NV Upgrades improving more than just Sprint service

[kornyhiv]

Let me explain...

 

I live on the outskirts of Oakboro, NC. For years broadband internet, more specifically DSL has been out of reach for many around these parts. Windstream the local provider, and before them CTC ( Windstream bough them about 5 years ago) have constantly said that a remote DSLAM was impossible to cover the area. Citing every time 6 figures for such upgrades. With that the hope for DSL, let alone any type of broadband service was out of the minds of many.

 

The Sprint tower that services the area is located at 557 Richard Rd Polkton, NC 28135.

 

It has been interesting monitoring the tower, and how the NV upgrades will work out.

Because of the area where the tower is located, and what I explained above, I thought the backhaul would be Microwave. To the surprise of many, Windstream did in fact create a new DSLAM to service the tower. You can literally follow the wiring on the almost non existent utility poles to the Tower.

 

Now magically everyone is serviced ( within approx. 23,000 feet of course) with DSL.

 

With that in mind, the NV upgrade of this tower has not only increased my 3G speeds, upwards of 2 mbps, before was close to 1 mbps. But now the area is serviced by DSL.

 

This would not have been possible without the NV upgrades. The local residents for years have been asking for DSL.

 

 

N Carolina 742 & Flint Ridge Rd, New Salem, NC 28103 is where the new DSLAM is located that services the tower further east.

 

I wonder how many other communities, neighborhoods, towns, and cities have benefited from upgrades as the one I described in remote areas of the country.

 

 

New DSLAM:

 

 

 

Before no DSLAM:

 

 

Tower:

 

[ReyBanz]

Wow congratulations!

[S4GRU]

What Sprint is doing in the rural areas with Network Vision is just unprecedented. Although I still feel Sprint falls short in some regards with rural service, they are the best at how they treat them of the big 4.

 

Robert via Samsung Note II via Tapatalk

 

 

[kornyhiv]

What Sprint is doing in the rural areas with Network Vision is just unprecedented. Although I still feel Sprint falls short in some regards with rural service, they are the best at how they treat them of the big 4.

 

Robert via Samsung Note II via Tapatalk

 

I truly agree. It is really incredible how committed Sprint it. To think Sprint is spending money on hard to reach places, to reach the few subscribers on each area is truly unprecedented.

 

Not only that but improving many other things as discussed not necessarily Sprint related. Bringing infrastructure is really a game changer. Kudos to Sprint!!

[xenadu]

When electricity was invented this country legislated to get every home served. Cities that couldn't get it built their own power plants. The federal government built the TVA, Hoover, and other massive hydro projects. We wouldn't settle for second-class or half-measures and if private industry couldn't or wouldn't move fast enough, we lit a goddamn fire under it and made things happen.

 

Today, people cheer crappy slow DSL service because it's all they can get. If you have more than 2 broadband choices you're one of the lucky ones. 24 (mostly R) state legislatures have made it illegal to run municipal broadband. The children of Ma Bell collude to enforce high prices and institute download caps; Verizon signs a non-compete deal with the cable companies and suddenly all further FIOS expansion is halted. Over the past 20-30 years we've given these companies 100's of billions in tax breaks, incentives, free right-of-way on other people's private land, etc to give us a next-generation network. They won't.

 

The country that invented the internet, fiber optics, etc can't bother to actually run fiber internet to every home because that would be socialism. Even in central Dallas, TX... an area with massively high population density you can't do better than crappy DSL.

 

This thread makes me very, very sad. You shouldn't be happy with crappy DSL. You should be demanding fiber to the home.

 

Do you think the electric company would make a profit in 100 years off a couple of podunk farm electric bills? Not a chance. So why did they run the lines? Because the government said "do it or you'll be sorry".

 

Think Ma Bell made a profit hooking up Timbuktu, FL to the phone system? Think they made any money running copper out to those same podunk farms? Nope. Why did they bother? Because the government said "do it or you'll be sorry".

