If you're wondering why T-Mobile doesn't have 3G in the middle of the Mojave, the answer's pretty simple: it's hard for any of the Big Four to justify spending millions of dollars on infrastructure in sparsely-populated areas. Rather than ignore it and leave the spectrum blank, though, Verizon's asking other companies to step in and share the responsibilities -- sort of -- by letting partners do most of the hard work (build towers and operate backhaul) while Big Red chips in its 700MHz spectrum holdings and "core LTE equipment." Presumably, Verizon will help itself to a share of the proceeds, which from their perspective, makes it look like a win-win scenario: they're helping to bring 4G technology to underserved areas, doing less work and spending less capital than they'd have to otherwise, and profiting off the spirit of an
initiative that FCC chief Julius Genachowski is pushing very, very hard at the moment. And hey, we bet you'll be getting some insane throughput when you're rocking the LTE modem in the middle of nowhere.
posted June 2nd 2010 3:36PM
Brilliant... I wish more carriers would get on this. Sadly, since AT&T just abandoned unlimited data, the other carriers may quickly follow... just as we start getting infrastructure for nice throughput! It's bandwidth Jenga.
@DepMcL
I know, especially with the Big Reds executive saying that they will switch back to a per meg basis with 4g plans. I just hope Sprint does not join the bandwagon of non-unlimited bandwidth pricing.
@Dan4G
Sprint will keep unlimited data because it is appealing. Sprint > *
@DepMcL
Yep. I swear to God though, if DSL/cable/fiber companies use this to start going back to per-MB pricing claiming that they need to in order to remain competitive with the growing wireless industry, I'm going to lose it. We can't go back to 1996 Internet access pricing!
@DepMcL
They may want to try working with the National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative (NRTC). They are a multi-billion dollar non-profit whose primary purpose is "bringing advanced telecommunications solutions to rural America."
http://www.nrtc.coop/pub/us/about/
@DepMcL, if anything it's At&t who are following, Verizon already said they're changing to tiered plans with LTE. If Sprint were going to change to tiered plans, they would have done it when they launched 4G, especially with the data hungry EVO coming this week. It's more profitable for Sprint to keep unlimited plans, they have a lot of spectrum to go around, which means a lot of bandwidth.
They should focus on metro areas first and build it out, Im in Orlando, and Sprint does not offer 4G here, grr, And AT&T can get pretty slow.
@rstoplabe14 The good of the many outweigh the good of the few.
@rstoplabe14 Orlando is on the list http://sprint.p.delivery.net/m/p/nxt/4G/PreReg.asp?ECID=vanity:signup4g
@lovetohateme That is just a list of major markets, the cities that have it or are in the process of getting 4G are here: http://now.sprint.com/nownetwork/4G/?id9=MA:LP:20090521:4GL:4gcts#/cities
The closest one is Miami, and it just says "near future"
@rstoplabe14 Well at least its in the process ;) It's better than it not even being on the list.
@CRA1G Or the one. Unless it's me. I want my 4G and 100/100 fiber connection pronto.
@rstoplabe14
At least your on the list. I live in the third largest city in PA yet no word of 4G from Sprint. Yet some small towns like Harrisburg and Lancaster which aren't part of a metro area are going to have 4G this year =/. Hopefully Verizon is a little smart about this and actually starts with metros first.
Hopefully translates into me not going bankrupt fro 4g charges!
@Mezmryz03 *from
Lock phasers on AT&T, fire at will.
@James T Kirk Oh, wow, I see what you did there. You took the screen name of a fictional character, added the appropriate image for your avatar, and are posting quippy one-liners in the style of said character. That is great...and so original!
@CRA1G
BAWWWWWWWWWW some more about it, will ya?
@CRA1G The only difference between you and him is that his character is well known
@bwl Uh, what character? I'm not pretending to be anybody...I just like that picture of Homer.
@CRA1G
You haven't been chosen, Cra1g.
They should offer private people to place antennas in safe places in small towns..
Town center, work places, shops, homes, etc...
Give them a free line/money for usage...
@DrScope Unless people are to scared of that warm tingling feeling when you are taking on radiation :)
@DrScope
Male sterility and instant cataracts are FUN!
I grew up in the middle of the Mojave... It blows out there.
Ok, ALL the major carriers should follow Verizon's lead on this and offer coverage in every area possible. Don't leave the rural people with GPRS or EDGE speeds (I'm looking at you T-Mobile).
Lucky for me, i live in LA so i have coverage everywhere :).
@jayy337 I live in the middle of nowhere and Verizon is currently the only network where I can get 3G speeds. In fact, it's my only option for getting high-speed internet at home because I can't get cable or DSL, and I have too many trees on my property for satellite. Verizon's customer service sucks, and it's expensive, but the coverage is outstanding.
I hope they can learn from their acquisition, Alltel. The reason they were great is because they filled all the rural areas with service so I never had to worry about missing a call.
LOL Engadget swings so hard from ATT and Apple's nuts it almost makes me not want to come here anymore.
@DreamSTi Where does this mention AT&T or Apple at all? And I don't know what you've been reading, but I don't remember any Engadget editor EVER saying they liked AT&T, actually quite the opposite.
Ah, the key word here is "Rural".
I'm glad some company is looking out for us non-urbanites.
Verizon "partners" are purchasing dead zone data from http://deadcellzones.com to identify other reception problem locations.
And this is with I am with verizon, because thats more effort than you will get out of Tmobile and ATT
How many of us realize that their are broader reasons for the FCC to push for large deployments of broadband. This administration has to make its mark on the surveillance of this nation and preparing for an advanced infrastructure so that, when it comes down to it, we are ALL "always on, all IP" networks. Their is a new wave of big brother initiative to feed off of our "pure desires." Ppl like us just want to be able to have fast internet at good prices; that is NOT the intention of the Obama administration. Video surveillance, vehicle tracking and RFID and other biotech enhancements will make sure that we are all on the grid more then ever before. Kinda scary, but it is what it is.
I live in a rural area. This is what AT&T did with my local telephone provider a couple years ago and I have GREAT service on my iPhone out here in the country.
hmmmm...about that 3G coverage in Mojave desert....Verizon does.
Yea this is great and all but I still have only 2G coverage from at&t out here. I am sure as heck paying for "3G data" for my 3GS at at tune of $10 more than the 2g plan from my iPhone 2G. How hard could it be to extend that coverage about 20 miles north for a small town about 7 Miles west of a city with 80,000+?? Keep in mind that city with the 80,000+ population doesnt have 3g either from at&t...
@borno24
No worries, dude. I'm still on my BlackBerry Curve 8900 with EDGE only, and it costs $30 a month, too. And I don't use, at the max, 150MB of data per month.
Personally, I can't wait until the clause kicks in when Verizon has to open their network to other devices and I can tell them F-off with their data plans. Last time I checked, there's no law saying I'm required to buy services I don't want. Their network might work the best where I live, but seemly just for me, it's still total suckville. I'm seriously thinking of trying to start a revolt against carriers that say, "It's our way or the high way, and you have no negotiation leverage against us."