mozamcrew

I doubt that.  Swiftel is still operating in its original 10 MHz (5 MHz FDD) PCS A block disaggregation from Sprint.  That is the only apparent CMRS spectrum it holds.  If Sprint were to sever the affiliate agreement, Swiftel would be dead in the water -- it would have no path forward.  So, Swiftel will work to accommodate Sprint, or the Brookings Municipal Utility will decide it time to give up on its wireless venture.

 

AJ

From what what others have said on here, Swiftel hasn't even released any kind of future PLAN for doing any kind of Network Vision type upgrade. Even N-Telos has finally gotten in the game now. Pretty much every US carrier at least has some 4G migration plan in the works (or intends to get bought/sell their assets). Since Swiftel hasn't made any moves in this area, AFAIK, that leads me to believe that they WANT to get out of the business.

Given Sprint's current situation, I don't expect any moves on Swiftel in the next year. Once you start seeing NV 2.0 rolling out in full force, and some of G block license protection built out in the Dakotas and Montana, I think they will be forced to rationalize their relationship with Swiftel in some way. Maybe Swiftel will just allow Sprint to buy their spectrum back, or maybe Swiftel's affiliate agreement will expire? 

Of course I could be wrong. Maybe you know something I don't AJ. 

I see new NV antennas and RRUs!!

I'm getting 1x800 finally!!

See pictures 3 and 4.

https://plus.google.com/photos/102694651519037470193/albums/5910613820264209793

That's where the mainly rural partners of the buildout come in like VTel, Mobilenation, CSpire, etc. Sprint can still fill out a lot though to bridge any gaps to these providers.

 

Then there's Swiftel that can't even be bothered to show up in NetAmerica. Could Sprint just buy the network and customers in that area away from the Brookings City Council or whatever nincompoops run Swiftel?

 

It sounds like they'll be gone at the end of the last contract anyway.

My guess is Sprint will simply not renew their affiliate agreement with Swiftel when it expires. They will either built out the area themselves, or else reach some kind of agreement with James Valley Telecom (which covers the Aberdeen SD market) to expand into Swiftel's area. Or maybe some combination of the two where Sprint builds the cities along the I90 cooridor and they split the I29 coordor with Sprint taking the southern part and JVT taking the northern part near its existing service territory.

Noticed new equipment on that tower today

I see new NV antennas and RRUs!!

That tower has been down since last Friday. There has to be a reason

Acutally I was able to use it both Wed and Thursday night. Both nights it came back on about 8pm. It just wasn't up during the day.

I'll be in a non-Sprint area in a couple weeks in northern WI, I'll see if it works there... will be roaming on VZW and Cellcom. Coverage map seems to only show data roaming in the Cellcom areas, but voice roaming on VZW. The VZW area used to be Alltel with EV-DO roaming but they've downed me to 1X in the past 3-4 years (even though I thought VZW was supposed to honor the roaming agreement through 2015 when they took over Alltel).

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

My understanding is that Verizon's roaming rates are much higher/less favorable compared to other CDMA regional carriers like USCC or Cellcom. For that reason, Sprint only allows Verizon EV-DO roaming on corporate lines.

I seen people on the tower on Stanton today. Good things coming perhaps?

Well I don't have any signal from it now, so I hope so. I keep bouncing between the one north of town, roaming, and occasionally 1x800 from Underwood. Does anyone know who the NV backhaul vendor is for that tower? If it's Century link, why not just move the whole thing to the empty site in the CenturyLink parking lot!

I called today as well and was told they were doing some kind of tower upgrade here and would be done tomorrow. There are at least 4 of them down though. At least there were last night.

I just got home tonight. From what I can tell, all three around Fergus plus the one to the east in Underwood is out. The site by Battle Lake was still up though, as was the one up I94 between Fergus and Rothsay. I'm curious as well.

Given the position of TMUS and this Rural roaming hub WRT the 700Mhz A block spectrum, maybe Son isn't worried about 600Mhz in the event of a merger because he won't need it. If the merger isn't approved, then TMUS and Sprint will get more favorable auction terms, so it's good either way?

Nitpick. Sprints implementation is eCSFB.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5

I thought one of the NV OEMs was doing plain CSFB. I know Samsung was doing eCSFB, but IIRC either E or AcLu was doing CSFB.

If tmo keeps 15%, softbank has 52% can the feds even block this? They can block the merger, but couldnt softbank still own 52% of tmus and then let it still run as tmo until the doj softens up, then merge and buy the remaining 15%????

I think they can challenge, because ownership over a certain percentage triggers the review. You don't have to own 100% of something for the DOJ to come after you. Softbank doesn't own 100% of Sprint, just a majority stake (about 80% IIRC).

It is a possibility.  To the PCS E block 10 MHz license, the adjacent license holders are VZW with the PCS B5 block 10 MHz disaggregation and AT&T with the PCS F block 10 MHz license.  VZW holds no other PCS spectrum in Chicago, while AT&T also has the PCS A block 30 MHz license.  So, VZW might be interested, while I think AT&T is already full up.

