S4GRU

Sprint counts macro repeaters in their 38k sites number. But they don't have very many. Maybe 100. They have XR in their Site ID's in place of XC. Micro repeaters and in building repeaters are not counted in Sprint's totals. Sprint does not count DAS in their site totals. Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Silk Route

The countdown clock has been updated to Nextel. <chirp, chirp> Done. Robert

I had baked beans tonight with my smoked chicken legs. I can make the ceremonial first dump. Robert

Justin...I have seen you comment on my site and our Facebook page for nearly three years. Bitching seems to be your standard communication style. Sometimes I have more patience for it than other times. Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Hmm, the "beer hole" is questionable. Which one is that? After all, you do not buy beer -- you rent it. Does Charlie truly live in the western suburbs of Denver? Evergreen, maybe. I am a geography guy, so I know what I am talking about. But I was more expecting him to live in the southern suburbs, probably the Parker area. Regardless, we should find an S4GRU member willing to drop a flaming bag of poop on Charlie's porch, then play "ding, dong, ditch." AJ Evergreen is exactly where I had in mind. Some 40 acre estate in forest. Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

The Sprint native network is like a body, but you cannot think of it as following the standard anthropomorphic form. The head, the arms, the legs -- they can be anywhere in the network. However, the poop chute definitely is Baton Rouge. AJ Kansas City is the heart. Chicago is the Achilles heel. Detroit is the armpit. Milwaukee is the beer hole. And in West Denver, right over Charlie Ergen's house is the middle finger. Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

I've been thinking about this the last couple of days between this chat and a couple others. If Verizon is moving somewhat quickly to VOLTE and refarming EVDO carriers to LTE, once they get to a point where they have less CDMA and possibly no EVDO coverage wouldn't a large part of Sprint's roaming area all but disappear? With no roaming on LTE, what would Sprint's roaming coverage look like then? I know this is a long way off, just wondering. I agree with AJ. And I would further add that by the time CDMA roaming starts to disappear en masse, Sprint will probably have VoLTE devices out and Verizon will likely be providing LTE roaming either by choice or FCC requirement. Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta Would this only apply to 600 MHz roaming since the licenses haven't yet been issued? Or can the FCC require LTE roaming retroactively on any band it wants to? LTE band 5 is a subset of Band 26 so that'd be a good candidate for forced roaming when V regards it. The FCC can dictate even after the fact further regulation by order if a carrier is prohibiting roaming as a means to be anticompetitive. And that can be on any band. I don't think that the FCC will be very keen on removing roaming CDMA coverage on Cellular or PCS bands and replace with non roaming LTE. I expect that the FCC would step in and require LTE roaming on those bands if Verizon tried to do that. Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Some markets Sprint PCS density is better than others. I have no problems with urban coverage in New Mexico. I believe a lot of Sprint's urban coverage woes will be solved by 800MHz. Except for Baton Rouge. Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

You should have been present at the Santa Fe City Council meeting when they discussed the approval of the WiMax Protection Site. Whoa! Idiocy and lies were used liberally by citizens and council members. Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

We refer to Santa Fe as the Berkeley of the Interior West. My brother calls it Insane-a Fe. Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

It is amazing there are any wireless sites in Santa Fe. This kind of crap comes up every time a new site is proposed or approved in "The City Different": http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/article_5d6d852e-37ac-560b-9c32-2d9be3bd5d79.html I love this quote: Also, another classic: Then, perhaps, a little bit of reality: Brilliant! Perhaps she should just expect it from now on:

Sprint cannot and does not need to compete with a nationwide coverage map that is flashed on the TV screen for 5 seconds. The people who rely on just that to make up their minds are sheep. I call them sheeple. They basically are asking marketers to make up their mind for them. Most people just want to know what the coverage is in the places they go. And for those people, Sprint is competitive. Sprint is not the carrier for every person. In fact, no carrier is. S4GRU advocates education about wireless networks. And a more educated and informed population can then make up their minds about what it important to them. Everyone should chose the carrier that is best for their needs. The old Sprint and the new Sprint will not be the best carrier for them all. But Sprint needs to make sure that people know what they offer that differentiates themselves from their competition. I am more excited about Sprint expanding coverage than I ever have been. They likely will be adding some coverage in new areas where they have to meet FCC buildout requirements for the PCS G Block. In these areas they will likely add all their bands of service too. If things go well in these areas, I can see SoftBank pushing to expand coverage in these areas even further and add stores. It's a great time to see what Sprint can do in new coverage areas. A little experiment. Robert

Yeah, I have been in similar positions with companies before. When we all know what we need to do, but either bad management prevents us from doing it, or we do not have the money to do it. It's a demoralizing and depressing experience. It would have been hard to endure that period. Thankfully, that period is just about over. Robert

