Jump to content

Sprint to expand to Montana using shut down CellularOne sites


Recommended Posts

I just got back from montana. I came in on i90 from Idaho and drove to Bozeman and it was all roaming. Does anyone have any idea yet as to the timeframe of the project?

 

I haven't heard of one yet. We do know that funding has been secured so I would suspect it would be soonTM.

 

04643598.jpg

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just got back from montana. I came in on i90 from Idaho and drove to Bozeman and it was all roaming. Does anyone have any idea yet as to the timeframe of the project?

I also believe that sprint will not turn on the sites until they have gotten backhaul to the sites(via microwave,aav,fiber). Seeing how rural montana is, that could take awhile. They did the same thing with the uscc sites to sprint sites in midwest, they waited until they had backhaul turned on. Then started turning them on, I wouldn't be surprised if they turned them on in clusters too.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

I was in Bozeman Monday. No Sprint signal just roaming. I'll be in Billings next week and hoping for a different outcome, but staying realistic. Maybe if no signal, I'll find new equipment on sites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

What exactly are the PCS G block's build out requirements? What percentage of the population by when?

 

"Substantial service" by next summer, 2016.

 

AJ

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That seems really generic...so by June next year they need to have a running network in Montana/Wyoming/ND/SD that covers say 30% of the ppl?

 

Nope.  "Substantial service."

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope. "Substantial service."

 

AJ

So sprint could put up like 2 sites and say it's substantial service. I don't think that would fly with the FCC there has to be a specific number to go by.

 

Sent from my SM-G925P using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So sprint could put up like 2 sites and say it's substantial service. I don't think that would fly with the FCC there has to be a specific number to go by.

 

Sent from my SM-G925P using Tapatalk

Apparently not. I know the MTA licenses have specific requirement based on spectrum depth (10mhz, 15mhz: 25% pops; 30mhz: 33% pops I think) but apparently these requirements are literally "substantial service". I don't know how they could have been more generic lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So basically at least 1 site in the region a la Clearwire license protection, right?

 

Clearwire is a reasonably good analog.  But the word "region" should be replaced with "license."  Clearwire BRS is licensed on a BTA basis.  For license protection, it deployed at least 1-2 sites per BTA.

 

Sprint PCS G block is licensed on a BEA basis -- the same as the Nextel SMR spectrum it replaces as compensation in rebanding.  BEA based licenses are geographically larger than BTA based licenses.  So, Sprint likely will need to roll out greater than 1-2 sites per BEA.  However, 2-5 sites in each BEA titular city, plus maybe 1-2 sites in a secondary city would cover the "substantial service" requirement, no questions asked.

 

Do not get your hopes up, guys.  I do not anticipate a massive Sprint buildout in the rural West.  Montana could be a different story, since Sprint has acquired some significant assets from now defunct Chinook Wireless.  Otherwise, look for a few sites in larger cities, such as Rapid City and Casper, as well as at popular tourist locations, such as Yellowstone.

 

Unlike the popular groundswell for T-Mobile, people in underserved markets are not chomping at the bit, "I wanna get me some Sprint."  T-Mobile is taking a footprint expansion gamble that it hopes will pay off.  It may not.  The newly constructed T-Mobile coverage may be okay, but it will not be solid -- you can count on that.  You do not build a mature wireless network in a year.  So, many of those rural dwellers tempted by T-Mobile marketing may not stick around very long, leaving their no contract plans and returning to the Twin Bells.  Sprint cannot afford that same gamble right now.

 

AJ

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearwire is a reasonably good analog.  But the word "region" should be replaced with "license."  Clearwire BRS is licensed on a BTA basis.  For license protection, it deployed at least 1-2 sites per BTA.

 

Sprint PCS G block is licensed on a BEA basis -- the same as the Nextel SMR spectrum it replaces as compensation in rebanding.  BEA based licenses are geographically larger than BTA based licenses.  So, Sprint likely will need to roll out greater than 1-2 sites per BEA.  However, 2-5 sites in each BEA titular city, plus maybe 1-2 sites in a secondary city would cover the "substantial service" requirement, no questions asked.

 

Do not get your hopes up, guys.  I do not anticipate a massive Sprint buildout in the rural West.  Montana could be a different story, since Sprint has acquired some significant assets from now defunct Chinook Wireless.  Otherwise, look for a few sites in larger cities, such as Rapid City and Casper, as well as at popular tourist locations, such as Yellowstone.

