That's around Sprint HQ. Cue the conspiracy theories...
Fiber backhaul for Verizon in Southern Illinois in 2013 - about time.
Kansas city airport is on the north side of KCMO and is covered as one of the airports on the Verizon list. It is a very short range and slow (compared with other larger areas) site. The Kansas speedway and livestrong stadium are farther north out of the area on the Verizon map. The chiefs stadium is SE KCMO. The area is question is far SW KCK and I have no idea what could be in this area that big red is trying to cover. As another poster mentioned let the conspiracy theories commence.
Here is the deal regarding KC and other places with a patch of LTE service in random places.
Remember how AT&T bragged how they deployed HSPA+ to 100% of their network? That really meant the equipment and capability is in place, sans backhaul (ie, worthless). Well, Verizon has and is doing the same thing with LTE. KC and other smaller towns are most likely full of towers with brand new LTE equipment. Keeping that in mind, when Verizon listed the cities that would receive LTE in 2011, that meant Verizon had already locked in on contracts with backhaul providers to support the new equipment in those cities. Verizon was pursuing backhaul in major cities much sooner than places like KC, which is why all the big cities debuted LTE service. As Verizon keeps finding backhaul suppliers, more cities will ignite.
In the case of Kansas City, Carbondale/Herrin Illinois, Bentonville Arkansas, Austin Texas, Fort Colins Colorado, and other smaller cities with LTE or patches of LTE, Verizon was able to secure backhaul earlier than expected in certain locations.
So that is why you will find random places with a touch of LTE. If its there, why not show it? Heck, Big Red wants as much dark red as possible on that map. However, unlike AT&T who colors areas dark blue ("4G" enhanced backhaul) with nothing to support it, Verizon typically makes sure their network is solid from the get go. I imagine that the LTE speed in Overland Park is nice. Someone test?
Hope that helps.
Last edited by Trocks797; 09-13-2011 at 12:33 AM.
Verizon Wireless: America's fastest, largest and most reliable mobile broadband network.
I'm just a twenty-something year old college graduate speaking geek on HoFo!
The entire state of KY? KY is in many ways like our area of Northwestern California (minus the coast and Redwoods of course lol), rural, fairly poor, often hilly and mountainous (though smaller mountains than us ) and in many places heavily forested, and from what I can tell they haven't done anything up here yet. The main road here is US Hwy.101 (the main north south route in NW CA), and while not an interstate it does function as one, connecting coastal CA, OR and WA. Some other important highways here are CA 1, CA 20, CA 253, CA 175, CA 29, CA 299, CA 199, CA 53.
http://www.isu.edu (Idaho State University)
Here's a couple screen grabs that illustrate Verizon's Great Oklahoma Black Hole:Attachment 73096
The red area in the northwest is 1G/2G roaming with no data roaming. Pioneer Cellular and Sprint cover that entire area with 3G, but their representatives have told me they don't allow Verizon to data roam. The white area in western Oklahoma is a Sprint-only CDMA market, where Verizon cannot roam at all.
Then you switch to 3G/4G display and two giant black holes appear, which contain the largest cities in the state outside of Oklahoma City and Tulsa: McAlester, Muskogee, Enid, Ada, Alva, Woodward, Watonga, I could go on. Verizon's 4G coverage area actually exceeds their 3G in some places. Verizon has stated they have no plans to build a system of their own in any of the white areas, yet they hold 4G/LTE licenses for all that territory, which keeps other providers from offering service there on those frequencies. The areas of the Oklahoma and Texas panhandles are virtually unpopulated except for the cities of Amarillo and Guymon, yet have full native Verizon 3G coverage. I wish someone could explain the logic of this patchwork mess.
LTE in Rural America program. The administration of that program is held to be fair by our own FCC, so I don't think a willing/cooperative partner would have a problem with the arrangements, otherwise they can file a complaint with FCC and work things out.
For every single area of the country, Verizon and every other cell provider must weigh their options when deploying coverage. In so many cases, the problem comes down to locality issues that end up costing more money than covering the area would allow. For example, there's always people fighting "NIMBY" (Not in my back yard) to prevent cell towers being errected because of some fear of cellular signals or they find that the towers make their old town look too modern or "ugly". Then there's availability of phone/data circuits and backhaul, some may be prohibitively expensive due to local providers taxing or gauging. We on Howard Forums can never know for sure - so much of this stuff is just decided at Verizon HQ and coverage is left out intentionally.The areas of the Oklahoma and Texas panhandles are virtually unpopulated except for the cities of Amarillo and Guymon, yet have full native Verizon 3G coverage. I wish someone could explain the logic of this patchwork mess.
Also, from a business perspective as a cell provider, I would never state that coverage is coming unless I've already nailed down agreements - otherwise I say "No plans." This dashes any hope that local providers or town halls have of continuing to insist on whatever high rates/taxes they were hoping to charge. One day they'll be looking for money and they'll approach Verizon and say "Maybe we could take a little less, sign this agreement..." Bam, I announce coverage is coming.
EDIT: With regard to your specific example of Oklahoma and Texas panhandles, my guess is, Verizon got a "good deal" with the localities/state in those areas and the cost to operate them is very low - when that happens I'm sure Verizon is happy to get their equipment out there and fired up and increase the percent of population covered that all providers love to show off when possible.
I drove through the Overland Park, KS hole today. Was on 435 at Metcalf, I was watching for my phone to switch. The coverage map as expected exaggerates the coverage considerably. I was only able to maintain coverage for 1/4 mile, just long enough to capture a screenshot of the icon. i started up speedtest but i lost the connection before i could even start a test. I would venture a guess this is a single site either for the corporate office or to rub it in Sprints face. I did run a speedtest on 3G shortly after and got 2 down 0.5 up.
NIMBY is not a factor in this part of the country where there are vast open spaces and no mountains, where very few towers can cover an entire area easily. Verizon's entire system in the state was the result of a purchase of an old Alltel system. They have not constructed anything else since they bought it or brought any new coverage areas online, except the launch of LTE overlaying existing 3G coverage.
None of the participants in the LTE in Rural America program have deployed anything as of this date or announced any construction plans.
The major providers Sprint, T-Mobile, Verizon, and AT&T, say the reason they only provide service in the largest cities is that it is uneconomical to cover anything outside those cities. And yet there are hundreds of regional and small carriers that do cover pretty much every square inch of the rest of the country with 3G and some LTE and seem to be making money doing it, so that argument just doesn't fly.
Here we have service from either Pioneer Cellular who covers half the state with 3G CDMA or CellularOne which only operates a 2 county area system which is a divested relic of the AT&T/Dobson purchase. This was Dobson's home area but AT&T was required to divest it since there evidently cannot be only one GSM provider in a CMA/RSA. Never mind that there is now just one GSM carrier since AT&T never built anything of its own to recover this area.
These local carriers work well in their own areas, but if you want to use a cellphone in a city at 3G or 4G, you will have to have an account with one of the majors. My CellularOne phone is fully 3G capable but will not work on 3G anywhere else in the country, so I also have an AT&T account with a 3G phone I can use when I travel to a city. Just a really fun situation.
It's too bad you don't have U.S. Cellular where you are, they cover our rural market (Rural Service Area 344, Mendocino & Lake Counties, NW CA) better than anybody (though Verizon is almost neck and neck with them now), have 3G on all of their network and have nationwide 3G roaming agreements with Verizon and Sprint. They have also already deployed LTE in a few areas, with more to come over the next couple of years. In our area, Verizon and U.S. Cellular dominate, with AT&T trailing at third, T-Mobile at 4th and Metro PCS a distant 5th (their coverage area is DINKY, though roaming is free).
Edit-We do not have LTE yet, we're over 100 miles from any LTE. Verizon will be first, followed by U.S. Cellular, then AT&T, I don't know what is to become of T-Mobile (currently all GPRS and EDGE here) and as far as Metro PCS, they are turning on LTE, but our rural market probably will be dead last for them.
It has taken us a long time to get 5 carriers, as of 2000 we only had two, GTE (now Verizon) and U.S. Cellular, then in 2001 Edge Wireless came in (AT&T Affiliate, now part of AT&T), MetroPCS started up around 2007 or so and T-Mobile started service in the summer of 2009. Living in a rural, generally poor area I can totally sympathize with you, we are often ignored and underserved, though your market seems to be much worse off than ours. Due to the rugged terrain, heavy forest cover (including Redwoods that tower to 380 feet) and many remote, isolated locations this area is one of the hardest to cover in the US, I am amazed at what they can do if they put their mind to it.
Why doesn't Verizon just buy out Bluegrass?