Boosted20V

Apparently Sprint based on the above article.

I'd say not a chance in hell. I don't think VZ wants to get "rid" of its Cellular spectrum.

Just as long as it's not "the switch" stand up clip.

Must have been fun to mount!

I've noticed large improvements in the last few weeks around the LV.

I don't know that any of that is relevant. Regardless who built it, there are areas where T-Mo has more native coverage. Out west their footprint is definitely better than Sprint's.

http://bgr.com/2013/06/28/sprint-softbank-merger-fcc-approval/

Shentel pays for all upgrades/maintenance in their footprint. And for their size, theres not a better company in my eyes. EDIT - And that is the whole point of an affiliate. The affilieate pays to maintain the network they own. But they don't deal with branding/advertising/customer support which Sprint does. So Sprint pays them a cut based on usage/subs in their territory.

As for Shentel, they use each other's network interchangeable and it is all branded as Sprint. Shentel maintains the network in the areas they own. Sprint/Shentel have a formula they use based on how much usage occurs inside/outside their borders to determine how much $ Shentel is paid out of Sprint's revenue. Also, they own ~600 towers (580 some I believe) in PA/MD/VA.

A great place to find info is Earnings Conference Calls. The analysts typically ask decent enough questions: Robin Bienenstock - Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., LLC., Research Division So your LTE network will clearly be better in the U.S., in the densely populated parts of the country, but it'll still be thinner in terms of coverage in the less-dense parts of the country. So I'm wondering, to what extent do you think that reduces the addressable market for you in the U.S.? And then secondly, I just had a question about your working capital, which is going to be a big negative number, it looks like, this year, a lot bigger than last year, lots of restructuring charges in there. And I'm wondering if you can help me think about what that means, if anything, for margins next year and what I should think about in terms of potential costs there next year as well. René Obermann - Chairman of the Management Board and Chief Executive Officer Right. Robin, the LTE question, allow me to answer that in -- entailing the HSPA coverage as well because, after all, for customers, it does matter, the network speed and throughput, and capacity matters, not so much whether you are on LTE or 3G. And from my own and, personally, your own user experience, I suggest that you don't care whether you see the LTE signal or the 3G signal. In Germany, we launched LTE and it's still somewhat spotty. And for me as a user, all that matters is high-speed coverage. And therefore, our HSPA network is with 225 million POPs coverage in spring, and the successful spectrum migration onto the 1,900 band is going to be an important component in the game. And then next year, in the course of the year, we'll cover up to 200 million POPs and that, in combination, still having EDGE as a world-class technology available to the customer and seamless upgradable to 3G and 4G proposition. In that combination, I think, we'll be more competitive and the network perception will improve. But also, to be honest, it's grinding work because we are coming from very low perception and we need to move up the ladder. And it's grinding work and it will take some time, but we are coming and we will have a good competitive environment -- network, sorry, not environment. [indiscernible]. Another piece from a previous conference call, again, 37k is the right number but this only entails their HSPA service footprint: Philipp Humm Yeah, so I think, the additional incremental CapEx basically reflect that we want to role out LTE to our total 3G, 4G footprint, which is about 37,000 sites. And so to achieve a full modernization and then LTE rollout, this is then the number we – at the end of the day we’ll need to do that. So they're stating they're keeping EDGE and are touting that there is a seamless handoff to HSPA and LTE from there. Also, specificallys tating that only their HSPA/HSPA+ footprint will be upgraded (i.e. 3G/4G footprint).

I'm still researching DT ever publically stating their LTE network will do anything but supplement their existing HSPA footprint. I haven't found anything. Also, Sprint has the same number of towers relatively but with 800mhz and PCS spectrum vs. AWS. That isn't a very good comparison.

You're missing a key fact that their network consists of 51K towers. The 37K IS a subset: http://gigaom.com/2012/09/28/t-mobile-sheds-its-towers-in-exchange-for-a-2-4b-infusion/ Check out the article, it specifically states the total number of towers T-Mo operates.

Not so. It specifically states: "T-Mobile has enhanced backhaul covering 100 percent of our 4G network, 95 percent of which is fiber backhaul," So they are only stating that of their 4G network, 95% is backhauled by fiber. T-Mo is the tale of 2 networks. A great one in cities with fiber and a sad one in rural areas with T1s.

Along with the buyout and FCC approval and no divesture of CLWR spectrum. Things are looking UP.

Along with Randall Stephenson and Daniel Mead.

Such BS. I love having a fast mobile connection but we don't need to break laws to get it.

In all seriousness though, I have been on Sprint 1X sites that will hit ~125k/s and be OK for browsing. Most of their towers though, are simply more saturated than T-MO's rural sites.

Cool story, bro.

I believe that is Shentel territory if I'm not mistaken. EDIT - It is, which makes sense given that Sprint is nowhere near lighting up LTE in the Western PA market.

I'd take it to mean the hotspots which have been announced.

I believe the back ups Sprint uses will last ~8 hours. After that, you're going to be roaming on a VZ site with a generator.

Except those that work on maintaining Nextel...

No, realistically production is at one of the highest points it's ever been.

I understand NID boundaries affect the user experience but what is causing Sprint to alter them? I should have used the term cause rather than implication.

Terrible latency but good speeds.