Jump to content

Next four LTE cities announced


marioc21

Recommended Posts

Here are the next 4 markets to receive LTE.

  • Baltimore, MD
  • Gainesville, GA
  • Manhattan/Junction City, KS
  • Sherman-Denison, TX

http://finance.yahoo...-141200985.html

 

 

On the conference call Hesse said Baltimore would get LTE by the end of August. In the press release it says the four cities above should get it before Labor Day.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've got to worry a little bit that, outside of Baltimore, these aren't exactly major markets. The public image of making your 7th-9th cities to get LTE being offshoot suburbs is a bit damaging, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

During the earnings call there was a brief discussion about how Sprint had several hundred tower sites that were ready to go but awaiting backhaul. Sound like Chicago. Once the backhaul is hooked up the site will go live. Other tower sites were seeing delays because their vendors had equipment that was on backorder. Specifically antennas. Not sure which of the three vendors that applied to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've got to worry a little bit that, outside of Baltimore, these aren't exactly major markets. The public image of making your 7th-9th cities to get LTE being offshoot suburbs is a bit damaging, no?

 

What do you consider a "major market"?

Houston is the 4th largest US city, San Antonio is the 7th largest, Dallas is the 9th Largest and work is underway in the top 3 US cities of New York, LA and Chicago.

 

Sounds like major markets to me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you consider a "major market"?

Houston is the 4th largest US city, San Antonio is the 7th largest, Dallas is the 9th Largest and work is underway in the top 3 US cities of New York, LA and Chicago.

 

Sounds like major markets to me.

 

I find this funny. I don't think VZ was launching every major city all at once either. I remember a lot of announcements that had a lot of smaller places included in them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that those are major, however the markets cited were Gainesville, GA, Manhattan/Junction City, KS, and Sherman-Denison, TX. These do not have the same clout as "San Antonio," "Houston," etc.

 

I like the schedule Sprint presently has and that is maintained on this site, but an uninformed party might not know what we here know. Just a thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that those are major, however the markets cited were Gainesville, GA, Manhattan/Junction City, KS, and Sherman-Denison, TX. These do not have the same clout as "San Antonio," "Houston," etc.

 

I like the schedule Sprint presently has and that is maintained on this site, but an uninformed party might not know what we here know. Just a thought.

 

Sprint is trying to get more PR mileage by announcing "cities" rather than the major markets we are tracking. Except for Baltimore, which is its own market, the minor cities announced today are part of the same markets already launched July 15.

 

Sherman-Denison, TX = part of DFW market

Gainesville, GA = part of Atlanta market

Manhattan/Junction City, KS = part of Kansas City market

 

And relative to S4GRU project projections here, I have to consider the absence of Austin from today's "end of August" list to be slippage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in other words, they announce a city rather than a market, so that leaves them with more positive press releases in the future as they continue to roll out new cities (even though it's in a market that has already been green-lit).

 

Makes sense from a marketing perspective

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that those are major, however the markets cited were Gainesville, GA, Manhattan/Junction City, KS, and Sherman-Denison, TX. These do not have the same clout as "San Antonio," "Houston," etc.

 

I like the schedule Sprint presently has and that is maintained on this site, but an uninformed party might not know what we here know. Just a thought.

 

Oh, I misunderstood. I think it could be misunderstood by the average customer that says "Manhattan KS is getting LTE and I'm here in NYC and don't have LTE?" But I don't know what else Sprint can do. Verizon is announcing every city that they throw up a LTE tower, and then they announce it again when they go back to thicken coverage and make the LTE signal more usable. They could stick to their guns and stick to "markets" or they can start piling up the cities and be able to say "LTE in 19 cities and expanding"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about Florida well Miami you think I will have to wait til the end of the year

 

iTz Young Amazed

 

If your lucky. Even if they announce Miami in 2012...there's no guarantee that you'll see it where you live at launch since they can launch with less than 30% of the towers complete. ...But I guess that would be better than not having them announce Miami at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about Florida well Miami you think I will have to wait til the end of the year

 

iTz Young Amazed

 

We wrote an article about the Miami market deployment: http://s4gru.com/index.php?/blog/1/entry-274-miamiwest-palm-network-visionlte-deployment-schedule-update/

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you think no Boston? Because they have only one LTE tower and less than 10 3G towers upgraded in Boston proper?

 

I'm quite optimistic for the Boston market. I'm excited to see them start moving in to the City now. To already have a completed LTE site in Downtown Boston is great. That's before Chicago. Heck, there are not many central city sites yet even in launched cities like Dallas, Houston, Atlanta and Kansas City.

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm quite optimistic for the Boston market. I'm excited to see them start moving in to the City now. To already have a completed LTE site in Downtown Boston is great. That's before Chicago. Heck, there are not many central city sites yet even in launched cities like Dallas, Houston, Atlanta and Kansas City.

