Jump to content

OUTDATED: BTA's Not Meeting FCC Minimum Service Mandates


Recommended Posts

NOTE: This thread is outdated. Protection Sites are no longer being deployed since Sprint and Clearwire have both announced they are migrating to LTE for it's 4G technology. The information below is no longer accurate and should not be used. It is being retained just for historical purposes...




BTA's Not Meeting FCC Minimum Service Mandates (where more Protection Sites are anticipated...)

by Sprint 4G Rollout Updates on Friday, August 19, 2011 at 9:39 pm




I've created this thread as a way to track upcoming Protection Sites. I will keep this thread updated, removing BTA's (Basic Trading Areas) once they meet FCC Minimum Service Requirements, or change categories. See BTA listings below...


High Likelihood of Protection Site

These BTA's do not have any 2.5GHz service from Clearwire and thus do not meet FCC Minimum Service Requirements. These are highly likely to get at least one tower of service between now and the FCC Extended Deadline of November 1, 2011.

  • Arkansas > Harrison (BTA #182)
  • California > El Centro/Imperial (BTA #124)
  • California > San Luis Obispo (BTA #405)
  • Idaho > Idaho Falls/Rexburg/Salmon and Jackson WY (BTA #202)
  • Idaho > Pocatello/American Falls/Soda Springs (BTA #353)
  • Idaho > Twin Falls/Burley/Sun Valley (BTA #451)
  • Iowa > Burlington/Ft. Madison/Keokuk (BTA #61)
  • Iowa > Cedar Rapids (BTA #70)
  • Iowa > Dubuque (BTA #118)
  • Iowa > Fort Dodge/Storm Lake (BTA #150)
  • Iowa > Iowa City (BTA #205)
  • Iowa > Mason City (BTA #285)
  • Iowa > Ottumwa/Oskaloosa (BTA #337)
  • Iowa > Sioux City (BTA #421)
  • Kentucky > Corbin/London (BTA #98)
  • Kentucky > Pikeville (BTA #474)
  • Kentucky > Somerset (BTA #423)
  • Michigan > Alpena (BTA #11)
  • Michigan > Battle Creek (BTA #33)
  • Michigan > Escanaba/Manistique (BTA #132)
  • Michigan > Mt. Pleasant (BTA #307)
  • Michigan > Midland/Saginaw/Bay City (BTA #390)
  • Michigan > Petoskey/Cheboygan (BTA #345)
  • Michigan > Traverse City (BTA #446)
  • Minnesota > Brainerd (BTA #54)
  • Minnesota > Willmar/Montevideo (BTA #477)
  • Missouri > Poplar Bluff (BTA #355)
  • Missouri > West Plains (BTA #470)
  • Montana > Bozeman/Belgrade (BTA #53)
  • Montana > Butte (BTA #64)
  • Montana > Missoula (BTA #300)
  • Nebraska > Hastings (BTA #185)
  • Nebraska > McCook (BTA #270)
  • New Hampshire > Keene & Brattleboro VT (BTA #227)
  • New Mexico > Clovis/Portales (BTA #87)
  • New Mexico > Gallup and St. John's/Eagar, AZ (BTA #162)
  • New Mexico > Hobbs/Lovington (BTA #191)
  • New Mexico > Roswell/Ruidoso (BTA #386)
  • New York > Glens Falls/Lake George (BTA #164)
  • New York > Jamestown/Dunkirk and Warren PA (BTA #215)
  • New York > Oneonta/Delhi (BTA #333)
  • New York > Plattsburgh (BTA #352)
  • North Dakota > Dickinson (BTA #113)
  • North Dakota > Grand Forks/Devils Lake and Thief River Falls MN (BTA #166)
  • North Dakota > Minot (BTA #299)
  • North Dakota > Williston (BTA #476)
  • Ohio > Chillicothe (BTA #80)
  • Ohio > Lima (BTA #255)
  • Ohio > Zanesville (BTA # 487)
  • Pennsylvania > Allentown/Bethlehem/Easton (BTA #10)
  • Pennsylvania > Johnstown/Somerset (BTA #218)
  • Pennsylvania > Meadville (BTA #287)
  • Pennsylvania > Stroudsburg (BTA #435)
  • South Carolina > Anderson/Toccoa GA (BTA #16)
  • South Carolina > Greenwood (BTA #178)
  • South Dakota > Aberdeen/Mobridge (BTA #1)
  • South Dakota > Watertown (BTA #464)
  • Tennessee > Cookeville (BTA #96)
  • Texas > Del Rio/Eagle Pass (BTA #121)
  • Texas > San Angelo/Brady/Ozona (BTA #400)
  • Utah > Logan/Preston ID (BTA #258)
  • Utah > St. George/Cedar City (BTA #392)
  • Vermont > Rutland/Bennington (BTA #388)
  • Virginia > Charlottesville (BTA #75)
  • Virginia > Staunton (BTA #430)
  • Virgin Islands > All Areas (BTA #491)
  • Washington > Longview/Kelso (BTA #261)
  • West Virginia > Beckley/Lewisburg (BTA #35)
  • West Virginia > Clarksburg/Elkins (BTA #82)
  • West Virginia > Fairmont (BTA #137)
  • West Virginia > Logan (BTA #259)
  • West Virginia > Morgantown (BTA #306)
  • West Virginia > Princeton/Bluefield, VA/WV (BTA #48)
  • West Virginia > Weirton/Steubenville OH (BTA #430)
  • West Virginia > Wheeling/St. Clairsville OH (BTA #471)
  • Wisconsin > Wisconsin Rapids/Stevens Point (BTA #432)