 

 

I wish we still had the capacity to think big in this country, instead of "screw you, I got mine".

[delta772er]

What Sprint is doing in the rural areas with Network Vision is just unprecedented. Although I still feel Sprint falls short in some regards with rural service, they are the best at how they treat them of the big 4.

 

Robert via Samsung Note II via Tapatalk

 

Agreed. Until AT&T bought Centennial and Verizon bought Alltel, Sprint (including Nextel) was the only nationwide carrier here.

[Feech]

When electricity was invented this country legislated to get every home served. Cities that couldn't get it built their own power plants. The federal government built the TVA, Hoover, and other massive hydro projects. We wouldn't settle for second-class or half-measures and if private industry couldn't or wouldn't move fast enough, we lit a goddamn fire under it and made things happen.

 

Today, people cheer crappy slow DSL service because it's all they can get. If you have more than 2 broadband choices you're one of the lucky ones. 24 (mostly R) state legislatures have made it illegal to run municipal broadband. The children of Ma Bell collude to enforce high prices and institute download caps; Verizon signs a non-compete deal with the cable companies and suddenly all further FIOS expansion is halted. Over the past 20-30 years we've given these companies 100's of billions in tax breaks, incentives, free right-of-way on other people's private land, etc to give us a next-generation network. They won't.

 

The country that invented the internet, fiber optics, etc can't bother to actually run fiber internet to every home because that would be socialism. Even in central Dallas, TX... an area with massively high population density you can't do better than crappy DSL.

 

This thread makes me very, very sad. You shouldn't be happy with crappy DSL. You should be demanding fiber to the home.

 

Do you think the electric company would make a profit in 100 years off a couple of podunk farm electric bills? Not a chance. So why did they run the lines? Because the government said "do it or you'll be sorry".

 

Think Ma Bell made a profit hooking up Timbuktu, FL to the phone system? Think they made any money running copper out to those same podunk farms? Nope. Why did they bother? Because the government said "do it or you'll be sorry".

 

 

I wish we still had the capacity to think big in this country, instead of "screw you, I got mine".

 

Well said. I'm happy for kornyhiv for getting better internet but you are absolutely correct. We settle for crap far too often and without the feds getting involved it will not change. did FIOS really cut a no compete deal? I thought they found out it was too expense to bring fiber to the house

[iansltx]

Well said. I'm happy for kornyhiv for getting better internet but you are absolutely correct. We settle for crap far too often and without the feds getting involved it will not change. did FIOS really cut a no compete deal? I thought they found out it was too expense to bring fiber to the house

 

Fiber is more expensive than LTE per home passed, and LTE makes more revenue per person signed up. Guess which is the path of least (investor) resistance...

[pyroscott]

I'll remind everyone that debating politics is against site rules. I'm sure there are political forums out there for that. There is no reason to insert jabs in a post.

[xenadu]

I'll remind everyone that debating politics is against site rules. I'm sure there are political forums out there for that. There is no reason to insert jabs in a post.

 

Sorry, it just irks me for obvious reasons but you are correct.

 

 

FIOS ended up not being as expensive as predicted because it let them stop spending gobs of money maintaining the copper plant; fiber boxes can get flooded and continue working just fine. Copper, not so much. The big trunk lines have air pumps that keep the line under positive pressure (and keeps water out) but your average neighborhood stuff doesn't and that's a huge cost to continually repair. You also don't have electrical power to a DSLAM to pay for. Oh and once the fiber is installed you can make improvements just by swapping line cards and ONTs.

 

 

Iansltx is correct - this was a business decision to boost short term profit by stopping investment in infrastructure. And they did sign a non-compete. It was part of the spectrum deal they did. The cable companies agreed not to setup a new cellular network, Verizon agreed to stop rolling out FIOS into new areas, and they agreed to cross-sell each other's services.

[S4GRU]

Yes, this is neither a Republican nor Democrat issue, because both have had power of all houses and neither treated it as a priority. That's the end of the political element of the discussion.

