Potential Sprint rural buildout by 2016

[Destroyallcubes]

While you bring up good points, that isn't why feels that way. He wants there to be lots of small regional operators. One's that don't get bought out by AT&T/VZW. But, that's enough of me speaking for him, if he wants to say something, the floor is yours Mr. Shepherd.

Better sprit buy them before the Duo, or Tmobile. All Sprint needs is another company taking away part of its future. What would be smart is to put a clause it that if a company builds NV through their name, and if they(rural partner) get bought by another company, Sprint takes ownership of those sites/equipment. (for reasonable cost)

[Nickel]

Better sprit buy them before the Duo, or Tmobile. All Sprint needs is another company taking away part of its future. What would be smart is to put a clause it that if a company builds NV through their name, and if they(rural partner) get bought by another company, Sprint takes ownership of those sites/equipment. (for reasonable cost)

Right, it's hard to say what they should do because we don't have the details of the contract. 

[mdob07]

Okay, here is the list of BEAs in which Sprint has little or no native network. Thus, Network Vision rollout will not necessarily satisfy the "substantial service" buildout requirement for the PCS G block. Some of these BEAs, as indicated in parentheses, are or will be covered by affiliates/partners. And, in the case of Shentel, we know that it has already stepped up to the plate with Network Vision deployment.

 

...

...

 

AJ

 

So in these areas where Sprint has little to no native coverage, will deployment of the spectrum by an RRPP member fulfill the FCC substantial service buildout requirement? I would think and hope that it would.

[S4GRU]

So in these areas where Sprint has little to no native coverage, will deployment of the spectrum by an RRPP member fulfill the FCC substantial service buildout requirement? I would think and hope that it would.

I believe it will if they use the Sprint spectrum that is subject to the build out requirements and it is open for commercial traffic to Sprint customers. Sprint has used partners in the past to meet build out requirements in a similar fashion.

[Josh]

I believe it will if they use the Sprint spectrum that is subject to the build out requirements and it is open for commercial traffic to Sprint customers. Sprint has used partners in the past to meet build out requirements in a similar fashion.

 

sprint used to just lease its name and spectrum to companies to use and sell service, and although they eventually bought those companies, we still have shentel and 1 other company that I can't think of the name right now...  so it should be fine with the government as long as the spectrum is being used.  But I still see it as a stop-gap to a longer term plan, and since they have the licenses for 800, 1900 and 2600 nationwide they could cover at least all highways and major cities.  Plus, I am assuming that they will bid on nationwide 600Mhz spectrum, which if they do not use this to increase their coverage... why would they even bid?

[S4GRU]

Plus, I am assuming that they will bid on nationwide 600Mhz spectrum, which if they do not use this to increase their coverage... why would they even bid?

 

Because one 5MHz channel is not enough low frequency LTE capacity in many places.  I doubt Tmo will sit idly by on 600MHz where they have a single B12 5MHz license, either.

[Josh]

Because one 5MHz channel is not enough low frequency LTE capacity in many places.  I doubt Tmo will sit idly by on 600MHz where they have a single B12 5MHz license, either.

 

That is my point, they need more capacity in those areas to make it a viable (and cost effective) network.  Even if they deploy with partners now, they might reserve the right to overbuild in the future when they have the 600Mhz equipment ready.  Because if they do not have a plan to deploy service above the bare minimum for license protection and to minimize roaming costs, it would not be cost effective to even bid of the spectrum in those areas. 

[S4GRU]

Here is the first movement I have found toward what Sprint is going to do with the PCS G-Block Buildout Requirements in the Rural West.  I'm not exactly sure what to think of this:  http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/license.jsp?licKey=3130334

 

In the Rapid City and Aberdeen, SD BEA's, Sprint is now going into a long term lease with OLS Holdings.  Which is a conglomeration of the South Dakota rural telcos Golden West, Kennebec Telephone and West River Telecom.  In the FCC application it says it is for their rural customers.

 

OLS/Golden West does already have a PCS network.  It looks like they will just broadcast the G Block as GMO's from their significant existing network and thus meeting the "buildout requirements."

 

I guess there is a small chance that Sprint is partnering with OLS as a RRPP partner and just needs them to run G-block on their network for a short time until they can build out a full Sprint RRPP network.  Golden West/West River does have significant BRS spectrum holdings too.

 

However, it seems to me Sprint is punting when it comes to building out license protection sites for G-Block.  And that's understandable given Marcelo's Double Down strategy.  We should watch for other licenses doing the same.

[S4GRU]

We should watch for other licenses doing the same.

Finding this, spurred me to look at other G-Block licenses around the West where Sprint has not deployed on their own network.  It looks Sprint is also leasing G-Block to Swiftel in Eastern SD (Sioux Falls/Brookings/Watertown) and NW Iowa (Sioux City).  Which can be run as GMO LTE off their existing network.  Looks like Sprint is trying to satisfy their buildout requirements at the last minute.  At least this one will likely be usable by Sprint customers.  http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/license.jsp?licKey=3130334

 

I also found a lease in Bismarck/Minot, ND BEA's.  Sprint has filed to lease the G-Blockto SRT Communications/ND Networks:  http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/ApplicationSearch/applMain.jsp?applID=9243633

 

I don't see any leases for the Scottsbluff and North Platte, Nebraska BEA's.  So Sprint may be planning to build those out themselves or still negotiating leases from local telcos that can meet the March 2016 deadline.

 

I also do not see any leases for Montana.  But that is to be expected since Sprint is building out Montana as a part of Project Cedar.  They will need to get at least the largest Montana cities in each BEA in the Treasure State covered thinly by March.  I wonder if they will do GMO LTE using Chinook's PCS antennas that are still on the towers?  At least to get started to meet the buildout deadline.  Interesting to consider.

 

There is also nothing in Wyoming.  I don't think that the buildout in Cheyenne only will be enough for this BEA since Casper has as much population.  Maybe they will have to do something there too?

[WiWavelength]

I don't see any leases for the Scottsbluff and North Platte, Nebraska BEA's.  So Sprint may be planning to build those out themselves or still negotiating leases from local telcos that can meet the March 2016 deadline.

 

. . .

 

There is also nothing in Wyoming.  I don't think that the buildout in Cheyenne only will be enough for this BEA since Casper has as much population.  Maybe they will have to do something there too?

Keep in mind the already existing WiMAX license protection sites that could be converted to Network Vision full build sites:

 

For those markets where Sprint has no native nor affiliate/partner presence, this is what I found regarding Clearwire "license protection" sites:

 

BEA111 -- Minot, ND

BEA112 -- Bismarck, ND -- Clearwire: Bismarck (1)

BEA114 -- Aberdeen, SD

BEA115 -- Rapid City, SD -- Clearwire: Rapid City (1)

BEA121 -- North Platte, NE

BEA142 -- Scottsbluff, NE -- Clearwire: Scottsbluff (1)

BEA143 -- Casper, WY -- Clearwire: Casper (1), Cheyenne (1), Riverton (1), Thermopolis (1), Rock Springs (1), Green River (1)

BEA144 -- Billings, MT -- Clearwire: Billings (2), Sheridan (1)

BEA145 -- Great Falls, MT -- Clearwire: Great Falls (1), Helena (1)

BEA146 -- Missoula, MT -- Clearwire: Kalispell (1)

AJ

[red_dog007]

With future buildout, I know Sprint will deploy 3G EVDO, but there really is no need is there.  In the more new areas, they could just survive on 1x and LTE.  Do we know if Sprint is considering not doing EVDO with new coverage area expansions?

 

 

Keep in mind the already existing WiMAX license protection sites that could be converted to Network Vision full build sites:

 

AJ

 

Are those sites using gear where Sprint can activate an LTE carrier?

[S4GRU]

With future buildout, I know Sprint will deploy 3G EVDO, but there really is no need is there. In the more new areas, they could just survive on 1x and LTE. Do we know if Sprint is considering not doing EVDO with new coverage area expansions?

 

 

 

Are those sites using gear where Sprint can activate an LTE carrier?

If skipping EVDO allows them to do another carrier of LTE or a 10x10 carrier, then that might be a good move. However, in most instances it will not. And then they might as well turn on the EVDO too.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[clbowens]

If skipping EVDO allows them to do another carrier of LTE or a 10x10 carrier, then that might be a good move. However, in most instances it will not. And then they might as well.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Can they do 1X without EVDO?  Or do 1X and EVDO come together?

[S4GRU]

Can they do 1X without EVDO? Or do 1X and EVDO come together?

The equipment Sprint uses for 1x and EVDO is combined, so there is no cost savings to skip EVDO. However, EVDO can not be turned on and thus not use any spectrum.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[RAvirani]

The equipment Sprint uses for 1x and EVDO is combined, so there is no cost savings to skip EVDO. However, EVDO can not be turned on and thus not use any spectrum.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

The problem is that this would hang customers with non-LTE devices out to dry and sprint probably won't do that.

