|reply to battleop |
Re: Seems you would want to deploy in densely populated areas
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
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.
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.