Sprint to join Rural Operators Roaming Hub (CCA and RRPP thread)

[WiWavelength]

Out of curiosity, precisely how much usage would you deem reasonable, assuming current prices and daytime usage? Otherwise, if I choose one day to upgrade to "unlimited" data and use my phone to its full potential as advertised, I must be ever mindful of the potential that usage has of inadvertently becoming a subject of disdain...

 

You can use basically how much you please -- but you should have to pay commensurately for that usage.  Wireless data should be sold in tiers.  "Unlimited" could be the top option.  It should be very expensive, though, maybe even $200 per month, to keep uptake to only those few who truly need it and can afford it.

 

The problem with offering an "unlimited" option as it pertains to this thread, however, is the arbitrage argument that I posited earlier.  "Unlimited" data while roaming -- even on a friendly partner operator -- does not work in the long run.

 

AJ

[JeffDTD]

Jellybean and KitKat both have had the option to restrict background data for certain apps. And as mentioned, the play store can be set to update apps only over wifi. Given the general malaise about sprints slower data, why would you voluntarily let your phone update over 3G/4G if not on B41? Otherwise, your data is dragged down for an extended period of time if it even completes, your battery drains and your device is a hot potato.. Tweekin hard for an app update that cant wait for wifi? OCD.

 

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[Mr.Nuke]

I thought the point of the roaming hub was to seemlessly connect to each others network and share it. And wouldn't be considered roaming. Is that what it is or I got the wrong idea of it?

To an extent, you want Sprint customers to have access to data to check the web or their email as they're passing through. But as AJ noted limits need to be imposed to prevent arbitrage opportunities from happening. I just randomly picked a company from the press release. James Valley Wireless is in a portion of South Dakota. Here are their phones. http://jamesvalley.com/residential/cell-phone/residential-cell-phones/

 

Not a great selection. Free of any roaming caps, if I lived in James Valley's territory there wouldn't be much to stop me from signing up for Sprint, getting a better selection of devices (and possibly a much cheaper framily plan), yet use James Valley's network 100% of the time.That isn't fair to James Valley.

[lordsutch]

You can easily disable updates via mobile networks in Google play settings.

True, but that's an all or nothing setting. I don't care if I get a few <1MB updates each day, some of which are pulled while I'm away from work or home WiFi, even on my capped T-Mobile plan.

 

There used to be a 50MB hard cap on update size over mobile networks, but that went away years ago.

 

Anyway this has gotten way off-topic for the thread. As long as there's a reasonable roaming cap with warnings or no risk of overages without user opt-in, as has been the case with EVDO (given its slower performance), I'm OK with it. But Google (and Apple and MS) really needs to add finer-gained control of roaming data, particularly as separately-capped roaming becomes more common in the industry, to better empower users. Heck the stock Nexus 5 even lacks the separate domestic/international data roaming setting that is buried in the framework and available on other Sprint devices, which is important for border-area dwellers.

 

At least in Georgia I look forward to our new SouthernLINC roaming partner's rollout, which will be desperately needed once AT&T and Verizon cut off most of the old Alltel areas, and CSpire LTE will help fill in an important 1X-roaming-only gap for Sprint on I-22 between Tupelo and Birmingham.

[jgore43]

 

 

I'm

At least in Georgia I look forward to our new SouthernLINC roaming partner's rollout, which will be desperately needed once AT&T and Verizon cut off most of the old Alltel areas, and CSpire LTE will help fill in an important 1X-roaming-only gap for Sprint on I-22 between Tupelo and Birmingham.

I'm also looking forward to the southern link coverage as the coverage in rural GA is absolutely terrible the alltel towers are still there. But they suck. If southern link LTE footprint matches their iden we should be set.

 

Sent from my Torque using Tapatalk

[Destroyallcubes]

Is EA at least transparent enough to prompt the user that a 1 GB app update, to use the earlier example, is required?  Or is this another reason why EA has ranked near the top of the most hated companies in America?  An undisclosed 1 GB app update on a 1 GB data plan would be a real bitch of a surprise.

 

AJ

It'll tell you, of course but if you are out and about and are distracted you some times don't pay attention. Im know if I get into a game and have nothing else too do ill update it to keep it running at its best. I know I've had apps open in my pocket. Hmm wonder if butt updating is a new thing

[S4GRU]

To an extent, you want Sprint customers to have access to data to check the web or their email as they're passing through. But as AJ noted limits need to be imposed to prevent arbitrage opportunities from happening. I just picked one of the company's randomly from the press release. James Valley Wireless is in a portion of South Dakota. Here are their phones. http://jamesvalley.com/residential/cell-phone/residential-cell-phones/

 

Not a great selection. Free of any roaming caps, if I lived in James Valley's territory there wouldn't be much to stop me from signing up for Sprint, getting a better selection of devices (and possibly a much cheaper framily plan), yet use James Valley's network 100% of the time.That isn't fair to James Valley.

