Sprint Organic Network Expansion Discussion Thread

[Dkoellerwx]

I've read and heard about Sprints plan to expand it's network but has anyone actually experienced or seen this expansion anywhere, mainly in areas like Missouri which is supposedly part if Project Ocean. Or anywhere else,specifically outside of metro areas. Has anyone picked up a signal in an area that should be no service or roaming, and is sure it isn't one of Sprints rural partners. Are there any new towers that have added coverage to the map, not just increase coverage within an existing footprint.

 

Or has anyone discovered documentation showing plans for where a proposed Sprint tower is to be built. (permits, etc.)

 

Yes, there has been quite a few sites that have added onto the coverage map in Missouri and Illinois. Even a few in Indiana and Michigan as part of project Ocean. Look at the NV Site report update lists, all of the USCC conversions listed are part of the expansion. 

[EvanA]

I've read and heard about Sprints plan to expand it's network but has anyone actually experienced or seen this expansion anywhere, mainly in areas like Missouri which is supposedly part if Project Ocean. Or anywhere else,specifically outside of metro areas. Has anyone picked up a signal in an area that should be no service or roaming, and is sure it isn't one of Sprints rural partners. Are there any new towers that have added coverage to the map, not just increase coverage within an existing footprint.

 

Or has anyone discovered documentation showing plans for where a proposed Sprint tower is to be built. (permits, etc.)

Project Ocean has been in full swing for a while now.  You can see the USCC conversion sites on the sponsor site map. They have an note stating that they were USCC conversions.

 

EDIT: Dang you @Dkoellerwx 

[JThorson]

I am excited to see the details of the expansion and densication of the network.

 

Currently "Sprints network spending seems to be slowing down, but will soon ramp up again"http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/analysts-sprints-network-spending-slowing-down-will-soon-ramp-densification/2015-07-06

[techfranz]

I saw an article stating that Softbank was going to be very supportive of Rural Carriers.

 

My question is this...will Network Vision just be for urbanites like Wimax was, or is Sprint willing to invest in some sparsely populated places (where Verizon and AT&T have been) in order to gain a larger footprint. Population Centers are good ROI but Poor Coverage will not disappear until Sprint tackles those holes in the coverage map.

 

If maintaining a tower in the middle of a cornfield is too expensive, perhaps Sprint could offer select Roaming in really dead areas, as in Roaming is turned on just for the low coverage area to avoid abuse of roaming privileges.

 

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

Edited July 13, 2015 by techfranz

[Ascertion]

I saw an article stating that Softbank was going to be very supportive of Rural Carriers.

 

My question is this...will Network Vision just be for urbanites like Wimax was, or is Sprint willing to invest in some sparsely populated places (where Verizon and AT&T have been) in order to gain a larger footprint. Population Centers are good ROI but Poor Coverage will not disappear until Sprint tackles those holes in the coverage map.

 

If maintaining a tower in the middle of a cornfield is too expensive, perhaps Sprint could offer select Roaming in really dead areas, as in Roaming is turned on just for the low coverage area to avoid abuse of roaming privileges.

 

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

Sprint likely won't expand into the footprint of the rural carriers.

[techfranz]

Here are the articles:

http://newsroom.sprint.com/news-releases/sprint-reaches-4g-lte-roaming-agreements-with-15-additional-rural-carriers.htm

 

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/sprint-16-30-rural-lte-roaming-partners-have-now-launched-lte-service/2015-05-20

 

http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article343476/Sprint-will-provide-rural-carriers-access-to-airwaves.html

[whitetigergrowl]

Earlier this year there was a lot of talk of Sprint expanding their native network. Be it through partners or by themselves.

 

Any word on the Dakotas? Mainly South Dakota and the Black Hills?

So much going on between ​Tmobile and Sprint I can't keep up.

Edited July 30, 2015 by whitetigergrowl

[Ascertion]

Earlier this year there was a lot of talk of Sprint expanding their native network. Be it through partners or by themselves.

