Sprint Deployment vs. AT&T Deployment

[Feech]

I don't know alot about AT&T. In fact I don't know anything at all about them. Looking at the Sensorly maps though it would seem that Sprint is rapidly becoming competitive in some of the same markets and in some cases it looks like Sprint may actually best them.

[DetroitFlyer]

Not here in Detroit for LTE.

[Feech]

Some.. Being the keyword.

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[Mobius360]

It will be nice when they really get a lot of coverage on LTE but I'd be happy with faster than 56k speeds on 3G to be honest. Kinda regret not switching to Verizon when they had the double data promo. Only because their 4G coverage is pretty much everywhere I am, work and home. Hopefully sticking with Sprint will pay off in the end.

 

Sent via my Galaxy Nexus

60% of the time, It works every time!

[nova46]

As far as I know sprint isn't really focused on adding more towers, mainly focusing on network vision. Which is good and bad. Network vision will be awesome once its completed but it won't fix all of their coverage issues. Sprint has quite a few dead zones around here and since Verizon bought altell, their rural coverage is unparalleled. I seemed to have good coverage back when I had att but I didn't pay much attention because I didn't have a smartphone back then

[Steven800]

As far as I know sprint isn't really focused on adding more towers, mainly focusing on network vision. Which is good and bad. Network vision will be awesome once its completed but it won't fix all of their coverage issues. Sprint has quite a few dead zones around here and since Verizon bought altell, their rural coverage is unparalleled. I seemed to have good coverage back when I had att but I didn't pay much attention because I didn't have a smartphone back then

it will get better though once they have 800mhz coverage for lte and 1x

[keelerman8042]

Not here in Detroit for LTE.

Detroit is scheduled to have some sites up in October if not it'll be every soon as deployment should /or is starting

[HawaiiD]

I don't know alot about AT&T. In fact I don't know anything at all about them. Looking at the Sensorly maps though it would seem that Sprint is rapidly becoming competitive in some of the same markets and in some cases it looks like Sprint may actually best them.

 

AT&T has had LTE for 2 months here in Hawaii. According to Robert? Hawaii won't even start the 4g LTE build out till next year.

 

So the answer for me is a BIG FAT NO

 

Sent from my Coconut Wireless

[lynyrd65]

it will get better though once they have 800mhz coverage for lte and 1x

 

I seriously don't get why Sprint doesn't want to expand to rural areas with smr. The cell spacing would only require them to put up 2~3000 more sites to match the duopolists.

 

2 klatapaT gnisu III S yxalaG gnusmaS ym morf tnes

 

 

[pyroscott]

 

I seriously don't get why Sprint doesn't want to expand to rural areas with smr. The cell spacing would only require them to put up 2~3000 more sites to match the duopolists.

 

2 klatapaT gnisu III S yxalaG gnusmaS ym morf tnes

 

 

There is a reason that the carriers are not actively expanding, and only expand through merging/buying other cell companies. It is a risk they do not want to take. If they lease a bunch of cell sites, lease space for their stores and spend a bunch of cash on equipment, they need money coming in from new customers to justify the expansion expense. Sprint's roaming agreement with Verizon gives them the same footprint of coverage, and they can identify areas with a lot of roaming usage to put up a cell site. This is basically one of the same reasons that you only see MVNO companies coming up and not new cell carriers, they are not willing to lay down that kind of money and then have to work their tail off to try to steal customers from other carriers (who are likely entered into a contract with the other carrier). A decade ago, you could do some good marketing in rural areas and get a pile of new customers getting their first cell phone, now everyone has a cell phone, and the debt matures faster than the cell companies can turn a profit because it takes so long to steal customers away.

 

Maybe once NV is complete, they will look at expansion, but sooner or later shareholders are going to want to see returns on their investment. Expansion will just push that out farther.

[digiblur]

Every tower I go to check for NV work it seems AT&T has a new RRU up there for their LTE. I think they did this area about a little less than a year ago.

[SpenceSouth]

I don't know alot about AT&T. In fact I don't know anything at all about them. Looking at the Sensorly maps though it would seem that Sprint is rapidly becoming competitive in some of the same markets and in some cases it looks like Sprint may actually best them.

'

 

I concur. Looking at Sensorly maps in Chicago of Sprint and AT&T LTE from the same level, it clearly shows that Sprint's LTE already covers a wider area. Honestly, I'm not surprised though. In my experience Sprint has always had more coverage than AT&T here in the Florida markets.

[SpenceSouth]

In the Atlanta market, it looks like they both cover the same amount of area, although AT&T's is far denser coverage at this point.

[lynyrd65]

 

There is a reason that the carriers are not actively expanding, and only expand through merging/buying other cell companies. It is a risk they do not want to take. If they lease a bunch of cell sites, lease space for their stores and spend a bunch of cash on equipment, they need money coming in from new customers to justify the expansion expense. Sprint's roaming agreement with Verizon gives them the same footprint of coverage, and they can identify areas with a lot of roaming usage to put up a cell site. This is basically one of the same reasons that you only see MVNO companies coming up and not new cell carriers, they are not willing to lay down that kind of money and then have to work their tail off to try to steal customers from other carriers (who are likely entered into a contract with the other carrier). A decade ago, you could do some good marketing in rural areas and get a pile of new customers getting their first cell phone, now everyone has a cell phone, and the debt matures faster than the cell companies can turn a profit because it takes so long to steal customers away.

 

Maybe once NV is complete, they will look at expansion, but sooner or later shareholders are going to want to see returns on their investment. Expansion will just push that out farther.

 

Customers like to know their phones will work if they leave their home coverage area. Sprint doesn't have to set up stores and market service in these areas necessarily. It will just work as a great marketing tool to earn customers. How many VZW and AT&T customers claim to use those services because of superior coverage? (most of them!)

 

As a customer, I like to know that when I go out to lake Tenkiller for a weekend or a camp site my phone will work on the network it was designed for. There is your financial incentive.

 

Add new coverage and beat VZW/ATT at their own game. Market the coverage as beating AT&T/VZW when it actually does and they will win customers who already live in well covered areas.

 

Customers like the idea of large coverage areas across the US even if they are in areas they never plan to go. There is always the "what if" in the back of the customers mind.

 

2 klatapaT gnisu III S yxalaG gnusmaS ym morf tnes

 

 

[pyroscott]

Customers like to know their phones will work if they leave their home coverage area. Sprint doesn't have to set up stores and market service in these areas necessarily. It will just work as a great marketing tool to earn customers. How many VZW and AT&T customers claim to use those services because of superior coverage? (most of them!)

 

As a customer, I like to know that when I go out to lake Tenkiller for a weekend or a camp site my phone will work on the network it was designed for. There is your financial incentive.

 

Add new coverage and beat VZW/ATT at their own game. Market the coverage as beating AT&T/VZW when it actually does and they will win customers who already live in well covered areas.

 

Customers like the idea of large coverage areas across the US even if they are in areas they never plan to go. There is always the "what if" in the back of the customers mind.

 

2 klatapaT gnisu III S yxalaG gnusmaS ym morf tnes

 

It doesn't make sense financially for a company that has posted a net loss since they started writing down the value of Nextel to lay out more money on some cell sites that won't see much use.

 

Right now Sprint is the "Value carrier." They have a nationwide network (even if it is smaller than Verizon), they offer free roaming, and they have a monthly bill that is lower than VZW or AT&T. Why would Sprint lay down the cash to expand their network so your phone says Sprint instead of roaming? If a new site isn't going to make them money or save them from huge roaming costs, they are not going to add it. Pure and simple.

 

Edit: I looked up their yearly income/loss from continuing operations since 2001. (in billions)

2001 -1.6, 2002 +.5, 2003 -.3, 2004 -1, 2005 +1.8, 2006 +1, 2007 -29.4, 2008 -2.8, 2009 -2.4, 2010 -3.5, 2011 -2.9, and so far in 3 quarters of 2012 -2.9

3 years of actual income since 2001...

source: http://investors.sprint.com/

[iansltx]

In the Atlanta market, it looks like they both cover the same amount of area, although AT&T's is far denser coverage at this point.

