Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 50

Thread: Rumorville: Changes Coming to State of Maine's Network (Washington County)

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Greater Los Angeles
    Posts
    8,198
    Device(s)
    Galaxy S8+ and Gear S3 Frontier
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile USA
    Feedback Score
    15 (100%)

    Rumorville: Changes Coming to State of Maine's Network (Washington County)

    Any truth to this? Are Verizon users going from native to roaming?

    http://wcyy.com/verizon-is-dumping-a...eless-network/
    “The Internet wasn’t meant to be metered in bits and bytes, so it’s insane that wireless companies are still making you buy it this way. The rate plan is dead — it’s a fossil from a time when wireless was metered by every call or text.” John Legere 1/5/2017

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    732
    Device(s)
    Samsung Galaxy S7
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T GoPhone
    Feedback Score
    0
    http://www.pressherald.com/2017/09/1...obile-service/ I think it is another example of kicking off customers in "LRA" areas for using to much data.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using HoFo mobile app

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Greater Los Angeles
    Posts
    8,198
    Device(s)
    Galaxy S8+ and Gear S3 Frontier
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile USA
    Feedback Score
    15 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tim-of-NC View Post
    http://www.pressherald.com/2017/09/1...obile-service/ I think it is another example of kicking off customers in "LRA" areas for using to much data.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using HoFo mobile app
    Thanks for the clarity. I didn't realize there was already a dedicated thread for this.

    http://www.howardforums.com/showthre...nation-(letter

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    732
    Device(s)
    Samsung Galaxy S7
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T GoPhone
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by @TheRealDanny View Post
    Thanks for the clarity. I didn't realize there was already a dedicated thread for this.

    http://www.howardforums.com/showthre...nation-(letter
    Yes sir! Verizon definitely hasn't had overly good news in the headlines lately.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using HoFo mobile app

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    6,630
    Device(s)
    SGS 7
    Carrier(s)
    MSV 10GB plus 10GB free, 4 lines
    Feedback Score
    0
    This is not the same as the other LTEiRA terminations. Those were with other carriers that Verizon was in effect competing with, so they terminated people in order to protect their partners. Fine. Makes sense.

    Wireless Partners is a totally different situation. They don't actually sell cell phone service at all, they are a roamer network for Verizon, much like Northeast Wireless is for ATT. So now people in Downeast can't get Verizon at all, since there is no local carrier like Bluegrass Cellular or Thumb Wireless to switch to and use to buy into Verizon's B13 LTEiRA system/The Network.

    In this case, it's not protecting a partner, it's hurting a partner as Verizon will pay Wireless Partners significantly less money for roaming than they are now.

    That being said, people really shouldn't have signed up for a carrier that doesn't operate in the area they live in. I feel most bad for Wireless Partners over the customers, although this network was designed for summer tourists over all else, and before a potential USCC LTE roaming deal might have existed.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Chattanooga, TN
    Posts
    134
    Device(s)
    SM-G935U
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon Wireless
    Feedback Score
    0
    Thank you for this post. Great points. I've been concerned about this since learning about it, for mostly the same reasons. This is completely unlike other LTEiRA customer cancellations, as you noted. In my mind, the main question is: Why did Wireless Partners never sell directly to customers? Is it because they just never bothered? Or because in this area, VZW contractually prohibited them from doing so?

    If they're not prohibited from selling directly, you have to believe they will ramp up sales as quickly as humanly possible. I actually do feel bad for the customers, as well. Those crayon maps are no fun for anyone, and it's easy to get confused...especially when you buy service and it works for years on end.

    I hope Wireless Partners comes up with a plan, and quickly.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Chicago/Northwest Indiana
    Posts
    3,536
    Device(s)
    iPhone 6
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GSMinCT View Post

