Just to give everyone a heads up here in S.W. Oklahoma we had 4G on with Verizon / Pioneer today for about 15 min guess they are getting ready , the guy at the store said the 15 of March if you believe anything they say .... but the fiber is laid , and the towers are ready,and I have a new 4G booster station next to my land ... goy my free EFT from sprint and razr maxx and 4G ready , guess in 8 days sprint users will be sad in our area
Just to give everyone a heads up here in S.W. Oklahoma we had 4G on with Verizon / Pioneer today for about 15 min guess they are getting ready , the guy at the store said the 15 of March if you believe anything they say .... but the fiber is laid , and the towers are ready,and I have a new 4G booster station next to my land ... goy my free EFT from sprint and razr maxx and 4G ready , guess in 8 days sprint users will be sad in our area
That's excellent news. Still no official word from Pioneer on anything regarding what areas will be covered, other than "our 4G network covers 21 counties in western Oklahoma". You'd think launching 4G in an area that size, and being the first big territorial launch of Verizon's LTE in Rural America program would warrant some sort of buildup, but I guess not.
And yes, as a Sprint customer and living smack in the middle of this Pioneer territory, on March 1 when Sprint 3G disappears from half the state, I will be off to a Verizon store to replace my Sprint iPhone 4S with a Verizon iPhone 4S. I will not accept 1X roaming at all! The iPhone is more important to me than 4G, I prefer to wait for 4G until battery life is less of an issue. Pioneer's 3G is excellent, I pull 2.4 Mbs download from them all the time.
No maps are out yet regarding the coverage area yet? I'm going to be incredibly jealous of you guys out on the prairie. I only wish my area was getting LTE on March 15.
yea no maps yet , but did have a long conversation with the Verizon and pioneer guys at the 4G booster station beside my land the other day , they was working on joint prl's issues because here in my town there towers are only 1/2 mile apart , but we are well on our way and there have been several new releases about how they have completed the project and just working out the fine details on it , so hopefully something will come out soon in concrete did have another 20 min or so in 4G land today here , so they are diffidently testing it .. fingers crossed and , i expect when it does turn on there will be a tital wave of press on it ?? on both companies part ... surely there PR peeps will be all over it I would think ...
Well, they're doing it. Here's the new Sprint coverage maps for Oklahoma and southern Kansas. Pretty darn sad. My phone hasn't switched to roaming indication yet but I have heard that others' phones have switched. Looks like I will be heading to a Verizon store as soon as Verizon's 3G roaming here begins.
4G with either Verizon or Pioneer here in Southwest Oklahoma as of a hour ago ... not sure how long will stay on but for last hourish its fast and kicking
Pioneer says they will begin launching their LTE in "phases" beginning in the "2nd quarter". Take that with as large a grain of salt as you wish. My guess is that they will begin somewhere around Enid/Kingfisher and work their way slowly into western Oklahoma over the next several years. Northwest Oklahoma is not included in Verizon's "existing 3G coverage", so they have no "end of 2013" deadline to meet here, however, southwest Oklahoma is included, so the LTE will launch sooner down there I would imagine. It's interesting, Verizon has a native system in southwest Oklahoma, but Pioneer is building the LTE system there as part of the LTE in Rural America program.
I guess my next question should be: What is Sprint going to do with the spectrum licenses it owns for this area? Sprint has been sitting on them this entire time they have been relying on their roaming agreement with Pioneer. Are they now going to build their own system here? Nope, they have said "Network coverage will focus on major metropolitan areas and along interstates and this reduction in service is a cost-cutting measure." The cost of roaming is higher than building your own system to serve your customers??? Really?
So what are they doing to do with the licenses? Are they going to pull this same stunt all over the country? How much of Sprint's "native" coverage in the rest of the country is actually roaming and is at risk of dropping to roaming? The reason Sprint isn't going to build their own network here is obvious. How could they build a network from scratch while Pioneer/Verizon have a 3G/LTE network already up and running? (AT&T and T-Mobile are non-factors any more, as T-Mobile has no 3G service here and AT&T has just a small area) The opportunity to have their own competing system has already passed, long ago, and they chose to just sit on their licenses and do nothing, and the FCC allowed it to happen, despite all the build-out requirements.
I hope Verizon and Pioneer annouce something soon! We left sprint due to all the changes . We have a line out in the weathford area on Verizon now hope they get 3g soon lol
My sprint phone in the Harper County Kansas area has been on roaming since yesterday. Heard rumors Sprint will let you out of your contract, but only until March 15, then charge you after that to exit. Anybody heard anything such as this?
thanks,
jim
I guess my next question should be: What is Sprint going to do with the spectrum licenses it owns for this area? Sprint has been sitting on them this entire time they have been relying on their roaming agreement with Pioneer. Are they now going to build their own system here? Nope, they have said "Network coverage will focus on major metropolitan areas and along interstates and this reduction in service is a cost-cutting measure." The cost of roaming is higher than building your own system to serve your customers??? Really?
So what are they doing to do with the licenses? Are they going to pull this same stunt all over the country? How much of Sprint's "native" coverage in the rest of the country is actually roaming and is at risk of dropping to roaming? The reason Sprint isn't going to build their own network here is obvious. How could they build a network from scratch while Pioneer/Verizon have a 3G/LTE network already up and running? (AT&T and T-Mobile are non-factors any more, as T-Mobile has no 3G service here and AT&T has just a small area) The opportunity to have their own competing system has already passed, long ago, and they chose to just sit on their licenses and do nothing, and the FCC allowed it to happen, despite all the build-out requirements.
ggore, no disrespect intended, but I think that you are making judgements or assertions way above your pay grade.
First, Sprint does not have "licenses" covering your area. Sprint has only one PCS license; it is the Oklahoma City MTA041 PCS B block 30 MHz license. It covers fully two thirds of Oklahoma. View the geographic extent of that one license on this map:
Second, as part of the conditions of its license, Sprint had to meet two construction requirements. Sprint was required to provide adequate service to one third of the licensed population within five years and to two thirds within 10 years. Sprint was granted the PCS license in 1995, so those deadlines came up in 2000 and 2005, respectively. Sprint met the five year requirement in 2000 and the 10 year requirement in 2001 -- fully four years early. See the five year and 10 year notification filings here:
So, Sprint has met and exceeded all of its conditions regarding FCC mandated build out. Requiring Sprint (or any other PCS 1900 MHz carrier) to cover 100 percent of its licensed area -- or even 100 percent of its licensed population -- would be requiring commercial suicide.
For a parallel example, do you know that VZW has PCS 1900 MHz licenses -- note plural, now we are talking licenses plural -- covering much of your rural area? See the license maps:
Now, do you fault VZW for not building out those PCS licenses? No, you do not. And you should not fault VZW, for VZW did build out those PCS licenses in the Oklahoma City metro, thus VZW satisfied the population based coverage conditions of its licenses.
With some exceptions, PCS 1900 MHz coverage is going to stick most closely to populous areas and well traveled highways. Its propagation characteristics are most economically suited to that level of coverage, not to widespread rural coverage.
More generally put, unless we remove free enterprise and instead nationalize our wireless communications system, rural areas are almost always going to have lesser service and/or fewer choices because rural areas just are not as highly profitable areas in which to provide wireless service. If you cannot live with that, then you need to move to a large city.
ggore, no disrespect intended, but I think that you are making judgements or assertions way above your pay grade.
First, Sprint does not have "licenses" covering your area. Sprint has only one PCS license; it is the Oklahoma City MTA041 PCS B block 30 MHz license. It covers fully two thirds of Oklahoma. View the geographic extent of that one license on this map:
Second, as part of the conditions of its license, Sprint had to meet two construction requirements. Sprint was required to provide adequate service to one third of the licensed population within five years and to two thirds within 10 years. Sprint was granted the PCS license in 1995, so those deadlines came up in 2000 and 2005, respectively. Sprint met the five year requirement in 2000 and the 10 year requirement in 2001 -- fully four years early. See the five year and 10 year notification filings here:
So, Sprint has met and exceeded all of its conditions regarding FCC mandated build out. Requiring Sprint (or any other PCS 1900 MHz carrier) to cover 100 percent of its licensed area -- or even 100 percent of its licensed population -- would be requiring commercial suicide.
If it is commercial suicide to serve/cover a rural area, then why do all the other carriers except US Cellular and Verizon have a native presence here? This area is served by AT&T, T-Mobile, Pioneer, and CellularOne, all natively.
For a parallel example, do you know that VZW has PCS 1900 MHz licenses -- note plural, now we are talking licenses plural -- covering much of your rural area? See the license maps:
Now, do you fault VZW for not building out those PCS licenses? No, you do not. And you should not fault VZW, for VZW did build out those PCS licenses in the Oklahoma City metro, thus VZW satisfied the population based coverage conditions of its licenses.
With some exceptions, PCS 1900 MHz coverage is going to stick most closely to populous areas and well traveled highways. Its propagation characteristics are most economically suited to that level of coverage, not to widespread rural coverage.
Yes, PCS spectrum is less effective in rural areas, yet carriers have built and are using this spectrum in rural areas all over the country. Right north of Oklahoma is a shining example, where the western half of Kansas is completely blanketed by PCS spectrum.
More generally put, unless we remove free enterprise and instead nationalize our wireless communications system, rural areas are almost always going to have lesser service and/or fewer choices because rural areas just are not as highly profitable areas in which to provide wireless service. If you cannot live with that, then you need to move to a large city.
AJ
If it were commercial suicide to cover/serve rural areas, then there would not be native service available here from AT&T, T-Mobile, Pioneer, and CellularOne or in any other rural area or via any small regional carrier, so that point is moot.