 

However, we should not settle for less. The internet is the modern highways of the 21st century. We need to have a massive nationwide system of fiber to every corner of the country. The modern broadband equivalent to Eisenhower's Interstate Highway System. The private sector never would have built that on their own. And they will never build an internet appropriate for the future and the whole country either.

 

Instead of bailing out more poorly run companies, we should spend those billions on infrastructure for nationwide last mile fiber. It will employ hundreds of thousands of people, and spur commerce and industry. And we would be investing in our future. People scoffed at Eisenhower for putting freeways in rural Kansas, Montana and Vermont, chiding him they weren't needed. However, that forward thinking proved to be appropriate. As will proper fiber and broadband deployment nationwide.

 

Robert via Nexus 7 with Tapatalk HD

[P_M_G]

Yes, this is neither a Republican nor Democrat issue, because both have had power of all houses and neither treated it as a priority. That's the end of the political element of the discussion.

 

However, we should not settle for less. The internet is the modern highways of the 21st century. We need to have a massive nationwide system of fiber to every corner of the country. The modern broadband equivalent to Eisenhower's Interstate Highway System. The private sector never would have built that on their own. And they will never build an internet appropriate for the future and the whole country either.

 

Instead of bailing out more poorly run companies, we should spend those billions on infrastructure for nationwide last mile fiber. It will employ hundreds of thousands of people, and spur commerce and industry. And we would be investing in our future. People scoffed at Eisenhower for putting freeways in rural Kansas, Montana and Vermont, chiding him they weren't needed. However, that forward thinking proved to be appropriate. As will proper fiber and broadband deployment nationwide.

 

Robert via Nexus 7 with Tapatalk HD

 

It's true. I used to work for Qwest (now CenturyLink) and our CEO's vision went even beyond that to wanting fiber to every door. Everyone (competitors) scoffed at the idea, but I can absolutely see the need for it. We are an ever connecting society and the poor bastards in rural KS or SD or wherever that can't get anything but satellite have just as much right to access technology as the fat cats in Beverly Hills. For what I would guess is a majority still (at least geographically), people are wanting to access a 50 lane information superhighway but have a bikelane sized off ramp to get there.

[Deval]

Here is the sad part. Let's look at a highly populated area such as Queens, NY. Queens is the home of Time Warner Cable for both TV and broadband over coax services. The majority of the apartment buildings in the area, be it condos or co-ops, have agreements signed with TWC to provide all services, and keep Verizon and the satellite companies out. My girlfriend's building is TWC only, and her average monthly bill hovers around $180 a month, while my FiOS bill is $85, and I get double her services.

 

Since TWC knows they are the incumbent, and will never been removed from the building, they care less about service issues. I've seen her service go out for days on end, and having her resort to my WiMAX hotspot for internet and TV (Netflix, etc.) in the meantime.

[chgoguy80]

We are an ever connecting society and the poor bastards in rural KS or SD or wherever that can't get anything but satellite have just as much right to access technology as the fat cats in Beverly Hills.

 

I have to absolutely completely disagree. Those in rural areas have no right nor should have an expectation of getting something they are not willing to pay for without any government or cross subsidies. That's the choice choosing to live in the middle of nowhere. Those in major metro areas pay much more for housing etc and get commercial services at lower prices, as it should be, because of economies of scale. Why would you think any different, just wondering?

[Deval]

I have to absolutely completely disagree. Those in rural areas have no right nor should have an expectation of getting something they are not willing to pay for without any government or cross subsidies. That's the choice choosing to live in the middle of nowhere. Those in major metro areas pay much more for housing etc and get commercial services at lower prices, as it should be, because of economies of scale. Why would you think any different, just wondering?

 

Always one of those fine areas, people live where they choose, you know?

[S4GRU]

 

I have to absolutely completely disagree. Those in rural areas have no right nor should have an expectation of getting something they are not willing to pay for without any government or cross subsidies. That's the choice choosing to live in the middle of nowhere. Those in major metro areas pay much more for housing etc and get commercial services at lower prices, as it should be, because of economies of scale. Why would you think any different, just wondering?