 

On the other hand, Sprint might want to send its PCS D block 10 MHz license to AT&T in exchange for the PCS F block.  That would give Sprint two separate 20 MHz contiguous swaths, while AT&T would end up with one 40 MHz contiguous segment.

 

The third option is that Sprint keeps it all.  And CDMA2000 operations are eventually shunted to just the PCS E block so that the adjacent combo of the PCS D block and PCS B3/B4 block 20 MHz disaggregation can run LTE at 15 MHz FDD.

 

AJ

I am assuming that eventually all of the USCC Spectrum would be used for LTE incrementally, and that as CDMA traffic declined they would simply sell off block E. Continuity is good though. Frankly, if Sprint needed money for low band spectrum, I could see them pairing down to about 30Mhz of PCS  across the country (10Mhz for CDMA and a pair of 5x5 LTE channels), once they get a solid band 41 LTE network built up. With the new gear, the band 41 coverage is almost as good as the Band 25 coverage. Band 25 will mostly be for non-spark devices (old Sprint devices or roaming traffic).

Hi Vince...

 

Yes, the uplink EARFCN for TDD appears to be an error.  Why it is even there, I cannot explain it.  So, I should probably edit my instructions to indicate that you should report only the downlink EARFCN.  If it is TDD, the downlink EARFCN is accurate.  If it is FDD, I can calculate the uplink EARFCN from the reported downlink EARFCN.

 

Also, I did not have a chance yet to thank you for supplying the official documentation of the secondary band 25 LTE 1900 carrier in Chicago.  But I added the new EARFCNs shortly after your post and PM.  The secondary band 25 LTE 1900 carrier is just as I expected at the high end of the former USCC license.  That is wise spectrum management.

 

AJ

Do you think Sprint might eventually sell its E block PCS license in Chicago?

For those of you that have used both an Evo 4G LTE and the new M8, how you you compare their reception, both for band 25 LTE signal and 1x over PCS and 800? Everyone says that the reception on band 25 is better, I'm curious how large the difference is on both for band 25 LTE and 1x800.

I lumped that into Netflix trying to strong-arm freebies because of their dominant market position. There's no reason anyone should be obligated to give them free colo and bandwidth. From Netflix's Open Connect page: "Open Connect is a single-purpose Content Distribution Network, and by shifting to Open Connect, from using third-party commercial CDNs, we are able to save money"

 

Everybody else pays millions building their CDNs; Netflix wants to do it for free.

According to the logic you are employing, BOTH parties in a peering agreement are somehow victims of the other. I mean each ISP is sending and receiving packets to the other ISP's customers and they aren't paying the other ISP any money. 

Netflix isn't getting its CDN for "free". It's attempting what business folks like to call a win-win. Netflix thinks it can build its CDN for less than what it costs to pay a third party CDN/ISP. It didn't have to "strong-arm" the ISPs to install Open Connect because it was a benefit both for Netflix and the ISP. Netflix pays for the hardware and the ISP hooks it up to its own data centers. If it is cheeper for Netflix and other ISPs to build this CDN, rather than using Cogent/CDNs, That's too bad for Cogent and the other CDNs that Netflix was paying, but I don't see how Netflix is strong-arming anyone.

I would prefer the FCC simply classify ISPs as common carriers and end this charade. When the infrastructure can support multiple services, we really shouldn't allow the company providing the infrastructure to be in the service business as well. I understand why we keep electrical utilities vertically integrated in many states, but that model makes less sense for ISPs. 

Interconnect agreements between Internet backbone providers are generally made based on the amount of traffic going in each direction. If the traffic is reciprocal (that is to say, the amount of traffic in both directions is approximately the same), they will generally make a free interconnect; but if the traffic tips more in one direction, the other provider will pay. The traffic flowing from Cogent to Comcast has steadily increased at a faster rate than the traffic in the other direction, and Cogent wants Comcast to pay to upgrade that interlink without revising the original agreement, even though it no longer applies since Cogent is shoving so much extra traffic through.

 

So Netflix went to Comcast and asked for a direct interconnect, because they decided it was in their best interest to cut out the middle-man who was the cause of the bottleneck. Except instead of paying Comcast for that connection like they do Cogent, Netflix wanted it for free. Netflix, as the leading streaming video provider, tried to use their position to strong-arm a free interconnect out of Comcast, even though if they were going through one of Comcast's existing interconnect partners instead, they would have to pay, and the partner would have to pay Comcast. And Comcast rightly said no.

 

I am all for Net Neutrality, but Netflix is not an ISP, and it would not at all apply to this situation. Comcast was right to deny free upgrades to Cogent and free interconnects to Netflix. Comcast is providing to Cogent exactly what their agreement states; Cogent wants to get more without paying. And Netflix wants to get something for nothing, which they think they can do since they're such a big player. Now they're trying to turn the public's misunderstanding of this in their favor.

You have it sort of correct, but you left out a detail. In most cases, Netflix solves this peering traffic imbalance by placing a Netflix "node" INSIDE the network of most of the major ISPs. This vastly reduced the amount of traffic flowing from Cogent to the ISP. Almost all of the other ISPs thought this was a fair solution because Netflix provides this hardware for free and it frees up their peering links for other traffic.

