (doesnt mean they open them all up), AT&T giving T-Mobile 10Mhz or 20Mhz means that AT&T gives up 10 or 20 lanes of traffic over to T-Mobile, and no longer can drive on that freeway of frequencies, in this case, 1700/2100Mhz (also known as AWS freeway). AT&T however has enough 700Mhz freeway that it doesnt matter, but in other cities like Chicago, AT&T has none of it yet, and has to rely on keeping their 10 or 20 lanes of freeway on the AWS.
Where it gets more complex is that now, T-Mobile combined with the AWS freeway, and the PCS freeway (1900Mhz) they already own, plus the new addition of extra lanes on the AWS freeway, mean that total amount of lanes across all different types of freeways T-Mobile owns is now between 60 and 80 lanes out of about 200 total for instance.
What that means is that T-Mobile has quite a few lanes to put its very small customer base on, that means SPEED. It means that T-Mobile can offer (but may not) its customers to drive either at Bahn speeds (German pun in there for the German company), or it may offer above average speeds with a little more traffic because its holding extra lanes for construction for the future, or it may mean in most areas they will free up all lanes, put everyone on, then reconstruct their other lanes on the PCS highway, and eventually pair them all up so you can drive fast on any lane any highway.
I hope that makes sense.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 11:26 AM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
Yes I understand everything. Thank you.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 2:59 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
That’s a very good description. For anyone that doesn’t understand frequencies and how they work in relation to the cell carriers, Willie’s post is by far the easiest to follow.
Let me add to that. Tmobile uses 1700/2100 paired frequencies. That means, that they have freeway traffic going one direction (1700), and the reverse happening (2100).
Also, lower frequencies have better signal penetration. Think of the freeways as if they are on top of each other. The lower number ones are closer to ground level, and will penetrate to bigger vasts of population more easily. The higher ones have to stretch harder to connect people on ground level, hence penetration.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 7:27 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
YES. I go to school in northern MN and I’ve had to deal with 2g data up until now.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 11:12 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
T-Mobile really works hard to have coverage in Minnesota. I’m sure they will implement this as quickly as they can.
It seems like up until now, Verizon was the only way to get great coverage up there.
Definitely important for all the people who live up there and also those who travel north many weekends all summer!
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 9:42 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Looks like t-mobile is going to be huge in detroit.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 11:13 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That 20mhz block is the Portland area, not Seattle. Anyway, sweet!
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 11:20 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
woot, WA service.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 11:22 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Sooo is this reason enough to opt out of my AT&T contract? I’m in one of the areas AT&T is giving up.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 11:29 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
AT&T will probably retain roaming agreements with T-Mobile. I wouldn’t worry about losing coverage just yet.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 12:26 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
only going ot be an issue if ou were dying for LTE service… AT&T was reserving the AWS spectrum they are giving up here to support their LTE network, whereas TMob use the AWS band for their HSPA+ service…
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 9:23 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
No. AT&T giving up some spectrum does not affect customers directly at this time. The main reason is that AT&T built out its HSPA network on spectrum they didnt give up. Meaning you arent losing any 3G/4G coverage, or spectrum. AT&T gave up AWS spectrum they planned to use with LTE, however, they also have 700Mhz spectrum, and only gave up the AWS they didnt need and could afford to hand over. Rest assured, AT&T will still have your 3G and 4G networks built out as they currently have, and the loss of AWS spectrum in your area doesnt matter.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 11:32 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I wish I would’ve seen this article BEFORE porting my number from T-Mo to Google Voice about an hour ago.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 11:40 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You’re using Google Voice over T-Mobile’s network despite having ported your number.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 11:54 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Looks like T-mobile is skipping right over Philadelphia again.. One of the top markets with probably the worst data coverage. We have to manually put our phones on 2G in order to get any data at all.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 11:50 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Maybe it’s time to ditch T-Mo? I’m from South Philly and have had no problems on (previously) AT&T’s 3G network, Verizon’s 3G network, and (most recently – as in right this moment) Verizon’s LTE network.
