Sprint Organic Network Expansion Discussion Thread

[Rawvega]

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.

 

Yet even T-Mobile, the notorious urban carrier, has seen fit to cover that stretch of I-80 (albeit with 2G at the moment) and has done so long before their latest coverage expansion. Also as MtnSierra has mentioned, this is an interstate that literally connects the east coast of the country to the west. To have such a long stretch of it left solely to VZW roaming is just...odd. 

 

While the land up there is rather desolate looking, there is a lot of gold and other precious metal mining that takes place in areas near I-80 and a lot of employees to support said mining. I get ROI, I truly do, but what choice do people have other than to be entrenched with the duopoly when there's really no other viable alternatives?

[lilotimz]

Yet even T-Mobile, the notorious urban carrier, has seen fit to cover that stretch of I-80 (albeit with 2G at the moment) and has done so long before their latest coverage expansion. Also as MtnSierra has mentioned, this is an interstate that literally connects the east coast of the country to the west. To have such a long stretch of it left solely to VZW roaming is just...odd.

 

While the land up there is rather desolate looking, there is a lot of gold and other precious metal mining that takes place in areas near I-80 and a lot of employees to support said mining. I get ROI, I truly do, but what choice do people have other than to be entrenched with the duopoly when there's really no other viable alternatives?

It's amusing really when I asked Robert back when I first joined the site and got the explanation as to why.

 

Personally I'd like to see just a few token sites spaced for 800 mhz just to do some bare minimum coverage. Right now though I'd rather then convert the old Clearwire network, add more sites to existing coverage areas that they haven't touched in a decade, and improve existing user experience.

 

Getting coverage along the highway would be nice but frankly that's not what will get sprint subscribers. West coast markets are sub 10% marketshare for a reason.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5

[payturr]

Urban densification first and foremost, get speeds and capacity up to spec, then we go out west boys.. Then we take the nation by VALUE (and performance)

[S4GRU]

I am a Northern Nevadan. Spent 16 years of my life there. I lived in Fernley, the edge of the Sprint network.

 

I'd love to see Sprint extend all the way across the state along I-80 through Winnemucca and Elko. It pains me to watch Tmo slowly light up LTE along I-80 in Nevada. It's my home turf.

 

I'd have to think their roaming bills are particularly high in Elko. Between the gold and silver mines, casino charter guests and the steady cross country freeway traffic, it seems to make sense for a build out in my mind. They can finish US 95 from Vegas to Reno too. They currently only have the Vegas to Tonopah stretch covered. The Tonopah to Fernley section is Roaming.

 

Using Tapatalk on Nexus 6

[WiWavelength]

Yet even T-Mobile, the notorious urban carrier, has seen fit to cover that stretch of I-80 (albeit with 2G at the moment) and has done so long before their latest coverage expansion. Also as MtnSierra has mentioned, this is an interstate that literally connects the east coast of the country to the west. To have such a long stretch of it left solely to VZW roaming is just...odd.

I'd love to see Sprint extend all the way across the state along I-80 through Winnemucca and Elko. It pains me to watch Tmo slowly light up LTE along I-80 in Nevada. It's my home turf.

 

Yes, it is "odd."  However, to make the I-80 discussion fair, the shoe is also on the other foot.  Sprint has hundreds of miles of I-80 coverage in Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Nebraska that T-Mobile does not.  I know, iWireless in Iowa mitigates that gap to some extent, but the point still holds.

 

For an even more egregious example, as I-10 has become arguably a more important cross country artery than I-80 now, how can T-Mobile get away with not covering hundreds of miles in Texas?  Sprint has the whole length of the state covered.

 

Both Sprint and T-Mobile have their "odd" highway footprint gaps.  Those are simply results of varied deployment history and priority.  So, let us not think that Sprint is doing it wrong, T-Mobile doing it right.

 

AJ

[WiWavelength]

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.

 

That was my fault, "freely" a poor word choice.  I blame it on writing at 3am.

 

What I should have said is that Sprint roams widely on VZW.  I would have to take a closer look at recent Sprint PRLs, but the history has been for Sprint to have roaming access to all VZW SIDs.

 

As an aside, the reverse used to be true a decade ago, but then VZW started yanking Sprint SIDs from its PRLs.  In a stroke of irony, VZW promotes itself as the "most reliable network," yet it would rather leave its subs with no service than roam on Sprint.

 

In a nutshell, VZW roaming is not free to Sprint.  And it is not "unlimited" to you.  But it is there as a decent fallback.

 

AJ

[WiWavelength]

Wireless companies, all, are ________. You can fill in the blank.

 

That is a bit like saying, "All people are lawbreakers."  And that is true sometimes.  But should we just lump in the murderers and armed robbers with the speeders and jaywalkers?  No.  Degree and frequency matter.

 

AT&T and VZ/VZW take the cake.  Among the big four wireless operators, they are #1 and #2 in douchebaggery toward FCC regulation and public good.  T-Mobile, which is supposedly the consumer advocate "uncarrier," has opposed Title II Net Neutrality.  Of the four, Sprint has been the most friendly to the public good.

 

Back to AT&T and VZ/VZW, along with Comcast, they have held back progress in wired broadband to such an extent that the US may take decades to recover, if ever.  They cry "free market, free market" -- which they want to enter, exit, "redline," and control. Hardly "free market."  Because of that, for the most powerful nation in the world, we are a laughingstock in wired broadband.  A quintessential example, look at this comment from a recent article at The Verge:

 

Freiman

I live outside a small city in Sweden. Dirt road, no streetlights, 3-5 cars pass my house everybody day. But, ive got a fiber connection (1000/100 Mbit) that i pay 35 dollars a month for. Tax dollars made it happen, guess capitalism sucks sometimes.

 

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

 

My point stands.  I understand necessity of service.  But the more money consumers give to these recalcitrant companies, the more those consumers implicitly subsidize the douchebaggery.

 

AJ

[MtnSierraSprint]

For an even more egregious example, as I-10 has become arguably a more important cross country artery than I-80 now, how can T-Mobile get away with not covering hundreds of miles in Texas?  Sprint has the whole length of the state covered.

 

Both Sprint and T-Mobile have their "odd" highway footprint gaps.  Those are simply results of varied deployment history and priority.  So, let us not think that Sprint is doing it wrong, T-Mobile doing it right.

 

TMobile is the low bar.  - "Sprint CEO Marcelo Claure said last week that he expects Sprint’s network to be number one or two in the nation within 18 to 24 months." - That will require displacing ATT or Verizon or both. I hope he is right, but I will not ignore reasons to question the enthusiasm of any wireless carrier CEO.

 

That is a bit like saying, "All people are lawbreakers."  And that is true sometimes.  But should we just lump in the murderers and armed robbers with the speeders and jaywalkers?  No.  Degree and frequency matter.

 

Of the four, Sprint has been the most friendly to the public good.

 

 

I call a bank robber a bank robber. If bank robber A robbed 35 banks and bank robber B robbed 7 banks, I still call them both bank robbers. As someone who has filed complaints with the FTC and the California PUC against my carrier, I have not and will not give any of them a pass. Once again I am new here so I do not want to disparage Sprint uneccesarily, but it is no secret the extent to which this industry requires regulation and oversight given all of them (ATT, Sprint, TMobile, and Verizon) have repeatedly crossed the line of both legal and ethical business practices. Just because Sprint supports Net Neutrality as I do, does not change the facts.

 

I am going to go further on this. Over ten years I have spent hours and weeks on the phone arguing with Verizon reps over incorrect billing, and plan features being changed "by accident", listened to claims that "that feature is no longer offered and there is no way we can change it back", and then when they finally get it that I am not going to leave it alone, they admit their mistakes and take steps to correct issues they previously stated were impossible to correct. The saying "an elephant never forgets" applies here for all customers regardless of carrier. My guess as evidenced by TMobile's growth, is that there are a lot of customers who will not hesitate to jump ship if there is a carrier that offers better value and that cuts the B.S. and holds itself to the highest ethical standards (that is not to say TMobile has done so). When we see Sprint offering new "Unlimited" plans that throttle video streaming, when I go into Sprint stores where the staff is simply not trained adequately - "we have unlimited domestic roaming on all of our unlimited plans", in response to what is the roaming cap on the plan you are offering me, I see reason to continue to be concerned and room for improvement.

 

I was considering including recent headlines regarding the fines handed out to all carriers just in the last year, but I think everyone here has read them and understands they are justified.

 

 

 

The more money consumers give to these recalcitrant companies, the more those consumers implicitly subsidize the douchebaggery.

 

 

 

Once again Sprint is "subsidize(ing) the douchebaggery" in relying on Verizon to fill in much of its national coverage, and only getting the lowest quality service out of the deal.

[MtnSierraSprint]

I am a Northern Nevadan. ...... It's my home turf.

 

 

I was looking for a Nevada Market section and could not find it. Is this where folks from Nevada discuss their market/network ?

 

 

RE: "Spectrum Analysis...Parts 1 & 2" (2/2012)

 

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/blog/1/entry-27-spectrum-analysisdoes-sprint-have-more-options-for-additional-lte-carriers/

 

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/blog/1/entry-33-spectrum-analysis-part-twosprint-and-t-mobile-spare-pcs-spectrum-would-pair-nicely-for-a-lte-partnership/

 

"Sprint is rolling out its Network Vision platform this year, utilizing its “green field” PCS G block 10 MHz nationwide licenses to deploy an initial 5 MHz x 5 MHz LTE channel"

"Sprint can and does operate many of its CDMA2000 markets (e.g. Chicago, San Francisco, Houston, Atlanta, etc.) in only 20 MHz of licensed PCS A-F block spectrum"

 

I am trying to figure out why Sprint is only using 5x5 B25, at least in the San Francisco Bay Area.

 

"So, Sprint could stand pat with its planned 5 MHz x 5 MHz LTE roll out (while VZW launches 10 MHz x 10 MHz in all of its LTE markets, AT&T in most of its LTE markets).  Or, better yet, Sprint could add a fifth prong to its plan of attack:  Sprint leverages its existing PCS A-F block spectrum assets for an additional LTE channel in many top markets." from Spectrum Analysis Pt. 1

 

"Sprint has numerous markets in which it holds 30 MHz of licensed PCS A-F spectrum, thus could potentially set aside that “surplus” 10 MHz for a second 5 MHz x 5 MHz LTE channel in those 30 MHz markets" from Spectrum Analysis Pt. 2

 

 

It sounds like in addition to the capacity B41 offers, there is room to increase B25. If additional blocks are available of freed up how difficult is it to activate it? Have the NV improvements made this easier to do?

[Dkoellerwx]

 

 

I am trying to figure out why Sprint is only using 5x5 B25, at least in the San Francisco Bay Area.

 

 

It sounds like in addition to the capacity B41 offers, there is room to increase B25. If additional blocks are available of freed up how difficult is it to activate it? Have the NV improvements made this easier to do?

 

1. Sprint does not have enough clear/contiguous spectrum to deploy any other LTE carriers in the PCS bands right now. 

 

2. It is not terribly difficult, but there is not enough clear spectrum to increase B25 in you area. 

[lilotimz]

I was looking for a Nevada Market section and could not find it. Is this where folks from Nevada discuss their market/network ?

 

 

 

Northern Nevada (Reno / Sparks / Carson city and some of smaller sattelite communities) is lumped with Upper Central Valley market with Sacramento. Rest of Nevada is lumped with Las Vegas market.

 

[danlodish345]

Northern Nevada (Reno / Sparks / Carson city and some of smaller sattelite communities) is lumped with Upper Central Valley market with Sacramento. Rest of Nevada is lumped with Las Vegas market.

 

i have a question....does sprint have spectrum where they dont offer servicve

[Paynefanbro]

i have a question....does sprint have spectrum where they dont offer servicve

 

Yes.

[S4GRU]

i have a question....does sprint have spectrum where they dont offer servicve

Sprint has spectrum in every county, parish and borough in the United States. So they have lots of places they have spectrum but do not offer service.

 

Using Tapatalk on Nexus 6

[danlodish345]

Sprint has spectrum in every county, parish and borough in the United States. So they have lots of places they have spectrum but do not offer service.

 

Using Tapatalk on Nexus 6

So also is their coverage expansion strategic? I m trying to understand all of this with little knowledge...

 

Sent from my LGLS740 using Tapatalk

[JosefTor]

I heard Sprint can deploy small cells cheaper due to allowing a third party to install then who is vendor neutral and could allow other carriers to use that location. Does anyone know more about this? I like that Sprint is thinking a little outside the box here.