WIMAX & data roaming
Even if 4G only works while on Sprint, it won't matter to me in the least. As long as I have CDMA voice and data roaming, I'll be happy. Roaming on LTE isn't worth the extra $$$ the other guys will surely charge you.
...
You won't be able to roam on LTE, even though it is similar to wimax, it is still incompatible. And you'll only get data roaming for existing agreements (until they expire) then most likely Verizon and Sprint won't re-sign.. at least not without sprint paying a HEFTY royalty.
...
Data roaming= 1xRTT. Sprint and Verizon already had this, even before the Alltel merger. Did you even read the post? I said nothing about roaming on LTE.
...
Yes they had it, but like I said, roaming agreements don't last forever, so when they are up for renewal, verizon could just not sign them again.
...
Yes you did lol, you specifically said "Roaming on LTE isn't worth the extra $$$ the other guys will surely charge you. " the truth is in the pudding my friend.
...
I said that LTE roaming isn't worth what the other guys would surely charge you. THE OTHER GUYS, not Sprint.
...
Heh, I hear a lot of talk about Sprint having to pay Verizon heavily to continue their roaming agreement.
Anything substantial to support this? I'd be interested to read it.
Anything substantial to support this? I'd be interested to read it.
...
no, but think about it. With the alltel purchase, the area verizon needs to roam on sprint is VERY small, so there is no real reason for them to continue. Meanwhile, sprint is using their roaming agreements as a marketing item to try and get verizon customers to port over.
So when the contract comes up for renewal, Verizon will either up the amount sprint has to pay, or deny it entirely. There is no reason for them to continue allowing cheap roaming
So when the contract comes up for renewal, Verizon will either up the amount sprint has to pay, or deny it entirely. There is no reason for them to continue allowing cheap roaming
...
I can defiantly understand where you're coming from. You do make a good point. It will be interesting to see what happens.
...
He doesn't have a clue whether or not roaming agreements between the two carriers will continue. The purpose of a post like his is a lame attempt to worry Sprint users as to whether their coverage will continue.
...
Please give me one valid reason why Verizon would have any wish to continue with (or expand) their current roaming agreements with Sprint
...
Teaming up to kick ATT's tail?
I dunno. Not really my subject of expertise. 🤤
I dunno. Not really my subject of expertise. 🤤
...
...did Verizon have agreements with Sprint in the first place? My guess is to collect additional revenue, just like they do for MVNO's. How would Verizon benefit by cutting them out completely? Your reasoning here is flawed because the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. If Verizon valued this arrangement before, why change now?
...
True that, holding out for more money would not be beneficial to customers in roaming areas. Bad for Verizon and Sprint.
...
The agreements were signed with Verizon and sprint were struggling for coverage, especially in rural areas. You could be driving down a highway, and as soon as you crossed into another county, you were running off verizon's towers, the next would be sprint's, etc. This allowed both companies to boast nationwide coverage before they really had it. since then both companies have invested in closing those gaps.
Since then verizon's expanded quite a bit AND they acquired alltel, the carrier that had the MOST rural coverage. There is less incentive for them to allow sprint to roam on their network with so little in return.
and I never said that verizon would cut them off entirely (with the exception of 3g/4g roaming, since they don't re...
(continues)
Since then verizon's expanded quite a bit AND they acquired alltel, the carrier that had the MOST rural coverage. There is less incentive for them to allow sprint to roam on their network with so little in return.
and I never said that verizon would cut them off entirely (with the exception of 3g/4g roaming, since they don't re...
(continues)
...
Verizon is pushing the size of their 3G network above all else. Sprint having a similar (or even larger) voice & basic data footprint via roaming agreements is a mute point to them. Sprint is all about price. Either way, VZW feels they can sell roaming to Sprint, get a little in return, & still brag. Simple.
...
...
are not reasons. The will seriously hinder network development.
Government regulation like this is a cancer that will destroy the networks.
Government regulation like this is a cancer that will destroy the networks.
...
Menno said:
are not reasons. The will seriously hinder network development.
Government regulation like this is a cancer that will destroy the networks.