 

Not necessarily denser. Just using a different frequency. I'd bet a few bucks that AT&T has less towers live with LTE in Atlanta than Sprint does at this point, but it doesn't matter because Sprint PCS requires tighter cell spacing than AT&T 700.

[lynyrd65]

It doesn't make sense financially for a company that has posted a net loss since they started writing down the value of Nextel to lay out more money on some cell sites that won't see much use.

 

Right now Sprint is the "Value carrier." They have a nationwide network (even if it is smaller than Verizon), they offer free roaming, and they have a monthly bill that is lower than VZW or AT&T. Why would Sprint lay down the cash to expand their network so your phone says Sprint instead of roaming? If a new site isn't going to make them money or save them from huge roaming costs, they are not going to add it. Pure and simple.

 

Edit: I looked up their yearly income/loss from continuing operations since 2001. (in billions)

2001 -1.6, 2002 +.5, 2003 -.3, 2004 -1, 2005 +1.8, 2006 +1, 2007 -29.4, 2008 -2.8, 2009 -2.4, 2010 -3.5, 2011 -2.9, and so far in 3 quarters of 2012 -2.9

3 years of actual income since 2001...

source: http://investors.sprint.com/

 

I'm trying to say it will earn them money, in an indirect way. Customers who look at coverage sq. milage on maps (that are already covered by Sprint and rarely leave coverage) on an Verizon map vs a Sprint Map, (this will become especially important when LTE is ubiquitous across the footprint of the two carriers in the next two years), they will be more likely to favor Verizon just because they want to be with the carrier that has the most coverage even if they will never need it. What I am trying to say is if Sprint were to add some rural coverage to improve the look of their LTE coverage map they could earn new customers who (while they may not need the coverage) would have chosen Verizon otherwise.

 

So even if some towers in North Dakota never see usage they will earn revenue for the company through brand image.

 

Edit:

 

I'll give you some perspective on this. My friends constantly trash on Sprint because it lacks the coverage that AT&T has. I tell them that I roam for free when I don't have native Sprint service and they ask why not switch to the network it roams on. I tell them about the value of the service and that Sprint has coverage in almost everywhere people actually live, they don't care. They take one look at the coverage map and dismiss the carrier. So, if Sprint had a coverage map with as much native coverage as those other carriers, it would earn new customers even if those would-be customers never travel to these new coverage areas areas (trust me, these friends of mine don't and wouldn't). AT&T is earning customers based on an image in a pamphlet and reputation. Adding new coverage would change this.

[Johnner1999]

maybe it was already said, but AT&T has a much better back up with HSPA+ -- like many here I only get 56k speeds on 3g evdo... I know once NV gets to most areas it will rock!

[pyroscott]

I'm trying to say it will earn them money, in an indirect way. Customers who look at coverage sq. milage on maps (that are already covered by Sprint and rarely leave coverage) on an Verizon map vs a Sprint Map, (this will become especially important when LTE is ubiquitous across the footprint of the two carriers in the next two years), they will be more likely to favor Verizon just because they want to be with the carrier that has the most coverage even if they will never need it. What I am trying to say is if Sprint were to add some rural coverage to improve the look of their LTE coverage map they could earn new customers who (while they may not need the coverage) would have chosen Verizon otherwise.

 

So even if some towers in North Dakota never see usage they will earn revenue for the company through brand image.

 

Edit:

 

I'll give you some perspective on this. My friends constantly trash on Sprint because it lacks the coverage that AT&T has. I tell them that I roam for free when I don't have native Sprint service and they ask why not switch to the network it roams on. I tell them about the value of the service and that Sprint has coverage in almost everywhere people actually live, they don't care. They take one look at the coverage map and dismiss the carrier. So, if Sprint had a coverage map with as much native coverage as those other carriers, it would earn new customers even if those would-be customers never travel to these new coverage areas areas (trust me, these friends of mine don't and wouldn't). AT&T is earning customers based on an image in a pamphlet and reputation. Adding new coverage would change this.