Moderate Likelihood of Additional Protection Site(s)

These BTA's have some 2.5GHz service deployed, but definitely not enough to meet the FCC Minimum Service Requirement of 30% of BTA Population covered with useable signal.

  • California > San Diego County (BTA #482)
  • Puerto Rico > Mayaguez/Ponce (BTA #489)


Slight Chance of Additional Protection Site(s)

These BTA's have a decent amount of 2.5GHz service deployed, but appear slightly below meeting the FCC Minimum Service Requirement of 30% of BTA Population covered with useable signal.

  • Alaska > Juneau (BTA #221)
  • American Samoa > All Areas (BTA #492) - I have this one as slight because they may allow this license to lapse.
  • California > Fresno (BTA #157)
  • California > Santa Barbara/Santa Maria (BTA #406)
  • Guam > All Areas (BTA #490) - I have this one as slight because they may allow this license to lapse.
  • Hawaii > Kauai/Lihue (BTA #254)
  • Northern Mariana Islands > All Areas (BTA #493) - I have this one as slight because they may allow this license to lapse.
  • Oregon > Coos Bay/North Bend (BTA #97)


Not Likely any Additional Protection Site(s)

These BTA's appear to meet the FCC Minimum Service Requirement of 30% of BTA Population covered with useable signal.

  • Alaska > Anchorage (BTA #14)
  • Alaska > Fairbanks (BTA #136)
  • California > Bakersfield (BTA #28)
  • California > Chico/Paradise (BTA #79)
  • California > Eureka/Crescent City (BTA #134)
  • California > Los Angeles (BTA #262)
  • California > Merced (BTA #291)
  • California > Modesto (BTA #303)
  • California > Redding/Red Bluff (BTA #371)
  • California > Sacramento/Northern Sierras (BTA #389)
  • California > San Francisco/San Jose/Oakland (BTA #404)
  • California > Stockton (BTA #434)
  • California > Visalia (BTA #458)
  • California > Yuba City/Marysville (BTA #485)
  • Hawaii > Hawaii/Hilo & Kailua (BTA #190)
  • Hawaii > Maui/Molokai/Lanai (BTA #222)
  • Hawaii > Oahu/Honolulu (BTA #192)
  • Idaho > Boise (BTA #50)
  • Idaho > Lewiston/Moscow and Clarkston WA (BTA #250)
  • Nevada > Reno/Carson City/Elko and Mammoth Lakes CA (BTA #372)
  • Oregon > Bend/Redmond/Prineville (BTA #38)
  • Oregon > Eugene (BTA #133)
  • Oregon > Klamath Falls/Alturas CA (BTA #231)
  • Oregon > Medford/Grants Pass (BTA #288)
  • Oregon > Portland (BTA #358)
  • Oregon > Roseburg (BTA #385)
  • Oregon > Salem/Corvallis (BTA #395)
  • Puerto Rico > San Juan (BTA #488)
  • Washington > Aberdeen/Hoquiam (BTA #2)
  • Washington > Bellingham (BTA #36)
  • Washington > Bremerton (BTA #55)
  • Washington > Olympia (BTA #331)
  • Washington > Port Angeles (BTA #356)
  • Washington > Seattle/Tacoma (BTA #413)
  • Washington > Spokane/Pullman and Coeur d' Alene ID (BTA #425)
  • Washington > Walla Walla/Pendleton OR (BTA #460)
  • Washington > Wenatchee (BTA #468)
  • Washington > Yakima (BTA #482)





The Sprint 4G/Clearwire FCC BTA Map as of August 19, 2011.


