Topic 'Re: Seems you would want to deploy in densely populated areas' in forum '' - dslreports.com

Re: Seems you would want to deploy in densely populated areas

Thu, 21 Feb 2013 15:42:37 EDT

anon posted : 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. ;)

Re: Seems you would want to deploy in densely populated areas

Wed, 20 Feb 2013 19:20:50 EDT

Oedipus posted : Technically, there's a very, very small number of towers that are not scheduled to get LTE upgrades. I'm sure we will still have people on DSLR bitching about it until the cows come home, though.

Re: Seems you would want to deploy in densely populated areas

Wed, 20 Feb 2013 19:03:12 EDT

MovieLover76 posted : Until they are all LTE, it's a no go as their voice networks aren't compatible. GSM based phones run the data and voice over the same radio, so unless they put in an extra radio for roaming, which doesn't make much sense, t-mobile can't roam on Verizon.

Even after Verizon and T-mobile have VoLTE, roaming would only be a possibility if their VoLTE systems are compatible. In other words, it's a real long shot :)

Re: Seems you would want to deploy in densely populated areas

Wed, 20 Feb 2013 14:57:53 EDT

AVD posted : people have made lots of money servicing a niche.

Re: Seems you would want to deploy in densely populated areas

Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:53:45 EDT

skeechan posted : True, unless what sets you apart makes you worse than everyone else.

Re: Seems you would want to deploy in densely populated areas

Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:02:54 EDT

buddahbless posted : Interesting, did not know Verizon was going to launch part of there LTE on the 1700mhz band, I wonder if there will be a roaming agreement between them and T mobile. This would be very interesting and possibly help drive roaming competition prices as Currently the only major player TMO can roam of is ATTs GSM network ( also now some of ATT hspa 1900mhz band). pit ATT against Verizon for best roaming agreement package/ coverage and lowest cost and see what happens.

This assumes ATT and Verizon will play ball however.

Re: Seems you would want to deploy in densely populated areas

Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:02:35 EDT

AVD posted : Small markets need LTE more than a City.

Re: Seems you would want to deploy in densely populated areas

Wed, 20 Feb 2013 12:58:48 EDT

MovieLover76 posted : 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.

Re: Seems you would want to deploy in densely populated areas

Wed, 20 Feb 2013 12:40:20 EDT

buddahbless posted :

said by MovieLover76:

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.

Thats pretty much what I took from the entire announcement on Sprints LTE deployment form the begining.
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.

Re: Seems you would want to deploy in densely populated areas

Wed, 20 Feb 2013 12:08:16 EDT

MovieLover76 posted : 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.

Re: Seems you would want to deploy in densely populated areas

Wed, 20 Feb 2013 12:05:59 EDT

MovieLover76 posted : In their second phase, they will be adding 1700Mhz LTE, particularly to address this issue. Verizon is good at maintaining a network, and when it comes down to it. I'd trust Verizon to maintain it's network, better than Sprint, whose 3G network is extremely slow, due to overselling it.

Not that I'm advertising for Verizon, I actually use T-mobile and I'm satisfied with it. I just think some Sprint users are getting very excited by press releases, let's wait until they really have it deployed, that's when Sprint will prove itself.

Re: Seems you would want to deploy in densely populated areas

Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:52:50 EDT

Moropo posted :

said by MovieLover76:

Also Verizon is deploying to LTE to every 3G market, while it's possible that some areas of certain rural markets may not see LTE this year, the simple fact is that these are areas that Sprint doesn't cover either, the reason Sprint can say they are targeting every cell site for this rollout is because it's network is much smaller than Verizon's, Sprint depends on Verizon for roaming coverage in areas there network doesn't reach. As I am a former Verizon customer i know Verizon and those last cell sites will get LTE, it just might be later than 2014, Not to put down Sprint, but Verizon knows how to deploy networks and how to keep them running well.

Ok here's what I mean that Verizon is not deploying LTE to every tower like Sprint. Verizon has 3G on the 1900 MHz frequency while they are deploying LTE on the 700 MHz frequency. An advantage of the 700 MHZ frequency is that with a single tower you cover a lot of area and because of this Verizon can match their 3G footprint with LTE by cherrypicking towers and not upgrading all of them. However, there are downsides to this. First of all while the lower frequency provides a lot of coverage in area, it also provides a lot less throughput. Combine this with Verizon's large amount of customers and you can see the trouble: a single tower covers A LOT of people (because of its large coverage area due to low frequency and lots of customers) and with less throughput, soon you will see Verizon's LTE slowing down significantly (if it hasn't already happened) and all of this because Verizon is cherrypicking their towers in order to thinly match their 3G footprint and not upgrading every tower like Sprint (Sprint is upgrading every tower, not just matching their 3G footprint)
--
math PhD student (University of Miami)

Re: Seems you would want to deploy in densely populated areas

Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:26:23 EDT

battleop posted : Setting your self a part from every one else is often what works.

Re: Seems you would want to deploy in densely populated areas

Wed, 20 Feb 2013 10:59:04 EDT

MovieLover76 posted : It does make sense, I was just acknowledging the fact that the deployment is not the norm for most carrier's.

Re: Seems you would want to deploy in densely populated areas

Wed, 20 Feb 2013 10:50:50 EDT

Moropo posted : 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)

Re: Seems you would want to deploy in densely populated areas

Wed, 20 Feb 2013 10:47:28 EDT

MovieLover76 posted : I'm not going to say that Sprint can't do it, but facts are facts, Sprint is doing this deployment backwards for the most part, every other carrier deploys to dense Urban Markets first, even T-mobile.
I don't know why they are deploying to such small markets first, but it's definitely strange.

Also Verizon is deploying to LTE to every 3G market, while it's possible that some areas of certain rural markets may not see LTE this year, the simple fact is that these are areas that Sprint doesn't cover either, the reason Sprint can say they are targeting every cell site for this rollout is because it's network is much smaller than Verizon's, Sprint depends on Verizon for roaming coverage in areas there network doesn't reach. As I am a former Verizon customer i know Verizon and those last cell sites will get LTE, it just might be later than 2014, Not to put down Sprint, but Verizon knows how to deploy networks and how to keep them running well.

They are too expensive for me, I use T-mobile. But we have to give props where they are due.

Re: Seems you would want to deploy in densely populated areas

Wed, 20 Feb 2013 10:25:48 EDT

Moropo posted :

said by m3nphls:

Sprint does not have the resources to deploy in densely populated areas unlike VZW and AT&T. For one they will never learn how to build a network like VZW does.

Talk about spewing ignorant shit out of your mouth...

Sprint is deploying NV on every tower throughout the whole country and they are not giving priority to any place in specific. Of course a place with only a couple towers will get done first than a dense market with hundreds of towers even if they were working at the same rate. Also, it's not the case that not deploying on small markets would speed up larger markets as they are using local contractors.

Please refer to S4GRU.com for any fact-based information but something tells me you just enjoy being ignorant for the sake of it.

Also, it will be fun to see Verizon go back to every tower and replace their release 9 hardware with release 10 in order to get LTE-Advanced whereas Sprint only needs a software update (as they are deploying release 10 hardware). But now thinking about it, it's not like Verizon will have to go back to every site as they have not and will not put LTE on every tower, whereas Sprint will convert ALL their 3G towers to LTE.
--
math PhD student (University of Miami)

Re: Seems you would want to deploy in densely populated areas

Wed, 20 Feb 2013 10:00:11 EDT

m3nphls posted : Sprint does not have the resources to deploy in densely populated areas unlike VZW and AT&T. For one they will never learn how to build a network like VZW does.

Seems you would want to deploy in densely populated areas

Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:42:52 EDT

skeechan posted : ...if for no other reason than to be able able to claim X million people covered (whether they subscribe or not). Deploying in Waco, TX doesn't do much good for the marketing front.