 

I agree that it would be nice for Sprint to join the pissing match, and earn customers, but the cost of 10,000 unused/underused Verizon or AT&T cell sites spread across 100 million customers is much less than the cost of 10,000 unused/underused Sprint cell sites spread across 50 million customers. Then you ponder the idea that you are talking about rural sites, with little infrastructure, resulting in massive costs to run fiber to the cell sites...

 

There is a generational step in cellular technology every 10-12 years resulting in more efficient and cost effective delivery of data/voice traffic. Sprint is laying out billions to upgrade their entire network, I'm not sure that this is the time for them to start adding thousands of sites just to play the network footprint game. They need to FINISH THE PROJECT, reduce their operating costs, assess their debt and then consider expansion. Otherwise they will end up like Clearwire and the WiMax deployment. You can't bite off more than you can chew in this business. I guess Sprint has Softbank as their sugar daddy, just like Clearwire had Sprint to bail them out, but I don't think Sprint wants to tarnish their image any further with another "running out of money during 4G deployment" debacle. (even if the first was technically Clearwire, Sprint still had egg on their faces)

 

In the end, people in rural areas will probably pick Verizon or AT&T because they offer a larger coverage area (or have the perception of greater coverage area), and people who live in urban areas will probably not care if they have native coverage at their campsite in rural wyoming or if they have free roaming coverage when they take their yearly trip to yellowstone...

Sprint has unlimited data and lower cost plans than VZW/ATT, how many feathers do they need in their cap?

[pyroscott]

An addition to this, once the

FINISH THE (Network Vision) PROJECT, reduce their operating costs, assess their debt and then consider expansion.

has been completed, they will have a good spectrum position with 800 MHz for LTE and Voice and 1900 "Hot Spots" closer to the towers in rural areas. They could expand into rural areas much more efficiently than using PCS spacing, but they need to have phones in the hands of customers that can use 800 LTE. If they deploy a bunch of 1xA, it might give the illusion of increased coverage, but customers will not be happy and a LOT of prepaid/non-smartphone customers will be left in the cold in those areas. Sprint still cares for their non-smartphone customers and keeps them in mind with their moves.

[lynyrd65]

An addition to this, once the

 

has been completed, they will have a good spectrum position with 800 MHz for LTE and Voice and 1900 "Hot Spots" closer to the towers in rural areas. They could expand into rural areas much more efficiently than using PCS spacing, but they need to have phones in the hands of customers that can use 800 LTE. If they deploy a bunch of 1xA, it might give the illusion of increased coverage, but customers will not be happy and a LOT of prepaid/non-smartphone customers will be left in the cold in those areas. Sprint still cares for their non-smartphone customers and keeps them in mind with their moves.

 

1st - my point is that while it may be a "pissing contest" many customers will only buy from the winners in this contest. Getting competitive in it WILL win over new customers who are willing to buy premium services.

 

2nd - I didn't necessarily mean that this needs to happen now but it should be a goal perhaps starting in Q2 2014 or so.

 

3rd - you are absolutely right about that strategy put the tower in the middle of the small towns to give them capacity at 1900. Then cover back roads with 800 smr.

 

2 klatapaT gnisu III S yxalaG gnusmaS ym morf tnes

 

 

[SpenceSouth]

Not necessarily denser. Just using a different frequency. I'd bet a few bucks that AT&T has less towers live with LTE in Atlanta than Sprint does at this point, but it doesn't matter because Sprint PCS requires tighter cell spacing than AT&T 700.

 

Exactly!

