Coverage Map Update 5/12/17

[RAvirani]

Looks like the coverage map was updated again yesterday. The biggest thing that jumped out at me was a large addition in USCC LTE roaming on the west coast. Native coverage seems more or less the same.

[red_dog007]

Looks like the coverage map was updated again yesterday. The biggest thing that jumped out at me was a large addition in USCC LTE roaming on the west coast. Native coverage seems more or less the same.

Yeah, I noticed that too as well as Inland Cellular's LTE in East Washington and Idaho.

 

Last month or two Appalachian Wireless LTE went Extended.  Pretty nice really.  Solid path towards LTE expansion.  Where is that list?  Need to start checking off the LTE roaming partners list who have LTE active on Sprint.

[RAvirani]

Yeah, I noticed that too as well as Inland Cellular's LTE in East Washington and Idaho.

 

Last month or two Appalachian Wireless LTE went Extended. Pretty nice really. Solid path towards LTE expansion. Where is that list? Need to start checking off the LTE roaming partners list who have LTE active on Sprint.

http://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/sprint-16-30-rural-lte-roaming-partners-have-now-launched-lte-service

 

^ I think this is the complete list although I may be wrong.

 

One thing I would really love to see for Sprint to make USCC LTE roaming Extended. That would be awesome.

[red_dog007]

SouthernLINC Wireless; No

nTelos Wireless; Yes

C Spire Wireless; Yes

Nex-Tech Wireless; Yes

Flat Wireless; ?

SI Wireless (MobileNation); Yes

Inland Cellular; Yes

Illinois Valley Cellular; ?

Carolina West Wireless; Yes

James Valley Telecommunications; Yes?

VTel Wireless; ?

Phoenix Wireless; ?

Bluegrass Cellular; Yes

Blue Wireless; ?

Pine Belt Wireless; No

Pioneer Cellular; ?

Public Service Wireless; No

Syringa Wireless; ?

United Wireless; ?

[S4GRU]

James Valley Telecom is a yes...See Aberdeen, SD.  Pioneer and United, yes.  Syringa went out of business.

[RAvirani]

James Valley Telecom is a yes...See Aberdeen, SD.  Pioneer and United, yes.  Syringa went out of business.

 

Ok so here's the updated list.  Anyone know what's happening with the one or two still marked with a question mark?

SouthernLINC Wireless: No

nTelos Wireless: Yes

C Spire Wireless: Yes

Nex-Tech Wireless: Yes

Flat Wireless (ClearTalk Wireless): No?

SI Wireless (MobileNation): Yes

Inland Cellular: Yes

Illinois Valley Cellular: ?

Carolina West Wireless: Yes

James Valley Telecommunications: Yes

VTel Wireless: No

Phoenix Wireless: ?

Bluegrass Cellular: Yes

Blue Wireless: No?

Pine Belt Wireless: No

Pioneer Cellular: ?

Public Service Wireless: No

United Wireless: Yes

 

On a side note, I'm really hoping that Sprint signs a roaming agreement with CellularOne in northeast Arizona/northwestern New Mexico (the provider that AT&T roams on) now that they've launched LTE.  It would close a big coverage hole.  Here's their map if anyone is curious:

 

http://www.cellularmaps.com/image/c1neaz700.gif

[Arysyn]

Ok so here's the updated list. Anyone know what's happening with the one or two still marked with a question mark?

SouthernLINC Wireless: No

nTelos Wireless: Yes

C Spire Wireless: Yes

Nex-Tech Wireless: Yes

Flat Wireless (ClearTalk Wireless): No?

SI Wireless (MobileNation): Yes

Inland Cellular: Yes

Illinois Valley Cellular: ?

Carolina West Wireless: Yes

James Valley Telecommunications: Yes

VTel Wireless: No

Phoenix Wireless: ?

Bluegrass Cellular: Yes

Blue Wireless: No?

Pine Belt Wireless: No

Pioneer Cellular: ?

Public Service Wireless: No

United Wireless: Yes

 

On a side note, I'm really hoping that Sprint signs a roaming agreement with CellularOne in northeast Arizona/northwestern New Mexico (the provider that AT&T roams on) now that they've launched LTE. It would close a big coverage hole. Here's their map if anyone is curious:

 

http://www.cellularmaps.com/image/c1neaz700.gif

Wow! I wasn't aware there still are that many local/regional wireless service carriers/providers still around. I only knew of a few on that list.

