Sprint to expand to Montana using shut down CellularOne sites

[RAvirani]

I just got back from montana. I came in on i90 from Idaho and drove to Bozeman and it was all roaming. Does anyone have any idea yet as to the timeframe of the project?

[cdk]

I just got back from montana. I came in on i90 from Idaho and drove to Bozeman and it was all roaming. Does anyone have any idea yet as to the timeframe of the project?

 

I haven't heard of one yet. We do know that funding has been secured so I would suspect it would be soon^TM.

 

[Cubbiefan82]

I just got back from montana. I came in on i90 from Idaho and drove to Bozeman and it was all roaming. Does anyone have any idea yet as to the timeframe of the project?

I also believe that sprint will not turn on the sites until they have gotten backhaul to the sites(via microwave,aav,fiber). Seeing how rural montana is, that could take awhile. They did the same thing with the uscc sites to sprint sites in midwest, they waited until they had backhaul turned on. Then started turning them on, I wouldn't be surprised if they turned them on in clusters too.

[njjdnt]

I was in Bozeman Monday. No Sprint signal just roaming. I'll be in Billings next week and hoping for a different outcome, but staying realistic. Maybe if no signal, I'll find new equipment on sites.

[RAvirani]

What exactly are the PCS G block's build out requirements? What percentage of the population by when?

[WiWavelength]

What exactly are the PCS G block's build out requirements? What percentage of the population by when?

 

"Substantial service" by next summer, 2016.

 

AJ

[RAvirani]

"Substantial service" by next summer, 2016.

 

AJ

That seems really generic...so by June next year they need to have a running network in Montana/Wyoming/ND/SD that covers say 30% of the ppl?

[WiWavelength]

That seems really generic...so by June next year they need to have a running network in Montana/Wyoming/ND/SD that covers say 30% of the ppl?

 

Nope.  "Substantial service."

 

AJ

[caspar347]

Nope. "Substantial service."

AJ

So basically at least 1 site in the region a la Clearwire license protection, right?

[Camcroz]

Nope. "Substantial service."

 

AJ

So sprint could put up like 2 sites and say it's substantial service. I don't think that would fly with the FCC there has to be a specific number to go by.

 

Sent from my SM-G925P using Tapatalk

[RAvirani]

So sprint could put up like 2 sites and say it's substantial service. I don't think that would fly with the FCC there has to be a specific number to go by.

 

Sent from my SM-G925P using Tapatalk

Apparently not. I know the MTA licenses have specific requirement based on spectrum depth (10mhz, 15mhz: 25% pops; 30mhz: 33% pops I think) but apparently these requirements are literally "substantial service". I don't know how they could have been more generic lol.

[WiWavelength]

So basically at least 1 site in the region a la Clearwire license protection, right?

 

Clearwire is a reasonably good analog.  But the word "region" should be replaced with "license."  Clearwire BRS is licensed on a BTA basis.  For license protection, it deployed at least 1-2 sites per BTA.

 

Sprint PCS G block is licensed on a BEA basis -- the same as the Nextel SMR spectrum it replaces as compensation in rebanding.  BEA based licenses are geographically larger than BTA based licenses.  So, Sprint likely will need to roll out greater than 1-2 sites per BEA.  However, 2-5 sites in each BEA titular city, plus maybe 1-2 sites in a secondary city would cover the "substantial service" requirement, no questions asked.

 

Do not get your hopes up, guys.  I do not anticipate a massive Sprint buildout in the rural West.  Montana could be a different story, since Sprint has acquired some significant assets from now defunct Chinook Wireless.  Otherwise, look for a few sites in larger cities, such as Rapid City and Casper, as well as at popular tourist locations, such as Yellowstone.

 

Unlike the popular groundswell for T-Mobile, people in underserved markets are not chomping at the bit, "I wanna get me some Sprint."  T-Mobile is taking a footprint expansion gamble that it hopes will pay off.  It may not.  The newly constructed T-Mobile coverage may be okay, but it will not be solid -- you can count on that.  You do not build a mature wireless network in a year.  So, many of those rural dwellers tempted by T-Mobile marketing may not stick around very long, leaving their no contract plans and returning to the Twin Bells.  Sprint cannot afford that same gamble right now.

 

AJ

[RAvirani]

Clearwire is a reasonably good analog.  But the word "region" should be replaced with "license."  Clearwire BRS is licensed on a BTA basis.  For license protection, it deployed at least 1-2 sites per BTA.

 

Sprint PCS G block is licensed on a BEA basis -- the same as the Nextel SMR spectrum it replaces as compensation in rebanding.  BEA based licenses are geographically larger than BTA based licenses.  So, Sprint likely will need to roll out greater than 1-2 sites per BEA.  However, 2-5 sites in each BEA titular city, plus maybe 1-2 sites in a secondary city would cover the "substantial service" requirement, no questions asked.