[newboyx]

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/index.do?document=317082

And then there's this

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[newboyx]

PUBLIC NOTICE

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

445 TWELFTH STREET, S.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554

News media information 202/418-0500 Fax-On-Demand 202/418-2830 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov ftp.fcc.gov

DA 12-1737

Released: October 31, 2012

AT&T MOBILITY SPECTRUM LLC, NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC, AND

BROADBAND WIRELESS UNLIMITED, LLC SEEK FCC CONSENT TO THE

ASSIGNMENT OF LOWER 700 MHZ BAND B BLOCK LICENSES

ULS File Nos. 0005373357 and 0005373376

PLEADING CYCLE ESTABLISHED

Petitions to Deny Due: November 14, 2012

Oppositions Due: November 26, 2012

Replies Due: December 3, 2012

I. INTRODUCTION

AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC (“AT&T Mobility”) and New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, both

indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries of AT&T Inc. (collectively, “AT&T”), and Broadband Wireless

Unlimited, LLC (“Broadband Unlimited,” and collectively, “the Applicants”), have filed applications

pursuant to Section 310(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,1 seeking to assign nine

Lower 700 MHz Band B Block licenses from Broadband Unlimited to AT&T. The Applicants state that

the additional spectrum will enable AT&T to increase its system capacity in the areas covered by the

licenses, particularly for Long Term Evolution (“LTE”) services, and to facilitate the provision of

additional products and services in nine Cellular Market Areas (“CMAs”) located in Georgia, Illinois,

Louisiana, Massachusetts, New York, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.

Preliminary review of the applications indicates that post-transaction, AT&T would hold, in total,

70 to125 megahertz of spectrum in the CMAs that are the subject of these applications. In addition, in

CMA 300 (Victoria, Texas), AT&T would hold, post-transaction, 68 megahertz of spectrum below 1

GHz.

II. SECTION 310(d) APPLICATIONS

The applications for consent to the full assignment of the Lower 700 MHz Band B Block licenses

from Broadband Unlimited to AT&T have been assigned the following file numbers:

 

1 47 U.S.C. § 310(d).

2File No. Licensee/Assignor Assignee Lead Call Sign

0005373357 Broadband Wireless Unlimited, LLC AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC WQIZ371

0005373376 Broadband Wireless Unlimited, LLC New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC WQIZ379

III. EX PARTE STATUS OF THIS PROCEEDING

Pursuant to Section 1.1200(a) of the Commission’s rules,2 the Commission may adopt modified

or more stringent ex parte procedures in particular proceedings if the public interest so requires. We

announce that this proceeding will be governed by permit-but-disclose ex parte procedures that are

applicable to non-restricted proceedings under Section 1.1206 of the Commission’s rules.3

Parties making oral ex parte presentations are directed to the Commission’s revised ex parte

rules. Parties are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must contain the presentation’s

substance and not merely list the subjects discussed.4 More than a one- or two-sentence description of the

views and arguments presented is generally required.5 Other rules pertaining to oral and written

presentations are set forth in Section 1.1206( as well.6

IV. GENERAL INFORMATION

The assignment applications have been found, upon initial review, to be acceptable for filing.

The Commission reserves the right to return any application if, upon further examination, it is determined

to be defective and not in conformance with the Commission’s rules or policies.

Interested parties must file petitions to deny no later than November 14, 2012. Persons and

entities that file petitions to deny become parties to the proceeding. They may participate fully in the

proceeding, including seeking access to any confidential information that may be filed under a protective

order, seeking reconsideration of decisions, and filing appeals of a final decision to the courts.

Oppositions to such pleadings must be filed no later than November 26, 2012. Replies to such pleadings

must be filed no later than December 3, 2012. All filings concerning matters referenced in this Public

Notice should refer to ULS File Nos. 0005373357 and/or 0005373376 as appropriate.

To allow the Commission to consider fully all substantive issues regarding the applications in

as timely and efficient a manner as possible, petitioners and commenters should raise all issues in

their initial filings. New issues may not be raised in responses or replies.7 A party or interested

person seeking to raise a new issue after the pleading cycle has closed must show good cause why it

was not possible for it to have raised the issue previously. Submissions after the pleading cycle has

closed that seek to raise new issues based on new facts or newly discovered facts should be filed

within 15 days after such facts are discovered. Absent such a showing of good cause, any issues not

timely raised may be disregarded by the Commission.