 

While I know what I'm about to say isn't a popular opinion around here, I still think most of these listed ought to sell to one of the four national carriers. Now before people get upset by that opinion, I'll explain. I know competition is a well valued thing by many consumers believing it keeps costs low. While I agree with that opinion, to me it isn't as important as having a stronger wireless network system here in the U.S.

 

However, I'd be very much in support of the country making wireless a utility, and have one or two nationwide companies manage the nation's wireless network infrastructure, but not sell services nor products to individual consumers. Rather, I'd be perfectly fine with there being a bunch of carriers using the same network systems and selling services, like MVNOs, but without them competing against big carriers who manage both their own service, along with their own network.

[WiWavelength]

On a side note, I'm really hoping that Sprint signs a roaming agreement with CellularOne in northeast Arizona/northwestern New Mexico...

 

Oh, you mean Smith Bagley.

 

AJ

[RAvirani]

Oh, you mean Smith Bagley.

 

AJ

Yep. Didn't think anyone would recognize that name .

[Trip]

Going to have to disagree with you, Arysyn.  If we're actually going to make Internet access a utility, then fine.  If not, and I don't believe it will happen any time soon, then I believe what you're suggesting would be worse, and not better, in many cases.  For example, I much prefer the Shentel and former nTelos region to Sprint national.  Look at the level of investment and activity.  Look at how much better the service is.  Money that's made in the region goes back into the region, and isn't used to subsidize other areas. 

 

Essentially, it creates incentive on a local basis for the network to perform well, because the results will feed into themselves.  If the local network performs well, it will gain more users, which will in turn provide money to feed back into the network to perform better and attract more users.  I'm not sure that model works as well on a national level because the national carriers can then choose to sacrifice investment in some areas to improve others.  The smaller carriers don't have that option--they must serve the local area they're in or they're done.

 

Obviously, this isn't a rule.  It's entirely possible for a small carrier to do a poor job and go out of business entirely.  But I definitely think it helps to create the right incentives, at least.

 

- Trip

[Arysyn]

Going to have to disagree with you, Arysyn. If we're actually going to make Internet access a utility, then fine. If not, and I don't believe it will happen any time soon, then I believe what you're suggesting would be worse, and not better, in many cases. For example, I much prefer the Shentel and former nTelos region to Sprint national. Look at the level of investment and activity. Look at how much better the service is. Money that's made in the region goes back into the region, and isn't used to subsidize other areas.

 

Essentially, it creates incentive on a local basis for the network to perform well, because the results will feed into themselves. If the local network performs well, it will gain more users, which will in turn provide money to feed back into the network to perform better and attract more users. I'm not sure that model works as well on a national level because the national carriers can then choose to sacrifice investment in some areas to improve others. The smaller carriers don't have that option--they must serve the local area they're in or they're done.

 

Obviously, this isn't a rule. It's entirely possible for a small carrier to do a poor job and go out of business entirely. But I definitely think it helps to create the right incentives, at least.

 

- Trip

That is a fair assessment, Trip. I realize my opinions on the vast number of issues with wireless operations have people either agreeing or not, which is fine. I almost kept quiet upon seeing all those local/regional carriers listed, figuring I've already given my view of this enough here. However, I wanted to show people that I'm not as against the idea of competition and so pro-monopoly as some of my past posts may have made it seem to some here.

 

What I really want to see isn't stifled competition in wireless, favoring powerful networks to such a degree carriers can raise the rates to obscene levels, ala Verizon post 2015 in claims of "best network", etc. Yet, I don't want low prices to stifle network development either. With that said, I can't see how small carriers can keep up offering competitive low prices and still manage to develop their network with the continuously increasing data demand.

 

I agree that while up until the recent price decreases, with the money carriers were making prior to that, local and regional carriers were in a great position to use what they made to provide, and obviously why we often hear that people are more satisfied with smaller carriers than those larger carriers. I'm skeptical of that now with the increased competition being brought forth by the national carriers whose finances are taking a loss with the decreased rates on the Unlimited Plan competitions, such as Verizon reporting losses and their decreased speeds due to Unlimited Data.