Yeah, Sprint would need to zip code restrict Aberdeen, South Dakota and its environs (in this instance). It wouldn't be a perfect block, but these rural providers would need to insist Sprint provide at least this much protection. And they may already have that worked out.

 

Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

[WiWavelength]

Yeah, Sprint would need to zip code restrict Aberdeen, South Dakota and its environs (in this instance). It wouldn't be a perfect block, but these rural providers would need to insist Sprint provide at least this much protection. And they may already have that worked out.

 

VZW apparently provides no such protections for its LTE in Rural America partners.  That is just one more reason why VZW's program is a Trojan horse.

 

AJ

[S4GRU]

Primarily, I'd like to see Sprint customers to be able to use these other rural LTE networks as native within our normal Sprint account data allowances. However, I can live with the roaming limits already established if we could pay for the additional roaming at a fair price.

 

I think that it shouldn't be a big deal to Sprint to allow us to use our normal data allotments on these other providers (including unlimited). Because these rural providers are more likely to have their customers roaming and using Sprint data away from their markets than Sprint customers using their networks. Since Sprint really wants to tout this additional coverage, I'm still expecting it to be treated as native.

 

Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

[WiWavelength]

Primarily, I'd like to see Sprint customers to be able to use these other rural LTE networks as native within our normal Sprint account data allowances. However, I can live with the roaming limits already established if we could pay for the additional roaming at a fair price.

 

In the so called Internet of Things, we should be able to buy data allotments directly from these smaller operators.  For example, if you were to exhaust your Sprint roaming allotment while on James Valley Telecom, then you could get prompted for an in handset purchase of additional data from James Valley Telecom.  That would cut out the middleman and support the smaller operators directly.

 

AJ

[CaptainSlow]

To an extent, you want Sprint customers to have access to data to check the web or their email as they're passing through. But as AJ noted limits need to be imposed to prevent arbitrage opportunities from happening. I just randomly picked a company from the press release. James Valley Wireless is in a portion of South Dakota. Here are their phones. http://jamesvalley.com/residential/cell-phone/residential-cell-phones/

 

Not a great selection. Free of any roaming caps, if I lived in James Valley's territory there wouldn't be much to stop me from signing up for Sprint, getting a better selection of devices (and possibly a much cheaper framily plan), yet use James Valley's network 100% of the time.That isn't fair to James Valley.

But wouldn't James Valley then get $$$ from Sprint for Sprint users roaming on their network?

[S4GRU]

But wouldn't James Valley then get $$$ from Sprint for Sprint users roaming on their network?

Yes. And most likely JVT will be paying more for their customers than Sprint pays them. More Aberdeen customers will travel onto the Sprint network all around the country than Sprint customers end up in Aberdeen.

 

Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

[lordsutch]

To an extent, you want Sprint customers to have access to data to check the web or their email as they're passing through. But as AJ noted limits need to be imposed to prevent arbitrage opportunities from happening. I just randomly picked a company from the press release. James Valley Wireless is in a portion of South Dakota. Here are their phones. http://jamesvalley.com/residential/cell-phone/residential-cell-phones/

 

Not a great selection. Free of any roaming caps, if I lived in James Valley's territory there wouldn't be much to stop me from signing up for Sprint, getting a better selection of devices (and possibly a much cheaper framily plan), yet use James Valley's network 100% of the time.That isn't fair to James Valley.

Don't forget the 50% roaming usage limit for voice and data effectively forecloses this option, and I don't see that going away except in cases where Sprint deepens these roaming relationships to the wholesale level that nTelos is at. Which might not be a bad idea for some of these outfits.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[Fraydog]

Sprint has TONS of unused rural spectrum not yet used.

 

Sprint should build their own Trojan Horse program. Let's call it Sprint Rural America. Terms are very similar to Verizon's. Now granted, it wouldn't get the uptake VZW's program got, but you'd probably find four or five in Net America to take it.

 

Simply, Sprint leases B25, 26, and 41 in the rural areas. Providers use the NV Vendor for their area, and connect into Sprint's core. Since they're connecting into Sprint's core, Sprint would allow Sprint sign ups in those areas. In return, Sprint would allow the smaller providers to also do sign ups in border areas.

 

I'd say there's a certain provider not too far away that would jump at that. *Looks toward Kentucky and Tennessee*

[JThorson]

 

And Masa is definitely delivering on the LTE roaming agreements.

