4/8 Coverage Map Update

[Fraydog]

So, wait. $50,000/year (let's not be conservative with our guesses here), at 38,000 sites, is a little under $2 billion. That's... that's really something.

 

Big reason why Nextel was a giant cash drain. For a while Sprint was running three networks if you count Clear.

[WiWavelength]

Bar none, cell sites are rather expensive to erect, lease, and/or operate. That is why expanding rural coverage can be a dicey proposition.

 

AJ

[Fraydog]

The only way I can see Sprint and T-Mobile expanding rural coverage, is rural eNodeB sharing. If you could cut your costs in half...

[z250kid]

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

 

This could explain it... I don't know what Sprint can do about it.

Put up towers instead of roaming

[z250kid]

Bar none, cell sites are rather expensive to erect, lease, and/or operate. That is why expanding rural coverage can be a dicey proposition.

 

AJ

But when it comes down to the best carrier with rural coverage then they will have most subscribers

[Bob Newhart]

Thats per year...?

 

I know here in WA, landowners get $1200+ lease payments per month from the tower companies, for one location.

[Fraydog]

Put up towers instead of roaming

 

See the other thread where it costs Sprint $50,000 a year to do that?

 

Sprint needs:

 

1. More low band spectrum.

2. Someone to help share costs with on rural buildouts.

3. Profitability.

4. SoftBank. Not Dish.

 

If and when all those conditions are met, then Sprint can be more aggressive about rural deployment of more sites.

[z250kid]

^{Yea my bussy at work use to work for dish. Dish just wants the 2.6ghz spectrum. If they do it wont be call Sprint anymore it will be Dish. I hope soft bank helps them out after NV is complete then they add towers. Its not really adding towers just equipment to towers there not on.}

[JeffDTD]

This coverage map obsession that verizon conditioned the wireless consumer to have years ago is always interesting to me. When I look at sprint native coverage for my state, if I werent a sprint customer already, it would scare me. Real world usage? Im in sprint coverage most of the time and I always have reliable roaming. I never go without coverage. Verizon's "extended network" approach , instead of using that "roaming" word worked so well on the public perception.

 

As a possible answer to some of this, I remember a thread awhile back that discussed sprint adjusting the formulas used to show coverage strength and can confirm that in my area, there is more variability shown in the map. Places that use to say "excellent" now show fair/good, which is more accurate. Flipside, some places where it works perfect for me now show fair/poor and would make you think it was much worse than it is

[Fraydog]

I think the costs of adding a tower are intriguing. If this were still a growth market, then it would be easier to add towers. The mobile industry isn't that big of a growth market anymore. It's hard to justify $150,000 for a new tower and $50,000 in operation per year unless you can return the cost.

 

Of course I live in a town that has 5,000 users that is 90% Verizon, contributing $2.7 million of revenue to Verizon. I can assure you they aren't spending $2.7 million on their network here in Chester. For Sprint to make it, they'd have to make $50,000. If Sprint makes $50 ARPU, that's at least 83 customers they would need here. That's hard when people are creatures of Verizon habit.

 

Then again, maybe not...

[jamesinclair]

But when it comes down to the best carrier with rural coverage then they will have most subscribers

 

Thats true, but the more rural, the less people per cell tower.

 

In farm land, theres, what 50 people in range of one tower? Their subscription fees wont cover it. Then again, Verizon is launching in Alaska this year...

 

 

Another thing is that the carriers insist on uniform pricing.

 

If you think about it, it makes no sense that someone in NYC pays the same as someone in North Dakota. On a # of suers per tower basis, thats not logical.

[Fraydog]

The cost of each rural area is different. Then again, I can make a compelling case I'm not that rural. It's just that we only had one working provider in Chester in the past, now we have zero because VZW borked the LTE upgrades here bad to the point where they had LTE running and had to take it down. This was my fear of having a town my size (5,500 not counting the prison population) serviced by a single provider more or less.

[thensley1983]

i was speaking with a sprint customer service rep and they said they have lost usage rights in certain area's but are working hard to get new ones in place so you won't see any network issues it sounded like a auto response but it gave me a bit of hope

[maximus1987/lou99]

I'd like to continue to support Sprint

 

You make it sound like Sprint is your buddy, charging you as little as it can afford to in order to help you out.

People thought the same of Apple: "they'll never be as greedy as Microsoft"

Once Sprint is in a stronger position, they'll behave just like the "evil duopoly", as some here have called ATT+VZW.