 

Any word on the Dakotas? Mainly South Dakota and the Black Hills?

 

So much going on between ​Tmobile and Sprint I can't keep up.

We'll hear specifics Aug 4th, on their Q2 earnings call. 

[RAvirani]

We'll hear specifics Aug 4th, on their Q2 earnings call.

Can't wait ????????????

[Soupcan]

Were there any details on the expansion in the conference call today? All I've heard is that densification has started, but that seems kind of vague to me.

[RAvirani]

Were there any details on the expansion in the conference call today? All I've heard is that densification has started, but that seems kind of vague to me.

Yea any news on projects cedar or ocean or RRPP/CCA roaming?

[whitetigergrowl]

Yea any news on projects cedar or ocean or RRPP/CCA roaming?

 

Yeah I'd like to know this too.

[S4GRU]

Me too

 

Using Tapatalk on Nexus 6

[MtnSierraSprint]

I am considering moving to Sprint from Verizon. I can handle a little short term pain and gaps in coverage where I am used to having Verizon LTE service now, but I want to be sure I do not jump prematurely. Sprint's coverage maps which I assume are best case, show basicaly roaming or no coverage at all off of Interstates and good sized cities, particularly in Eastern California, Nevada, Utah, and Colorado where I travel quite a bit. The news regarding CCA and RRPP has been encouraging, but as has been raised by others here, are there any significant areas that have changed from rural roaming to native Sprint coverage? It has been many years since Verizon got rid of roaming completely and I can tell you it is not something anyone would want to go back to, after having service that eliminates that headache. It is my hope that Sprint is taking steps to reach a point where roaming is less and less of a concern, and ultimately will be eliminated as it has been on Verizon. A map of  areas that have changed from roaming to native coverage, with date of the change, would be helpful to see the scale and pace of romaing territory that is becomeing part of Sprints native coverage.

[WiWavelength]

I am considering moving to Sprint from Verizon. I can handle a little short term pain and gaps in coverage where I am used to having Verizon LTE service now, but I want to be sure I do not jump prematurely. Sprint's coverage maps which I assume are best case, show basicaly roaming or no coverage at all off of Interstates and good sized cities, particularly in Eastern California, Nevada, Utah, and Colorado where I travel quite a bit.

 

At S4GRU, we do not recruit people to Sprint.  We just happen to have a lot of wireless expertise and Sprint insider info.  So, you can consider this an objective assessment -- advantages and disadvantages.

 

Sprint has the broadest, deepest domestic roaming agreements of the four national operators.  Sprint roams freely on VZW.  VZW rarely allows roaming on Sprint.  Where the Sprint map shows roaming coverage in the West, much of that comes from VZW.  If the Sprint map shows no coverage, then VZW almost certainly has no coverage there either.  Basically, with Sprint, you get its network and VZW fallback coverage, too.

 

Most Sprint plans have voice and data roaming caps.  The data caps range 100-300 MB/mo.  Additionally, on most plans, any VZW roaming will be slow CDMA1X data.  Roaming on USCC and some other regional/rural operators may be faster EV-DO data.  Presently, Sprint offers no LTE domestic roaming.  That may be coming, but it almost assuredly will not include VZW, AT&T, or T-Mobile coverage.  The combination of Sprint native footprint expansion and CCA/RRPP footprint -- whenever that happens -- will never equal the combination of VZW native footprint and LTE in Rural America footprint.

 

Setting aside any cost differences, for total voice and at least slow data coverage, advantage Sprint.  For total LTE coverage, advantage VZW.  Take your pick based on your priorities.

 

AJ

[WiWavelength]

To add one disadvantage to VZW, its parent company long has been a douchebag to the FCC and American public over issues such as deregulation, wired broadband expansion, and Net Neutrality.  Consumers who pay VZW for service help enable that douchebaggery.

 

AJ

[nexgencpu]

Consumers who pay VZW for service help enable that douchebaggery.

 

AJ

Perfect example of this ^^^

 

http://www.theverge.com/2015/6/20/8818515/new-york-city-slams-verizon-fios-rollout

[Paynefanbro]

Perfect example of this ^^^

 

http://www.theverge.com/2015/6/20/8818515/new-york-city-slams-verizon-fios-rollout

 

It's funny because it seems like the city finally got them moving again. They're starting to go into people's backyard to wire up the buildings for FiOS in my area.

[MtnSierraSprint]

Thanks AJ for your assessment. I have been a guest visitor to S4GRU for many years, particularly the last two years as Sprint's potential, network upgrades, and change in management are indicators of meaningful change. I decided to join and support this one of a kind community and resource now that I am seriously considering Sprint. The Sprint store in S.F. has offered me a very attractive plan/rate, and I am going to be upgrading my phone in September/October to a cross carrier compatible model. That is another question probably for another Topic List in the S4GRU  Forums and that is which phones are or will (next 2 - 3 months) be fully compatible across VZW,Sprint, and TMobile (I personaly have no interest in ATT). At this point it looks like Nexus 6 and hopefully the upcoming iPhone 6S (band 12 please!).

 

Thanks for clarifying the details of the VZW & Sprint roaming arrangement and coverage. "Sprint roams freely on VZW." - I take it means that whenever you are roaming on VZW it is considered native coverage and will not count against your roaming allotment. One additional question this raises and goes to Sprint's reliance on roaming partners, is how certain and long term is this arrangement with VZW?

 

" Additionally, on most plans, any VZW roaming will be slow CDMA1X data." - How will this work when VZW transitions completely to LTE?

 

"Most Sprint plans have voice and data roaming caps.  The data caps range 100-300 MB/mo." - Does the Unlimited Everything Plan that is still available to New customers, does that still keep the 300MB roaming cap?

 

Also and please do not take this as picking on Sprint - I am doing my homework and I only wish all carriers had a community as informed and helpful as S4GRU - but regarding losses of agreements that have impacted Sprints coverage in Montana, Kansas, and other areas for example, are current arrangements with roaming partners on a more solid footing?

 

Are there plans, recent examples, like TMobile is doing with their network, of building out the Sprint network in areas of high roaming to reduce the costs and realiance on roaming partners?

 

"The combination of Sprint native footprint expansion and CCA/RRPP footprint -- whenever that happens -- will never equal the combination of VZW native footprint and LTE in Rural America footprint." - Any evidence, expectation, of CCA/RRPP native roaming agreements in Nevada/Utah? I am also under the impression from the excellent information I have seen so far here on S4GRU and in other reports that 4G/Spark is what is going to be built out/implemented with these partners, and that it will become native coverage.

 

One important speculative game changer is if Sprint decides to and is successful in acquiring 10 - 15 mhz block of 600MHZ spectrum nationaly. If Soft Bank is committed to becoming number 1 or 2, then in my view this needs to happen. That is something I have some hope for. That could be a compelling reason to lock in a very attractive rate now, that could pay off nicely in three years, and be the beginning of the end of roaming on Sprint.

[lilotimz]

 

 

1) See front pge wall articles. Typically major devices get a quick rundown by us. Moto X Pure Edition is the one that fits your cross carrier criteria.

 

2) No. Verizon extorts money from Sprint because they can. They charge sprint somewhere in the hundred(s) of dollars per GB in areas where no other roaming partners exist. The hard cap was implemented because people abused the roaming feature to rack up gbs of roaming data charges that cost sprint hundreds to thousands of dollars. 

 

Verizon is off network roaming, heavily speed (1x only for most plans) and data capped (300 mb max).

 

3) Verizon won't be shutting down CDMA 1x anytime soon. Thin it out to bare minimum? Most likely but total shutdown is unlikely.

 

4) All plans off network roaming allotment are capped. No exceptions. 

 

5) Yes. Sprint has renegotiated roaming deals with many of said carriers which fled them in previous years and opened numerous new ones with smaller entities due the CCA alliance. They're all on the same boat now.

 

6) Yes in some areas. Project Ocean is an ongoing project that adds a number of additional sites for coverage. There's supposedly a new market expansion in Montana but nothings happening there yet. Pending the acquisition of Next Gen Network funding from Marcelo most existing deployments are quite limited to what was planned in 1H 2015. We won't see the fruits of labor of NGN funding and planning til late  2015 and 2016. 

 

7) USCC really in some areas. Other than that it's almost entirely Verizon. 

 

see: http://i.imgur.com/kNMvOzu.png

[MtnSierraSprint]

"Verizon extorts money from Sprint because they can. They charge sprint somewhere in the hundred(s) of dollars per GB in areas where no other roaming partners exist." "Verizon won't be shutting down CDMA 1x anytime soon. Thin it out to bare minimum? Most likely but total shutdown is unlikely."

 

It sounds like the sooner Sprint can become less reliant on Verizon the better. I was hopeful that a combination of partnerships that allow for native coverage and network expansion were going to be addressing this. Here is a dated article regarding Verizon's CDMA:

When Will Verizon shutter its CDMA Netwrks -

"even if Verizon doesn’t shut down 2G and 3G sites for another nine years (2021), there’s nothing stopping it from whittling away at them. Verizon’s CDMA 1X and EV-DO technologies can persist on very little bandwidth, meaning Verizon could keep nationwide 2G and 3G networks with only a handful of megahertz. "

 

https://gigaom.com/2012/10/11/when-will-verizon-shutter-its-cdma-networks-2021-maybe/

 

 

I was looking at the most recent "NV Sites Complete - 14AUG2015" and was surprised to not see anything on Interstate 80 between Fernley/Fallon NV. and Salt Lake with the exception of Wendover on the Utah Nevada state line - 500 miles.

[Rawvega]

 

 

I was looking at the most recent "NV Sites Complete - 14AUG2015" and was surprised to not see anything on Interstate 80 between Fernley/Fallon NV. and Salt Lake with the exception of Wendover on the Utah Nevada state line - 500 miles.

I've noted that on an occasion or two before. It's totally baffling to me why Sprint inexplicably doesn't cover that stretch of I-80.

[lilotimz]

I've noted that on an occasion or two before. It's totally baffling to me why Sprint inexplicably doesn't cover that stretch of I-80.

It's literally nothing but miles of desert with a few communities dotting around. Same reason they don't cover the northwest CA area. Very little to no ROI because everyone's entrenched on the incumbent carriers.

 

From reno to Utah is where I expect NgN to deploy some new sites just to reduce roaming on Verizon but it's year(s) out. They got much more important things to worry about right now (2.5 and converting old clear sites).

 

Sent from my Nexus 5

[MtnSierraSprint]

500 miles is a long way for a road like that. Me personaly I like taking Route 50 or Route 6 + the Extra Terrestrial Highway.

 

"VZW, its parent company long has been a douchebag to the FCC and American public over issues such as deregulation, wired broadband expansion, and Net Neutrality. Consumers who pay VZW for service help enable that douchebaggery."

 

Wireless companies, all, are ________. You can fill in the blank. I am new here so I will watch my language. Regarding paying VZW for service, it would seem Sprint is itself paying a premium for the poorest service that VZW provides. Sprint can change that. I think TMobile's success in part reflects disgust with wireless carriers and a willingness to support an underdog that is going to bat for the consumer even if their service is not perfect.

[MtnSierraSprint]

It's literally nothing but miles of desert with a few communities dotting around.

 

True, but it is a national artery that connects the West Coast to the Midwest, not to mention the West Coast to the East Coast.  San Francisco, Chicago, to New York, it does not get more main street than that across the U.S. I undestand the prioriteis, and do not expect Sprint's capex to hit $15 billion next year as much as I wish it would. It does show there are some real gaps that are not yet being addressed.