Verizon shrinking coverage in Maine.

[Mr.Nuke]

13 minutes ago, swintec said:

who is the roaming partner up there though or are we just assuming for now based on the timing of the other lte roaming stuff?

The partner in question is Wireless Partners LLC who appear to own, build, and operate the towers Verizon is deploying their spectrum on there.

[swintec]

9 minutes ago, Mr.Nuke said:

The partner in question is Wireless Partners LLC who appear to own, build, and operate the towers Verizon is deploying their spectrum on there.

 

hhmm...as opposed to a "normal" cell set up where the carrier itself installs and manages their own equipment by leasing space from a tower company and thats it?

wonder if this set up was because it is so rural and was quicker for verizon to go this route.

[WiseGuy321]

Maybe this will finally force AT&T (and T-Mo/Sprint) to build-up their networks in Maine. 

 

Verizon and USCC have been the only two quality options for those who travel across the state regularly. 

[WiseGuy321]

2 hours ago, Arysyn said:

Maine doesn't even get very good broadband internet options either. I once considered moving to Maine, checked the internet options in both Bangor and Portland areas, wasn't impressed at all. They really need more high-tech there.

Meh, I don't think you understand how rural the state really is. Outside of Portland, Augusta, and Bangor (and all of their suburbs), there is no reason for 100+ mbps broadband.

Spectrum recently took over Time Warner and bumped up the residential broadband speed tiers to 60/10 for normal residential accounts. Before that, it would max out at like 15/10 in the areas I frequented.

[danlodish345]

2 hours ago, Arysyn said:

Hmm...

Dan likely will respond sometime soon to address what he found. I personally don't like all this local partner business in wireless, regardless of the carrier. I'd prefer the national carriers owned the entirety of their networks, only to make contracts on their towers (ie., leasing towers from Crown Castle, etc., and roaming agreements between carriers). Also, there ought to be some regulation in place restricting national carriers from being able to cut coverage. If it turns out this is what Verizon is doing, regardless if there is some other local company/cooperative involved, then the other carriers ought to condemn this on principle of forcing out customers.

I wonder what is going to happen now that contracts generally are not being offered and people have monthly payments in to the carriers for device installments. It isn't always the case they can take their Verizon devices over to T-Mobile, etc. I'm sure the other carriers in the area would love to add these customers on their network, but what about the costs involved forcing these people to switch, and will the other carriers necessarily cover all of that extra cost.

Yes it is two separate issues. But Verizon is actually shrinking their coverage in Maine only in one County obviously as the article States but I do not see Verizon winning anyone over this way. In my opinion Verizon should actually hand over the licenses they have for that area. But I do agree though each carrier should have its own Nationwide Network and its entirety in owned by them only.

[WiWavelength]

39 minutes ago, Mr.Nuke said:

The partner in question is Wireless Partners LLC who appear to own, build, and operate the towers Verizon is deploying their spectrum on there.

Other than the partner not marketing its own service directly to consumers, all of the above sound like standard operating procedures for VZW and LTEiRA partners.  VZW only contracts out or leases a minimum of Upper 700 MHz C block (band 13) spectrum to LTEiRA partners, while VZW retains de jure control over its spectrum licenses.

26 minutes ago, swintec said:

hhmm...as opposed to a "normal" cell set up where the carrier itself installs and manages their own equipment by leasing space from a tower company and thats it?

wonder if this set up was because it is so rural and was quicker for verizon to go this route.

Are you not familiar with the VZW LTE in Rural America program that has been in existence for most of this decade?

AJ

[danlodish345]

26 minutes ago, WiWavelength said:

Other than the partner not marketing its own service directly to consumers, all of the above sound like standard operating procedures for VZW and LTEiRA partners.  VZW only contracts out or leases a minimum of Upper 700 MHz C block (band 13) spectrum to LTEiRA partners, while VZW retains de jure control over its spectrum licenses.

Are you not familiar with the VZW LTE in Rural America program that has been in existence for most of this decade?

AJ

I'm not too familiar with that program

[Mr.Nuke]

55 minutes ago, WiWavelength said:

Other than the partner not marketing its own service directly to consumers, all of the above sound like standard operating procedures for VZW and LTEiRA partners.

Correct, but that "other than" part is likely a huge wrinkle in the standard LTEiRA agreement. The typical incentives Verizon would offer to the rural operator be it: helping build out an LTE network, reciprocal roaming, device access/buying leverage, etc. are moot.

And that may be the root of the issue here. Verizon's cost is more than likely higher than a typical LTEiRA partnership. What Verizon is paying to Wireless Partners, be it data charges or whatever doesn't make financial sense for them given the limited customer base. I just wanted to make it clear that this situation appears by everything I've found to be significantly different than Verizon kicking off perma-roamers that reside in territories covered by LTEiRA partners that are actively selling/providing local native service to customers.

[Mr.Nuke]

1 hour ago, swintec said:

 

hhmm...as opposed to a "normal" cell set up where the carrier itself installs and manages their own equipment by leasing space from a tower company and thats it?

wonder if this set up was because it is so rural and was quicker for verizon to go this route.

Yeah, typically a carrier will install and manage their own equipment using their own spectrum on a rack leased from a tower company. Among other problems though carriers may run into situations where build out requirements dictate equipment needing to be installed before it is financially or logistically realistic for a carrier to do so; or just in general there may be areas where you have spectrum, but based on your customer base/population it doesn’t make fiscal sense to spend your money deploying equipment there.

 

Enter in Verizon’s LTE in Rural America program. As AJ mentioned at a minimum VZ will typically lease out upper C-Block 700 MHz spectrum to a rural operator. The rural operator builds out their own network providing tower space, equipment, and backhaul to VZ’s provided spectrum. Furthermore, the rural operators (typically service provider themselves) will sell local service within their territory*. The rural provider gets reciprocal roaming for their customers on Verizon, access to Verizon’s LTE vendors and device providers (huge for small providers). Verizon theoretically gets cheap rural buildouts that they otherwise wouldn’t have undertaken.

 

*Other than the Maine situation this is why a lot of people are getting excessive roaming letters. Verizon shouldn’t have any customers within any of their LTE in Rural areas (Maine situation excluded). The people living in those areas need to be getting service from the Verizon partner. Not doing so is not only unfair financially unfair to the VZ partner whose network these people are actually using, but it is also a financial liability to Verizon who is racking up roaming charges on the partner network.

[swintec]

Another link: http://bangordailynews.com/2017/09/12/business/verizon-wireless-terminating-service-for-2000-cellphone-customers-in-washington-county/

[Sprke]

I live in SW IA a Chat Mobility area (a LTEiRA carrier) and have been on Verizon the last 3 or 4 years. So far I haven’t received the letter yet but a number of customers have. I was in the Council Bluffs VZW store today and they told me the last couple days customers living in this area have been coming in with these letters. I live in this area but most every day I travel out of it to Verizon native coverage so hopefully they’ll leave me be. 

Verizon needs to change the alpha tag on the phone to indicate roaming and also stop letting people with addresses in this area sign up for service. There is currently no way to tell your off the Verizon network. It even shows the VZW MNC 311-480. 

[Trip]

11 hours ago, Arysyn said:

I personally don't like all this local partner business in wireless, regardless of the carrier.

Because nothing says "bad for America" like locally-owned small businesses that can respond to local customer needs, right? 

I don't understand why you desperately want gigantic companies who run roughshod over consumers to grow ever larger and more able to run roughshod over consumers.  While complaining that they run roughshod over consumers, no less.

- Trip

[Arysyn]

4 hours ago, Trip said:

Because nothing says "bad for America" like locally-owned small businesses that can respond to local customer needs, right? 

I don't understand why you desperately want gigantic companies who run roughshod over consumers to grow ever larger and more able to run roughshod over consumers.  While complaining that they run roughshod over consumers, no less.

- Trip

The issue with service to customers isn't something that is dependant on local vs national. I've done business with big chains that were alot nicer to me and easier to deal with than others that are local and family owned. Likewise, in other situations, vice versa.

Having large carrier corporations isn't necessarily going to make it worse for customers than dealing locally. For instance, US Cellular could be considered local/regional, and when I had them several years ago, I had much worse dealings with their customer service than ever from T-Mobile, which of course is a national carrier.

In situations with service, and regarding this issue in Maine, what needs to be in place is a better regulatory environment that works. Not necessarily more or less regulations, but ones that actually do what they are suppose to keeping check of the carriers, whether local, regional, or national.

Regarding my wanting fewer, more powerful carriers, I never said they should go unregulated and have powers to ban/remove customers, or anything else customer-unfriendly. All I want from these mergers is a system that basically allows these carriers more power over their spectrum, and greater spectrum allotments to serve areas more equally. Again, nothing to do with the current issue being discussed in this thread.

[mikejeep]

21 hours ago, Sprke said:

Verizon needs to change the alpha tag on the phone to indicate roaming and also stop letting people with addresses in this area sign up for service. There is currently no way to tell your off the Verizon network. It even shows the VZW MNC 311-480.

Curious.. have you peeked at any third-party apps (SignalCheck, Signal Detector, LTE Discovery, etc) while "off" network to see what provider and PLMN are displayed?

-Mike

[bretton88]

1 hour ago, mikejeep said:

Curious.. have you peeked at any third-party apps (SignalCheck, Signal Detector, LTE Discovery, etc) while "off" network to see what provider and PLMN are displayed?

-Mike

If you're on B13 for an LTEiRa provider, it shows as a Verizon signal, however if you have a 1x or 3G signal, it will show the local provider information for that. At least that's how my work phone (with signal check) has shown the information in the past when I've traveled out of network.

[WiWavelength]

Montana:

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/story/news/2017/09/13/cant-hear-me-now-verizon-drops-some-rural-customers/663146001/

AJ

[WiWavelength]

2 hours ago, bretton88 said:

If you're on B13 for an LTEiRa provider, it shows as a Verizon signal, however if you have a 1x or 3G signal, it will show the local provider information for that.

That is because the CDMA2000 networks are not tied in any way to VZW.  Most LTEiRA partners already had deployed their own CDMA2000 networks.  And that is why VZW contracted with them just for LTE overlay.

AJ

[dkyeager]

5 hours ago, WiWavelength said:

Montana:

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/story/news/2017/09/13/cant-hear-me-now-verizon-drops-some-rural-customers/663146001/

AJ

The sub article seems to be the most accurate: https://www.rvmobileinternet.com/verizon-terminating-certain-rural-customers-for-excessive-usage/

Basically claims that these users are exceeding network limits of 22GB per month / 10GB hotspot per month which Verizon was unable to manage.  Accurate?

[Sprke]

12 hours ago, bretton88 said:

If you're on B13 for an LTEiRa provider, it shows as a Verizon signal, however if you have a 1x or 3G signal, it will show the local provider information for that. At least that's how my work phone (with signal check) has shown the information in the past when I've traveled out of network.

Yes this is right. If you have a Verizon phone that has VoLTE enabled it shows Verizon and it is impossible to tell that your roaming on LTEIRA even when looking at third party apps. If the Verizon phone is not using VoLTE it will show Extended LTE in these areas as it is using CDMA for voice. 

[Sprke]

4 hours ago, dkyeager said:

The sub article seems to be the most accurate: https://www.rvmobileinternet.com/verizon-terminating-certain-rural-customers-for-excessive-usage/

Basically claims that these users are exceeding network limits of 22GB per month / 10GB hotspot per month which Verizon was unable to manage.  Accurate?

Not sure about managing after 22GB but Verizon is cancelling users that were using less then 22GB. I’ve heard of one that uses ~13GB and another in the 16 range. 

[dkyeager]

1 hour ago, Sprke said:

Not sure about managing after 22GB but Verizon is cancelling users that were using less then 22GB. I’ve heard of one that uses ~13GB and another in the 16 range. 

Were these users tethered or using their phone as a hotspot ( ie using internet from their phone elsewhere?

[Sprke]

4 minutes ago, dkyeager said:

Were these users tethered or using their phone as a hotspot ( ie using internet from their phone elsewhere?

I know the one did very little tethering not sure about the other. 

[dkyeager]

14 minutes ago, Sprke said:

I know the one did very little tethering not sure about the other. 

At least with Sprint, any tethering is a violation of terms of service, at least for the older plans.  Hotspots are allowed by plan or for additional revenue.  These all have smaller limits.  Sprint got Clearwire basically because they could not make their model for wireless internet service be profitable.

[WiWavelength]

Are these usage figures self reported?  And are they trustworthy?  People will under/over report and cherry pick numbers to suit their agenda.

"I use only 13 GB per month" could mean that is the data I used one month, while several others months I exceeded 22 GB.

Regardless of total usage, subs who are consuming a significant majority of their data on LTEiRA partners should not be VZW subs.  That is a mismatch.

AJ

[Sprke]

1 hour ago, WiWavelength said:

Are these usage figures self reported?  And are they trustworthy?  People will under/over report and cherry pick numbers to suit their agenda.

"I use only 13 GB per month" could mean that is the data I used one month, while several others months I exceeded 22 GB.

Regardless of total usage, subs who are consuming a significant majority of their data on LTEiRA partners should not be VZW subs.  That is a mismatch.

AJ

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/story/news/2017/09/14/verizon-montana-drop-affect-emergency-services/666350001/

Somebody is quoted in this article they used .07 GB the last 3 months. Also the rural carrier in this area is not signing up new customers so people have no other options.