 

Unlike the popular groundswell for T-Mobile, people in underserved markets are not chomping at the bit, "I wanna get me some Sprint."  T-Mobile is taking a footprint expansion gamble that it hopes will pay off.  It may not.  The newly constructed T-Mobile coverage may be okay, but it will not be solid -- you can count on that.  You do not build a mature wireless network in a year.  So, many of those rural dwellers tempted by T-Mobile marketing may not stick around very long, leaving their no contract plans and returning to the Twin Bells.  Sprint cannot afford that same gamble right now.

 

AJ

I don't see why even tmo would expand to a state like Montana - 6 ppl/mi2 is nothing - even if they captured a good half of the market...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see why even tmo would expand to a state like Montana - 6 ppl/mi2 is nothing - even if they captured a good half of the market...

From the last time I looked at the statistics for out west, something like 20% of the population live in rural areas, meaning that 80% should be contained in the cities and medium sized towns.

 

Focusing on those will cover the majority of the population, but the question is how many people will leave their carrier for a network that doesn't have the rural coverage... and will it be economical if they only get a small percentage of the population.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the last time I looked at the statistics for out west, something like 20% of the population live in rural areas, meaning that 80% should be contained in the cities and medium sized towns.

 

Focusing on those will cover the majority of the population, but the question is how many people will leave their carrier for a network that doesn't have the rural coverage... and will it be economical if they only get a small percentage of the population.

its a problem for sure, if you have no network you will have no subscribers, but if you build a network will it attract subscribers....

 

Right now i don't think sprint has the money to gamble and expand coverage in this way, they are better off building a rock solid network in cites and areas they already cover.  They have a TON of work left to complete, from towers that are still 3g only, to the clear wire conversions, the one thousand plus new macro sites they plan to build, and the 70K small cells.... plus all the DAS to install at venues all across the country.... sprint money is better spent improving service to their existing customers rather than making a gamble to try and gain new ones in cities they don't cover. IMHO   

 

Once they have achieved the goal of #1 network in the country and completed a substantial amount of the current work load, then and only then should they aggressively expand the network foot print, think small to mid sized towns, complete interstate native lte coverage, alot of "small/mid" sized towns are located along major interstates and highways.  This coupled with a massive marketing push in those small to mid sized towns could be huge.  imagine if sprint built towers to cover a mid size town and them mailed everyone in that town an offer for free service for a year... i would have to think a decent percentage of people would take them up on that.  I think that would be a great long term play!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

its a problem for sure, if you have no network you will have no subscribers, but if you build a network will it attract subscribers....

 

Right now i don't think sprint has the money to gamble and expand coverage in this way, they are better off building a rock solid network in cites and areas they already cover.  They have a TON of work left to complete, from towers that are still 3g only, to the clear wire conversions, the one thousand plus new macro sites they plan to build, and the 70K small cells.... plus all the DAS to install at venues all across the country.... sprint money is better spent improving service to their existing customers rather than making a gamble to try and gain new ones in cities they don't cover. IMHO   

 

Once they have achieved the goal of #1 network in the country and completed a substantial amount of the current work load, then and only then should they aggressively expand the network foot print, think small to mid sized towns, complete interstate native lte coverage, alot of "small/mid" sized towns are located along major interstates and highways.  This coupled with a massive marketing push in those small to mid sized towns could be huge.  imagine if sprint built towers to cover a mid size town and them mailed everyone in that town an offer for free service for a year... i would have to think a decent percentage of people would take them up on that.  I think that would be a great long term play!

 

Another way to go is to purchase most CCA carriers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its a problem for sure, if you have no network you will have no subscribers, but if you build a network will it attract subscribers....

 

Right now i don't think sprint has the money to gamble and expand coverage in this way, they are better off building a rock solid network in cites and areas they already cover. They have a TON of work left to complete, from towers that are still 3g only, to the clear wire conversions, the one thousand plus new macro sites they plan to build, and the 70K small cells.... plus all the DAS to install at venues all across the country.... sprint money is better spent improving service to their existing customers rather than making a gamble to try and gain new ones in cities they don't cover. IMHO

 

Once they have achieved the goal of #1 network in the country and completed a substantial amount of the current work load, then and only then should they aggressively expand the network foot print, think small to mid sized towns, complete interstate native lte coverage, alot of "small/mid" sized towns are located along major interstates and highways. This coupled with a massive marketing push in those small to mid sized towns could be huge. imagine if sprint built towers to cover a mid size town and them mailed everyone in that town an offer for free service for a year... i would have to think a decent percentage of people would take them up on that. I think that would be a great long term play!

