will sprint be expanding coverage in cities that have outgrown it?

[Sprke]

So it looks like MTPCS of MT ( Cellular One ) is shutting its network down..why couldn't Sprint buy them for a instant network in MT? Their coverage wasn't all that great but would've been a great start in the big state... I was actually a Cellular One subscriber for a while when I lived in MT a few years ago. 

 

https://www.cellonenation.com/

http://www.wirelessnoise.com/2014/05/cellular-one-in-montana-shuts-down.html

[WiWavelength]

So it looks like MTPCS of MT ( Cellular One ) is shutting its network down..why couldn't Sprint buy them for a instant network in MT? Their coverage wasn't all that great but would've been a great start in the big state... I was actually a Cellular One subscriber for a while when I lived in MT a few years ago. 

 

https://www.cellonenation.com/

http://www.wirelessnoise.com/2014/05/cellular-one-in-montana-shuts-down.html

 

Karma is a bitch for the former Chinook Wireless.

 

In the past decade, it took an all PCS 1900 MHz, cdmaOne network and converted it to GSM.  Then, after Alltel bought out WWC, which had operated under the Cellular One name in most markets, Chinook licensed the Cellular One name -- a move, no doubt, to make many Montanans think that the well known Cellular One had returned.  But WWC was entirely Cellular 850 MHz, so the comparison was not even close.

 

What was Chinook thinking?!  GSM 1900 in Montana?!  Awful choice.  It was thinking only of roaming revenue/costs, not of its native subs.  And in the end, Chinook got the shaft when VZW divested overlapping Alltel properties to AT&T.  With AT&T, Montana now has W-CDMA 850 and/or GSM 850, rendering Chinook irrelevant.

 

Too bad...

 

AJ

[Fraydog]

Now most of Montana is down to two providers. That's what blows about it.

 

I don't see either Sprint or T-Mobile hauling off to go to Montana to build out. At least if Sprint wanted to build out on I-90, they would have 800 MHz as opposed to the PCS days.

[WiWavelength]

Now most of Montana is down to two providers. That's what blows about it.

 

Well, that is no different from most of South Dakota, North Dakota, and Wyoming.  The similarity is low population density.  And two for profit operators may even be one too many in those western locales.

 

That is why the sensible thing to do is nationalize the telecom infrastructure.  Tell the likes of VZW, AT&T, Comcast, and even Sprint to "go pound sand."  Their days of licensing spectrum, being granted right of way, and deploying infrastructure are over -- because they have failed to keep this country at the telecom forefront.  So, they are relegated to selling service over the top on a nationally owned wired and wireless network.

 

AJ

[Fraydog]

Wired, I'm fine with some sort of nationalized network for fiber to the home. Wireless? My fear would be that no one has the motivation to compete if everyone was basically a big MVNO. Plus, with the way Washington works, if it ever came to that, that infrastructure would be all GSMA/3GPP because "that's what the rest of the world uses."

 

Sprint sharing infrastructure with rural competitors is a good starting point IMO.

[WiWavelength]

Wired, I'm fine with some sort of nationalized network for fiber to the home. Wireless? My fear would be that no one has the motivation to compete if everyone was basically a big MVNO.

Dozens, hundreds, even thousands of MVNOs would exist. Why would they not compete? If they would not, then free market capitalism with little barrier to entry would have failed as a system.

 

Plus, with the way Washington works, if it ever came to that, that infrastructure would be all GSMA/3GPP because "that's what the rest of the world uses."

That sentiment goes against some of your recent statements. Are you saying that just for my benefit?

 

 

AJ

[Fraydog]

Of course.

[Rawvega]

Now most of Montana is down to two providers. That's what blows about it.

 

I don't see either Sprint or T-Mobile hauling off to go to Montana to build out. At least if Sprint wanted to build out on I-90, they would have 800 MHz as opposed to the PCS days.

 

I agree wholeheartedly. Barring a merger, neither T-Mobile nor Sprint will challenge the duopoly's coverage in Montana, the Dakotas, etc. On the other hand, Sprint has a reputation, warranted or not, as an interstate carrier. So if that's the case they might as well be the best interstate carrier that they can be. Bridge I-90 from South Dakota and link it to their coverage in Idaho, finish covering I-94 until it runs into I-90, extend I-29 & I-15 up to the Canadian border and show I-80, I-25 and I-70 some more attention. Granted, some of that may soon be addressed by their NetAmerica partners, but do something about the parts that won't be covered by them. Between SMR and eventually 600 MHz spectrum I can't imagine that it would even take an enormous amount of new cell sites.

[Sprke]

I agree wholeheartedly. Barring a merger, neither T-Mobile nor Sprint will challenge the duopoly's coverage in Montana, the Dakotas, etc. On the other hand, Sprint has a reputation, warranted or not, as an interstate carrier. So if that's the case they might as well be the best interstate carrier that they can be. Bridge I-90 from South Dakota and link it to their coverage in Idaho, finish covering I-94 until it runs into I-90, extend I-29 & I-15 up to the Canadian border and show I-80, I-25 and I-70 some more attention. Granted, some of that may soon be addressed by their NetAmerica partners, but do something about the parts that won't be covered by them. Between SMR and eventually 600 MHz spectrum I can't imagine that it would even take an enormous amount of new cell sites.