 

I suppose time will tell how things go now with wireless likely shaking up this year with merger talks, etc. I'm of course very interested in this, so I'll be paying attention.

[JDP121]

Ok so here's the updated list.  Anyone know what's happening with the one or two still marked with a question mark?

SouthernLINC Wireless: No

nTelos Wireless: Yes

C Spire Wireless: Yes

Nex-Tech Wireless: Yes

Flat Wireless (ClearTalk Wireless): No?

SI Wireless (MobileNation): Yes

Inland Cellular: Yes

Illinois Valley Cellular: ?

Carolina West Wireless: Yes

James Valley Telecommunications: Yes

VTel Wireless: No

Phoenix Wireless: ?

Bluegrass Cellular: Yes

Blue Wireless: No?

Pine Belt Wireless: No

Pioneer Cellular: ?

Public Service Wireless: No

United Wireless: Yes

 

On a side note, I'm really hoping that Sprint signs a roaming agreement with CellularOne in northeast Arizona/northwestern New Mexico (the provider that AT&T roams on) now that they've launched LTE.  It would close a big coverage hole.  Here's their map if anyone is curious:

 

http://www.cellularmaps.com/image/c1neaz700.gif

Btw you might want to change nTelos to Shentel since Shentel purchase of nTelos went through last year. 

[Arysyn]

Btw you might want to change nTelos to Shentel since Shentel purchase of nTelos went through last year.

One thing I like about some of these local/regional carriers, is they have cooler sounding names than the national carriers. Shentel and nTelos sound neat. Especially nTelos, which reminds me of Delos from Westworld for some reason. Although, hopefully the customers don't get shot by Android salespeople at nTelos retail stores.

[swintec]

Looks like the coverage map was updated again yesterday. The biggest thing that jumped out at me was a large addition in USCC LTE roaming on the west coast. Native coverage seems more or less the same.

 

They also finished off the rest of maine and NH with USCC LTE roaming.  I still do not understand why it took so long especially when the rest of northern and central maine had USCC LTE roaming for almost a year now.  Something different between the two areas?

[RAvirani]

They also finished off the rest of maine and NH with USCC LTE roaming. I still do not understand why it took so long especially when the rest of northern and central maine had USCC LTE roaming for almost a year now. Something different between the two areas?

LTE doesn't use the same SID system as CDMA - you can limit roaming down to the individual tower level.

[swintec]

LTE doesn't use the same SID system as CDMA - you can limit roaming down to the individual tower level.

 

Correct, I was more just wondering why they stopped roaming for southern maine and NH while the rest of the state had it for so long.  USCC LTE has been down here for quite awhile so it isnt like it didnt exist for them to add originally.  Guess we'll never know,. glad its here though!

 

Interestingly, I was connected to Sprint 1x while roaming on LTE last week.  I had long thought that if a sprint signal was present you would not be able to roam on LTE.

[RAvirani]

Correct, I was more just wondering why they stopped roaming for southern maine and NH while the rest of the state had it for so long. USCC LTE has been down here for quite awhile so it isnt like it didnt exist for them to add originally. Guess we'll never know,. glad its here though!

 

Interestingly, I was connected to Sprint 1x while roaming on LTE last week. I had long thought that if a sprint signal was present you would not be able to roam on LTE.

Yeah I've observed the Sprint 1x/roaming LTE phenomenon a few times as well. It's interesting to see that Sprint is ok taking a hit to their wallet in order to improve our level of service.

[swintec]

Yeah I've observed the Sprint 1x/roaming LTE phenomenon a few times as well. It's interesting to see that Sprint is ok taking a hit to their wallet in order to improve our level of service.

 

It could be that if a data session is actively passing traffic (versus sitting idle) then it will not break that session to switch to Sprint EVDO or LTE...at least that was my observation.

[Jones]

 

 

Correct, I was more just wondering why they stopped roaming for southern maine and NH while the rest of the state had it for so long. USCC LTE has been down here for quite awhile so it isnt like it didnt exist for them to add originally. Guess we'll never know,. glad its here though! .

 

I'll be driving up to my parent's place in Jefferson, NH this summer. I hope the roaming LTE is usable. There was only 1x roaming last time I was there (Christmas 2016).

 

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk