Jump to content
WiWavelength

Potential Sprint rural buildout by 2016

Recommended Posts

Yes. And AT&T will deploy WCDMA only at new sites and Tmo will deploy some sites with 700MHz LTE only. So it's not unprecedented at new sites.

 

Using Tapatalk on Note 8.0

Exactly.  Don't forget that TMo is skipping HSPA on 2G to LTE conversion sites too.  

 

But even 700MHz is a little different than 2G to LTE.  700MHz, you have to have a 700Mhz phone, few do.  2G to LTE sites, everyone still has service.  Those with 3G only phones will still maintain the same level of service after LTE.  This would be closer to Sprint skipping out on EVDO.  If you have a 3G/WiMax only device before, your level of service is the same (if not better due to now native coverage).  

 

There are a lot of stragglers, but doesn't mean that they need to support their technology to the fullest.  They will still have 1x for talk, text and data which is what they had already.  (Unless EVDO roaming, of which data buckets are really small anyways.)  

 

You aren't negatively effecting anyone by building out native coverage and skipping out on EVDO.  Just like TMo isn't negatively effecting anyone by building out 2G to LTE only. 

 

It is completely different then 700MHz only build out, shutting down HSPA on AWS, or shutting down WiMax. You are negatively effecting customers in these situations. With Sprint, you only are if you build out in a EVDO roaming area and you don't have an LTE phone.  But then LTE phones again you can pick up for dollars and they will be better than whatever 3G/WiMax device you have. 

 

Guess we can agree to disagree.  Not much else to really say. :P But I like my idea better. :D

Edited by red_dog007

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UPDATE!!!

 

It just dawned on me a few minutes ago (as I await the arrival of my new Nexus 6P) that Sprint also has G-Block in Alaska.  So I decided to check the Alaska G-Block license.  Lo and behold, they have filed with the FCC to lease that one out too:  http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/ApplicationSearch/applMain.jsp?applID=9233358

 

The lessee is GCI Alaska's subsidiary, AWN The Alaska Wireless Network.  And it's not just PCS G-Block.  It's also EBS and BRS holdings in Alaska.

 

If you view the Public Interest Statement PDF (Download from the FCC License, Attachments Section), it says the following:

 

 

The Licenses being leased to AWN will complement existing AWN licenses and also will allow AWN to provide additional advanced services. AWN currently does not have BRS or EBS spectrum, and has certain PCS spectrum. The Commission has recognized “that holding a mix of spectrum bands is advantageous to providers and that consumers benefit when multiple providers have access to a mix of bands.”9 The lease of the Licenses in the Markets will expand the depth of AWN’s spectrum holdings in the Markets, allowing AWN the ability to offer more robust services, thus enhancing consumer choice. 2.5 GHz and other “high-band spectrum can be important for providers to increase capacity to meet consumers’ demand for mobile broadband.”10

In addition to fostering a more competitive environment with nationwide carriers AT&T and Verizon, access to this leased spectrum will allow AWN to expand its service to reach underserved and rural areas – and also allow Sprint’s customers to expand their ability to use mobile broadband services. AWN’s unique qualifications in Alaska will ensure that the Licenses are deployed quickly and efficiently for its customers as well as Sprint’s customers. Upon the FCC’s approval of the Transaction, and once construction is complete, Sprint customers may soon be able to use their existing handsets to access wireless service in Alaska over the same spectrum bands where Sprint is making improvements to its own network nationwide. Approval of the Transaction also paves the way for Sprint customers to eventually utilize 4G LTE services in Alaska.

 

So this leasing scheme in Alaska definitely is path a forward for Sprint to have LTE service in Alaska.  This seems more like an affiliate arrangement than RRPP.  Not quite sure, though.

 

This gives me hope that this is what is going on in South Dakota and North Dakota too.  If so, and with Sprint's expansion in Montana, that would only leave Casper, Wyoming as the only significant city in the West without Sprint coverage.  But that is covered well by Union Wireless, which I believe is a Sprint RRPP member.

  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sprint has no leasing deals filed for Guam nor American Samoa, yet.  I think they may let those ones be forfeited come 3/3/2016.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UPDATE!!!

This is great! Hoping it will be native.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is great! Hoping it will be native.

 

That is one of the things I'm almost certain of.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is one of the things I'm almost certain of.

 

So PCS G and BRS/EBS, which is good, but no PCS A-F or SMR...? :( 

 

I know all of this is still new, but is that "normal"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So PCS G and BRS/EBS, which is good, but no PCS A-F or SMR...? :(

 

I know all of this is still new, but is that "normal"?

Remember GCI does have its own PCS holdings. I think that sprint customers will be able to access wireless services on those bands along with the bands sprint is leading them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So PCS G and BRS/EBS, which is good, but no PCS A-F or SMR...? :(

 

I know all of this is still new, but is that "normal"?

 

Sprint already leases its Alaska PCS A-F license (D Block).

I don't see anything on the SMR though:  http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/license.jsp?licKey=8377

 

And GCI/AWN already have substantial holdings of their own too.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sprint already leases its Alaska PCS A-F license (D Block).

I don't see anything on the SMR though: http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/license.jsp?licKey=8377

 

And GCI/AWN already have substantial holdings of their own too.

D-Block is 5mhz so room for 4 1.25mhz CDMA carriers, G block for 5x5 LTE, whatever BRS/EBS spectrum they have but no 800 at all? Also will sprint customers only be able to use wireless networks in these blocks or will they be able to access the networks run in the other PCS A-F blocks by GCI?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

D-Block is 5mhz so room for 4 1.25mhz CDMA carriers...

 

No, a 5 MHz FDD block cannot accommodate four CDMA2000 carriers.  That would leave no guard bands and actually would extend outside the block.

 

AJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, a 5 MHz FDD block cannot accommodate four CDMA2000 carriers. That would leave no guard bands and actually would extend outside the block.

 

AJ

My b. 3 CDMA carriers with guard bands*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the first movement I have found toward what Sprint is going to do with G-Block Buildout Requirements in the Rural West.  I'm not exactly sure what to think of this:  http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/license.jsp?licKey=3130334

 

In the Rapid City and Aberdeen, SD BEA's, Sprint is now going into a long term lease with OLS Holdings.  Which is a conglomeration of the South Dakota rural telcos Golden West, Kennebec Telephone and West River Utilities.  In the FCC application it says it is for their rural customers.

 

OLS/Golden West does already have a PCS network.  It looks like they will just broadcast the G Block as GMO's from their significant existing network and thus meeting the "buildout requirements."

 

I guess there is a small chance that Sprint is partnering with OLS as a RRPP partner and just needs them to run G-block on their network for a short time until they can build out a full Sprint RRPP network.  Golden West/West River does have significant BRS spectrum holdings too.

 

However, it seems to me Sprint is punting when it comes to building out license protection sites for G-Block.  And that's understandable given Marcelo's Double Down strategy.  We should watch for other licenses doing the same.

 

So this morning I was looking into the coverage of each of these carriers to get a general idea as to the footprint expansion we would see in SD and I was mildly confused when I saw two West River companies.  One is called "West River Cooperative Telephone Company" and the other is "West River Telecom".  Which of these companies (or both) is the lease to?  I've also attached the map I found in case anyone is curious.sprint sd2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this morning I was looking into the coverage of each of these carriers to get a general idea as to the footprint expansion we would see in SD and I was mildly confused when I saw two West River companies.  One is called "West River Cooperative Telephone Company" and the other is "West River Telecom".  Which of these companies (or both) is the lease to?  I've also attached the map I found in case anyone is curious.attachicon.gifsprint sd2.jpg

 

It's West River Cooperative Telephone.  However, the lease is with OLS Holdings, which is a holding company that is a cooperative of several local ILEC's. Golden West, Kennebec, Alliance, Interstate, Midstate, TrioTel, Venture and West River.   The largest being Golden West, by far.  Golden West's wireless network covers far more than the ILEC map you posted too.  Covering much of CenturyLink's areas in the Black Hills and Rapid City.

 

The way I read it, it sounds like they are just going to add service to the existing networks in Aberdeen (Brown County) and Rapid City (Pennington County).  Meeting the build out requirements.  I didn't take this to mean that it will be deployed on all the wireless networks that make up OLS Holdings.  Notice that a lot of OLS Holdings is in the Sioux Falls BEA, but there is no application to lease to them in the Sioux Falls BEA.  That is going all to Swiftel.  They did not partition that lease.  

 

I interpret that to mean that they are going to do B25 GMO LTE over Swiftel's existing network to meet buildout requirements in the Sioux Falls BEA.  And nothing will be done in OLS Holdings wireless network in the SF BEA.

 

I think we will see B25 GMO LTE only on Golden West sites around Rapid City and B25 GMO LTE on Kennebec around Aberdeen.  Just to satisfy buildout requirements.  At least initially.  It is possible that this is also the beginning of a big RRPP Development with OLS.  And I hope so.  But I'm not convinced yet this is more than a play for license protection.

 

 

The proposed spectrum lease will permit OLS to provide advanced telecommunications services to its customers in Brown and Pennington Counties, South Dakota.

 

I don't believe that any of these Co-Ops have a wireless network other than Golden West and Kennebec.  West River has a small WiMax setup in Buffalo, SD on one tower with their BRS spectrum.  That's about it.  I haven't seen anything else ever in my travels through these SD ILECs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We all know Sprint has SMR in Alaska.  I linked directly to the license, myself.  That wasn't my point.  My point was that I don't see any LEASES on SMR in Alaska.  Because I had found leases for the PCS and EBS/BRS licenses in Alaska.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all know Sprint has SMR in Alaska. I linked directly to the license, myself. That wasn't my point. My point was that I don't see any LEASES on SMR in Alaska. Because I had found leases for the PCS and EBS/BRS licenses in Alaska.

OHHH. I see

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does Sprint has SMR buildout requirement in Alaska? I think they met the requirement in Nextel age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing some Sprint LTE in Alaska - are maybe GCI and sprint are testing some stuff or is this old and something I just haven't noticed until now?

image.png

image.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing some Sprint LTE in Alaska - are maybe GCI and sprint are testing some stuff or is this old and something I just haven't noticed until now?

attachicon.gif image.png

attachicon.gif image.png

Most likely unless you have some scp screen shots, going to be issue with Sensorly.

 

Rickie

 

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If sprint currently leases PCS A-F license (D Block) does that mean they get roaming access currently. Like a fair trade spectrum for roaming access or is there more money being traded. Don't understand why the roaming agreement isn't 3G in Alaska if they lease out there spectrum. Seeing that it counts as roaming data leads me to believe sprint is paying for data. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing some Sprint LTE in Alaska - are maybe GCI and sprint are testing some stuff or is this old and something I just haven't noticed until now?

attachicon.gif image.png

attachicon.gif image.png

Those are old.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone heard anything on project cedar or sprints spectrum leases in ND/SD/Alaska? The March 3rd buildout deadline is approaching really fast...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are too many customer with non-LTE phones for them to expand without EVDO. There are too many stragglers . Plus as Robert said its not like EVDO is creating a problem for LTE...

Lets not forget the 3g only MVNO's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets not forget the 3g only MVNO's.

I feel like that's not that bad because they are going from no service to native 1x...definitely not a reduction in service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets not forget the 3g only MVNO's.

 

That barely would register as a concern.  Any MVNOs that are just CDMA1X/EV-DO -- and can we please not use the term "3G" indiscriminately? -- signed on with Sprint at the past or present coverage footprint.  If they were not to get EV-DO in coverage expansion, too bad.  They are not entitled to it.  Furthermore, before and during Network Vision buildout, the MVNOs already dealt with CDMA1X only coverage areas.

 

AJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Posts

    • I activated two Xs Max iPhones via Sprint’s website on Friday, both had the same problem. After the first error, I carefully checked the IMEI that Sprint’s website listed, and the last digit was missing. I manually input the IMEI and activated without problems. When I began the second activation I checked the IMEI first, and the website was again incorrect. So I manually input the IMEI and successfully activated the second phone.
    • Decimal GCI as been there in the Premier Hunters maps for a long time.  Typically we try to keep sponsor maps a little easier to understand, but could do it if requested.
    • I’m about to upgrade four of our lines to iPhone XS in the next few days. The other 3 lines we have are on Android. I’ve always waited for the first batch to ship out in case there are any zero-day problems with the device, software, activation or accessories availability. This year it’s UPS delivery and activation issues. Hope everything settles down this week.
    • records request through the city of san diego...  the city has a master agreement with mobilitie for up to 500 sites.   there should be a 3rd and 4th batch soon, since the 2nd batch isn't even done yet ( I just saw them replace a light pole in pacific beach yesterday, its on the list. )   Just asking...any one know of any work being done in the city of san marcos? 
  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

×