Jump to content

Potential Sprint rural buildout by 2016


Recommended Posts

Did you try using LTE only mode. Maybe it's not letting devices authenticate since there's no CSFB fallback.

Or data centric mode. Could also be a question of backhaul.

 

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Still cannot authenticate to the PCS G Block LTE Carrier on B25 here in Rapid City, SD. Not on a Sprint SIM it Google Fi SIM.

 

It is still broadcasting on PLMN ID 311 530 only. I don't know if Sprint will push an update to allow that PLMNID or if they will soon start broadcasting Sprint's 310 120 ID also. Or if Sprint customers will never be allowed to use it.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Provide me an address of this site, i'll ask what they up to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you try using LTE only mode. Maybe it's not letting devices authenticate since there's no CSFB fallback.

Yeah, I was in LTE Only mode. Otherwise I don't see it at all.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Provide me an address of this site, i'll ask what they up to.

There are three in Rapid City doing the same thing. This specific one is:

 

- 3850 Tower Road, Rapid City, SD 57701

 

The other two are:

 

- 2727 N. Plaza Drive, Rapid City, SD 57702

- 909 St. Joseph St., Rapid City, SD 57701

 

All three of these are Golden West Telecommunications sites broadcasting on Sprint's PCS G Block channels.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another possible repeat, but good verification (Grand Forks, ND):

 

Map

https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsEntry/attachments/attachmentViewRD.jsp?applType=search&fileKey=1718171375&attachmentKey=19885565&attachmentInd=applAttach

 

paperwork:

http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/ApplicationSearch/applMain.jsp?applID=9525071

 

I have 173 of these, skipping the ones I figure we know or not interested in.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yes, those all are Required Notification filings -- the standard type of FCC filing licensees use to indicate satisfaction of certain construction requirement benchmarks.

 

AJ

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So that you do not knock yourself out with too much searching, Sprint has filed these Required Notifications for all of its PCS G block BEAs across the country.  Not just the previously unconstructed, largely rural BEAs.  The filings were due for all BEAs.  You can view the filings for the likes of New York and Los Angeles, too.

 

But good find.  I did not think to look this week at pending applications for the PCS G block licenses -- even though I created this thread almost three years ago.

 

AJ

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So that you do not knock yourself out with too much searching, Sprint has filed these Required Notifications for all of its PCS G block BEAs across the country.  Not just the previously unconstructed, largely rural BEAs.  The filings were due for all BEAs.  You can view the filings for the likes of New York and Los Angeles, too.

 

But good find.  I did not think to look this week at pending applications for the PCS G block licenses -- even though I created this thread almost three years ago.

 

AJ

 

These were all filed on March 9th.  I have read just a few and they indicate these are for all LTE at greater than -119.8 RSRP.  They provide a wealth of information for sparsely covered markets.  Maps for markets such as Columbus are of quite limited use.  Any idea as to what stage of construction these sites would need to met for the substantial service requirement?

 

( I hope to make it through all 173 filings tonight, posting those that I feel are relevant.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These were all filed on March 9th.  I have read just a few and they indicate these are for all LTE at greater than -119.8 RSRP.  They provide a wealth of information for sparsely covered markets.  Maps for markets such as Columbus are of quite limited use.  Any idea as to what stage of construction these sites would need to met for the substantial service requirement?

 

( I hope to make it through all 173 filings tonight, posting those that I feel are relevant.)

 

Yes, you are correct.  Sprint filed all of them as a batch.  The posting date was yesterday, but they may not have appeared in the FCC ULS until today.

 

And as I already commented to an on the road Robert, Sprint is using a -119.8 dBm RSRP figure of merit to define the extent of coverage footprint.  It is not conservative, but it is about what we have long experienced with the 5 MHz FDD carrier -- that -120 dBm RSRP is more or less the bottom limit.

 

AJ

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Done.  I did not see the following BEAs: Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Gulf of Mexico, thus all are accounted.  

 

All say required notification received (3/9) then offlined for expired license review (3/10).  There is no date on the attachments.

 

the following search was used:

 

Specified Search Radio Service Code=CW, CY
Applicant City=reston
Applicant State=Virginia
Receipt Date=02/25/2016 to 3/10/2016

 

from here: http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/ApplicationSearch/searchAdvanced.jsp

 

I use City and State to get all of the Sprint subsidiaries.  Occasionally I pickup someone else. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excuse the newbie question but do these filings mean that Sprint is going to start a LTE build out in these areas (shown map in link)pending FCC approval? Because it would be nice if Sprint had LTE service extending all the way from Pueblo down through Trinidad into Northern New Mexico Raton area!? But not sure if that's what these mean?

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...