Ask yourself why it never has been done? It's because there is no return on the investment. In rural areas, you need a 30-40 share to get it pay for itself. If there is already two large carriers, it's not possible to get enough as the third carrier to make it profitable. You are asking Sprint to lose money to expand coverage. And then you would probably complain if Sprint raised their prices to pay for the unprofitable network expansion. Sprint monitors roaming very closely. They know very well the areas that roaming is occurring and the amount of usage the site would sustain. They do add sites in high roaming areas all the time. And I believe SoftBank will add even more. However, asking them to add unprofitable coverage for bragging rights is not a good way to run a business. I have a lot of confidence in SoftBank. They will add lots of coverage where it makes sense. The old Sprint often couldn't afford to add sites even when there was a pay off. The New Sprint under SoftBank will never say no because they cannot afford it. However, I do expect them to say no where it isn't going to pay off. Robert

You are asking Sprint to do something that no one has ever done. Build a nationwide network organically. VZW and ATT haven't even done that. They bought those networks to expand their coverage. Sprint would lose a lot of money doing it. Sprint's name is mud right now. Building new coverage in new areas will not mean new customers enough to justify the costs. They need to reduild their brand first. Then when they show up in new places, they might have a chance to compete and take customers away from the duopoly. I can tell you the old Sprint had no interest in expanding new coverage into new areas, except when it made sense because roaming costs in the area was high. However, the New Sprint under SoftBank may have a desire to branch out further. But if they do, it will be because they see a path to making it profitable. And that's the bottom line. The New Sprint will probably be open to all kinds of ideas, but there has to be a return on it. They are going to he very competitive with the duopoly, no doubt. And coverages are going to improve, both within the existing network and outside. But the scale is not known yet. And it probably will be less than what we'd prefer. Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

This is so true. I find the same with the techs installing NV too. Even the ones installing carriers and configuring the network. I will start having an in depth conversation and they will just get a blank stare. Then they say, "Man, I have no idea. I just do what I've been trained." Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

I'm glad to see the red stick days of Nebraska are coming to an end. Now if we could just get over being red sticked here in New Mexico. CenturyLink and Windstream are the bain if my existence! Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

I'll bring the popcorn! Popcorn chicken, that is. Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