    That being said, people really shouldn't have signed up for a carrier that doesn't operate in the area they live in. I feel most bad for Wireless Partners over the customers, although this network was designed for summer tourists over all else, and before a potential USCC LTE roaming deal might have existed.
    As I've said before, this is totally on Verizon and not the customers. You have to remember they allowed people to sign up for their service on LRA carriers and even encouraged it. Their whole intention of LRA from the beginning was to do just what they did. Now they're back pedaling and people are acting like customers somehow cheated the system and snuck onto a roaming network...which is NOT true at all.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles - San Diego - Tijuana / D.F. - Puebla
    Posts
    22,013
    Device(s)
    Apple iPhone 7 Plus / Apple iPhone 7 / Samsung Galaxy S8
    Carrier(s)
    Pacific Bell Wireless / Verizon Wireless / iusacell MX / Telcel MX
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by weskeene View Post
    In my mind, the main question is: Why did Wireless Partners never sell directly to customers? Is it because they just never bothered? Or because in this area, VZW contractually prohibited them from doing so?
    Like you said, there was a non-compete clause between Verizon Wireless and Wireless Partners or Wireless Partners choose not to sell directly to customers, because doing so increases costs for the company. Or developing a retail sales channel was never in their business model, they were hoping to survive just off roamers.

    Even Commnet Wireless, another roamer only network choose to initially not get into retail sales. They now have retail sales channel but it only covers a small portion of their service area.

    I hope Wireless Partners comes up with a plan, and quickly.
    Then they either have to deploy HSPA+/LTE to attract money from T-Mobile and AT&T or deploy a small retail footprint if they want to survive.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Chattanooga, TN
    Posts
    134
    Device(s)
    SM-G935U
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon Wireless
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by i0wnj00 View Post
    Then they either have to deploy HSPA+/LTE to attract money from T-Mobile and AT&T or deploy a small retail footprint if they want to survive.
    I think only the second option is viable, right? Wireless Partners doesn't actually own any spectrum licenses.,

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    6,630
    Device(s)
    SGS 7
    Carrier(s)
    MSV 10GB plus 10GB free, 4 lines
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by weskeene View Post
    Thank you for this post. Great points. I've been concerned about this since learning about it, for mostly the same reasons. This is completely unlike other LTEiRA customer cancellations, as you noted. In my mind, the main question is: Why did Wireless Partners never sell directly to customers? Is it because they just never bothered? Or because in this area, VZW contractually prohibited them from doing so?

    If they're not prohibited from selling directly, you have to believe they will ramp up sales as quickly as humanly possible. I actually do feel bad for the customers, as well. Those crayon maps are no fun for anyone, and it's easy to get confused...especially when you buy service and it works for years on end.

    I hope Wireless Partners comes up with a plan, and quickly.
    Wireless Partners isn't a consumer carrier. They are a subcontractor to provide roaming services for Verizon, just like Northeast Wireless did for AT&T. They built the network to fill in a "gap" that a lot of tourists from other parts of New England and points elsewhere travel through in the summer and want LTE coverage.

    They would have to build stores and get phones and all sorts of things.... for 2000 customers? Hopefully they can stay afloat on the summer tourist traffic.

    Quote Originally Posted by i0wnj00 View Post
    Like you said, there was a non-compete clause between Verizon Wireless and Wireless Partners or Wireless Partners choose not to sell directly to customers, because doing so increases costs for the company. Or developing a retail sales channel was never in their business model, they were hoping to survive just off roamers.
    Wireless Partners is PISSED now, because they just lost a good chunk of their business. They were probably making bank off of Verizon customers, since they're likely getting paid by the MB in bulk for maintaining and operating the dozen or two or however many sites they have. This is NOT the same as LTEiRA carriers that would have non-compete clauses. The more phones Verizon puts in that area, the more money Wireless Partners can make.

    They can't do roaming for AT&T or T-Mobile, as T-Mobile uses USCC, and AT&T has their own network.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    CMA003 (Chicagoland)
    Posts
    2,382
    Device(s)
    A bunch
    Carrier(s)
    Most of them
    Feedback Score
    0
    Verizon probably wants these smaller carriers to go under. Seeing as they own the licenses for the areas, they're probably waiting for the companies to go under so they can pick up the assets for pennies on the dollar and swoop back in as the "good guy" to provide service to these rural areas.

    So glad I'm transitioning all my lines away from Verizon permanently. They just aren't the same company they used to be.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    6,630
    Device(s)
    SGS 7
    Carrier(s)
    MSV 10GB plus 10GB free, 4 lines
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by clonehappy View Post
    Verizon probably wants these smaller carriers to go under. Seeing as they own the licenses for the areas, they're probably waiting for the companies to go under so they can pick up the assets for pennies on the dollar and swoop back in as the "good guy" to provide service to these rural areas.