Sprint is a company: it exists to make money for its owners by charging the maximum that its customers

will stomach. Once ATT+VZW start facing real danger from S+TMUS, they'll change their tune. Example: AIO wireless is a really good deal, better than T-Mobile if you value coverage vs LTE but ATT only offers it because of competition from T-Mobile.

Why do you think Sprint currently offers and previously instituted and heavily marketed unlimited data? Because it wants to help you out and has plenty of network capacity? 

They did it out of economic/marketing necessity.  T-Mobile got rid of unlimited data some time ago and then they brought back unlimited data; why did they get rid of it in the first place? Because they were running out of capacity? Maybe but probably not. They thought they could get away with it but their competitive position deteriorated perilously and they brought it back.

 

Maybe you didn't mean it the way I interpreted it but there plenty who do think that way; they're fools.

[maximus1987/lou99]

 because VZW borked the LTE upgrades here bad to the point where they had LTE running and had to take it down. .

 

How did that happen?

[S4GRU]

 

 

I'd like to continue to support Sprint

 

 

You make it sound like Sprint is your buddy, charging you as little as it can afford to in order to help you out.

People thought the same of Apple: "they'll never be as greedy as Microsoft"

Once Sprint is in a stronger position, they'll behave just like the "evil duopoly", as some here have called ATT+VZW.

Sprint is a company: it exists to make money for its owners by charging the maximum that its customers

will stomach. Once ATT+VZW start facing real danger from S+TMUS, they'll change their tune. Example: AIO wireless is a really good deal, better than T-Mobile if you value coverage vs LTE but ATT only offers it because of competition from T-Mobile.

Why do you think Sprint currently offers and previously instituted and heavily marketed unlimited data? Because it wants to help you out and has plenty of network capacity?

They did it out of economic/marketing necessity. T-Mobile got rid of unlimited data some time ago and then they brought back unlimited data; why did they get rid of it in the first place? Because they were running out of capacity? Maybe but probably not. They thought they could get away with it but their competitive position deteriorated perilously and they brought it back.

 

Maybe you didn't mean it the way I interpreted it but there plenty who do think that way; they're fools.

Although I do not disagree with your points, it was definitely a strong response to the comment you quoted. Eeek.

 

I would like to continue to support Sprint myself. Because in the current market conditions, doing so helps competition and keeps the duopoly in check.

 

And if and when things occur as you say, I would no longer support Sprint. But rather would support the carrier which will best provide competition.

 

Robert via Samsung Note II via Tapatalk

 

 

[maximus1987/lou99]

 

 

 

 

I'd like to continue to support Sprint

 

 

 

 

You make it sound like Sprint is your buddy, charging you as little as it can afford to in order to help you out.

 

People thought the same of Apple: "they'll never be as greedy as Microsoft"

 

Once Sprint is in a stronger position, they'll behave just like the "evil duopoly", as some here have called ATT+VZW.

 

Sprint is a company: it exists to make money for its owners by charging the maximum that its customers

 

will stomach. Once ATT+VZW start facing real danger from S+TMUS, they'll change their tune. Example: AIO wireless is a really good deal, better than T-Mobile if you value coverage vs LTE but ATT only offers it because of competition from T-Mobile.

 

Why do you think Sprint currently offers and previously instituted and heavily marketed unlimited data? Because it wants to help you out and has plenty of network capacity?

 

They did it out of economic/marketing necessity. T-Mobile got rid of unlimited data some time ago and then they brought back unlimited data; why did they get rid of it in the first place? Because they were running out of capacity? Maybe but probably not. They thought they could get away with it but their competitive position deteriorated perilously and they brought it back.

 

 

 

Maybe you didn't mean it the way I interpreted it but there plenty who do think that way; they're fools.

 

Although I do not disagree with your points, it was definitely a strong response to the comment you quoted. Eeek.

 

 

 

I would like to continue to support Sprint myself. Because in the current market conditions, doing so helps competition and keeps the duopoly in check.

 

 

 

And if and when things occur as you say, I would no longer support Sprint. But rather would support the carrier which will best provide competition.

 

 

 

Robert via Samsung Note II via Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

I agree it was strong which is why I included the last sentence.

 

Thankfully, with S+TMUS bulking up, I hope it won't be possible for any 2 to ever get in the same position as before. Sure, ATT+VZW have the "lead" because of sub 1GHz positions but after 600MHz, that initial advantage will fade away. Plus, capacity will be the next selling point and S looks set in that respect.

[Epic4G25]

Well we won't get into the lengthy description of why I won't buy Apple products, we'll just leave it at I won't support a company that makes products that are extremely hard for the user to repair/upgrade. As for Sprint, I've been here since the beginning of WiMax, through the network degradation, through the removal of Sprint Primer, and through the $10 data charge for now all smart phones. I stick with companies that not only provide me with the best value, but also companies that have some history of innovation. The second Sprint gets to a point where they are pushing people off unlimited data plans, and are going to pricing similar to AT&T and VZW I will have no problem leaving, especially if at that time their network coverage is not up to par with AT&T and VZW. If however they can continue on a path that provides me more value than the other 3 national wireless carriers I will stick with them, even if it means a reasonable price increase. I go with companies that will provide me with what I need at a price I deem reasonable, not out of a sense of loyalty towards that company. If that was the case I would still be with T-Mobile and we wouldn't be having this discussion. When I said I would like to continue to support them, I said it because I like what they are currently doing in the way of NV, and I'd like to see what the company that rolled out the first fiber optic network has in store for the future. I believe they can do great things and offer even better competition to AT&T and VZW than they are now. However like I said above the second they join the ranks of networks like AT&T and VZW will be the second I leave.

 

 

You make it sound like Sprint is your buddy, charging you as little as it can afford to in order to help you out.

People thought the same of Apple: "they'll never be as greedy as Microsoft"

Once Sprint is in a stronger position, they'll behave just like the "evil duopoly", as some here have called ATT+VZW.

Sprint is a company: it exists to make money for its owners by charging the maximum that its customers

will stomach. Once ATT+VZW start facing real danger from S+TMUS, they'll change their tune. Example: AIO wireless is a really good deal, better than T-Mobile if you value coverage vs LTE but ATT only offers it because of competition from T-Mobile.

Why do you think Sprint currently offers and previously instituted and heavily marketed unlimited data? Because it wants to help you out and has plenty of network capacity? 

They did it out of economic/marketing necessity.  T-Mobile got rid of unlimited data some time ago and then they brought back unlimited data; why did they get rid of it in the first place? Because they were running out of capacity? Maybe but probably not. They thought they could get away with it but their competitive position deteriorated perilously and they brought it back.

 

Maybe you didn't mean it the way I interpreted it but there plenty who do think that way; they're fools.

[dnwk]

See the other thread where it costs Sprint $50,000 a year to do that?

 

Sprint needs:

 

1. More low band spectrum.

2. Someone to help share costs with on rural buildouts.

3. Profitability.

4. SoftBank. Not Dish.

 

If and when all those conditions are met, then Sprint can be more aggressive about rural deployment of more sites.

What's the advantage of Softbank over Dish?

[Fraydog]

Dwnk, I think that the big difference is that Masa Son has much more credibility in wireless than Charlie Ergen. That's the short version.

[WiWavelength]

Dwnk, I think that the big difference is that Masa Son has much more credibility in wireless than Charlie Ergen. That's the short version.

 

Forget Masa Son.  Give me a good corn masa, any day.  That is the key to making tasty tamales.

 

 

AJ

[S4GRU]

 

 

Dwnk, I think that the big difference is that Masa Son has much more credibility in wireless than Charlie Ergen. That's the short version.

 

 

Forget Masa Son. Give me a good corn masa, any day. That is the key to making tasty tamales.

 

 

AJ

Also for chicken enchilada soup. Yum.

 

Robert via Samsung Note II via Tapatalk

 

 

[maximus1987/lou99]

 

 

 

See the other thread where it costs Sprint $50,000 a year to do that?

 

 

 

Sprint needs:

 

 

 

1. More low band spectrum.

 

2. Someone to help share costs with on rural buildouts.

 

3. Profitability.

 

4. SoftBank. Not Dish.

 

 

 

If and when all those conditions are met, then Sprint can be more aggressive about rural deployment of more sites.

Is there a law that would mandate Verizon to allow its own rural towers to be shared at a reasonable cost?

[digiblur]

If they own any I am sure they would love to lease any space out.

 

You sound like a Verizon customer rep I was talking to recently. He was trying to tell me that their towers are better and ATT was allowed to use them. Really? So ATT had coverage in the location I was at for many years and Verizon just got coverage a year ago or so after buying up the divested centennial wireless assests there. I set him straight very quickly as he then tried to explain they were using VZWs towers since ATT just got 4g there and VZW towers are 4g. Sigh.... Really? All they did was add a RRU and an antenna. He shut up pretty quickly and went on with the order.

 

Sent from my little Note2