Comcast didn't want to alleviate the traffic and bring its peering arrangement into balance, what it wanted was to turn Netflix into a customer and charge it for more bandwidth. If Netflix/Cogent were smart, it would get into the cloud backup business to help balance out the traffic.

The NFL wants all teams to be equal.

 

It is strange. But then again here we fund the millionaires playgrounds (the stadiums) with tax money from the poor (sales taxes), and the NFL pays no tax.

 

So nothing makes sense with sports.

I have complaints about the way the NFL is run. But I do think they have one thing right. They realize that though teams are owned by individual owners, the teams are only valuable in the context of a competitive league. Incidentally, the reason that the NFL doesn't pay any income taxes is because it's considered a non-profit association/rules body. All the money it collects beyond its overhead goes the the owners of the individual teams and is considered income for each individual franchise. 

Almost makes you want to wait for the wave of new phones NEXT spring....almost

I was just wondering how long a new rollout generally takes and what happens during them. I live in Fergus Falls, MN and LTE has started to show up on my iPhone 5 as of today. There a spotty areas around town (I've found 5 just driving around) with varying speeds. I also noticed a new tower north-east of town, but I'm not sure what it is. Probably popped up about a week or two ago.

 

What would a sort of timeline be on this? A few weeks or months until it starts to show up more and more? What have you noticed during your rollouts of it?

What tower are you talking about?

We're samsung.

Samsung is the OEM, but Ericsson is the manager of Sprint's entire network, they aren't just an equipment vendor. Here's hoping Sprint will bring network management in house once the contract is up.

Just got my uupdate so far it works OK... Does this mean I can scrap my airwaves now lol

That would be the real reason to setup wifi calling, it both expands coverage and reduced the need for Sprint to use airraves.

I haven't heard of this rumor, do you have a link?

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/3856-network-visionlte-dakotas-market-including-fargo-grand-forks-alexandria-mn/page-10

The way I read it, and this isn't solid so that's why I say rumor, is that they are going for solid coverage along I29 in ND and SD, along I94 across ND into MT, plus coverage running north from Bismarck to Minot (US83) and from Dickinson up to Williston (US85). But they aren't going to go west along US2 very far from Grand Forks. My guess is that lack of buildout along US 2 is because it would simply duplicate SRT's coverage area.

Here is the SRT coverage map. http://www.srt.com/onlinestore/do/content/coverageMap

You can see SRT has very solid coverage of the area along US2 from Rugby ND to Dodson MT, and north to the border. That's why I say Sprint SHOULD build from east to west along the southern edge of their coverage.

So using a slide (at 9:42) from Son's presentation at CCA I compiled a list of the carriers shown.

This list is probably not complete and I welcome any additions and modifications.

 

Blue Wireless

Area of Operation: Western NY & PA

http://www.blueunlimited.com/

 

Bluegrass Cellular*

AO: Central and Western KY

http://bluegrasscellular.com/

 

SRT Wireless

AO: ND & MT

http://www.srt.com/

 

US Cellular

AO: 23 states including WA, OR, CA, NE, KS, OK, TX, IA, MO, MN, IL, IN, MI, TN, WV, VA, NC, SC, MD, PA, VT, NH, ME

http://www.uscellular.com/

 

NexTech Wireless

AO: KS

https://www.nex-techwireless.com

 

C-Spire

AO: MS, TN, FL, AL, GA

http://www.cspire.com/

 

MobileNation

AO: TN, KY

http://mymobilenation.com/

 

Carolina West*

AO: NC

https://www.carolinawest.com

 

Sagebrush Cellular/Nemont*

AO: MT, ND

http://www.nemont.net/wireless.php

 

LEACO/NMobile

AO: NM

http://www.nmobilenow.com/

 

Inland Cellular

AO: WA, ID

http://inlandcellular.com/

 

nTelos

AO: VA, WV, MD, OH, KY, NC

https://www.ntelos.com/

 

CellCom*

AO: WI

http://www.cellcom.com/

 

James Valley Telecom

AO: SD

http://jamesvalley.com/

 

United Wireless

AO: KS

http://www.unitedwireless.com/

 

Pioneer Cellular*

AO: KS, OK

https://www.wirelesspioneer.com/

 

PTCI

AO: OK

http://www.ptci.net/

 

 

* Denotes a member of VZW LTE in Rural America program

Looking at the coverage area for SRT, I can understand why the rumor is that Sprint will build out in ND along I94 to the west, but not really expand in the north, by going west down HWY 2. SRT has solid coverage in the north starting near Rugby ND going west all the way into western MT before it stops. If I were Sprint, I would only try to build out in ND and MT to areas that SRT isn't already covering. If you have a partner willing to provide native type coverage, then best to target your expansion to areas where you both are relying on VZW for roaming.

Heard rumors that they wont be installing that on that tower

Well they can't just get rid of it, they will eventually have to put up the new antennas or move to a new site (or sites). The sites on either side of town aren't going to provide adequate coverage in town.