    So glad I'm transitioning all my lines away from Verizon permanently. They just aren't the same company they used to be.
    Wireless Partners was given the right use B13 (maybe B4 and B2 as well?) by Verizon specifically to get LTE deployed and not have phones in Downeast roaming on USCC 1x. This is a cost control move for Verizon, although I'm not sure how much it really affects the cost for Verizon and thus profit of Wireless Partners if most of the traffic is summer tourists anyway. These 2000 or so lines may have just been totally unprofitable, or maybe they are preparing for the USCC LTE roaming deal that would cost more than the Wireless Partners roaming, and cover additional area in that county. It is weird that they didn't just build native coverage out down there many years ago, they have a PCS license for that area, so they could have built PCS EVDO many years ago, as well as B13/B4 LTE when they got that license, but they seem to have been completely disinterested in that entire area.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    6,630
    Device(s)
    SGS 7
    Carrier(s)
    MSV 10GB plus 10GB free, 4 lines
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by i0wnj00 View Post
    Like you said, there was a non-compete clause between Verizon Wireless and Wireless Partners or Wireless Partners choose not to sell directly to customers, because doing so increases costs for the company. Or developing a retail sales channel was never in their business model, they were hoping to survive just off roamers.
    Other way around. Wireless Partners is not a cell carrier, they are a roamer network exclusively for Verizon and LTEiRA partners. Verizon doesn't want to pay them for people who live in their area, and Wireless Partners is not happy.

    Then they either have to deploy HSPA+/LTE to attract money from T-Mobile and AT&T or deploy a small retail footprint if they want to survive.
    T-Mobile roams on USCC, AT&T has their own network.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    6,630
    Device(s)
    SGS 7
    Carrier(s)
    MSV 10GB plus 10GB free, 4 lines
    Feedback Score
    0
    I'm wondering if Northeast Wireless was set up in order to take advantage of some sort of government subsidy for small carriers serving underserved rural areas, even though it's effectively a proxy for Verizon's B13 system. They built 32 sites in Maine, and are also building in New Hampshire, so someone is putting some serious dough behind this (Verizon itself?), as 32 sites is at least $4.8M, probably more, as they are in very rural areas. Yet it would have been peanuts for Verizon to go up there and do it themselves.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    10
    Device(s)
    iPhone SE
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GSMinCT View Post
    That being said, people really shouldn't have signed up for a carrier that doesn't operate in the area they live in. I feel most bad for Wireless Partners over the customers, although this network was designed for summer tourists over all else, and before a potential USCC LTE roaming deal might have existed.
    The customers should not be blamed for this at all. Verizon heavily promoted this network (and all of their domestic roaming) as native coverage. They put up billboards across Maine announcing the launch of "their" LTE network, and they accepted customers who lived in this area. Verizon phones display "Verizon LTE" even when roaming, and the coverage map displayed this area as "Verizon LTE" until only a few weeks ago. Most people I know who live in Maine have Verizon. They are (or were) the second best choice in Maine behind US Cellular.

    These customers had been using the network for years and Verizon didn't care until now.

    Quote Originally Posted by i0wnj00 View Post
    Then they either have to deploy HSPA+/LTE to attract money from T-Mobile and AT&T or deploy a small retail footprint if they want to survive.
    Their network is LTE-only, from what I understand. Verizon roams on US Cellular in that area for CDMA/1x. The Wireless Partners network was built specifically for Verizon. I assume it wouldn't be difficult to allow AT&T and T-Mobile to roam onto it, but they'd need VoLTE for that to happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by GSMinCT View Post
    They can't do roaming for AT&T or T-Mobile, as T-Mobile uses USCC, and AT&T has their own network.
    Well, sort of. T-Mobile's only roaming on US Cellular in Iowa right now. It's going to be years until US Cellular has VoLTE rolled out everywhere.

    T-Mobile could certainly roam on Wireless Partners if they had VoLTE and signed a deal.

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Changes coming to Regional Plans
    By neaos in forum AT&T
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 07-01-2004, 10:44 AM
  2. TELUS comes to rescue of big fireworks show
    By Xirc in forum TELUS Mobility
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-19-2004, 04:46 PM
  3. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-16-2002, 07:37 PM
  4. changes coming to FreeUp
    By amphibian in forum Verizon Wireless
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-31-2002, 05:00 PM
  5. Changes coming to text messaging?
    By Xirc in forum TELUS Mobility
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-02-2002, 01:53 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks