|reply to MovieLover76 |
Re: Seems you would want to deploy in densely populated areas
Ok thanks for the coherent reply.
I agree with you, there's no denying Verizon has the better network, I just got carried away with the above poster bashing Sprint with no facts.
As I explained, Sprint is replacing all the hardware in all their towers nationwide and they are doing this with local contractors. Of course a town that has 10 towers will get done a lot faster than a large market with hundreds of towers. And like I said, they are using local contractors, so if they were to stop the deployment in smaller towns this would NOT boost the deployment rate of the larger market. Makes sense?
math PhD student (University of Miami)
It does make sense, I was just acknowledging the fact that the deployment is not the norm for most carrier's.
Setting your self a part from every one else is often what works.
In this case I don't see that arguement, urban markets = more customers that are satisfied and higher earning from the investment. small markets first seems like they are still struggling to get a handle on these upgrades and they don't want to risk the bad press they'd get on a nyc deployment that wasn't up to par.
·AT&T DSL Service
·Verizon Online DSL
said by MovieLover76:Thats pretty much what I took from the entire announcement on Sprints LTE deployment form the begining.
small markets first seems like they are still struggling to get a handle on these upgrades and they don't want to risk the bad press they'd get on a nyc deployment that wasn't up to par.
Verizon (and ATT to a small extent) went fast and furious with basic LTE deployment in urban areas, were as I see Sprint starting of on LTE advance equipment that has not been proven reliable by any carrier in the US. Sprint Starting off in more smaller less dens areas so if a problem arises it can be handles quicker and without major publicity then in a major metro.
Sometimes when your starting off you have to walk ( maybe even crawl) before you run.
Ok, I accept that. just call it was it is, slow testing of very new gear, not trying to puff it up as deploying to areas without discrimination or pretending it's somehow better than the standard cellular deployment, once they get it down, which they may already have since they are starting in nyc and dc. I'm sure they will start concentrating deployments in urban areas first just the same as any carrier.
|reply to battleop |
True, unless what sets you apart makes you worse than everyone else.
AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
people have made lots of money servicing a niche.
|reply to MovieLover76 |
That isn't true in every market. Matter in fact, take Michigan for example. They had HALF of Grand Rapids on LTE and the rest on Wimax (was all wimax) for months. Now, around the Detroit area, which was going to be the FIRST location for Wimax in 2007 is just now seeing LTE in small pockets (in test phase). I can get LTE in Chesterfield Township which is about 20 miles or so from Detroit. Nothing IN Detroit that I've seen.