Sprint losing more pseudo native coverage [Nex-Tech, United Wireless, PTCI]?

[userkv8031]

Stole this from howardforums but I think this map really illustrates the loss in coverage.

[S4GRU]

 

I really hope they do add coverage not just in those areas but nationwide. I have had enough dealing with the coverage I have been getting lately. They changed the coverage pattern of the tower I have been connecting to and I no longer get service. Business Care told me there is nothing that will be done but the tower does have an on air date for NV toward the end of May. I have real problems finding any carrier that serves where I live due to being on the Cellular A/B boundary. USCC has A to one direction and B to the other. Creates havoc when trying to actually use a phone as they all flip between the towers. PCS is the only service that would be consistent but the build out here was scuttled by Sprint when all expansion stopped a few years back.

 

After reading that KS coverage is going I find it very hard to justify staying with Sprint. I am probably one of the few that uses that coverage often. I loved the service Nex-Tech provided and wish all of the Sprint network performed as good as it did. The signal strength they had all over the place was nothing short of amazing. I would guess Sprint is ending all of these agreements to try to save costs. I thought they were paid a nominal fee for servicing these customers by the rural alliance partners. Sprint did have to pay for customers that used the network built by the partner. It may be that Sprint ended up paying more than expected due to I-70 being covered. It does make sense to cover I-70, US 50, and US 54. The shortcut between I-70 and CO Springs is probably worthwhile. I would be very surprise to see Sprint let the Limon-Denver corridor go to roaming due to the traffic there.

 

There is no evidence that Sprint is cutting them or that Sprint is trying to reduce cost. If this is similar to what happened with Pioneer in Oklahoma, then it is the complete opposite.

 

Robert via Nexus 7 with Tapatalk HD

[WiWavelength]

ggore is such a tool. I posted this response in the HowardForums thread:

 

ggore, stop the FUD. The title of this thread is misleading. The coverage in question is pseudo native, not native. And no one has any proof that "Sprint is getting rid of [it]." Rather, Nex-Tech, United Wireless, and PTCI may be dumping Sprint. If precedent is any indication, that is exactly what is happening, as Pioneer betrayed Sprint, not the other way around.

 

So, you have a grudge against Sprint. Well, I have a grudge against you. Signing up with Sprint when you lived in a Pioneer market was irresponsible. Now, you have done the same with VZW. You basically spit in the eye of Pioneer, the local business that actually constructed and operates your network coverage -- all because of your irrational need for an iPhone. And, guess what, Pioneer now carries the iPhone. So, how about you do the responsible thing and port your line to Pioneer?

 

http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php/1797104-Sprint-getting-rid-of-more-native-coverage?p=15121326&posted=1#post15121326

 

AJ

[Fraydog]

The problem is that this keeps happening to Sprint over and over again.

 

Maybe it's time for a new course of action in these rural areas? Sprint also has valuable spectrum in these areas.

[S4GRU]

The problem is that this keeps happening to Sprint over and over again.

 

Maybe it's time for a new course of action in these rural areas? Sprint also has valuable spectrum in these areas.

 

Softbank recently said they wanted to compete with the duopoly on all fronts. That may mean coverage. I wouldn't rule out a rural coverage expansion by Softbank. I could see them rationally saying that in places like Kansas and Oklahoma, them taking the amount they used to pay Pioneer, Nextech, Panhandle and putting that back into coverage in these areas.

 

They wouldn't add ubiquitous coverage, but I could see them possibly adding service to places like Liberal, Woodward, Garden City, Guymon, Dodge City, Great Bend, etc. and let customers roam in between. You could probably add a few dozen sites for what they used to pay for pseudo native coverage in those areas.

 

I also could see Softbank being more aggressive with cap ex on new sites in rural areas. Sprint will add a native site where there is high roaming costs, when it can afford to. Whereas, Softbank could afford to identify and add sites at every single roaming location that could pay for itself. I'm guessing there are probably 1,000 to 3,000 rural sites that could be added that are break even or save roaming costs. And the thing about adding sites, is it adds more customers in an area over time. Which will then start to cause roaming on adjacent sites to the new site, and eventually Sprint would add service on them too.

 

As long as the new Sprint had an aggressive capex and plan to address high roaming locations, I can imagine a scheme of modest rural coverage growth under Softbank with very little risk. And I think the first step for Softbank would be to keep more iDEN sites to convert to Network Vision, where it makes sense.

 

Robert via Nexus 7 with Tapatalk HD

[WiWavelength]

The problem is that this keeps happening to Sprint over and over again.

 

Well, I live in the state most affected by this loss of pseudo native coverage, and while I am not pleased, it should hardly affect usage. Nex-Tech, United, and PTCI will remain as roaming partners. And as the posted maps show, even EV-DO access will continue.

 

The people that it will affect most are those, like ggore, who are using Sprint services irresponsibly. They are Sprint subs (who should not be Sprint subs) living in pseudo native coverage.

 

Maybe it's time for a new course of action in these rural areas? Sprint also has valuable spectrum in these areas.

 

Why? If it were worthwhile, Sprint would have built out western Kansas itself, rather than deed that area to Nex-Tech and United. And keep in mind that T-Mobile still has less native footprint in western Kansas than Sprint does, while VZW and AT&T each had none until VZW bought out both Alltel and RCC, then had to divest RCC's western Kansas assets to AT&T.

 

AJ

[WiWavelength]

They wouldn't add ubiquitous coverage, but I could see them possibly adding service to places like Liberal, Woodward, Garden City, Guymon, Dodge City, Great Bend, etc. and let customers roam in between. You could probably add a few dozen sites for what they used to pay for pseudo native coverage in those areas.

 

Beware what you wish for, though. Isolated pockets of roaming mitigation footprint mean call drops at those cell edges, whereas ubiquitous roaming coverage is just that -- ubiquitous. Now, as less and less traffic is voice, more and more is data, maybe those hard transitions between native and roaming coverage become less of an issue.

 

AJ

[S4GRU]

 

Beware what you wish for, though. Isolated pockets of roaming mitigation footprint mean call drops at those cell edges, whereas ubiquitous roaming coverage is just that -- ubiquitous. Now, as less and less traffic is voice, more and more is data, maybe those hard transitions between native and roaming coverage become less of an issue.

 

AJ

 

I don't call anyone anymore. I used 14 minutes last month. I always assume everyone is like me. I use voice to text in the car, and my car reads me my texts when they come in. I enjoy the humorous misreading of words. Kind of like how my GPS says the compass direction "NE" as Nebraska, even in street names. "Turn right on Martin Luther King Junior Nebraska."

 

Robert via Nexus 7 with Tapatalk HD

[lordsutch]

It's disappointing that Sprint is losing some of its SRA partners; however, over the medium/long term I expect Sprint to come out ahead by adding native coverage in the region consistent with its historical native buildout in rural areas (covering the key cities and Interstate/major highway corridors).

[Fraydog]

 

Well, I live in the state most affected by this loss of pseudo native coverage, and while I am not pleased, it should hardly affect usage. Nex-Tech, United, and PTCI will remain as roaming partners. And as the posted maps show, even EV-DO access will continue.

 

Why? If it were worthwhile, Sprint would have built out western Kansas itself, rather than deed that area to Nex-Tech and United. And keep in mind that T-Mobile still has less native footprint in western Kansas than Sprint does, while VZW and AT&T each had none until VZW bought out both Alltel and RCC, then had to divest RCC's western Kansas assets to AT&T.

 

AJ

 

Sprint may want native on the Interstate for LTE. That's probably the key reason they may want a native buildout of some sort. I don't think they have to serve the whole of the BFE here. Just figure out what customers traveling from KC to Denver need.

 

We just don't know the full course of action here, yet.

[WiWavelength]

Sprint may want native on the Interstate for LTE. That's probably the key reason they may want a native buildout of some sort. I don't think they have to serve the whole of the BFE here. Just figure out what customers traveling from KC to Denver need.

 

We just don't know the full course of action here, yet.

 

Before Rickie moved to the middle of Misery, he observed that Nex-Tech was expanding into the I-135 corridor, which is Sprint corporate territory. So, Sprint and Nex-Tech may have had a falling out over that, not to mention, the Lower 700 MHz A block spectrum for LTE. And Nex-Tech, United, and PTCI all seem to march in lock step, since at least Nex-Tech and United treat each other as fully native footprint.

 

AJ

[Fraydog]

 

Before Rickie moved to the middle of Misery, he observed that Nex-Tech was expanding into the I-135 corridor, which is Sprint corporate territory. So, Sprint and Nex-Tech may have had a falling out over that, not to mention, the Lower 700 MHz A block spectrum for LTE. And Nex-Tech, United, and PTCI all seem to march in lock step, since at least Nex-Tech and United treat each other as fully native footprint.

 

AJ

 

I can see that as a plausible explanation.

[userkv8031]

I do think that Nex-Tech had the right approach to building out the coverage which made it fairly successful locally. Instead of placing towers all over they put them in the towns. In KS that works out well since everything is laid in a grid pattern. You can count to be fairly close to a town no matter where you are. My definition of close and what those in metro areas use are completely different. None of the towns are huge by any means but it would seem Nex-Tech hit those up with about 500+ in population. Verizon service is not the greatest out there but neither was Alltel. They spaced sites too far apart. I remember before the Nex-Tech coverage came to being trying to find service in Goodland and Colby. It was touch and go in so many places out there.

 

There are areas where I do see Sprint covering such as US50, US40, US287, US36 and of course I-70. I would hope they would look into offering some sort of coverage around some of the more popular state parks. I must say I do enjoy Wilson...spent a few nights under the stars there. One of the few places I will sleep without a tent.

 

Not in KS but I would love to see I-80 get more coverage.

[Danielj1981]

I think.....I'm a newbie so bare with me here....but I think coverage here in The greater Charleston area is going the opposite way. When I first got my iPhone 5, there were multiple areas where my phone went into extended roam. I'm naturally assuming it switched to a Verizon tower for voice from lack of Sprint coverage. However there have been very few NV upgrades in my area, yet it is virtually never going into Roam. It seems like the coverage has spread quite a bit with just small upgrades around here. Just the thoughts of a newbie. Things are improving around here....coverage wise....data speeds are still sub par. I'm sticking it out! When this is all said and done i believe Sprint will be the best option in wireless...for a multitude of reasons. I left Big Red in December and I'm not going back! My wallet loves me alit more these days! :-)

 

 

Sent from my iPhone 5 using Tapatalk

[WiWavelength]

Here is the official Sprint release on the change in pseudo native coverage:

 

http://support.sprint.com/support/article/Learn_more_about_network_changes_coming_to_portions_of_Kansas_and_Oklahoma/case-gz982789-20111212-190208/?ECID=vanity:coveragechange

 

AJ

[S4GRU]

Here is the official Sprint release on the change in pseudo native coverage:

 

http://support.sprint.com/support/article/Learn_more_about_network_changes_coming_to_portions_of_Kansas_and_Oklahoma/case-gz982789-20111212-190208/?ECID=vanity:coveragechange

 

AJ

 

Looks like they will maintain 3G EVDO roaming in those areas. That's not bad for folks like us driving through. So it really only affects people who maintained a Sprint account and lived in those areas.

 

Robert via Nexus 7 with Tapatalk HD

[WiWavelength]

Looks like they will maintain 3G EVDO roaming in those areas. That's not bad for folks like us driving through. So it really only affects people who maintained a Sprint account and lived in those areas.

 

Yep, this is what I have been saying all along. Overall coverage will remain the same as it always has, but service will change from pseudo native to roaming. Connections will still drop at the coverage boundaries between Sprint and Nex-Tech or United because their MSCs have never been interconnected. And, most importantly, EV-DO access will continue.

 

The end of the pseudo native agreement with Nex-Tech, United, and PTCI is not exactly a good thing for Sprint subs, but it is hardly a catastrophe. And it was always something of an anomaly to have such extensive footprint in western Kansas. Some people who know that Sprint is headquartered in Overland Park have postulated that as the reason for the coverage. But those people ostensibly do not understand Kansas geography. Eastern and western Kansas are almost two different planets. So, the pseudo native coverage in western Kansas has long been more of a curious benefit, less of a calculated move.

 

AJ

[Rawvega]

The end of the pseudo native agreement with Nex-Tech, United, and PTCI is not exactly a good thing for Sprint subs, but it is hardly a catastrophe.

 

Agreed. In terms of actual functionality, it is far from catastrophic for Sprint subscribers. It is bad however, for Sprint from a PR perspective. Everything spreads and is inevitably blown out of proportion on the internet. It's being talked about over on SU, here, HoFo. Eventually it'll spread to DSLR, Engadget, BGR, Phonescoop, etc. Most of the common folks reading the articles won't bother to research or care about the relatively sparse population density of the affected areas or the fact that the coverage was only pseudo-native in the first place. Everyone has been conditioned by the VZW 'there's a map for that' ads and all they will see is Sprint "native" coverage shrinking=BAD. Couple this with the other psuedo-native coverage shrinkages of the past few years (internet pundits never forget anything) and it's just awful PR for Sprint because as Fraydog noted earlier in the thread, this keeps happening.

[Fraydog]

A regeared rural program would not be a bad thing. Now that Nextel is almost gone and SMR can be used for LTE with SMR LTE handsets forthcoming, Sprint's options are much deeper.

Likewise, the Clearwire acquisition also gives Sprint more options.

 

The key point is that it doesn't have to be this way for much longer.

[Rawvega]

Of course, the flip side of this is Sprint shouldn't over emphasize rural areas. After all, if they duplicate VZW and ATT coverage it stands to reason that they'd want/need to duplicate their pricing schemes as well.

 

Here's a good post from AJ that is germane to this topic though: http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/3703-potential-sprint-rural-buildout-by-2016/

[24kttop]

I grew up in norhwest ks funny thing is that rural telephone bought out the local exchanges that once where owned by sprint.

[Dkoellerwx]

Looks like they will maintain 3G EVDO roaming in those areas. That's not bad for folks like us driving through. So it really only affects people who maintained a Sprint account and lived in those areas.

 

Robert via Nexus 7 with Tapatalk HD

 

It also cuts off HotSpot support, which was really nice while driving from KC to Denver (which happens frequently in my family), so that sucks. Would like to see native coverage back on I-70 sometime, I'm sure it'll be a while before anything changes.

[S4GRU]

It also cuts off HotSpot support, which was really nice while driving from KC to Denver (which happens frequently in my family), so that sucks. Would like to see native coverage back on I-70 sometime, I'm sure it'll be a while before anything changes.

 

They should allow people to use their 300MB any way they want. I think I have used hotspot with VZW EVDO roaming before on a rooted device, though. So that may be a work around.

 

Robert

[Dkoellerwx]

They should allow people to use their 300MB any way they want. I think I have used hotspot with VZW EVDO roaming before on a rooted device, though. So that may be a work around. Robert

 

Maybe it'll be different with this area, but I know in others I haven't been able to use the hotspot function, but it was only for a brief time that we were roaming. Guess I'll find out this summer!

[JimPivonka]

I have been a Sprint customer since divestment. In that time I've lived on both coasts, and in recent years in Rush County, Kansas. I have, for the last several years, been getting both cellular and data services from Sprint in Kansas. And, since I travel a lot, to both coasts, the nationwide network coverage has been important to me.

 

Recent changes in Sprint coverage will have severe negative impact on the services I can get from Sprint. I wonder if anyone here can provide me information about the reason for these changes and how they relate to Sprint's network vision. I will have to be making some decisions about my service, and this information could be very useful to me.

 

Sprint's explanation of the changes are here http://support.sprint.com/support/article/Learn_more_about_network_changes_coming_to_portions_of_Kansas_and_Oklahoma/case-gz982789-20111212-190208/?ECID=vanity:coveragechange

 

EDIT: It seems to me that this has a significant bearing on the points and maps included in Andrew J. Shepard's January, 2012, article titled "AT&T's charges of Sprint's disinvestment in rural areas the height of hypocrisy". Comments?

 

Thank you for your time and help.

 

 

Edited May 11, 2013 by JimPivonka