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

 

Robert, do you know why Sprint chooses to build from the outside-in on its major cities?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert, do you know why Sprint chooses to build from the outside-in on its major cities?

 

They do this so that not a large number of subscribers are affected if something goes wrong as the teams are learning what they're doing. As one of those trial towers were in my area, I'm glad they did that and screwed up in my small town versus the city. It was atrocious for about 2 weeks. I'd either not be able to make/receive calls, send out texts or when I could they wouldn't go to the person for a couple hours. The data was tolerable before they started upgrading, but during the upgrade I would constantly be on the 1x network, sometimes for days. But data is immensely better now, if you check out the article Robert wrote about the Beverly MA tower which I tested and investigated for him. Such a vast improvement! I forget that I'm being spoiled with upgraded 3G in my area, when I leave the area and it sucks I think it's my phone but nope it's the network. Glad they are finally moving into the city as well, luckily the areas I hang out at in Boston are right around upgraded 3G towers, so it doesn't seem any different.

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

    • On Reddit, someone asked (skeptically) if the US Cellular buyout would result in better service.  I'd been pondering this very issue, and decided to cross-post my response here: I've been pondering the question in the title and I've come to the conclusion that the answer is that it's possible. Hear me out. Unlike some of the small carriers that work exclusively with one larger carrier, all three major carriers roam on US Cellular today in at least some areas, so far as I know. If that network ceases to exist, then the carriers would presumably want to recover those areas of lost service by building out natively. Thus, people in those areas who may only have service from US Cellular or from US Cellular and one other may gain competition from other carriers backfilling that loss. How likely is it? I'm not sure. But it's definitely feasible. Most notably, AT&T did their big roaming deal with US Cellular in support of FirstNet in places where they lacked native coverage. They can't just lose a huge chunk of coverage whole still making FirstNet happy; I suspect they'll have to build out and recover at least some of that area, if not most of it. So it'd be indirect, but I could imagine it. - Trip
    • Historically, T-Mobile has been the only carrier contracting with Crown Castle Solutions, at least in Brooklyn. I did a quick count of the ~35 nodes currently marked as "installed" and everything mapped appears to be T-Mobile. However, they have a macro sector pointed directly at this site and seem to continue relying on the older-style DAS nodes. Additionally, there's another Crown Castle Solutions node approved for construction just around the corner, well within range of their macro. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Verizon using a new vendor for their mmWave build, especially since the macro site directly behind this node lacks mmWave/CBRS deployment (limited to LTE plus C-Band). However, opting for a multi-carrier solution here seems unlikely unless another carrier has actually joined the build. This node is equidistant (about five blocks) between two AT&T macro sites, and there are no oDAS nodes deployed nearby. Although I'm not currently mapping AT&T, based on CellMapper, it appears to be right on cell edge for both sites. Regardless, it appears that whoever is deploying is planning for a significant build. There are eight Crown Castle Solutions nodes approved for construction in a 12-block by 2-block area.
    • Starlink (1900mhz) for T-Mobile, AST SpaceMobile (700mhz and 850mhz) for AT&T, GlobalStar (unknown frequency) for Apple, Iridium (unknown frequency) for Samsung, and AST SpaceMobile (850mhz) for Verizon only work on frequency bands the carrier has licensed nationwide.  These systems broadcast and listen on multiple frequencies at the same time in areas much wider than normal cellular market license areas.  They would struggle with only broadcasting certain frequencies only in certain markets so instead they require a nationwide license.  With the antennas that are included on the satellites, they have range of cellular band frequencies they support and can have different frequencies with different providers in each supported country.  The cellular bands in use are typically 5mhz x 5mhz bands (37.5mbps total for the entire cell) or smaller so they do not have a lot of data bandwidth for the satellite band covering a very large plot of land with potentially millions of customers in a single large cellular satellite cell.  I have heard that each of Starlink's cells sharing that bandwidth will cover 75 or more miles. Satellite cellular connectivity will be set to the lowest priority connection just before SOS service on supported mobile devices and is made available nationwide in supported countries.  The mobile device rules pushed by the provider decide when and where the device is allowed to connect to the satellite service and what services can be provided over that connection.  The satellite has a weak receiving antenna and is moving very quickly so any significant obstructions above your mobile device antenna could cause it not to work.  All the cellular satellite services are starting with texting only and some of them like Apple's solution only support a predefined set of text messages.  Eventually it is expected that a limited number of simultaneous voice calls (VoLTE) will run on these per satellite cell.  Any spare data will then be available as an extremely slow LTE data connection as it could potentially be shared by millions of people.  Satellite data from the way these are currently configured will likely never work well enough to use unless you are in a very remote location.
    • T-Mobile owns the PCS G-block across the contiguous U.S. so they can just use that spectrum to broadcast direct to cell. Ideally your phone would only connect to it in areas where there isn't any terrestrial service available.
  • Recently Browsing

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