They could've covered hundred of miles of interstate in one stroke of the pen by buying MTPCS...they couldn't get nobody to buy them so I'm sure it would've been fairly cheap.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[kyle_4thousand]

You guys seriously talking about a nationalized telecom infrastructure? Have you seen the state of our transportation system in this country? Its horrendous. Wireless is making the industry way more competitive, even compared to the wire line days. Even if wireless operators are mostly at the mercy of competitors providing back haul and economic barriers that can be overcome by innovation is not reason enough to nationalize. You can say goodbye to innovation if uncle Sam runs the pipes that carry the goods. If the owners of telecom capital infrastructure aren't profit motivated there will be no way we can see the next breakthrough in technology for broadband delivery. No competition to one up the competitor. And no innovation to drive new economically viable ways to deliver broadband and competing wireless services to underserved areas means the ones paying for delivery of new services with current technology would be taxpayers.

*rant over*

[Rawvega]

They could've covered hundred of miles of interstate in one stroke of the pen by buying MTPCS...they couldn't get nobody to buy them so I'm sure it would've been fairly cheap.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Yeah I have to believe the asking price couldn't have been too high yet they couldn't get Sprint, T-Mobile nor any other regional to bite. /Shrug

 

 

Red was actual coverage, gray was planned but of course, never realized.

[WiWavelength]

You guys seriously talking about a nationalized telecom infrastructure? Have you seen the state of our transportation system in this country?

 

Give me a break.  Have you REALLY seen the state of our transportation system in this country?  For the geographic size of this country, the extent is remarkable.  And, seriously, what planned and funded the National Highway System, including the Interstate Highway System?

 

If as a society we had left that form of "superhighway" up to big corporations, we would not be able to travel outside of cities except on toll roads.  Large cities would have multiple toll roads from different competitors running in parallel, defiling the landscape.

 

Other cities would be deemed insignificant markets and left unconnected by modern roads.  Perhaps even worse, those smaller markets could be stuck with only one outside road provider each that would provide a barely passable road yet charge exorbitant tolls.

 

Sound familiar?  That, in a nutshell, is our glorious country's broadband Internet position.

 

Geez, get some perspective...

 

AJ

[Fraydog]

Also, Sprint could potentially use the same tower structures as MTPCS...but they would have to build out new base stations, antennas, RRU's, core network switches, and everything else.

 

I'm pretty sure MTPCS had a subprime customer base too.

[WiWavelength]

Also, Sprint could potentially use the same tower structures as MTPCS...but they would have to build out new base stations, antennas, RRU's, core network switches, and everything else.

 

I'm pretty sure MTPCS had a subprime customer base too.

 

All reports are that Chinook Wireless does not own its actual tower sites.  No big surprise there.  Most modern operators do not.

 

And Sprint would gain nothing by buying Chinook's GSM based infrastructure -- especially for a just a few thousand subs.

 

So, let Chinook fail.  Then, potentially pick up some newly vacant site leases on the cheap.

 

AJ

[Josh]

Yeah I have to believe the asking price couldn't have been too high yet they couldn't get Sprint, T-Mobile nor any other regional to bite. /Shrug

 

 

Red was actual coverage, gray was planned but of course, never realized.

 

This amount of coverage is not great, but its a great deal more than they have now!  But I understand that they would have to rip out all the old equipment and replace it anyway, so why bother for the few people who would have had to get a new phone and switch anyway (and probably leave for vzw/att... 

 

Also, they might not have wanted to piss off any of their new CCA partners by overbuilding after asking for native coverage. 

 

Give me a break.  Have you REALLY seen the state of our transportation system in this country?  For the geographic size of this country, the extent is remarkable.  And, seriously, what planned and funded the National Highway System, including the Interstate Highway System?

 

If as a society we had left that form of "superhighway" up to big corporations, we would not be able to travel outside of cities except on toll roads.  Large cities would have multiple toll roads from different competitors running in parallel, defiling the landscape.

 

Other cities would be deemed insignificant markets and left unconnected by modern roads.  Perhaps even worse, those smaller markets could be stuck with only one outside road provider each that would provide a barely passable road yet charge exorbitant tolls.

 

Sound familiar?  That, in a nutshell, is our glorious country's broadband Internet position.

 

Geez, get some perspective...

 

AJ

 

AJ, although the interstate is a terrible example to compare to the telecom industry for all the reasons you mentioned, governments are terrible at running a business.  Look at socialized healthcare, there are reasons people fly from other countries to go to our hospitals!  Not perfect, but competition leads to innovation.  Look at china privatizing their once government owned businesses.  Bureaucracies are inefficient, slow and not ever as cost effective as a private business operating in a free market.

 

The point you are trying to make is that the government would cover every sq mi possible because that is what everyone would lobby for, it would be using all the spectrum on every tower, and since it would not be trying to maximize profits it would be sold at a fair price.  Also, due to the nature of utilities, with only one player in the space, it would be the most cost effective.

 

Ironically there would then be lobbying groups that would demand huge pay raises for working on the towers, with no competition the equipment providers would have no reason to compete on price either, and bills to complete upgrades would be passed from senate to house back and forth rejecting them because of 1M little details, when it did eventually pass it would have 1Billion of excess charges and riders to reform healthcare (or whatever else)... we would eventually see worse service with no one accountable and no alternatives to switch to, we would be stuck.  It would be the same thing as if we had an monopoly, but instead of one company getting all the profits, it would all be wasted into the government system which would then borrow more debt to add to our ever climbing deficit.   

[Nickel]

[afazel]

How does the eject rocket not incinerate his feet?

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[jamesinclair]

.  Look at socialized healthcare, there are reasons people fly from other countries to go to our hospitals! 

 

This is the wrong forum for this conversation...but lol

 

Id wager more people leave the US for medical care than fly in. The people who fly in are coming for extremely specialized opertions.

 

Why do those specialists exist here? They mostly work for universities....many of which are publically funded.

 

And those private universities that have those world class doctors in their affiliated hospitals? Look at their budgets. Government grants made it possiible.

 

You've picked a terrible example to make your point.

 

Incidentally, you know who REALLY sucks at running a business?

 

Go check out the AT&T deployment thread in the general forum. It reads like a prime example of being inefficient, slow and not cost effectivet.And yet theyre a private business operating in a free market....

 

Or try to call Comcast to cancel your service.

[S4GRU]

I really would hate to see this discussion devolve into politics.

 

Robert

[greenbastard]

Going back to the original topic, I just saw what OP was referring to in the ever expanding subdivisions of greater Houston. Katy, TX has been growing at a rapid pace since the 90s and it doesn't seem to be slowing down anytime soon. If it wasn't for 1x 800, the entire area would have no native Sprint coverage. No LTE on most of my drive in that area and any scent of EVDO my phone caught was useless. If I had to guess, that area is serviced by one tower with no down tilt and with the new subdivisions, it is suffering from massive congestion. I'm sure this is a problem for all providers at the moment in that area.

[Yuhfhrh]

Going back to the original topic, I just saw what OP was referring to in the ever expanding subdivisions of greater Houston. Katy, TX has been growing at a rapid pace since the 90s and it doesn't seem to be slowing down anytime soon. If it wasn't for 1x 800, the entire area would have no native Sprint coverage. No LTE on most of my drive in that area and any scent of EVDO my phone caught was useless. If I had to guess, that area is serviced by one tower with no down tilt and with the new subdivisions, it is suffering from massive congestion. I'm sure this is a problem for all providers at the moment in that area.

 

I'm visiting the Katy area right now, and I have made my way around to most of the sites. I opened sensorly, and was suprised by the amount of activity in Katy/southern Katy.

 

These are rough locations, but blue stars are some Sprint sites, and purple stars are some Verizon/At&t only sites. Its funny to see the patches of thick green where B41 is available, and then all the red where there seems to be only fringe B26.

 

I would be surprised if Sprint didn't have any plans to expand where the duopoly already has. If these sensorly maps have any weight, there seems to be more traffic in the Katy area than in central Houston itself.

 

[Yuhfhrh]

I know I'm beating a dead horse here, but take a look at Sprint's coverage map for the same area as above:

 

 

In nearly all the 0.50mbps areas on sensorly where B26 signal averages -115dbm to -125dbm(No Signal), Sprint shows Spark coverage available. In fact, Sprint is showing Spark coverage in some areas where 1X doesn't even reach.

 

Maybe Sprint hasn't bothered to properly cover the area, because they already think they do! 

[Paynefanbro]

BroadbandMap.gov got updated with data as of December of 2013 and Sprint apparently grew to reach 284 Million (up from 278 in June 2012) with 3G data. It also says that AT&T passed Verizon in the number of POP's covered. http://www.broadbandmap.gov/about-provider/sprint-nextel-corporation/nationwide/#

 

T-Mobile covers 245 Million in 3G data. http://www.broadbandmap.gov/about-provider/t-mobile/nationwide/

 

Verizon covers 309 Million people in 3G data. http://www.broadbandmap.gov/about-provider/verizon-communications-inc./nationwide/

 

AT&T covers 311 Million in 3G data which means that in a year and a half, they actually surpassed Verizon in 3G coverage. Though, I don't know how believable that is.

[WiWavelength]

BroadbandMap.gov got updated with data as of December of 2013 and Sprint apparently grew to reach 284 Million (up from 278 in June 2012) with 3G data. It also says that AT&T passed Verizon in the number of POP's covered. http://www.broadbandmap.gov/about-provider/sprint-nextel-corporation/nationwide/#

 

Did Sprint coverage grow?  Or did population within the Sprint footprint grow?

 

You have to analyze statistics.  You cannot take them at face value.

 

AJ

[Paynefanbro]

Did Sprint coverage grow?  Or did population within the Sprint footprint grow?

 

You have to analyze statistics.  You cannot take them at face value.

 

AJ

 

You're right, but I believe that it is a combination of both. I don't think that 6 Million people moved into Sprint's footprint alone.