 

Do not get your hopes up, guys.  I do not anticipate a massive Sprint buildout in the rural West.  Montana could be a different story, since Sprint has acquired some significant assets from now defunct Chinook Wireless.  Otherwise, look for a few sites in larger cities, such as Rapid City and Casper, as well as at popular tourist locations, such as Yellowstone.

 

Unlike the popular groundswell for T-Mobile, people in underserved markets are not chomping at the bit, "I wanna get me some Sprint."  T-Mobile is taking a footprint expansion gamble that it hopes will pay off.  It may not.  The newly constructed T-Mobile coverage may be okay, but it will not be solid -- you can count on that.  You do not build a mature wireless network in a year.  So, many of those rural dwellers tempted by T-Mobile marketing may not stick around very long, leaving their no contract plans and returning to the Twin Bells.  Sprint cannot afford that same gamble right now.

 

AJ

I don't see why even tmo would expand to a state like Montana - 6 ppl/mi2 is nothing - even if they captured a good half of the market...

[Josh]

I don't see why even tmo would expand to a state like Montana - 6 ppl/mi2 is nothing - even if they captured a good half of the market...

From the last time I looked at the statistics for out west, something like 20% of the population live in rural areas, meaning that 80% should be contained in the cities and medium sized towns.

 

Focusing on those will cover the majority of the population, but the question is how many people will leave their carrier for a network that doesn't have the rural coverage... and will it be economical if they only get a small percentage of the population.

[nick]

From the last time I looked at the statistics for out west, something like 20% of the population live in rural areas, meaning that 80% should be contained in the cities and medium sized towns.

 

Focusing on those will cover the majority of the population, but the question is how many people will leave their carrier for a network that doesn't have the rural coverage... and will it be economical if they only get a small percentage of the population.

its a problem for sure, if you have no network you will have no subscribers, but if you build a network will it attract subscribers....

 

Right now i don't think sprint has the money to gamble and expand coverage in this way, they are better off building a rock solid network in cites and areas they already cover.  They have a TON of work left to complete, from towers that are still 3g only, to the clear wire conversions, the one thousand plus new macro sites they plan to build, and the 70K small cells.... plus all the DAS to install at venues all across the country.... sprint money is better spent improving service to their existing customers rather than making a gamble to try and gain new ones in cities they don't cover. IMHO   

 

Once they have achieved the goal of #1 network in the country and completed a substantial amount of the current work load, then and only then should they aggressively expand the network foot print, think small to mid sized towns, complete interstate native lte coverage, alot of "small/mid" sized towns are located along major interstates and highways.  This coupled with a massive marketing push in those small to mid sized towns could be huge.  imagine if sprint built towers to cover a mid size town and them mailed everyone in that town an offer for free service for a year... i would have to think a decent percentage of people would take them up on that.  I think that would be a great long term play!

[dnwk]

its a problem for sure, if you have no network you will have no subscribers, but if you build a network will it attract subscribers....

 

Right now i don't think sprint has the money to gamble and expand coverage in this way, they are better off building a rock solid network in cites and areas they already cover.  They have a TON of work left to complete, from towers that are still 3g only, to the clear wire conversions, the one thousand plus new macro sites they plan to build, and the 70K small cells.... plus all the DAS to install at venues all across the country.... sprint money is better spent improving service to their existing customers rather than making a gamble to try and gain new ones in cities they don't cover. IMHO   

 

Once they have achieved the goal of #1 network in the country and completed a substantial amount of the current work load, then and only then should they aggressively expand the network foot print, think small to mid sized towns, complete interstate native lte coverage, alot of "small/mid" sized towns are located along major interstates and highways.  This coupled with a massive marketing push in those small to mid sized towns could be huge.  imagine if sprint built towers to cover a mid size town and them mailed everyone in that town an offer for free service for a year... i would have to think a decent percentage of people would take them up on that.  I think that would be a great long term play!

 

Another way to go is to purchase most CCA carriers.

[RAvirani]

its a problem for sure, if you have no network you will have no subscribers, but if you build a network will it attract subscribers....

 

Right now i don't think sprint has the money to gamble and expand coverage in this way, they are better off building a rock solid network in cites and areas they already cover. They have a TON of work left to complete, from towers that are still 3g only, to the clear wire conversions, the one thousand plus new macro sites they plan to build, and the 70K small cells.... plus all the DAS to install at venues all across the country.... sprint money is better spent improving service to their existing customers rather than making a gamble to try and gain new ones in cities they don't cover. IMHO

 

Once they have achieved the goal of #1 network in the country and completed a substantial amount of the current work load, then and only then should they aggressively expand the network foot print, think small to mid sized towns, complete interstate native lte coverage, alot of "small/mid" sized towns are located along major interstates and highways. This coupled with a massive marketing push in those small to mid sized towns could be huge. imagine if sprint built towers to cover a mid size town and them mailed everyone in that town an offer for free service for a year... i would have to think a decent percentage of people would take them up on that. I think that would be a great long term play!

I agree 100%. Although I do want sprint to expand their footprint, beating the other carriers in main metros is a larger priority. It looks like they're already well on their way to doing that. Look at sprints rootmetrics scores in Denver for 2h2015 for example.

[nick]

Another way to go is to purchase most CCA carriers.

that would be a possibility, however then you get assets that don't mesh well with the  national network, regulatory hurdles. not to mention if the wireless carrier being acquired is not in bad financial shape then sprint would most likely pay a premium, then the premium may be paid for overlapping coverage forcing sprint to effectively double pay for foot print expansion.  perhaps buying one or two could be beneficial (rip and replace their network equipment for sprints) but for the most part i think sprint would be better off building their own network, crushing the little guy and buying the assets at fire sale prices and or bankruptcy(if they even wanted them).  wireless will become an even more cut throat business as time goes on, these small regional carriers will struggle more and more every year.

[Josh]

that would be a possibility, however then you get assets that don't mesh well with the national network, regulatory hurdles. not to mention if the wireless carrier being acquired is not in bad financial shape then sprint would most likely pay a premium, then the premium may be paid for overlapping coverage forcing sprint to effectively double pay for foot print expansion. perhaps buying one or two could be beneficial (rip and replace their network equipment for sprints) but for the most part i think sprint would be better off building their own network, crushing the little guy and buying the assets at fire sale prices and or bankruptcy(if they even wanted them). wireless will become an even more cut throat business as time goes on, these small regional carriers will struggle more and more every year.

If they buy cca members, it will be because they are going under & sprint values the amount of customers they will receive in addition to network assets and spectrum. Otherwise, for now at least, they will try and actually help cca members by leasing them spectrum so that sprint can roam and not have to build it themselves... b/c their cash situation is tight right now.

 

Even if they had the money, it might be more efficient to just purchase the assets, and not the customers and debt. Again, dependant on the # of customers and their perceived value, maybe an area is particularly difficult to challenge the duolopoly, 10% customer base head start might be worth the extra cash.

 

One other point is that they are not looking to "crush the little guys" they are partnering with them to help compete with the big 2. They want the little guys to build out their networks so they can all roam on each other. If someone drags their feet, that might be a buyout candidate, but that would mean sprint would have a whole lot of extra work...

[dnwk]

The only danger of that would be those little guy was bought out by twin bell. Then there suddenly is a giant hole in your coverage map. Remember Alltel.

 

Sent from my XT1093 using Tapatalk

[dkyeager]

The only danger of that would be those little guy was bought out by twin bell. Then there suddenly is a giant hole in your coverage map. Remember Alltel.

 

Sent from my XT1093 using Tapatalk

 

I think this is why Sprint is trying its latest tactic: Buy their spectrum, lease them Sprints.  This gives the CCA members a cash infusion for expansion while keeping the spectrum from the duo.  It would be great if such a deal could be reached with US Cellular for their 850Mhz (Greater than 10Mhz 800~ LTE and/or more 1x800~).

 

Generally though, I assume these smaller carriers have a lower operating cost than Sprint in these sparsely populated areas, thus are the preferred option.  Certainly they are closer, thus have lower travel costs plus better community ties.

[S4GRU]

I wouldn't be surprised if these RRPP deals with Sprint come with a first right of refusal if they want to go for sale.

 

Using Tapatalk on BlackBerry Z30

[dalbrich]

Just back from visiting Billings MT for a week.  Our Sprint iPhone 6 roamed PCS on SID 5230.   Worst cellular service I've ever experienced.  Failure to complete or receive calls.  Data didn't work at all despite the Sprint Extended 3G display.

 

Outbound calls frequently failed after a short beep sound.  Couldn't make SMS or iMessage work.  No data of any kind.

 

Weird and bad is what one sees there at the moment.  This is a far cry from the days we had the old Qwest sites marked as native and much of Alltel marked as native.  Roaming or no for billing sake, the network in Billings is very definitely broken.  

 

The only saving grace is we had WiFi much of the time, and enabled WiFi calling or it would of been even more ridiculous than it was.   Anyway, sad to see things decline to the current level.  

 

-Dan

[dnwk]

Just back from visiting Billings MT for a week.  Our Sprint iPhone 6 roamed PCS on SID 5230.   Worst cellular service I've ever experienced.  Failure to complete or receive calls.  Data didn't work at all despite the Sprint Extended 3G display.

 

Outbound calls frequently failed after a short beep sound.  Couldn't make SMS or iMessage work.  No data of any kind.

 

Weird and bad is what one sees there at the moment.  This is a far cry from the days we had the old Qwest sites marked as native and much of Alltel marked as native.  Roaming or no for billing sake, the network in Billings is very definitely broken.  

 

The only saving grace is we had WiFi much of the time, and enabled WiFi calling or it would of been even more ridiculous than it was.   Anyway, sad to see things decline to the current level.  

 

-Dan

 

Any idea who is the provider?

[kineticman]

Any idea who is the provider?

 

Strange - I checked the SID database and nothing comes up for 5230.