 

2 47 C.F.R. § 1.1200(a).

3 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206.

4 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206((1).

5 See id.

6 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(.

7 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.45©.

3Under the Commission’s current procedures for the submission of filings and other documents,8

submissions in this matter may be filed electronically though the Commission’s Universal Licensing

System (“ULS”) or by hand delivery to the Commission.

· If filed by ULS, pleadings may be filed via

https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsEntry/pleadings/pleadingsType.jsp.

· If filed by paper, the original and four copies of each filing must be filed by hand or messenger

delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail.

All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission’s Secretary must be

delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St., SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, D.C. 20554.

The filing hours at this location are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held

together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the

building. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority

Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal

Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20554. All filings must be addressed to the Commission’s Secretary, Office of

the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

One copy of each pleading must be delivered electronically, by e-mail or facsimile, or if delivered

as paper copy, by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (according to the procedures set forth above for paper filings), to:

(1) the Commission’s duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., at FCC@BCPIWEB.COM or

(202) 488-5563 (facsimile); (2) Kathy Harris, Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,

at kathy.harris@fcc.gov or (202) 418-7447 (facsimile); (3) Kate Matraves, Spectrum and Competition

Policy Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, at catherine.matraves@fcc.gov or (202) 418-7447

(facsimile); and (4) Jim Bird, Office of General Counsel, at TransactionTeam@fcc.gov or (202) 418-1234

(facsimile).

Copies of the applications and any subsequently-filed documents in this matter may be obtained

from Best Copy and Printing, Inc. in person at 445 12th Street, S.W., Room CY-B402, Washington, D.C.

20554, via telephone at (202) 488-5300, via facsimile at (202) 488-5563, or via email at

FCC@BCPIWEB.COM. The application and any associated documents are also available for public

inspection and copying during normal reference room hours at the following Commission office: FCC

Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room CY-A257, Washington, D.C. 20554. The

applications are also available electronically through ULS, which may be accessed on the Commission’s

Internet website. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large

print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice) or (202) 418-0432 (TTY). Contact the FCC to

request reasonable accommodations for filing comments (accessible format documents, sign language

interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov; phone: (202) 418-0530 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.

For further information, contact Kathy Harris, Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications

Bureau, at (202) 418-0609, or Kate Matraves, Spectrum and Competition Policy Division, Wireless

Telecommunications Bureau, at (202) 391-6272.

-FCC-

 

8 See FCC Announces Change in Filing Location for Paper Documents, Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 14312 (2009).

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[centermedic]

I'm trying to say it will earn them money, in an indirect way. Customers who look at coverage sq. milage on maps (that are already covered by Sprint and rarely leave coverage) on an Verizon map vs a Sprint Map, (this will become especially important when LTE is ubiquitous across the footprint of the two carriers in the next two years), they will be more likely to favor Verizon just because they want to be with the carrier that has the most coverage even if they will never need it. What I am trying to say is if Sprint were to add some rural coverage to improve the look of their LTE coverage map they could earn new customers who (while they may not need the coverage) would have chosen Verizon otherwise.

 

So even if some towers in North Dakota never see usage they will earn revenue for the company through brand image.

 

Edit:

 

I'll give you some perspective on this. My friends constantly trash on Sprint because it lacks the coverage that AT&T has. I tell them that I roam for free when I don't have native Sprint service and they ask why not switch to the network it roams on. I tell them about the value of the service and that Sprint has coverage in almost everywhere people actually live, they don't care. They take one look at the coverage map and dismiss the carrier. So, if Sprint had a coverage map with as much native coverage as those other carriers, it would earn new customers even if those would-be customers never travel to these new coverage areas areas (trust me, these friends of mine don't and wouldn't). AT&T is earning customers based on an image in a pamphlet and reputation. Adding new coverage would change this.

But you cant quantify the amount of indirect revenue. As long as it is not a "home market" then roaming should suffice. If you make it a home market(ie: no roaming, sprint stores) then you would have direct revenue that would allow you to justify either staying or leaving. But who wants to take that risk especially in a less than dense market?