Jump to content

US Cellular and nTelos?


Recommended Posts

Who do you think will end up with either of those networks?  Sprint or Verizon?  I didn't find any one else talking about it but I did read a few stories about US Cellular stock going up on speculation since Leap fell to AT&T Friday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sprint should not overpay for any more spectrum (including PCS H).  Demand is not going up nearly as high as originally predicted and Sprint is sitting pretty well with what they have.  Also US Cellular has a lot of Spectrum (AWS/Cellular) that Sprint would probably sell.  Let these companies continue to dwindle and buy up their spectrum when the yard sale starts.

 

nTelos - Just buy the BRS from whoever buys them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who do you think will end up with either of those networks?  Sprint or Verizon?  I didn't find any one else talking about it but I did read a few stories about US Cellular stock going up on speculation since Leap fell to AT&T Friday.

Neither, I hope.

 

Consolidation is profit centric, not consumer centric.  Those consumers who have regional operators -- USCC, nTelos, C Spire, Viaero -- that focus on their specific areas tend to have better wireless coverage and customer service.

 

If we are going to consolidate down to only a few wireless network operators, then we might as well nationalize the whole damn thing.  It should be like the Interstate Highway System, with dozens, hundreds, even thousands of virtual providers operating on top of the publicly owned network.

 

AJ

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sprint should not overpay for any more spectrum (including PCS H).  Demand is not going up nearly as high as originally predicted and Sprint is sitting pretty well with what they have.  Also US Cellular has a lot of Spectrum (AWS/Cellular) that Sprint would probably sell.  Let these companies continue to dwindle and buy up their spectrum when the yard sale starts.

 

nTelos - Just buy the BRS from whoever buys them.

 

Softbank's CEO Masayoshi Son mentioned matching Verizon's high speed coverage. I do not believe they will be able to meet that claim without buying most of that coverage.  Also, USCC sold most if not all their AWS to T-mobile. They only have 700A/B/C, 850Mhz, and 1900Mhz, which Sprint has already mentioned supporting for roaming. 

 

Sprint would not have to sell the spectrum. the build out requirements are likely complete, and Sprint's network already supports all the frequencies besides 700Mhz. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All sprint devices support cellular 850, so integrating that into the network shouldn't be to bad. Swap the AWS and 700 for PCS

 

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the case of nTelos, I'm not sure they actually "focus on their specific areas tend to have better wireless coverage and customer service" as AJ says. That might be true of some of the better-run regionals like USCC, Cincy Bell, and C-Spire, but nTelos always struck me as being rather half-assed even on the retail side.  Their passage into the arms of Sprint or another suitor will be lamented by few, if any, in their region.

 

As for nationalization + MVNOs, not even the Europeans have tried that for wireless; if anyone thought it would work, the French would have jumped at it rather than embracing this bizarre Anglo-Saxon idea of companies competing with each other to provide public services (incidentally, where new entrant Free is disrupting the 3 incumbent providers). And in cases in the US where infrastructure ownership has separated from service ownership (for example, the states that have competitive retail electricity for consumers over a common grid, like Texas - essentially the electricity "retailer" acts an MVNO over the grid) the main effect has been higher prices than under regulated vertical integration or public utilities.

 

Plus under the Nationalization+MVNO model, there'd be no price signal to the network operator to upgrade the underlying network; Sprint is doing NV not as a public service, but because their network sucks and they've lost customers as a result. Politics, not customer demand, would drive upgrades by a nationalized infrastructure provider. That might be great for farmers in Iowa to get rural broadband as part of the quadrennial efforts by presidential candidates to suck up to Iowans, but a lot of folks in places with limited political power will get the shaft (much as many communities, some very large, were shafted when they picked the routings of the Interstates, like the Central Valley of California and the Rio Grande Valley in Texas).

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone in a US Cellular area, while I believe that if Sprint acquired them it would be good for Sprint I don't believe it would be good for the area. It would essentially make Sprint and Verizon a duopoly with everyone else fighting for scraps. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone in a US Cellular area, while I believe that if Sprint acquired them it would be good for Sprint I don't believe it would be good for the area. It would essentially make Sprint and Verizon a duopoly with everyone else fighting for scraps.

?

ATT doesn't have service in your area? ATT said 300 mil LTE end of 2014. Not sure what you're referencing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

?

ATT doesn't have service in your area? ATT said 300 mil LTE end of 2014. Not sure what you're referencing.

Does AT&T have service in my area? yes it does, but it isn't very popular. If you stray away from the bigger cities you quickly find yourself in either EDGE or no service. My area is CDMA heavy and if you can't roam onto someone else's CDMA, you're going to have a bad time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sprint should definitely acquire US Cellular. USCC covers Northern California well, while Sprint is nonexistent. 

 

zL6UGDa.png7mBhUtT.png

 

Oh wow, the infamous Mendocino County. IF Sprint were to buy USCC, I'm sure that rather annoying OCD guy over on HoFo that has made around 25K posts about Mendocino County would blather on incessantly about it.  ^_^

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

?

