I do not know what we plan on doing with the licenses in Alaska and the Gulf, but we definitely appreciate the congratulations on the auction victory (and our scent, even though I prefer a robust ocean breeze to florals). I know you're a coverage guru, so if anything I am even more amped that you're stoked. We've been celebrating big time (like we do). It's not enough to have it - we have to implement it - but I have faith in the folks up top who say we're aiming to get that rolling before the year is over!
In Alaska most of T-Mobile's coverage is "partner" coverage and bad partner coverage in that it doesn't even have data with it, just voice and text.
I would assume the gulf is for the oil rigs and all the "boaters" that go out fishing in the gulf.
My theory is that the licenses in the Gulf were really cheap and have no build-out requirements. Since the FCC stupidly set up the license boundaries at the shoreline (not 12 miles out), it has caused some issues between the Gulf carrier, Broadpoint and the terrestrial carriers. Broadpoint and AT&T entered a complicated lease arrangements for some 850 MHz cellular licenses so that Broadpoint can locate some towers on land and AT&T can project their signal out into the Gulf for some miles.
My theory is that if T-Mobile can get the same license blocks on land as the 10x10 they got in the Gulf, then they will be free to cover as much as they can from the shore. I don't see T-Mobile getting into the highly specialized and expensive field of running cell sites from offshore oil platforms.
My other theory, which is really out there, is that given the same 10x10 block nationwide, T-Mobile could eventually use HAPS for wide-area rural coverage. I know it's far out but we're talking about having driverless cars in the near future. So, it might not be that far out.