In this day and age, almost 30 years after the advent of cellular service, the cities are built, so carriers have expanded into more rural areas, and this includes native coverage, not just via roaming agreements, using more capable frequency spectrum to serve those areas where it will reach more territory, as well as continuing to use the PCS spectrum, which in rural areas will travel farther due simply to there being open country. Every site in Pioneer's network that Sprint has been roaming on is a PCS site since that is what Pioneer is licensed for, as well as 800 Mhz and 700Mhz. Every site within range of this town is using PCS spectrum, and that includes sites in the country nowhere near a highway or interstate, so to say it is not/cannot be used in rural areas is just not true.
The subject of THIS thread is Sprint's dropping an area it advertised was native. Look at this graphic:
The area in question was shown as native on their coverage maps. Look at the map legend. The legend says dark green is SPRINT VOICE COVERAGE, and the lighter color is listed as VOICE ROAMING. It couldn't be any clearer. Native versus roaming, dark green versus lighter green. A potential customer could base his choice of carrier on that map very easily.
Now we find that those darker colored areas were not native at all, but a strange form of "roaming shown as native". If this area would have been properly shown on their maps as roaming, I would have never signed up for Sprint service in the first place. I switched from AT&T because this town is the ONLY town in this half of the state that AT&T does not have a cell site in, which due to terrain is a dead spot that they refuse to fill in. There is an AT&T site 7 miles from here, but due to a range of hills and the town being situated in a river valley, its signal cannot reach here. Fine, I went with a carrier that does offer service here, and I based my decision on the coverage maps they had on their site, which were the ones above.
I could have gone with Pioneer, T-Mobile, or CellularOne, but I went with Sprint since I am an iPhone user. I signed up based on their coverage maps and they took me on as a customer last October, and I have enjoyed great 3G service from them ever since. Now they come out with the new map and the note saying their coverage was never native in the first place, and that they are dropping their service to 1X because they lost a roaming agreement with Pioneer in favor of Verizon who is coming in since they are in cahoots with Pioneer for an LTE system. Guess who I will be switching to in the next few days? It is not Pioneer, because they do not support the iPhone. I will be switching to Verizon, since they now have a full 3G roaming agreement in place with Pioneer. I CLEARLY know I will be roaming, something I did not know with Sprint. Should Pioneer gain access to the iPhone at some point in the future I will gladly switch to them to support a local business. Out here in the toolies, we support our local people who take risks and make investments at home whenever possible.
If it were commercial suicide to cover/serve rural areas, then there would not be native service available here from AT&T, T-Mobile, Pioneer, and CellularOne or in any other rural area or via any small regional carrier, so that point is moot.
But aren't some of those networks 800 Mhz? I would assume that two of the networks there were built out back in the early days of cellular when there wasn't any competition in the area and it was cheaper to build a network as leasing costs were lower and zoning approvals were easier. That doesn't explain T-Mobile or Pioneer but apparently they thought they had a chance of making money there and decided to try their luck. At this point there just might be too many players there and not enough room for another.
But aren't some of those networks 800 Mhz? I would assume that two of the networks there were built out back in the early days of cellular when there wasn't any competition in the area and it was cheaper to build a network as leasing costs were lower and zoning approvals were easier. That doesn't explain T-Mobile or Pioneer but apparently they thought they had a chance of making money there and decided to try their luck. At this point there just might be too many players there and not enough room for another.
Up until 4 years ago there were only two cellphone towers in this county, the rest have been constructed since. The old ones were from the days of analog and are owned by AT&T. They have since added equipment to one new tower built last year, but still have gaping holes remaining in their coverage, not covering one town in the county at all, which is the county seat.
CellularOne uses the same frequency bands as T-Mobile, but CellularOne is being bought out by CDMA carrier Pioneer Cellular, so they will be gone as a GSM option by the end of this year. CellularOne only serves one CMA, a 2-county area Pioneer is buying in order to gain access to one larger town. That leaves AT&T, T-Mobile, and Pioneer as the only carriers with their own equipment here. That's pretty much the case all over western Oklahoma with the exception of a tiny area along interstate 40 where everyone except Verizon has their own native system. It's actually strange that Verizon does not cover I-40. That is a product of them buying the old Alltel system when they came into Oklahoma 4 years ago. Verizon has not built any new sites that cover any new territory at all, only upgrading existing sites and equipment.
Oh and there is no zoning in the county at all, any carrier or tower management company can build anywhere they want, just have to lease the land from the owner and I have never heard of anyone turning down free money. There is no zoning in most counties in Oklahoma, actually, that's a foreign concept in a place where people want development to happen.
I asked an online Verizon rep about the situation with sprint, as I live in Harper County Ks, and we are now roaming. I asked her about Verizon signing an agreement with Pioneer for the Rural network and being able to roam off of Pioneer towers. (of which one is just two miles from my house). She said Verizon doesnt "roam", or has no "roaming". Now, how can she say that???
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by mike_augie
Bookmarks