A full resolution image of this map can be found at: http://4g.herronweb....TAmap081911.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Migrated from Original Forum. Originally Posted 8 January 2011


In the past few months I've read a lot about beam forming. I wish they had used that in their deployment of 2.5GHz. WiMax would have never had the bad wrap and seen as inferior to LTE. Oh, what should have been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • Just installed the update, and it's good!  As you recommended, I turned off both TA adjustments, and turned on displaying it when it's zero.  The value is basically spot-on.  It's bouncing between 18 and 19 for the Cameron Valley site, and it is in fact between 0.87 and 0.92 miles, as displayed in the app.  This is probably a better estimate of the TA values than any other device I own provides. As far as the -44 goes, I'll have to take it out and verify that it no longer records those cases. If this device didn't have that annoying reset problem, and got the Android 14 update (and in so doing supported TA on NR and continued to allow band locking), it would easily be the best device I own.  Easily.  And would be the device I standardize on for the 5G era.  I'll probably have to wait for a future device to come out with Android 14 and then see what happens. And I know I didn't have to, but I love SCP.  It is my primary tool for tracking the goings-on of the various networks and is very easy to use and work with across my 10 phones.  I am very happy to send a token of my appreciation your way now and then.  Thanks again! - Trip
    • Sorry, I misread your message -- yes, the app would show 0 if an invalid value was being reported. I don't think I had any MediaTek devices myself, but the beta testers have had a decent variety of devices over the years.   Sorry, I didn't word that very well in my last post -- I added an option to control display of LTE TA when it is 0. By default it will now be hidden (sadly a lot of devices do not show it) but anyone who wants to display it can adjust accordingly. There will be 3 user-selectable options related to LTE TA now -- the existing correction option, correction on LTE-TDD (which is independent/in addition to the existing correction option), and TA:0 display. In your case, I'd disable the TDD option and enable the TA:0 option; the defaults will be the opposite of what I think you need.   You did not have to do that, but I sincerely appreciate it, thank you! Beta update is rolling out now, let me know how it goes.
    • In order: This is very helpful to know.  Thanks. That makes a lot of sense, though it's showing me zero rather than nothing; it looks like if it's calculating a negative number, I'm seeing zero instead.  It makes me wonder how many devices you've tested against which use the MediaTek chipset.  This is only the second one I've used, and the first one was very, very old (didn't have B41), so it's possible that the MediaTek chip doesn't need the correction while others do.  Separately, I doubt that a real world case will ever see 1282, so I imagine any value above 1281 could be ignored. I would ask you to please not hide TA values of 0, or if you hide them by default, add an option to not hide them.  I am aware that, for example, the S22 doesn't report a valid TA value and always reports zero, but zero is a legitimate value and is useful to know when trying to identify sites. I'll look forward to your impending update, and I'm going to send along another donation if I can find the link.  Thanks so much, as always!  - Trip
    • I received the reports, thanks! You didn't catch it happening (it captures the diagnostics as soon as you hit send or long-click the connection banner on the main screen), and I had sent you an e-mail to clarify which value was -3.. but your screenshots confirmed my hunch that you meant RSRQ!   I know exactly what is happening here. Somewhere along the way, I learned that TD-LTE bands (33-53) needed a TA correction of -19 applied, and I confirmed it on several devices. Perhaps that is no longer universally true.. but what you're seeing SCP display matches that correction. Below 19 you see nothing, at 19 you see 0, and above that you see TA-19. The upper limit is 1282, which is why you see 1263. Your phone must report 1282 when the TA is unknown, which is not technically safe but I can work around that. Funny enough, I had a change to TA coming in the next update that had nothing to do with your issues.. TA:0 will be hidden moving forward, since several devices report 0 when it cannot be identified. I'll have an app update out shortly that addresses all of this, let me know how it works for you and thanks for the detailed feedback!
    • Mike, We ended up going out this morning to do errands in spite of the tropical storm.  I locked the phone on LTE B41, turned off the TA correction checkbox, and watched it carefully while out and about.  I have four screenshots for you. https://imgur.com/a/kCPTCnB First, I happened to get a screenshot of it doing the -44 dBm thing.  I also tried to send you at least one set of diagnostics showing the -44 dBm but I don't know where precisely in the process it collects the diagnostics.  Hopefully there's something useful in them. The rest of the screenshots are far more interesting.  All three were taken within seconds of each other in the CVS parking lot.  The phone's diagnostic screen shows a TA of 17, and oddly, the SCP diagnostics screenshot also appears to show a TA of 17.  But SCP's normal display is showing 0.  Not entirely sure what to make of that.  It looks like SCP won't show me a value other than 0 until I hit about 19 according to the phone diagnostic screen. It also appears that when SCP is showing a TA of 1263, that's the equivalent of a null value for the TA--no TA is calculated.  The phone diagnostic screen appears to show just "12" when that's happening; the SCP diagnostic screen shows 1282 in the TA section when that happens, a difference of 19, which is highly convenient given what I noted above about the TA value.  (I can't test that the phone diagnostic screen is limited to two characters and is thus truncating 1282 to just "12" as I suspect given where I am right now.  Had I known to be looking for it, I'd have tested in the middle of nowhere yesterday.) Anything catch your eye?  Anything I can do to help more?  - Trip
  • Recently Browsing

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