Mr.Nuke

55 minutes ago, WiWavelength said:

Other than the partner not marketing its own service directly to consumers, all of the above sound like standard operating procedures for VZW and LTEiRA partners.

Correct, but that "other than" part is likely a huge wrinkle in the standard LTEiRA agreement. The typical incentives Verizon would offer to the rural operator be it: helping build out an LTE network, reciprocal roaming, device access/buying leverage, etc. are moot.

And that may be the root of the issue here. Verizon's cost is more than likely higher than a typical LTEiRA partnership. What Verizon is paying to Wireless Partners, be it data charges or whatever doesn't make financial sense for them given the limited customer base. I just wanted to make it clear that this situation appears by everything I've found to be significantly different than Verizon kicking off perma-roamers that reside in territories covered by LTEiRA partners that are actively selling/providing local native service to customers.

13 minutes ago, swintec said:

who is the roaming partner up there though or are we just assuming for now based on the timing of the other lte roaming stuff?

The partner in question is Wireless Partners LLC who appear to own, build, and operate the towers Verizon is deploying their spectrum on there.

31 minutes ago, WiWavelength said:

Could the Maine LTEiRA partner then be the one ultimately ceasing operations?  Bankruptcy, perhaps.

AJ

Based on their statement I don't think so although that ultimately may end up being the case if their agreement is materially altered (which by most accounts it appears it is going to be).

Quote

Downeast customers, network operator blindsided by Verizon withdrawal

Verizon Wireless sends subscription termination notices to customers without warning

PORTLAND, MAINE (September 12, 2017) – Verizon Wireless customers in Washington County were blindsided this week when the company mailed them subscription termination notices.

Wireless Partners, built and operates a state of the art 4G LTE VoLTE wireless network for the benefit of Verizon Wireless and its customers in Washington and East Hancock counties in Maine and Coos County in New Hampshire. Wireless Partners was made aware of the Verizon customer termination letters not by Verizon Wireless, but by concerned customers in receipt of the notification. In response, Bob Parsloe, CEO of Wireless Partners, issued the following statement:

“Access to 4G LTE is an essential 21st century infrastructure need and it is the mission of Wireless Partners to meet that need in rural, underserved areas of Maine and New Hampshire. To that end, Wireless Partners built, owns, operates, and is expanding a Verizon Wireless 4G LTE network in Downeast Maine. Along with our network users, we were blindsided to learn that Verizon Wireless mailed subscription cancellation notices to their customers on this network.

“Wireless Partners was not given advance warning that Verizon Wireless was planning to restrict new customers nor terminate existing customers. We were only made aware of this development from concerned Verizon Wireless customers who were in receipt of the cancellation notification.

“Verizon Wireless did ask Wireless Partners to assist them in reducing the contractually agreed costs of using our networks. Wireless Partners promptly informed Verizon that it was ready to address their concerns. At no point during this dialogue, which continues in earnest, did Verizon Wireless indicate to us their intent to restrict new customers and cancel current customers.

“We have received overwhelming support from every community in which we have made 4G LTE service a reality. However, Verizon Wireless’ recent actions have turned that exuberance into significant concern among business owners, public safety officials, and everyday consumers for whom this is their sole means of cellular voice and broadband internet service.

“In respect of our mission, our network users, and the potentially devastating public safety and economic development consequences, we will exhaust every effort to cause Verizon Wireless to rethink this extremely consequential decision and to honor the promise of its LRA program. We are hopeful that a resolution is achievable and that this critical infrastructure will remain in service.”

8 minutes ago, WiWavelength said:

I side with VZW on this one.  Perma roaming on LTEiRA partners is not okay.  Those subs should be signed up directly with the LTEiRA partners that they are using nearly 100 percent of the time.

AJ

I'm with you, but this Maine one is a bit odd in so far that I can tell the partner doesn't provide or sell any native service of their own.

I've had mine for 8 days and it hasn't connected once and haven't heard anything from Sprint about returning it yet.

 

-Anthony

You were two days away. The system is set up to flag the MB if it hasn't connected in 10 days.

I think I'll do that rather than call them or send it back right now. They sent me two for two locations in the same general area. I'll give it a few months to see how it works out. Thanks for the info!

The problem with that is that if your magic boxes don't connect to the macro network within the next couple of days it is highly probable you'll be asked to return them. At that point you may figure out what the issue preventing the NC boxes from activating is, but it still likely you'll be sending it back regardless.

Given there are a number of you in North Carolina with issues, if it were me, I'd be doing everything possible with Sprint to try and figure out what the issue with the macro network is. The odds of it resolving itself before Sprint send you an RMA kit and demands the box back are slim.

I did not have to sign for it.

39758 from my magic box.

In its current location:

 

RSRP:       -108 dBm

CINR:          15.7 dB

Frequency:  2648000

Band:           41 High

Status:         Connected

Ok it isn't that then. In weak signal areas the unit is prone to drop the relay and even when it comes back up devices may not connect to it initially. On mine, the first time I left the house it took my phone hours to connect to it when I got back.

Something is still amiss with my Magic Box.  When I woke up this morning, my phone was connected to it.  I power cycled my phone and now it will not connect to the magic box.  Wife's phone has not ever connected to it. 