 

Although you're starting to get political, there are certain things the government should facilitate. Like infrastructure.

 

Do you think we rural folks also shouldn't have highways and utilities because they are largely funded by city people? How about you city folks start growing your own darn food? It's a symbiotic relationship.

 

All of America benefits from solid nationwide broadband access. We are now a global world. You need all Americans to have the ability to communicate, participate and prosper. And you may find yourself in a rural area sometime, wanting to be able to communicate.

 

I would never say that urban ghettos shouldnt have broadband unless they can come up with the money. It is fundamentally flawed to limit infrastructure. That sounds a little third worldish to me.

 

Robert via Samsung Note II via Tapatalk

 

 

[chgoguy80]

Here is the sad part. Let's look at a highly populated area such as Queens, NY. Queens is the home of Time Warner Cable for both TV and broadband over coax services. The majority of the apartment buildings in the area, be it condos or co-ops, have agreements signed with TWC to provide all services, and keep Verizon and the satellite companies out. My girlfriend's building is TWC only, and her average monthly bill hovers around $180 a month, while my FiOS bill is $85, and I get double her services.

 

Since TWC knows they are the incumbent, and will never been removed from the building, they care less about service issues. I've seen her service go out for days on end, and having her resort to my WiMAX hotspot for internet and TV (Netflix, etc.) in the meantime.

 

I am just curious, I live in a condo building (large by Chicago standards probably not by NY standards 700+ units) and we brought in satellite and get the basic fairly inclusive basic directv package (no premiums) for $25 including 2 DVRs at no charge, basic internet 6 mbps is $30 extra (other options available). Most satellite add ons are retail price though. No restriction on bringing in cable options or ATT but the basic is included in assessment. How can her cable be $180 a month? even with internet and phone? I'm at $85 for all 3 but thats because I still have an old time ATT landline for the moment Sprint is just about good enough to get rid of landline, I am thinking about dropping it, love the freebies Sprint throws in if you fight (14 yrs) (extra minutes, early nights, call a landline free, my brother/wife even got to keep FIMF from old plan).

[WiWavelength]

I have to absolutely completely disagree. Those in rural areas have no right nor should have an expectation of getting something they are not willing to pay for without any government or cross subsidies. That's the choice choosing to live in the middle of nowhere. Those in major metro areas pay much more for housing etc and get commercial services at lower prices, as it should be, because of economies of scale. Why would you think any different, just wondering?

 

Before you make naive statements like the above, read up on network theory and supply chains. If you think that subsidizing equivalent connectivity for those who live and work in less densely populated areas is not worth it, then you reduce the value of your own connectivity, since you reduce the number of people with whom you can connect. Not to mention, be prepared to pay a lot more for your food and finished goods, as the raw materials for both tend to originate from less densely populated areas.

 

If you think that you have a simple response to a complex issue, my suggestion is this: think again.

 

AJ

[chgoguy80]

Although you're starting to get political, there are certain things the government should facilitate. Like infrastructure.

 

Do you think we rural folks also shouldn't have highways and utilities because they are largely funded by city people? How about you city folks start growing your own darn food? It's a symbiotic relationship.

 

All of America benefits from solid nationwide broadband access. We are now a global world. You need all Americans to have the ability to communicate, participate and prosper. And you may find yourself in a rural area sometime, wanting to be able to communicate.

 

I would never say that urban ghettos shouldnt have broadband unless they can come up with the money. It is fundamentally flawed to limit infrastructure. That sounds a little third worldish to me.

 

Robert via Samsung Note II via Tapatalk

 

Sorry. I did not see it as political at all, IMHO, rural should pay their fair share for highways and utilities if thats what it costs to provide them, just like we city folks already pay extra for food since we do not grow it.

 

It would be the same thing If rural areas got subsidized for highways and they subsidized our food then that could be a possibly fair trade. Actually urban ghettos since you mentioned it, IMHO should not get broadband unless they pay enough to make it worthwhile, so I guess its not population density thing its the ability to pay for what you use/cost society. Those on the other side of politics could see it differently which is fine, I can agree to disagree and/or drop the topic

[mirlyn]

I hope everyone realizes the FCC is pushing rural ISPs to offer at least 4mbit connections, while urban ISPs are challenged to offer a gig. Its not like they're getting their facebook on your dime.

 

Its not about getting something for nothing, its about being able to get something at all. Look at the first post of this thread. I have to wonder, how many LTE towers (Sprint or otherwise) are made possible directly or indirectly by these subsidies? Think of that next time you travel an interstate in the country.

[MacinJosh]

Sorry. I did not see it as political at all, IMHO, rural should pay their fair share for highways and utilities if thats what it costs to provide them, just like we city folks already pay extra for food since we do not grow it.

 

It would be the same thing If rural areas got subsidized for highways and they subsidized our food then that could be a possibly fair trade. Actually urban ghettos since you mentioned it, IMHO should not get broadband unless they pay enough to make it worthwhile, so I guess its not population density thing its the ability to pay for what you use/cost society. Those on the other side of politics could see it differently which is fine, I can agree to disagree and/or drop the topic

 

For the record, we paid at&stinks over $400/yr for landlines and cell phones for almost a decade, and I still don't have broadband because they are too d*** cheap to upgrade our copper lines. It takes a Canadian to come in and start his own ISP using microwave antennas to towers all around town to provide usable and decent internet service to the town of Pahrump. I have lived in that cruddy town since 1996 and last year we finally got real Internet.

[chgoguy80]

.

For the record, we paid at&stinks over $400/yr for landlines and cell phones for almost a decade, and I still don't have broadband because they are too d*** cheap to upgrade our copper lines. It takes a Canadian to come in and start his own ISP using microwave antennas to towers all around town to provide usable and decent internet service to the town of Pahrump. I have lived in that cruddy town since 1996 and last year we finally got real Internet.

 

Here the almost cheapest landline at&stinks also by itself is $400/yr and that's NO long distance and you can only call 1/10th of the metro area. So if yours included cellphones too that sounds cheap Is it bad the Canadian came in and gave you good internet, sounds like a good solution?

[chgoguy80]

I hope everyone realizes the FCC is pushing rural ISPs to offer at least 4mbit connections, while urban ISPs are challenged to offer a gig. Its not like they're getting their facebook on your dime.

 

Its not about getting something for nothing, its about being able to get something at all. Look at the first post of this thread. I have to wonder, how many LTE towers (Sprint or otherwise) are made possible directly or indirectly by these subsidies? Think of that next time you travel an interstate in the country.

 

I'm glad you are getting a gig in your urban area at a reasonable price, Chicago and most/many burbs ain't anywhere near that most folks have 1.5-6 mbps though they might be if paying BIG bucks if they are lucky with their cable provider to get 50 = $115/mo maybe in a few areas 105mbps for $200/mo but not typical and who c/would pay those prices? Fiber is VERY rare here maybe common by you, here its a dsl/cable game.

[mirlyn]

I didn't say I get a gig. I said the FCC has challenged ISPs to improve their service; rural should provide at least 4mbit and urban offer a gig. Its a challenge, not a mandate.

[jefbal99]

Sprint LTE is very important to me as I'm moving to a "rural" area in the summer and the two LTE phones in the house will be our only internet connection. No cable lines are run, only old at&t phone lines. No DSL or anything.

 

I'm going from paying $80/month for Comcast (i think 15meg) internet to nothing. What Sprint is doing with NV is amazing. Unfortunately, the towers are not close to my building location, so I'm not benefiting the way the OP did.

 

As for the current replies in this thread, a nationwide fiber network is the same to me as power lines, road ways, and phone lines. Any time a road is built or rebuilt, fiber needs to be run in association with it so that connectivity is available to everyone.