Verizon to buy all of Qwest's Wireless Assets

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Check this out:

http://rcrnews.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?newsId=18722

That solves the question of what Qwest would do with their wireless assets
after they put all their wireless customers on SPCS spectrum.

Chris

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"Chris Russell" <noone@nowhere.nospam> wrote in message news:<sy0Fc.31313$eH1.14885854@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>...
> Check this out:
>
> http://rcrnews.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?newsId=18722
>
> That solves the question of what Qwest would do with their wireless assets
> after they put all their wireless customers on SPCS spectrum.

But the lingering question now is how will Sprint PCS integrate the
Qwest Wireless markets (e.g. Wyoming, Montana, North & South Dakota)
isolated outside of the SPCS footprint?

Spectrum, at least, is not an issue -- as SPCS controls PCS spectrum
across the entire country. Thus, conjecture has been that SPCS will
utilize its own spectrum to co-locate on existing Qwest sites in the
affected markets before decommissioning the Qwest network.
Additionally, SPCS has started to absorb some Qwest sites in urban
markets like Denver -- in order to ensure that migrated Qwest
customers experience the fewest possible discrepancies in comparative
signal coverage. If those site leases -- in both the isolated & urban
markets -- are being divested to VZW, SPCS' transition strategy would
seem to be adversely affected. Presumably, a provision w/in the
purchase agreement will still allow SPCS to retain or co-locate on
certain of the Qwest sites -- as Qwest is not in the position to stab
SPCS in the back.

http://www.qwest.com/about/media/pressroom/1,1720,1558_archive,00.html
http://news.vzw.com/news/2004/07/pr2004-07-01j.html

Several months ago, I started a Qwest Wireless PCS spectrum mapping
project. I set it aside only partially complete -- the intact
licenses are displayed; the partitioned &/or disaggregated licenses
remain unfinished. I will complete the map sometime before the VZW
transaction closes late this year or early next. In the meantime, the
work-in-progress documents some of the spectrum which VZW will be
acquiring.

http://people.ku.edu/~cinema/wireless/qwest_pcs.gif
http://people.ku.edu/~cinema/wireless/qwest_pcs.txt

Andrew
--
Andrew Shepherd
cinema@ku.edu
cinema@sprintpcs.com
http://www.wirelesswavelength.com/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

I guess we'll only find out by the FCC site registration changes that are
your forte to dig out for the individual Qwest locations (leased to SPCS or
not).

Chris

"Andrew Shepherd" <cinema@ku.edu> wrote in message
news:33e89561.0407020150.4389c9de@posting.google.com...
> "Chris Russell" <noone@nowhere.nospam> wrote in message
news:<sy0Fc.31313$eH1.14885854@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>...
> > Check this out:
> >
> > http://rcrnews.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?newsId=18722
> >
> > That solves the question of what Qwest would do with their wireless
assets
> > after they put all their wireless customers on SPCS spectrum.
>
> But the lingering question now is how will Sprint PCS integrate the
> Qwest Wireless markets (e.g. Wyoming, Montana, North & South Dakota)
> isolated outside of the SPCS footprint?
>
> Spectrum, at least, is not an issue -- as SPCS controls PCS spectrum
> across the entire country. Thus, conjecture has been that SPCS will
> utilize its own spectrum to co-locate on existing Qwest sites in the
> affected markets before decommissioning the Qwest network.
> Additionally, SPCS has started to absorb some Qwest sites in urban
> markets like Denver -- in order to ensure that migrated Qwest
> customers experience the fewest possible discrepancies in comparative
> signal coverage. If those site leases -- in both the isolated & urban
> markets -- are being divested to VZW, SPCS' transition strategy would
> seem to be adversely affected. Presumably, a provision w/in the
> purchase agreement will still allow SPCS to retain or co-locate on
> certain of the Qwest sites -- as Qwest is not in the position to stab
> SPCS in the back.
>
> http://www.qwest.com/about/media/pressroom/1,1720,1558_archive,00.html
> http://news.vzw.com/news/2004/07/pr2004-07-01j.html
>
> Several months ago, I started a Qwest Wireless PCS spectrum mapping
> project. I set it aside only partially complete -- the intact
> licenses are displayed; the partitioned &/or disaggregated licenses
> remain unfinished. I will complete the map sometime before the VZW
> transaction closes late this year or early next. In the meantime, the
> work-in-progress documents some of the spectrum which VZW will be
> acquiring.
>
> http://people.ku.edu/~cinema/wireless/qwest_pcs.gif
> http://people.ku.edu/~cinema/wireless/qwest_pcs.txt
>
> Andrew
> --
> Andrew Shepherd
> cinema@ku.edu
> cinema@sprintpcs.com
> http://www.wirelesswavelength.com/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In article <33e89561.0407020150.4389c9de@posting.google.com>,
cinema@ku.edu (Andrew Shepherd) wrote:

> "Chris Russell" <noone@nowhere.nospam> wrote in message
> news:<sy0Fc.31313$eH1.14885854@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>...
> > Check this out:
> >
> > http://rcrnews.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?newsId=18722
> >
> > That solves the question of what Qwest would do with their wireless assets
> > after they put all their wireless customers on SPCS spectrum.
>
> But the lingering question now is how will Sprint PCS integrate the
> Qwest Wireless markets (e.g. Wyoming, Montana, North & South Dakota)
> isolated outside of the SPCS footprint?

They obviously now won't integrate those areas since ALL of those Quest
assests are being bought by Verizon. Perhaps in some cases there will be
roaming agreements.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"Røbert M." <rmarkoff@faq.cIty> wrote in message news:<rmarkoff-2EC9F6.05173705072004@news03.east.earthlink.net>...
> In article <33e89561.0407020150.4389c9de@posting.google.com>,
> cinema@ku.edu (Andrew Shepherd) wrote:
>
> > "Chris Russell" <noone@nowhere.nospam> wrote in message
> > news:<sy0Fc.31313$eH1.14885854@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>...
> > > Check this out:
> > >
> > > http://rcrnews.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?newsId=18722
> > >
> > > That solves the question of what Qwest would do with their wireless assets
> > > after they put all their wireless customers on SPCS spectrum.
> >
> > But the lingering question now is how will Sprint PCS integrate the
> > Qwest Wireless markets (e.g. Wyoming, Montana, North & South Dakota)
> > isolated outside of the SPCS footprint?
>
> They obviously now won't integrate those areas since ALL of those Quest
> assests are being bought by Verizon. Perhaps in some cases there will be
> roaming agreements.


Not true. Sprint has already bought and transferred ownership of a
number of Qwest towers in Montana and Wyoming as well as selected
towers in some other Qwest markets. The change in ownership became
effective on May 27th on some of them and June 14th on others.
Basically Sprint got first dibs on anything they wanted from Qwest and
Verizon gets what's leftover. There was likely a lot of equipment that
Sprint didn't want or need (towers that were already Sprint/Qwest
co-located or in close proximity to one another) and that's what will
go to Verizon as part of the deal they just announced. So this is a
win-win situation for both Sprint and Verizon.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In article <9c02589b.0407050819.7cc35096@posting.google.com>,
larryt510@hotmail.com (Larry Thomas) wrote:

> "Røbert M." <rmarkoff@faq.cIty> wrote in message
> news:<rmarkoff-2EC9F6.05173705072004@news03.east.earthlink.net>...
> > In article <33e89561.0407020150.4389c9de@posting.google.com>,
> > cinema@ku.edu (Andrew Shepherd) wrote:
> >
> > > "Chris Russell" <noone@nowhere.nospam> wrote in message
> > > news:<sy0Fc.31313$eH1.14885854@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>...
> > > > Check this out:
> > > >
> > > > http://rcrnews.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?newsId=18722
> > > >
> > > > That solves the question of what Qwest would do with their wireless
> > > > assets
> > > > after they put all their wireless customers on SPCS spectrum.
> > >
> > > But the lingering question now is how will Sprint PCS integrate the
> > > Qwest Wireless markets (e.g. Wyoming, Montana, North & South Dakota)
> > > isolated outside of the SPCS footprint?
> >
> > They obviously now won't integrate those areas since ALL of those Quest
> > assests are being bought by Verizon. Perhaps in some cases there will be
> > roaming agreements.
>
>
> Not true. Sprint has already bought and transferred ownership of a
> number of Qwest towers in Montana and Wyoming as well as selected
> towers in some other Qwest markets. The change in ownership became
> effective on May 27th on some of them and June 14th on others.
> Basically Sprint got first dibs on anything they wanted from Qwest and
> Verizon gets what's leftover. There was likely a lot of equipment that
> Sprint didn't want or need (towers that were already Sprint/Qwest
> co-located or in close proximity to one another) and that's what will
> go to Verizon as part of the deal they just announced. So this is a
> win-win situation for both Sprint and Verizon.

So by not buying all the Towers, SprintPCS is ignoring its still
uncovered areas of Wyoming, Montana, North & South Dakota? Check the map.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"Røbert M." <rmarkoff@faq.cIty> wrote in message news:<rmarkoff-BBEC2B.05303806072004@news03.east.earthlink.net>...
> In article <9c02589b.0407050819.7cc35096@posting.google.com>,
> larryt510@hotmail.com (Larry Thomas) wrote:
>
> > "Røbert M." <rmarkoff@faq.cIty> wrote in message
> > news:<rmarkoff-2EC9F6.05173705072004@news03.east.earthlink.net>...
> > > In article <33e89561.0407020150.4389c9de@posting.google.com>,
> > > cinema@ku.edu (Andrew Shepherd) wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Chris Russell" <noone@nowhere.nospam> wrote in message
> > > > news:<sy0Fc.31313$eH1.14885854@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>...
> > > > > Check this out:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://rcrnews.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?newsId=18722
> > > > >
> > > > > That solves the question of what Qwest would do with their wireless
> > > > > assets
> > > > > after they put all their wireless customers on SPCS spectrum.
> > > >
> > > > But the lingering question now is how will Sprint PCS integrate the
> > > > Qwest Wireless markets (e.g. Wyoming, Montana, North & South Dakota)
> > > > isolated outside of the SPCS footprint?
> > >
> > > They obviously now won't integrate those areas since ALL of those Quest
> > > assests are being bought by Verizon. Perhaps in some cases there will be
> > > roaming agreements.
> >
> >
> > Not true. Sprint has already bought and transferred ownership of a
> > number of Qwest towers in Montana and Wyoming as well as selected
> > towers in some other Qwest markets. The change in ownership became
> > effective on May 27th on some of them and June 14th on others.
> > Basically Sprint got first dibs on anything they wanted from Qwest and
> > Verizon gets what's leftover. There was likely a lot of equipment that
> > Sprint didn't want or need (towers that were already Sprint/Qwest
> > co-located or in close proximity to one another) and that's what will
> > go to Verizon as part of the deal they just announced. So this is a
> > win-win situation for both Sprint and Verizon.
>
> So by not buying all the Towers, SprintPCS is ignoring its still
> uncovered areas of Wyoming, Montana, North & South Dakota? Check the map.

From what I hear Sprint has bought all of Qwest's towers in Montana &
Wyoming. Verizon only gets the spectrum and other (non-tower)
equipment there. But what remains unclear are the towers in North and
South Dakota where Sprint doesn't have native coverage. I haven't
seen any solid proof that those are going to Sprint yet although it is
likely they will. We'll have to wait and see I guess.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Røbert M. wrote:

> So by not buying all the Towers, SprintPCS is ignoring its still
> uncovered areas of Wyoming, Montana, North & South Dakota? Check the map.

Do you think Sprint has any intention of installing decent nationwide
coverage?

It seems they only want to cover the major highways and major cities.
If they want "seamless" coverage they're doing a piss poor job of it.

JS

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In alt.cellular.sprintpcs Jacob Suter <jsuter@intrastar.net> wrote:
> R?bert M. wrote:
>
>> So by not buying all the Towers, SprintPCS is ignoring its still
>> uncovered areas of Wyoming, Montana, North & South Dakota? Check the map.
>
> Do you think Sprint has any intention of installing decent nationwide
> coverage?

Do you think anyone is doing major buildouts in those four states? Do you
think anyone is going to cover places off the major highways where there's
going to be minimal population and they might not be able to recoup their
costs, even if they continue building out in those states?


--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In article <BUEGc.62848$up4.18490@fe20.usenetserver.com>,
Jacob Suter <jsuter@intrastar.net> wrote:

> Røbert M. wrote:
>
> > So by not buying all the Towers, SprintPCS is ignoring its still
> > uncovered areas of Wyoming, Montana, North & South Dakota? Check the map.
>
> Do you think Sprint has any intention of installing decent nationwide
> coverage?
>
> It seems they only want to cover the major highways and major cities.
> If they want "seamless" coverage they're doing a piss poor job of it.

And don't ever dare complain about coverage not extending indoors.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In alt.cellular.sprintpcs Jacob Suter <jsuter@intrastar.net> wrote:
>
> Do you think Sprint has any intention of installing decent nationwide
> coverage?
>
> It seems they only want to cover the major highways and major cities.
> If they want "seamless" coverage they're doing a piss poor job of it.
>

Sprint PCS covers "people". Other carriers can cover terrain and Sprint
PCS customers can roam onto their systems. Having said that, Sprint PCS
has covered Minnesota VERY WELL for a digital carrier.

- --

Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFA62/N1p0e3NXsrtERAltpAKCza/NLsqHiXzbGvGKwHt2HNwFqxgCgm066
0hu+amoxkZ3sxveQi7neiCA=
=JjnW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----