What is the relay signal strength and band coming into the box?

I like the idea too, but I'd like for it to be a Dish/Sprint/T-Mobile combination.

Why not add Apple as well?

Uh oh: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-29/charter-is-said-to-rebuff-sprint-corp-s-merger-proposal

I wouldn't call it dead on arrival yet until John Malone chimes in (if he does at all). It shouldn't be all that surprising that a company, much less one with a significantly higher market cap isn't overly keen on an initial offer to be essentially taken over. If there is any legitimacy to any of the reporting tonight, what Malone's sentiments are especially given the reported discussions between Masa and him, are arguably  more important than random anonymous source citing Charter not being interested.

FWIW the "here" geolocation is working for me on both the last version and the latest one that just got pushed out today.

It can't be a loan. Sprint's balance sheet is already messed up.

Sprint has lost just shy of $13 billion over the past 5 years. As long as the company is bleeding money, they will need to incur more debt or offer new equity to keep infusing cash into the company.

If Warren Buffet is involved, he's in for the long haul, not looking for a buyout. Probably will take the company private too.

I doubt it. For starters $10 to $20 billion isn't enough to outright buy the company or even Softbank's stake. Furthermore, Sprint as an acquisition much less  an investment doesn't seemingly fit in with Buffett's investing strategy or recent (past 25 or so years) investing history.

If Masa and Marcelo were talking to Buffett about Sprint, my guess is it would be something along the lines of preferred stock with common stock warrants like what he did with Bank of America and before that GE and Goldman Sachs. Buffett gets a near guaranteed return on a portion of the nearly $90 billion in cash Berkshire is sitting on and Sprint gets a cash infusion to do with as they please. I'm not really sure that Buffett is the best source of funding though as Sprint still hasn't tapped out other cheaper options i.e. the Spectrum backed vehicles.

 

• The LTE frequency label (800/1900/2500/AWS/etc) should be correct for everyone now.. I hope.
• Any LTE EARFCN and band data displayed should be valid, including neighbor cells. Mostly want to make sure Samsung users are no longer seeing low EARFCNs/B1 on neighbor cells.

Both of those are good on my Note 5 now.

I think that the title of this thread is a bit premature.

Especially based on a single foreign article from nearly two weeks ago that had no comment from either party and was never picked up by the U.S. financial media.

 

Bah. I thought for sure I had solved the "big text" not displaying properly.. I will do some more digging on it. When switching between Sprint and Clearwire sites it sometimes disappears on my Pixel too. It is only a display issue, as the Logger should still be recording the proper band.

Yeah the logging is fine, because the log is going off of the provider field i.e. Sprint B26 and you are still fielding the correct information from the Samsung API for that.

Also, I notice your Neighbor Cells say Band 1.

Yeah I posted about that this morning. Hopefully Mike's Samsung EARFCN display fix can be carried over to neighboring cells at some point.

Another update is done and should be available shortly. Hopefully the crashes and LTE display bugs are fixed.

-Mike

The word LTE is back on my Note 5, but no band indication in the header.

I can confirm the missing LTE XXXX on my note 5 as well. Additionally, and it is to be somewhat expected with Samsung, the neighboring cells are all showing B1.

Hmmm clearly I broke something with "LTE xxxxx" display. You're all still seeing band information in the provider line so it's not your device. I gutted those routines so I expected some hiccups. I overhauled a lot of code; much of this used to be hard-coded, now it's dynamic. I'll look into it tonight!

 

-Mike

The notification bar and the provider information right below rsrp and snr values i.e. Sprint B26 are correct, but yeah for whatever coding reason the LTE  XXXX isn't displaying (which is a nice feature as the large text is easy to take a quick glance at). Your earfcn fix with this beta is much appreciated though.

 I have not checked upstairs to see if I am getting a b41 signal.

If I were you I'd check upstairs. If you can get a signal by a window, that is the optimal situation for a magic box, and knowing that information may be helpful when they call back.

So if you don't have a B41 near they will decline your request?

As of now, yes.

True.  Just wonder what the requirements Sprint has to qualify.  I do have two b41 sites within a mile of my home but cannot connect to a usable signal due to topography. 

The unspoken requirement is they need to believe you are capable of receiving an band 41 signal through a window in the structure based on RF analysis. If you currently aren't getting band 41 at any place in your home the odds of getting a magic box for the time being aren't great.

 I actually forgot what a large segment​ of users that leaves out...

Yeah they've got roughly half of the android market share and it is probably higher than that here where a couple of the Chinese companies aren't as prevalent.

Nothing shows up on my s8 latest update. Are those EARFCN used at all in the real world? They can be hidden if they are not possible.

They're theoretically valid EARFCNs for band 1 which is used in China, India, Japan, and some spots in Europe including Vodafone in the UK.

Hah! Touche, Samsung.. the app displays it because those are valid EARFCNs for LTE band 1. I could come up with an ugly hack, perhaps ignoring very low values on certain PLMNs. I hate this company..

On the download side i've seen from 12-30. But yeah if you ignore those low EARFCNs on Sprint PLMNs you'll be good as far as we (Sprint Samsung users) are concerned.