ATT doesn't have service in your area? ATT said 300 mil LTE end of 2014. Not sure what you're referencing.

 

if you want to get an idea of the disparity look at this

 

US Cellular in Nebraska (checkered is roaming, uncheckered is native)  :D

 

Screen%20Shot%202013-07-16%20at%2010.31.

 

Verizon in Nebraska (mostly native I think)  :tu:

 

Screen%20Shot%202013-07-16%20at%2010.35.

 

AT&T Native coverage in Nebraska  :wacko:

 

Screen%20Shot%202013-07-16%20at%2010.30.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh wow, the infamous Mendocino County. IF Sprint were to buy USCC, I'm sure that rather annoying OCD guy over on HoFo that has made around 25K posts about Mendocino County would blather on incessantly about it.  ^_^

 

Ha, I see that you have encountered ilvla2.  He and I do not get along.  I believe that I once called him the "Rose Nylund" of HowardForums because, like Betty White on "The Golden Girls" always prattling on about St. Olaf, ilvla2 is constantly writing about Lake and Mendocino Counties.  His local schtick gets really old, really fast.

 

AJ

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

if you want to get an idea of the disparity look at this

 

US Cellular in Nebraska (checkered is roaming, uncheckered is native)  :D

 

[uS Cellular]

 

Verizon in Nebraska (mostly native I think)  :tu:

 

[Verizon]

 

AT&T Native coverage in Nebraska  :wacko:

 

[AT&T]

Just for fun, I had a look at Sprint's woeful Nebraska coverage.  Maybe marginally better than AT&T... but I'm not sure how.  

 

9308609974_079016a2dc_o.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for fun, I had a look at Sprint's woeful Nebraska coverage. Maybe marginally better than AT&T... but I'm not sure how.

 

Posted Image

With SMR it will cover more than 3x the area. If AT&T is overstating their coverage (which they likely are due to all areas running on PCS only) then Sprint already has them beat by that much.

 

It still pales in comparison to uscc or vzw though....

 

Sent from my SCH-R970 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ivivla2 aside, it does point out how pathetic Sprint coverage is in some places. Some of us insisted that Sprint merge with Alltel & USCC and RCC a a few other regionals. At least the customers would have probably stayed instead of leaving in droves. I know that there are some here and Sprint management at the time that only want to concentrate on urban areas, but there are bragging rights when you have rural coverage and that translates to customer goodwill and customer retention. You also get money from the  USF fund when you also have a local landline co. 

 

I wish that the FCC had given Sprint a full 10+10 everywhere by moving some 800Mhz denizens to 900Mhz but then imposed buildout requirements on them. Of course also insist that PS get off their butt and re-effing band instead of dragging their feet.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PSDHOIJHROEIWJH we will have Sprint on the top of Mt. Shasta one day. 

 

You may have to be satisfied with using your Sprint handset while just drinking a Shasta.

 

OT273762S.jpg

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll have internet everywhere one day.  :D

 

Even inside Uranus?

 

AJ

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

    • It’s a neat and seemingly valid / effective strategy that, at least from my understanding, is only really used by VZW
    • Those are usually left over from the initial AWS deployment, so all run B13/B66 with support for BC0/BC1 (although that’s been shut off on most sites). No NR. Sites with the later Ericsson radios got an OTA update and broadcast B2. On those sites, a B5 OTA update was also available (and tested), but ultimately rolled back. Putting up all that power/spectrum severely degraded the B13 output.  The site atop Crystal Mountain is another story and uses the same setup as the site on the ridge near Neilton. These antennas were selected for their vertical beamwidth. Most modern directional antennas have small vertical beamwidths and would require extreme downtilt to cover the road next to a steep ridge. Thus, they would have a severely limited coverage footprint beyond the road. Omnis can be a better choice in these instances, especially when there’s LoS to the coverage objective (since they’ll generally have lower gain figures). Omnis also don’t run in to the horizontal sector edge problem, which can be difficult to optimize for with directional antennas that have complex or irregular 3D gain profiles. That’s why on a lot of sites on mountains, you’ll see wider antennas used. For example, the Verizon site on Joyce Ridge has three sectors with 80-degree HBW antennas. 
    • Do you know what RAN is behind those Omni's? LTE (bands?) are they pushing any NR through them? Very curious   edit: I guess I could check cellmapper etc but you might know more nuance!
    • N41 here has been expanded from 140Mhz to 180Mhz.  Speeds seem the same so they just need to work on backhaul
    • I noticed today that T-mobile has shut of B41 LTE in the Louisville area and widened the 2nd n41 carrier to 80MHz. That just leaves them with 5x5 B12, 10x10 B2, and two 10x10 B66 carriers on LTE, everything else is in NR (besides their 2G network). They have 20x20 n71, 20x20 n25, 5x5 n25, and 180MHz n41. 
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...