I agree 100%. Although I do want sprint to expand their footprint, beating the other carriers in main metros is a larger priority. It looks like they're already well on their way to doing that. Look at sprints rootmetrics scores in Denver for 2h2015 for example.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another way to go is to purchase most CCA carriers.

that would be a possibility, however then you get assets that don't mesh well with the  national network, regulatory hurdles. not to mention if the wireless carrier being acquired is not in bad financial shape then sprint would most likely pay a premium, then the premium may be paid for overlapping coverage forcing sprint to effectively double pay for foot print expansion.  perhaps buying one or two could be beneficial (rip and replace their network equipment for sprints) but for the most part i think sprint would be better off building their own network, crushing the little guy and buying the assets at fire sale prices and or bankruptcy(if they even wanted them).  wireless will become an even more cut throat business as time goes on, these small regional carriers will struggle more and more every year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that would be a possibility, however then you get assets that don't mesh well with the national network, regulatory hurdles. not to mention if the wireless carrier being acquired is not in bad financial shape then sprint would most likely pay a premium, then the premium may be paid for overlapping coverage forcing sprint to effectively double pay for foot print expansion. perhaps buying one or two could be beneficial (rip and replace their network equipment for sprints) but for the most part i think sprint would be better off building their own network, crushing the little guy and buying the assets at fire sale prices and or bankruptcy(if they even wanted them). wireless will become an even more cut throat business as time goes on, these small regional carriers will struggle more and more every year.

If they buy cca members, it will be because they are going under & sprint values the amount of customers they will receive in addition to network assets and spectrum. Otherwise, for now at least, they will try and actually help cca members by leasing them spectrum so that sprint can roam and not have to build it themselves... b/c their cash situation is tight right now.

 

Even if they had the money, it might be more efficient to just purchase the assets, and not the customers and debt. Again, dependant on the # of customers and their perceived value, maybe an area is particularly difficult to challenge the duolopoly, 10% customer base head start might be worth the extra cash.

 

One other point is that they are not looking to "crush the little guys" they are partnering with them to help compete with the big 2. They want the little guys to build out their networks so they can all roam on each other. If someone drags their feet, that might be a buyout candidate, but that would mean sprint would have a whole lot of extra work...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only danger of that would be those little guy was bought out by twin bell. Then there suddenly is a giant hole in your coverage map. Remember Alltel.

 

Sent from my XT1093 using Tapatalk

 

I think this is why Sprint is trying its latest tactic: Buy their spectrum, lease them Sprints.  This gives the CCA members a cash infusion for expansion while keeping the spectrum from the duo.  It would be great if such a deal could be reached with US Cellular for their 850Mhz (Greater than 10Mhz 800~ LTE and/or more 1x800~).

 

Generally though, I assume these smaller carriers have a lower operating cost than Sprint in these sparsely populated areas, thus are the preferred option.  Certainly they are closer, thus have lower travel costs plus better community ties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't be surprised if these RRPP deals with Sprint come with a first right of refusal if they want to go for sale.

 

Using Tapatalk on BlackBerry Z30

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

Just back from visiting Billings MT for a week.  Our Sprint iPhone 6 roamed PCS on SID 5230.   Worst cellular service I've ever experienced.  Failure to complete or receive calls.  Data didn't work at all despite the Sprint Extended 3G display.

 

Outbound calls frequently failed after a short beep sound.  Couldn't make SMS or iMessage work.  No data of any kind.

 

Weird and bad is what one sees there at the moment.  This is a far cry from the days we had the old Qwest sites marked as native and much of Alltel marked as native.  Roaming or no for billing sake, the network in Billings is very definitely broken.  

 

The only saving grace is we had WiFi much of the time, and enabled WiFi calling or it would of been even more ridiculous than it was.   Anyway, sad to see things decline to the current level.  

 

-Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just back from visiting Billings MT for a week.  Our Sprint iPhone 6 roamed PCS on SID 5230.   Worst cellular service I've ever experienced.  Failure to complete or receive calls.  Data didn't work at all despite the Sprint Extended 3G display.

 

Outbound calls frequently failed after a short beep sound.  Couldn't make SMS or iMessage work.  No data of any kind.

 

Weird and bad is what one sees there at the moment.  This is a far cry from the days we had the old Qwest sites marked as native and much of Alltel marked as native.  Roaming or no for billing sake, the network in Billings is very definitely broken.  

 

The only saving grace is we had WiFi much of the time, and enabled WiFi calling or it would of been even more ridiculous than it was.   Anyway, sad to see things decline to the current level.  

 

-Dan

 

Any idea who is the provider?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Posts

    • So, in summary, here are the options I tested: T-Mobile intl roaming - LTE on SoftBank, routes back to the US (~220ms to 4.2.2.4) IIJ physical SIM - LTE on NTT, local routing Airalo - LTE on SoftBank and KDDI (seems to prefer SoftBank), routed through Singapore (SingTel) Ubigi - 5G on NTT, routed through Singapore (Transatel) US Mobile East Asia roaming - 5G on SoftBank, routed through Singapore (Club SIM) Saily - 5G on NTT, routed through Hong Kong (Truphone)...seems to be poorer routing my1010 - LTE on SoftBank and KDDI (seems to prefer KDDI), routed through Taiwan (Chunghwa Telecom) I wouldn't buy up on the T-Mobile international roaming, but it's a solid fallback. If you have the US Mobile roaming eSIM that's a great option. Otherwise Ubigi, Airalo, or my1010 are all solid options, so get whatever's cheapest. I wouldn't bother trying to find a physical SIM from IIJ...the Japanese IP is nice but there's enough WiFi that you can get a Japanese IP enough for whatever you need, and eSIM flexibility is great (IIJ as eSIM but seems a bit more involved to get it to work).
    • So, the rural part of the journey still has cell service for nearly all the way, usually on B18/19/8 (depending on whether we're talking about KDDI/NTT/SoftBank). I think I saw a bit of B28 and even n28 early on in the trip, though that faded out after a bit. Once we got to where we were going though, KDDI had enough B41 to pull 150+ Mbps, while NTT and SoftBank had B1/B3 IIRC. Cell service was likewise generally fine from Kawaguchiko Station to Tokyo on the express bus to Shinjuku Station, though there were some cases where only low-band LTE was available and capacity seemed to struggle. I also figured out what I was seeing with SoftBank on 40 MHz vs. 100 MHz n77: the 40 MHz blocks are actually inside the n78 band class, but SoftBank advertises them as n77, probably to facilitate NR CA. My phone likely preferred the 40 MHz slices as they're *much* lower-frequency, ~3.4 GHz rather than ~3.9, though of course I did see the 100 MHz slice being used rather often. By contrast, when I got NR on NTT it was either n28 10x10 or, more often, 100 MHz n78. As usual, EMEA bands on my S24 don't CA, so any data speeds I saw were the result of either one LTE carrier or one LTE carrier plus one NR carrier...except for B41 LTE. KDDI seems to have more B41 bandwidth live at this point, so my1010 or Airalo works well for this, and honestly while SoftBank and NTT 5G (in descending order of availability) have 5G that's readily available it may be diminishing returns, particularly given that I still don't know how to, as someone not from Hong Kong, get an eSIM that runs on SoftBank 5G that isn't the USM "comes for free with the unlimited premium package" roaming eSIM (NTT is easy enough thanks to Ubigi). In other news, I was able to borrow someone's Rakuten eSIM and...got LTE with it. 40 Mbps down, 20 Mbps up, 40ms latency to Tokyo while in Tokyo...which isn't any worse than the Japan-based physical SIMs I had used earlier. But not getting n77 or n257 was disappointing, though I had to test the eSIM from one spot rather than bouncing around the city to find somewhere with better reception. It's currently impossible to get a SIM as a foreigner that runs on Rakuten, so that was the best I could do. Also, I know my phone doesn't have all the LTE and 5G bands needed to take full advantage of Japanese networks. My S24 is missing: B21 (1500 MHz) - NTT B11 (1500 MHz) - KDDI, SoftBank B42 (3500 MHz) - NTT, KDDI, SoftBank n79 (4900 MHz) - NTT Of the above, B42/n79 are available on the latest iPhones, though you lose n257, and I'm guessing you're not going to find B11/B21 on a phone sold outside Japan.
    • T-Mobile acquiring SoniqWave's 2.5 GHz spectrum  Another spectrum speculator down! T-Mobile is acquiring all of their BRS/EBS licenses and their leases. Details are lacking but it looks like T-Mobile might be giving them 3.45GHz in exchange in some of the markets where they're acquiring BRS/EBS to sweeten the deal and stay below the spectrum screen. Hopefully NextWave is at the negotiating table with T-Mobile so NYC can finally get access to the full BRS/EBS band as well.  — — — — — Edit: Turns out this is a spectrum swap where T-Mobile is basically giving them DoD spectrum in a bunch of markets in exchange for all of SoniqWave's BRS/EBS. SoniqWave will likely turn around and sell the DoD spectrum to AT&T whenever the FCC removes the 40MHz cap.
    • Maybe. The taller buildings on one side of the street all have Fios access and the NYCHA buildings are surrounded by Verizon macros that have mmWave. I don’t think this site will add much coverage. It’d be better off inside the complex itself.
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...