OK Troll,
Enlighten us on just how this law will seriously hinder network development and will destroy the networks.
...
Makes it sound to me like they just won't be allowing companies to gauge other companies with expensive roaming agreements, and will not be allowed to charge the customers for it either.
Build a tower for yourself that runs off of a network others can use, then they are allowed to use it; plain and simple.
The negative side is going to be the childish way cell carriers will react; expect to see phones and towers designed to reject roaming just to spite the FCC. Sadly, I could see this passing in court.
"Well, due to three lines of code we added, no phones from other carriers can roam off of our network. If they could, we'd allow them, as per FCC regulations. But they can't, so nah-nah-nah."
Build a tower for yourself that runs off of a network others can use, then they are allowed to use it; plain and simple.
The negative side is going to be the childish way cell carriers will react; expect to see phones and towers designed to reject roaming just to spite the FCC. Sadly, I could see this passing in court.
"Well, due to three lines of code we added, no phones from other carriers can roam off of our network. If they could, we'd allow them, as per FCC regulations. But they can't, so nah-nah-nah."
...
I can promise you that if they reversed this decision before the 700mhz auction verizon and att would not be developing their 4g on the same basic frequencies.
...
Yes, because they would rather each spend the full cost of developing a 4G network, as opposed to working together to develop a nation-wide network at essentially half-cost (assuming the other company foots the other half).
Seems like it would allow them to expand both faster and with less out-of-pocket expense than Sprint.
Seems like it would allow them to expand both faster and with less out-of-pocket expense than Sprint.
...
Both companies need to develop seperately anyway, since in the near future voice will still be carried over 2g/3g. The problem is in the future.. if verizon spends a TON of money expanding into rural areas, att could wait until VOIP was standard and then suddenly have those areas covered with data.
The biggest issue is the regional carriers though, and companies like MetroPCS. this basically gives them a free ticket not to develop their networks at all.
The biggest issue is the regional carriers though, and companies like MetroPCS. this basically gives them a free ticket not to develop their networks at all.
...
Agreed, they should have to pay something to have their networks expanded. Major companies working together to expand coverage seems good, minor players remaining cheap and paying nothing while leeching off of networks they did not help build is bad.
...
Because if they require that you share towers, companies will develop proprietary spectrum so only their phones will work on the network.
Smaller companies won't build out their networks as fast as they would otherwise because they'll just wait for others to do it. Major carriers won't expand their high speed data as fast, or they'll be forced to throttle it to make room for the cheap ass leaches that don't want to sink money into their own networks.
Smaller companies won't build out their networks as fast as they would otherwise because they'll just wait for others to do it. Major carriers won't expand their high speed data as fast, or they'll be forced to throttle it to make room for the cheap ass leaches that don't want to sink money into their own networks.
...
how about to ofset the cost of their legacy cdma network?
verizon customers who are slow to migrate to lte devices after the transition is complete require at least 1 extra transponder on every tower to maintain. like having 2 netoworks or even three if verizon already is maintaining a legacy network.
to me a cdma roaming agreement would make financial sense.
i've gotta say though...
wimax? what is sprint thinking?
verizon customers who are slow to migrate to lte devices after the transition is complete require at least 1 extra transponder on every tower to maintain. like having 2 netoworks or even three if verizon already is maintaining a legacy network.
to me a cdma roaming agreement would make financial sense.
i've gotta say though...
wimax? what is sprint thinking?
...
When speaking of roaming on LTE 4G, what I 'm saying is that even though eventually all the other guys will use that standard and probably roam off one another, imagine the cost associated with that. If Sprint only has 4G (WIMAX) available on its native network, probably a good thing in terms of the cost. Sprint covers 90% of the US, so the "small" 4G coverage argument to me is baseless.
...
That's assuming they can push Wimax out on a nationwide scale. I hope they do, don't get me wrong, but it's going to get progressively MORE expensive (with less return) the further they expand it.
...
Yeah, I see major cities, or cities with a high Sprint customer base, as getting WiMAX. I don't figure full nationwide would be feasible, comparing cost to return in many areas.
...