Regardless, why would you expect AT&T to give up spectrum in what you classify as a “top market”? That’s like expecting for the Eagles to win the Super Bowl or for people to care about the Sixers.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 12:23 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I don’t know what you’re talking about. I live in north west Philly and get perfect 3g coverage all over. Philly was T-Mobile’s test market for HSPA+ a few years back.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 5:54 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
Thats interesting because T-Mobile launched HSPA+21 in Philadelphia first, and you shouldnt be needing to use 2G or 1900Mhz to get data.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 11:34 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Nice! Better service in Salt Lake!
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 11:51 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Maybe I’ll get decent speeds in my neighborhood now. It’s disappointing to get speeds at home that are roughly 5% of what I get when I’m out and about.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 11:58 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Out of curiosity, what does this mean for AT&T subscribers in those areas?
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 11:58 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
it means the LTE they will eventually get might not be as good as it could have been
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 12:17 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Damn. I’m in one of the affected areas (Tucson). I guess we’ll see how bad it is once we finally get LTE.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 12:24 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Considering they will be upgrading their LTE markets to LTE-Advanced in a couple years, you probably won’t suffer too much
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 3:46 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Not many of those highlighted areas have AT&T LTE yet.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 5:40 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
And those that are highlighted and have LTE are running LTE off 700Mhz not AWS anyway, so those places are golden.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 11:34 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Does anyone know where i can find the full list? or a higher res image? it looks like my area is highlighted but i can’t tell for sure.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 12:18 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I think this is as good as we’ll get.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 12:23 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Thanks! That’s just what I was looking for.
Looks like my county is highlighted, good news for me :)
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 3:49 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
H-Town baby!
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 12:18 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Central MA needs this like woah. I went home for a couple days over the holidays and was barely holding two bars…
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 12:29 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Spectrum doesnt dictate how many bars you get. Tower/equipment placement as well as factors within the phone software/hardware determine how many bars you get. Sometimes but not always “bars” are indicative of your distance from a tower, but also could be (depending on the technology) the quality of signal, quality of service of data, etc. Pretty much you are just in an area that doesnt have a tower close enough, or if it is close, your house may have materials its made from that is preventing a strong signal, ie metals, electrical wires, etc.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 11:37 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
AT&T made a stupid move. It should have handed over $1 billion dollars instead of spectrum.
Money can be replace; spectrum can’t.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 12:48 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
I’m guessing there was some negotiations that went on between DT and AT&T before papers were signed.
DT probably wanted lots of spectrum and didn’t really care about the money, AT&T probably just wanted to pay money without giving up spectrum. They met somewhere in the middle.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 3:54 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I’m a little confused. Does this mean at&t’s 3G service in the areas they gave up spectrum will get worse? Or is it just going to mean that at&t’s LTE network won’t be as good as it could be in those areas?
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 12:53 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This will only affect future LTE rollout. AT&T didn’t use the AWS band for anything else.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 1:01 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
But with the current purchase of Qualcomm 700Mhz spectrum, those areas that still need AWS (like Chicago) to currently run the LTE network already deployed, will actually make up for that. When that happens, AWS for AT&T may be made as a supplement to its LTE network within urban centers or higher capacity areas.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 11:39 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Damn, DC market got hit. That’s doing to suck. Already hard enough to cover without the ability to plonk down towers wherever you want.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 1:24 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Great and NY especially NEW YORK CITY gets nothing ugh T-MOBILE
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 2:05 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
i’m not sure T Mobile was given their pick of the zones. I would imagine there was some tug of war between AT&T and TMo as to what TMo got. Though considering this was AT&T’s spectrum to lose, They likely had a greater say in the matter.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 10:37 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
128 markets doesn’t look like that much on a map, at least Boston will get some of it. GO PATS!
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 9:37 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
T-Mobile got a lot in north-east Wisconsin and Green Bay. An area not served by even 2g. Would be nice to get some good 3g or 4g up past milwaukee instead of roaming. :)
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 12:45 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Woohoo! Go Portland! This is already a pretty strong T-Mobile town as it is.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 2:13 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Ok, just a question about how this effects me. Where I live is now marked 10mhz. But where I live has never had 3g.
I have a HSPA phone but not HSPA+ Will this effect me at all or am I still gonna be stuck on EDGE?
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 3:01 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Hi, I am the author of the map referenced in the article. If you want more info about the AT&T-T-Mobile AWS 2100+1700 MHz spectrum transaction, you can find additional insights into the deal from my Twitter feed: @WiWavelength
AJ
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 3:40 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.