 

Sprint to Expand 4G LTE Roaming Through 12 New Agreements with Carriers Covering a Population of Over 34 Million

• Inland Cellular, covering 9,000 square miles and 297,000 people in Idaho and Washington

I see that Inland Cellular is covering Idaho and Washington State. From what I see they are covering only Eastern Washington. Is that because Sprint has less towers over there compared to the West?

[WiWavelength]

Sprint has TONS of unused rural spectrum not yet used.

 

Please do not refer to it as "unused."  That is a rural distortion, making Sprint look bad.  Rather, if Sprint has met the FCC population based construction requirements for a given market, then Sprint is "using" its spectrum in that market -- even if Sprint's coverage does not reach every square mile of geographic area in that market.

 

Now, Sprint does have "unused" PCS G block spectrum in some of its BEA based markets.  It will have to meet construction requirements in those markets, but I have already posted extensively on that topic.

 

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/3703-potential-sprint-rural-buildout-by-2016/

 

Just a point of clarification...

 

AJ

[Fraydog]

Please do not refer to it as "unused." That is a rural distortion, making Sprint look bad. Rather, if Sprint has met the FCC population based construction requirements for a given market, then Sprint is "using" its spectrum in that market -- even if Sprint's coverage does not reach every square mile of geographic area in that market.

 

 

I'm speaking in terms of having large reserves for additional bandwidth and deployment that can be used by regional operators. I'm not meaning at all to imply, in any way, that Sprint has not met standards of spectrum deployment with the FCC. Sprint's record in that regard is very good. I'm speaking of having massive amounts of bandwidth to loan rural providers.

 

I'm glad to clarify this.

[lilotimz]

 

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/sprint-rural-lte-partner-vtel-launches-service-vermont/2014-07-02

 

vTel Wireless, one of the 12 smaller wireless carriers Sprint (NYSE: S) announced LTE roaming deals with in June, launched LTE service in parts of Vermont on Tuesday...

 

Though the grant required VTel to deliver speeds of at least 1.5 Mbps, the system the company showed off in Hardwick, Vt., showed downlink speeds of nearly 35 Mbps. VTel says average speeds are in the 15-20 Mbps range, with peak speeds of 50 Mbps.

VTel controls spectrum in the 700 MHz, AWS, PCS and 2.5 GHz bands. It's unclear what spectrum band the company is using for its LTE service, and a VTel representative could not did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

...

 

 

Sounds like a 5x5 deployment so AWS or PCS is most likely. 

 

Edit: or insufficiently back hauled 10x10. 

[belusnecropolis]

How does one peak at 50 on a 5x5 channel?

[WiWavelength]

How does one peak at 50 on a 5x5 channel?

 

The wireless user has the best year of his life at age 50.

 

AJ

[Nickel]

Bump for Robert's excellent article: http://s4gru.com/index.php?/blog/1/entry-367-will-lte-service-on-rural-roaming-preferred-program-partner-networks-be-native-coverage-for-sprint-customers/

[gr8nuguy]

Very awesome !!! 

[WiWavelength]

Very awesome !!! 

 

Do not wet yourself with excitement.  That map reflects full CCA, not Sprint RRPP.

 

And I question the Montana footprint.  Is some of that Chinook Wireless?  It is going kaput soon.

 

AJ

[gr8nuguy]

Do not wet yourself with excitement.  That map reflects full CCA, not Sprint RRPP.

 

And I question the Montana footprint.  Is some of that Chinook Wireless?  It is going kaput soon.

 

AJ

 

 

 

 

What frequencies are bands 4 and 12? I may already know when I read the frequencies, but what are the prior-to-LTE uses of these bands?

 

The CCA and RRPP are the biggest thing Sprint has going for it aside from NV2.0. Carrier aggregation and the like are peanuts compared to this.

 

Is that map our expected LTE coverage when implemented? Eventually? We don't have much impact on Big Red in the Dakotas, but we have similar dominating coverage in other areas where they are weak.

 

 

 

 

 

Band 4 is AWS, and Band 12 is 700MHz A/B/C block.  The resource I use for LTE bands and EARFCN/frequencies is this website:  http://niviuk.free.fr/lte_band.php

 

Yes, with full CCA implementation, the green in the bottom map shows a fully built out and anticipated coverage.  Sprint is expected to expand native coverages themselves in some strategic places where there is no CCA coverage.  Or work with existing RRPP or Sprint Affiliates to expand coverages in those areas.

 

This will be very beneficial, possibly even necessary, in some booming areas like the Dakotas.

 

Robert

 

 

hmm. oh well, still exciting 

[bretton88]

Does the rrpp include the 3G networks as fully native too?