I've been thinking about this the last couple of days between this chat and a couple others. If Verizon is moving somewhat quickly to VOLTE and refarming EVDO carriers to LTE, once they get to a point where they have less CDMA and possibly no EVDO coverage wouldn't a large part of Sprint's roaming area all but disappear? With no roaming on LTE, what would Sprint's roaming coverage look like then? I know this is a long way off, just wondering. I agree with AJ. And I would further add that by the time CDMA roaming starts to disappear en masse, Sprint will probably have VoLTE devices out and Verizon will likely be providing LTE roaming either by choice or FCC requirement. Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Site acceptance reports from Monday (6/24), Tuesday (6/25), Wednesday (6/26) and Thursday (6/27): Alabama - 2 update (1 LTE) Albuquerque - 16 updates (1 LTE, 1 new 3G site) Arkansas - 5 updates (3G) Atlanta - Athens - 3 updates (1 LTE) Austin - 3 updates (3G) Baltimore - 3 update (1 LTE) Boston - 13 updates (5 LTE) Buffalo - 10 updates (3G) Central Illinois - 23 updates (3G) Central Jersey - 8 updates (1 LTE) Central Pennsylvania - 4 updates (3G) Charlotte - 1 update (LTE) Chicago - 4 updates (LTE) Cincinnati - 2 updates (3G) Cleveland - 12 updates (6 CDMA 800) Colorado - 12 updates (2 LTE) Columbus - 7 updates (1 LTE, 1 new 3G site) Delaware - 2 updates (3G) DFW - 2 updates (3G) East Iowa - 10 updates (3G) East Michigan - 50 updates (10 LTE) Ft. Wayne/South Bend - 1 update (LTE) GA/SC Coast - 6 update (3G) Georgia - 2 updates (3G) Gulf Coast - 2 updates (1 LTE) Houston - 7 updates (3G) Idaho - 7 updates (3G) Indianapolis - 14 updates (1 LTE, 13 CDMA 800) Inland Northwest - 12 updates (3G) Jacksonville - 3 updates (1 LTE) Kansas - 7 updates (2 LTE) LA Metro - 13 updates (7 LTE) Las Vegas - 5 updates (3G) Long Island - 2 updates (1 LTE) Louisiana - 2 updates (3G) Lower Central Valley - 6 updates (3G) Memphis - 13 updates (6 LTE) Miami/West Palm - 17 updates (8 LTE) Milwaukee - 17 updates (1 LTE) Minnesota - 20 updates (5 LTE) Missouri - 11 updates (4 LTE) Myrtle Beach - 2 updates (2 new 3G sites) Nashville - 20 updates (8 LTE) New Orleans - 2 updates (1 LTE) New York City - 10 updates (5 LTE) Norfolk - 3 updates (LTE) Northern Connecticut - 2 updates (3G) Northern Jersey - 8 updates (1 LTE) North LA - 2 updates (3G) North Wisconsin - 1 update (LTE) Oklahoma - 20 updates (6 LTE) Orange County - 8 updates (5 LTE) Oregon/SW Washington - 11 updates (6 LTE, 3 CDMA 800) Orlando - 5 updates (3 LTE, 1 new 3G/LTE site) Philadelphia Metro - 9 updates (6 LTE, 1 CDMA 800) Phoenix - 4 updates (3G) Pittsburgh - 5 updates (4 LTE, 1 new 3G site) Providence - 2 updates (3G) Raleigh/Durham - 10 updates (9 LTE) Richmond - 3 updates (LTE) Riverside/San Bernardino - 15 updates (3 LTE) Rochester - 9 updates (3G) San Antonio - 2 updates (LTE) San Diego - 14 updates (5 LTE, 1 iDEN Conversion) SF Bay - 19 updates (5 LTE, 6 CDMA 800) Shentel - 102 updates (41 LTE, 42 CDMA 800) South Bay - 17 updates (6 LTE, 11 CDMA 800) South Carolina - 10 updates (3G) Southern Connecticut - 4 updates (2 LTE) Southern Jersey - 2 updates (3G) South Texas - 11 updates (5 LTE) South West Florida - 5 updates (3 LTE) Tampa - 6 updates (3 LTE) The Panhandle - 1 update (3G) Toledo - 6 updates (3G, 4 New 3G sites) Tucson/Yuma - 2 updates (3G) Upper Central Valley - 6 updates (3G) Upstate NY Central - 3 updates (3G) Upstate NY East - 1 updates (3G) VT/NH/ME - 3 updates (3G) Washington DC - 10 updates (4 LTE) West Iowa/Nebraska - 1 update (LTE) West Kentucky - 6 updates (2 LTE) West Michigan - 49 updates (8 LTE, 1 new 3G site, 4 CDMA 800) West Washington - 22 updates (5 LTE) Winston/Salem - 3 updates (LTE) EDIT: This is the same list of acceptances that posted earlier today, just with CDMA 800 added for several markets, and ~100 updates for the Shentel market. There are a lot more Shentel updates I need to do, but they will be a part of the next update. The maps have been updated to reflect these latest changes. Robert Links: Comments regarding this thread, NV Sites Complete Map

Rochester Minnesota is in the Minnesota market. Rochester NY is in the Rochester market. Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Would you mind sharing the site spacing and channel width for 800, 1900 and 2500? Or provide a link. In the mean time i'll be diligently googleing for answers myself. Thanks. Digiblur is right. 2600 will max out around 5 miles, 1900 around 8-9 miles, 800 around 13-15 in flat, unobstructed, line of sight conditions with zero downtilt. However, every cell/sector is enginnered for capacity, terrain and physical obstructions and there is no typical size. The make them as large as they can realistically serve. Sometimes that is 2 blocks, sometimes it's more than 12 miles. Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

The reverse is also worth asking: Why not just leave them? In this arrangement Sprint has less risk and less capital expenditure. If Shentel runs into problems then Sprint can probably buy them for cheaper than they could now. If it was prohibitively expensive for Sprint to run subs there then Sprint would do a cost analysis and determine if it is is worth it to buy them out. TBH, Shentel is probably better at running it's area than Sprint is at managing it's entire network.What if someone else buys them to screw with Sprint? Verizon is still allowed to buy Tier 3 carriers and recently - cant find article - it even bought a GSM carrier which it stated it would convert to CDMA. Given the types of contracts Shentel has with Sprint, I don't see this happening. And since VZW and ATT already have a foothold in the Shentel area, the FCC may not be fond of the idea. It would appear anti-competitive. Also, Shentel is much bigger than a wireless company. Sprint does not want to be a regional telecom with cable and landline telephone. They would probably have to turn around and try to split off the other business of Shentel. The deal with Shentel works, and works very well. If anything, Sprint needs to buy out Swiftel or nTelos. Swiftel is a problem affiliate. And nTelos is risky. I could see a nTelos buy out from the duopoly or forming a new partnership with someone else. nTelos has PCS and AWS spectrum and provides roaming/native coverage to many companies. Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

We had lots of CenturyLink fed sites with problems the past day or two. I assumed it was NV related. Robert