[S4GRU]

The problem is that this would hang customers with non-LTE devices out to dry and sprint probably won't do that.

 

Yeah, I'm not recommending it.  Just responding to the technical question if it could be done.

[Paynefanbro]

 

Finding this, spurred me to look at other G-Block licenses around the West where Sprint has not deployed on their own network.  It looks Sprint is also leasing G-Block to Swiftel in Eastern SD (Sioux Falls/Brookings/Watertown) and NW Iowa (Sioux City).  Which can be run as GMO LTE off their existing network.  Looks like Sprint is trying to satisfy their buildout requirements at the last minute.  At least this one will likely be usable by Sprint customers.  http://wireless2.fcc...?licKey=3130334

 

 

 

With regard to this, does this mean that Sprint may get Swifter to start doing some work sooner rather than later?

 

[RAvirani]

With regard to this, does this mean that Sprint may get Swifter to start doing some work sooner rather than later?

 

Do you mean Swiftel?

[Paynefanbro]

Do you mean Swiftel?

 

I could've sworn I edited that. whoops

[WiWavelength]

With regard to this, does this mean that Sprint may get Swifter to start doing some work sooner rather than later?

 

No…no…

 

No Swifter.  Consuela no clean floor.

 

AJ

[red_dog007]

The problem is that this would hang customers with non-LTE devices out to dry and sprint probably won't do that.

You wouldn't leave anyone to hang and dry.  The only people who would be effected are those who have a 3G/Wimax only device, and roam on 3G.  They will now get put onto native 1x.  Otherwise, the only difference if you have a 3G/Wimax only device is you'd be going from roaming 1x to native 1x. This will actually help even cause you'll use less of your roaming bucket allotment.  

 

Plus if you are on a 3G or WiMax device, you really need an upgrade anyways.  There are always stragglers when it comes to phones, and those stragglers shouldn't hold back advancements for the rest of the masses.  They can get a brand new LTE phone that is way better for bucks these days. 

 

Im not saying current coverage needs to nix EVDO, just new coverage.  Though that day will come when EVDO gets nixed nationwide, and you bet that there will still be people without LTE smartphones.

[S4GRU]

New coverages would only benefit from not deploying EVDO if that tiny 1.25MHz wide carrier prevents Sprint from deploying a 2nd LTE carrier or a 10x10. If it doesn't impact that from happening, then you might as well deploy it. Because the same equipment that Sprint uses for 1x can run EVDO too.

 

There will be very few instances where deploying one EVDO channel will prevent Sprint from deploying another LTE carrier or a wider LTE carrier. But it might happen, and then that could be an option.

 

Using Tapatalk on Note 8.0

[RAvirani]

You wouldn't leave anyone to hang and dry. The only people who would be effected are those who have a 3G/Wimax only device, and roam on 3G. They will now get put onto native 1x. Otherwise, the only difference if you have a 3G/Wimax only device is you'd be going from roaming 1x to native 1x. This will actually help even cause you'll use less of your roaming bucket allotment.

 

Plus if you are on a 3G or WiMax device, you really need an upgrade anyways. There are always stragglers when it comes to phones, and those stragglers shouldn't hold back advancements for the rest of the masses. They can get a brand new LTE phone that is way better for bucks these days.

 

Im not saying current coverage needs to nix EVDO, just new coverage. Though that day will come when EVDO gets nixed nationwide, and you bet that there will still be people without LTE smartphones.

There are too many customer with non-LTE phones for them to expand without EVDO. There are too many stragglers ????. Plus as Robert said its not like EVDO is creating a problem for LTE...

[S4GRU]

There are too many customer with non-LTE phones for them to expand without EVDO. There are too many stragglers ????

Yes. And AT&T will deploy WCDMA only at new sites and Tmo will deploy some sites with 700MHz LTE only. So it's not unprecedented at new sites.

 

Using Tapatalk on Note 8.0

[RAvirani]

Yes. And AT&T will deploy WCDMA only at new sites and Tmo will deploy some sites with 700MHz LTE only. So it's not unprecedented at new sites.

 

Using Tapatalk on Note 8.0

I AT&T's moves are more justifiable because I'm pretty sure it's safe to say everyone on AT&T has a umts capable device. Idk about T-Mo, I think what they are doing is questionable...