Protection Site discussion devolving into whether Clearwire intentionally targeted ghettos

[ReyBanz]

What he said is they put up towers specifically where people wouldn't use it, also, in ghettos? I don't think covering as many POPs possible is quite synonymous with that?

 

And what I'm saying is that I believe that to be true. Simply because if you take a look at the Detroit Metro Area protection sites most of them are located in areas that most would consider to be "the ghetto" East Detroit is covered with Wimax but the West isn't. As long as a lot of people aren't using it and complaining about it, its a win for Clear. Most people on the East Side of Detroit tend to have MetroPCS or T-Mobile I never see Sprint, Verizon or AT&T stores or people using those services when in that area. But when I'm over there I stay connected to Wimax almost the entire time.

[WiWavelength]

And what I'm saying is that I believe that to be true. Simply because if you take a look at the Detroit Metro Area protection sites most of them are located in areas that most would consider to be "the ghetto" East Detroit is covered with Wimax but the West isn't.

 

What appears to be "true" to you is not always logically so.

 

Answer this question: does the covered eastern portion of the metro have a higher population density than does the uncovered western portion of the metro?

 

AJ

[pyroscott]

And what I'm saying is that I believe that to be true. Simply because if you take a look at the Detroit Metro Area protection sites most of them are located in areas that most would consider to be "the ghetto" East Detroit is covered with Wimax but the West isn't. As long as a lot of people aren't using it and complaining about it, its a win for Clear. Most people on the East Side of Detroit tend to have MetroPCS or T-Mobile I never see Sprint, Verizon or AT&T stores or people using those services when in that area. But when I'm over there I stay connected to Wimax almost the entire time.

 

Could that be because the population is the most dense in the poorer areas of town? Where people live in apartment buildings and park on the street or don't even have a car, instead of having a house, garage and yard?

 

Sometimes perception is not the rule. You say ghetto, I say dense population center. They still want people to use their service so they get paid...

Edited June 29, 2012 by pyroscott
AJ beat me to the point

[ReyBanz]

What appears to be "true" to you is not always logically so.

 

Answer this question: does the covered eastern portion of the metro have a higher population density than does the uncovered western portion of the metro?

 

AJ

 

I never thought about that, but I would actually have to say yes the East is more dense than the West based on how the two sides are built the West is spread out but the East isn't.

[ReyBanz]

Could that be because the population is the most dense in the poorer areas of town? Where people live in apartment buildings and park on the street or don't even have a car, instead of having a house, garage and yard?

 

Sometimes perception is not the rule. You say ghetto, I say dense population center. They still want people to use their service so they get paid...

 

The fact of the matter still remains that most of the East protection sites see minimal usage because Clear doesn't sell services here and never have but Sprint does and based off that alone it probably would have been better for them to deploy West if they really wanted to get paid. Most of the people I know that are West have Sprint and the people that I know or see on the Eastside have T-Mobile or MetroPCS. Even my 3G speeds on the Eastside are much faster and 4G wimax is always connecting and fast over there too.

[WiWavelength]

The fact of the matter still remains that most of the East protection sites see minimal usage because Clear doesn't sell services here and never have but Sprint does and based off that alone it probably would have been better for them to deploy West if they really wanted to get paid.

 

You are missing the point. In unofficial markets, WiMAX network usage is/was irrelevant; BRS/EBS 2600 MHz license protection was paramount.

 

And Robert will have to refresh my memory. But, if I recall correctly, Sprint does not compensate Clearwire on a total usage basis but on a per sub basis.

 

AJ

[S4GRU]

You are missing the point. In unofficial markets, WiMAX network usage is/was irrelevant; BRS/EBS 2600 MHz license protection was paramount.

 

And Robert will have to refresh my memory. But, if I recall correctly, Sprint does not compensate Clearwire on a total usage basis but on a per sub basis.

 

AJ

 

This is correct. Clearwire makes no additional money from Sprint WiMax devices whether they connect to the network or not. However, LTE will be a different story. LTE will be paid to Clearwire on a usage basis.

 

Robert

[ReyBanz]

You are missing the point. In unofficial markets, WiMAX network usage is/was irrelevant; BRS/EBS 2600 MHz license protection was paramount.

 

And Robert will have to refresh my memory. But, if I recall correctly, Sprint does not compensate Clearwire on a total usage basis but on a per sub basis.

 

AJ

 

No I'm not missing the point. That was a response to pyroscott where he mentioned how they'd still want to get paid. I know that they threw up the towers over there just because of the population. But I was thinking that they chose East, because of the population and because of the minimal customers. Like you said, they get paid by subscribers not actual usage. But in the event the tower was being taxed by heavy users wouldn't they have to invest more money in that tower? So I look at it as a win win for Clear. But it could have also been a win win for Sprint if they deployed west rather it be a protection site or not Sprint customers would love to get more than 0.1Mbps.

[WiWavelength]

But in the event the tower was being taxed by heavy users wouldn't they have to invest more money in that tower?

 

No. License protection sites are basically "set and forget."

 

AJ

[pyroscott]

I'm on my phone now so I can't look it up. I'm pretty sure that Sprint and clearwire have renegotiated to a usage based contract.

 

Sent from my Jelly Bean Toro using Forum Runner

[pyroscott]

Oops memory failed me. Usage based payments from Sprint don't start until 2014 http://newsroom.sprint.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=2121

 

Sent from my Jelly Bean Toro using Forum Runner

[WiWavelength]

The contentions here seem to arise from making deductive inferences based on certain characteristics (e.g. license protection site locations) of one market (e.g. Detroit). But this kind of reasoning can be highly problematic.

 

For example, in the KC metro, the bulk of Sprint's early LTE deployment has been in the suburb of Olathe. Olathe is a hotbed of the Nazarene Church. Does that mean then that Sprint favors Nazarenes or that Nazarenes are really keen on LTE?

 

The lesson is that we should not jump to conclusions from mere correlations.

 

AJ

[WiWavelength]

My post above, which mentions the Nazarene Church, so happens to be my post #666. Hmm, jump to a conclusion about that.

 

 

AJ

[pyroscott]

The lesson is that we should not jump to conclusions from mere correlations.

 

AJ

 

And if you are going to jump to conclusions, make sure you have an official jump to conclusions mat. http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DuxuTyXQHqkI&v=uxuTyXQHqkI&gl=US

 

Sent from my Jelly Bean Toro using Forum Runner

[lynyrd65]

My post above, which mentions the Nazarene Church, so happens to be my post #666. Hmm, jump to a conclusion about that.

AJ

 

Its a trend. I see it in Tulsa, I see it in OKC, I see it in muskogee. If it looks like a ghetto, smells like a ghetto and sounds like a ghetto...... well?

 

Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk 2

[WiWavelength]

Its a trend. I see it in Tulsa, I see it in OKC, I see it in muskogee. If it looks like a ghetto, smells like a ghetto and sounds like a ghetto...... well?

 

And I see a "trend" involving LTE and Nazarenes in the KC metro. But my example assertion is just as logically flawed as is your claim.

 

Regardless, Scott already covered this. Those "ghettos" have higher population density than do the upper/middle class suburbs. POPs covered. Simple as that.

 

Do I really need to pull the Required Notifications (i.e. buildout filings) from the FCC ULS in order for several of you to understand the rationale for these protection site locations?

 

AJ

[lynyrd65]

 

And I see a "trend" involving LTE and Nazarenes in the KC metro. But my example assertion is just as logically flawed as is your claim.

 

Regardless, Scott already covered this. Those "ghettos" have higher population density than do the upper/middle class suburbs. POPs covered. Simple as that.

 

Do I really need to pull the Required Notifications (i.e. buildout filings) from the FCC ULS in order for several of you to understand the rationale for these protection site locations?

 

AJ

 

1. Not even close to the same scope. I see it in every single non-Wimax area I have visited. Others point it out as well.

 

2. In tulsa they are in lower pop density areas. The density is greatest in midtown which is a working class (not ghetto but def not rich) they specifically avoided.

 

Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk 2

[WiWavelength]

1. Not even close to the same scope. I see it in every single non-Wimax area I have visited. Others point it out as well.

 

2. In tulsa they are in lower pop density areas. The density is greatest in midtown which is a working class (not ghetto but def not rich) they specifically avoided.

 

Lynyrd, you need to drop this diatribe. It is based on your perception, not grounded in reality. The supporting force of your argument carries little weight. To illustrate, I have pulled Clearwire's FCC filed substantial service map for your BTA. The few license protection sites in the Tulsa BTA (as well as in surrounding BTAs) are centrally located in order to maximize POPs covered within each 8.35 km radius service contour. See below:

 

 

 

AJ

[S4GRU]

Clearwire intentionally selecting ghettos is absurd. I still fail to see the motive for doing this? Less people using the network? That's stupid.

 

Besides, if you ask the average AT&T and Verizon customer, they would say that all of us Sprint customers are "Ghetto." And doesn't Boost Mobile have a reputation of being "ghetto?" If I were to guess, Sprint probably has a higher share of customers in "ghetto" areas than other carriers.

 

Although, I cannot believe I am trying to rationally discuss this.

 

Robert

[lynyrd65]

I stand by what I said but I can tell this is going nowhere fast. So I'm done.

 

Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk 2

[S4GRU]

I stand by what I said but I can tell this is going nowhere fast. So I'm done.

 

Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk 2

 

Thank you.